The New Jersey Legislature once again has offered legislation regarding the use of marijuana in our state. The bill, A4252, is aimed at decriminalizing the possession of under 15 grams of marijuana. Currently, the text of the bill is unavailable on the New Jersey Legislature's website, but has a bi-partisan group of Sponsors and Co-sponsors.

The Tenth Amendment Center specifically asked for a write-up on the bill, but without being able to see the actual text, I can only go by what other blogs have already said. Hoping to get more information, I have written to one of my Assemblymen, Patrick J. Diegnan, Jr., who is a Co-sponsor:

“I am a contributing blogger for the New Jersey Tenth Amendment Center, and have written to you previously just to introduce myself. I am writing you specifically today because you are a Co-sponsor of A4252, as well as one of my Assemblymen.

“The Tenth Amendment Center is currently asking for me to write about the legislation and its effect on returning the writing of drug laws to the state and local governments. However, the full text of the bill is not available on the NJ Legislative site. I have seen on various blogs that the bill reduces the penalty for possession of under 15 grams of marijuana to a fine with no jail time, but without the text of the bill, I am simply going by hearsay.

“If it is at all possible, I would greatly appreciate a copy of the text of the bill, in order that anything I write about it will be accurate. Please call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this. I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter.”

While perhaps not an exciting post, I wanted to be transparent about what I know about A4252, as I hope our state government will be as well. The text of a bill with 2 Primary Sponsors and 15 Co-sponsors ought to be as readily available to the public as it is to the 17 who considered it important enough to support. The talk that I hear of the bill is that it is consistent with the Tenth Amendment Center's goals, but I would rather adopt a policy of “trust, but verify” before giving rave reviews. I hope to have more information and be able to give a more complete follow up soon.

A recent Press of Atlantic City article highlights the Atlantic County Freeholders’ vote urging Trenton to repeal legislation making New Jersey part of the multi-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), in which all states involved agree to regulations of carbon dioxide emissions. While RGGI’s site claims that each state retains its sovereign authority in implementing greenhouse gas emissions, the same is technically said regarding federal mandates to the states in many areas. It should be noted that, for all the concern about the effect greenhouse gases are alleged to have, there is no mention by RGGI about regulation water vapor, THE most abundant greenhouse gas in the world.

Atlantic County, according to the article, was one of seven counties to pass resolutions opposing the RGGI scheme. This is one third of all the counties in New Jersey, plus resolutions from several City Councils, including one from Democrat-controlled Garfield City Council. Not a bad start, but still not enough to budge the immovable object known as the New Jersey State Legislature for two reasons.

First, New Jersey politicians overall tend to feel very secure in their jobs. In most Congressional Districts, we overwhelmingly re-elect our incumbents. The same is true of most State Legislative Districts. Even when New Jersey voters ousted Jon Corzine in 2009, we gave the new Governor the same State Legislature that created many of the problems the previous Governor faced. State lawmakers who subjected our state to this grievous violation of our state, local and individual sovereignty need to feel our vengeance with a fate worse than death for them – the pink slip. When lawmakers know that their voters suffer from chronic MIARS (Mine Is All Right Syndrome) and won’t get a GRIP (Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians, hat tip Jim Gearhardt), they know they can do anything and have their job come November. Currently, only 47 State Legislators (31 Assemblypersons, 16 Senators) have come out in support of repeal; we need more. But just like at the federal level, “throwing the bums out” in Trenton is only part of the equation.

In the same way that Tenth Amendment Resolutions are more effective when followed up by legislation that nullifies specific unconstitutional federal actions, resolutions at the county and municipal level are only effective if more is done when the state government refuses to abide by them. Some local governments in New Jersey have shown they are actually beginning to take their first steps toward decentralization. In order to continue in that direction, they should perhaps take a page out of the books of some of their counterparts in Maine, where three different towns have passed food freedom ordinances (Personally, I wish some New Jersey municipalities or counties would pass those; I’d love a tall glass of raw milk right about now). Just as the states cannot afford to stand idly by waiting for the federal government to repeal its own repressive legislation, local governments have to realize that if they wait for the states to flex their muscle against the federal government, they may be waiting a long time. It must be understood that simply passing a resolution without giving it teeth would have been like the Continental Congress passing the Declaration of Independence, but lying down in surrender when the British troops arrived.

New Jerseyans, while you are contacting your State Legislators to persuade them to defend the freedoms of their constituents, be sure to enlist your county and municipal officials when possible. And be sure they know that resolutions declaring state and local sovereignty are not the end when it comes to restoring constitutional government, but only the beginning.

An announcement made May 11, 2011 by the State of New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission is one that should instantly be one of concern. The new driver’s licenses available in New Jersey will now be “materially compliant under REAL ID standards.” How did a state once described as “cobalt blue” in 2008 by the New York Times become such a willing participant in one of the most blatant violations of our civil liberties by the Bush administration and the Republican-dominated 109th Congress?

The REAL ID Act, introduced in 2005, was presented as a tool against both terrorism and illegal immigration, but has been criticized by groups at the federal and state levels. Like the Tenth Amendment Center, DownsizeDC, a civil libertarian organization whose goals also transcend party lines, has been quick to point out the flaws of REAL ID, and has reiterated calls for repeal on the sixth anniversary of this tyrannical foot in the door legislation. Alongside DownsizeDC’s calls for repeal at the federal level, the Tenth Amendment Center has been instrumental in getting Nullification legislation and/or anti-REAL ID resolutions passed in no fewer than 25 states, delaying the implementation of REAL ID multiple times.

So what happened to New Jersey? One would think such a heavily Democratic state would be glad to join in the opposition to a piece of nationally unpopular legislation with Bush’s fingerprints all over it. And yet, of the 25 states that stood up to REAL ID, 18 supported McCain in 2008. Four others have been swing states, leaving a grand total of three what could be considered “reliably blue” states with the guts to oppose the national ID card. Noticeably absent from the list are California, Michigan, and the entire Tri-State area, as well as the Electoral Vote heavy swing states of Florida and Ohio.

If the anti-Bush sentiment were really as strong as it was made out to be in these blue states, as well as in swing states McCain lost because of the unpopularity of Bush’s policies, these states would have been at the forefront of opposing REAL ID, not lagging behind the rest. This applies to some extent to all the other states mentioned, including New York, where I grew up, but here in New Jersey, I would be negligent if I failed to point the accusing finger at the Democratic majority in the State Legislature (and the Republican minority as well). You, who were supposedly so anti-Bush, you were silent and complicit in one of the greatest blows to liberty by the Bush administration. You help perpetuate the myth of one party vs. another, when the real struggle is establishment vs. liberty. You have chosen the side of the establishment.

New Jerseyans can never be proud of their state until we begin to stand up to the central establishment one more time, as we did in 1776. The first New Jersey State Constitution, proclaimed us an independent state before the Declaration of Independence passed Congress. Somehow, we went from a leader in the charge for liberty to the first volunteer for the slaughterhouse of tyranny. We need to wake up once more and take back our state. We must ring the phones off the hook and fill up the inboxes, mailboxes and faxes of our Assemblypersons and State Senators with one simple message – NULLIFY REAL ID NOW!

On Sunday, May 1, 2011, President Barack Obama made an announcement that much of America had waited nearly ten years to hear – Osama bin Laden is dead. Reactions ranged from jubilation to relief to wondering who would take his place. There is one question that Tenthers and indeed all Americans should be asking for the sake of our troops, “When can they come home?”

Two years into the war in Afghanistan, President George W. Bush was criticized (and justly so) for “taking his eye off bin Laden” by invading Iraq. But is it possible that criticism had merit well before then, as well as after Bush left office?

During the conflict in Afghanistan, we began to hear more about nation building than bin Laden. This nation building exercise was continued, not begun, in Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Many of Bush’s critics fail to note that President Obama did not mention bin Laden with any increased frequency in comparison with Bush before May 1. Most of the talk in Afghanistan centered around solidifying the new government there, much as it had under Bush.

Just as there are over 50,000 U.S. troops (sorry, advisors) in Iraq under Obama, there is little reason to believe the Obama Administration will be in any rush to draw down troop levels any faster with the death of bin Laden. The solution, at least partially, lies with some classic Tenth Amendment Center legislation originally debated when Bush was still President – Defend the Guard!

A considerable portion of the forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan consists of National Guard units, in capacities not originally intended for the Guard. As per the Defend the Guard Act, “Under the Constitution of the United States, each State’s National Guard is a defensive force controlled by the governor, but can be called up for federal duty by the federal government, provided that said duty is pursuant to the Constitution of the United States; and…Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution of the United States delegates to the Congress the power to provide for ‘calling forth the militia’ in three situations only: 1) to execute the laws of the union, 2) to suppress insurrections, and 3) to repel invasions.”

To what laws does the Constitution refer in this case? As James Madison says, “All laws which may be constitutionally made.”

Defend the Guard was originally written during the Bush presidency in response to the National Guard being used for purposes outside its original constitutional scope. Bush was not the first President to do this, as Congress gradually increased federal control over the course of a century via legislative fiat (without an Amendment to the Constitution).

Democrats at the State level need a reminder that just because one of their party is in the White House does not guarantee an end to the wars typically associated with the Republicans. Republicans similarly need to learn that opposing the flawed policies of previous Republican Presidents and Congresses is not a betrayal of their party, but an attempt to guide it to the constitutional principles that the more visible members of their party so often praise. At the best, State lawmakers would be helping the Federal government do the right thing. At worst, they might prevent them from doing the wrong thing.

The National Guard has served with distinction during many crises, both foreign and domestic, since its creation. We the People and our elected officials in the State Legislatures must do our part to reward their hard work and dedication. While they are defending us, they need to know that we are doing our part to Defend the Guard!

I have to admit, while I enjoy Glenn Beck's show, I did not really follow the Restoring Honor rally this past weekend. There are a lot of rallies in a lot of places, and even the big ones are hard to follow at times. Plus, in all honesty, I'm much more interested in what goes on at the state and local level. I do not believe protesting at the federal level is a bad thing, but Mr. Beck is the only major name in media I know of who has actually dedicated a little bit of time to covering the State Sovereignty resolutions that have passed. There is something to that, and for that, Glenn Beck deserves some credit. In a way, I'm living Mr. Beck's words by helping a candidate for Mayor in my own town.  I'm not even sure he realized how important coverage of the Tenther movement was when he mentioned it on his show. Firing many of the current office holders in Congress is important, but true restoration is going to have to start from the bottom up, and what better place to start than one's own town?

I did hear a little bit of feedback on the Restoring Honor rally, however. While flipping through the talk radio stations one afternoon, I happened upon the Steve Malzberg show. He happened to be playing a clip of MSNBC's Chris Matthews talking about a “nightmare that one day a right wing talk show host will come to this spot, his people's lips dripping with the words 'interposition' and 'nullification.' Little right wing boys and right wing girls joining hands and singing their praise for Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.” Apparently, worshiping and getting a thrill up your leg and deifying one who agrees with Mr. Matthews is acceptable, but that's an entirely different matter.

Chris Matthews does a severe disservice to those who would classify themselves as Democrats or liberals. He either has no clue or wants his viewers to have no clue that nullification and interposition have nothing to do with Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal or right vs. left. It has to do with a check on out of control federal power. Sure, two Republican governors last year signed Tenth Amendment resolutions in 2009, and one of them was Sarah Palin, so it is perhaps natural that Democrats should cringe in horror like a vampire in a Holy Water shower. But look beyond the individuals and into the issues, and you will see that Nullification and Interposition are not only part of the history of the Democratic Party, but even practiced regularly by its modern day members.

The early roots of the Democratic Party were planted deep in the soil of States' Rights. The Anti-Federalists during the Constitutional Convention opposed the new Constitution of 1787, not on the grounds that it did not give the federal government too little power, but that it would give too much. This faction eventually grew into the Democratic Republican Party.

The Principles of 1798 were in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts under President John Adams and the Federalists. Thomas Jefferson's opposition to the Acts was based primarily on the fact that they violated the First and Tenth Amendments. How did Jefferson and others fight the Alien and Sedition Acts, through the courts? Rather, through the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, which nullified the Acts, essentially saying they would not comply. Would Mr. Matthews have opposed Nullification and Interposition if President Bush and the Republican Congress attempted to deport those who opposed the Iraq War?

Similar actions were taken even before then by Northern States in response to Fugitive Slave Laws. Despite the Dred Scott decision decades later, many states opposed to slavery still refused to return escaped slaves in complete defiance of the Supreme Court. If slavery is a piece of our nation's history that should forever leave us with our heads hung in shame, every State Legislator and Governor who supported Nullification of these unjust laws should be mentioned in the history books.

Fast forward to the 21^st and late 20^th centuries A.D. California, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington (all such bastions of conservatism, right?) have passed Medical Marijuana laws. Twenty-five states all over the political spectrum have passed REAL ID Nullification legislation. Seven states that voted for Obama in 2008 have introduced Bring the Guard Home legislation as an attempt to oppose unconstitutional wars.

One may say those are things the Democrats would support anyway, but that argument fails in light of more general legislation. New Hampshire's Tenth Amendment Resolution may have failed in a State House vote in early 2009 (NH voters, be sure you know who the 216 were), but it kicked off a wave of such legislation in 38 states in 2009 and 21 so far in 2010. Two reached the Governor's desk and were signed in 2009, and three more in 2010. Six states have introduced Tenth Amendment Bills, which unlike Resolutions, are binding. Two of them, Michigan and New Hampshire, voted for Obama in 2008.  Here's hoping they pass.

Chris Matthews, when you have recovered feeling in your leg, you may want to take a walk to your local library and find a couple books on the preservation of States' Rights through Nullification and Interposition. Be careful, though. They may shake a number of your preconceived notions about government.

New Jerseyans, much like residents of the other 49 states in the union, have a tendency to complain very loudly and very frequently about the condition of government in their state. While the complaints may be different depending on the individual, one thing is certain: New Jersey is in horrible shape.

Yet somehow, all the voter discontent never seems to translate into more voters showing up to make a difference. Based on 2008 voter registration information, a total of 5,351,669 New Jersey residents were registered to vote. [1] Out of those numbers, their party affiliation breaks down as:

Democrat – 33.3%

Republican – 19.7%

Unaffiliated – 46.9%

Based on the assumption that percentages haven't changed much since last year, that would mean there were approximately 2,836,385 voters affiliated with a party, with 1,782,106 Democrats and 1,054,279 Republicans (totals may be off due to rounding). You may ask, where is the problem?

In the 2009 Democratic and Republican gubernatorial primaries combined yesterday, with 99% of precincts reporting, all of 524,057 people showed up to vote. [2] That's less than 10% of the population of registered voters in New Jersey, and less than 20% of people affiliated with either party.

In a Democratic primary that saw a very unpopular Governor Corzine facing multiple opponents, fewer people showed up to vote in that primary than the top Republican candidate alone, and only 10,000 more than their second biggest vote getter. To put this in perspective, there are about 69% more voters registered Democrat than Republican in New Jersey. It's not as though New Jersey Democrats didn't have many choices this cycle. When all was said and done, the number of people who voted in the Democratic primary totaled less than 11% of the party's total numbers.

I have to give Republicans a little bit of credit in this primary, my last as a registered Republican. A total of 330,012 voters, equal to over 31% of registered Republicans, showed up after what was an intense primary between Chris Christie and Steve Lonegan. I can't give them much credit for their decision to go with the “me too” wing of the party, but the total numbers are more than I would have expected from New Jersey. THAT is the problem.

Since even unaffiliated voters can show up on primary day to vote in one party's primary, and since New Jersey allows voters to request an absentee ballot for any reason at all [3], what is the problem? When 31% is a good turnout in a state that bends over backwards to make it possible for its residents to vote, that's pretty pathetic.

New Jersey was one of the states that got on board with Obama's “Change We Can Believe In” mantra in the 2008 Presidential election, but how much of a change was there in New Jersey's voting habits? We supported the same party we supported in the last four previous elections. Senator Frank Lautenberg, the incumbent, won re-election. Every House seat that had an incumbent re-elected him or her. Every House seat that didn't have an incumbent elected someone from the same party as the departing Representative. You haven't changed a bit!

I used to answer any complaints about government with the question, “do you vote?” I believe it's time to amend that question. When a fellow Jerseyan complains about the condition of our state, my response will be, “did you vote in the last state/local election?” If you're from my state, and the answer is no, it's just as much your fault as it is the fault of the politicians in office.

1. http://www.njvoterinfo.org/

2. http://www.nj.com/

3. http://www.nj.gov/

Good political writing, whether the reader agrees or disagrees, should make the reader thirst to read more. It makes the reader not content with what is on the pages of one single book, regardless of how well written it is. It makes the reader either question some of his convictions or makes him stronger in them, sometimes both at the same time. “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto” by Mark R. Levin is one of those books.

Among friends and family, many of whom are nowhere near as interested in politics as I am, I'm considered very knowledgeable by those who agree with me, and probably insane by those who disagree. To both those groups, I humbly admit I am little more than a “back bencher” at best and a “big dope” at worst. For those who don't listen to Mark's show, those are two terms he frequently uses.

Throughout his book, Levin refers to America's founding documents (the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution), the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, as well as such great thinkers as Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Alexis de Tocqueville et al to discuss the type of government our system was intended to be. To illustrate how we got to where we are now, he quotes Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky and even several of our Presidents and other officials of both Democratic and Republican stripes, showing the steps that destroyed the firewalls of the Constitution.

Levin calls to task many politicians for their role in promoting “Statism” and the “soft tyranny” that exists in today's government. He lashes out at Democrats for their role in growing the bureaucracy, but also calls many Republicans to task for the same. Many of his ideas challenge the status quo that has been promoted by both major parties – the “progressive” income tax and federal involvement in education just to name two – in an attempt to get people to think independently.

As I read, I found myself checking out the bibliography at every single footnote with the thought, “I definitely have a lot more reading to do.” I've read, listened to and watched people of various opinions in the media talk about how things ought to be, but few if any have delved as deeply in my opinion as Mark Levin.

I found myself more convinced than ever before of the dangers of the ever growing federal government, and of the constant surrender of states' rights that has transformed them from the entities that created and should be the biggest check on federal power to mere appendages of the bloated administrative state in DC.

I found myself in disagreement with some of the finer points of his arguments on foreign policy, but believing more firmly in the damage we have done to ourselves as a nation by swinging between three extremes of isolationism, interventionism and globalism. All have, in one way or another, weakened us as a nation.

This big dope enthusiastically recommends “Liberty and Tyranny” to all, not as a be all and end all of political thought, but as a springboard to greater knowledge of government as it is and as it was meant to be. As for me, I have a great deal more reading to do.

It seems in the near constant media coverage of President Obama's administration and the Pelosi/Reid Congress, there is not much discussion outside of local programming of the upcoming gubernatorial elections coming up this year in New Jersey and Virginia, as well as several mayoral elections in other states. This is not surprising, given the non-stop growth of the federal government and increasing usurpation of states' rights.

On the surface, it would seem there is little to no reason for one to pay much attention to the gubernatorial elections. After all, even if a state legislature and/or governor should talk about states' rights or even secession, federal government aid has recently become the number one source of revenue for the states. [1] It would seem sadly unlikely that any assertions of state sovereignty would last long when the federal government could cut off aid to any state that doesn't fall in line.

Still, the elections the year after the Presidential election usually serve as an indication of public approval concerning the ruling party, or at least its policies. They also tend to serve as a sign of things to come in the mid-term elections. In 1993, Bill Clinton found himself in the enviable position of being President when his own party held the majority in both houses of Congress. The tide abruptly changed in that year's gubernatorial elections.

In Virginia, George Allen took the governorship in a near 20-point landslide, [2] while Christine Todd Whitman edged out James Florio in New Jersey. [3] One short year later, the Republicans swept into power in both houses of Congress for the first time in over 40 years. While Clinton won re-election in 1996, it was against a very weak candidate, Bob Dole.

George W. Bush found himself in a similar situation in 2005, having just won re-election the year before and having expanded his party's power base in Congress. In Virginia, it was Tim Kaine beating out Jerry Kilgore by almost six points, [4] while Jon Corzine won with a double-digit landslide in New Jersey. [5] One would need to have a very short memory not to know what followed in 2006 and 2008.

As a New Jerseyan, which I am not thrilled to be, I personally take great interest in my state's gubernatorial elections, and am even volunteering on one candidate's campaign (I won't say whose). On the Republican side, Chris Christie and Steve Lonegan are daring to battle it out in a state where even their party tends to shy away from conservative values and limited government ideas, yet they each boast of their conservative credentials. Time will tell if they are true to their claims of limited government and cutting taxes.

Both candidates, according to the latest Rasmussen poll, could beat Corzine if the election were held today. [6] Only one, however, can win the primary in just a couple short weeks (the last time I will be voting as a registered Republican).

The first man she interviewed was, admittedly, quite inarticulate, and kept referring to Mr. Obama as a fascist. A little advice for that man, if you're going to use such a strong label, have some information to back it up. The difference was, he wasn't being paid by a major news network to give his opinion. A little advice for Ms. Roesgen, if you're speaking to someone who calls your President a fascist, have something a little more coherent to say in reply than, “Yeah, ok, uh, fascist.” You're a media personality watched by millions of people. Be prepared for it.

Personally, given the increasing interweaving of federal government and corporate power in our government, the demands for a more wealth-redistributing income tax, the tightening of the reins on the First and Second Amendments (not to mention the Ninth and Tenth), and the constant talk of nationalizing this industry or that industry, I agree with the fascist label for our current government. But that's better discussed in a separate article.

The second man to speak with Ms. Roesgen was much better spoken, that is when he wasn't being interrupted. He spoke of the belief in liberty and of the right to enjoy the fruits of one's labor, until Ms. Roesgen interrupted with the dismissive question, “What does that have to do with taxes?” It has everything to do with taxes! In an era when government can arbitrarily decide how much of YOUR hard-earned pay YOU are worthy to keep, at a time when government can tell you after busting your hindquarters to get where you are that you have earned the right to pay more confiscatory taxes, that is not liberty.

If the interrupting and degrading questioning were not enough, Ms. Roesgen had the nerve to point out that the man brought his little boy (cute as can be by the way), and that the man was getting a $400 tax credit because of that child. Wow, $400? That's so generous of a government that has run up a tab so immense that every child in the United States is now born owing over $30,000 because of the massive spending of Bush and Obama. If I saved $400 for 75 years, I'd have enough to pay the debt load of one child at the end of those 75 years. Of course, that's not taking into account future budgets, wars and stimuli. But go ahead, Ms. Roesgen, and insult the parents of this country by referring to their beloved offspring as a $400 tax credit. How did you ever get into the media?

Finally, Ms. Roesgen, having had enough, decided to send it back to the news room, given the “anti-Obama and anti-CNN” atmosphere at the TEA Parties. Let me make one thing clear, Ms. Roesgen. I was anti-Obama before the 2008 election because of his previous actions as Senator, State Senator and community organizer. His actions as President have just made me more anti-Obama than before. Similarly, I've been anti-CNN since the beginning, as it has consistently been the mouthpiece of the Democrats (just as Fox News is that of the Republicans). Your actions have simply made me more anti-CNN than before. Congratulations, Susan! You've strengthened my beliefs.

Today is Ash Wednesday, and for millions of Catholics worldwide, that means the beginning of Lent. That also means a lot of complaining about not being allowed to eat meat today and for the next six Fridays, and yes, guilty as charged, I did a lot of that in my younger years. There is a certain irony to that, as Lenten discipline used to have more strict guidelines centuries or even decades ago, and there was a lot less complaining.

Many of my Protestant friends years ago used to wonder why Catholics were so hard on themselves these forty days. In recent years, many of them have put my Catholic brethren to shame by getting in on sacrifice during Lent, and doing so with zeal. Several of my Jewish friends, many of whom are not particularly religious, nonetheless abstain from all food and drink on certain high holy days without a grumble nor a whine. I don't live in an area with a high Muslim population, but the few I do know are faithful to the sunrise to sunset fasting provisions during Ramadan. I attempted a similar thing one year during Lent, and I failed miserably.

Even completely separated from any religion, there are certain physical and psychological benefits to fasting and sacrifice. A friend of mine who studied nutrition told me once how an occasional fast helps cleanse the body. Going without certain things from time to time, even when we don't have to, helps us learn to live with less, just in case we ever do have to. It helps detach us from some of the less healthy foods we put in our bodies. Such discipline can also be fiscally beneficial, as it can cut a little from our grocery bills. Sacrificing other things that entertain us can, for a time, remove certain distractions and allow us to use our time more productively.

Government could stand to learn a little bit about sacrifice, especially when politicians of both major parties lecture us about it on a regular basis. Ever since the New Deal and even before, government programs have been introduced to get us out of economic downturns. The problem is, once those programs are in place, they usually prove to be permanent, though any perceived economic benefits are not. We are told we need this program or that agency in place to keep the economy strong.

Yet, America has had several recessions, hyperinflation, stagflation, stock bubbles, housing bubbles, and a host of other economic problems since the New Deal. With every challenge that has come to our economy, another costly program is introduced on top of the older ones. When the economy picks up again, there's never any cutting back on the bloated administrative state.

The most recent example is Barack Obama's “stimulus” package, passed just one year after George W. Bush's $700 billion bailout package. Though I'm no economist, I'm often kept up at night by the thought that those two items may have pushed our nation to the point of no return, and scores of generations won't be able to pay if off. Should the economy recover, government's track record indicates what is now “new” spending will become standard.

In periods of downsizing and restructuring, companies often become leaner and more efficient. If not, they tend to go out of business. One could look at it as a sort of “fasting” period. Government, however, continues to grow in good economies and bad.

Perhaps if government learned to make sacrifices the way businesses and individuals do, to “fast” if you will, it too would become leaner and more efficient. If government cut back to levels that are sustainable (we hear them tell us about that word all the time), not to mention Constitutional, it could manage a balanced budget in a slow economy, when taxable revenue is lower. When the economy is more prosperous, government would even be capable of running a surplus as a result.

Of course, the best thing to do if that should miraculously occur would be to start applying that to our debt. With the national debt and unfunded entitlement programs exceeding total world economic output, the government needs a lot of “fasting” to turn things around.

“Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do yet not; for they say, and to no. For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men's shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them. And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes. And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues, And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi. But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren. And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, Christ. He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment.” (Matthew 23: 1-14, Douay-Rheims Bible)

Enter the modern-day scribes, the secular Pharisees of America, our “esteemed” Congress. Yes, definitely obey the laws they pass, for we are a nation of laws. But do not follow their works, indeed.

They bind up heavy and insupportable burdens – confiscatory taxes, crippling regulations – but will not lift a finger to move them. Throw in the additional books of rules imposed upon us by the bureaucrats, who were never elected and whose rules were never voted upon in Congress, and it's a wonder this country can even operate. Yet, for all the dictating about cutting water usage, cutting energy usage, reducing our carbon footprint or paying our taxes, let's take a look at the secular Pharisees of the day.

Al Gore, the master scam artist who has made a nine-figure income off of environmental alarmism, doesn't seem too concerned about his own carbon footprint. It seems, dare I use the cliché, hypocritical to ride around in his jumbo jet with a fleet of SUVs telling us WE are melting the ice-caps by our overconsumption. This is coming from the man who has a larger carbon footprint in one day than the average American will have in a year.

Former Senator Tom Daschle, one of President Obama's cabinet picks until recently, has had very harsh words for those who cheat on their taxes. Yet he had over $100,000 in back taxes, forcing him to withdraw from the running. The list of tax cheats seems to grow on a daily basis. Throw in several members of Congress, most notably career Representative Charles Rangel of New York, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Of course, it was a simple “mistake” when it came to his non-payment of taxes. I can understand that. After all, he only helps write our tax laws; how is he supposed to know them? That's the job of ordinary serfs like you and me.

Still, we can't come down too hard on our beloved Congress, nor on our Executive Branch. They are so generous with government money (aka the taxpayers' money) to “stimulate” the economy. They can't stop talking about their generosity. Too bad it doesn't translate into their personal giving. Take a look at our Vice-President, Joe Biden. He's all too willing to tell us it's our patriotic duty to pay higher taxes in order to pay for this massive “stimulus” bill, which will get the American serfs...I mean, people...twenty-five cents back on each dollar if we're lucky. But this same man, after making a seven figure income, gave only $3,000 to charity.

They love the places of honor at banquets. They love titles of honor. As a matter of fact, they demand it. Should anybody dare to oppose them, should anybody dare to criticize them, retribution will arrive swiftly. Personally, I use the titles Congressman, Senator or President not out of any respect for the individuals. I use those titles as a reminder to THEM of the job they were elected to do, of the service THEY owe to the people who put them in office. George Washington didn't want a title of honor or royalty. “Mr. President” was meant to be a title of service, not of grandeur. He that is greatest shall be your servant.

The modern Pharisees also certainly do their fair job of devouring the homes of widows, and everyone else for that matter. They force banks to lend to those who can't afford it in order to end discriminatory lending practices, and then blame the same banks for predatory lending practices. They tax the heart and souls out of families, forcing one parent to work to feed the family, while the other works to feed the government. They spend the money of future generations, stealing the bread out of the Social Security trust fund, running up a $53 trillion unfunded liability that will destroy this country and leave our great-grandchildren broke.

As a Christian, I believe God will judge a great many politicians very harshly in the afterlife. However, even in the absence of that, secular history will damn you for generations. You powerful political dynasties – be they named Clinton, Bush, Kennedy – your once revered names will go down in history as the ones who destroyed the greatness America once knew.

Thank you for your time, and I hope to be back again. God Bless!

It may be just me, as a devout Catholic, but I'm offended when I see street gangs out there using symbols and holy objects of my religion as some sort of good luck charm before going out and killing innocents. As offended as I am over gang violence and using religious articles and symbols for justification, you can imagine my shock and horror upon hearing that our President, Barack Obama, carries a Miraculous Medal in his pocket.

For any non-Catholics or any Catholics that are not familiar with the Miraculous Medal, I'd like to give a little background on it. The Miraculous Medal, also known as the Medal of the Immaculate Conception (not to be confused with the Virginal Conception which occurred at the Anunciation), originated as a result of a vision given to St. Catherine Laboure. It has an image of the Blessed Mother, with the inscription, “O Mary, Conceived without Sin, Pray for Us Who Have Recourse to Thee.”

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not explain how Jesus was conceived. It is the Catholic doctrine that Mary, from the moment SHE was conceived in her mother's womb, was without the mark of Original Sin. She enjoyed the benefits of redemption in advance, so that Jesus Christ our Redeemer, Who is not limited by time, would dwell for the first nine months of His life in a sinless environment. Mary still needed a Redeemer, just like all of us, but gained those benefits in advance.

What does this have to do with our President, who keeps a Miraculous Medal in his pocket, although he is not a Catholic? I'm not even sure President Obama understands. You see, this is the man who, when asked when life began, stated that the question was, “above my pay grade.” Let's just assume for a moment that from a biological standpoint, life doesn't begin at conception (although it does). Let's assume it begins either at birth or at some point between conception and birth. What would be the point of saying, “O Mary, Conceived without Sin” if that were the case?

If we're not alive at the moment of conception, then we can have no sin, personal or inherited, until we are alive. After all, a non-living or even non-human thing cannot have sin. Therefore, wouldn't we ALL be conceived without sin? What would be so special about that doctrine? The Miraculous Medal does not say, “O Mary, Born without Sin,” or “Quickened without Sin,” a la Nancy Pelosi's attempts to distort St. Augustine's writings on when life begins. I have another quote from St. Augustine for Madame Pelosi, “Rome has spoken. The discussion is over.” But I digress.

Mr. President, I find it offensive that you would carry a symbol of my Faith, which states that life begins at conception, while you fight for abortion rights the full nine months of pregnancy, and while you attempt to spin your vote in the Illinois State Senate in favor of legalized infanticide. Far more babies are aborted in this country annually than the number of deaths from gang violence, as abhorrent as both are. There is far more blood on far more hands over abortion than on the hands of any Crip, Blood or Latin King, as much as the mention of those groups makes the bile rise in my throat.

Still, I am inspired to pray, not that Barack Obama will stop carrying the Miraculous Medal with him. I will ask for the Blessed Mother's prayers for him. I will pray that the words, “Conceived without Sin” will echo in his heart and mind and bring about a conversion of heart for him. Crazier things have happened when we have faith. Saul of Tarsus, dedicated to destroying Christianity, became its most successful early missionary, St. Paul. Simon bar-Jonah, who denied Jesus three times, became our first Pope, St. Peter. And so, with millions of Catholics around the world, I echo the words, “O Mary, Conceived without Sin, Pray for Us Who Have Recourse to Thee.”

Thank you for your time, and I hope to be back again. God Bless!