Nullification Letter—–(read more)

 Essays  Comments Off on Nullification Letter—–(read more)
Feb 272011

An Open Letter to State Legislators:

Most of us learned in school about checks and balances between the branches of the Federal government, such as a presidential veto of a bill in Congress, or Congress overriding a veto. But what should be done if any of the branches of the federal government impose unconstitutional laws or mandates on your State, such as forcing us to buy health insurance, or taking over private pensions or 401K plans? Are you willing to enforce the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to nullify those mandates?
     Nullification is a resolution by a state that it will not comply with any unconstitutional Federal law or mandate. It is not about overthrowing Constitutional order, it is about operating within it, to enforce the Constitution. It also has the advantage of avoiding lawsuits and U.S. Supreme Court intervention. Contrary to what you may have been taught in law school, the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter on Constitutional issues. Thomas Jefferson said that if the Federal government had a monopoly on Constitutional interpretation, it would naturally read the Constitution in it’s own favor. He insisted that the States were entitled to make ultimate Constitutional determinations, because the alternative was a central government monopoly that would “swallow up the States”. His Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 are about nullification. This is not a new concept.
     It is important to keep in mind that the U.S. Constitution provides for a Federal government of sovereign States, not a national form of government, as evidenced in the ratification debates. The 10th Amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. The Federal government’s powers are limited to those few enumerated in the Constitution, mostly in Article 1, Section 8.
     There are several clauses in the Constitution frequently used to try to justify an unconstitutional law or mandate. The “general welfare” clause in Article 1 Section 8 is not an unlimited power because a list of specific powers delegated to Congress does not give general power to do whatever it wants. James Madison said that is like saying that Congress can do A, B, and C, plus whatever it wants.
     The “commerce clause” was intended to regulate trade between States only, it has no Constitutional control over activities within State borders. Commerce was mentioned 63 times in the Federalist papers at the time of the ratification of our Constitution. The intent was well known by our Founding Fathers.
     The “necessary and proper” clause is only for carrying out delegated Constitutional powers, nothing else.
     The “supremacy” clause in Article 6 is only for laws and treaties that are Constitutional, it does not mean that the Federal government can make laws to trump any other law.
     The President’s Executive Orders and Signing Statements are also for Constitutional objectives only, to carry out existing laws, not to rewrite laws or create new laws.
     For more information and sample legislation, please go to

      Pat Miketinac 
      Brooksville FL

Egypt on Fire—–(read more)

 Essays  Comments Off on Egypt on Fire—–(read more)
Feb 052011

Here we go again. The Mid-East is having riots and violence again. Not new, I know, but it should still be looked into.

To begin with, Egypt  looks like Iran did in 1979 with riots, looting, people carrying signs and shouting in the streets. But this time it might be a little different because it’s not just one nation having riots; it’s Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen and Egypt  rioting. A common thread being that they all want a vicious dictator removed from office. All these dictators being  financed by America, and these dictators mostly have reputations of torturing, raping and robbing  their own people. This does not make America look good.

It’s all  proof positive that American policy in the Mid-East has been a complete failure. This is a real surprise to many people because all the American presidents that established and/or supported  these policies ran for public office by telling the American people that they were the solution to all problems great and small, when in reality, they don’t know beans about what  they’re doing. But they ran great elections.

The main problem in the Mid-East, was and still is, Israel; because Israel established itself with a war of conquest that is still bitterly resented 62 years after is founding. The policy used by America since Israels founding is basically the same even though it failed completely as proven by the Iran revolution in 1979. America would support a vicious dictator or King with generous financial support even though the dictator tortured his own people to hold onto his privileged and comfortable position, but he maintained his position by supporting Israel, which America liked and so was willing to pay for, but as the current situation proves, money doesn’t buy very good friends. Egypt receives $1.5 billion a year, mostly for the Egyptian army.

Most likely the rational for these policies used by America was based on the belief that it was good for Israel and good for the undeveloped Arab nations. But why install a vicious dictator, why not a person with the ability to develop the nations educational system and also develop the nations infrastructure, health care, energy resources etc.; while basing it’s policies on a system of justice for all the people? But then again there is the question that a foreign nation does not have the right to interfere with another nations affairs. How can some people think that they know so much more than a nations people. It must be some form of benevolent arrogance based on an inflated sense of superiority. All I can say about this is, NUTS.

This was the situation in Egypt for 3o years, but it all came to a head when the president of Egypt,  Hosni Mubarak, wanted to make his son the new dictator of Egypt. This was (understandably) too  much for the people of Egypt to take. Especially when you consider the high level of poverty in Egypt, with about 40% of the population living on two dollars a day, along with poor job opportunities and generally lousy living conditions.

Since the riots started, the American government hasn’t done anything useful. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called for peace and a move to democracy, not realizing that after 30 years of supporting a vicious dictator that the Egyptian people are not likely to listen to her.

Egypt will most likely be taken over by some radical Muslim group like the Muslim Brotherhood  that will be hostile to America and Israel. This will certainly leave Israel in a dangerous position. Israel will then have a hostile Egypt to it’s south, a hostile Lebanon and Syria to its north, Jordan may also become more hostile to Israel on the east front, then there is the Gaza Strip which is just about inside Israel and is already hostile to Israel, as proved by the thousands of rockets it fired into Israel over the years. Even Arab nations that are far away from Israel, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, are hostile to Israel.

A word here must be said about the United Nations, which was founded on the belief that it would work to end war. Their silence is defining.

This leaves Israel surrounded by historically hostile Arab nations that now have many modern weapons, like F16 jet fighters, M1 Abrams armored tanks, that have all been supplied by America in the effort to buy friends, but obviously these Arab nations wanted these weapons for the war they knew was coming with Israel.

In the end game here, it seems that the Chinese, and now the Arabs, are  playing  America to their own advantage, since America has yet to develop rational policies in these areas.

Jose Lugo


China follies…..(read more)

 Essays  Comments Off on China follies…..(read more)
Feb 012011
 China Follies:
President Barack Obama has met with China President Hu Jintao in the White House, the reason for this meeting is supposedly to clean up U.S.-China relations, but is this possible?  Or is there another reason for this visit? 
To begin with, China has since the communist takeover established a track record of doing what it thinks is good for the Chinese government and nothing else. It has controlled its currency to give it an unfair advantage in international trade, ignored intellectual property rights, abused its citizens for the sake of profit and censored every means of free speech it can think of, while countering America on important issues like North Korea and Iran. Will China change its ways based solely on President Obama’s smooth talking. I don’t think so.
But to be objective about this; it has to be realized that America is somewhat at fault for the American-China mess. It was American business people that sent American factories to China for cheap labor; I mean how can you compare Chinese people working for one dollar per hour with subsidized housing and food; when American workers make from $7.25 per hour to well over a hundred dollars per hour. Also, included in the cost of American labor  is medical, social security, pensions, prescriptions, dental, eye glasses, OSHA workplace regulations, EPA regulations, government regulations etc. China has none of these regulations. It’s a wonder anybody hires American workers at all.
Also, it has to be realized that any action on the international front has consequences that are often unforseen, the main one being that China used the above mentioned to rise from a very backward nation –  to one that is now well on it’s way to becoming a major world power. Does this mean that trouble is on the way? Maybe, with Taiwan remaining a point of contention because China claims Taiwan as part of China’s mainland while Taiwan wants to remain independent of China. And with America being a main arms supplier to Taiwan, this is certainly a problem. Complicating this problem is the fact that China is making a major build up of its armed forces, most notability its nuclear arsenal, a new stealth jet fighter and a missile that can destroy an aircraft carrier.  With America and Britain being the only nations with aircraft carriers, this certainly raises a question as to Chinas real intentions.
The Chinese President Hu Jintao said that he wants new areas of “collaboration” with America in aviation, space, infastructure and clean energy. Or to translate this into English – he wants another technology transfer to China.  If congress is naive enough to go along with this; it remains to be seen. But then again, if the payoff is good enough, Congress most likely will go along and transfer this technology to China.
In the current climate with China doing all it can to keep American products out of China while doing all it can to maximize Chinese exports to America, causing a very large trade imbalance, for China to ask for another technology transfer is certainly asking a lot, or maybe China thinks like President Obama in that smooth talking can do wonders.
But then again, some Republicans in Congress do not seem to be very impressed with the Chinese President and are thinking more to the tune of trade restrictions on China. How this can work with America being a major debtor to China can certainly complicate better relations.
Or to sum up this essay, better relations are not in the forecast. But China is certainly having a great time making a fool of America.
Jose Lugo