Words Matter

March 16, 2011

My Dear Fellow Patriots;

Barry Goldwater had wrestled the presidential nomination from the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party, at a time when the Republicans had a liberal wing and the Democrats had a conservative one. Goldwater had, in fact, wrestled the nomination from Nelson himself, and thus was the modern conservative movement born. Reagan's famous speech, "A Time For Choosing," so copiously quoted in tea party circles, was a campaign speech he made in support of the Arizona senator.

It was 1964, and those of us old enough to remember that election cycle remember the "daisy commercial"; the one that pictured a little girl standing in a field of tall grass, haltingly counting from one to ten as she plucked petals from a flower - until her reverie is shattered by a nuclear explosion. It was a very effective tool for incumbent Lyndon Johnson, playing on the fears that Goldwater, who had advocated a policy of "rollback" of the Soviet Union rather than containment, would recklessly lead us into a nuclear war.

It was at the Republican National Convention, in San Francisco's Cow Palace, that Goldwater spoke the words for which he is most famous. Knowing that he would come under attack for his muscular foreign policy in an era that would spawn the failed "Great Society," he said:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Defending against charges of extremism is difficult. Defining it, however, is even more difficult by a full order of magnitude. One man's extremism is another man's common sense.

And so when Congressman Michael Grimm decries the "extremist" elements of the two major parties and the tea party, he exhibits a flawed understanding of where extremism ends and common sense begins.

To his credit, he made a very adept and logical explanation for his vote to pass the Continuing Resolution - you may buy it, or you may not. Either way, there is certainly room for debate and differences of opinion. However, in labeling the opposing argument "extreme," he is incorrectly placing more than half of the modern conservative movement - not to mention 54 fellow Republicans - out on the fringes of political thought and that is just plain wrong.

Our country is on the brink, and the time for bold and decisive measures is upon us. To demonize those who are ready to take such action, including a shutdown of the federal government, is a mistake and a misreading of the mood not only of a good portion of his district - but a good portion of the American electorate.

Those who would vote against the CR are fully aware of the implications of doing so, but are of the belief that drawing a line in the sand is long overdue. Grimm's approach, which is essentially that not only is charging $6 billion for a three week hiatus a good deal, but that by going the extra mile (or 21 days, in this case) he gives the Democrats the rope by which to hang themselves when the budget clock ticks down to zero, has merit, too.

But the issue is not so black-and-white that opponents should be labeled "extreme."

Words matter. How many times have we heard that in the past few years? Representative Grimm is a freshman - as was our former Congressman Mike McMahon. But McMahon had been a politically savvy politician for years before he went to DC, Michael Grimm had not. Indeed, that unjaded freshness was one of the things that made his candidacy so attractive.

But in this case his use of the word "extreme" was insulting - especially so to tea partiers who have been eating, sleeping and breathing drastic - even draconian - spending cuts since Bush's first TARP.

"Extreme" implies "fringe." What the Congressman needs to know is that there is a rising tide of conservatives out there who believe that allowing the federal government to shut down 'tis a consummation devoutly to be wished - a belief held by not just a few radical kooks living on the edge, but by serious, intelligent people numbering in the millions all across the country.

Get Serious About Deficit Reductions

My Dear Fellow Patriots;

This evening, I sent the following letter to Representative Michael Grimm. Some of you may agree with these sentiments, some of you may not.

No matter how you feel about the issue, I urge you to contact Rep. Grimm by email or phone and to make your feelings known:

Dear Congressman Grimm:

Though you have not indicated that you would vote against the proposed $100 billion in cuts proposed by your leadership, I am disappointed that you have co-signed a letter with Rep. Peter King which asks for more than $750 million to be restored to the Republican budget bill.

If you wish certain programs to be spared the axe, you are certainly entitled to make that request - but to do so without identifying other areas in the budget that might be cut in their stead is to simply place the burden once again on the backs of the taxpayers. In a budget that is measured in the trillions, finding $750 million to pay for these programs shouldn't be that hard to do.

In fact, I would be disappointed under any circumstances if you voted for a bill in which any more taxpayer dollars are used to support the money-pit that is Amtrak, and I would further suggest that if you wish to mitigate the burden of the high cost of heating oil that you introduce legislation that would allow for more domestic drilling. To spend taxpayer money on LIHEAP while the President enforces a ridiculous moratorium on drilling in the Gulf is unconscionable.

These are exactly the type of hard choices we need to make as a nation, and if we start to craft fiscal policy based on local interests or regionalism, any attempts to rein in the deficit are doomed to fail.

You ran and were elected to cut spending, as were 86 other freshman Republicans. We, your constituency, were ready, willing and able to support you as you made the hard choices. We still are, but asking your leadership to go easy on you because you think we're shouldering a disproportionate amount of cuts is not what I would consider to be "making those hard choices."

As part of the tea party movement, I have no desire to be less vigilant in observing the actions of my elected officials simply because they may be Republican; Republicans have helped to get us into this mess and are no more deserving of blind trust than Democrats.

As one who lives in the affected area, I am ready to take the hit for the greater good of our nation. You should be, too. By setting such an example, perhaps legislators in every part of the country will realize that their district is not immune to the pain either, and we can put this country back onto the road to fiscal sanity and prosperity.

Thank you.

Your in Liberty,

Frank Santarpia

Staten Island, NY

Bright Lines and Bold Colors

My Dear Fellow Patriots;

When the Staten Island Tea Party got its start, in an attempt to codify the reasons for its existence, I wrote a Mission Statement that can still be found today on our website. It is much too long for a Mission Statement, and I smile when I read it because it reminds me of how green we all were back in March of 2009. The sentiments expressed in it still represent my beliefs, however, and it's worth remembering that there was no charted course, the tea party "movement" did not yet exist and we were all just feeling our way in the dark.

Without realizing it when it was written, I stumbled blindly into the three principles that other organizers throughout the country would find, and would become the legs of the stool upon which the entire movement sits: fiscal sanity, free markets, and a constitutionally-limited federal government. These three beliefs, as simple as they are, have sustained this movement - and the Staten Island Tea Party - through its explosive growth. Why? Because they are so simple and so universal. If you aspire to these three principles you have a home, a comfortable one, in the tea party movement.

If you've ever wondered why you feel so "in sync" with everyone at tea party rallies and events - whether you've stood with 350 people on New Dorp Lane or a million people in Washington, D.C. - it is because everyone shares those three common beliefs. That simplicity, and our unwillingness to try to do your thinking for you on ANY issue, has sustained us.

So it is with some trepidation, but mostly optimism, that I point out the first issue that we cannot ignore and over which we may, as a group, find ourselves divided.

Last year, when freshman Democratic Congressman Mike McMahon voted with his party's leadership to raise the debt ceiling, I referred to it as fiscal insanity. It was a snap declaration, born of the belief that raising the debt ceiling, like raising the credit limit on the plastic in your wallet, would lead to evermore spending and would simply be feeding our addiction to finding uses for money we didn't have.

This year, freshman Republican Congressman Michael Grimm has indicated his intent to vote with his party's leadership to raise the debt ceiling. Does such a vote still represent fiscal insanity?

It depends on how you look at it. Newly-elected House Speaker John Boehner warns that we have to make an "adult" decision about this, as he tries to herd Republican freshman into voting in favor of raising the debt ceiling. Overlooking his insulting choice of words directed to those candidates who promised on the campaign trail that they would slash the budget and never vote to raise the debt limit, he warns that shutting down the government - and risking defaulting on the debt - is not an acceptable outcome.

Then along comes the Republican Study Committee, who introduces legislation that would give the Treasury Secretary (yuck!) the power to prioritize spending as a way of protecting the full faith and credit of the United States government - thereby taking default off the table as a downside risk when making a decision on raising the ceiling.

Congressman Grimm and some other freshman Republicans are siding with Boehner and attempting to tie their votes to a balanced budget amendment. Dozens of others, however, are sticking to their guns - and their promises - and vowing to vote against their leadership. Their tough-love approach has the potential to be very painful; look no further back than 1995, when the government shutdown stalled the Gingrich Revolution and had the unintended consequence of boosting President Clinton's popularity.

Who's willing to risk this outcome now?

Republicans are split over this, and so the first fault lines in GOP unity have appeared. It was not unexpected, and the fact that even though they had months to prepare for the vote they have not been able to formulate a strategy acceptable to 100% of Republicans, speaks to how daunting the conundrum is.

Not surprisingly, divisions exist within the tea party movement, too. Many accept as perfectly rational the explanation that the interest on our debt alone will push us through the ceiling sometime this spring, even if not one penny of additional spending takes place. Or that this is, as the congressman alludes, a great opportunity to advance a much-desired balanced budget amendment.

Other tea partiers are not buying it. Many are taking a "damn-the-torpedoes" approach, believing that there is no point in further propping up this house of cards, that we should blow it down and build it up again on a foundation of fiscal sanity.

In the meantime, those on the left are gleefully waiting to pounce. "Grimm has thrown the tea party under the bus," they will crow. They will say he's a hypocrite who ran as a tea party candidate (he did not, by the way) and is now becoming the same kind of Washington go-along guy as the rest of them.

Let them have their fun. If Congressman Grimm votes in accordance with my beliefs 90% of the time, I think it's a helluva lot better than the former Congressman, who voted with Nancy Pelosi 90% of the time.

But you make up your own mind. I urge you to call both the district (718- 351-1062) and the DC offices (202-225-3371) of Congressman Grimm and let them know how you feel - whether you're for or against a vote to raise the debt ceiling, or what conditions you might put on it.

Me? Personally? I think it stinks, and I don't feel like being "adult" about it. The tea party movement should be about bold strokes and bright lines, and I am loath to see the debt ceiling raised because it's too hard not to, and I long to see Rand Paul's "modest" $500 billion in cuts instituted, which will leave 85% of the government in place without touching Social Security or Medicare.

But I am not the Congressman, and he must find his own way to do the best job he knows how for his district and his country.

If he believes that raising the ceiling is a fait accompli and that he can use his vote to further the cause of the elusive balanced budget amendment, then go ahead, Representative Grimm - hold your nose and vote to raise the limit one more time. But I would counsel you to put your colleagues, your leadership and your constituents on notice - this will be the last time you vote for it.

Your in Liberty,

Frank Santarpia

Staten Island, NY

Results of the SITP 2011 Survey

My Dear Fellow Patriots;

A majority of our membership has responded to the survey we distributed last week; some of the results were predictable - some were not. There isn't room to display the entire survey here, but we are working on exporting the numbers to a coherent spreadsheet, and when we're done we'll post it up on our website. Results of the presidential straw poll are at the end of this email.

It comes as no surprise that a bit over 90% of the respondents hail from Staten Island, and most of the rest are from Brooklyn, the other boroughs and New Jersey. We do, however, have SITP members in AZ, CA, FL, MO, PA, SC, TX and even one in Okinawa, Japan - a little island about which I've done some writing.

Our group skews older - but perhaps not as old as you might expect: 38% are under the age of 46. I'd like to do better in this category, but we have to recognize that many folks in their 20's and 30's are wrapped up in raising young families and making a living, and hence not quite as able to pay attention to political activism.

Perhaps surprisingly to those who view the tea party movement as a bunch of ignorant yahoos, results reveal that fully 78% of our group attended college, and 22% of those did post-graduate work.

Party registrations broke down this way:

Republican - 68.4%

Democrat - 8.1%

Conservative - 9.4%

Independent - 8.8%

Unaffiliated - 5.1%

However, when asked to describe their political leanings on a right-to-left scale, regardless of party affiliation, respondents answered this way:

Libertarian - 18%

Conservative - 72%

Moderate - 8%

Liberal - 1%

Progressive - 1%

John McCain received the presidential vote of a bit more than 94% of our group, Obama just 1.62%., which I assume tell us that those who identify themselves as registered democrats don't always vote that way. The rest checked off "Other" or "Did Not Vote."

Reaffirming the core principles of the tea party movement, upwards of 96% of respondents consider themselves Very Conservative or Conservative when asked about fiscal and constitutional matters - no surprise there. But when asked about their views on social issues, more than 15% identified themselves as Middle-of-the-Road or Liberal, eclipsing both Republican/Conservative party affiliation and political leanings. From this we can infer that some who consider themselves staunch conservatives are less rigid when it comes to social issues.

When asked to identify the two issues that are of most concern, the majority (67%) of respondents chose "Reduce Federal Spending and National Debt" and 68% chose "Stop the Slide into Socialism" - once again echoing core issues of the TP movement.

In what I consider to be the most gratifying revelation of the survey, fully 42% of the respondents said that they had done volunteer work on a political campaign in 2010. However, even more importantly in my mind, of those that did work on a campaign an astounding 77% of them did so for the first time. That is a remarkable statistic, and I like to think that the SITP played some small role in this. Our mantra - almost our motto - from the beginning has been to keep people "informed and engaged," and the proof that we have been successful in both areas lies in these numbers.

Most of you, 80%, get your television news from FOX; 55% listen to Rush, Sean or Mark Levin on an almost daily basis; 47% listen to or watch Glenn Beck.

When presented with the proposition that there is too much government in our lives, 97% agreed; but when asked if government should promote traditional values, only 72% answered in the affirmative. This reinforces the Libertarian skew within the group, as do the responses to questions about the relative importance of specific issues like taxes, spending, earmarks, Obamacare and immigration, in which over 85% of respondents said these were "Extremely Important" issues. However, when asked about social issues such as gay marriage and moral direction, these numbers dipped into the low 70's, and when asked about the number of abortions performed in the United States, only 55.3% considered this to be extremely important as an issue.

What can we take away from this? You be the judge. It may be that in light of such pressing economic issues, and in the presence of such a left-leaning administration, social issues have been relegated to a back burner, or it may be that the Staten Island Tea Party is not quite as socially conservative as other groups around the country. Either way, I think it reinforces the decision we made very early on - that is, to keep the SITP away from social issues, and narrowly focused on three core principles: fiscal sanity, free markets and a constitutionally-limited government.

The presidential straw poll was all over the map, with every one of the 17 names getting at least one vote - including Barack Obama. I was shocked by the results, to say the least - and I intend to do another straw poll within a week or so to see if they bear up. The clear winner was Chris Christie of New Jersey, though since the results were so spread out his plurality was only 16%. Finishing second with 15% was..."None of the Above." I cannot account for this, except to say that left off the list were the names Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachmann and Hillary Clinton. In the next poll we will add those names and remove the possibility of voting for NOTA. We'll see where that takes us.

Other candidates (or non-candidates, as the case may be) to receive double digit votes were Palin and Huckabee, followed by Romney and Gingrich. One tier down sat Rubio, Pence and Paul - even Bolton got a fair share of votes.

All in all, it was a valuable snapshot of our group and we'll continue to evaluate results as they trickle in. What it does not - and cannot - show is what a great group of people make up the Staten Island Tea Party, and what a unique opportunity we've been blessed with. I'm speaking of the opportunity to see and hear and interact with other ordinary Americans who love liberty and rejoice in their freedoms, right here in our little corner of the world. To be able to have this and still call ourselves citizens of the greatest city in the greatest country in the world is quite a gift, quite a gift.

Now, who thinks we should support secession?

Your in Liberty,

Frank Santarpia

Staten Island, NY

Thoughts from Jonah Goldberg

Prior to last night, the Left, the liberal establishment, the mainstream media, Hollywood -- I know, I know: This strikes some as a redundant list, like a rabbi talking about how you can't eat ham, or pork, or bacon, or swine -- were determined to push a palpably false storyline.

As I mentioned in the Corner, I was on Fox yesterday debating some woman named Nancy Skinner who couldn't get her brain around the idea that if there is no evidence confirming her position and ample evidence disproving her position, then her position must be untenable.

This was of course just one minor example. No doubt everyone reading this "News"letter knows what I'm talking about. We say, "Two plus two is four," and they respond, "Yes, but a vest has no sleeves."

It's all so incredibly exhausting, like trying to explain trigonometry to a fern. No, scratch that. Trigonometry is hard to explain to anybody. It's like trying to tell a fern it shouldn't buy the premium cable package, with Cinemax and Showtime and all that, since it doesn't really watch much TV. Okay, maybe that doesn't work perfectly either, because the point I'm getting at here is that it's impossible to explain anything to a fern once it's decided that it isn't going to change its status as a non-sentient vascular plant.

Likewise, it is impossible to have a serious conversation with people who have locked onto an interpretation of reality that isn't dependent on facts.

But at the same time, if you don't push back, a false conventional wisdom concretizes. Not only does this completely ruin an already ludicrous extended arguing-with-a-fern analogy, but it also does massive damage to the country. The idea that Kennedy was killed by a "climate of hate" survives to this day, despite the fact that it's a complete lie. The early success of that lie made the Great Society possible. If left unopposed, the lie pushed by the asshat chorus this week could easily have dealt a mortal wound to the new GOP House, conservatism, never mind the whole country.

That's one reason why conservatives should be very reluctant to buy the "discourse" discourse. Yes, it's absolutely true that folks on our side -- and every other side -- say things they shouldn't say from time to time. It happens. And it's worth criticizing, condemning, or excusing, depending on the substance and the context. But often what the Left calls hate speech is really simply unwelcome honesty.

Before the age of the Internet, talk radio, and cable TV, the establishment could have gotten away with turning Loughner into a tea partier, just as it turned Goldwater into a psychopath, Father Coughlin into a right-winger, and the Soviet genocide into an accounting error.

They still try, but there's room to push back now.

On the Arizona Shootings

January 9, 2011

A STATEMENT BY THE STATEN ISLAND TEA PARTY

The organizers and staff of the Staten Island Tea Party asks its members and followers to pray for the victims of yesterday's senseless shootings in Tucson, AZ. As are all Americans, we are shocked, saddened and horrified when confronted with senseless violence of any kind, in any place.

We are, and must remain, a nation of laws, but we also recognize that an implied social contract exists among every citizen of this great country. This contract recognizes that disputes of any and all natures must be settled through civil discourse and debate, in the courtroom or at the ballot box, and that violence is never the answer.

We also caution against attaching political motives to the act of a madman, as do we caution against blaming political or ideological opponents. It is a sad fact, but true, that this is indeed happening now, and has been happening since the tragic event took place. This type of misguided finger-pointing is beneath contempt, and we condemn this destructive rhetoric in the strongest terms.

Fair and honest Americans will not engage in such accusations - those with hate in their hearts might.

As we go about our business today, let us direct our thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families. Let us spend some time in solemn reflection on their loss and pain, and finally, say a prayer of thanks for the gift of life given to us by God, and for blessing us with this magnificent nation.

THIS is the next step for the SITP

My Dear Fellow Patriots;

The Staten Island Tea Party, like so many thousands of tea party groups throughout the country, has been evolving.

Indeed, those groups that do not evolve, that remain stuck in time and place, are destined to become obsolete and will watch their influence slowly die. Those who believe that their ultimate goal is to act as noisemakers, forever shaking their fists at the powers-that-be while they stand on the outside looking in, are doomed to a future of irrelevance.

With our passion and our numbers, we have garnered tremendous attention - however, our ability to shape events and policies as outsiders is inevitably going to wane. That is my belief.

But from the inside - we can transform the way politics is done.

In a little over a year-and-a-half, we have seen our numbers grow from 2 to 2,000. But if we are to maintain our relevance we must be ready and willing to take a bold next step: we are going to fundamentally change the Republican Party on Staten Island.

We are instituting a project that will transform the Staten Island Republican County Committee into a group that reflects the conservative ideals and principles espoused by the tea party movement: fiscal sanity, free markets and a constitutionally-limited government.

In order to do this we need volunteers who are willing to move beyond rallies and campaign work, and who are ready to actually step into the process. We need men and women who are willing to take seats on the committee, in order to make sure that the reins of control are returned to the hands of the people, and to make sure that the era of “good-ol’-boy” cronyism is ended.

It is our intention to transform the committee so that we may nominate candidates not because they are next in line, or because they have friends in high places, but because they represent our core beliefs. We want to institute fresh and aggressive ideas to pro-actively grow a NEW Republican Party on Staten Island, one that will reach out to college campuses and minority communities, to show them that free-market Republican and Conservative values are the best way to achieve the American dream.

In short, we need you - hundreds of you. And because there are two seats in each Electoral District, husband-and-wife teams are especially welcomed.

You will not be asked to speak in public or to any groups; it will cost you no money; you will need to do no public campaigning and you will not become a public figure.

You will be asked to attend TWO meetings a year. That's it - two meetings a year to transform the way politics works on Staten Island.

With your help we will get this thing done; we will take this first step toward once again being a Republic of the people, by the people and for the people – and we will do it one district at a time.

I cannot stress this enough: you need no prior knowledge of the inner workings of the committee system - only a belief in the core principals of the tea party movement.

Simply visit www.teapartyinfo.com/administrators-only.html for more information and a registration form. If asked for a password, it is: constitution

Thank you for your time and dedication. Within a few days or weeks after you register, you will receive notification about a meeting at which we will explain the process in much greater detail.

When we say that we have much work to be done - these are not merely words. Thomas Paine said "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country."

I hope to hear from many, many of you soon. If it is at all possible for you to help, please do not be a sunshine patriot, and do not shrink from the service of our country.

Yours in Liberty,

Frank Santarpia

Staten Island, NY

A Message to Michael

New Years Eve, 2010

My Dear Fellow Patriots;

To say that we've had quite an eventful year would be an understatement, wouldn't it? Those of us in the tea party movement, and right here in the Staten Island Tea Party, have dipped our toes into the river of history and altered its course.

We never planned to do it - we scarcely knew what we getting into at all - but we heard the call of our country and responded. I feel good about that. America was tested, and if the results of the last election were any indication, we passed. But make no mistake (and I know you don't need me to remind you) we will face more tests in the future, and we will have to be well prepared for them.

Though we elected a terrific representative in Mike Grimm, and many others who espouse the tea party values of fiscal sanity, free markets and a Constitutionally-limited government, we need to remember that words are cheap, especially so during campaigns. Washington is a fearsome place; it oozes power, and power is a virus to which few are immune.

So here's a New Year's message to our new Congressman: We believe in you - don't be afraid to make the hard choices, because we've got you covered. The 13th Congressional District of New York sent Michael Grimm to Congress to be Michael Grimm, not, as you have said many times, just another vote in the go-along-to-get-along gang. All the "cover" you will ever need to justify your voting record is right here in the hearts and minds of your constituents - and if you fight for us, we will fight like hell for you.

I think you know that if you ever become more devoted to your leadership than you are to your consituents and your country, you will lose us. We didn't walk the district, ring bells, pass out literature and spend hours on the phone to elect a party - we did all that to elect a man; a man we will continue to believe in unless he gives us reason not to.

Make a difference, Michael, make a difference. We've got your back.

Yours in Liberty,

Frank Santarpia

Staten Island, NY

Happy New Year!

"We will open the book. Its pages are blank. We are going to put words on them ourselves. The book is called Opportunity and its first chapter is New Year's Day." - Edith Lovejoy Pierce

Trashing the Constitution

Ladies and gentlemen, this guest editorial was written by Paul B. Skousen for The Daily Caller. It is re-printed with his permission.

It is important that we document - and never forget - the way the 111th Congress has re-written the constitution, chiefly by ignoring it. This should serve as a serious reminder that we have much work to do, and that occasionally "compromise" is not a good thing...

*******************************

At the close of the 111th Congress, America is deeply in the bog of Thomas Jefferson’s prophetic warning: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Unfortunately, the broken chains of the Constitution have failed to contain the federal government.

By way of review, let’s take a stroll through the junkyard of constitutional violations that have been painted fresh by President Obama and the 111th Congress. Here’s my top-ten list, highly abbreviated for length.

#10. — 9/11 Responders Relief Fund: We love and honor those who put themselves in harm’s way for our security. However, giving the 9/11 first responders money after the fact violates the Constitution. Article 1.8 gives Congress the right to expend funds for all the purposes itemized, provided it is done for the general welfare, NOT for individuals or preferred groups. The states may reward heroes if they so choose.

#9. — Checks and Balances Failure: The Chairmanship of the UN Security Council: Where was Congress when President Obama became the chairman of the powerful UN Security Council in 2009? The normal monthly rotation for that chair goes to the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. because Article 1.9 of the Constitution forbids the president (and all other office-holders) from accepting any present, foreign office or title from a foreign country or a foreign potentate unless it is specifically authorized by Congress. The Founders wanted to prevent deal-making, corruption, and foreign influence from affecting America’s internal affairs.

#8. — Net Neutrality: The government is trying to stop Internet providers from blocking or slowing some web traffic and prevent providers from showing favoritism. The FCC thinks it should be able to regulate the Internet like it regulates utility companies. This violates the property rights of Internet providers and interferes in the market’s free choice of which services receive funding. Article 1.8 makes it clear that the FCC is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws, especially those disguised as regulations.

#7. – Czars: The moniker for appointees who report to no one but the president has taken on a new and eerie resemblance to the dusty Russian tsars of old. Article 2.2 grants the president leeway to appoint managers, but those managers may not have any regulatory, legislative or law-making powers — such powers are reserved to the legislative branch. Today’s “czars” have the power of cabinet members without having to go through a vetting process or the confirmation process prescribed for cabinet members. Czars are unelected and untouchable political decision-makers — in violation of Article 1.1.

#6. — Cap and Trade: The Clean Energy and Security Act mandates greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 84 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. By 2020, this tax will extract an estimated $160 billion from the economy, or an average $1,870 per family. Once again, had the chains of Article 1.8 not been broken, America would be spared such tomfoolery. Cap and trade masked in any disguise whatsoever cannot be justified as a general welfare activity.

#5. — Cash for Clunkers: The government offered $4,500 rebates to people turning in their clunkers for more fuel-efficient vehicles. When the first program quickly ran out of the $4 billion allotted to it, another $2 billion was added. Follow-up analysis showed the program did nothing to stimulate the economy and put many people into additional debt by encouraging them to purchase cars that they otherwise would not have bought during these hard economic times. The government has zero authority to selectively give individuals tax money for purchases of vehicles, according to Articles 1.2 and 1.8 — and common sense.

#4. — TARP Funding: The original 2008 act authorized $700 billion to bail out banks and other institutions. The government has no business rescuing private financial institutions from bad judgment and risky ventures. Article 1.8 excludes permission for Congress to grant financial aid or loans to private companies. Any use of Treasury funds must go toward the general welfare, not to specific groups.

#3. — Illegal Immigration: Arizona is being invaded. When that state passed SB 1070 to stem the flow of violent illegals into its sovereign territory, a derelict federal government turned around and sued. At issue was the Feds’ failure to control the border, so Arizona took it upon itself to do just that — to uphold existing federal immigration laws. It didn’t add new laws; it simply gave local authorities the power to enforce federal responsibilities. The federal government claims the right to manage immigration, but when it refuses to carry out that obligation, thereby jeopardizing the security of border states, it is derelict in its duties. Arizona should haul the federal government before the Supreme Court for malfeasance. Article 4.4 clearly states that the U.S. shall protect states from invasion — more than 400,000 illegal aliens (est.) in Arizona is, by definition, an invasion.

#2. — Economic Stimulus Bill: The $814 billion stimulus is the most backward-thinking proposition to come along since human sacrifice. Dumping borrowed money into an over-fed, bloated and out-of-control ogre doesn’t solve anything, it simply temporarily props up with blocks of melting ice cream a failed and failing government of extravagance. Not only does it illegally take money out of the economy that could be used to provide jobs, but it’s using borrowed money — with interest due.

And the worst violation of the Constitution over the past two years is …

#1. — Health Care Reform: Health care reform was the last lever needed to lift the lid off the pot of American gold and empty it out for socialism. It required all Americans to have health insurance whether they wanted it or not. Earlier this month, Federal Judge Henry E. Hudson said that the government has no power “to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”

The string of constitutional violations supporting the judge’s rejection is long and shocking:

For purposes of regulation, Congress invoked Article 1.8 and claimed insurance may be controlled because it falls under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. But insurance is not interstate commerce — you can’t buy insurance across state lines.

Language in the bill says the health care law may NOT be changed or amended by anyone once signed into law. This violates the role of Congress. Article 1.1 makes it clear that only Congress is authorized to make law, meaning it has every right to alter, amend and change the health care law. To restrict Congress is to change its constitutional duty. The 111th Congress must think it can change the Constitution without amending it — a violation of Article 5, which outlines the amendment process.

The health care bill also violates the 10th Amendment because it coerces states into complying with a new national program that reaches far into state jurisdiction.

So, what do you do when you’re navigating through a blizzard of political white-out where visibility is reduced to zero, the road is slick and slippery, and disaster is strewn about in all directions? You come to a complete stop — and put on the chains.

Paul B. Skousen is a former analyst for the CIA, an intelligence officer in the Reagan White House, and staffer for Senator Orrin Hatch.

A Christmas Message

He who has not Christmas in his heart
will never find it under a tree. ~Roy L. Smith

December, 2010

My Dear Fellow Patriots;

For a few days let's put all thoughts of politics and world affairs aside, and simply appreciate the joy that a loving family and close friends can bring.

It's a time to reflect and take comfort in the knowledge that each of us has the unspoken love and support not only of those close to us, but of people of good will everywhere across this great land -- and of a loving and merciful God.

Let's celebrate not only Christmas and Hanukkah, but the greatest gift of all - the wondrous liberty with which we were endowed by our Creator. No power on earth can take it away, because that liberty exists in our hearts and minds and souls.

I tell you that we are a great nation because we are a free and loving people - and we will prevail because free men and women of good will always do.

All of us here at the Staten Island Tea Party would like to wish you and your family a joyous and blessed Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year.

Yours in Liberty,

Frank Santarpia

Staten Island, NY