Monthly Archives: November 2013

Tree of Liberty 11/21/2013


Posted on by

What Would Thomas Jefferson Do?

Tree of Liberty: 11/21/2013

R.H. Lee
Obamacare: One Calamity After Another

Liberal Obamacare coalition crumbles

Democrats threaten to manipulate Senate rules to confirm judicial nominees

Massive liberal food overhaul overwhelmingly helps big business


U.S. Economy so addicted to Fed that markets fall when stimulus threatened

Featured “Column”: Mark Levin

Mark Levin calls disaster that is Obamacare an “impeachable offense”

Crazy Corner: Exposing the Warped Liberal Mind

MSNBC host goes beyond offensive attacking Sarah Palin


If you are interested in a certain topic, or would like either RH Lee or Austin Heller to offer their opinions by addressing it in one of their articles, please let us know either by commenting on our website or through email. We are happy to feature articles covering topics of interest to our readers.


For more articles go to

To contact The Austin Heller Project email

To contact RH Lee email

For recent updates and comments, follow us on Twitter @RHLeeJuly41776

The purpose of this newsletter is to bring to your attention ideas, philosophy and facts that we believe will contribute to freedom and liberty in America. It’s being sent to you because we think you’ll like it. If you don’t want to receive future issues, please email us and we’ll take your name off the list. We don’t want to be ‘spam’ to anyone.
We are not now nor will be ever be asking for or accepting contributions or donations. We don’t want to take your money – the government does far too much of that already. The biggest compliment you can offer, if you like what you see here, is to forward this to any and all of your friends, relatives, and associates who you think would appreciate it.

The United States of America came into being because people talked to one another about freedom and liberty. Good things, great things can still come from people talking together. You can help by spreading the word.


Obamacare: One Calamity after Another


Posted on by


A Presidential Decree is Sanctified by What Part of the Constitution?

Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight of the United States Constitution provides the Oath of Office of the President of the United States as follows:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article One, Section one of the Constitutions specifically states that “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”  There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the President the power to legislate.

On November 14 President Obama issued another of his many Presidential Decrees.  He announced that he was authorizing insurance commissioners of all the states across our nation to ignore the provisions of the Affordable Care Act banning non-compliant medical insurance plans.  Each insurance commissioner was empowered to require the insurance companies in their state to revoke cancellations and allow non-compliant plans to continue through 2014.

I suppose one has to give some credit to Mr. Obama for trying to rectify at least one of the many problems endemic to the Affordable Care Act which are devastating Americans.  At the same time, though, we must ask: “Where did he get the power to allow plans specifically banned by his signature health care act to continue in force, even though such plans are specifically forbidden by law?”

Even the courts agree!  On August 13 of this year the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled against President Obama for failing to obey a 2002 statute requiring the executive branch to take final action on the certification of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a nuclear waste site.  Judge Brett Kavanaugh ruled that “Under Article Two of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the president must follow statutory mandates.”

Is advocating the breaking of a law passed by Congress and signed into law by the President himself considered to be “upholding and defending the Constitution?” I think not.

White House officials said that Mr. Obama does have the power to issue this decree, citing the President’s decision to defer removal of immigrants who came to the US as children.  Let me get this straight:  Because he issued an illegal and constitutionally unjustified decree earlier, that gives him the power to issue another illegal and constitutionally unjustified decree now?

Cancelling the Old “Bad” Plans

While Mr. Obama says that the reason many of the old “pre-ACA plans” are being cancelled is because they were bad plans, plans that didn’t provide the kind of coverage that people need.  That is a topic for an entire article, so we won’t address that claim here, though many would strongly disagree with his contention, as pointed out here, here, and here.

The reason so many people are so very angry that their “old” plans are being cancelled is because the people like their old plans.  If they like them, who is Mr. Obama to tell them that their plans are bad.

Isn’t this supposed to be a free country where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness matters?  If you’re happy with your medical plan, isn’t it absolutely wrong for the government to in essence tell you, “Sorry, you don’t know what you’re doing. You’re apparently not smart enough to realize that your old plan is really a bad plan, so we’re going to make that decision for you.” (Even though the President repeatedly promised you could keep them).

The arrogance is despicable.

So Obama has supposedly issued his decree to “correct” the problem.  But…not really.  What he did was pass the blame along to the insurance commissioners so that now he can say, “It’s not my fault – it’s their fault.”

Industry and Insurance Commissioner Responses

Response to Mr. Obama’s “fix” has been less than positive.

“I’m sure he has all sorts of reasons he made the decision he made,” said Monica Lindeen, vice president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).”But from a practical standpoint, for commissioners all across this country, it really did turn our lives upside down.”

“Changing the rules after health plans have already met the requirements of the law could destabilize the market and result in higher premiums for consumers,” said Karen Ignagni, the president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group in Washington.

In a statement concerning Obama’s announcement regarding policy cancellations and the role of state insurance regulators, South Dakota State Insurance Director Merle Scheiber may have summed up the feelings of most state insurance commissioners when he said:

“The Division of Insurance is sorting through the logistics of how this announcement will impact insureds and carriers. The President’s new direction requires a detailed analysis in order to identify the best options for consumers and businesses. We will do what is best for [our citizens] and are demanding more details regarding this policy change.”

Arkansas’ Insurance Commissioner Jay Bradford and Washington state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, both Democrats, have said that they’ll decline to implement the President’s fix, while Oregon has left it up to the insurers, neatly sidestepping accepting the responsibility for making a clearly controversial decision.

In their official statement, the NAIC warned that changing the rules this late in the game creates uncertainty, threatens to undermine the market and may lead to higher premiums and greater market disruption in the future.

The NAIC concluded, “This decision continues different rules for different policies and threatens to undermine the new market… In addition, it is unclear how, as a practical matter, the changes proposed by the President can be put into effect.”

Fiscal Impact on Administrative Costs

Soon after the passage of Obamacare insurers began working on ways to bring their plans into compliance with the new law.  No one knows how much that compliance effort has cost, but you must include the cost of:

  • closing down all the old non-compliant plans
  • designing and implementing a new array of Metal Level plans
  • hiring & training new employees to administer the new plans
  • supporting the old plans through January 1, 2014

The numbers surely run into the multiple billions.

Furthermore, keep in mind that just like all business operations, insurers have a target market.  They design a portfolio of plans to fit the needs of that target market.  Just like an auto maker makes a line of cars to sell to its target market, and a computer manufacturer makes a line of computer to fit its target market.

Neither the automobile nor computer nor insurance industry – or probably any other! – creates a second line of products to compete with themselves.  Now President Obama, with less than 45 days notice, expects the insurers to revamp their entire systems and maintain two separate and distinct product lines.  That will leave the old non-ACA compliant plan portfolio which aren’t based on the Metal Levels, and the new ACA plans which are based on the Metal Levels in direct competition against one another for the same target market.

Insurers also expressed concern about the cost of reinstating policies that had already been purged from their computers and that had not been included in negotiations with doctors and hospitals.  Carl McDonald, an analyst with Citigroup, said the president’s plan created an “enormous administrative burden” for insurers and predicted many would choose not to extend coverage.

“The complexity of trying to uncancel millions of canceled individual policies with only six weeks left in the year is staggering,” he wrote.

Crushing the Risk Pool

Insurance is a moderately complex but eminently logical means of sharing a risk. Here’s the concept:

  • Take a group of people (the insurance term is “a pool”) all of whom share a common concern, such as a car accident, a fire, or a medical claim
  • That group of people sharing the same risk comprises a “Risk Pool”
  • The number crunchers calculate the expected number of claims in the risk pool, how many people will have claims and how much those will be
  • Based on those expected claims payments, you determine how much each member of the pool needs to contribute into the pool to pay all expected claims. That amount is the insurance premium
  • If you have fewer claims than expected, the premium goes down
  • If you have more claims than expected, the premium goes up
  • If you remove a large number of people who have very low claims from the risk pool the average cost of claims in the risk pool inevitably goes up, which in turn pushes the premium up

When the number crunchers calculated the premiums for the new Obamacare exchange plans they knew that they would have a large number of people who had not previously had insurance.  After all, that has always been one of the huge benefits to Americans touted by Mr. Obama.  Millions without insurance, people who either couldn’t afford it or couldn’t get it due to poor health – will now get coverage.

Let me pose a question. If you hadn’t had insurance for years, and hence hadn’t been able to see a doctor for either checkups or for treatment of existing problems, what would you do as soon as you got coverage under the new federally subsidized Obamacare plan?

You’d go to the doctor, wouldn’t you?  That seems obvious.  Which means that those millions who are newly insured will have higher claims than the average American, right?  That’s the goal of Obamacare, to get coverage for those who haven’t been able to get it before, so they can go to the doctor!

For the past two to three years, the actuaries have been figuring out what the premiums have to be for this new risk pool being sold in the exchanges.  The new Obamacare Exchange Risk Pool which was expected to have two groups of people in the risk pool:

(1) those relatively few who haven’t had insurance in the past and can be expected to have higher than average claims and,

(2) those who comprise the vast majority and who’ve been insured under their own plans for years, who’ve been seeing their doctors year in, year out, and can be expected to have fairly average claims.

When you pull the second group out of the above equation as Obama’s decree did, catastrophic claims and ensuing skyrocketing premium rates loom.

This Outrage is Widespread

The New York Times pointed out that insurance carriers who are new to the market could be particularly hurt by the proposal, with many people choosing to stay with their existing plans because they are less expensive rather than what’s available on the exchange.

The larger and potentially devastating overall impact of how removing the healthy from the risk pool could affect everyone in the country was addressed in a November 19 Wall Street Journal Op-ed by Marco Rubio.  Senator Rubio pointed out a memo from HHS that including the following comments on this concern:

“Risk corridors are…used to mitigate an insurer’s pricing risk. Under ObamaCare, risk corridors were established for…three years as a safety-net. While risk corridors can protect taxpayers when they are budget-neutral, the president’s action now exposes taxpayers to a [financial] bailout of the health-insurance industry if and when the law fails.”

On Nov. 14, the American Academy of Actuaries issued a press release saying that President Obama’s plan to reverse health-insurance cancellations “could lead to negative consequences for consumers, health insurers, and the federal government.” More specifically, the academy said, “Costs to the federal government could increase as higher-than-expected average medical claims are more likely to trigger risk corridor payments.”

Point after point, problem after problem, from a law that a November 20, 2013 CBS News poll says 93% of Americans believe should be either repealed or changed, including 72% of Democrats!

Seriously, isn’t it time we got rid of this monstrosity?  Meaning the law – not the President.

Obamacare questions

Comprehensive Reform for Lobbyists


Posted on by

On Oct. 17, President Obama declared victory over the Republican Party after a contentious government shutdown and debt ceiling debate. In a moment of doublespeak remarkable even for Mr. Obama, he proceeded to promise a three pronged economic agenda for the last quarter of 2013.

He pledged to enact a budget (his code word for raising taxes) and a new farm bill, which would expand the food stamps program and institute massive subsidies. In addition, he promised comprehensive immigration reform before the end of this year. It is not a stretch to link this promise to the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” bill which Mr. Obama has repeatedly hawked.

In the same speech where he revived his push for the immigration bill which was openly and unashamedly written by lobbyists and Washington insiders, the President also attacked lobbyists, saying “all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists.” He was presumably including the very ones who helped write his immigration bill.

On Oct. 7, 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama declared, “We’re going to have to change the culture in Washington so that lobbyists and special interests aren’t driving the process.” As the immigration reform was authored earlier this year, quite the opposite occurred. The president sat down with business and labor leaders to craft a bill that could benefit them, rather than us.

This lobbying was somehow spun as a positive! The “Gang of Eight” crowed that the bill would have the support of labor and business, and the media gushed about how the bill would surely pass with such a storm of support. Essentially, the corporations and unions were given the opportunity, behind closed doors, to not merely make demands but to actually help write the bill. In exchange, Congress could count on their support.

I don’t blame these lobbyists. The proposed immigration overhaul would have a massive effect on our labor economy, directly affecting the interests of businesses and unions across the nation. It is entirely in their interests to promote their organization. The problem rests on the tendency of the Obama administration, though this did not start with him, to push these massive overhaul bills.

The immigration overhaul is over 800 pages long. Similarly, both the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul and Affordable Care Act (ACA) were massive pieces of legislation. Moreover, the size of these bills is not determined just by this page count. While the ACA is over 1,000 pages, the bureaucratic regulations written for its implementation have broken the 20,000 page mark.

It is the size and lack of transparency of these bills that attracts lobbyists and special interest groups like flies. With a bill of 1,000 pages, it is not obvious to the public, or even to many Congressmen, when a lobbyist has written in a provision or two.

Let us briefly examine an example. The ACA does not seem like the sort of legislation that would concern the National Rifle Association (NRA). Yet, somehow, Title X on page 2,037 of the ACA, contains five provisions concerning conversations about guns with doctors. It is difficult to imagine how this came to be. The NRA is a powerful conservative group which did very little to oppose the ACA. Is it such a crazy suggestion that the NRA was allowed to add these provisions to ensure that they would not work to defeat the bill? Perhaps the truth of the matter is not quite so incriminating, but the role of lobbyists in crafting legislation is well documented. The larger the piece of legislation the more ripe it is for such manipulation.

This immigration bill that the President has promised to push through Congress is officially dubbed “The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013”.  It joins Dodd-Frank and the ACA as another example of the massive, far-reaching overhauls pushed by the Obama administration as their answers to America’s ills. The hordes of professional lobbyists see in this proposal endless opportunities for themselves and their well-paying clients.  Unsurprisingly, they have joined in the frenzied, whole-hearted effort to see its hundreds of pages become the Law of the Land.

Once again, we risk having a massive piece of legislation, one holding a very significant long term impact on the American public, and yet written predominantly behind closed doors, rushed through. I ask you, “What is the big rush?”

This is not the way the Constitution intended for legislation to be enacted. Our Founders feared the power of special interests and warned against allowing massive, multi-facetted bills to be pushed through Congress. This reckless, imprudent process both denies the transparency needed to understand the content of these bills and simultaneously allows lobbyists to include whatever self-serving provisions they desire.

As this article is being written, the Obama administration promises on its own website, “an unprecedented level of openness”, and proclaims that “Government should be transparent.  (emphasis is theirs) Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.”

While Mr. Obama has outwardly rejected lobbyists both during his 2008 campaign for the Presidency and in his recent speech now in 2013, his call for the urgent passage of immigration reform is really just a call for one more colossal, lobbyist-ridden bill. As Nancy Pelosi said about the ACA, we have to pass it to know what is in it.

As curious as I am about this immigration overhaul, I am certainly not curious enough to pass it before we understand it.


Clueless In Washington


Posted on by

It seems like every time something scandalous happens that surprises Americans, President Obama claims to be just as surprised as the rest of us. How can that be?  The President of the United States is supposed to be the “most powerful man in the world.”  How can he be so completely clueless?


Every American remembers the 11th anniversary of 9/11 last year when terrorists attacked the US compound in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans including US Ambassador Chris Stevens.   If we are to believe the official Obama administration statements, no one in the administration, including Barack Obama, knew what was happening as it happened, or even to this day can tell us what happened, who did it, or why.  Sounds kind of like Christopher Columbus’ first voyage to the New World.  Before the trip he had no idea where he was going, on the trip he had no idea where he was, and after the trip he had no idea where he had been.

We all know the litany of misstatements and finger pointing that followed the murders so there’s no need to repeat that trail of obfuscations here. It is worth pointing out a key point which was made by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about President Obama in a statement to CNS news on February 29, 2013.  “He was in regular communication with his national security team directly, through them, and spoke with the Secretary of State at approximately 10 p.m. He called her to get an update on the situation,” said Carney.

Considering that the attack began at approximately 5 pm, one has to wonder how and why it took the President five hours to call Secretary of State Clinton to ask what was going on.  In this 21st century of technological omnipresence, with drones, observation satellites, cell and satellite phones, laptops and tablets that connect to everyone, everywhere, why didn’t someone tell him?  How could it possibly have taken five interminable hours for someone – maybe the Secretary of State – to have called or even dropped by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to say, “Hey, Barry – have you heard what’s happening in Benghazi?”

Is the problem (1) that the President is so disconnected with his team that they don’t feel like they should keep him up to date, (2) that he hasn’t made it clear to them that if and when American lives are endangered they’re supposed to tell him about it, or (3) that neither Mr. Obama nor his advisors want the rest of America to know what they knew or why they did nothing to save those who lost their lives in Benghazi?  Any of those three answers is completely unacceptable.

Fast & Furious

Beginning in 2009, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) instituted a sting program called “Fast and Furious” which sold assault weapons in the US to buyers suspected of selling them across the border into Mexico.  The ATF hoped to track the firearms to Mexican drug cartels, but somehow lost track of many of the weapons once they entered Mexico.  At least two of those “missing” weapons were used in a Dec. 14, 2012 firefight that left Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry dead.

The Los Angeles Times presents an in depth compilation of 46 stories published from February 2, 2011 to October 15, 2012 recounting the incredible ineptitude and horrible consequences of this ill-conceived operation by the ATF.  The Times coverage culminated in a six part presentation of the emails, documents and other paper trail revealing the entire SNAFU.

President Obama claims he never knew anything about the scandalous outcome of this failed sting operation.  Incredibly, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, US Attorney General Eric Holder joins the President in a denial of any knowledge whatsoever about the 15 month long operation.

These reprehensible denials by both Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder only magnify the tragic death of Agent Perry and at least one more US law enforcement officer, ICE agent Jaime Zapata. Americans have a right to question President Obama’s claims that he never knew anything about it.

Mr. Obama is the President. Mr. Holder is the head of the US Department of Justice.  How can either of them not know what their people are doing, and if they don’t, how can they be trusted in those positions of leadership?  If the CEO of a major corporation doesn’t know what his key people are doing, and they screw up – the CEO is going to be scanning the “Help Wanted” ads.

NSA Phone Tapping – Here and Abroad

On October 23, 2013, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that Obama had assured German Chancellor Angela Merkel that the United States “is not monitoring and will not monitor” the communications of the chancellor. Carney made his comment in response to information contained in an NSA document provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The document, cited by the Guardian, which claims to be the world’s third most widely read online offering, further indicated that the NSA monitored the phone calls of at least 35 world leaders.

When Ms. Merkel called Mr. Obama last week to ask him about the Guardian’s reports, he assured her that he wasn’t aware of the phone surveillance regarding her, and that if he had known about it, he would have ordered that it be stopped.

There is the disconcerting comment of an NSA official who dissented, stating that not only did Mr. Obama know about NSA surveillance of Chancellor Merkel, he encouraged it.  Still, who would choose to take the word of an anonymous NSA source over the statement of the President of the United States?

Once again, President Obama’s common response:  “I didn’t know.”  Sounds like a familiar line.

Obamacare Launch

As detailed by this writer two weeks ago, the Obamacare launch was not exactly the picture of perfection.  In the two weeks since, things have moved from bad to worse.  I willingly grant that the massive launch failure is not in and of itself comparable to Benghazi, Fast & Furious, or the unsettling accusation of a faux pas by the NSA in eavesdropping on Chancellor Merkel’s phone calls.  There is, however, one component of the media circus which most definitely is similar to Mr. Obama’s statements about the three other episodes mentioned above.

In answer to obvious questions about how this could have happened such as:

  • Why the nation that started the computer revolution in Silicon Valley hired a Canadian company to design the website,
  • How 3 ½ years of lead time didn’t give them sufficient advance notice to test things properly,
  • Why HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wasn’t on top of the entire project,

Ms. Sebelius said in an October 25 interview on CNN that “President Barack Obama didn’t hear that there [might] be problems with the sign-up portal for his signature health care law until it went live.”

Mr. Obama apparently – once again! – knew nothing.  He had no idea there might be problems lurking around the corner, right up until the very day of the launch!

Clueless, or…?

Surprise, surprise.  It seems like every time he faces a potential scandal, even when it’s one of his direct subordinates (Secretary of State, Attorney General, Secretary of HHS) who drops the ball, and the American people ask him why, Mr. Obama’s response is “I never knew anything about it.”

Or…he could be lying to us.

Speak Out
for America!

This last part of this article is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART!

On this site, the message brought to you by The Austin Heller Project in late August about Obamacare concluded with a brilliant, incredibly insightful plea for your help, your awakening, your voice to join with your friends and neighbors to speak out for America.  (No, I did not write it!) Now, more than ever, it is a message that must be heard, must be spread, must be shouted from American to American if we ever hope to bring to a halt the rampant insanity that spreads across our nation from those who seek to destroy it. Here is that message:

“It has always been a cliché to call or write to one’s representatives, but with social media, we can do much more than send letters and emails. Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee all have Facebook and Twitter accounts: Reach out to them!

Here is a handy list of House Republicans who support freedom and liberty.

Here is a list of like-minded Senators.

“Millions of people have social media accounts. It is our duty, to ourselves and to our children to spread the message via social media, both by posting about the dangers we face and by sharing the message of those who are actually representing our interests.

“With today’s technology we can do more than just reach out to our elected representatives. We can spread awareness to our friends and relatives, to urge them to join their voices with ours.

“If it becomes clear that we the public want a return to the ideas and beliefs that made America great, how can our Senators and Congressmen fear what some in the media claim will be a negative public response to standing up and fighting?

“Even if our calls go unheeded, we must make a stand and demonstrate our opposition to massive government expansion and in favor of the guarantees of Liberty that our Constitution enshrines.  We must speak out against irresponsible and unaccountable leaders, and work to elect those who are both responsible and accountable.

Please send this plea for action to your friends, your neighbors – to anyone and everyone who you believe wants to Speak Out for America. Send tweets. Post on Facebook. Talk about Freedom.  Make yourself heard!

Jefferson_flag_capital 518

The Tree of Liberty: 11/4/2013


Posted on by

What Would Thomas Jefferson Do?
Tree of Liberty: 11/4/2013

R.H. Lee
Clueless in Washington
President Obama’s claims that he knows nothing about Benghazi, Fast & Furious, NSA Spying or the Obamacare debacle ring false


The Austin Heller Project
Comprehensive Reform for Lobbyists

In 2008, then-Senator Obama deplored allowing lobbyists to influence policy; now he invites them to help write legislation



NBCUniversal (Including MSNBC) to see premiums  rise because of Obamacare 

NBC ignores own scandalous Obamacare scoop, ABC and CBS pay even less attention 



Peter Schiff: America “addicted” to stimulus 

Rand Paul will delay Yellen confirmation, demands Fed transparency


Featured Column: Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell advocates a drastic change to congressional term limits. (Two parts)


If you are interested in a certain topic, or would like either RH Lee or Austin Heller to offer their opinions by addressing it in one of their articles, please let us know either by commenting on our website or through email. We are happy to feature articles covering topics of interest to our readers.

For more articles go to
To contact The Austin Heller Project email
To contact RH Lee email

For daily updates and comments, follow us on Twitter @RHLeeJuly41776

The purpose of this newsletter is to bring to your attention ideas, philosophy and facts that we believe will contribute to freedom and liberty in America. It’s being sent to you because we think you’ll like it. If you don’t want to receive future issues, please email us and we’ll take your name off the list. We don’t want to be ‘spam’ to anyone.

We are not now nor will be ever be asking for or accepting contributions or donations. We don’t want to take your money – the government does far too much of that already. The biggest compliment you can offer, if you like what you see here, is to forward this to any and all of your friends, relatives, and associates who you think would appreciate it.

The United States of America came into being because people talked to one another about freedom and liberty. Good things, great things can still come from people talking together. You can help by spreading the word.


Freedom, Liberty, and Independence: Under Fire!


Posted on by

The love of freedom, liberty, and independence are three of the primary principles that inspired our Founding Fathers to break away from Britain and establish these United States of America. Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams and many more, after enduring years of oppressive rule by King George III, banded together in a courageous battle against the overwhelming forces of one of the most powerful nations on earth.  They risked everything to create this Republic for themselves and their posterity.

Now, more than ever before in the history of the United States, our freedom is terribly threatened.  America is under attack by those chief goal is to accelerate the ever expanding size and power of the federal government.  Flying in the face of our Constitution, ignoring the specific limitations on government power guaranteed to us by that Constitution, these usurpers seek to replace our cherished Republic with some fallen remnant that will bear little resemblance to that which we hold dear.

We, as American patriots, must reach out to one another, must unite to find and support men and women of courage to help all of us bring an end to this assault on our freedom. We must band together to cast from office those who would destroy the long sacred traditions of independence and liberty that were so fundamental to the creation of these United States, and by so doing secure for ourselves and our posterity the endurance of the greatest nation ever to exist on the face of our planet.