federal government

Student, Parental Rights Bills Advance!

Yesterday was "crossover," the mid-point of the 2013 General Assembly session and the day when each chamber must complete work on its own bills. It's also a day that saw two substantial pro-family victories. The Senate passed a priority for The Family Foundation — legislation that protects the free association rights of students on public college campuses. SB 1074, patroned by Senator Mark Obenshain (R-26, Harrisonburg), ensures that the current practice on the majority of our campuses will continue and that religious and political organizations will not be discriminated against because of their beliefs and values. The bill passed 22-18 with several Democrats joining Republicans to pass the legislation. The House companion bill, HB 1617, patroned by Delegate Todd Gilbert (R-15, Woodstock), passed 80-19 late last week.

In the House, legislation protecting parental rights as fundamental passed 70-30! The bill, HB 1642, patroned by Delegate Brenda Pogge (R-96, James City County), reflects a recent decision by the Virginia Supreme Court that recognizes parental rights as fundamental. However, 24 states have reduced parental rights from fundamental to "ordinary," making it easier for government bureaucrats to interfere with families. This is significant because courts give special deference to "fundamental" rights and putting it in the Virginia Code secures it from a future Virginia court from rewriting the recent decision. Currently, Virginia law is silent on the status of parental rights, instead relying on hundreds of years of common law, which has granted parents fundamental in principle.

A similar bill previously passed the Senate, but because the bills are slightly different, we will continue to work with the patrons and representatives of parental rights groups to bring them into "conformity" for final passage later this session. The Senate bill is SB 908 and is patroned by Senator Bryce Reeves (R-17, Spotsylvania) and will be in the House Courts of Justice Committee today.

In the past two days, other legislation supported by The Family Foundation also advanced, including bills that combat human trafficking, help ease restrictions on the creation of charter schools, and provide a definition of bullying for the Department of Education as it works on guidelines to help schools combat that serious problem.

Unfortunately, all news today wasn't good. The Senate decided to send SJ 287, a religious liberty constitutional amendment, back to committee, effectively killing the bill for this year. Based on an amendment that passed last year in Missouri, the amendment would have given Virginians the opportunity to vote to re-establish our right to pray at the start of government meetings and protect students' religious liberty rights. As we continue to watch the federal government infringe upon our God given right to express our faith in the public square, Virginians want to be able to respond. Our goal will continue to be to reinforce our First Freedom, through statute and, if necessary, a constitutional amendment. We thank Senator Bill Stanley (R-20, Moneta), the resolution's patron, and Senator Bill Carrico (R-40, Galax), the chief co-patron, for their very hard work and inspired and passionate words yesterday on the Senate floor.

In the coming days we will again notify you to take urgent action on key bills. Thank you to everyone who has contact their legislators so far! You voice does make a difference.

ObamaCare Lawsuit: Who's Wasting Money Now?

Speaking of Virginia's lawsuit against ObamaCare: Remember all the liberal hysteria regarding all the money Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli supposedly is spending on the constitutional challenge to the federal health care law (Richmond Times-Dispatch) — as if government spending has ever been an issue with liberals? Never mind that he is defending Virginia law (the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act), which it is his duty to do. Where are the howls of disgust by the same people now that the Obama Justice Department refuses to agree (Times-Dispatch) with the Attorney General for an expedited appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Examiner)? Without such an appeal, we're talking at least two cases in U.S. Courts of Appeals, at least another year or more of legal work and court proceedings, endless briefs and motions, travel from Washington to Richmond and Atlanta, meetings, hundreds of hours of federal government employee time and who knows what else it takes to try a case these days — only this will be two cases simultaneously, not to mention any further cases that are filed in federal district courts by other states or aggrieved parties. It's no exaggeration to say the cost could be in the millions. That's a lot more than the $350 it cost the Commonwealth to file its case in Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia . . . but a lot less than the $1.1 billion it will cost Virginia to implement ObamaCare. The pricelessness of the hypocrisy is passed only by the reality of the true costs.

Repeal Amendment In Senate Sub-Committee Tomorrow Morning!

Tomorrow morning, in the same meeting Senate P&E sub-committee meeting that will vote on the property rights resolution, senators will consider SJR 280, the Repeal Amendment. As we wrote here in one of our General Assembly previews, this would help restore the checks and balances once enjoyed between the federal government and the states by giving the states power to repeal any federal law if two-thirds of the states vote to do so. The resolution is patroned by Senator Ryan McDougle (R-4, Hanover). It will be heard in the Senate Privileges and Elections Sub-Committee on Constitutional Amendments (click here), and we encourage you to contact members of that committee to vote in favor of the resolution.

Obamacare Unconstitutional! AG Cuccinelli's Follow-Up From Court's Decision

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli just sent this e-mail to supporters:

As I told you earlier today, Virginia won the first round of the constitutional fight over the federal health care law. I also told you I'd get back to you with more details later in the day, and I'm keeping my promise.

I will tell you up front that I will also go into still more detail later this week — when time allows.

Arguments and Outcomes

There were two basic arguments in this case.

First, Virginia argued that the individual mandate was beyond the power of Congress and the President to impose under the Constitution. Specifically, Congress claimed that their regulatory power under the Commerce Clause allowed them to order you to buy their government-approved health insurance, even if you decide not to buy health insurance.

The judge ruled that the federal government does not have the power to compel you to buy health insurance as part of its attempt to regulate the entire field of health care and health insurance. Thus, Virginia won this argument.

Second, the federal government advanced a 'fallback' argument in case it lost on its commerce clause argument. The feds' fallback argument was that the financial penalty you have to pay if you don't buy the government mandated health insurance is a tax.

This may sound like an odd argument from a political standpoint — usually they say everything is NOT a tax (in fact, they argued the penalty was not a tax while they were trying to get the bill passed); however, they changed position after the bill became law to try and save the bill. What they were trying to do was to get the courts to agree that because the penalty would presumably raise some revenue, it was therefore a 'tax' under the taxing and spending for the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution.

No judge in the country has bought this argument, and Judge Hudson was no exception. He ruled that the taxing power of Congress does not save the bill, because the penalty for not buying the mandated health insurance is not a tax.

The federal government only had to win on either of these two arguments, while Virginia needed to win both to prevail, and we won both!

What's Next?

Certainly the federal government will appeal their loss in the district court to the 4th circuit court of appeals within the next 30 days. And whichever side loses in the 4th circuit will certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. And no one has any serious doubts that ultimately the constitutionality of the individual mandate will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

That could take approximately (very rough approximation) two years. We are discussing with the Department of Justice accelerating the case, and those discussions have been very cordial thus far. More on that later.

Conclusion

Today is a great day for the Constitution. Today the Constitution has been protected from the federal government, and remember, an important reason for the constitution in the first place was to limit the power of the federal government.

Today is also a day of a small degree of vindication. When we first filed suit, the screeching of the liberals was deafening. Everything from accusing us of playing politics instead of practicing law, to filing what they called a 'frivolous' lawsuit.

I want you to know, that our team makes decisions based on the Constitution and the laws. Period. We deal with the consequences of our decisions separately, but first and foremost we have been and will continue to be true to the Constitution and laws of the United States and Virginia, regardless of whether it's easy or hard in any particular case.

Pelosi Makes Another Bid To Chill Political Opposition And Free Speech

Remember when John Dingell (D-Mich.), the most tenured member of the U.S. House of Representatives, made this comment about needing to "control the people" as the purpose for passing the health care bill? Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate the people (about 70 percent of the country) who oppose the mosque at Ground Zero. Never mind those who want to build it, she'd rather investigate 9/11 survivors and surviving family members. A nefarious lot they are, for sure. Previously, she's called people who disagree with her "NAZIs" and claimed that free market advocate organizations are front groups for big industry, among other crude or misleading remarks. Disagree with her and you are vilified. That having failed, now she wants to bring the considerable weight (and getting heavier each day thanks to her) of the federal government down on anyone with whom she has a difference of opinion. To her, tolerance means "agree with me or else!" But the Hugo Chavez model is not the American model. To think the Far Left in this country bills itself as the conscience of tolerance in this country.

Sorry, Nancy. We know that you left-wingers attempt to redefine almost everything. But "tolerance" doesn't mean "control" or forced agreement and never will. As much as you try, it doesn't — and won't — work that way in America.

Nancy Pelosi: Agree with me or else!

Harry Reid Is One Of The 9 Percent

Shocking, I know, but here is more from the Left Wing Honesty File — as thin as that is. In fact, two in one day pretty much blows open the the file and spills the contents to the ground. But here is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) (see Sharron Angle ad) telling an audience of left-wing "NetRoots" bloggers last week that the health care bill didn't go far enough and that he will ram through a public option (i.e., absolute government control of health care). That makes Harry one of the 9 percent (see Rasmussen Reports poll), along with Pete Stark, who believe the federal government has no limits on its power. Still, I'm not giving Harry too much credit for honesty. He also says in the video below that the public now supports the health care law. Not true, as the Rasmussen poll vividly demonstrates. But when you think the government can do anything, liberties with the truth are a small casualty.

Harry Reid believes in total government control of health care. He believes the public agrees. He probably believes he's in for a good November.  

Congressman Stark: The Federal Government Can Do Anything It Wants, New Rasmussen Poll Shows Americans Vehemently Disagree

U.S. Representative Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.) has been in Congress close to 40 years and is one of the most hardcore leftists in the House (see Michael Tennant at The New American). He also is known for outrageous and derogatory comments that, were he a conservative, rightly would hound him out of office (see Elisabeth Meinecke at Human Events). Last year, at a town hall meeting, he told a constituent that, "I wouldn't dignify you by peeing on your leg." (See YouTube.) In June, he mocked those who want the federal government to do something it is supposed to do — secure the border — by asking, "Who are you going to kill today?" (See YouTube.) Those examples only scratch the surface. He's been known to yell at and threaten colleagues, as well. Suffice it to say, he's an arrogant bully, who does not care about anyone but himself, his radical left-wing idealogue colleagues and far left special interest power brokers.

Then, occasionally, he speaks the truth. At least the truth as he wants it. Which is instructive in that it reveals what the Leftist Ruling Class in Washington has in store, should they continue to go unchecked. You can hear for yourself what this senior member of the House thinks about unlimited federal power, an attitude likely to mean the far-left leadership of the House is likely to continue overreaching. It also demonstrates that there's only one way to curb this power — November is coming — as a new Rasmussen poll showed only 9 percent of Americans share Mr. Stark's view of American governance (see Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com). 

In the video below, from a town hall meeting two weeks ago, Congressman Stark dismissed a constituent's concern over the health care law's expansive reach into personal lives by telling her Congress is not limited by the U.S Constitution:

Congressman Stark: We have unlimited power to do whatever we want, except that which we are supposed to do.

But Mr. Stark isn't alone. According to the poll (see Rasmussen Reports), 54 percent of the political class align themselves with him (see Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog, here). Steve Watson of PrisonPlanet.com adds that the disconnect extends to the Health Care law, too, with 83 percent of the political class supporting it and 72 percent of voters opposing it.

Senator Dorgan: Americans Are D.C.'s Cash Machine

Now that U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) is not seeking re-election, he must feel free to tell the truth. The other day, on the Senate floor, during the debate on extending unemployment "benefits" to those who have received them nearly a year already (that Republicans wanted to pay for by cutting elsewhere in the budget), he let the world know just exactly how liberals view the reward of the toil of every day, hard working Americans: It's ours!

This is what he said (see RedState.com):

Those who cried the loudest on the floor of the Senate these days — right now — are the very ones that voted to reduce this country's income with the biggest benefits going to the wealthiest Americans. And now they come to us . . . to prevent the unemployed from getting what they should get. ... And they say why can't we repeal the estate tax?

He said a lot in those few words. Here are the take aways (i.e., translation):

» Senator Dorgan believes your money is the federal government's (it's its "income," after all, not your hard-earned wage). The sentiment that we work for the government was never better expressed.  

» Allowing people to keep the money they earn is a benefit! Arrogant? Condescending? Controlling? Yes, yes and yes, and so much more.

» But people who don't work do deserve income from the rest of us, even while the U.S. Congress can't find $34 billion to cut out of a $3.5 trillion budget to pay for it for an extension of unemployment "benefits."

» You not only work for the government, but you also die for it: We will tax you after you die, because it's always our money, all the time, no matter what or when or how . . . or even when you're not alive.

See the C-SPAN video for yourself, here.

Alarming Gallup Study: Federal Government, Despite Debt, Is Adding Jobs Faster Than Private Sector!

Apparently, the liberal regime in Washington, D.C. — the one waging war on the American economy — is not getting the message, either from the public nor from common sense economics: You can't balance the budget when the government unconsciously borrows and prints money with no end in sight. It's not how healthy economies are created. It's how economic turmoil and chaos are created. Still, despite the misrepresentation by the administration about an "economic recovery" and job growth, the fact is, most new job creation over the last few months comes from new hiring by the federal government! The source is none other than Gallup's Job Creation Index:

Gallup's Job Creation Index clearly indicates that state and local governments are in the midst of significant downsizing, no doubt reflecting budgetary issues resulting from recessionary pressures on the tax (and other) revenue that funds these governments.

Hiring at the federal level has apparently to date escaped these same fiscal pressures. Indeed, the federal government appears to be significantly outpacing the private sector in terms of the relative number of jobs created.

This when the federal government is running annual deficit the size of many countries' entire economic output, estimated at an inconceivable $1.3 trillion this year (Wall Street Journal). For a president whose supporters claim is the smartest man alive, not spending more than you take in doesn't seem to be a hard concept to comprehend. The states are doing so. But, in the Age of Obama, we'll all end up working for the government — doctors, automobile manufacturers, insurance agents, bankers. If you don't have a government job yet, be patient. Your time is coming.

A.G. Cuccinelli Responds To Feds' Motion To Dismiss Health Care Lawsuit

With all the weight of the federal government and its massive megaphone that is the liberal mainstream media, it seems as if there's only one side of the debate over Virginia's lawsuit against the federal health care takeover. But that's why we're here and that's what alternative and new media are for — to provide the other side. It's even better to get the other side straight from the primary source. So, here is Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli responding the the federal government's recently filed motion to dismiss Virginia's lawsuit seeking relief from the health care law — an area of governance not specified to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution — and which is in conflict with the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli explains and debunks four aspects and criticisms of Virginia's lawsuit against the federal government's health care takeover. 

Cuccinelli To Update Health Care Lawsuit On June 16 Webcast

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on June 16 will Webcast an update on the lawsuit he filed against the federal government's health care law. It requires, for the first time in American history, that Americans purchase something in conflict with Virginia's Health Care Freedom Act. Three days ago, the feds filed a routine motion to dismiss the suit. The commonwealth will respond to this motion by June 7. The federal government then has until June 22 to reply to Virginia's response. At that point, be prepared, as the case will likely accelerate. Toward that end, the attorney general promises to keep Virginians in the loop about the ongoing legal process. Thus, the Webcast . . .

. . . to discuss where we are on the case, what you can expect going forward and the constitutional issues involved. ... I wanted to make sure you have a chance to participate in the health care discussion.

This Webcast is free and open to the public (and not produced at taxpayer expense), but viewers must register (click here). Following the update, there will be a question and answer period. In the meantime, click here to read a column Mr. Cuccinelli wrote about the lawsuit and other commentaries on constitutional issues his office is confronting.

The Framers Had Doctors, Too: Judge Andrew Napolitano Explains The Commerce Clause

The Congress shall have the Power To . . . regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian tribes. ...

Article I, Section 8, United States Constitution: "The Commerce Clause" 

Many in Congress admit they don't know where in the U.S. Constitution (the document they swear to uphold) it says Congress has the power to takeover health care or interfere in any aspect of the economy. Others, ignorantly, say it's in the Commerce Clause. Still others know they don't have the authority, but live a lie in order to consolidate power in government, rather than the people, to further their statist aims (See U.S. Rep. Phil Hare). A very few, unfortunately, know that the power is nowhere to be found in the document.

Above is the Commerce Clause verbatim. It clearly means that the federal government's only role is to ensure the equal treatment of commerce across borders, whether with other countries, native tribes or "among the several States." That's right! States! Notice the equal footing the Framers gave states with "foreign Nations" — both are capitalized. The Framers did not want New Jersey, for example, taxing goods coming into it from New York differently than it did goods coming into it from Virginia. Similarly, New Jersey and Virginia couldn't impose different tariffs on goods from England; the central government would referee that and put a uniform tariff on imports coming into the country at any port.

The Commerce Clause, then, had nothing to do with individuals conducting their own transactions, much less conducting the personal business of seeking treatment or medical advice. It means just what it says. Pretty simple.

Clarifying it further is former Judge Andrew Napolitano, seen on the Fox News Channel as its senior judicial analyst and heard on his own Fox News Radio program. Here is a telling excerpt from a piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal last September:

I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care. He replied: "There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do."   

Rep. Clyburn, like many of his colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal government has only specific enumerated powers. He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress's powers only to those granted in the Constitution. 

One of those powers — the power "to regulate" interstate commerce — is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control. ...

James Madison, who argued that to regulate meant to keep regular, would have shuddered at such circular reasoning. Madison's understanding was the commonly held one in 1789, since the principle reason for the Constitutional Convention was to establish a central government that would prevent ruinous state-imposed tariffs that favored in-state businesses. It would do so by assuring that commerce between the states was kept "regular."

In the video below, Judge Napolitano, the youngest Superior Court Judge in New Jersey history, expounds on the original intent of James Madison and the Framers as well as the evils of an all-powerful, big-government. (The Framers had doctors, too, and saw no need to mention "health care" in the Constitution!) Look no further than what the 18th century definition of "regulate" meant to know today's government is out of control. The article, linked above, and the video, are well worth the big education you will get for such a short expenditure of your time.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: If the Framers thought health was a constitutional power, they would've mentioned it. After all, people got sick, then, too.

Pro-Life Budget Amendment Decisions This Week

We are in the final week of the 2010 Virginia General Assembly session, and legislators now are making decisions regarding the state budget. It is critical that your delegate and senator hear from you concerning budget amendments defunding Planned Parenthood, elective abortions and embryonic stem cell research. They are scheduled to vote on the budget in the next few days! In today’s financial climate, it is even more essential that these publicly unsupported issues causing the destruction of human life not be financially backed by a fiscally failing government. Here's a rundown on three budget amendments:

Banning Planned Parenthood Funding: This amendment prohibits taxpayer funding of the radical pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood. In its last fiscal report, this organization reported a budget of over $1 billion! During this decade, Virginia taxpayers have sent nearly $500,000 to Planned Parenthood, one of the most partisan organizations in our nation. They do not need your money! And of course, Planned Parenthood is responsible for nearly a quarter of the abortions that take place in our nation. In fact, as the national abortion rate is declining, the number of abortions taking place in Planned Parenthood clinics continues to rise.

Banning Funding for Elective Abortions: Incredibly, in 2006 and 2007, Virginia tax dollars directly funded 322 abortions. The federal government requires states to subsidize abortions only when a Medicaid-eligible woman’s life is at risk or in the cases of rape and incest. In Virginia, we fund elective low-income abortions — a standard beyond what is required by the federal government.

Banning Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research: This amendment, patroned by Delegate Kirk Cox (R-66, Colonial Heights), prohibits taxpayer funding of research that requires the destruction of human embryos and is consistent with other amendments placed on legislation funding research in Virginia. Embryonic stem cell research has failed, while adult stem cell research has produced dozens of treatments and cures.

In past years, several Senate budget negotiators, in particular Senators Dick Saslaw (D-35, Springfield), Janet Howell (D-32, Reston) and Edd Houck (D-17, Spotsylvania), have refused to include similar amendments in the final budget. Incredibly, they have gone so far as to threaten to break off budget talks — threatening the entire state government and all its services — to keep the money flowing to Planned Parenthood and these other issues. They must be asked: When teachers and social services organizations are screaming because of budget "cuts," how can they funnel money to partisan organizations and failed research?

Please contact your delegate and senator immediately and urge them to support budget amendments prohibiting taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, embryonic stem cell research and elective abortions.

If you know who they are, you can get their contact info here for delegates and here for senators, or to look up Senators Saslaw, Howell and Houck. If you don't know who your delegate and senator are, click here.

Sure, He's Serious About Federal Spending

Per Friday's unemployment report, via Richmonder Kent Engelke, chief economic strategist and managing director of Capitol Securities Management, and one of the country's leading stock market commentators:

Regarding the establishment or nonfarm payroll survey, I believe a major reason why jobs declined by 20,000 instead of rising by the expected 15,000 were that state and local governments eliminated 41,000 workers. The federal government added 33,000 for a net loss of 8,000 jobs.

So, President Obama is serious about reducing federal spending? Can he pronounce "corpsman"?

Big Senate Vote Monday! Contact Your Senator!

On Monday, the Virginia Senate will debate and vote on SB 283 (Senator Fred Quayle, R-13, Suffolk), SB 311 (Senator Steve Martin, R-11, Chesterfield), and SB 417 (Senator Jill Vogel, R-27, Winchester), three bills that will protect Virginians from being forced by the federal government to purchase health insurance. All three are worded exactly the same. The bill made it to the floor earlier this week when the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee unexpectedly passed it 8-7. Democrat Senators Phil Puckett (D-38, Tazewell) and Charles Colgan (D-29, Manassas) voted with the six committee Republicans. The debate is expected to be intense and widely watched. It also will be close. If the two Democrats hold their votes, it could come down to a tie, with Lt. Governor Bill Bolling breaking the tie.

Don’t let this rare chance at a major victory in the Virginia Senate go to waste! If you want Virginia to protect itself from the federal government’s reach into our personal health care decisions and protect us from the force of the federal government to make us buy insurance — an unprecedented act in the history of our nation — you must contact your senator and ask him or her to support these bills. (If you don't know who he or she is, click here.)

If any of the bills pass the high hurdle of the Senate, it certainly will receive a warm reception in the House. If either Senator Puckett or Senator Colgan represents you, thank them for their courageous committee votes and encourage them to stay strong on the Senate floor on Monday.

There's more great news about bills designed to assert Virginia’s sovereignty and resist federal intrusion into our health care decisions: Thursday, Sub-committee 2 of the House Commerce and Labor Committee voted by an 8-2 margin to report HB 10, The Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, to the full committee. The bill is patroned by Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13, Prince William). Its day in full committee is not yet determined.

The 10th Amendment Disconnect

I had the privilege of hearing Dr. Bob Holsworth (Virginia Tomorrow) speak Monday night about the recent elections. He is the best political analyst in Virginia in my opinion and his insights on campaigns and strategies never fail to enlighten. He said that one of the many aspects where the Creigh Deeds campaign (as well as the Wagner and Shannon campaigns) fell short was in its inability to respond to the federal issues — card check, cap-and-trade, nationalized health care — Republican Bob McDonnell repeatedly raised as not only an intrusion into Virginians' sovereignty, but as harmful to Virginians themselves —their prosperity, opportunity, way of life, health. In other words, upholding the 10th Amendment, which leaves to the states all powers not specifically delineated to the federal government.

Senator Deeds couldn't dis President Barack Obama, who historically carried Virginia last year, and turn off the liberal Democrat base and its newly energized voters, by opposing those signature liberal issues. So the best he could do was assert they had nothing to do with running the commonwealth. Dr. Holsworth said Deeds' inability to satisfactorily deal with this dynamic pleased no one — crucial independents, who broke overwhelmingly to the GOP, nor the base.

Who am I to disagree with Dr. Bob? But I want to add that it was more than that. Defending one's state against the onslaught of the federal leviathan is a constitutional charge. So it is a legitimate issue. But Senator Deeds, reflective of today's ingrained liberalism, at the very least couldn't respond to the issues because he doesn't understand the 10th Amendment. Doubtful. So that leaves the worst, but more likely, case — a total disregard for it. When state politicians become too comfortable accepting mandates and force-fed programs from Washington, which stunt states from their roles as democratic laboratories and distinctly different places to live, they deserve to lose. Indeed, federal issues always have and always will be integral to state issues because the constitutional relationship of states to the national government demands it.  

Does Obama Really Want To Cut Execs' Pay?

On the one hand, the Wall Street executives who are going to have their salaries cut from millions of dollars a year to no more than $200k should be happy. After all, Barack Obama promised no tax increases for those earning less than $250,000 a year, right? Sure! On the other hand, the president may want to reconsider. With tax revenue dropping like an offed mafioso's car a river, he may need that revenue. Better idea, Mr. President: Instead of cutting their pay 90 percent, let them keep them million-dollar salaries — then tax it at 90 percent. After all, you have to fund health care, right? Plus, the stimulus and free college education and end global warming and green jobs and  . . . .

But before you do, Mr. President, would you please find out if it's constitutional for the federal government to fire and set salaries of people in private business? If it is, then watch out students on federal loans. Next, you'll be told where you can go to college and what classes to take.

Virginia News Stand: October 22, 2009

Annotations & Elucidations  The Bell Sounds For Deeds

So much for Republicans for Deeds. Former Senator Brandon Bell, from the Roanoke area, originally, and surprisingly, signed on the Deeds campaign. Unlike three other liberal former senators who call themselves Republicans and announced their support for Senator Deeds earlier in the year, Bell's endorsement was puzzling. He even announced that he was backing Lt. Governor Bill Bolling for re-election and Senator Ken Cuccinelli (R-37, Fairfax) for attorney general. Yesterday, however, whether he's reading the tea leaves, a bandwagon jumper, or finally read the Deeds platform, he reversed course and now is in the Bob McDonnell camp. The Roanoke Times has the details. Speaking of the Times, it really hit the nail on the head with this headline: "Contrasts sharp in attorney general race." On the ball, they are, at the Times.

On another note, the federal government can't get the Pig Flu vaccine in on time, and we're supposed to trust it with nationalized health care? Not a chance.

News:

McDonnell talks business with Lynchburg furniture maker (Lynchburg News & Advance)

McDonnell wins Bell's endorsement (Roanoke Times)

Contrasts sharp in attorney general race (Roanoke Times)

Deeds repeats closing debate remarks almost verbatim (Washington Times)

In this show, special guest stars speak for Deeds (Washington Post)

Bolling, Wagner frame campaign on mutually low job evaluations (Washington Post)

Neff mailing compares Bell to bad hubby (Charlottesville Daily Progress)

TAP's fatherhood program focuses on responsible fathers (Roanoke Times)

National News:

Web makers release tape of Philly ACORN visit (AP/GOPUSA.com)

GOP senator says Obama showing Nixonian tendencies (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Obama to slash bailout exec pay by 90 percent (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Key senators may rebuff Obama on health care (AP/GOPUSA.com)

U.S. health care tab would grow under overhaul (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Education chief calls for teacher prep overhaul (AP/GOPUSA.com)

CDC concedes vaccine production behind schedule (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Commentary:

Obama Bails Out When Asked About Fox News (Bobby Eberle/GOPUSA.com)

The Real Flaw: Fox Is A No Fawn Zone (Debra Saunders/GOPUSA.com)

Obama Hits Opponents With Chicago Brass Knuckles (Michael Barone/GOPUSA.com)

Justice Department: Blacks MUST Have Democrat Label To Know How To Vote (Bobby Eberle/GOPUSA.com)

More From Mike Rogers: "A 1,200 Page Bill Where Nobody's Read The Bill"

U.S. Representative Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) tells Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) what's in his bill, reading from the precise page, to prove the chairman did not know what's in his own legislation! Nothing like the federal government, without reason, yanking you from your private insurance plan — even entire employer benefit plans — and sticking you on the post office, errr, "public option" plan. 

This is reassuring! Congressman Mike Rogers had to give a remedial bill reading lesson to the committee chairman on what's in his own bill!