The Federal government has become far too big and is no longer following the Constitution.  The Constitution lists the enumerated powers of the Federal government in Article 1, Section 8.  Most of what they do today is nowhere in that list nor anywhere else in the Constitution.

What the federal government is authorized to do:
(Ref: U. S. Constitution, Article 1, Section. 8)

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erec-tion of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

What the Constitution says about the powers of the states:
(Ref. U. S. Constitution, Tenth Amendment)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We're already a full century past time to return our Federal government to within the bounds of the Constitution, AS WRITTEN, rather than as some pinheaded liberal activist judges would like it to be! Despite what the lawyers and judges would like, the clearly written language of the Constitution trumps case law! The Supremacy Clause (in Article VI) of the U.S. Constitution states:

This Constitution, and the laws of the united states which shall be MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It seems to me that the phrase "in pursuance thereof" restricts the Supremacy Clause to those powers explicitly delegated to the Federal government along with the "necessary and proper" powers connected to them.

States don’t have to obey unconstitutional Federal legislation forced upon them?

Virginia, Utah, Idaho, and other states are fighting the federal healthcare law. Arizona is protecting its borders. Washington State, Oklahoma, and Tennessee are fighting cap-and-trade legislation. Eight states are standing up for gun rights. Twenty-five states have effectively blocked the 2005 Real ID Act…

How? Through nullification. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

State nullification of federal laws has a long and respectable history. Many northern states, Wisconsin included, resisted the federal government's Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 by nullification.  Based on the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated in 1859:

Resolved, That the government formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Resolved, that the principle and construction contended for by the party which now rules in the councils of the nation, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several states which formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infractions; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.

I believe it's time to put the States' Rights brakes on the Federal kakistocracy. To see some ideas of how this can be done, see the Tenth Amendment Center (www.tenthamendmentcenter.com).

If Barack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he claims, but was born in Kenya, as his paternal grandmother and several other Kenyans claim, and since his mother was too young to confer U.S. citizenship on him, he would have received Kenyan citizenship from his father and place of birth.

Since he has never gone through the U.S. Naturalization process, he may not even be a U.S. Citizen at all, much less a 'natural born' citizen as required by the Constitution to be eligible to be President!

Obama's qualifications under Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States have never been verified. Here is a video that confirms it:

Representative Darryl Issa is the incoming chairman of the Government Oversight Committee, so he is positioned to subpoena Obama's birth certificate and verify his eligibility.

If Obama is not eligible, it automatically voids everything he's done, including rolling back Federal spending to 2008 levels and repealing Obamacare. It would be a way of undoing the damage he's done in one fell swoop, without requiring a Presidential signature.

If you want to help take Obama down, write to Rep. Issa here: http://www.issa.house.gov/

Here's a scanned copy of Obama's REAL birth certificate.

In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal Government.  Nowhere in that list is Health Care nor anything else relating to Health.  The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Therefore, any Federal legislation relating to Health Care is clearly unconstitutional.

Some argue that the power emanates from the 'general welfare' clause of the Constitution.  The author of the Constitution, James Madison, begs to differ, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."  Thomas Jefferson concurs with this assessment: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Our Representatives, Senators and the President of the United States have all taken an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and to bear true allegiance to the same"  Any Representative or Senator who voted for this Health Care bill and the President, if he signs it, have violated their oaths of office.  They immediately forfeited their legitimate power.

The Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

If the Federal government passes a Health Care takeover bill, it will be time for us to exercise our "right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" based on the Constitution AS WRITTEN, that is, where the Federal government, including the Supreme Court, is subservient to the States.  Probably the best way to ensure this remains the case is to repeal the 16th Amendment that established the income tax and put the IRS out of business.  This would also force the Federal government to go to the states for money, not the other way around.  There should also be a Balanced Budget Amendment that limits Federal outlays to the previous year's receipts except in times of Congressionally declared war.  This would force the Federal government to limit spending to what we the people can afford.

References:
U.S. Constitution and Amendments
Declaration of Independence

Environmentalists seem to prefer natural gas fired electricity generating plants.  Does this make sense?  On a superficial level, of course it does.  Natural gas burns much cleaner.  Let's look a little deeper and see if it still makes sense.

A natural gas fired electricity generating plant increases the demand for natural gas.  Can anyone deny that?  What happens when the demand for a product goes up?  The product gets more expensive until production (supply) increases to meet it, then the price comes back down, but not usually to the same level because the production costs are higher (more natural gas wells, more people needed to operate them).  This is the fundamental economic law of supply and demand.

What happens when the price of natural gas goes up?  Homeowners start looking for cheaper ways to heat their homes.  One option that seems to be increasingly popular is a backyard wood fired boiler.  I live in rural Wisconsin and I'm seeing (and smelling) more wood fired boilers in more backyards (as well as more people using their fireplaces).  What am I smelling?  Pollution!  Wood smoke smells good to me because I associate the smell with good memories of fireplaces and campfires from my childhood, but it's still pollution.

Let's do a mental experiment and see if natural gas fired electricity generation still makes sense.  Let's imagine two electricity generating plants of the same size supplying electricy to 10,000 homes and businesses.  One plant is natural gas fired and the other is coal fired with stack scrubbers (pollution control devices that are expensive but do a fairly good job of cleaning up the coal smoke).  Let's also stipulate that these two systems are separate and do not interact to any extent, they are effectively separate economies.  Let's also stipulate that both economies start with all the houses and businesses heated with natural gas.

In the economy with the natural gas fired generating plant, the demand for natural gas is significantly higher, therefore the price of natural gas is higher.  Many of the homeowners will install wood fired boilers backyard to lower their natural gas usage, therefore increasing the overall pollution levels.

In the economy with the coal fired generating plant, the price of natural gas stays lower and the homeowners have less motivation to install backyard wood fired boilers.  Pollution is more centralized at the coal fired generating plant where stack scrubbers can remove it.

Would banning backyard wood fired boilers be an option?  Not really, not in a free country.  Those that already have the boilers will scream bloody murder and those without will just start using their fireplaces, if they have them.

To answer the first question, do natural gas fired electricity generating plants make sense, NO!  Natural gas fired electricity generating plants are counterproductive if you're looking to reduce pollution.

To clarify my definitions, Islamism is a form of Islam that justifies mass murder, suicide bombing and other forms of terrorism as part of Islam using violent passages of the Koran and/or Haditha, presumably to spread Islam to non-Islamic people (convert or die!).  This definition does not include any Muslims who do not commit or condone violence and/or terrorism.

There is a solution to Islamist terrorism. In 1911 General John J. Pershing was having problems in the Philippines with an Islamist group known as Moros.

In 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the American garrison in Mindanao, the Moros led a series of bloody attacks on the American Marines. In response these numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, "Black Jack" as Gen. John J. Pershing was known informally, told his boys to catch the Moros and teach them a lesson like one they had never learnt ever before.

He forced the captured Moros to dig their own graves, the Moro terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The US soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs' blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.

All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.

Source: http://www.historyofjihad.org/philippines.html

If we did this, even just once, and posted the video on the internet, terrorism against us would stop.

I have been looking at the science behind Anthropomorphic (man caused) Global Warming (AGW) since at least 1995. I have yet to see ANY evidence of imminent catastrophic global warming.

The only 'evidence' offered so far by the proponents of this 'crisis' is computer models and computer outputs. As a computer professional, I know that computers are 'dumb' machines that only do what they're told to do, they don't 'think' in any meaningful sense of the word. Think of an adding machine that can read instructions on a paper tape. A computer is like that, it can only add two numbers and move numbers around, everything else is programming, including subtraction, multiplication and division.

Measurements have shown NO global warming since 1998. In fact, the globe has entered a cooling phase, cooling about 1.1 F per decade since 2001.

In Al Gore's propaganda film "An Inconvenient Truth" he suggests that historically temperature and CO2 levels track together. That part is true, what he fails to mention is that CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, not the other way around. To believe that a lagging indicator could possibly be a cause defies all logic and common sense.

Here is the relationship between CO2 and the earth's temperature, When the temperature rises, the CO2 levels rise about 800 years later. Fat Albert Gore's graph doesn't show that because he uses a very long time scale. It takes the oceans about 800 years to respond to changes in earth's temperature. The oceans are a huge CO2 sink. When the water warms, the gasses come out of solution, like a glass of cold water on a warm windowsill deposits gas bubbles on the inside of the glass as it warms. The same thing happens on a much larger scale in the oceans.

The sun has a far greater effect on climate than any trace gas, such as CO2. Current theory postulates that with more sun spots, the stronger solar wind inhibits galactic cosmic rays from impacting the lower atmosphere, resulting in fewer clouds, hence more solar warming. With the sun in a very quiet period, one would expect to see a cooling climate, which is what we're seeing.

There's a downloadable paper on this effect by U.S.G.S. scientist Charles A. Perry at:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yzxqd8o

The liberal dominant media have been screaming about imminent climate catastrophes for a long time. In the 1920s it was a possible ice age. On September 10th, 1923 Time Magazine reported, "The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age." On September 18, 1924 the New York Times chimed in with "MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"

In the 1930s it was global warming. On March 27th, 1933 the New York Times reported "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise." Time Magazine followed up on January 2nd, 1939 with "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

In the 1970s it was back to global cooling and another ice age. On June 24th, 1974 Time Magazine reported that "Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." The New York Times followed up on May 21st, 1975 with "Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"

On April 9th, 2001 Time Magazine reported that "[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible." The New York Times followed up on December. 27th, 2005 - "Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"

Even our Federal Government bureaucrats gets in on the act. In the 1970s, NASA "scientist" James Hanson was warning us about the imminent ice age. That's the same NASA "scientist" James Hanson who is now warning about the present global warming catastrophe.

Can you spell C-Y-C-L-I-C-A-L? Why are the New York Times, Time Magazine and NASA 'scientist' James Hanson given any credibility at all? Only a fool would believe what they print or say without fact checking it.

John Coleman is the founder of the Weather Channel and a respected retired weatherman. He wrote the following column about AGW.

COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
By John Coleman
jcoleman@kusi.com

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PhD's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PhD's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PhD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PhD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PhD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

I have learned since the 'Ice Age is coming' scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PhD's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.

I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

Here are some URLs to check out if you want more information about Global Warming

Global Warming science primer
http://eteam.ncpa.org/files/GlobalWarmingPrimer_low.pdf

Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf

Historical Media Hype
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_execsum.asp

Current Media Hype
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/ClimateOfBias.asp

List of Global Warming Skeptics
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp

http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org/, especially the Monckton documents

http://www.heartland.org/

See "The Real Inconvenient Truth" here
http://www.junkscience.com/

If you're a High School Science teacher, show this DVD next to Al Gore's propaganda film "An Inconvenient Truth" and challenge your students to think critically.
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/