July 4^th, 2007, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declared the first "Energy Independence Day." We’ve since moved further as a nation from the stated goal of energy independence, but that’s beside the point. 

Independence Day is the most uniquely American holiday, and its significance shouldn’t be lost in discussion of gas prices. To be sure high costs were part of what brought about the American Revolution, but it was high taxes imposed by the English crown, and meddling in the colonies’ ability to conduct free trade that created such tremendous unrest.

Independence in the states marked a turn away from tyranny that sent reverberations throughout the world. Self-governance had never been successfully implemented before the United States of America charted a new course with our American Experiment.

Our tiny nation of rugged individualists threw off the shackles of the most powerful empire in the world and became the shining city on the hill, setting an example of freedom and prosperity that other nations of the world envied and soon emulated to large and small degrees. Isn’t that enough for one day? Should such a momentous occasion have to share it’s day, and lose its meaning in the shuffle of current events to a subversively similarly named "Energy Independence Day?"

We tend to fill up at the pump and pay higher than usual prices for gas to take road trips to family cabins or other fun summer destinations for Independence Day weekend, so we feel the pinch on this day, perhaps more keenly than on many others, but that’s not even close to what the 4^th of July represents. 

Freedom is mankind's greatest accomplishment. Still in it's infancy and often threatened, we would do well to mark this day by remembrance of the sacrifices required to secure a freedom too easliy taken for granted and the value of defending it.

Lest we be drawn down a familiar path of the slow erosion of tradition, history and meanings, below is posted the reason for John Adams’ suggestion that Independence Day "ought be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for evermore."

In Congress, July 4^th, 1776 

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America 

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Even though the state legislature is adjourned, Minnesota Majority is still keeping very busy this summer. Besides ongoing research, phone calling and networking, we have a busy event schedule.

On Thursday, June 26^th, the US Supreme Court handed down a ruling on Washington DC’s total ban on handguns. They found it unconstitutional because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

The individual vs. collective right argument was central to Washington DC’s gun ban. The city enacted the ban with the notion that the 2^nd Amendment represented the right of a state to arm a militia. The District of Columbia isn’t part of any state.

The militia and collective right arguments gun-control advocates have always fallen back on are specious, for those who only give the Constitution a casual glance.

The Second Amendment is only one simple sentence that concludes with very strong and clear language, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It’s the beginning of the sentence gun control advocates have focused on, however: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…" It is this wording that is often used to justify the infringing of the people’s rights. Gun control advocates claim that the amendment is obsolete in the era of a technologically advanced, standing military, or that the amendment only pertains to organized militias, calling into question what constitutes a militia. This line of reasoning fails to take the sentence as a whole.

The Second Amendment doesn't read, "If a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state..." That a militia (an armed citizenry) is necessary for freedom isn't a caveat for the right to own arms. Rather, it is a simple expression of what is. Likewise, the declaration, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a direct, absolute statement. Shall not. The word unless is distinctly absent.

The key questions revolving around the Second Amendment have traditionally been who has the right to keep and bear arms? What is the militia? For what purpose are the citizens to be armed?

The answers can be found in the writings of the framers themselves. Studying the Federalist papers and other statements made by the framers during constitutional debates makes the issue very clear. Every law-abiding citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. The militia is every person. The citizens are to be armed for defense of their country, defense of themselves against crime and as a last resort to defend themselves against their own government should it turn to tyranny.

Now that the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the 2^nd Amendment is indeed an individual right, local governments will have a much more difficult time defending overreaching gun control laws. The decision overturning Washington DC’s gun ban will reverberate across all the states.

Republican Congressman Chris Cannon of Utah lost his primary election to challenger Jason Chaffetz, a 41-year-old first-time candidate. According to Numbers USA, the only substantial difference in their policy positions was on open borders.

Were one to judge strictly by the ubiquitous news broadcasts of the mainstream media, the illegal immigration problem would appear to have vanished, but clearly the voters haven’t forgotten. Utah’s primary elections are early. Cannon’s defeat could be a bellwether signaling an uprising of conservative voters around the nation. Time will tell.

The U.S. Senate is scheduled to debate and vote on the Lieberman-Warner "Climate Security Act" (S.2191 / S.3036) next week. This bill effectively imposes a massive hidden tax on carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade scheme.

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates the federal government stands to generate an additional $1.2 trillion in revenues over a seven-year period between 2012 and 2018. In addition, the CBO projects private-sector regulatory mandates would amount to more than $90 billion per year from 2012 to 2016.

The bill would result in an enormous expansion in government regulation and mandates, reducing our personal liberties. The Environmental Protection Agency would be charged with the daunting task of establishing emissions allowances for thousands of American manufacturers and electricity generators.  A diagram developed by the Chamber of Commerce reveals the pervasiveness of this new regulation (go here for an explanation of the chart).

A recent Wall Street Journal column concludes the Lieberman-Warner bill would be "the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s." An analysis by the Heritage Foundation estimates a $1.7 trillion to $4.8 trillion loss in U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) between 2010 and 2030. U.S. job losses could exceed 700,000 in 2015 alone. At this same time, American consumers would be faced with dramatic price increases in food and energy, putting a significant strain on family budgets.

The impacts in Minnesota are just as dramatic. Projections for Minnesota indicate we could see over $2 billion loss in Gross State Product , $2.3 billion loss in personal income and a loss of over 55,000 jobs by 2030.  According to the Heritage Foundation, Minnesota is projected to rank #1 in the nation in job losses per capita. 

With energy prices at record highs, the last thing we need is more government regulation that will drive-up the costs of gas, drive jobs out of our state and make us all poorer while special interests line their pockets with the spoils.  But for some reason, Minnesota Senators Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman have both decided to co-sponsor this legislation. They need to hear from concerned Minnesotans as soon as possible  A vote on this bill could come in the next several days.

TAKE ACTION:  Visit www.NoCapAndTrade.com to sign a petition and send an urgent message to your elected officials urging them to reject the Lieberman-Warner bill.

Additional Resources:

• OPINION:  Michele Bachman - 'Cap and Trade' more like 'Tax and Trade'
• ARTICLE: Cap and Trade Hits Minnesota the Hardest
• OPINION: Charles Krauthammer - The Radicals are Back, Now Wielding the Environment
• WHITE PAPER: The Economics of America’s Climate Security Act
• POLL: Overwhelming Majority of Americans Oppose Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Proposal
• VIDEO: Cap & Trade's impact on coal industry.
• ARTICLE: Coal-Cap Disaster

Minnesota Majority recently launched a new member referral drive, and randomly selected 10 new members to receive a Target or Wal-Mart gift card. The person referring a selected new member will also receive a gift card as a thank you for helping Minnesota Majority grow.

Thanks to the members who referred these new people to our organization, and who will also receive a gift card from us.

Signup for a free membership with Minnesota Majority today and keep up to date on the latest issues and happenings.

The 85th legislature adjourned on Sunday, May 18 and at that very moment, the 2008 election season began. What had originally been four months of highly contentious legislative wrestling is now being portrayed as “one of the most successful sessions in decades.” At Monday’s press conference, legislative leaders from both sides of the aisle flanked the governor and touted the accomplishments of the 2008 session.

The DFL-controlled legislature had an aggressive agenda from the very beginning of the session to raise taxes, increase government spending, expand regulations and implement social engineering programs. While Republican minority leaders fought valiantly to block most of these measures, some caucus members broke ranks with leadership, thereby allowing some of these bills to slip through.

Thankfully, Governor Pawlenty vetoed many bills such as Legalized Gestational Surrogacy, Infant DNA Warehousing and Local Government Domestic Partnerships.  But the governor’s veto of the Transportation bill was overridden by six wayward Republican House members, thereby allowing one of the largest tax increases in Minnesota’s history to be passed into law.

The sound bytes being fed to Minnesotans by the mainstream media don’t begin to tell the whole story behind the 2008 legislative session. Our analysis seeks to separate the hype from the reality, thereby allowing Minnesotans to assess what they really got out of this year’s session.

Hype: A $935 million budget deficit was erased and the budget balanced without raising taxes.

Reality: The budget fix was nothing more than a band-aid and taxes were raised – significantly. Lest we forget, the override of the governor’s transportation bill veto cost us a $6.6 billion tax increase on sales, fuel and vehicle registrations. And if approved by voters this November, Minnesotans will be paying more in state sales taxes to fund arts programs and wildlife habitat.

The final budget deal also included a $125 million tax increase on corporations with foreign operations. This was sold to the public as “closing a corporate loophole,” as if corporations were doing something underhanded. In reality, this provision was enacted by the state legislature years ago to avoid driving corporations with foreign operations out of Minnesota.

Senate Minority Leader David Senjem (R - Rochester) cautioned that the fix relied too heavily on tapping the state's “rainy day” reserve fund and not enough on actual spending cuts. Nearly $500 million needed to balance the budget came from the state’s rainy day fund, tapping about 80% of the fund’s reserves. Senjem predicts the result will be a much worse budget problem in 2009.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hype: A 3.9% property tax cap resulting in $460 million in property tax reductions.

Reality: When does a tax increase become a reduction? When the government doesn’t raise taxes as much as they otherwise would, it’s billed as a tax cut. This is like expecting to gain 30 pounds and stepping on the scale to discover only a 20-pound gain. Using legislative math, that’s a ten-pound weight loss.

Most politicians somehow failed to mention that while they were creating the property tax “cap”, they were simultaneously increasing local government aid by $60 million. This sleight of hand maneuver essentially took taxpayer money out of one pocket and put it in another, thereby diluting the real impact of the property tax “cap”.

The so-called “cap” includes exemptions that allow communities to exceed 3.9%. Local governments can exceed the cap for things like population growth and emergency services. The cap also doesn’t include local school district referendums. And what happens when cities blow their budgets on non-essentials and then need more funding for police and fire departments, or when the cap expires in three years time? This “cap” is really more like an open-top visor. In reality, many Minnesotans will see property tax increases that well exceed 3.9% and their projected “savings” to Minnesota taxpayers will be nowhere near the claimed $460 million.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hype: Nation-leading health care reform that includes increased transparency, pay for performance, e-prescribing and tax credits.

Reality: While there are some positive aspects of the health care bill like greater consumer transparency and electronic prescriptions, its major thrust is to grow government involvement and enroll more families onto state-subsidized health care. Families making up to $57,000 now qualify for state welfare health plans, adding thousands of new people to taxpayer-funded health care. The bill adds insult to injury by offering a bounty to outfits (schools, non-profit groups, insurance brokers, etc) that recruit new dependents to feed at the public trough.

Grants are doled-out to local community health boards (more government bureaucracy) to try to enforce lifestyle changes targeting weight-loss and smoking cessation.

Government bureaucrats are given the power to define “quality,” determine physician compensation incentives based upon this definition and even decide what procedures are medically necessary.

Bottom line: this bill expands government involvement in health care, which will ultimately result in higher costs for patients and taxpayers. Unmet hospital costs resulting from the legislation will mean non-subsidized families will see an increase in their insurance premiums and doctor bills. Taxpayers will pick up the tab for the thousands of new people added to welfare health plans.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hype: The Central Corridor light rail line will ease traffic congestion and improve the environment.

Reality: The Central Corridor line, like the Hiawatha line, will be built at traffic grade, meaning it will significantly interfere with automotive traffic and eliminate most street parking. Delays at intersections will mean more idling vehicles, more congestion, more wasted fuel and more exhaust emissions. For some reason, no study was conducted to compare the rail transit proposal to bus transit for the Central Corridor.

The real reason Minnesota lawmakers allocated $70 million for the Central Corridor this session was that the state was in jeopardy of loosing $450 million in federal funding for the project. Even at that, it begs the question of where the rest of the money is going to come from to build a line that will cost more than $1 billion. The construction costs are just the first installment. Most, if not all, light rail lines across the country operate at a net loss and rely upon significant ongoing taxpayer funding to stay afloat. This means Minnesota taxpayers will have to annually ante-up on this boondoggle project for years to come.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, in the end, how did everyday Minnesotans really fare out of the session? Our approach to answering this question is to evaluate the session’s results within the context of some of our core values:

Q. Were there any meaningful reductions in government spending?

A. No. Despite this year’s budget deficit, the state legislature actually increased spending by 9.8%. House Minority Leader Rep. Marty Seifert (R – Marshall) said, “It is unfortunate that private sector job growth took a backburner to an expensive and explosive growth in government programs and services.”

Q. Were there reductions in taxes?

A. No, in fact there was a record $6.6 billion tax increase with the transportation bill. And other legislation, like the Green Solutions Act, sets the stage for the implementation of a carbon cap and trade system that will levy a huge tax increase upon all energy consumption in our state in the future.

Q. Were there reductions in the government’s involvement in the lives of everyday citizens?

A. No, in fact there were increases in government involvement in areas like ticket sales, teen drivers and car windows. Creeping socialism was especially evident in the health care legislation with tobacco and weight control funding while building a nice long electronic list for universal health care.

Q. Did the legislature create a more business-friendly environment that would encourage businesses to come to Minnesota?

A. No, in fact they made our business climate less friendly to business. Case in point – Northwest and Delta declined to locate their newly merged corporate headquarters in Minnesota.

Q. Did the legislature pass laws that encouraged greater personal responsibility?

A. No, in fact the state created additional dependents with legislation like the health care bill.

Q. Did the legislature protect our state’s sovereignty by combating the problem of illegal aliens?

A. No. While Governor Pawlenty did issue a number of executive orders strengthening laws to combat illegal aliens, the DFL-controlled legislature resisted all attempts to pass this type of legislation. This is hard to imagine in a year when four innocent children lost their lives as a result of an illegal alien.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who were the real winners out of this year’s session? Clearly it was the special interests. Folks like the Ghermezian Brothers who can now build their new Mall of America parking lot on the backs of local property owners. Or the construction companies that lobbied hard for the $6.6 billion transportation tax increase that can now line their pockets with the proceeds. And don’t forget the $38 million expansion for the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center.

The best thing we can say about the 2008 legislative session is that it is finally over. The damage could have been a lot worse, but it also begs the question, “Is this the best that Minnesotans can expect from their elected officials?” In our humble opinion, voters will need to make some dramatic changes in their representation this November if they want to see different outcomes in the next biennium.

Word has just been received from the Secretary of State's office that Governor Pawlenty has vetoed SF3138, the "DNA Warehouse" bill. This bill would have removed the parental informed consent requirement in current privacy law, thereby allowing health officials to take blood from newborns without permission from the parents. The blood taken could further have been stored for genetic study, experimentation and even dissemination without permission. Suspected drunk drivers are afforded more rights with their blood than babies had this proposal become law.

Now that the governor has vetoed this rights-infringing bill, the Minnesota Department of Health will be forced to comply with a court order halting their decade-old practice of surreptitiously collecting and storing DNA samples of newborns without parental consent or even knowledge.

TAKE ACTION: Call Governor Pawlenty to thank him for his veto.