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 ...

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.

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.

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.

Between Federal and state taxes, Minnesota corporations are taxed at a staggering rate of 41.1% according to the Tax Foundation. This rate sets Minnesota corporations as the 3^rd highest taxed in the world. Iowa and Pennsylvania hold the dubious distinction of being the only two places on Earth with higher corporate income taxes than Minnesota. 

DFLs property tax proposal seems to confuse even its own authors

Taxpayer's League Press Release April 29th, 2008 

ST. PAUL – House DFLers yesterday introduced this year’s version of the Omnibus Tax bill and with it their attempt at property tax reform. Among the highlights of their Tax bill is an overhaul of the state’s property tax relief programs that they claim would make 95% of Minnesotans eligible for some form of property tax relief.

The intent of the legislation, introduced by Representatives Ann Lenczewski [DFL-Bloomington] and Paul Marquardt [DFL-Dillworth], is to tie Minnesotans’ property tax payments directly to their income. Trumpeted as a simplification of the current system and a way to force wealthy Minnesotans to pay their fair share, under the new system any family earning more than $200,000 a year – the DFLs definition of “rich” – would see a tax increase.

But according to calculations made by the Department of Revenue and released today during a committee hearing, when the new property tax system is fully phased-in, nearly 69% of Minnesota homeowners will see a tax increase.

“I’m not sure how the bill’s authors miscalculated the fiscal impact of this legislation. How could they claim that 95% of Minnesotans will be eligible for property tax relief when the numbers actually show that 69% of homeowners will see a tax increase,” said Phil Krinkie, president of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota and a former chairman of the House Taxes Committee. “Perhaps they were just too eager to put forth another scheme to take from the rich and give to the poor. Whatever their thoughts, capping property taxes as a percentage of income is a bad idea that will lead to a local government spending spree.”

The Tax bill, which will continue to be debated in various House committees this week, has no direct equivalent in the Senate and will most likely meet opposition from Governor Pawlenty and a majority of Minnesota homeowners who would see a tax increase if this bill were to become law.

Take Action: Sign the Tax Cut Petition.

Related Reading: Pawlenty to Host Health Care Meeting (MPR)

Take Action: Click here to tell the governor what kind of health reform you want.

It’s no real wonder that rural economies are sluggish and good paying outstate jobs can be difficult to find in Minnesota. Businesses in lower-population areas of the state are overburdened with taxes.

Excessive business taxes, especially in rural areas result in layoffs, hiring freezes, and businesses closing. Next time you see a sign that reads “Happy to pay for a better Minnesota,” keep in mind that it’s also possible to overpay for a worse Minnesota.

Read more: Rural Minnesota Businesses See Rise in Property Taxes - Finance and Commerce 

Only Governor Pawlenty now stands between this bill and your family's health care.