“Despite overwhelming support from their demagogue counterparts, an expanding faction of predominantly Republican governors have proven their fortitude in the face of adversity and their determination to preserve the idea of dual federalism established in our nation’s constitution that protects us from the tyranny of an overreaching federal government.”
“

Despite overwhelming support from their demagogue counterparts, an expanding faction of predominantly Republican governors have proven their fortitude in the face of adversity and their determination to preserve the idea of dual federalism established in our nation’s constitution that protects us from the tyranny of an overreaching federal government.

In the winter meeting of the National Governors Association, Governors Bobby Jindal from Louisiana, Haley Barbour from Mississippi, Mark Sanford from South Carolina and Sarah Palin from Alaska have expressed their displeasure with President Barack Obama’s new recession legislation and have even gone so far as to announce that they will not accept funds from the $787 billion federal stimulus package.

These governors have publicly exposed the numerous shortfalls of the Obama administration’s plan to resuscitate the economy and have given a voice to the millions of Americans that oppose it on various grounds, including state sovereignty.

How exactly does the federal stimulus package jeopardize state sovereignty one may ask? Well, the answer to that is pretty straightforward.

As you dive deep into the 1,200 page federal stimulus plan, you may come across the part that mandates a permanent change in your state’s constitutional law if you accept the funds.

This plan will force states to give unemployment benefits to people that would not be eligible for it under their previous state laws. So what happens after three years when the all the stimulus money has been handed out to people that aren’t working? We will still have people without jobs and, without more federal money, the states will not be able to pay for the increased unemployment benefits that President Obama mandated the states put into their constitutions.

The 10th amendment of our 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.

Nowhere in the Constitution will you find a clause that gives the federal government the power to impose their will upon the states by strong arming them into submission.

By requiring the states to permanently change their laws in accordance with the political agenda of President Obama is in direct conflict with the 10th amendment. Founding fathers like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton are rolling over in their graves right now to express their indignation over the audacity of such a federal government.

But this isn’t the first time the paradoxical Democratic party has abused its executive power to manipulate our constitution, defy precedent and assault capitalism. In FDR’s New Deal, this country had a top tax rate of 91 percent on personal income and 95 percent on corporations.

In 1942, FDR publicly declared that no one in America should be allowed to earn over $25,000 (about $260,000 today), which explains why he pushed the National Industrial Recovery Act through Congress, which established the National Recovery Administration.

The NRA gave Roosevelt the power to regulate commerce and set up codes of conduct in private industries, but was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Who knows how many more long term negative implications of his presidency could have been realized had he not died in office after being elected to a fourth term, breaking about 150 years of precedent and fulfilling Thomas Jefferson’s predictions and warnings of the establishment of a king if no term limits were enacted.

It must be recognized that this nation is currently bearing witness to the creation and establishment of the Second New Deal, a deal that has ulterior motives to maintain political power and broaden the spectrum and capacity of the federal government, as well as provide for more long term nuisances like the Social Security Administration.

Although President Obama has expressed a genuine desire to heal our wounded economy, the $787 billion dollars stimulus plan is also a means by which he can pander votes for the Democratic party from those most affected by the recession. President Obama was elected on a platform of big government and promises of big government spending.

But, as Niccolo Machiavelli warns in his book, The Prince, this is a dangerous form of politics. He wrote, to be reputed generous among men, one must indulge in every form of ostentation, with the result that any prince who does so will have to spend all of his resources and, to keep up his reputation, will have to burden his people unduly by resorting to extortionate taxation and every other means of raising funds.

One must recognize that President Obama will not be able to balance the federal budget sufficiently without raising taxes somewhere, and that somewhere will be on the people in the country who make $250,000 or more. It should be noted that 60 percent of those with a family income of $50,000 and under voted for Obama and more than 50 percent of those making $100,000 or more voted against him, implying that taxing the rich will not cause him to lose a large voting base.

Machiavelli goes on to say that men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions. There are innumerable parallels between the former and latter quotes of Machiavellian Ethics.

Obama seeks to increase power and reputation among those with lower income and more dire plights by promising them candy and sunshine to fulfill there immediate needs, rather than forming any kind of long term solution for their unfortunate situations. Ensuring long term economic benefits for the lower class would jeopardized Obama’s largest voting base.

President Obama’s new stimulus plan is a textbook example of this dangerous behavior; as long as he provides a small form of subsistence for those in the lower income class, or even appears to do so, he can ensure sustained political power for himself and his party at the expense of those already opposed to him.

The resolve of the GOP governors that have opposed the new stimulus plan must be applauded, but the days of states’ rights and private industry are numbered nonetheless, replaced by a totalitarian entity and government controlled economics.

“