What would you say if you heard that Tea Party members and politicians were talking about forming a “Tea Party Militia?” Oklahoma state Rep. Charles Key and Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon, along with local Tea Party leader Al Gerhart, have discussed the possibility of a militia to defend the state from the infringement by the Federal Government on the 10th Amendment (states’ rights). This militia would be comprised of volunteers from the state and organized separately from the Oklahoma National Guard.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So one has to ask if the security and sovereignty of Oklahoma (or any other state) being threatened by the Federal Government? If so, just how would the militia defend the state?

Groups the Tea Party movement, Code Pink, as well as citizens in general feel that the prior two Administrations have overreached their authority through their policies and Congressional bills that were signed into law. Under the Bush Administration, for example, many protested the passage and enactment of the Patriot Act, claiming that the Federal Government were stripping away their freedoms. Protests around nation would be organized and coordinated to maximize media exposure. There were many in-your-face protests (primarily by Code Pink) to antagonize and embarrass the President and other elected officials. Under Obama, you have the Tea Party express traveling the nation, as well as coordinated local protests (such as the Tax Day protests) to denounce the government taking over private companies as well as passing colossal spending bills and legislation like Health Care Reform.

So, if the Federal Government is in fact willfully violating the Tenth Amendment, how would a militia be useful? You would have to think ahead and follow the chain of events to the point where a militia would be involved. For starters, the state would have to refuse to comply with the Federal Government. At first, this will be a battle in the courts (such as the third of all states currently planning to sue over the health insurance mandate). If the state were to lose the court case but still refuse to enact the laws coming from Washington, there is a chance the Federal Government would send in troops to enforce the law. 

This wouldn’t be the first time the Federal Government as sent the military to enforce law in an unwilling state.  If you look back at the events of 1957, the Governor of Arkansas ordered the National Guard to block black students from entering the segregated white schools.  President Dwight D. Eisenhower responded by federalizing the Arkansas National Guard and ordered the 101st Airborne Division to enforce desegregation and escort the “Little Rock Nine” to school. 

Even if troops are deployed into the state (something that the Federal Government would not want to do), it is questionable what a militia would do. It’s doubtful that the Federal Government would deploy enough troops to “occupy” the state, and it is equally unlikely that the militia would have enough firepower to match that of the well-equipped military. Odds are, neither side would fire a shot. Instead, they would just stand across the street from each other staring the other side down. The only thing gained from such a stand-off is the clear sign that the nation is in turmoil and distracted from the international scene, making it easier for our rivals and enemies to take advantage of us.

Therefore, I cannot see any practical reseason for the Tea Party to establish a militia.  Since there wouldn’t be a practical application of the force, the manuever could appear to make the movement seem radical and a threat to security (rather than trying to maintain it).  This is why many Republicans are distancing themselves away from this idea, making Key, Brogdon, and Gerhart appear to be radical from the rest of the Conservative movement.

Sorry folks. Relatives are in town, and preparing for their arrival over the weekend took away my free time to put together the Weekly. I will have another “super-sized” Weekly this weekend for you to read and enjoy. Hope you are having a wonderful weekend.

Sorry folks, but it is that time of year again. Posting will be limited over the next two weeks as I put together puppets for the church youth group. Since I already have a number of puppets left over from last year, I will primarily be working only on the outfits this time. However, they youth group needs a custom stage this year, so I’m thinking about creating a reusable fabric cover to go over the plastic tubing frame. That will help give it some rigidity as well as make it easier to change the look of the set quickly and easily. Pictures of the completed project to come.

In the mean time, if someone wants to write and/or publish an article on the site during the next two weeks, please leave me a message below.  I will e-mail you a guest account log-in so you can access the site.  All I ask is that you do not post any hate articles and do not use profanity.  Also, I will do the Weekly (Carnival) this weekend, so if you have articles you’d rather just submit, you can do so here.

Back to Health Care Reform.

I have a question for you. Who should have the say over how much an insurance company can raise their rates: the Federal Government, the State Government, or no one? This question comes after President Barack Obama stated that the Federal Government should have the power to reject health insurance rate increases that they deem to be excessive.

If the Federal Government had control, then that means they could have the say over insurance companies that only operate within one state. This would supercede the authority states would have within their own borders, or as Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario stated, “It could end up as a ‘who’s on first and what’s on second’ problem.”

In my view, this violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 states:

The Congress shall have power to … regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

This would mean the State Government should have control, but that control would only last until the company expands the state borders. That is no different than any other company who grows and expands their business. But what happens if no one oversees the rate increases? You’ll be left with a handful of local monopolies that are able to increase their rates with consumers having no alternatives to turn to, meaning they either have to pay the higher rates or drop their coverage.

In my view, competition is probably the best way to keep rates in check. If one company starts to increase their rates (for whatever reason), the alternative becomes more appealing. By lowering the artificial barriers to competition, and start allowing companies from across the country to start competing for the business for every resident in the United States, not only will you see the growth in insurance rates slow, you might actually find yourself paying less for the same coverage. And when you start providing tools where rates and benefits of various insurance companies are posted online, customers can do side-by-side comparisons to find the best coverage for their needs and in their price range.

I came across the following article and felt that it was a good tool for those of you who might have questions on the reconciliation process and how it helps/hurts the various parties.  Some of the key segments are quoted below, but I recommend that you read the Associated Press article entitled “Reconciliation bill will be hard for GOP to derail” in its entirety.

Q: Why is it called reconciliation?

A: The process was established in the 1974 law that requires Congress to pass a federal budget at the start of each year. Some years, the budget will instruct Congress to pass legislation that “reconciles” tax and spending laws with the policies laid out in that budget and triggers a process that makes it easier and quicker for lawmakers to do that.

Q: How does reconciliation make the process simpler?

A: It’s a blunt instrument that makes it easier for the majority party to win. It has little impact in the House, where the majority usually has its way. But in the Senate, it prevents the minority party from using a filibuster, which lets it block legislation with just 41 of the chamber’s 100 votes.

Q: Is that the only advantage reconciliation provides?

A: It also limits Senate debate to just 20 hours, rather than the potentially unlimited time allowed normally.