All Texans are invited to participate by visiting www.medinafortexas.com/townhall. Each town hall meeting will be held from 6:30 to 7:30PM and will be made available as a rebroadcast on the Medina campaign website.

Announcing a new Meetup for Debra Medina for Texas – Houston!

What: We Texans Webcast Town — Subject: State Soverignty

When: Monday, February 22, 2010 6:30 PM

Where:
Your Computer
Your Home
Your City, TX

Medina Campaign Launches a Series of Webcast Town Hall Meetings

by Nelda Carrizales Skevington – Medina Townhall on Feb 09, 2010

WHARTON, TX, Tuesday, February 9, 2010 – In an effort to continue the conversation with Texans across the state, the Medina campaign announces it will launch a series of three webcast town hall meetings prior to the primary. The webcasted We Texans town hall meetings will be held each Monday leading up to the primary, with the first to be held February 15 from 6:30-7:30PM.

“True to my word, I am committed to keeping open lines of communication with the people of Texas,” said Debra Medina, Republican candidate for Governor of Texas. “It is important that Texans have access to discuss issues that concern us all. The We Texans webcasts provide a venue for Texans to not only voice their concerns about issues that are important to them, but also have the opportunity to learn more about where I stand in regards to those issues.”

The We Texans webcast town hall meeting schedule and topics are as follows:
February 15: Private Property
February 22: State Sovereignty
March 1: How We Texans Will Win.

All Texans are invited to participate by visiting www.medinafortexas.com/townhall. Each town hall meeting will be held from 6:30 to 7:30PM and will be made available as a rebroadcast on the Medina campaign website.

Throughout her campaign, Debra Medina promised she would continue the dialogue with Texans regarding the important and pressing issues affecting everyday Texans. We invite and encourage anyone who would like to speak directly to and get answers from Debra to go online and participate at each We Texans town hall meeting.

http://www.medinafort….

Learn more here:
http://www.meetup.com/Medina4Texas-Houston/calendar/12565863/

I would legalize Hemp and offer industrial incentives for the many, many products which can be made from hemp including, nutritious oils, alcohols, deisel, and fuel combinations, as well as Rayon fabric, rope, cosmetics, nut butters, canary food and a thousand others.  But yes, I would  also legalize Marijuana both for Medicinal use and recreational use for legal aged adults of whatever any particular state considers adulthood.

I would mandate the use of a $100 water cooled de-superheater component on all new outdoor air-conditioning system condensers.   The end consumer can then produce 300 gallons of waste hot water per day, for FREE like in hot water heater and hot tub per ton of air conditioner kinda FREE.  You just eliminated 75% of your monthly energy bill at home and two or three years from now that 75% will be going directly in your pocket.

Following is the press release from the Medina campaign.

From: nelda skevington <neldacs@neldapr.com>
Subject: Debra Medina releases her border security plan ~ FAIR WARNING: Governor Medina Will Secure the Texas Border
Date: January 12, 2010 11:10:00 AM CST

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FAIR WARNING: Governor Medina Will Secure the Texas Border

HOUSTON, TX, Tuesday, January 12, 2010 – Debra Medina, Republican Candidate for Governor today
released her plan for securing the Texas border in a joint press conference with the U.S. Border Watch.
“Failure to enforce state and federal laws has contributed to abuse of property and humanity all along the
Texas border. We can no longer turn a blind eye on the situation and will, in order to protect our citizens and
their property, take matters into our own hands to insure peace and protection along the Texas border,” stated
Medina.

Medina has engaged in discussions with border sheriffs and will work closely with them to complement their
efforts. U.S. Border Watch has recently endorsed Debra Medina stating, “U.S. Border Watch is deeply
concerned about the lack of progress being made from both Washington DC and Austin, TX in securing our
borders from drug smugglers, terrorists and illegal immigrants. The two candidates for the Republican
nomination for Governor who currently hold elected offices (that of Senator and Governor) have repeatedly
made promises and then turned their backs on these issues or completely reversed their campaign promises.
They have consistently failed to protect the rule of law and the citizens of this great state.”
“Medina knows the U.S. and Texas Constitutions and the power that lies in the rule of law. This is, after all is
said and done, a rule of law issue. Debra Medina has the courage to enforce those laws that protect the
people and the property of Texas from the ravages of an unsecured border.”

Recent reports by the Texas Department of Public Safety document increased efforts by drug cartels on both
sides of the border to “co-opt our children to support their criminal operations.”i These reports provide even
more evidence that Texas must act and must act now to protect her citizens and their children. Steven
McCraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety recently commented, “The concern is that the
gangs are now being used by the cartels on both sides of the border for hit squads, human smuggling and
counter surveillance.”

“Citizens have been seriously disappointed by the campaign double-speak from both Senator Hutchison and
Governor Perry on this issue. We’ve heard their rhetoric. It’s time to get serious about protecting the Texas
border. Debra is the only one who will take bold and decisive action to secure the Texas border,” said
campaign manager Penny Freeman.

Medina’s plan to secure the border includes:

• Calling sufficient numbers of Texas National Guard and Texas State Guard members to active duty to

support local law enforcement particularly along areas in between legal ports of entry to combat drug and
human trafficking;

• Notifying Mexican authorities that the Texas Border will be secure and no entry will be allowed without

proper documentation;

• Insuring that Texas District Attorneys and Texas Attorney General exercise full prosecutorial power and

have sufficient resources to enforce human slavery and child labor laws to their fullest extent;

• Assisting local and state law enforcement in deporting individuals convicted of violating state or federal

law;

• Insuring that private citizens have the ability to protect themselves and their property without fear;

• Insuring that the interests of Texans are protected by seeking legislation and enforcement actions that

respect Texas sovereignty in the face of international treaties, like NAFTA, that violate Texas state
sovereignty; These treaties create poverty in Mexico and Central America and benefit corporate
investors. This poverty drives people to migrate north. Insuring that the interests of Texans are protected,
Debra Medina will interpose, support nullification and declare unconstitutional all international treaties
that violate Texas state sovereignty. We will not recognize those treaties or enforce their regulation or
taxation.

• Eliminating social incentives to illegal immigration by seeking legislation prohibiting use of state funds for

service or benefit of illegal aliens.
“This is a decisive plan that makes sense to the citizens of Texas—Anglo and Mexican American alike. But
common sense is in short supply in Austin and Washington and our current governor and ranking senator have
had long enough to enforce our current immigration laws or find new solutions,” stated Freeman. “They have
been insulated from the problems facing We Texans for way too long. Debra is the only candidate who truly
cares about We Texans and will act to protect Texas.” (END)

Contact:
Nelda Carrizales Skevington, Press Secretary
Debra Medina For Governor of Texas Campaign
210-416-0418

I found it very interesting that the paper chose to run a poll at the same time concerning taxes.  The results were published this past week.  The question was: ” Do you think property taxes are necessary for our government bodies?” The responses were as follows:  “30%  Yes, that’s how they pay thier bills.” (These people obviously did not understand the TPPF Study results.) 40%  “No, they raise enough through sales taxes.”  Finally, 27%  “Taxes should be against the law across the board.” 

 While I recognize that the last  answer is some what unrealistic, it does express the frustration citizens are feeling toward their government. Nearly 70% of those polled, are hostile to property taxes and taxes in general.  While this poll is not scientific, and was conducted in a rural setting, I believe it reveals an important prevailing attitude among those who will be going to vote in the  March 2nd primary.  While they are trying very hard to portray themselves as conservatives and less government and less taxation candidates,  the records of KBH and RP tell a very different story.  I believe this poll is very indicative of the success the Medina campaign may experience on election night, no matter how hard the media tries to down play her chances.

Montana Threatens To Secede If Supreme Court Rules Against Individual Gun Rights

A letter sent by Montana’s Secretary of State to the Washington Times:

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court’s decision will have an impact far beyond the District (“Promises breached,” Op-Ed, Thursday)

The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the “collective rights” theory

A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of “any person” to bear arms, clearly an individual right

There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of “any person” to bear arms

As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states

Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It’s posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract

BRAD JOHNSON

Montana secretary of state

Helena, Mont.

Parting Company Is an Option

By Walter E. Williams • June 2004 • Volume: 54 • Issue: 6

My last essay in The Freeman, “How Did We Get Here?” (March), provided clear evidence that Congress and the White House, as well as the courts, had vastly exceeded powers delegated to them by our Constitution. To have an appreciation for the magnitude of the usurpation, one need only read Federalist 45, where James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, explained, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Short of some kind of cataclysmic event, liberties lost are seldom regained, but there is an outside chance to regain them if enough liberty-minded Americans were to pursue Free State Project’s proposal to set up New Hampshire as a free state. Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org) intends to get 20,000 or so Americans to become residents of New Hampshire. Through a peaceful political process, they hope to assume leadership in the state’s legislature and executive offices, reduce burdensome taxation and regulation, reform state and local law, end federal mandates that violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, and restore constitutional federalism as envisioned by the nation’s Founders.

Since there is only a remote possibility of successful negotiation with Congress, the courts, and White House to get them to obey the Constitution, it is my guess that liberty could only be realized by a unilateral declaration of independence—namely, to part company—in a word, secede. While our Constitution is silent about secession, there is clear evidence that our Founders saw it as an option.

On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, “No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.” Several months earlier Representatives Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania, and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. One is immediately faced with the question: would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional? Moreover, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers.

Madison Objects

There’s more evidence. At the 1787 constitutional convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it saying, “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, in his revised The Real Lincoln, provides abundant evidence in the forms of quotations from our Founders and numerous newspaper accounts that prove that Americans always took the right of secession for granted. Plus, secession was not an idea that had its origins in the South. Infuriated by Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the first secessionist movement started in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and other New England states.

The preponderance of evidence shows that states have a right to secede. The Constitution probably would have never been ratified if the states, sovereign nations as per the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the war of independence with Great Britain, had not believed they had a right to secede. The only barrier to secession is the brute force of the federal government, as witnessed by the costly war of 1861 that produced only one decent result—the elimination of slavery. Since the issue of secession was brutally settled, it left a devastating legacy for future generations of Americans. The federal government is free to run roughshod over the restrictions and safeguards the Framers imposed on the federal government.

Self-determination is a human right we all should respect. If some people want socialism, that is their right, but it is not their right to use force to make others who wish to be left alone be part of it. By the same token, liberty-minded Americans have no right to impose their will on socialist-minded Americans. A far more peaceful method is for each to simply part company.

One wonders whether the brutality witnessed in 1861 would be repeated if New Hampshire seceded—massive troops along with today’s deadly modern military equipment and Americans killing Americans.

_______________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media contact: Nelda Carrizales Skevington
nelda@medinafortexas.com/210-416-0418

Debra Medina, a registered nurse and candidate for governor, is taking the lead in defending Texas against the nationalization of healthcare.  “This bill devastates freedom and destroys healthcare.  Texas must nullify the action by congress and fight for an injunction in the federal courts.  I am urging Governor Perry today to call the Texas Legislature into special session.  I am encouraging Attorney General Abbot to begin the work necessary to obtain an injunction against the IRS and the 111 other federal agencies empowered in this legislation to further embed Washington D.C. in our lives.  These actions are critical to insuring that Texans are free to make our own decisions about healthcare” stated Medina.

As the U.S. Senate takes up HR 3962, the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” Texans must mobilize now as never before!  We must not wait, there can be no delay.  We must prepare for the eventuality that the U. S. Senate will pass this bill and be ready to immediately defend the sovereignty of the great state of Texas.

The Texas Legislature must act.  Please call your state representative and state senator today.  Find your district and their number here: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/.   Ask them to demand that the governor call a special session to address the nationalization of healthcare; to nullify those actions by Congress that undermine the sovereignty of Texas.

With action by our legislature, Texas can solidify arguments for sovereignty in healthcare and against the bill on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.  The federal government has no constitutional authority in healthcare.  Texas will care for Texans.

Judge Andrew Napolitano said this weekend, “When Congress takes away our freedoms, they will be gone forever. What will you do to prevent this from happening?”

“Please call your state representative and your state senator today.  Please join with TEA Parties, 912 Groups and other freedom minded organizations in your area to hold rallies here in Texas to alert all Texans to the need for a special session,” Medina urged.  Together We Texans must exhibit the courage necessary to lead the country.  We must staunchly defend our sovereignty; we must fight to insure that Texans remain free to make our own decisions about healthcare without mandates from Washington D.C.

by Sheriff Richard Mack
October 14, 2009

By now we have all heard the cliches and seen the posters from the “Tea Parties” espousing freedom, less government, and perhaps most of all, how the federal government had better back off trying to shove their national healthcare down our otherwise healthy throats. The truth of the matter is all the slogans of “Don’t Tread On Me” or “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” or “We’re Mad As Hell And We’re Not Taking It Anymore,” don’t mean a thing when compared to reality; the real and actual answer to all the protests, marches, and outrage. The answer is in our own backyards! The States can stop every bit of it! That’s right, the individual States can stop “Obamacare” and all other forms of out-of-control federal government mandates and “big brother” tactics. If Arizona, Hawaii, New Hamshire, Texas, etc. want nothing to do with National Healthcare as proposed by Barack Obama or Congress, then all they have to do is say “No!”

If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate.

For you skeptics who think the States could no more do this than fly to the moon, let’s look at the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government. Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government. However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever be held inviolable by our own governments.

The last of these basic foundational principles was the one to protect the power, sovereignty, and the autonomy of the States; the Tenth Amendment. This amendment and law underscores the entire purpose of the Constitution to limit government and forbids the federal government from becoming more powerful than the “creator.” Let’s be very clear here; the States in this case were the creator. They formed the federal government, not the other way around. Does anyone believe rationally that the States intended to form a new central government to control and command the States at will? Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details what duties the federal government will be responsible for under our new system of “balanced power.” Anything not mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8, is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Tenth Amendment) Hence, the federal government was not allowed creativity or carte blanche to expand or assume power wherever and whenever they felt like it. The feds had only discrete and enumerated and very limited powers. Omnipotency was the last thing the Founding Fathers intended to award the newly formed federal government. They had just fought the Revolutionary War to stop such from Britain and their main concern was to prevent a recurrence here in America.

In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that “States are not subject to federal direction.” But today’s federal Tories argue that the “supremecy clause” of the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all matters. Wrong! The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing “supreme” is the constitution itself. Our constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that “Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other.” So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare “incursion.” To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The point to remember here is; where do we define the “sphere” of the federal government? That’s right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People. So where does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress. It is NOT their responsiblity and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority.

Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let’s take one more look at Mack/Printz. “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other…” What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, has as a “structural protection of liberty” that States will keep the federal government in check? No wonder it was called a system of “checks and balances.” The States (and Counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere.

So do the States have to take the bullying of the federal government? Not hardly! The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC. The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and “The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions.” (Mack/Printz) Which means the States can tell national healthcare proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We are not subject to federal direction!

In the final order pursuant to the Mack/Printz ruling Scalia warned, “The federal government may neither, issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.” It is rather obvious that nationalized healthcare definitely qualifies as a “federal regulatory program.”

Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are misdirected. Such actions are “pie in the sky” dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world such has never been the case. Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways. However, in our system of “dual sovereignty,” the States can do it. If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate. Doing so is what States’ Rights and State Sovereignty are all about.

We grieve. And we extend condolences, sincere and genuine. And I extend mine to the families of those slain in yesterday’s shootings; to those injured and to their families.

Today though, beyond our shock, and beyond our grief, we must do something different. We must face the reality that this shooting underscores: It was not the first and it will not be the last. NO amount of military or police presence can protect us from an individual intent on doing harm. The protection of life, liberty and property must begin with us. We must be prepared to defend ourselves. In our earliest days as a country, Noah Webster recognized, “the whole body of the people are armed , and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, of any pretence, raised in the United States.”

Not even the greatest military can protect us. Everywhere, at all times, individuals must be prepared to defend themselves and their family. Do not be afraid, but be bold and courageous knowing that you have done all you can to protect yourself and your family. Take up arms, learn to use them and use them well. We will all be safer for it.