Editor’s note: This piece was authored by Brion McClanahan.

In case you missed it, and many did, President Barack Obama gave his annual “State of the Union” address last night. All the pageantry, the pomp…the demagoguery, what’s not to watch? In light of President Obama’s promises and agenda, perhaps it would be useful to analyze his address through the lens of the founding generation. After all, they wrote and ratified the Constitution, so they should have a fair understanding about its meaning, powers, and how it should be interpreted.

Obama: “Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last -– an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.”

Founders: First and foremost, the president does not have the constitutional authority to “lay out a blueprint” for the American economy. He is not legislator-in-chief or the prime minister. He can make “recommendations” as the Constitution states, but that does not involve a legislative agenda.

Obama: “Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China.”

Founders: Where does the Constitution give you such authority? If you want to discuss trade problems, then address that with the Chinese government and present a treaty to the Senate for approval. You do not have unilateral authority over any foreign policy issue.

Obama: “Join me in a national commitment to train 2 million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. My administration has already lined up more companies that want to help.”

Founders: Again, Mr. Obama, where can you find the constitutional authority for such activity? There are no delegated powers in the Constitution, either for the congress or the executive to build educational partnerships. That is a state issue.

Obama: “Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched.”

Founders: And only the federal government can provide these resources? First, they are unconstitutional. Second, the most innovative things in the history of the world were produced by private enterprise, and third the United States is broke. Do you believe with over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that the United States has the money to invest in what should be the purview of private enterprise?

Obama: “I’ve already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing dangers of cyber-threats.”

Founders: You have “sent this Congress legislation”? See our first point.

Obama: “The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy, so that our government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.”

Founders: This is, perhaps, the grossest distortion of the Constitution of the night. The executive branch was designed not to be the focus of the government. We assured the people of the States in 1787 and 1788 that the president would have limited power. Furthermore, congress cannot “grant you the authority” to do anything. That has to be done through the amendment process. For someone who parades around as a “Constitutional scholar” you have a limited understanding of the Constitution as ratified by the States. The president of the United States is not a dictator or king, and as Alexander Hamilton and others pointed out during the ratification process, the president has few defined powers. Hamilton actually said in Federalist No. 69 that the president has no control over “the commerce or current” of the nation. More than anything, we feared a tyrannical executive and broke away from one in 1776.

Obama did get one thing right during his address: “On the other hand, even my Republican friends who complain the most about government spending have supported federally financed roads, and clean energy projects, and federal offices for the folks back home.” On that point, the founding generation would agree. If the insanity in Washington is to stop, if Americans are to return to low taxes, light spending, low debt, and a “general government” as the founding generation called it that handles only the general concerns of the Union of the States, than the American people need to hold both parties accountable. We need to understand the Constitution as ratified by the States in 1787 and 1788. Otherwise, we are doomed to live under a government that has shredded the Constitution and a president that believe he alone has the power to save the economy, control commerce and education, and legislate from the White House. If that is the case, our Constitution is nothing more than a scrap of paper under glass in Washington D.C.

Brion McClanahan is the author of The Founding Fathers’ Guide to the Constitution as well as The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers. He holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in American history from the University of South Carolina. Born in Virginia, he attended high school in Delaware and received a B.A. in history from Salisbury University in Maryland. He lives with his wife and children near Phenix City, Alabama, just across the river from Columbus, Georgia.
By Townhall.com Staff

Let the games begin.

Gingrich’s ex-wife is paraded out for a tell-all about her marriage, creating doubts about Newt’s morality.

Rick Perry’s hunting camp rock of decades ago gets more ink than the Iranian war games, and he’s questioned about his bigotry.

Herman Cain is confronted with old girlfriends and we all know how that turned out.

I’m sure that if Michele Bachmann had fared better, we would have learned that she kicked her dog and underfed her dozens of children, making her a contemporary Mommie Dearest.

As for Ron Paul, well, in the media most dismiss him as just a wacko. The mainstream media, contrary to their continued denouncements, is definitely biased.

I’m sure that comes as no revelation. In fact, it’s probably a column not even worth writing. Dismiss it, forget it, and move on. That’s where; once again, it got me thinking.

Why has no former grade school, high school, or college classmate of Barack Hussein Obama ever been found?

I’m sure his old classmates could have shed light on his personal life, such as his interests and hobbies.

Why hasn’t an old girlfriend emerged to tell about a wonderful date, or what a great boyfriend he was and how he was so sincere and understanding?

I believe Obama is a Marxist, in fact, I think he’s a Fascist. Why don’t any of his former teachers come forward and defend him from statements like mine? As Romney’s Bain Capital job is examined inside and out, where is the same examination of Barack Obama?

The mainstream media would say “Old news, just old news, move on.” “He’s the President.”

Unfortunately, had the bias been dispensed with originally, maybe these questions would have been answered.

No matter how old it is, an unanswered question is still an unanswered question. This President evokes uncertainties of both character and behavior every single day.

Statements and decisions that create an almost totalitarian atmosphere require that questions be asked and answers given. If these critical inquires are not made by the mainstream biased press, then they should be made by us, the citizens of the United States.

Will the same scrutiny be given to both Presidential candidates this time? More than likely, the answer is no.

However, there should be equal scrutiny, and we must not only ask it and request it, but we must demand it.
By Bill Tatro

Dear Fellow Conservative,

As a Christian, I firmly believe a man’s faith and his values are something we need to take into deep consideration when choosing the next President of the United States.

Earlier this week, I decided to endorse Ron Paul because, like me, Ron Paul is a man of deep Christian faith.

Of course, Ron Paul doesn’t always talk about his faith, because he doesn’t want to seem like he’s exploiting it for political gain.

So today, I’m writing you to tell you a little bit about the Ron Paul I’ve gotten to know.

Ron Paul is married to his high school sweetheart, Carol, and together they have 5 children and 18 grandchildren.

Ron Paul is an Air Force Veteran, having proudly served our country as a Flight Surgeon in the Air Force and in the Air National Guard.

While in the military, Ron Paul took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. As a member of Congress, he’s taken a similar oath, with one hand on the Bible and the other held high.

And as a Christian, an oath to God is something that Ron Paul takes seriously.

That’s why, during his entire time in Congress, Ron Paul has NEVER voted for a single piece of legislation that wasn’t expressly authorized by the Constitution.

That’s because Ron Paul doesn’t just ”talk the talk” but truly lives his faith.

For example, as a medical doctor, Ron Paul had two rules in his office.

First, absolutely NO abortions. Second, his office refused to accept any federal funds.

But Dr. Paul didn’t turn patients away. Instead, he treated them for discounted prices, and if they couldn’t afford that, he treated them for FREE.

That’s because Ron Paul understands that we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves in Mark 12:31.

In fact, a few weeks ago, a Texas man named James Williams told a touching story to the national media about how back in the 1970s, his wife had a complication with her pregnancy, and was having trouble finding medical care.

Ron Paul gave them free medical care, and he never even sent them a bill of any kind for his services.

When asked about it in a news interview, Ron Paul didn’t recall the story. That’s because Ron Paul did these types of things all the time.

That’s just the type of man Ron Paul is and always has been.

As a Congressman, he doesn’t participate in the lucrative Congressional pension program. He’s never voted to increase his own salary. He’s never taken a government-paid junket, and he returns a portion of his budget back to the Treasury Department every year.

Earlier, I mentioned how Ron Paul believes in a strict adherence to the Constitution and understands that national defense is the primary and most important function of our federal government.

That’s why he voted for the use of force in Afghanistan after 9-11, and he supported going after Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders.

Our troops understand that Ron Paul knows what it takes to keep America safe, which is why he has received more contributions from members of the military than all other Republican candidates – COMBINED.

You see, when it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul isn’t saying that we should never go to war.

All Ron Paul is saying is that members of Congress should take their constitutional oath to God seriously, and if war is necessary, we should follow the Constitution and declare it, fight it, win it, and come home.

The Ron Paul I know is a humble man of deep Christian faith.

And I’m sure you agree that with the state of moral decline our nation is currently in, we need an evangelical Christian man in the White House to turn our country around.

Ron Paul is that man.

For Liberty,

Kevin Bryant
State Senator
District 3

watch this befohttp://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

re its pulled, fox news has been trying to run it.

I’ve written several times about a proposed IRS regulation that would force American banks to put foreign law above U.S. law. I’ve repeatedly warned that the scheme, which would force financial institutions to report the deposit interest they pay to foreigners, is bad economic policy, bad regulatory policy, and bad banking policy.

My arguments have included:

Explaining that this onerous regulatory scheme will result in capital fleeing to other nations, needlessly harming the financial sector and putting American banks at risk.
Explaining why the proposal is a threat to human rights since many foreigners keep money in the United States because they live in nations with unstable and/or repressive governments.
Explaining that the IRS action is a gross abuse of the regulatory process since an executive branch agency does not have the authority to overturn laws enacted as part of the democratic process.
Explaining that this proposed regulation is just the beginning, and that proponents hope to issue follow-up rules that would cripple policies making America a haven for global capital.
But these points don’t seem to matter to the Obama Administration, which is ideologically committed to the anti-tax competition agenda of Europe’s welfare states. This is why the White House supports all sorts of destructive policies, including not only this misguided regulation, but also the creation of something akin to a world tax organization that will have power to block free-market tax policy.

A new article in the Weekly Standard explains what’s at stake.

Early last year the Treasury Department published its “Guidance on Reporting Interest Paid to Nonresident Aliens,” which would require banks to report to the Internal Revenue Service the interest paid to foreign depositors with a U.S. bank account. While the Treasury and the regulatory apparatus insist that the cost and inconvenience of adhering to this regulation is next to nothing, the rule may cost the U.S. banking system hundreds of billions of dollars in lost deposits, in turn costing our economy billions of dollars, while providing no discernible benefit to banks, depositors, taxpayers, or the U.S. economy. …a much bigger problem—for banks and the economy—than the compliance costs is the threat of a massive capital flight. The United States is a very popular place for foreigners to park their savings, for a variety of reasons. For starters, we offer a stable government that can be trusted to keep its hands off deposits—something that appeals greatly to residents of Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, and any number of other unstable countries. …As a result, a staggeringly large amount of savings from abroad is currently held in U.S banks. While the Treasury asserts that “deposits held by nonresident alien individuals are a very small percentage of the [total] deposits held by U.S. financial institutions,” that very small percentage amounts to more than $3.7 trillion, according to a 2011 Bureau of Economic Analysis report, hardly a pittance. The massive amount of foreign savings here is a boon to the U.S. economy. Banks lend against these deposits, mainly to companies here in the United States. Jay Cochran, an economist at George Mason University, studied the impact that the more limited 2002 reporting requirements would have had on the banking system, estimating that it would have resulted in nearly $100 billion in deposits leaving the U.S. banking system. A reporting regulation that covers all foreign accounts would likely result in two to three times more capital flight. The impact would be harmful not just for the banks but for the broader economy. The decline in profits in the banking sector alone from a roughly quarter-trillion-dollar capital flight would be in the range of $5-10 billion—which makes a mockery of the notion that the costs of the regulation are under $100,000.

by Daniel J. Mitchell

Exceptions test the rule. Ron Paul is an exception. We might have to revise some rules.

One rule in politics is: Don’t obsess about arcana unfamiliar to voters; stick to issues they care about.

Ron Paul has long flouted that rule.

That’s one reason why mainstream journalists often dismiss him as a “nut.” He keeps talking about issues outside the scope of what journalists say we should care about. This makes his causes appear — to insiders and reporters and the like — ridiculous.

Specifically, he keeps talking about monetary theory in general and the Federal Reserve in particular.

Now, there are several good reasons why journalists don’t talk about monetary theory. Milton Friedman memorably declared (it’s memorable because I remember it) that monetary theory was the most difficult area of economics. And if Friedman saw it as difficult, you can be sure your standard journalism major is going to find it harder than getting a quotation out of J.D. Salinger’s dog Phoney.

So when Ron Paul moves from sexier issues like war, drugs, and taxes and on to the Federal Reserve and the gold standard, it’s hard not to shake one’s head.

I speak for myself, here. When I helped Ron Paul in his first campaign for the presidency, way back in the late 1980s, as the Libertarian Party nominee, I often shook my head. Could Dr. Paul skip the Fed talk, just once?

Hey, I knew something about how to get ahead in politics. And advancing unpopular, obscure ideas at variance with the folks at Harvard and Yale and a long retinue of economic advisors wasn’t the way to win national elections.

Now, it was not that I disagreed with Dr. Paul. I was familiar with the basic notions. I saw why gold and silver so often served as money from ancient times to the near present. I knew that the Federal Reserve was something close to a conspiracy of insiders working to advance . . . well, I wasn’t at all certain it was “the general welfare.” The founding of the Fed was a typical Progressive Era reform: allegedly a triumph of expertise, it was obviously a concoction by bankers, run for bankers. At first I merely suspected Ron Paul’s even darker view had at least something going for it. Later I came to agree more and more with him.

But still, why bring it up all the time? It was political death. It seemed like an effort in self-marginalization.

I was wrong.

Ron Paul was right.

Journalists and pundits and political experts were also wrong — big-time wrong.

Just look at the crowds of Ron Paul’s supporters. They don’t start yawning when his speeches earnestly wander away from the Approved Topics and into monetary theory. They maintain enthusiasm. The good doctor gets cheers, perhaps even more cheers.

And when Ron Paul triumphantly proclaimed, after his third-place showing in Iowa, that sometime soon the experts would proclaim “we’re all Austrians now,” his hordes of supporters got the reference to a Nixon-era aphorism about Keynesianism and were not in the least confused by a presidential candidate in America referencing, positively, a German-speaking foreign country.

Instead of backfiring and sounding lunatic, the moment almost reached Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” heights.

How wrong the experts were!

Just ask the young folks. Ron Paul’s supporters of all shapes and colors and creeds will emphasize the danger posed by the Federal Reserve. And the need to get rid of it. I have heard dozens — scores, maybe even hundreds — of just plain folks begin to discourse on the hazards associated with giving insiders special privileges in the money creation biz. I have heard explanations of Gresham’s Law; the usefulness of “hard money”; the dangers of credit money and the sheer perversity of fiat money; and the advisability of abolishing legal tender laws . . . as well as knowledgeable mentions of the Austrian School. These folks may not always understand that Austrian economics is not a univocal set of policy proposals, but a rich tradition of positive explanatory theory, instead. Still, the mere familiarity with a few of its doctrines is something of a surprise, especially from regular voters.

Well, maybe “regular voters” is not quite right. These folks are not old hands in either major party. They are often independents.

But they are special. They have been schooled by Dr. Ron Paul.

For Ron Paul has been in this for the long haul. He has been pushing monetary reform from the beginning of his political career, with Sisyphean persistence. Yes, the experts — including me — shook their heads, clucking disapproval. But he switched myths on us. He has become Prometheus. He has brought us fire.

Ron Paul was right to say that money is key. Monetary theory best explains the cycles of boom and bust, why they occur, and why the medicine employed since the beginning of the Great Depression doesn’t work, instead prolonging unemployment.

And never was a time more ripe for this truth than now. Ron Paul’s persistence is paying off, paying off in the enthusiasm of crowds and the formation of a new voting bloc.

Monetary reform, as an issue, is key for another reason: It helps demonstrate that Ron Paul is no standard-brand politician, looking only for the right grab-bag of issues that will “sell” to voters. It proves his honesty. It proves his prescience. It proves that the rules of politics-as-usual only apply when situations are usual.

In times of crisis, the old rule of play-it-safe/stick-to-the-ordinary doesn’t cut it. In times of crisis, a true educator can do what he set out to do, educate.

And, once we learn something, major change can come.

I don’t know how far this new force in politics will go to implement the ideas that have arisen through the agency of Ron Paul. But I can tell you this: it’s great to see the pundits proved wrong.

And I’ve never been so happy being proven wrong myself.

Paul Jacob
Paul Jacob is President of Citizens in Charge Foundation and Citizens in Charge. His daily Common Sense commentary appears on the Web and via e-mail.

@goldhunter I have no idea how we could do that…. We need a forum where ideas can be shared… Families have the dinner table. States have there congress and nationally we have a congress.

What has happened over time is the UN has become something more than a forum where nations can come together… Our congress has fallen into the same trap….We can’t get rid our congress because we need a national forum. We are part of the world and it’s major player at the moment so this ball can’t be dropped. As the countries become even more linked the UN roll as a forum will become is more important.

It is the nonsense of how their roll is expanding that is the problem just like in Washington. My two cents worth….Ron

Who would like to see the US pulled out of the UN?