State Senate approves joint resolutions calling for constitutional amendments via Article V process

Senate approves joint resolutions calling for constitutional amendments

OKLAHOMA CITY (April 21st) – Sen. Micheal Bergstrom, R-Adair, has won approval for two measures that call for amending the U.S. Constitution. Bergstrom is the Senate principal author of House Joint Resolution 1017 and HJR 1032, which were approved by the full Senate Thursday.

“Since Washington D.C. doesn’t know how to balance a budget or understand that all powers not granted by the U.S. Constitution to the federal government are reserved to the states, the Oklahoma Legislature is stepping up with resolutions to help change that,” Bergstrom said.

Bullard bill would phase out, replace Fed funding and control over K-12 education

Bullard plan would phase out and replace federal funding and control over K-12 education

OKLAHOMA CITY (Jan. 26th) – Legislation has been filed to cut and replace financial ties and control of the federal government over common education in Oklahoma. Sen. David Bullard, R-Durant, authored Senate Bill 863 to authorize the State Department of Education to develop a ten-year plan to phase out the acceptance and use of federal funds for the support of K-12 education and project what state funds will be needed to fill the gap.

Sen. Dahm files bills to improve student learning

Sen. Dahm files bills to improve student learning

OKLAHOMA CITY (Jan. 4th) – Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, has filed legislation to improve student learning in the state of Oklahoma.

“As students return to school this month, now is a perfect time to ensure they will learn factual information rather than modern wokeness,” Dahm said. “These curriculum updates will provide students with an understanding of our philosophical underpinnings, teach them to reason, and allow them to think critically in the classroom.”

Dahm files bills on privacy, surveillance, and eminant domain abuse

State Sen. Nathan Dahm is on a tear during what he is dubbing 'Bill of Rights Week', filing legislation aimed at strengthening and bolstering constitutional rights for Oklahomans.

Featured in this post, two press releases on bills related to privacy, surveillance, and eminant domain abuse.

Small: Parents’ rights are fundamental

Parents’ rights are fundamental

by Jonathan Small

We all have our “hot-button issue.” Among conservatives, it might be gun rights, or property rights, or religious liberty. Accounting nerds like me can even get worked up over tax policy. But whatever we care about, if we want to win, we had better protect parental rights.

This is especially true as elite culture becomes more hostile to conservative values and religious faith. If the next generation is taught our Constitution is fundamentally flawed, nothing in the Bill of Rights will be safe.

Legislators file initiative petition for state question on freezing property tax for seniors

Former State Rep. David Dank would have been all on board with this proposal, which was a longterm goal of his when he passed away in 2015.

Legislators File Petition to Add Senior Homestead Fair Cash Value Freeze State Question to Ballot

OKLAHOMA CITY – A trio of state representatives recently filed an initiative petition to add an amendment to the state Constitution that would freeze the homestead fair cash value for individuals aged 65 and older.

If enough signatures are gained (177,958 are needed), State Question 822 could be on the Nov. 8 ballot this year. The initiative petition was filed June 24 by Reps. Max Wolfley, R-Oklahoma City; Eric Roberts, R-Oklahoma City; and Robert Manger, R-Oklahoma City. A challenge period ended July 15.

State Rep. Humphrey responds to Democrats' call for gun control

Humphrey Responds to Democrats' Call to Repeal Gun Laws

OKLAHOMA CITY – Rep. Justin Humphrey, R-Lane, this week responded to House Democrats who are calling for what they say are responsible public-safety measures by introducing a proposal labeled the Stand Against Violence and Extremism (SAVE) Act. The SAVE Act would repeal existing laws deregulating gun use in Oklahoma and would institute other measures aimed at stopping gun violence.

"The SAVE Act is a completely counterfeit way of robbing all law-abiding Oklahomans of their Second Amendment rights and would increase gun regulations and requirements," Humphrey said. "The SAVE Act would profoundly abandon our existing constitutional rights and strives to repeal anti-red flag laws, permits and concealed carry in public places. Not only do Democrats desire to repeal your rights, but they are on a mission to adopt red flag laws, increase your waiting period for purchasing a firearm and increase the minimum age to purchases a firearm."

Nathan Dahm responds to House Dems' gun control proposal

Earlier this week, the Oklahoma House Democratic Caucus held a press conference where they announced a massive gun control proposal in response to recent mass shootings across the country. 

As the author of SB 1081 and co-author of HB 2597 and one of the prominent gun rights advocates in the state legislature, I reached out to State Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) for his response to the Dems' proposal, which would do the following:

OK House Dems respond to recent shootings with major gun control proposal

True to form, Oklahoma House Democrats can't let a "crisis go to waste" in their desire to torch constitutional gun rights. They jumped in front of the cameras with a major gun control proposal. 

By the way, also true to form, none of what they came up with would have stopped the killers in the recent shootings they referenced. The modern Democratic Party is consumed with destroying the Constitution at just about every turn, but especially the Second Amendment. Just look north of the border to what Canada's little tyrant Trudeau is doing for what they'd really like to copy.

Needless to say, this won't go anywhere in the Oklahoma Legislature.

Democrats Push for Solutions to Gun Violence with SAVE Act

OKLAHOMA CITY (June 2nd) -- The House Democratic Caucus today at a press conference announced a series of responsible public-safety measures meant to prevent gun violence.

'Constitutional Grounds' sends out questionnaire for primary candidates

Constitutional Grounds, a political activist organization, has sent their first annual Constitutional Questionnaire to candidates registered to run in the Oklahoma June primaries.

BROKEN ARROW, OK, May 3, 2022 – Spring is campaign season for candidates running in political primary races in Oklahoma. Spring is also candidate questionnaire season as various political and special interest groups send their questionnaires to candidates.

State House Health Committee Chair: time to let Oklahomans go back to work

STATEMENT: Rep. Sean Roberts on COVID-19

OKLAHOMA CITY – Rep. Sean Roberts (R-Hominy) today released the following statement regarding COVID-19:

“When we started this journey a month ago, I issued a statement regarding COVID-19, also known as coronavirus. We as the Legislature, and I as Chairman of Public Health in the State House of Representatives, urged people to take precautions to protect themselves, their loved ones and the public as a whole. God has heard our prayers. I want to congratulate Governor Stitt and President Trump in flattening the curve and saving countless lives while not infringing on Americans’ constitutional rights. While in this time of national disaster, President Trump stood vigilant for the constitutional rights of the American people. Governor Stitt stood beside him. As the Public Health Chairman, I am very thankful and humbled that Oklahomans rallied together and decided to heed these warnings to flatten the curve of infections.

Pack the Union: leftist proposal to admit DC as 127 states in order to rewrite the Constitution

Just when you think you've seen it all, some more profound lunacy comes rolling down the track.

Earlier this month, an anonymous column was published by the Harvard Law Review -- anonymous because no reasonable person would ever want to be publicly associated with the extreme idiocy contained within it -- entitled Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation.

Appalled at the constitutional framework set up by our founders, some leftist academic came up with a bright idea: let's admit Washington D.C. to the union to add to the Democratic membership in Congress and make it easier to amend the Constitution for radical, transformative change.

Did I mention that the plan calls for DC to be admitted as one hundred and twenty seven individual states?

Yeah.

127 new states, 127 new members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and 254 new members of the U.S. Senate, nearly all guaranteed to be Democrats (or outright Socialists).

Nothing says insane proposal more than calling to increase the number of states by 354%.

From the proposal:

Recent events have highlighted some of the ways in which federal elections in the United States are profoundly undemocratic and, thus, profoundly unfair.

The Electoral College — when it contravenes the popular vote — is an obvious example of this unfairness. But it is just one of the mathematically undemocratic features in the Constitution. Equal representation of states in the Senate, for example, gives citizens of low-population states undue influence in Congress. Conversely, American citizens residing in U.S. territories have no meaningful representation in Congress or the Electoral College.

As is typical for leftists today, a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of both the Senate and the Electoral College, along with an elevation of the meaningless "national popular vote".

While a step in the right direction, these proposals [to admit Washington DC and Puerto Rico as states] are inadequate. To create a system where every vote counts equally, the Constitution must be amended. To do this, Congress should pass legislation reducing the size of Washington, D.C., to an area encompassing only a few core federal buildings and then admit the rest of the District’s 127 neighborhoods as states. These states — which could be added with a simple congressional majority — would add enough votes in Congress to ratify four amendments: (1) a transfer of the Senate’s power to a body that represents citizens equally; (2) an expansion of the House so that all citizens are represented in equal-sized districts; (3) a replacement of the Electoral College with a popular vote; and (4) a modification of the Constitution’s amendment process that would ensure future amendments are ratified by states representing most Americans. [emphasis mine]

 After complaining about the disparity in congressional representation between Wyoming's 580,000 citizens and California's nearly 40,000,000, they then propose to create 3 members of Congress for every 4,500 people in Washington D.C. The intellectual disconnect is mind-boggling.

In the 2018 midterms, for example, Democratic congressional candidates won the House popular vote by the largest midterm margin of victory ever. Republican candidates for Senate received a total of 38% of votes cast, while Democratic candidates received 58%. And yet, Republicans not only retained a majority in the chamber, they actually increased it.

This particular comment is ridiculously uninformed and pointless. California's 2018 Senate race was literally between two Democrats, because their jungle primary rules are designed to eliminate Republican candidates from making it to the general election. Other states had noncompetitive elections. The "national popular vote" for congressional races has no bearing on the composition of Congress.

After detailing some absurd arguments for so-called problems with the political system in America, the unnamed and faceless author then goes on to discuss their proposed solution.

Article V provides two mechanisms for amending the Constitution. Congress may propose an amendment with a two-thirds majority in each chamber, or two-thirds of the states may call for a constitutional convention and propose new amendments there. In either case, three-fourths of the states must subsequently ratify any new amendments before they take effect. These thresholds make it highly unlikely that the problem of unequal representation will be fixed through the normal amendment process.

Given these challenges, some might say that the problem of unequal representation is simply an intractable part of the U.S. political system — something impossible to fix, or something to try to work around. [...]

An “easier” way to amend the Constitution would be for Congress to admit a large number of new states whose congressional representatives would reliably ally with the existing majority in sufficient numbers to propose and ratify new amendments fixing the problem of unequal representation. Because Congress can admit new states with a simple majority, this would provide a more attainable political threshold.

Much like the current Democratic calls to "pack the Supreme Court" to get their way, this author's genius suggestion is to "pack the Union" in order to attain the goals of the political and cultural Left.

Noting that Washington, D.C, is "the ideal location to enact this proposal", they make the following three points:

First, Washington, D.C., is not currently part of any state, so creation of new states there would not require action by or dismemberment of any presently existing state. Second, every measurable subdivision of D.C. voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party in the 2016 election, so the Democratic caucus in Congress could be confident that new states created within the District would elect like-minded delegations to Congress. Third, the neighborhoods of D.C. provide a reasonable starting point for the new state boundaries; they are numerous enough to provide the votes necessary, but not so great that they would allow the new delegations to pass amendments or legislation on their own [emphasis mine]

This proposal is so incredibly stupid my head hurts.

We're only halfway through the plan, too.

So now that they've shrunk the Federal District and created 127 brand-new states, the author moves on to the four new Constitutional amendments this plan was crafted to produce.

1. Transfer the Senate's Power
2. Expand the House to Include Territories and Replace the Cap of 435 Members with an Amendment Ensuring a Minimum Size.
3. Abolish the Electoral College in Favor of a Popular Vote.
4. Remove the Influence of States in the Amendment Process. 

Regarding the first amendment, the proposal goes like this:

[1. Transfer the Senate's Power] ... The Senate’s duties could be changed without modifying its composition. Imagine, for example, a system where the Senate resembles the House of Lords, the largely ceremonial upper chamber in the United Kingdom. The Senate could review legislation passed by the House but not prevent it from becoming law. Its formal powers would be transferred either to the House or to a new, equitably apportioned body.

Seems like it would just be easier to eliminate the Senate and go to a unicameral legislature, but that's evidently too extreme of a proposal for the author...... the same author who proposed 127 new states from one city and the most transformative set of amendments to the Constitution in history.

Moving on.

[2. Expand the House to Include Territories and Replace the Cap of 435 Members with an Amendment Ensuring a Minimum Size] An amendment to fix the House of Representatives would do two things. First, it would ensure that the body represents all Americans, not simply those who live in states. This could be done by treating each territory “as a state” for purposes of congressional representation and presidential elections.

Second, it would constitutionalize a minimum size for the House of Representatives, such that the representative-to-population ratio for House districts would be determined by the population of the smallest-population state. This “Wyoming Rule” would ensure that small states do not receive undue influence in Congress by virtue of the Constitution’s guarantee of at least one representative per state

I'm surprised they don't just go ahead and do away with territories altogether and make them all states. At this point in the proposal, what's the point?

The second portion actually isn't a terrible idea. Fellow Oklahoma conservative blogger Michael Bates has commented on this very idea in the past, noting that the cap of 435 seats has essentially been set since 1911.

[3. Abolish the Electoral College in Favor of a Popular Vote] A third amendment would abolish the Electoral College and create a system where the President and Vice President are elected by a pure popular vote. In the event that states are unable to conclusively certify election results, or the results of the election are otherwise disputed, the House of Representatives, voting as individuals, could determine the next President and Vice President.

Leftists who favor the National Popular Vote fail to recognize that the Electoral College is a two-tier system of popular votes: fifty state-level popular vote contests are held, then the popular vote of the fifty states (decided by popular vote) is the victor. Voila, problem solved. We already have a national popular vote.

[4. Remove the Influence of States in the Amendment Process] A fourth and final amendment would ensure that these changes could not be undone by an opposition Congress following the same playbook. The language in Article V that allows for two-thirds of the states to call a constitutional convention and that requires three-fourths of the states to ratify new amendments should be changed to ensure that those states actually represent a majority (or supermajority) of the total population. In other words, once a fair system of representation is established, the possibility that a small fraction of the population would once again control the federal government should be removed. [emphasis mine]

This is the wildest of the proposals, as insanely crazy and harebrained as they are. After creating an absurd scenario to recraft the nation in their own image, the author thinks it wise to preclude any future use of the same scenario.

I hope no tax dollars go to this individual's salary, because this entire thing is too stupid for words.

You can read the rest of the ludicrous proposal at this link.

"There, but for the grace of God, go I"

I read an article this morning about a U.S. Army sergeant who was on the brink of being discharged from the Army for interfering with an Afghan official who had been serially molesting young boys. Fortunately, military justice seems to have been prodded into good sense and the soldier will be allowed to stay in service.

I asked a veteran who served in Afghanistan how widespread this sort of behavior was there, and he said it was an everyday occurrence. Sometimes Afghan soldiers and police did it under the guise of interrogation. "Might makes right" is the norm over there.

America is an incredible place. Our founding fathers understood the nature of man as described in the Bible. They understood the depravity of man, and that man unrestrained follows the strongest impulses of his nature - pride, greed and lust.

For this reason our founders placed strict limits on the government, intended to restrain these excesses of man's nature. Yet even they understood that the form of government they gave us would only work with a moral people, a people who understood and followed the principles of the Bible.

The article reminded me of the old saying, "There, but for the grace of God, go I". Have you ever pondered how supremely fortunate you are to have been born in America? Why me? Why was I not born in some other land? Why was I not subjected to the same sort of experiences others endure?

Inscrutable are the ways of God. Romans 9:20-21 says "Nay but, oh man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"  And in Romans 11:33 - "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!"

The sovereignty of God in all things is a difficult thing to comprehend, but is a wonderful truth. We should be grateful every day for the mercy God showed in placing us where we were born and for the salvation He so freely gives, unworthy though we are.

God placed you where you are for a reason, and for reasons known only to Him. What are you doing about it?

Justice Ginsburg to Egypt: Don't Copy US Constitution

United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently gave an interview with Al Hayat TV in Egypt, in which she was asked about a new Egyptian Constitution, and where she would advise looking for influence.

She said, "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012." She went on to specifically cite the South African constitution, the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the European Convention on Human Rights as documents she would look to.




This is not the first time Justice Ginsburg has made statements like this. As important as electing a conservative president is, we must also have a Senate full of conservatives who will do everything in their power to stop the nomination of justices who are fundamentally opposed to the basic founding principles found in our Constitution.

Constitutional Flaw?

UNCONSTITUTIONAL: Florida Judge Rules on ObamaCare

Federal Judge Roger Vinson of Florida ruled today that the 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act' (aka ObamaCare) is unconstitutional due to its individual mandate, and further stated that since the legislation passed by Congress lacked a severability clause, "the entire act must be declared void."

Last month, a Virginia judge also found the individual mandate to be unconstitutional. The case will end up in the Supreme Court at some point down the road.

AG Pruitt Files Federal Lawsuit against Health Care Act

 

Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt Files Federal Lawsuit against Health Care Act

Lawsuit includes strengthened arguments focused on defeating
individual mandate and striking the entire health care act based on non-severability

OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt today filed a lawsuit on behalf of the state of Oklahoma, making it the 28th state to challenge the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the federal health care act.

The Attorney General explained the lawsuit will enhance the collective efforts of the majority of states suing the federal government because it contains strengthened arguments against the independent mandate in response to shifting legal strategy by the federal government. It further includes allegations that focus on the non-severability of the health care act, which would find the entire act to be invalid if any part is held to be unconstitutional.

“We have an advantage of learning from the arguments the federal government put forth in the legal proceedings with Virginia and Florida, which allows Oklahoma to enhance the strategy used by those respective states.  We did this to address the federal government’s citing of the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify the individual mandate, even though any use of the clause must be consistent with both ‘the letter and spirit’ of the Constitution, which this act is not,” Pruitt said. “We also have included robust allegations that seek to have the entire act stricken by addressing the non-severability of the law.”

Additionally, the lawsuit will defend Oklahoma’s recent passage of the Oklahoma Health Care Freedom Amendment, which amended the state Constitution to say that Oklahomans cannot be required to purchase individual health care coverage. 

 “Again, there is great clarity for me on the necessary and urgent need to exercise my responsibility to defend Oklahoma’s Constitution against a federal law that requires our state’s citizens to purchase a product or face penalties from the federal government,” Pruitt said. “In November, Oklahoma voters made clear their belief that the federal government, in this instance, has overreached its power and authority.”

The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, raises the issue of whether the U.S. Congress is empowered under the Commerce Clause to require citizens to purchase health insurance coverage or be penalized for not doing so.

The challenged provision, Section 1501 of the Act, is commonly known as the Individual Mandate. This provision requires that every U.S. citizen, other than those falling within specified exceptions, maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage beginning in 2014. Failure to comply will result in a penalty included in the taxpayer’s annual tax return.

This mandate will require non-exempt Oklahomans to either purchase health insurance for themselves and their dependents or pay a civil penalty designed to force them into such a purchase.

“By voting to pass State Question 756 by an overwhelming margin, the people of Oklahoma made it clear that a federally enforced mandate to purchase health insurance is both undesirable and unconstitutional,” Gov. Mary Fallin said. “Furthermore, President Obama’s health care plan would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in the middle of a severe budget crisis. I am proud that Oklahoma can now be counted among the states standing up for constitutional rights and opposing a law that is harmful to both our economy and to the health of our citizens.”

Pruitt added that Oklahoma’s recently approved Oklahoma Health Care Freedom Amendment and the federal health care act cannot coexist, and that federal preemption does not apply when a federal law is deemed unconstitutional.

As such, he commented on his obligation to defend the Oklahoma law, “The most logical way to defend our state Constitution is in an Oklahoma federal court, not in another state,” Pruitt said.

Additionally, by filing in Oklahoma, the state adds another circuit of the federal court system considering arguments on the constitutionality of the act.  This enhances the reasons for the U.S. Supreme Court to expedite a hearing on the issue.

 “I deeply respect the efforts of General Pam Bondi, and the other Attorneys General involved in the Florida litigation as well as the efforts of General Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia,” Pruitt said. “I am confident with our collective efforts we will prevail.”

The Oklahoma lawsuit will be handled by internal staff in the Attorney General’s office, and no outside counsel will be retained. 

To read the complaint, go online to www.oag.ok.gov.

Constitution read on House floor

The U.S. House of Representatives today read - for the very first time - the entire text of the U.S. Constitution, on the House floor. Watch below (to go to the next video, click the link in the lower right corner of the video).



Oklahoma's 5th District Congressman James Lankford read Section 3 of the 25th Amendment.

Overall, there were few instances of the reading being interrupted. A protester shouted "Except Obama! Except Obama!" during the reading of the section requiring the president to be a natural-born citizen. After the reading of the 10th, 13th and 14th Amendments, and upon conclusion of the reading of the Constitution, applause broke out among the congressmembers.

BREAKING: Federal Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

Breaking: Federal judge in Virginia declares that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

Eastern Virginia U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the legislation. This particular lawsuit was filed by Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and challenged the individual mandate found in the bill.

It is expected that ObamaCare will go all the way to the Supreme Court, but this is a victory nonetheless.

Sarah Palin's Open Letter to GOP Congressional Freshmen

An Open Letter to Republican Freshmen Members of Congress

by former Gov. Sarah Palin

Welcome to all Republican Freshmen and congratulations!

Congratulations to all of you for your contribution to this historic election, and for the contributions I am certain you will make to our country in the next two years. Your victory was hard fought, and the success belongs entirely to you and the staff and volunteers who spent countless hours working for this chance to put government back on the side of the people. Now you will come to Washington to serve your nation and leave your mark on history by reining in government spending, preserving our freedoms at home, and restoring America’s leadership abroad. Some of you have asked for my thoughts on how best to proceed in the weeks and months ahead and how best to advance an agenda that can move our country forward. I have a simple answer: stick to the principles that propelled your campaigns. When you take your oath to support and defend our Constitution and to faithfully discharge the duties of your office, remember that present and future generations of “We the People” are counting on you to stand by that oath. Never forget the people who sent you to Washington. Never forget the trust they placed in you to do the right thing.

The task before you is daunting because so much damage has been done in the last two years, but I believe you have the chance to achieve great things.

Republicans campaigned on a promise to rein in out-of-control government spending and to repeal and replace the massive, burdensome, and unwanted health care law President Obama and the Democrat Congress passed earlier this year in defiance of the will of the majority of the American people. These are promises that you must keep. Obamacare is a job-killer, a regulatory nightmare, and an enormous unfunded mandate. The American people don’t want it and we can’t afford it. We ask, with all due respect, that you remember your job will be to work to replace this legislation with real reform that relies on free market principles and patient-centered policies. The first step is, of course, to defund Obamacare.

You’ve also got to be deadly serious about cutting the deficit. Despite what some would like us to believe, tax cuts didn’t get us into the mess we’re in. Government spending did. Tough decisions need to be made about reducing government spending. The longer we put them off, the worse it will get. We need to start by cutting non-essential spending. That includes stopping earmarks (because abuse of the earmark process created the "gateway-drug" that allowed backroom deals and bloated budgets), canceling all further spending on the failed Stimulus program, and rolling back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels. You can do more, but this would be a good start.

In order to avert a fiscal disaster, we will also need to check the growth of spending on our entitlement programs. That will be a huge challenge, but it must be confronted head on. We must do it in a humane way that honors the government’s current commitments to our fellow Americans while also keeping faith with future generations. We cannot rob from our children and grandchildren’s tomorrow to pay for our unchecked spending today. Beyond that, we need to reform the way Congress conducts business in order to make it procedurally easier to cut spending than to increase it. We need to encourage zero-based budgeting practices in D.C. like the kind fiscally conservative mayors and governors utilize to balance their budgets and reduce unnecessary spending.

There in the insulated and isolated Beltway you will be far removed from the economic pain felt by so many Americans who are out of work. Please remember that if we want real job growth, we must create a stable investment climate by ending the tidal wave of overly burdensome regulations coming out of Washington. Businesses need certainty – and freedom that incentivizes competition – to grow and expand our workforce.

The last thing our small businesses need is tax hikes. It falls to the current Democrat-controlled Congress to decide on the future of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. If it does not permanently renew all of them, you should move quickly to do so in the new Congress. It would remove from households and businesses the threat of a possible $3.8 trillion tax hike hitting all Americans at the worst possible moment, with our economy struggling to recover from a deep recession! You must continue to remind Democrats that the people they are dismissing as “rich” are the small business owners who create up to 70% of all jobs in this country!

Another issue of vital importance is border security. Americans expect our leadership in Washington to act now to secure our borders. Don’t fall for the claims of those who suggest that we can’t secure our borders until we simultaneously deal with the illegal immigrants already here. Let’s deal with securing the border first. That alone is a huge challenge that has been ignored for far too long.

On foreign policy and national security, I urge you to stick to our principles: strong defense, free trade, nurturing allies, and steadfast opposition to America’s enemies.  We are the most powerful country on earth and the world is better off because of it.  Our president does not seem to understand this. If we withdraw from the world, the world will become a much more dangerous place. You must push President Obama to finish the job right in Iraq and get the job done in Afghanistan, otherwise we who are war-weary will forever question why America’s finest are sent overseas to make the ultimate sacrifice with no clear commitment to victory from those who send them. You should be prepared to stand with the President against Iran’s nuclear aspirations using whatever means necessary to ensure the mullahs in Tehran do not get their hands on nuclear weapons. And you can stand with the Iranian people who oppose the tyrannical rule of the clerics and concretely support their efforts to win their freedom – even if the President does not.

You need to say no to cutting the necessities in our defense budget when we are engaged in two wars and face so many threats – from Islamic extremists to a nuclear Iran to a rising China. As Ronald Reagan said, “We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.” You will also have the opportunity to push job-creating free trade agreements with allies like Colombia and South Korea. You can stand with allies like Israel, not criticize them. You can let the President know what you believe – Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not a settlement. And for those of you joining the United States Senate, don’t listen to desperate politically-motivated arguments about the need for hasty consideration of the “New START” treaty.  Insist on your right to patient and careful deliberation of New START to address very real concerns about verification, missile defense, and modernization of our nuclear infrastructure. No New START in the lame duck!

You can stand against misguided proposals to try dangerous, evil terrorists in the US; precipitously close the Guantanamo prison; and a return to the failed policies of the past in treating the war on terror as a law enforcement problem. Finally, you have a platform to express the support of the American people for all those around the world seeking their freedom that God has bestowed within all mankind’s being – from Burma and Egypt to Russia and Venezuela – because the spread of liberty increases our own security. You, freshmen lawmakers, can and will be powerful voices in support of foreign policies that protect our interests and promote our values! Thank you for being willing to fight for our values and our freedom!

In all this, you should extend a hand to President Obama and Democrats in Congress. After this election, they may finally be prepared to work with Republicans on some of these issues for the good of the country. And if not, we will all be looking forward to 2012.

Remember that some in the media will love you when you stray from the time-tested truths that built America into the most exceptional nation on earth. When the Left in the media pat you on the back, quickly reassess where you are and readjust, for the liberals' praise is a warning bell you must heed. Trust me on that.

I and most Americans are so excited for you. Working together, we have every right to be optimistic about our future. We can be hopeful because real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the everyday Americans who make our country exceptional. These are the men and women who sent you to Washington. May your work and leadership honor their faith in you.

With sincere congratulations and a big Alaskan heart,

Sarah Palin