TCC Logo

Commentary by Howard Phillips, Chairman of The Conservative Caucus
TCC Home | Bio | Donate | Email List | Contact ]
Archives: 2005 F | M | A | M | J | J | A | S | O | N | D | 2006 J | F |
RSS, Comments, Podcasting & More Coming Soon!

  News, Information & Action


TCC in the News: | CNS | WNDWashPost | Tuscaloosa | Birmingham | WND
ACTION: Sign Petition Against Judicial Tyranny Petition!
TCC Supreme Court Resources
Interviews with Howard Phillips by Dan Flynn at FlynnFiles:
[ Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 ]
Interview with Howard Phillips by LifeSite on Judge Roberts
CDs of TCC's 2005 Constitution Day Event will be available soon

Home | March 2006 Archives

  Social Security for Americans Only | March 31, 2006

February 9, 2006

Hon. James McCrery
Subcommittee on Social Security
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
316 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman McCrery:

During the past two years, The Conservative Caucus has delivered to the subcommittee a total of 71,500 petitions supporting H.R. 489, the legislation introduced by U.S. Representative Ron Paul to protect Social Security funds from being drained by non-citizens.

Accompanying this letter are an additional 44,400 petitions supporting Congressman Paul’s bill, now reintroduced as H.R. 858, the Social Security for Americans Only Act.

The proposed agreement with Mexico would endanger the already doubtful solvency of Social Security. Given that Social Security is not an insurance system, but rather a government benefits program, there is no reason to continue allowing non-citizens to retain eligibility. This is especially true of those who have been in the United States illegally.

I appreciate your consideration and look forward to hearing of the action you decide to take.


Howard Phillips

  Repeal Clinton Social Security Tax | March 24, 2006

February 8, 2006

Hon. Dennis Hastert
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Capitol, H-232
Washington, D.C. 20151

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Accompanying this letter are petitions from 34,000 members and supporters of The Conservative Caucus, calling for repeal of Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits.

This tax unfairly singles out one segment of our population for an increased tax burden. Moreover, it involves triple taxation on those who, along with their employers, have already been taxed to subsidize their Social Security benefits through a lifetime of FICA payments.

This scheme of taxation should be overturned. The Senate finally voted to do so last year. The House previously voted for repeal in 1995 and 2000. It is time to finish the job.

I hope you will make repeal of this unfair Clinton tax a priority this year.


Howard Phillips

  Federal Entitlements | March 23, 2006


According to the Office of Management and Budget, Medicare and Social Security annual reports, and information from the Internal Revenue Service set forth in USA TODAY, 3/14/06, "Enrollment in Federal social programs grew 17% from 2000 to 2005, the biggest five-year increase in 40 years."

In 2005, 53.4 million Americans were enrolled in Medicaid, a jump of 50.4%, and the Federal cost had grown to $198 billion. Enrollment in Social Security was up 6.3% to 48 million persons, with an annual Federal cost of $519 billion. Medicare had grown by 6.6%, with 42.3 million participants and a total Federal cost of $294 billion.

Child nutrition programs had increased 8.9% to 32.3 million children for a total cost of $12 billion, and the food stamp program had grown to an annual cost of $33 billion with 25.7 million participants, an increase of 49.6%.

The earned income tax credit, which provides tax payments and tax reductions to low-income families, now includes 21.2 million recipients, many of whom pay no taxes at all. This represents an annual cost of $35 billion, a boost of 13.3%.

Unemployment compensation has increased 16.8% to $33 billion per year, with 8.1 million beneficiaries.

Pell grants, which unconstitutionally help pay college costs, now involve 5.1 million recipients, an increase of 33.1% since 2000, at an annual cost of $13 billion. Veterans’ benefits now cost $40 billion and welfare costs the American taxpayer $21 billion.

Medicaid overtook Social Security in 2004 as the government’s largest social program. President Bush’s new Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost an estimated $54 billion in 2006.

Setting aside the question of Constitutionality with respect to these programs, the policies of Congress and the White House have contributed markedly to their expansion and the burden they place on the American taxpayer.

  Line Item Veto | March 17, 2006

President Bush’s State of the Union call for a line-item veto is wrong from both a Constitutional and policy standpoint, but it is a predictable copout for a President who has not used the veto rescission or impoundment authority which he has been granted.

Here are some of the reasons, which I set forth in March 1995 spelling out why a line-item veto would be destructive, counter-productive, and an unwise enhancement of Executive power vis-à-vis the Legislative Branch:



ARTICLE I, SECTION 7, CLAUSE 2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 7, CLAUSE 3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

The very first line of the Constitution makes clear that the carefully calibrated separation of powers and balance of authority stipulated in the Constitution of the United States ought not be lightly transgressed. In the first sentence after the Preamble, Article I, Section 1, asserts: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."


In Article II, Section 1, the first sentence states: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Clearly, the President is to be our chief executive, not our supreme legislator. Moreover, the Constitution is already quite generous in its grant of veto authority to the executive, enabling him (if sustained by one-third plus one of the members of one house of Congress) to reject any and all appropriations, and, indeed, to even prevent the continuation of programs authorized by the Congress.


America today is on the verge of a crisis of political legitimacy, and has long been in the grip of a crisis of political accountability which has resulted from the abdication by Congress of its legislative authority and responsibility.

Congress has unconstitutionally delegated law-making functions to the Federal Reserve, to the judiciary, to the civil service, to non-profit corporations, to regulatory agencies, and to the institutions of the New World Order.

The dangers of an executive dictatorship are at least as significant as any threat which might be posed by a runaway Congress. With a "line-item" veto, Congress (and particularly the House of Representatives - intended to be "the people's body") may be unable to thwart a President, who, for example, enthralled with the New World Order, might use his authority to dismantle and destroy the defenses of the United States of America.

The President of the United States already possesses authority to reject legislation (a) in toto, (b) by category, (c) on Constitutional grounds, and (d) to protect Constitutionally assigned executive responsibilities. Why create new authority, when sufficient powers exist.


There are two main dangers which would result from the radical extension of "line-item" authority: one, Presidents could blackmail Senators and Congressmen to support policies with which they disagree by threatening to single out for elimination particular elements of policies and programs with which they do agree. Thus, for example, Bill Clinton might persuade a key Senator to vote to confirm one of his nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States lest, by failing to do so, the Senator cause the President to eliminate funding for some vitally needed defense project.


Conversely, the President could enjoy the public applause of signing a "tax reform measure" while eliminating all tax relief benefits for individuals above a certain level of income, even though such tax relief had been an integral part of a carefully crafted legislative compromise.

Presidents already have extraordi­nary leverage with members of the House and Senate. Many Congressional spouses are direct employees of the Executive Branch who serve by Presidential appointment. During the Reagan-Bush years, Phil Gramm's wife, Wendy, enjoyed high pay status as chairman of a major Federal regulatory agency, thanks to the favor of the White House. Elizabeth Dole served in Ronald Reagan's cabinet while Bob Dole was the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate. They were not alone. Today, Ann Bingaman is an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, while her husband, Jeff, is the Democratic Senator from New Mexico. The income of Iowa Democratic Senator Tom Harkin has been supplemented by Mrs. Harkin's pay as a key Presidential appointee at the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).

Presidents can already make key determinations, absent legislative prohibi­tion, about where bridges will be built, bases will be established, etc. The power of the Executive Branch is extraordinary. If you increase the President's legislative powers, you might as well send the Congress home and let Bill Clinton and his successors rule by Executive Order (of course, to the extent that Executive Orders purport to set policy, rather than to merely implement it, they are entirely in conflict with the Constitution).

A "line-item" veto scheme was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on February 6 by a vote of 294 to 134 and a separate version by a 69-29 vote in the Senate on March 24. Soon, a conference committee will meet to resolve differences.

According to The Washington Post (2/7/95, p. A1), "The House timed its approval of the line-item veto to coincide with the 84th birthday of former president Ronald Reagan, who supported similar powers when he was in the White House. The Republican-controlled Congress has promised to give a Democrat what a Democratic-controlled Congress would not give Reagan." (Ed. note: authority which Reagan did not need, but the purported lack of which was used as an excuse for his failure both to use existing veto authority and to propose major cuts.)


"No one knows how President Clinton would use the power. But Republicans this year are proposing spending for items like the ‘Star Wars’ missile defense system that Mr. Clinton might be expected to delete." (N.Y. Times, 2/7/95, p. A1)

The only Republicans who voted against the measure were: Helen Chenoweth (ID), John Myers (IN), Marge Roukema (NJ), and Bud Shuster (PA). According to Shuster (Washington Times, 2/8/95, p. A11), "‘It puts too much power into the hands of the president. And if it should be done at all, it should be done by constitutional amendment because it's changing the fundamental checks and balances of the Constitution,’ he said.

"The ‘power of the purse’ is granted specifically to Congress by the Constitution, said Rep. Helen Chenoweth, Idaho Republican. That power cannot be given away to the president.... ‘Speaker [Newt] Gingrich included the Federalist Papers on his recent list of suggested readings. Well, I read them,’ she added."

Unfortunately, no recent Republican President has used existing authority to oppose unconstitutional spending, or even to insist on a balanced budget. Neither Ronald Reagan nor George Bush ever proposed a balanced budget. The last Republican President to do so was Dwight Eisenhower, the last Democrat, Lyndon Johnson (in FY 1969).

The argument is given that (as matters now stand), in order to get at a bad proposal, the President would have to close down the entire government, or at least threaten to do so, hoping that Congress would retreat in the face of such a threat or such a veto. But this is nonsense. It is very clear that any President who is really serious about controlling runaway spending (or even excising minor provisions of major bills) can do so if he has the courage and determination to confrontationally insist on his position.


As University of Alabama history professor Forrest McDonald pointed out in The Wall Street Journal (3/7/88), "The Supreme Court, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), established the precedent that its power was of a line-item nature: It declared that Article 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, not the entire act, was unconstitutional."


In a July, 1991 article published by the Cato Institute, J. Gregory Sidak and Thomas A. Smith observe that "The word ‘veto’ does not appear in the Constitution. What is commonly called ‘the veto power of the president’ actually appears in Article I, section 7, clause 2" (quoted above).

"During the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and in The Federalist, the Framers referred to what we call the veto as the ‘revisionary check’ or the ‘revisionary power.’...if ‘revision’ means ‘critical or careful examination or perusal with a view to correcting or improving’ - as the Oxford English Dictionary indicates that British legal scholar Blackstone used the word in writings dating from 1768 - then the Framers might have envisioned the president exercising his veto on something other than an all-or-nothing basis...."


"The analysis of the item veto is complicated by the fact that it can take at least four different forms, and each of these forms poses different constitu­tional questions....

(1) "....Congress often issues detailed instructions for the expenditure of appropriations, not in the appropriations bill itself but in an accompanying committee report. As President Bush noted in the signing statement accompanying the enactment of one new law, ‘Congress cannot create legal obligations through report language’ and consequently ‘such language has no legal force or effect.’ Where objectionable expenditures are required by the committee report and not by the bill itself, the president is not bound to spend as Congress instructs."

(2) "The second form of the item veto is the ‘subject veto’ - the veto of nongermane provisions that usually are riders to larger pieces of legislation. A subject veto would sever distinct additions from the larger bill. Congress often uses such legislative bundling to protect controversial provisions (often separate measures in themselves) from veto...."

(3) "The president might possess a third kind of power similar to an item veto - the power of ‘constitutional excision’ - which enables him to excise sections of a bill that he believes are unconstitutional on their face...."

(4) "The president might assert a fourth type of veto over a specific section of a bill if he thought that it would unconstitutionally impede his execution of his duties and prerogatives under Article II...The ‘shield veto,’ a variant of constitutional excision, would be applicable only within the boundaries of his authority under Article II. Its name is suggested by Alexander Hamilton's thesis in Federalist No. 73 that the first purpose of the veto is to ‘serve as a shield to the executive’ against the ‘depredations’ of Congress...."


"‘[B]ill’ is not defined in the Constitution....Perhaps it was thought to be an elemental concept. The Framers probably could not have contemplated legislative bundling on the scale that Congress indulges in today....

"....The Framers might have agreed that if Congress claims that a ‘bill’ is everything it produces in a session, then the president may with equal justice (and more common sense) treat as a separate bill each part of this legislative product that addresses a single subject. Thus, perhaps a ‘bill’ about the proper weight of turkey parts, military salaries, and a thousand other subjects could be treated as many bills, no matter how Congress styles it.

"The text of the Constitution provides some support for this inference from the structure of the Framers' design about the proper meaning of ‘bill.’ The presentment clause speaks of ‘Every Bill’ being presented to the president. This phrase presupposes that the president's approval would be sought and required on numerous proposed laws rather than, in the extreme, one big law....

"....Whether the Framers thought Congress had, as an inherent part of the legislative power, the authority to bundle legislation is not the question; it is, instead, whether the Framers also thought that the exercise of an item veto in some form was (or would be) a constitutionally appropriate response to such bundling. Indeed, if they thought bundling was permissible, it might have been because they thought the abuse of this power would, in the end, provoke a concomitant exercise of the presidential veto power, especially because the Framers thought that the first function of the veto was to protect the president from legislative encroachments...."


"At the Constitutional Convention, moreover, James Madison proposed adding clause 3 to Article I, section 7, in order to extend the president's veto power to address ingenious packagings of legislative proposals that might otherwise escape veto under clause 2. He wrote: ‘If the negative of the President was confined to bills, it would be evaded by acts under the form and name of Resolutions, votes, &c.’ The addition of clause 3 revealed the Framers' concern about evasion of the presentment process. Their response was not to forbid such legislative maneuvering - surely a hopeless task - but to make clear that the presentment requirement and the veto power applied to all measures produced by Congress purporting to have the force of law. Congressional bundling does not seem far removed from calling a bill a resolution in order to avoid presentment. Both are ways to vitiate the veto power."

The bottom line is this. When Congress puts together apples, oranges, and bananas in one fruit basket and says to the President take it or leave it, by the Framers' design, the President can take the apples and oranges and reject the bananas.

Perhaps a better way to characterize the Constitutional powers which currently inhere in the President is by asserting that they represent the ability to veto by category rather than to go within a category to pick and choose as to which defense items will be preserved, which will be abandoned, which educational programs will be subsidized, which will be rejected, etc.

Even liberal Republican Congressman Tom Campbell (R-CA) argued that some form of "line-item" authority is already there, observing (Congressional Record, 5/16/91, p. E1803) that "The intent of the Constitution is clear: Congress passes bills, the President looks at each one; he approves some and vetoes others; Congress gets to override any veto by a two-thirds vote.

"But suppose Congress combined all bills for an entire session into one huge bill....Such a ploy by Congress would effectively take away the veto power. Clearly, this is a distortion of the intended constitutional process."


One conservative who has been consistent in his opposition to changes in the Constitution with respect to the veto has been Mickey Edwards, formerly a GOP member of Congress from Oklahoma. Edwards wrote in The Washington Post (2/8/84) that "Unfortunately, conservatives who ought to know better... have, in their frustration, embraced concepts that would concentrate substantial new powers in that most concentrated of power bases, the presidency....

"But conservatives have overlooked what the result could be. Under such a transfer of power, if a Jimmy Carter - or a Walter Mondale - chose to veto an appropriation of funds for construction of the B1 bomber, a weapons system repeatedly supported by majorities in both the House and Senate, a small band of liberals, a mere one-third of the House and Senate, could kill the program by refusing to override the veto.

"While a Carter, even a Mondale, would not be likely to veto an entire defense appropriations bill, and would thus be somewhat bounded by congressional determination to proceed with systems such as the B1, the power to accept most of the appropriation but single out specific items for veto could (and, if Mondale were to become president, probably would) eliminate defense items crucial to the national security....

"If the concentration of power in the federal government is the single philosophical element on which all conservatives unite (to be generally opposed to the concentration of power in Washington is the root of American political conservatism), then, by extension, the focusing of that power in a single individual should likewise arouse fear."


In a letter addressed to me on April 23, 1984, Edwards, as chairman of the American Conservative Union, wrote: "As a matter of strict Constitutional construction, it should be noted that the Constitution vests in the President the power to ‘disapprove’ (veto) ‘Every order, resolution, or vote...’ passed by the Senate and House. It does not vest in the President the power to strike specific parts of such resolutions. To grant the President such power would damage the carefully crafted balance of, and separation of, powers woven into our system."


The veto power now available to the President has been badly under-utilized, but it offers great hope for those of us who want to restore the Federal government to its original Constitutional boundaries.

As Professor Charles Rice observed in a research study prepared for The Conservative Caucus Foundation in February, 1981, "Where a bill providing for the continuance of a program is vetoed and that veto is sustained, the termination of that program will generally follow as a matter of course....

" is...true as a ‘general proposition of the law’ that the Administration ‘cannot be forced to spend any funds which have not yet been appropriated.’ Moreover, a mere authorization of a program by Congress ‘does not necessarily mean that a program will continue"....a program will terminate when there is simply no law appropriating further funds for it....If there is no money authorized and appropriated for a program, it is clear that the program must terminate....This conclusion is dictated by the language of the Constitution itself, which provides that ‘No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.’66....A sustained Presidential veto of either an authorization or an appropriation for the continuance of a program would therefore have the effect of terminating that program unless funds were made available from other sources for the program. ...this conclusion applies to the termination of entire agencies as well as of the programs conducted by agencies. The constitutional mandate that money shall be drawn from the Treasury only ‘in consequence of appropriations made by law’ applies to the funds needed to run agencies as well as to those needed to run terminate a program by a sustained veto, a President must decide not only to veto it but also to refuse to divert other funds to keep the program alive."


1. Reject any Constitutional amendment to alter original Constitutional arrangements.

2. Repeal the Impoundment Act of 1974.

3. Elect a President with the courage to fully exercise his Constitutional veto authority to (a) close down programs, (b) require a balanced budget, and (c) reject the "bundling" of diverse categories of programs in a single appropriations measure.

62 Local 2677, AFGE v. [Howard] Phillips, 358 F. Supp. at 60, 73 (D.C., D.C., 1973).
66 U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9

  Immigration | March 16, 2006


Washington, DC-As expected, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) has put forward a proposal that makes amnesty available to nearly all of the 11-13 million people who have broken America’s immigration laws, allow unlimited numbers of new guest workers to enter the U.S. labor force, and offers the American public little more than vague promises that the government will enforce immigration laws in the future. Specter’s amnesty-guest worker proposal, ironically, was unveiled a day after a new study revealed that American workers have seen a steady and significant decline in their wages in the past several years.

“The Specter bill closely mirrors the open borders policies advocated by President Bush, and contrasts sharply with an enforcement-only bill approved by the House of Representatives in December. The Senate bill offers nearly all of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. the opportunity to gain legal status and would allow an unlimited number of new guest workers to enter the country.

“ ‘It is dismaying, but not surprising that this is the direction that Senator Specter has chosen to take,’ commented Dan Stein, president of FAIR. ‘There is a huge disconnect between the Senate and the America public. The American people want our immigration laws enforced and their jobs protected from a torrent of foreign workers entering the country. What they are getting from the Senate and the Bush White House is a plan that will severely diminish their job prospects and security.

“Under the legislation proposed by Chairman Specter any foreign national who proffers a claim to having been in the U.S. illegally prior to 2004 would be eligible to obtain guest worker status. Since it will be a virtual impossibility to investigate and verify millions of claims, passage of this proposal would also invite massive fraud that could significantly increase the number of people receiving amnesty. …

“The Specter-Bush immigration plan is based on two blatant misrepresentations, accused FAIR. The first is that there are ‘jobs Americans won’t do,’ and the second is that the only options for dealing with mass illegal immigration is to deport them all overnight, or grant them legal status.

“ ‘Americans will do any job that needs to be done in this country, provided they are paid a fair wage,’ Stein said. ‘We see it every day Americans doing difficult, even dangerous jobs to support themselves and their families.

“ ‘Dealing with the illegal aliens already here is not a choice between mass amnesty and mass deportations. The choice is between mass amnesty and diligent enforcement of immigration laws at the border and in the interior of the country. The House has offered a rational approach that, over time, will convince many of those here illegally to leave. The Senate and the White House are offering capitulation and the demise of the American middle class.’ ” Source: FAIR Press Release, 2/27/06

  Harry Browne | March 13, 2006

Harry Browne Will Be Missed

I was saddened to learn of the death, at age 72, of Harry Browne, who was my rival in the 1996 and Year 2000 Presidential campaigns – – – he as the nominee of the Libertarian Party, I as the standard bearer for what is now the Constitution Party.

Harry and I always enjoyed a cordial relationship. His gracious demeanor and fidelity to the principles he held dear always impressed me.

My sincere condolences go out to his wife, his daughter, and his friends.

  Henry M. Morris | March 9, 2006


The Washington Post (3/1/06) obituary says this: "Henry M. Morris, whose writing describing what he saw as a divinely created world helped ignite a fierce national dispute about creationism and evolution, died Feb. 25."

Dr. Morris had a profound impact on the Phillips family. My eldest son, Doug, became an adjunct professor with Dr. Morris' Institute for Creation Research, lecturing widely in support of the fact that the Bible is literally true with respect to our origins.

Meeting with Dr. Morris in 1996, I was greatly honored to receive his support in my campaign for the Presidency that year.

Dr. Morris’s history changing book, The Genesis Flood, secured a publisher through the intervention of our mentor and mutual friend Dr. R. J. Rushdoony.

  Communist Chinese Port Control | March 8, 2006


D. J. McGuire observes in his China e–Lobby News of the Day for February 28 that "If you thought the United Arab Emirates regime was a questionable port operator, take a look at the China Ocean Shipping company, a Communist-run firm that ‘was able to build its own terminal’ (Newsmax) in Long Beach, California despite having been caught trying to smuggle in 2000 AK-47s into the Oakland in 1996. 

Making matters worse, the folks at the Port of Humboldt Bay (near Oakland) want to let the Communists ‘build and manage a marine terminal’ (Eureka Times-Standard) there."

  Condi Rice | March 7, 2006


"The U.S. Department of State has announced it will grant ‘Designated Event Status’ to the 2006 Gay Games that will be held in Chicago in July. The special status comes with privileges for the several thousand who will travel to the U.S. Those participants with HIV/AIDS, who are generally restricted from entering the country, are being given the green light to participate. 

The Gay Games have attempted to fashion themselves as the Olympics for Gay people as if it were just another grand sporting event like the Special Olympics or the senior Olympics. While model Olympic athletes display discipline and self control, there appears to be no model for Gay Games attendees, in fact, the ‘social’ life, the off-the-field activities, garner more emphasis. 

It’s bad enough that corporate sponsors the Gay Games include Walgreens and Commonwealth Edison-Chicago’s utility company. Now we learn that a Chicago gay bathhouse has been accepted as a corporate sponsor for the games. Such venues are breeding grounds for the AIDS virus. The tragedy is that there are Americans who may well be infected with a deadly disease as a direct result of this most unwise decision. Why should this administration feel the need to bow to the politically correct crowd? 

Please call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 to register your concern." Source: Family Research Council’s Washington Update, 2/28/06

  Petitions Delivered to White House | March 3, 2006


TCC Staff Delivers Petitions to White House

Hon. George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20050

Dear Mr. President:

Accompanying this letter are 20,300 petitions from members and supporters of The Conservative Caucus asking you to support the Constitution Restoration Act (CRA) (H.R. 1070 and S. 520).

These 20,300 petitions supplement the 30,000 which were delivered to you previously.

Anti-Christian judicial tyranny has become one of the major threats to our liberties and to the continuation of Constitutional government. The persecution of former Alabama Chief Justice Moore is a leading example of the bigotry manifested by some Federal judges.

It is essential that men such as Roy Moore be protected from Federal judges who abuse their authority by ignoring the plain language of the Constitution. A Federal judge’s order for the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building was a violation of the Constitution, and of the Constitutional requirement for judicial "good behavior".

Therefore, to prevent similar abuses in the future, I am asking you to support the Constitution Restoration Act (CRA).

I hope that you will endorse the CRA and make it a priority for your second term.


Howard Phillips

  Hillary Clinton & Panama Ports | March 2, 2006



According to, "2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is expanding her complaint about foreign companies owning U.S. ports – and now says a 1999 a deal to let a Chinese company takeover the ports at each end of the Panama Canal was a mistake.

"Speaking at the 92nd Street YMCA in Manhattan yesterday, Clinton told the Jewish Community Relations Council: ‘there are those who say we can’t [prevent foreign governments form operating U.S. ports] because look what happened in the last 20 years …You know, we have the Chinese running the Panama Canal. We have other government-controlled entities controlling our ports.’

"Mrs. Clinton neglected to mention, however, that it was her husband who approved the deal in question, when the Chinese company, Hutchison Whampoa, sought to buy the Panama Canal’s ports.

"When security concerns arose, then-President Clinton insisted that Chinese ownership posed no threat to canal operations, explaining that Hutchison was ‘bending over backwards to make sure that they run it in a competent and able and fair manner’."

  Ideas | March 1, 2006


According to Professor Howard M. Friedman of the University of Toledo College of Law, "Yesterday it was announced that the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services has entered a settlement with the American Civil Liberties Union in a case challenging the constitutionality of federal funding of an abstinence-only sex education program know [sic] as ‘The Silver Ring Thing". … The ACLU charged that the program was using taxpayer funds to promote religious doctrines. HHS already suspended funding of SRT in August 2005, saying that the program ‘may not have included adequate safeguards to clearly separate in time or location inherently religious activities from federally-funded activities.’ In yesterday’s settlement…, HHS agreed that it will not fund SRT’s program as currently structured. In any future applications for federal funding, SRT must comply with prohibition on using federal funds to support inherently religious activities. In addition, HHS agreed to closely monitor any grant applications by SRT for the next two years. The Alliance Defense Fund, which had intervened in the case to support SRT, said that it was pleased that SRT would be permitted to apply for funding in future years."

As Thomas Jefferson observed, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical".

The Federal government should not be funding ideological, philosophical, or political advocacy, whether it is on the Left or the Right, whether it is Christian or anti-Christian.

But to allege that abstinence-only sex education is "inherently religious" is, while correct, a categorization equally applicable to groups which advocate abortion, sodomy, et cetera.

All ideas are inherently religious. Christianity is not the only religion. Buggery and baby butchering reflect a world view that inescapably derives from conclusions about the nature of divinity, humanity, and morality.

Let’s cut the baloney and cut off all funding from the Federal Treasury of organizations and activities which reflect world views whether they be perverse or providential.

Visit every day for the latest commentary, news and action items in support of restoring our Constitutional Republic

To support the many important projects of The Conservative Caucus with a donation, please call 703-938-9626 or use your credit card. Thank you.

Howard Phillips' Constitutional Government Blog is a Project of

The Conservative Caucus *
450 Maple Avenue East * Vienna, Va. 22180 * 703-938-9626
Visit our main website for a wealth of issue and action resources
Webmaster: Art Harman

Copyright © 2006 The Conservative Caucus, Inc.  All rights reserved.