(Atlanta – 1 March 2010) Even as snowstorms were blanketing much of the northeast, a firestorm for the cause of liberty and state sovereignty was heating up in Atlanta on Thursday and Friday.

Hosted by Ray McBerry, Republican candidate for governor of Georgia, the first national Tenth Amendment Summit convened for the purpose of bringing candidates together from around the country who are running on a Tenth Amendment platform, each with the goal of restraining the power of the federal government through the assertion of peaceful, constitutional means. The event was co-sponsored by the Tenth Amendment Center in California.

Thursday night’s closed-door meeting included twenty-five candidates from across America who represented thirteen states — more than a quarter of the states that make up the union, including North Carolina’s own Dr. Dan Eichenbaum, Republican candidate for North Carolina’s 11th congressional district. Of candidates participating, there were fifteen running for Congress, one for U.S. Senate, one for state senate, five for state house, and three candidates for governor of their respective states. There were also both men and women present, running for office.

Perhaps more telling, though, was the fact that the candidates included Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents. While it was obvious that all of the candidates did not share the same views on many issues, it was very apparent that each shared the common belief that his or her state should be allowed to govern itself without federal encroachment in any area other than those powers expressly granted to it in the Constitution.

The closed-door meeting Thursday night was a strategy session for the candidates to discuss what is working currently to promote the cause of state sovereignty and how the group can work together to advance the cause more.

Friday’s all-day meeting was open to the public and included speeches from nearly all of the participating candidates, including the keynote speaker — former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who is currently a Republican candidate for governor of Alabama. Dr. Eichenbaum, candidate for congress in North Carolina, spoke of several ways in which the federal government has exceeded the limits set forth in the constitution and the need for citizens to trust in freedom.

One of the important things to emerge from the Summit was a statement presented by the candidates Friday morning as a mutual statement of purpose. It reads as follows:

We The People of the several States created a federal government to serve as our limited agent, delegating to the federal government only those limited and few powers listed in the Constitution, and no others.

We recognize the federal government has seized unlimited power over virtually every aspect of Americans lives in violation of the Constitution of the United States, specifically with respect to the Tenth Amendment.

We call upon freedom-loving citizens everywhere to stand with us, as candidates for state and federal office, to pass meaningful and sensible legislation to restore the most critical check and balance deliberately designed into our constitutional republic: that of strong, sovereign states.

We pledge to limit and restrain all federal government exercise of power that exceeds in any way the plain language of those few powers listed in the Constitution and to nullify all others that exceed such limit.

When we restore the balance of power between the states and the federal government according to the Constitution, our country will enjoy the dynamic blessings of liberty and prosperity.

END RELEASE

For more information about the Tenth Amendment Summit or to schedule interviews, please contact Brian Umbarger, Dr Dan 4 Congress Communications Director, at 828-216-6645 or via email at brian@drdan4congress.comDr. Dan Eichenbaum speaks at the Tenth Amendment Summit

I’m very excited to be attending The Tenth Amendment Summit on Friday in Atlanta, Georgia, The Summit is a gathering of 2010 candidates from across the country who will champion state sovereignty. In addition, I have received an invitation to attend the closed-door meeting of select candidates on Thursday evening to discuss strategies for implementing state-level responses to federal overreach, possible legislation, and advancing the message of state sovereignty. I have also been included in the list of candidates who will have the opportunity to address the Summit.

Speakers include former superior court judge and Fox News analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama, who is widely known for his refusal as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court to remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse wall.

As a staunch defender of states’ rights, I anticipate the Summit experience will provide me with additional knowledge and ammunition to fight federal overreach as a congressman in Washington.

As a nation, I believe the US must protect and defend its borders, national identity, and sovereignty against all threats external or internal. The push toward globalism sponsored by the current administration and the United Nations is a direct threat to our personal liberties and the rule of law as defined by our Constitution, and, as such, must be fought with all vigor and persistence. When our Constitution was written, treaties consisted of agreements one nation to another nation. For this reason, provisions were made so that no state could opt out of an international treaty agreed to by senate ratification. These provisions are extremely dangerous now that UN “human rights” treaties deal with citizens’ rights inside a nation. Senate ratification of UN treaties such as those concerning Rights of Children, Climate Change, Weapons, Judicial/Legal rights, etc., would allow international law to supersede state law to the detriment of our citizens. This possibility is unacceptable to me. Until this constitutional loophole is removed, we must actively prevent ratification of any international treaty that would contradict or restrict any rights and provision guaranteed by our constitution.

The States created the federal government, not the other way around. The Tenth Amendment is referred to as the “forgotten amendment.” Our founders added the Tenth Amendment because they wanted to make it absolutely clear that anything that was not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution would be reserved to the states or to the people. Individual states must actively and aggressively take the necessary legal steps to reaffirm and regain the rights that have been usurped by the federal government.

Trust in Freedom
Dr. Dan Eichenbaum

Patrick McHenry, beloved (sic) “conservative” congressman from the 10 District, sent a friendly letter out stating, “Be sure to fill out your census forms when they arrive to insure we get our fair share of the government money because this is the only way our federal government knows how many live in our district.” Really? That’s what the census was designed for, Congressman? And folks, this is supposed to be one of the good guys!

Larry Porter

WE NEED A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE, AND THE SENATE

By C.L. Gray, M.D.
- FOXNews.com

Historically, practicing physicians have shunned politics. If our democracy is to survive, these times demand thoughtful solutions and difficult decisions. Few individuals are better suited to the task than the Hippocratic physician.

Behind the scenes, a quiet and unassuming movement is afoot destined to reshape the future of American health care—and possibly the entire landscape of American politics.

The House currently has fourteen physicians. The Senate has two. This means less than 3% of our elected officials in Washington come from one of the most trusted professions in America—medicine. But that is about to change.

Rising from the ranks of my home state, three North Carolina physicians are running for Congress to address our nation’s daunting challenges. Dr. B. J. Lawson, Dr. James Taylor, and Dr. Dan Eichenbaum seek to represent the 4th, 6th, and 11th Congressional districts. Should they be elected, North Carolina would have a larger physician representation than any state in the Union—three of thirteen Congressional seats, nearly 25%. But why should America care?

In “Precepts” Hippocrates once wrote, “For if love of men is present, love of the art is also present.” In “On Breaths” he added, “The physician sees terrible things, touches what is loathsome, and from others’ misfortunes harvests troubles of his own.” For the Hippocratic physician, the well-being of the individual was of primary concern—not power, not money, not personal gain, and most assuredly, not the supremacy of the State. The Hippocratic physician was born to serve his fellow man.

But such servant leaders are in short supply in Washington today. An air of entitled aristocracy permeates our political class. Rather than guarding hard-earned taxpayer dollars with sacred trust, politicians spend with reckless abandon. Rather than leaving Washington to live under the laws they pass, most politicians cling to power for as long as possible.

Washington has become a city where pork and payoffs rule the day. Where backroom deals and buried earmarks are accepted as they way things get done. Where health care reform becomes about politics, power, and payoffs, not patient care. Americans chafe against this sad perversion of power. To reclaim our representative government, We the People must find new leadership.

Historically, practicing physicians have shunned politics—and for good reason. As we open the clinic door or push aside the emergency room curtain, our patient’s political leanings never cross our mind. Nor should they.

However, our nation now moves into complex and perilous waters. Trillions of dollars of unfunded Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security obligations must be addressed. The exploding American debt now threatens our very independence. If our democracy is to survive, these times call for thoughtful solutions and difficult decisions. Few individuals are better suited to make these difficult decisions than the Hippocratic physician.

To save the patient the surgeon must sometimes cut to cure. To fight some cancers the oncologist must prescribe chemotherapy. Physicians must not only understand the details of a complex system and make the correct diagnosis, they must treat the illness, even if the patient does not want to hear what the physician has to say. Physicians know that alleviating symptoms does not address the disease, that more is needed however difficult.

The behavior of two prominent physician/politicians, Senators Bill Frist and Tom Coburn demonstrate the credibility of the physician statesman. In sharp contrast to today’s permanent political aristocracy, Senator Frist stepped down after achieving the position of Senate Majority Leader. Why? He had promised the voters he would serve for 12 years and no more—he kept his word. Few individuals can walk away from such power. In contrast to Washington’s common but corrupt practice of earmarks, Senator Coburn has opposed wasteful spending (by both parties) so aggressively he earned the nickname Dr. No. Like Senator Frist, he too has pledged to relinquish power after 12 years of service.

In the fall of 2010, North Carolina may serve as a bell-weather state. North Carolina’s state motto, “esse quam videri”—to be, not to seem to be, distinguishes the politician from the statesman. The politician is concerned with perception; the statesman is driven by character. Voters must decide if these three physicians can be statesmen. If elected, these three men must prove that they are.

Facing overwhelming debt, we need politicians willing to make tough decisions. In dealing with a subject as complex as health care reform, we need men and women who understand how decisions in Washington impact patient care at the bedside. Americans desperately seek elected officials committed to financial responsibility, Constitutional fidelity, and the sanctity of the patient/physician relationship. Two questions remain:

1) Will such servant/leaders rise to the fore?
2) Will We the People recognize who they are and send them to Washington?

C. L. Gray, M.D., is president of Physicians for Reform.

Opinion articles from NC Freedom members. The views expressed in Editorial articles published on NC Freedom are those of the authors alone. They may or may not represent the views or opinions of NC Freedom or those who volunteer to maintain the site.

`Liberty Slate 2010′ has ranked Dr. Dan Eichenbaum, grassroots candidate for congressional NC 11, THIRD in ability to win based on candidates from across the entire country. Rand Paul is number 1!

Click here: http://libertyslate.com/candidates/candidates-by-rank/ to view the ranking (rest assured that Dr. Dan does not favor unconstitutional entitlement programs).

The Cherokee County 9-12 Project hosted an 11th District Congressional Candidate Forum on Monday night in Murphy, NC. The forum was open to the public. All Congressional candidates, including Heath Shuler, were invited. Those who actually participated included Dr. Dan Eichenbaum (Physician, Murphy), Greg Newman (Attorney, Hendersonville) and Kenny West (Insurance Salesman, Hayesville). The debate lasted two hours and included an opening statement from each candidate, direct questioning, an audience Q and A session, and closing statements from each candidate. Afterward, a straw poll was taken of all audience members. The vote results are as follows:

Dr. Dan Eichenbaum – 91
Kenny West – 38
Greg Newman – 16
Ed Krause – 2
Undecided – 1

A Candid Mission…

Promoting conservative thinking – punching the mumbling majority, masquerading conservatives, and misguided liberals with matching enthusiasm!

Did you get punched today?

Listen to or download a new minute Monday – Saturday.

---

As America observes the unfolding carnage in Haiti, we have been brutally reminded of our blessings. As we shift our recliners to more comfortable positions, we might pause a moment to ponder a deeper truth – those blessings do not convey immunity.

No Free Rides

As a conservative appreciative of our country’s traditional values, it is a personal belief that prosperity and safety are not without cost. The Bible, reinforced by nature and the test of experience, assures us that nothing is free and the pretense of such is anything but loving.

God may have made men equal, but such is certainly not the case with cultures. Whatever romantic attributes previously granted to Haitian culture were grievously assaulted by recent events. The broken rock fault under Haiti has revealed a long standing cultural fault on top of Haiti.

In spite of the lessons of history and this current event so close to our shores, most Americans believe we retain an inevitable destiny of power and security. To do anything else would require we step around the soft allure of comfort and face the much more demanding mistress of accountability.

Confronting the Anointed

In my home town a couple of dozen Tea Party members recently stepped away from their comfort zones to confront elected officials returning from a junket. The state legislator and county commission chair flew in from Hawaii, an island paradise coincidently located at about the same latitude as the paradise lost – Haiti.

The benefits of a tax payer funded vacation evidently included a respective four thousand dollar dose of Maui’s version of ‘chutzpa’ – Hebrew for ‘audacious entitlement’. It seems that both officials were stricken with the crucial importance of their roles on the Airport Authority and the daunting skill sets necessary to that function. Hawaii was clearly the only place to properly acquire those proficiencies.

Those with a resistance to chicken manure marketed as chicken salad have tilted their heads at the assertion that board membership necessitates exotic trips to tropical vistas. Those acquainted with books, the Internet, and other affordable and accessible learning tools were equally skeptical of the attitude of personal entitlement cheerfully defended as an act of accountability. It is apparent that awareness of a real national unemployment rate approaching 20% and enough debt to mortgage the future of our children’s children is not one of the skill sets of an information deprived airport authority.

Insult was added to injury when it was learned that Mr. Commissioner wanted to be reimbursed for using his frequent flyer miles for the trip. Audacity was added to absurdity when it was discovered that Mrs. Legislator graciously shared her room when her family showed up in Hawaii to enhance her learning experience.

Read more »

By now, you have likely heard the scuttlebutt going around about the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, TN. Specifically, the for-profit model of organizer Judson Phillips has raised red-flags. Making matters worse for the organizers, Phillips has a history of financial problems.

Phillips has announced that the $549-a-head convention featuring Sarah Palin is sold out. But Tea Party critics and allies alike have been asking questions about what Phillips plans to do with the money. Concrete answers have been in short supply, and in the end it looked like too big a risk for any public office holder.

Rep. Michele Bachmann has become the latest high-profile conservative to bag the rapidly unraveling Tea Party Convention in Nashville next week.

The Minnesota Republican, who has become something of a heroine of the Tea Party movement, decided Thursday morning that she is canceling her appearance at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel next Friday, where she was scheduled to be a breakfast speaker.

Bachmann’s office cited the same concerns that other Tea Party activists have voiced about the first-of-its-kind national gathering: “We’re out,” said Bachmann spokesman Dave Dziok. “It comes down to conflicting advice as to how these profits are going to be used after the fact. We’d rather err on the side of caution than do it and find out it’s improper… with somebody saying ‘they’re using the money from an event you were at to support this and this,’ which comes as a direct conflict with what you’re doing as a member of Congress.”

As someone who paid out of my family’s personal budget to attend this event, I have to say that I am deeply disappointed in Rep. Bachmann’s decision.

Notice what is glossed over in the news article: this event is sold out. No one attending was forced or coerced to purchase a ticket. Obviously, attendess bought tickets because they felt the value would, at the very least, equal the cost. The waiting list has over 300 people on it. A great many people want what is being offered at $549 a head. Phillips and Tea Party Nation are offering a conference at which Tea Party leaders from across the country can network and communicate. We will be able to attend break out session classes. We will hear former Governor Sarah Palin speak. Until yesterday, we were also going to hear Rep. Michele Bachmann speak, something which was to be the highlight of my trip.

Does it matter what Phillips and Tea Party Nation will do with the money? Should we care that they will make a profit? Ought we be outraged that they might make a very large profit? No, no, and no.

Are we liberty loving capitalists or aren’t we? Tea Party Nation is a for-profit corporation. They have organized what, for all appearances, will be a well attended, well executed conference. Does it strike anyone else as a little odd that Rep Michele Bachmann, a woman known for her embrace of the free market and individual liberty, would back out of this event due to concerns that the ticket price is too high?

Unlike Palin, who is reportedly getting a $100,000 speaking fee, Dziok said Bachmann was not getting any money for her speech.

This event has been much maligned, not unlike every other step of this movement. Bachmann has dealt us a blow, but as usual, we will soldier on. Ultimately, I believe the damage will be to her credibility, not ours.

As a Constitutional conservative, I will only work with the powers vested to me in Congress within Article 1, Section 8. I am not conceptually an anti-war candidate. As a commissioned officer in the Navy during the Vietnam era, I believe we must maintain a strong military, superior to that of any other nation, and provide our soldiers the necessary equipment for them to perform optimally and protect them from harm. While war can be considered justified and essential under certain circumstances, the consequences of war – loss of life, disability, displacement of innocents – should be abhorrent to morally principled people. In consideration of the above, war must be constitutionally declared, have specific goals, a realistic plan to achieve success, and an exit strategy once the objectives have been realized.

On September 11, 2001, our nation was attacked with the unacceptable murder of over three thousand of our fellow citizens. I believe it was our right and obligation to locate, capture, and punish the perpetrators by whatever means necessary and without the consent or help of the international community. If that goal had been our focus and had been efficiently and successfully prosecuted, our troops would most likely be at home today. Instead, we embarked on a course of “nation-building” both in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a result, eight years later, our brave men and women in uniform continue to be in harm’s way in foreign countries with no end in sight.

Most importantly, as a nation, we do not have the spare money to prosecute extended military actions overseas. Every dollar we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan is either borrowed from China or printed by the Federal Reserve, neither of which is fiscally prudent for our nation’s future. Since the terrorists can plan and mount attacks against us from anywhere (e.g., Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Yemen), our current mission should be directed efficiently and effectively toward capturing our terrorist enemies, punishing those who harbor them, and crippling their ability to attack us again.

There is a historical parallel here in Jefferson’s pursuit of the Barbary pirates in the early nineteenth century. Our nation undertook successful military action against the pirates and the leaders of the nations that harbored them without rebuilding Tripoli in the image of New York City. To continue this thought process, even Jefferson understood that defense of our nation is not limited to military action only on our own shores. True “isolationism”, maybe possible in colonial times, is not practical or safe in today’s world in which a nation can be destroyed in minutes instead of weeks or months. Our federal government has the absolute right and moral obligation to defend our country and our fellow citizens by all justified actions wherever necessary.

When I am in Congress, I will work to bring our troops home from those military bases that are not necessary around the world and focus on bringing our government back down to the level the founders advise. While I do not believe we should enter into “entangling” alliances that would require our military action without the consent of Congress, our world is too small to exist without friends who might ask us for help. In those instances, the need for military assistance could be decided on a case by case basis.

The issue of preemptive military action is more difficult in our times. To use a “real world” example, an aggressor 10 feet away or a sniper 400 yards away both pointing a loaded gun at you represent an immediate risk of death. An aggressive bully 10 feet away, armed or not, shouting insults and threats represents a much lower risk of death or injury. You would most likely agree that different responses are required for each of the above circumstances. As your Congressman, it would be my obligation to evaluate the true risk to our nation before choosing an appropriate course of action to protect our nation and its citizens.

I hope you will join me in my fight to bring founding principles back to the capitol.

Trust In Freedom,
Dr. Dan Eichenbaum

As a physician who has taken the Hippocratic Oath, and a Constitutionalist, I value the sanctity of all life and feel that the “right” to take innocent life is indeed in direct violation of my ethics and the 9th Amendment. In other words, the right of the unborn to essential life should not be disparaged by the choice of the mother exercising her “right” to choose. Since it is only morally permissible to take the life of another for reason of self-defense, I believe that abortion should only be allowed if the mother’s life is in danger. In addition, I would remind you that, on a constitutional basis, abortion is not a federal issue and is, therefore, more properly one legislated by the states and its’ citizens.