“An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference,” said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying.”

The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it’s headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO’s deficit estimates.

It does appear as if Unsustainable is the new normal:

National Review’s Jim Geraghty sums up Obama’s America thus: “Unsustainable is the new normal.” Indeed. The other day, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, described current deficits as “unsustainable.” So let’s make them even more so. The president tells us, with a straight face, that his grossly irresponsible profligate wastrel of a predecessor took the federal budget on an eight-year joyride, so the only way his sober, fiscally prudent successor can get things under control is to grab the throttle and crank it up to what Mel Brooks in Spaceballs (which seems the appropriate comparison) called “Ludicrous Speed.”

Obama’s spending proposes to take the average Bush deficit for the years 2001–2008, and double it, all the way to 2020. To get out of the Bush hole, we need to dig a hole twice as deep for one-and-a-half times as long. And that’s according to the official projections of his Economics Czar, Ms. Rose Colored-Glasses. By 2015, the actual hole may be so deep that even if you toss every Obama speech down it on double-spaced paper you still won’t be able to fill it up. In the spendthrift Bush days, federal spending as a proportion of GDP average 19.6 percent. Obama proposes to crank it up to 25 percent as a permanent feature of life.

But, if they’re “unsustainable,” what happens when they can no longer be sustained? A failure of bond auctions? A downgraded government debt rating? Reduced GDP growth? Total societal collapse? Mad Max on the New Jersey Turnpike?

Testifying to the House Budget Committee, Director Elmendorf attempted to pull back from the wilder shores of “unsustainable”: “I think most observers expect that the government will act, that the unsustainability will be resolved through action, not through witnessing some collapse down the road,” he said. “If literally nothing is done, then eventually something very, very bad happens. But I think the widespread view is that you and your colleagues will take action.”

Dream on, you kinky fantasist. The one thing that can be guaranteed is that a political class led by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, a handful of reach-across-the-aisle Republican accommodationists, and an economically illiterate narcissist in the Oval Office is never going to rein in unsustainable spending in any meaningful sense. That leaves Director Elmendorf’s alternative scenario. What was it again? Oh, yeah: “Some collapse down the road.”

I don’t think Douglas Elmendorf understands the simple law of Congress that doing nothing to stop fiscal madness is a form of art they’ve perfected . If you Congress to do something, convince them it will lead to a deficit increase and they’ll dust off the legislative machinery faster than you can sneeze.

Now the EU chief if warning of a nightmare scenario. The type of scenario that anyone with half a brain could have seen coming a mile – or a couple of decades – away (emphasis mine):

Democracy could ‘collapse’ in Greece, Spain and Portugal unless urgent action is taken to tackle the debt crisis, the head of the European Commission has warned.

In an extraordinary briefing to trade union chiefs last week, Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso set out an ‘apocalyptic’ vision in which crisis-hit countries in southern Europe could fall victim to military coups or popular uprisings as interest rates soar and public services collapse because their governments run out of money.

The stark warning came as it emerged that EU chiefs have begun work on an emergency bailout package for Spain which is likely to run into hundreds of billions of pounds.

A £650 billion bailout for Greece has already been agreed.

John Monks, former head of the TUC, said he had been ‘shocked’ by the severity of the warning from Mr Barroso, who is a former prime minister of Portugal.

Mr Monks, now head of the European TUC, said: ‘I had a discussion with Barroso last Friday about what can be done for Greece, Spain, Portugal and the rest and his message was blunt: “Look, if they do not carry out these austerity packages, these countries could virtually disappear in the way that we know them as democracies. They’ve got no choice, this is it.”

The road to Socialism is paved not with good intentions but with stones from the road to hell. This is what happens when unsustainable collides with a dependency so profound its victims are completely unable to function without the government telling them what to do, when to do it, and cuddling them like children until all liberty and the spirit of independence disappears into a sea of mediocrity. Try to take it away and watch grown adults take their mouths away from the government teat long enough to scream “Mine, mine, mine!”. Take it away and the children throw a fit and may just decide to replace a democracy with a dictator:

Greece has been rocked by a series of national strikes and riots this year following the announcement of swingeing cuts to public spending designed to curb Britain’s deficit.

Spain and Portugal have also announced austerity measures in recent weeks amid growing signs that the international markets are increasingly worried they could default on their debts.

Other EU countries seeing public protests over austerity plans include Hungary, Italy and Romania, where public sector pay is to be slashed by 25 per cent.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who visited Madrid last week, said the situation in Spain should serve as a warning to Britain of the perils of failing to tackle the deficit quickly.

He said the collapse of confidence in Spain had seen interest rates soar, adding: ‘As the nation with the highest deficit in Europe in 2010, we simply cannot afford to let that happen to us too.’

Mr Barroso’s warning lays bare the concern at the highest level in Brussels that the economic crisis could lead to the collapse of not only the beleaguered euro, but the EU itself, along with a string of fragile democracies…

…Mr Monks yesterday warned that the new austerity measures themselves could take the continent ‘back to the 1930s’.

In an interview with the Brussels-based magazine EU Observer he said: ‘This is extremely dangerous.

‘This is 1931, we’re heading back to the 1930s, with the Great Depression and we ended up with militarist dictatorship.

‘I’m not saying we’re there yet, but it’s potentially very serious, not just economically, but politically as well.’

Mr Monks said union barons across Europe were planning a co-ordinated ‘day of action’ against the cuts on 29 September, involving national strikes and protests…

…The looming bankruptcy of Spain, one of the foremost economies in Europe, poses far more of a threat to European unity and the euro project than Greece.

Greece contributes 2.5 percent of GDP to Europe, Spain nearly 12 percent.

Yesterday’s report quoted German government sources saying: ‘We will lead discussions this week in Brussels concerning the crisis. It has intensified to the point that the states do not want to wait until the EU summit on Thursday in Brussels.”’

At the end of last month the credit rating agency Fitch downgraded Spain, triggering sharp falls on stock markets.

The word civilization is shorthand for a social contract agreed upon by the participants. Take away the contract and man’s true nature is laid bare. For a taste of what Europe is quickly heading towards and where we will one day find ourselves unless we wrest control back from DC and place it back into the hands of the states and the people as intended by our founders read Civilization’s Thin Veneer – Precariously We Stand.

There is no use pretending anymore. We also have seen this coming a mile away and more than just a couple of decades. It’s time to do something about it and that something does not involve running and crying to your Senator or Representative. That something involves getting involved locally and wresting back control from the Statist’s in DC through your state officials in the legislature and the governor’s mansion. And make no mistake about it – BOTH parties are statist in nature. It is not the growth of government that is separates the parties, but rather the pace of the growth of government. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can take effective action and kill the disease of socialism.

As Dr. Hunter, former policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan puts it:

The joke is on those Americans who actually believe a restoration of limited government, individual freedom and personal liberty are the objectives of either political party. The poor saps have spent their entire lives paying the full price of admission to cheer on the Washington Generals.

He sums it up well:

So, once you throw out the Democratic rascals and replace them with Republican scalawags, don’t expect things to change much. While every republican in Congress voted against ObamaCare, the Grand Old Party cannot now even muster the courage to run on a platform of repealing it.

Perhaps not in this election nor even in the presidential election to follow but soon the American people will come to understand a very sad and frightening fact about the United States today: Elections no longer work to divert the nation’s decent into the soft despotism of democratic fascism; they simply perpetuate the fraud of two parties, one Establishment, democratic in appearance, increasingly fascist in operation.

While 2010 is important and the opportunity to slow down the march towards socialism presents itself, it is more critical to grip that once that victory is realized it is time to put away childish things. Soon after or ever prior to one of the most important federal elections in my memory it will be time to pivot to the tools of nullification and remove the power of either party to force us on a death march that joins us with our European predecessors in their self-created hell. America will be the last and best hope for liberty and freedom left, but only if we chose to fight and make it so.

Ignore this at your peril. Ignore this at the peril of our Republic. Ignore this we will walk the heavily trodden path of the failed policies of socialism, with the corpses of its European victims piled along the way.

Let me begin by stating the following: If you vote for Bill White you may as well hand the keys of Texas over to Obama. Regardless of your opinion of Governor Perry, remember there are those who voted for Obama or who did not vote for McCain just to make a point. Most of those people live with that regret every single day as they watch America morph into something hardly recognizable to them. If you want to do the same to Texas then I can only defer to the words of the great American John Wayne:

Life is hard; it’s harder if you’re stupid.

To understand my supreme distrust of politicians requires an understanding of my experience last year with the sheer duplicity of the GOP during the ObamaCare saga. Anyone’s jaded attitude towards politics would grow exponentially after such an episode. In the aggregate it is clear to me from this experience and from all historical points of reference that any strategy which relies on a federal legislature to limit the power of the federal government is flawed from the start. To complicate this situation, this redistribution of power – not wealth, Mr. Obama – would require the cooperation of the Supreme Court. This is not encouraging.

While the 5-4 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago was a victory for gun owners, it is not the fact that four justices ruled against our right to bear arms that is the most troublesome part of the ruling, but that five justices ruled in favor of gun rights for all the wrong reasons:

As much as the McDonald decision is a victory for residents who want to defend themselves in Chicago and other municipalities with draconian gun laws, this decision also makes it clear that our rights are not natural and absolute. They are subject to the whims of the current members of the Supreme Court.

In view of the McDonald and Heller decisions and the myriad of federal, state, and local gun restrictions and regulations, we might rephrase the Second Amendment this way:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government, except by federal laws that infringe upon that right which are approved by the Supreme Court. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the state governments, except by state laws that infringe upon that right which are approved by the Supreme Court.

Read the whole article.

Any strategy which rests upon replacement of federal legislators sans a nullification strategy is clearly doomed if the goal is to shrink the size of government – something which has never happened. To work, such a strategy requires all three branches of the federal government to agree to limit their own power. Good luck with that.

However, any strategy which includes taking back the party from the local level up when done in tandem with a nullification strategy increases the utility of both approaches.

All of the above being said, my distrust of politicians in the aggregate does not preclude me from looking at a singular case. My previous critique of Rick Perry in retrospect is too harsh. Perhaps naivety will bite me once again, but here in Texas there are still some of us who will take a person at their word unless wisdom dictates otherwise. I am also not immune to understanding the need for the practice of Realpolitik. Although this practice is often coupled and associated with the empty promises of leaders responsible for delivering us to our current predicament, there are exceptions. While I still have issues with Governor Perry, I am quite aware that no politician exists on this planet that would find agreement with me 100% of the time. On Facebook and other sites where people are less inhibited in their comments, it is clear many think Governor Perry is a RINO. It is also clear his opponent has a nickname – Bill “Sanctuary City” White. As a one time Houston resident I can only say this of Mr. White – run away people, don’t walk. One person commented that the best thing Bill White did for Houston was to “synchronize the traffic lights”. So all differences aside, Governor Perry is Texas’ best hope while Barack Obama and Bill White are physical manifestations of the phrase caveat emptor.

There are a number of things the Governor has done or attempted to do which, quite frankly, have ticked off a number of Texans. This is beyond debate. His support of the North America Superhighway still rubs a number of folks the wrong way. It would be wise to drop it as their appears to be some indication it is about to rise from the dead. However, if the alternative is Bill White, there is no question that my full support must and will be thrown behind Governor Perry, especially after the Governor’s interview with Neil Cavuto.

Near the end is an implied if not explicit reference to multi-state coordination of nullification of federal unconstitutional laws. His demeanor is real and consistent throughout the interview, and his anger at Washington is palpable.

All great leaders have their quirks. If Perry wins the election and follows through on his promise to take on the federal government in an effective manner through the invocation of the 10th amendment at the state level (i.e. nullification) and not some inane argument in a federal court, then the quirks I referenced in my past post will become eccentric qualities of a great man. Churchill smoked his cigars, was witty and combative, painted seascapes, and suffered bouts of depression.

I have to ask myself which demographic in Texas would not want to see a state push back against federal intrusion? What demographic would not wish to enjoy more freedom and liberty?

If Governor Perry is victorious in November and follows through on his pledge to protect Texas not by appealing to the federal government, but by pushing back twice as hard as DC pushes Texas, I told my wife I’ll go buy an expensive suit, get a good haircut and a fine pair of cowboy boots and – gulp – get a manicure (but only this one time). If the Governor walks the walk, look for boot sales across the country to skyrocket and liberty loving Americans to strut about and dream of the day they will know what it feels like to tell DC to take a hike.

If the Governor wins and does not follow through, then any remaining naivety present within me will whither on the vine. That will not be a good day.

In closing, I would also ask the Governor to pledge something dear to all Texans. In Article 1, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution it states: All political power is inherent in the people. Texas is only 1 of 3 states where voters do not have the right to initiative and referendum. Texas also does not allow the recall of any state official. This flies in the face of the above referenced article and serves to neuter the Texas voter. The right to check that elected leaders follow the will of the people should not just rest with the voter during elections, but at any time. Any Texas politician who values liberty and the political power of the people, and who truly intends to follow through on promises made to constituents should embrace such a platform. To the Governor and state legislators of Texas: Will you commit to empowering the people of Texas?

…Texas’ common sense policies have resulted in cleaner air while maintaining one of the healthiest economies in our nation during the current recession.

Rick Perry was quick to talk the talk:

The Obama administration has taken yet another step in its campaign to harm our economy and impose federal control over Texas. On behalf of those Texans whose jobs are threatened by this latest overreach, and in defense of, not only our clean air program, but also our rights under the 10th Amendment, I am calling upon President Obama to rein in the EPA and instruct them to study our successful approach for recommended use elsewhere

Expectations ran high that Perry would show himself a true leader and protector of the residents of Texas and, as is his duty under both the Texas and U.S. Constitutions, take action to protect the rights of Texans. A good start is to work with the state legislative bodies in a special session towards enacting nullification legislation declaring federal mandates with regards to the Clean Air Act null and void within the boundaries of the state and add some teeth by including penalties for federal agents or local law enforcement agents that attempt to enforce this federal law within the state. Not only would this send a strong message to Washington that Texans don’t roll over, but such a shot across the bow of the federal fleet would embolden other states that look to Texas for real leadership to follow suit. To date Perry has not walked the walk:

For the last week, Governor Perry and the Texas legislature have been rattling the 10th amendment sabers and highlighting the success of the Texas policies. However, this week, the EPA officially took over control of the permitting process for one of these Texas refineries. EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz stated that the EPA is prepared to take over Texas’ entire permitting process. Now that the EPA has made it’s move, it is time for Texas leaders to quit talking and take significant action.

The above action by the EPA took place on May 25th of this year and was the first time in any state the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency seized control of a clean air permit. In May of 2010 the federal government violated the sovereitngy of Texas and inserted itself directly into an area of jurisdiction where it did not belong. Liberty loving Texans are now asking themselves just where is Governor Rick Perry and what is he going to do about this extra-constitutional infraction by the EPA.

The later part of last month found Rick Perry in China. From We Texans‘ Rick Perry, The Eyeliner Of Texas Is Upon You:

GOVERNOR PERRY’S TRIP this week to China to participate in the Shanghai World Expo is another clear indicator that business continues as usual. While hard working Texans are lamenting, as did Thomas Paine in 1776, “These are the times that try men’s souls,” we’ve apparently not yet gained the serious attention of our state leaders. If we’re to build the world anew, as our founders did and as TEA Party and 9-12 activists have been so adamantly demanding, we’re going to have to do things differently. State leaders must focus on Texas. Can I have your attention, PLEASE? The economy continues to lag, the border remains a hot-bed of unrest, the EPA is inserting herself more and more into the Texas energy sector. Now is not the time to travel the globe.

We must focus on Texas. We should be asking ourselves why Mary Kay and Texas Instruments find it necessary to manufacture their products in China. What regulations are driving them from their homeland? If Texas has such a great business climate, why do these fine companies find it necessary to establish manufacturing plants overseas? What can we do here in Texas to bring them home?

The juxtaposition with historical Texas heroes and Rick Perry is difficult to subsume. The two are so mutually exclusive that in some sort of mental analogue to the Pauli exclusion principle, one finds it impossible for the two to simultaneously occupy the same mental space. In a state known for its independence, Rick Perry appears to spend more time getting gussied up for appearances than protecting Texans from federal intrusion. Well shined cowboy boots, expensive suits, manicured fingernails, and attention to hair eerily reminiscent of John Edwards, one could forgive me if I feel Texas is on shaky ground when it comes to real leadership. If you thought we had true leader in the Texas tradition, sorry to disappoint. What we have is just another slick talking politician paying lip service to ideals Texans hold dear, while tap dancing faster than a barefooted Michael Flatley on a hot bed of coals. GQ needs their suit back and Texas needs leadership.

It was rumored the great Greek mathematician Archimedes was killed at the siege of Syracuse by a Roman soldier whose challenge he ignored while deeply immersed in a mathematical problem. As the federal government continues its march to conquer Texas, our AWOL governor appears more captivated by self-image and preoccupied with playing the role of leader while not actually leading. If Rick Perry’s contribution to protecting the sovereignty of Texas from federal intrusion is the creation of a new fashion trend – the Cowboy Metrosexual – it is reasonable to ask if he deserves the honor of serving the great state of Texas. From Sam Houston and Davie Crockett to Rick Perry. If that progression scares the hell out of you, you’re not alone. The sun is indeed setting on the Republic if Texas can’t make a stand. It’s time for Rick Perry to roll up the sleeves and get a little dirt under his fingernails on behalf of those he purports to represent.

Less image and a great deal more action would be greatly appreciated at this point. Then Rick Perry can proudly occupy the same lofty places as other great Texans. Texas would thank him. So would the country.

Cross-posted

Recently we lost the fight against ObamaCare. There are many reasons for this, but two stand out against the others. First, the GOP never had any intention of stopping ObamaCare and secondly, many did not understand the contrast between leveraged and blanket pressure. In this Politico article, Dr. Larry Hunter, President of the Social Security Institute and Lewis Uhler, President of the National Tax Limitation Committee, explain how their two organizations along with Gun Owners of America and the now-defunct Tea Party Support – which included yours truly – joined together in a monumental attempt to utilize leveraged pressure to shake the GOP out of its slumber and expose their duplicity. It is a worthy read as it explains just how the GOP let us down by selling us out and the effectiveness of leverage pressure in getting things done. A press release of the efficacy of this campaign is here.

The Tea Parties just completed the 2 million strong march on DC the previous month and then…nothing. Beltway insiders informed all of us that Democrat staffers who only a few weeks earlier during the march were wringing their hands in anxiety suddenly felt the pressure melt away. It’s hard to keep up a blanket pressure campaign and when the party went home, the party, quite literally, went home. When we attempted to inform Tea Party leaders that most Senators were in their home states for a good chunk of the week and that continuing a campaign of pressure was paramount, our appeals were met mostly with silence.

Leveraged pressure’s advantage over typical blanket pressure approaches is clear. You get more results with less effort if you know the what, when and where of your campaign. It is opportunistic in nature. That is not to say that blanket pressure – marches, fax and email blasts, and town-halls – are not effective, but only that they must be complemented with leveraged pressure and must themselves continue to be sustained if they are to be effective long-term. In the end, both approaches failed to stop ObamaCare. While our campaign ultimately pulled in Rush Limbaugh and Erick Erickson of Redstate into the fray, the very fact the GOP strategy to allow ObamaCare to pass in order to increase mid-term gains was a treachery to great to overcome.

Two lessons came from this. One, counting on the GOP to be your ally is risky business indeed. Two, by targeting the legislative branch of the federal government everyone was missing the real target – the legislators and governors of the states. Dr. Larry Hunter’s expansive and lengthy exposure to the political class in DC provides the opportunity for an education in and of itself. The man who served as President Ronald Reagan’s policy advisor and helped author part of the Contract With America has much to say about the ruling elites:

What do Harlem Globetrotters basketball, professional wrestling and American politics all have in common? They are FAKES…

…The proof of this assertion is unambiguously clear: Government in the United States continues relentlessly to get bigger, more intrusive and oppressive no matter which political party is in control, no matter for how long. Yes, each party proceeds at a different pace and by different routes but they all herd us to the same destination nonetheless, confirming Thomas Jefferson’s observation that, “The natural tendency of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.”…

…By all means my fellow Americans, go to the polls in November and vote out the bums who are most aggressively subverting our free-market republic and transforming it into Democratic Fascism, i.e., Democrats. But just know when you do, the people you replace them with, Republicans, are themselves subverting the American free-market republic by offering nothing but Socialism Lite as an alternative.

So many scoundrels; so few alternatives…

…Perhaps not in this election nor even in the presidential election to follow but soon the American people will come to understand a very sad and frightening fact about the United States today: Elections no longer work to divert the nation’s decent into the soft despotism of democratic fascism; they simply perpetuate the fraud of two parties, one Establishment, democratic in appearance, increasingly fascist in operation.

These words paint a clear picture of the blight that inflicts us today. The disease is Statism – the practice or doctrine of a strong centralized government with ultimate authority over the people it governs. Today, the meme of federal supremacy is so entrenched in our culture that most people never think to question it. Yet it is not what our Founder’s intended, for it is clear that:

1. The Constitution was not ratified by popular referendum, it was ratified by individual conventions in the thirteen sovereign states. This clearly indicates the Founders did not intend for a strong federal government to lord over the states.
2. Our Founding Fathers were not fools. After the War of Independence they looked to the primary cause of abusive power in Britain and found the root of the problem lay with how the British government was structured. As British sovereignty resided in the body of the Parliament and not the people or any other entity, it became easy for a few to nurture an atmosphere of tyranny that ultimately lead to conditions that acted as catalysts for armed rebellion. Our Founders never intended for a small country off the coast of France to be replaced by a city within our own borders. The sovereignty of our country now resides, for all intensive purposes, in Washington DC. Such a transformation of original intent would be seen as a blight to those who Founded this country and spilled blood to secure our liberty

As stated in the post Nullification – The Book, Thomas Woods states in his new book Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century:

The central point behind nullification is that the federal government cannot be permitted to hold a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in 1798, it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. A constitution is, after all, only a piece of paper. It cannot enforce itself. Check and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, a prominent feature of the Constitution, provide little guarantee of limited government, since these three federal branches can simply unite against the independence of the states and the reserved rights of the people.

Looking back, it is clear the hijacking and usurpation of the Constitution’s original intent to limit the scope of federal power is a testament to some very flawed judicial interpretation by untethered judges to render glaringly inept interpretations with little or no consequence that drew power away from the states and displaced it to an increasingly bloated and tyrannical federal government.

As is clear now, our Founders never intended the Supreme Court of the United States to be the final arbiter of the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court is itself a branch of the federal government, it makes sense to ask the same question Mr. Woods asks in his book Nullification:

How can the people be expected to consider [the federal judiciary] impartial arbiters?

The circuitous logic displays its absurdity when one considers that in a dispute between the states and the federal government, the resolution is to come from…the federal government? This is the very definition of “conflict of interest”.

So this is where we now find ourselves:

1. The result of a long train of federal judiciary abuses, starting principally with the Marshall Court in the early 1800s, is the complete distortion of the original intent of the Founders. The intervening years witnessed a transformation of the very concepts of liberty and freedom that transposed authority from a empowered citizenry to a tyrannical, arrogant, and out of touch political class. Read The Constitution: A Politically-Incorrect Guide for an excellent introduction to this topic and the book The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides).
2. So often we hear of taking back the party. I think the case is strongly made above that such a tactic is faith-based at best. If Statism is the disease, how is replacing one federal legislator with another going to address the problem? First, we must consider the question of just how long such a tactic will take before its efficacy can be determined. Second, we must ask ourselves if there is any historical point of reference that such an approach will work. Time is not on our side. With the CBO estimating that Obama is on-track to record deficits how are we to reign in federal spending when the federal government has never reversed the growth of government?. What is so different this time?
3. Assume for a moment that “our type of politician” fills the halls of Congress. I’ll see your dream and raise you yet another – we take back both the House and the Senate in 2010. If Statism is the disease then it will be necessary to overturn over 200 years of Supreme Court rulings that defined the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and a host of other Constitutional nuggets that strengthened the federal government at our expense. Just how do we intend to do that? Constitutional amendments? Good luck with that. A Constitutional Convention? Good luck with that. How about finally realizing the states are the final arbiters and just nullify an unconstitutional law? It’s been done before and by God it can be done again. It is myopic to believe that we, as a country, are unable to grasp the original intent of our Founders and unable to figure out a way to address the issue of Statism when the solution is staring us in the face. It quite literally insults our intelligence.
4. Using an analogy, think of taking back the GOP from the ground up. From local all the way to national positions, we fill the entire country with “our type of folk”. Think of it like chess. If you replace the queen on a chessboard with a checker and continue to play by the rules of chess, what really have you accomplished other than changing the appearance of the most powerful piece on the board? I want to replace the queen with a checker and change the rules of the game to the rules of checkers. Change the game and the players – not just the players. Put well-meaning politicians into a position of federal power while still allowing for the rules of the Statist culture and I can assure you that, as is always the case, government will still continue to grow. The pace may be slower, the result the same.
5. In any forging of a strategy, it is imperative to get inside the enemies’ head. If we do this, a few very useful pieces of information are readily apparent. First, so-called progressives are nothing if not patient. Given them an inch and they will take a mile even if doing so spans any number of decades. From the Great Society to modern times, the slow creep to Socialism continues unchallenged except in rhetoric. The other useful piece of information concerns the idea of risk. If your strategy carries no risk, your opponent quickly senses either your inability or unwillingness to pursue your goal. This gives them great comfort. I see no risk in the action of taking back the party. I see the result clearly as already indicated. However, the risk of nullification is much higher, but if pursued with single-mindedness and resolve will provide the greatest benefit and send a very strong signal to so-called progressives that we are rather serious about our grievances. Just like life, the greater the risk, the greater the reward. Sure we can fail, but failure is all but guaranteed for any approach that does proclaim its main objective to be the quick and decisive defeat of Statism. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. If you question this conclusion, just ask Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi how well it worked for them.

Consider the following scenario. Democrats lose the mid-terms and rather than adjourn sine die until the following Congress is seated next year, they decide to return and pass cap-and-trade and anything else that tickles their fancy just to stick it to the American people for voting them out. Sound arrogant? Tyrannical? Trite? Does is strike you as so childish and outlandish that you believe it could never happen? If you answered yes, you would be wrong:

The Politico‘s Mike Allen puts this in his morning newsletter:

EXCLUSIVE: Phil Schiliro, the White House congressional liaison, has told the Senate to aim to take up an energy bill the week of July 12, after the July 4 break (and after the scheduled final passage of Wall Street reform). Kagan confirmation will follow, ahead of the summer break, scheduled to begin Aug. 9. The plan is to conference the new Senate bill with the already-passed House bill IN A LAME-DUCK SESSION AFTER THE ELECTION, so House members don’t have to take another tough vote ahead of midterms.

Every Republican challenger ought to be demanding that their Democrat incumbent opponent pledge in writing that they will not pass an energy bill in a lame-duck session if they are defeated. When the people make their opinion clear, fundamental concepts of accountability and responsibility require that the opinion not be ignored.

Lame-duck sessions are not designed to be shortcuts to ignore the will of the people and erase any sense of legislative culpability.

Head count time. How many believe a letter will do the trick? How many believe the Democrats in the current Congress are worried about a “sense of legislative culpability”? How many believe that a super-majority will exist in the Senate to over-ride a Presidential veto if the next Congress attempts to repeal any legislation passed during a lame duck session or, for that matter, repeal ObamaCare? By 2012 these programs will have taken on a life of their own. In politics, legislation such as cap-and-trade and ObamaCare carry great momentum and inertia. The longer you wait to reverse or stop them, the harder the task.

The solution is simple. As many states that can nullify the law should nullify the law. Failure to do so while placing your fate and the fate of the Republic in the hands of lawyers, federal judges and federal politicians is the equivalent to clicking your heels together and wising you were elsewhere. We’re not in Kansas anymore Toto. Remember the rule of risk.

So there it is, for what it’s worth. Take or leave it. Great deeds are accomplished by those who take risks. When Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler, his lack of interest in risk taking lead to the death of 80 million people in World War II. Many men and women died in that war to push back the armies of Fascism. They took a risk. Those who fought in the War of Independence took a risk and look what they accomplished. We live – for now – in the greatest country on Earth. It is now our turn to take a risk. It is our duty to learn about nullification, how to implement it, how to use it, when to use, and where to apply the pressure to ensure it gets used. Turn your attention to your state legislators and governors. Pressure your state leaders to nullify federal laws and stand by them shoulder to shoulder when they do. Know the types of actions the federal government can and will take when they suddenly notice their hold on power challenged. Know there is strength in numbers and coordinate with other states. The more the merrier. Visit the Tenth Amendment Center, read the posts on this site, visit the state sovereignty section at the Social Security Institute and read the book Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.

If your state legislators and/or governors don’t seem interested and your state allows it, then start a recall petition. If it does not, take action to ensure passage of such legislation and use that as leverage for political support in future elections.

Many believe that now is not the time to take on ObamaCare. I agree to a point. The belief that ObamaCare is the wrong fight to pick for a Federalism battle is partly true in my opinion. It should not be the first fight. Should Congress decide to take up the mantle of arrogance and childlike retribution by passing cap-and-trade or other controversial legislation during this year’s lame duck session after the 2010 elections, the anger in the country would be so palpable that nullification would become a household word. Once the country sees nullification work once or twice, then the war is on. If enough states coordinate their efforts, even ObamaCare is within our reach. The Democrats seem to be on to this a bit, which is why the cap-and-trade bill is under consideration for passage during the lame duck congressional session in the first place. Without cap-and-trade, the EPA will attempt to regulate CO2 – a move that is blatantly unconstitutional. Many believe the EPA is the right battle on which to defend Federalism via nullification and the Democrats know it. Read in particular The EPA Can Go To Hell, and I Will Go To Texas. As Dr. Hunter put it:

That doesn’t mean Federalism will “win” in the normal course of events, but like Lexington it could be the shot heard round the country.

So where does that leave us?

Get involved with your local Tea Party. If they don’t seem interested, peruse the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) and find our if a local TAC chapter exists in your area. If it does not, then sign up to start one. Spread the word, educate yourself and others, and look for opportunities where passions run high, for it is here where the idea of nullification ripens. It is a tasty fruit indeed.

Don’t support a third party. For now vote for the best conservative candidate but do not place your future in the hands of any DC politician until the death of Statism is confirmed by reliable sources. Go ahead and attempt to take the party back because one day, when their power is diminished, we will want those very people as our representatives in Washington.

We have reached a turning point in the history of this country. It is not the first time and it won’t be the last. Past crisis required decisive and risky actions to realize results and this time is no different – with one very notable exception.

It is now we who are being called.

We now stand on a hill surrounded by arrogant and tyrannical leaders, our backs to each other. It is the hill this Republic will live or die on. The decision is yours to make.

Many consider it a sacred duty to protect their children – to create an atmosphere that nurtures them and provides the greatest opportunities for their success and happiness. We take it on faith that the country we leave to them is better than the one we inherited – the freedoms greater, and the endless horizons of hope still present. We take it on faith that we can control this through elections; the fate of this country rests in our hands and our choices. Recent history and a little knowledge of past history quickly dispels one of this myth. Your child’s future is directly entangled to the future of the Republic, so it now becomes your sacred duty to take some time and learn exactly what you can do to ensure liberty and opportunity thrive in a future America. It is no longer enough to be vaguely familiar with concepts such as state’s rights, the 10th Amendment, or state level and jury nullification. It is no longer enough to buy the mythology the current system in any way represents our founder’s original intention. It is no longer enough to know this fact and not understand how and why our deviation from constitutional governance occurred in the past and continues to do so on our watch. It is not just the past number of years or decades, but the past two centuries that your ancestors, then you, and now your offspring have been marched methodically towards serfdom by abuses from all three branches of the federal government, and mainly through contemptible interpretation of our Constitution by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Do you believe the federal government is the highest power in the land and that everyone from the states all the way down to you are subservient to its whims and abuses of power? If so, you are wrong and there is no more excuse for believing so. In swallowing this myth of the ages you are complicit in your own enslavement, that of your fellow men and women, your family and those who would inherit this Republic. Our Founders took it upon themselves to embrace a duty to fight and die for liberty. Many generations since grabbed this mantle in one form or another and often paid the ultimate price to protect these freedoms. Your duty? Take a little time out of your day and do a little reading. Educate yourself on why we find ourselves in our current predicament, and what effective strategies exist to right the listing ship. Understand what works and and then do it.

The efficacy of “storming the castle gates” of Washington by yelling, faxing, and emailing your federal Senators and Representatives, or gathering 2 million strong on the DC mall is demonstrably ineffective. Some of you tried that, are still trying that, and it is not working because you are aiming at the wrong target.

This is a plea for your time. It is a plea for you to first read three posts that will paint a picture of the dire straits we are in, why time is of the essence, and just how to extricate ourselves from certain ruin. With the upcoming threat of using a lame duck session of Congress after the 2010 elections, when the people of this country have no recourse to hold their representatives accountable if they lose in the midterms, the Democrats plan on rushing through Cap-and-Trade. It does not stop there.

The following three articles will, I believe, make the difference between winning and losing the battle against fiscal insanity and saving the Republic. It is dependent upon how you to chose to react to them. I ask only that you read them and that you pass them on to your friends and family. The posts are long and that cannot be avoided. Taking the time to read them and to act upon them can make all the difference in the world. I ask only for your diligence. Do with it what you will. I hope and pray you see what is coming and come to know how nullification can save us from this madness. If you need any motivation, the first story links to a Bloomberg report that the IMF predicts our debt to exceed our GDP in 2012, just a few short years away. This is like Greece, except nobody will be there to bail us out. We are, quite literally, that close to fiscal ruin. The actions we take must be swift and decisive:

• Wanna Get Away? The 81% Tax Increase
• Nullification – The Only Way Forward
• Nullification – The Book

Below are additional links to posts and articles from various sources around the internet. As knowledge is the enemy of tyranny when turned into action, the choices made reflect topics ranging from the political culture in DC, martial law and Christian responsibility, recommended books, and a strong emphasis on state’s rights, the 10th amendment, and the nullification movement. We must be not just watchers of liberty, but men and women of effective action. To that end, the organization the Tenth Amendment Center stands out as the one of the best grassroots efforts to execute a strategy of nullification. Become a member and ask your local Tea Party organization to align itself with the goal of nullification and then take the appropriate steps to execute that strategy. Above all remember this: the size of the federal government is forever growing. Even Ronald Reagan could only slow the growth – but he could not reverse it. There is a name for this hand that chokes the life out of liberty. It is called Statism. I call it the beast – a strong central power where a few elites exert their will and lord over the many. And the beast grows; it always grows. This is a truism that leads one definitively to a singular conclusion:

Any attempt to take back power that targets the federal government while leaving Statism intact is doomed to failure and is useless as a long-term strategy.

There is no historical reference point to refute this fact. Government always grows – under both parties. The difference is only of degree and not kind. The country walks in one case and runs in the other towards the mediocrity of socialism that Europe if now finding unsustainable. As many European countries attempt in vain to turn their citizens from sheep that suckle the government teat into independent, empowered, and free individuals, our leaders march us towards that same fate.

Keep the following in mind at all times: The federal government is not all-powerful as they would have you believe. This is a meme – and a wrong one at that – that is so excepted and indelible in our national consciousness that very few think to even question it. This suits those in power just fine and they are all to willing to continue to propagate the lie of federal supremacy and hope to God you never find out differently.

It is time we pulled back the veil and begin to understand our rightful place in the power structure. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground“. In his wisdom, he also recognized the source of the problem by stating, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent“. He also recognized that an informed citizenry is less likely to fall prey to budding tyrants, and that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” and that “the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government“.

Sounds pretty dire. But long before that last resort is reached, there are options open to us that steer away from a path of violence. We have at our disposal tools used by great men such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi. Tools used by abolitionists and great leaders throughout our country’s history. Massive non-violent passive-aggressive civil disobedience, nullification, and jury nullification are powerful weapons indeed. With these tools in our arsenal and a little indulgence from the reader, one could envision but a small adjustment to the words of Thomas Jefferson:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the deeds of patriots and the purging of tyrants.

That through the actions of our minds and unrelenting will, the master’s fear of those they lead into servitude drives them away in fear at the magnitude of the beast they awake.

One of Jefferson’s most prescient predictions deals with the nanny state; the belief that government must exert a great deal of control over the individual. He predicated the future happiness of Americans on the prevention of the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. We now stand on that precipice and just as a pencil cannot stand on its tip, there will be movement in one way or another. How that movement occurs is up to us.

The gauntlet sits at our feet, thrown down by arrogant, delusional, self-interested and disconnected children who wear ties and play at being adults. It’s time we pick it up. It’s time the real adults take charge. Next time you find yourself watching America’s Got Talent, or indulging in some other diversion, take a moment and picture that gauntlet sitting at your feet. Behind it, picture the sneering arrogant faces of Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and spineless RINOs pointing and laughing at your self-induced impotence aided by these diversions designed to keep your mind off the target and lull you into a deep sleep. Those who make up our federal government are nothing if not experts at running about the country stirring up apathy. They don’t want you to read and learn. They especially don’t want you to desire to understand and educate yourself. They know the day many of us figure out it is we who are in control and there are constitutional means to exercise that control, then that is the day they have lost.

You can continue to let them laugh at you, or take action to wipe that arrogant sneer off their faces. Take back your country, or hand the keys to your life away to a group of people who, quite frankly, don’t give a damn about you despite all their disingenuous articulations made only for the benefit of the lie they must continue to propagate. The lie you must continue to believe. The lie that will destroy us all. The lie that you are a powerless speck of dust in a whirling sea of mighty forces beyond your control.

The Constitution is clear – you are that powerful force. In this Alice through the looking glass world we now find ourselves in, everything is turned around. Up in now down, left is right, and your power is now their power. Like the Cheshire cat, the politicians are replaced and disappear leaving behind – not their smiles – but their sneers. Sneers that will picked up by the next one in line: ad infinium an ad nauseam.

Ready to take up that gauntlet?

• Your Ticket to Freedom.
• Who Lost Healthcare?. With a long and distinguished resume that includes former policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan, Dr. Larry Hunter informs us on how the DC political culture really works, setting the stage for the realization that we should not look to DC for our salvation, but to ourselves.
• Nullification Revisited. An excellent primer on nullification.
• Nullification: It’s Official. The Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) talks nullification, including practical aspects of nullifying a federal law.
• The 10th Amendment Movement. More from the TAC on current nullification resolutions and bills targeting various issues. Note that state’s rights is a liberal and a conservative issue.
• Sheriffs First Legislation. This bill would “make it a state crime for any federal agent to make an arrest, search, or seizure within the state without first getting the advanced, written permission of the elected county sheriff of the county in which the event is to take place.” Read more about it and get involved locally with your Sheriff’s office and state legislators and governor and work to get such legislation passed in your state.
• ResistDC: The Federal Tax Funds Act. A practical approach to dealing with the typical response of a tyrannical federal government to nullification. What to do when the government threatens to withhold federal money from states. Contact your state legislators and governor to ensure this act becomes part of any nullification legislation. Are you a Tea Party leader or part of a Tea Party, 9/12, or like-minded group? If so, this is they type of grassroots activism you are cut out for. If you are not, become a member or leader, or join the TAC as a volunteer.
• Federal Health Care Nullification Act. Boilerplate legislation for your state legislators and governor to use to nullify ObamaCare. As stated in the previous link, get involved now and pressure your state leaders to take a stand.
• Abolitionists and Other ‘Racists’ Who Have Advocated Nullification. Ryan W. McMaken writing on Lew Rockwell’s blog about nullification.
• The Untold History of Nullification: Resisting Slavery. Something the liberals don’t want you to know.
• Who’s Supreme? The Supremacy Clause Smackdown. The Supreme Court’s actual power under the constitution. Now this is education!
• Nullifying Federal Tyranny. Clyde Wilson writes a nice little piece on nullification for the TAC.
• To Our State Legislators: Nullification Requires Protection of Citizens. The role of your state government in protecting your rights: “To effectively nullify, citizens will have to be convinced that civil disobedience against Unconstitutional laws will be fully-protected. Without widespread civil disobedience, nullification might go nowhere“.
• The Courage To Resist. Nullification will take guts by state governments and its citizens, however nothing worth having comes easy. Just remember Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi and what they accomplished. Keep your eye on the prize and always remember that you are on the side of right, backed by the constitution, and the prize is liberty itself. As Gandhi once said, “40,000 British troops cannot force 300 million Indians to do what they will not do“. Always remember this.
• What Would Jefferson Do? Nullify Now!
• Kill the Bill, Invoke the 10th. With a little work, some guts, and perseverance we can save this country and leave it a better place than when we entered it. This is not armed revolution, but a passive-aggressive form of non-violent civil disobedience. Keep in your mind’s eye the prize of true liberty and freedom from the tyranny of an oppressive federal government. The nation will be stronger as the people bring sanity back into governance.
• Myth Busting: the ‘Constitutional Expert’. Anyone can be an expert on the constitution. Don’t let liberal professors tell you it takes a PhD. The only thing that takes a PhD is figuring out ways to obfuscate and twist the meaning of the document itself, defame our founders by re-writing American history, and entering the echo chamber of the progressive propaganda machine. In the end, it only insults our intelligence, because we are smarter than that, smarter than they are, and getting smarter by the day. You are reading the material, right?
• ResistDC: The State Authority and Anti-Racketeering Act. Nullification with teeth!

Cross-posted

This week, the federal government published two important reports on long-term budgetary trends. They both show that we are on an unsustainable path that will almost certainly result in massively higher taxes.

The first report is from the trustees of the Social Security system. News reports emphasized that the date when its trust fund will be exhausted is now four years earlier than estimated last year. But in truth, this is an utterly meaningless fact because the trust fund itself is economically meaningless…

…government trust funds bear no meaningful comparison to those in the private sector. Whereas the beneficiary of a private trust fund legally owns the income from it, the same is not true of a government trust fund, which is really nothing but an accounting device.

Most Americans believe that the Social Security trust fund contains a pot of money that is sitting somewhere earning interest to pay their benefits when they retire. On paper this is true; somewhere in a Treasury Department ledger there are $2.4 trillion worth of assets labeled “Social Security trust fund.”

The problem is that by law 100% of these “assets” are invested in Treasury securities. Therefore, the trust fund does not have any actual resources with which to pay Social Security benefits. It’s as if you wrote an IOU to yourself; no matter how large the IOU is it doesn’t increase your net worth…

…What really matters is not how much money is in the Social Security trust fund or when it is exhausted, but how much Social Security benefits have been promised and how much total revenue the government will need to pay them.

The answer to this question can be found on page 63 of the trustees report. It says that the payroll tax rate would have to rise 1.9% immediately and permanently to pay all the benefits that have been promised over the next 75 years for Social Security and disability insurance…

…But this really understates the problem because there are many people alive today who will be drawing Social Security benefits more than 75 years from now. Economists generally believe that the appropriate way of calculating the program’s long-term cost is to do so in perpetuity, adjusted for the rate of interest, something called discounting or present value…

…Social Security’s unfunded liability in perpetuity is $17.5 trillion (treating the trust fund as meaningless). The program would need that much money today in a real trust fund outside the government earning a true return to pay for all the benefits that have been promised over and above future Social Security taxes. In effect, the capital stock of the nation would have to be $17.5 trillion larger than it is right now. Alternatively, the payroll tax rate would have to rise by 4%.

To put it another way, Social Security’s unfunded liability equals 1.3% of the gross domestic product. So if we were to fund its deficit with general revenues, income taxes would have to rise by 1.3% of GDP immediately and forever. With the personal income tax raising about 10% of GDP in coming years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this means that every taxpayer would have to pay 13% more just to make sure that all Social Security benefits currently promised will be paid…

…As bad as that is, however, Social Security’s problems are trivial compared to Medicare’s. Its trustees also issued a report this week. On page 69 we see that just part A of that program, which pays for hospital care, has an unfunded liability of $36.4 trillion in perpetuity. The payroll tax rate would have to rise by 6.5% immediately to cover that shortfall or 2.8% of GDP forever. Thus every taxpayer would face a 28% increase in their income taxes if general revenues were used to pay future Medicare part A benefits that have been promised over and above revenues from the Medicare tax.

But this is just the beginning of Medicare’s problems, because it also has two other programs: part B, which covers doctor’s visits, and part D, which pays for prescription drugs.

The unfunded portion of Medicare part B is already covered by general revenues under current law. The present value of that is $37 trillion or 2.8% of GDP in perpetuity according to the trustees report (p. 111). The unfunded portion of Medicare part D, which was rammed into law by George W. Bush and a Republican Congress in 2003, is also covered by general revenues under current law and has a present value of $15.5 trillion or 1.2% of GDP forever.

The above analysis does not include any mention of ObamaCare, Cap-and-Trade, or bailouts. Just looking at the above programs – Social Security and Medicare – the following conclusion is a wake-up call of enormous proportions, especially for our children who will bear the brunt and consequences of the unsustainable practices of Statist policies and a federal government which has shown, even under Ronald Reagan.

Taxpayers are now on the hook for:

• Social Security: 1.3% of GDP
• Medicare part A: 2.8% of GDP
• Medicare part B: 2.8 of GDP
• Medicare part D: 1.2% of GDP
• Total taxpayer liability: 8.1% of GDP

To sustain this level (minus ObamaCare and Cap-and-Trade costs) will require an 81% increase in payroll taxes for every working American. Taking last years return, multiply by 1.81 the amount you were required to pay. Adding in costs of ObamaCare and Cap-and-Trade (should it pass as threatened during this years post election lame-duck Congressional session) and you will begin to understand what Socialism really means to your paycheck and this country’s future. That’s less consumer spending, equating to less jobs, and slower or negative economic growth for decades and decades to come.

The day of reckoning is waiting to hit us like a brick in the head. Already European economies are in dire straits after years of socialist policies. As Europe figures out how to dig itself out of socialist hell, the fact of Obama’s clueless and adrift leadership is on full display: Deep budget cuts in Europe concern Obama. Since when does addressing a problem become a cause for concern? As Obama moves our economy towards European style socialism, European leaders, quickly realizing the unsustainability of their current system, attempt to reverse course.

It may already be too late for some countries: EU chief warns ‘democracy could disappear’ in Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Then there is this little nugget of comfort: U.S.’s $13 Trillion Debt Poised to Overtake GDP: Chart of Day – Bloomberg. If you think we are going to look a lot like Greece by 2012 you would be correct. The only difference is really the question of who can afford to bailout the United States? The Bloomberg article is a real wakeup call. The CBO estimate of debt exceeding GDP in 2020 is about 8 years off. In as short a time-frame as two years we will be facing a real crisis. Obama’s solution is to raise taxes, with Pelosi talking about the introduction of Value Added Tax of 10% or more. Things are so bad, Democrats are not even bothering with releasing a budget resolution this year, knowing it would impossible to justify the enormous trillion dollar deficits and fearful of the consequences during an election year.

It is now clear the people of this country must retake the reigns of power from the federal government. If fiscal sanity is to be restored, the use of nullification is the only way to meet that goal. By all accounts, time is short – as little as two years. As government growth continues under both parties and differs only in degree, the cancer of Statism must be ripped out by the roots. As I write in Nullification – The Only Way Forward, we can’t afford to wait or trust that federal politicians, the Supreme Court, or lawyers will extricate ourselves from our current predicament. It is up to us. I strongly urge, even beg, that you take the time to read that article.

I am reminded of a joke born during the days of the cold war, when school children went through drills of what to do during a nuclear attack. Some of us may remember some old black and white video of children ducking under desks, hands clasped behind heads as the imaginary bomb exploded. Soon after these drills began, someone with a sense of humor decided to summarize the nuclear attack drill as follows:

• During a nuclear attack, ensure you never stare directly in the direction of the blast
• Remove all sharp objects from your pockets and store them in a safe place
• Quickly duck under you desk, placing your hands over your head for protection and clasping them together. This will protect you from falling objects
• Plant your head firmly between you legs
• Kiss your ass goodbye

Should we rely on the slow and unsure tactics of lawsuits, federal courts, and DC politicians and not retake the reigns ourselves through a concerted and unrelenting campaign of nullification, that last bullet will cease to be a punchline and become instead a personal directive. Now is the time to be proactive. Reactivity spells certain doom. There are many who feel that, as Americans, we are soft and will only act when a precipitating event effects our personal lives to the point we find ourselves forced to take notice. If we wait for that event, it is already too late. It is our duty as citizens, parents, and guardians of the Republic to make our move.

Now.

Cross-posted.

From the jacket (emphasis mine):

Unconstitutional laws are pouring out of Washington…but we can stop them.

Just ask Thomas Jefferson. There is a “rightful remedy” to federal power grabs – it’s called Nullification.

In Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century,historian and New York Times bestselling author Thomas E. Woods, Jr. explains not only why nullification is the constitutional tool the Founders envisioned, but how it works – and has already been employed in cases ranging from upholding the First Amendment to knocking down slave laws before the Civil War.

In Nullification, Woods shows:

• How the states were meant to be checks against federal tyranny – and how a growing roster of governors and state state attorneys general are recognizing they need to become that again
• Why the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reinforces the rights of states to nullify unconstitutional laws
• Why it was left to the states to uphold the simple principle that an unconstitutional law is no law at all
• Why, without nullification, ordinary American’s will continue to suffer the oppression of unjust, unconstitutional laws
• How, through nullification, “stimulus spending,” Obamacare, and other unconstitutional expansions of federal power can be rolled back
• PLUS thorough documentation of how the Founding Fathers believed nullification could be applied

Nullification is not just a book – it could become a movement to restore the proper constitutional limits of the federal government. Powerful, provacative, and timely, Nullification is sure to stir debate and become a constitutional handbook for all liberty-loving Americans.

I would go even further – Nullification must become a movement to restore constitutional balance from a federal government out of control and out of touch.

As stated by Thomas Woods in Nullification:

The central point behind nullification is that the federal government cannot be permitted to hold a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in 1798, it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. A constitution is, after all, only a piece of paper. It cannot enforce itself. Check and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, a prominent feature of the Constitution, provide little guarantee of limited government, since these three federal branches can simply unite against the independence of the states and the reserved rights of the people. This is precisely what Jefferson warned William Branch Giles was already happening in 1825:

It is too evident, that the three ruling branches of [the Federal Government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the Statue authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic…

…the federal courts have, for all intents and purposes, ceased to police the federal government…

Since the federal courts, including the Supreme Court of United States, are themselves a branch of the federal government, Mr. Woods asks the pertinent question, “how can the people be expected to consider [the federal judiciary] impartial arbiters?” The circuitous logic displays its absurdity when one considers that in a dispute between the states and the federal government, the resolution is to come from…the federal government? Think about that for a moment and then convince yourself our Founders intended it this way. Good luck.

Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Centurydoes not qualify for the category “if you only buy one book this year, this is it”. It goes much farther than that. If we are to be successful, this is a must-have for any library. Anyone who loves liberty and believes they have a stake in preserving it needs to read this book and convince others to join them. If nullification does not become a movement, we truly are living in the last days of the greatest country in history, and that “shining city upon the hill” that President Ronald Reagan so fondly used to reference the America that served as the world’s beacon of hope and liberty will see its lights snuffed out one by one.

The town halls of last August proved the infrastructure exists to enact this strategy as a real means to kill the beast of Statism. We must look to the Tea Parties to reinvent themselves and become the conduits and wielders of the power of nullification – to rediscover the capacity of the governed to put those who govern back into their proper vocation as our servants. We are not the serfs to the bloated and arrogant tyrants in DC. For the Republic to endure we must refresh the minds of a citizenry that buys the narrative of federal supremacy hook, line, and sinker. The coming days and weeks will be filled with information concerning this critical and constitutional tactic and why it is the only road to the salvation of the Republic and the proliferation of liberty for future generations.’

Cross-posted

From the Daily Telegraph: Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood:

President Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and the majority of women around the world associate it with “gender justice”.

The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir’s national women’s officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular “man-made law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism”.

They called for Sharia Law to be “the source of legislation” and said that women should not be “permitted to hold a position of leadership in government”.

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that “promiscuity” and the “breakdown of traditional values” were what Muslims admired least about the West.

She said: “I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.

If the reader could possibly help me out on this one, I’m not exactly quite sure how one can lack understanding and perspective when it comes to honor killings, stonings, hanging, and lets not forget beheading. In this Alice in Wonderland world I guess I’m the one who is supposed to feel backward and out of touch with what apparently should be completely acceptable and mainstream practices.

My take? I doubt Miss Mogahed has watched the movie The Stoning of Soraya M.. This is a must see for anyone who is does not mind inconvenient truths, with an ending so difficult to watch my wife had to cover her eyes with her hands while sobbing.

There is no perception issue with Sharia law in the West and the fact that Obama has done nothing to address the statements of Miss Mogahed is very troubling. Add to this his recent snubbing of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the demands that Israel kowtow to the Anointed One’s demands, and his walk tall and carry a tiny twig approach concerning Iranian nuclear weapons. As the leader of the free world moonlights as the poster boy for naivety, we pay the price.

Google Sharia law. Watch the Stoning of Soraya M. and tell me your not concerned the statements of Dalia Mogahed are allowed pass as acceptable in the Obama White House.

The story, which broke last year, was eclipsed by the ongoing ObamaCare saga. Maybe its time to shine a little light into the dark corners. This says more about the administration’s stance towards radical Islam than a hundred bows ever could.

The impact of Miss Mogahed’s statements to Obama and his administration of malcontents cannot be measured. Even given the previous narrative of the administration’s contempt for this country and the constitution, modern developments already are having an effect.

First we have the Sestak saga. Next is the upcoming Rod Blagojevich trial where Rahm himself has been issued a subpoena. Add to the mix Andrew Romanoff’s statement the White House offered him not one, not two, but three different job proposals to drop his bid against Obama-favored Democratic Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet. Throw this cherry on top and it’s going to be a long and very hot summer for Obama and an even greater November for the country. The chickens have come home to roost. It’s time for the Apologizer-in-Chief to pay some dues for his misrepresentation to the world of this great country and what we stand for.

Here’s a video of Sharia law at work. Misunderstood my a$$.

This story is cross-posted at Wolves of Liberty.

David Larsen is a man who recognizes cap-and-trade for what it really is – just another power grab and wealth redistribution scheme. If you want real change, then on Tuesday, June 8th say yes to Republican David Larsen and no to Representative Leonard Lance, who currently occupies the seat. You see Leonard Lance is what we call a RINO – that sort of squishy Beltway Republican who will often surprise you by doing something inane like voting for cap-and-trade. Voting for cap-and-trade is not the act of a fiscally responsible representative, especially given the current climate – pun intended – of the now unestablished science of global warming. When political agendas collide with science it is the people – you and I – who pay the price. And a hefty price it is. The only warming these days is in the anthropogenic global warming science community. It is there you will find a great deal of hot air.

Remember climategate? If not, here is refresher of many posts from American Thinker on the subject. The bottom line is how so-called scientists were exposed as biased hacks when emails were leaked that explicitly described how data was fudged to fit the climate scare narrative.

Today Al Gore, self-appointed leader of the Global Warming scare is being sued by The Weather Channel & 30,000 scientists worldwide. That has not stopped the winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, obviously awarded for the explicit demonstration of incompetence in a given field in which the recipient possesses no expertise, from continuing his crusade for your money. At least he has that invention of the internet thing going for him.

And guys like Leonard Lance are all too happy to join the previous Vice President in absconding with our hard earned cash, all under the guise of discredited science.

So serious is the climategate scandal it has also prompted another lawsuit from Peabody Energy Company (PEC) against the EPA; a suit which may lead to criminal prosecution.

One would think that with such overwhelming evidence the books have been cooked and the lid torn off exposing one of the greatest political tainting of science in its entire history, that politicians would be rushing away from cap-and-trade back into the reality-based world. The fact they are not says one of two things. Either they are completely ignorant of the scientific process and climategate cover-up or they are agenda driven hacks. As both cases would shed a negative light on any candidate, it is clear that anyone who voted for cap-and-trade does not deserve to hold elected office. As New Jersey’s elected representative for the 7th district last year Leonard Lance voted for cap-and-trade legislation in the House. Here is what his vote means to those of you in not just New Jersey but the rest of the country as well.

Visit the website of David Larsen for Congress to find out more about cap-and-trade. The bottom line is that some in your government are prepared to basically burden you with a tax while not calling it a tax, and they will do so under the umbrella of junk science and in the name of power and money. The Heritage Foundation estimates the total cost of living per average household in the U.S. will increase by $3,000 per year or more; in New Jersey the cost of living could increase by as much as $6,000.

Here is a nice little video outlining the issue of cap-and-trade and the position of Representative Leonard Lance who voted to put his hand in your pocket last year because a bunch of agenda-driven scientists provided him the cover to do so:

Of course, our story would not be complete without the gratuitous backpedaling that politicians like Leonard Lance are famous for. If I were Dan Rather – which thank God I am not – I might be tempted after watching the following video to come up with a useful metaphor. Perhaps something along the lines of “Leonard Lance is tap dancing faster than a barefooted Michael Flatley on a hot bed of coals”. Yeah, I think I like that one.

Watch Leonard Lance dance, wiggle, and attempt to spin his way out of his vote for cap-and-trade.

The die has been cast. The question is clear. Who has dibs on your money? You, or a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians using scientists as political fodder to get their grubby hands on more of your money? It’s not a hard choice. On June 8th vote for a man of reason and fiscal sanity. Vote for David Larsen.

Just when you thought the Democrats had gone after every possible sub-group in America, either through punitive taxes, confusing regulatory burdens, stifling federal takeovers, or just rhetorical attacks, it appears that the Democrats had left out one group.

Bloggers.

Until now

Should the liberals in Congress – a bastion of tyranny and arrogance – attempt such foolishness, they better be prepared for a solid wall of civil disobedience. For those not enjoined to the effort of civil disobedience, there is still a very important role to play without breaking a single law. This travesty fits the idea of jury nullification like a snug, fine leather glove fits a hand:

Jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case acquits a defendant despite the weight of evidence against him or her.[1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant’s violation of the letter of the law—that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge—which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is—but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the “law” to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.

Strictly speaking, a jury verdict which rules contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. Jury nullification is thus a means for the public to express opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

From Fox News: Justice Often Served By Jury Nullification

In his 1998 book “Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine,” Clay S. Conrad defines “jury nullification” this way: “Jurors in criminal trials have the right to refuse to convict if they believe that a conviction would be in some way unjust.”

The doctrine of jury nullification (search) rests on two truths about the American criminal justice system: (1) Jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return, and (2) Defendants cannot be retried once a jury has found them not guilty, regardless of the jury’s reasoning. So the juries in both the Rosenthal and Paey cases could have returned a “not guilty” verdict, even though Paey and Rosenthal were undoubtedly guilty of the charges against them.

This may sound radical, perhaps even subversive, but jury nullification serves as an important safeguard against unjust laws, as well as against the unfair application of well-intended laws. It’s also steeped in American and British legal tradition….

….Indeed, Americans can be proud of our history of boldly and valiantly standing up to unjust laws (if not so proud of the laws themselves). There are multiple cases of jurors refusing to convict violators of the Alien and Sedition Act (search), the Fugitive Slave Act (search), and alcohol prohibition laws, among others.

Should this law come to pass, there are two basic routes whereby we may find ourselves in a situation requiring brave bloggers to flaunt the system at risk of being arrested, fined, and possibly jailed. The most immediate path to resistance is the successful passage of this law and the refusal of a court to order an injunction against the law until the constitutionality of the case is heard. This would effectively and immediately attack free speech in a way unseen in any of our lifetimes. It cannot be allowed to stand. A fortress of resistance must be erected and bloggers from both sides of the political spectrum by the tens of thousands must be prepared to challenge the law through the act of violating the law. Some who don’t run a blog would, I hope, decide to join the fracas and begin their blogging career in full defiance of such an affront to a fundamental liberty. It will then be up to jurors using stealth tactics to bypass questions that may expose them as conscientious objectors to such an unconstitutional law to do everything in their power to sit themselves as a member of a jury and await the moment when they can announce the defendant not guilty.

The second route is the case making its way to the Supreme Court of the United States while still under injunction and then subsequently ruled constitutional by the Court. As I state in Jury Nullification – The Absolute Power of the People the Supreme Court of the United States is not the final arbiter of the Constitution. It is the states and it is you and me. The article also points to various sources of information which demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt the perversion of our constitution – occurring over the past two centuries mainly through abuses by the Supreme Court of the United States, but aided and abetted by legislators and presidents during certain historical periods – is of such severity that this country has veered so far from our founders vision they would find it unrecognizable and abhorrent.

In order for us to win the fight against tyranny and against Statism we must show those in power the conclusive and steadfast resolve of our willingness to resist them in vast numbers through non-violent civil disobedience, state level nullification, and jury nullification. By using the power of the jury box, you empower yourself against tyranny; the message sent is loud and the clarity pure.

Turnabout is fair play; play games with our fundamental rights and you will find we have a few games of our own. Most importantly, never fear, for fear is the fuel upon which tyranny is fed. Instead, make them fear you – in the jury box and at the ballot box. Be creative. Smile politely. Win. Stick your thumb in their eye – figuratively speaking – and laugh at their vain attempts to stifle criticism by shutting down one of our most powerful rights as citizens to check the power of the government.

From Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey:

The attack on free speech has began. The first shot in this new front of the Obama, Reid, Pelosi triumvirate fired into faces of liberty from a tyrannical capital growing more so by the day. Either we stand together and push back, liberal and conservative, against such an abuse of power or sit idly by and let them steal from us until there is nothing left to take from you, your offspring or their offspring. The time to stand is now. Get the word out on jury nullification. Let the word wring in the ears of those at the capital and let them know of a lion about to be unleashed.

Cross-posted

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

It is wise to remember that ridicule does not negate a point. It is quite often that ridicule exposes an unconscious or even conscious level of discomfort by those who level criticism for criticism’s sake. When ridicule stands alone without the backing of debate or facts, the signpost of truth lights up like the sun for the object of derision. The perpetrator is left attempting to stand on a foundation ripped from underfoot and the reaction is more often than not outright censorship or an unending campaign of sarcasm. Often a type of mob rule takes over as others join the fray until all sense of intelligence has left the building.

It is unfortunate that, as is often typical, we wait until Schopenhauer’s third condition is met before acting, creating an even greater challenge and often finding ourselves in a reactive mode to events that take on a life of their own, making it almost if not literally impossible to effectively deal with the issue under question using a strategy that would have worked in the first place. We must first exhaust strategies that, had we honestly scrutinized and debated their efficacy within the current system, would be found wanting. We stick with the comfortable and work within a system whose rules are already written to guarantee our failure. Men like Gandhi and Martin Luther King understood this. In the past, those on the left have understood this, but most of the entire center-right spectrum does not – or will not. The refusal to even consider a strategy which has freed hundreds of millions of Indians from colonial rule, lead to the success of the Civil Rights movement, and ended apartheid in South Africa, along with a host of other successes is, quite frankly, myopic.

“I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically.” Thus begins the treatise titled Civil Disobedience by author, poet, and philosopher Henry David Thoreau. Both the man himself and the treatise were often quoted by Mohandas Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It was widely read in the 1940 by the Danish resistance, referenced in the 1950s by those who opposed McCarthyism, influential in the 1960s during the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, and used in the 1970s by anti-war activists. Never before, to my knowledge, has this treatise been used by conservative and/or independent American citizens who want their country taken back from the Statists in Washington.

Perhaps it is time we realize the power of the tactic of civil disobedience and its ability to bring about rapid and real change. To this end, we will take a look at this treatise and the ideas of Henry Thoreau concerning civil disobedience that experience has indicated time and time again actually work.

I would like to begin the discussion with two quotes. First, let us hear from Gandhi as he reference Henry Thoreau:

Thoreau was a great writer, philosopher, poet, and withal a most practical man, that is, he taught nothing he was not prepared to practice in himself. … He went to gaol [a correctional institution used for detention] for the sake of his principles and suffering humanity. His essay has, therefore, been sanctified by suffering. Moreover, it is written for all time. Its incisive logic is unanswerable.

Martin Luther King, Jr. had this to say about Thoreau in his autobiography:

I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest.

So here we have a strategy used successfully to end apartheid in South Africa, bring Civil Rights to this country, and end the colonial occupation of India by Britain. Pretty powerful stuff. As we stand on the precipice of financial ruin the the question is not if the contemporaneous apocalyptic future outlined in the American Thinker post titled Let It Burn will occur, but when. My assumption in making this statement is that we, as a country, no longer possess the fortitude to pull off a proactive civil disobedience campaign or even nullification. We have become a nation of reactive activists. As much good as the Tea Parties appear to be doing, ObamaCare still passed. Even in November, when the bums are voted out, they will only be replaced by new bums. Try as we might, the fact is that, with few exceptions, even “our kind of conservative” is unprotected against the corruptive power of DC.

As long as the disease of Statism is allowed to exist and the power is not returned to the rightful owners – the people and the states – then big business, unions, and other special interests will continue to make the rules that defined the culture of large, centralized power in DC. The only way - only way – to get back that power is not by relying on others currently or soon to be placed into the very system that delivered us to this place, but the collective power of liberty loving Americans willing to do the hard work of taking this country back through self-power. Can we do it? I have my doubts. Today’s society is filled with distractions designed to occupy our minds on anything but that which we should be most concerned. Even our successes turn into failures. When we gathered in the town halls of last August, culminating in over 2 million people on the DC mall, our voices were still not heard. We fight amongst ourselves while the enemy marches deliberately onward. Some pride themselves on the lack of organization of some of the Tea Parties, not realizing that it is through organization and cooperation that efforts are magnified many times over. We know that inside DC there exists a bubble that insulates those who govern from the reality of the governed, yet pursue strategies that use that very system as if somehow, magically, the system will correct itself by the sheer force of our will when no point of reference exists past or present as an objective guidepost this strategy holds any hope of success. Meanwhile, Rome burns.

It is pre-1776 again and the sovereignty of the British parliament is now replaced by the sovereignty of a small city called Washington DC. What our founders fought and died for is itself a dying dream. When they looked across the pond and noted how much power resided in the hands of so few people, they put the aggregate might of their considerable intellectual power behind creating a system of government where power resided in the people and the states with limited powers reserved for the federal government. In short, they looked at Britain and did the opposite. However, over 200 years of abuses by the Supreme Court, in collusion with the other two powers of the federal government, morphed a philosophy of government by the people and turned it on its head into a government over the people. Dr. Larry Hunter, former policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and a good personal friend and mentor describes it well in his article Political Law of the Hammer: Pound the People:

The Law of the Hammer states: Give a child a hammer, and he will discover everything needs a good pounding. It holds for politicians as well.

However, while children grow up and learn to use many of the other implements available in the human tool kit, politicians never grow up because their tool kit—government—contains only hammers. They come in various sizes and shapes but all government’s tools are hammers in one form or another, and all politicians and bureaucrats act like children when they get their hands on them: Pound the People.

In other words, all government is capable of doing is pounding on people and inflicting pain. Even when it gives money away to a select group of favorites, government first must extract the money from someone else by pounding on them. Government has no capacity to create anything so it first must take in order to give. It must harvest the fruits of others in order to bestow those fruits on someone else. Politicians call it “fairness” and “good government;” the people experience theft and pillage and feel violated. Consent of the people has become a sick joke; it’s the consent of a prisoner—consent or get pounded.

What then distinguishes government from organized crime? Not much although government certainly is less efficient than the mob. What essentially separates government from the Mafia is that government operates under the color of law and through a complex web of propaganda and public education (all publicly funded of course) that has been able to convince people to accept government’s oppression as legitimate because the color of law is tinted in pigments of “democracy.” As the president said recently in a commencement address:

What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad. . .When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us.

Well, there is some truth to that. As Pogo famously observed, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

This pillage under the color of law is what the president means by “sharing the wealth” and why he feels free to lecture us so blatantly that “at some point you’ve made enough money.” Pound the People, Mr. President.

In that same recent graduation speech, Obama acted out as democratic demagogue-in-chief when he played on the fear of the masses by warning that boisterous and full-throated criticism of government is illegitimate “partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate discourse,” which he insisted poses a serious danger to America’s democracy, and may incite “extreme elements” to violence. Give the president a hammer, in this case a teleprompter, and watch him pound the people.

It is interesting that democracy has become America’s secular Puritanism since the Founding Fathers understood well the vagaries of democracy and went to great lengths to prevent it from getting a grip on the United States. Regrettably, their efforts to house democracy in a constitutional cage and keep in on a leash when taken out to do some work have been proven by historical events to be a stupendous failure.

Democracy, like any form of government in its purest form can be distilled into the aphorism, “Might Makes Right.” What distinguishes democracy from monarchies and dictatorships and oligarchies is that rather than the might of a single person or a small clique of people making right, the might of a simple majority gives a bare 51 percent of the people the right to impose its will on the largest conceivable minority of people.

And, modern-day democracy has taken this tyrannical calculus one step further to mean the might of a plurality of people interested and politically skilled enough to finagle the system and divide people into more than two factions gives that minority plurality the right to impose its rule on the greater majority of the people. The evil genius of democracy is that overtime, democratic elections give everyone a crack at their right to impose democratic oppression on their fellow citizens, creating a dynamic of alternating pluralities, each with its hand in everyone else’s pockets, each with a spyglass on everyone else’s actions, each with the right to hand out hammers to bureaucrats to pound on their fellow citizens on the oust at the time.

Read the whole thing, for it elucidates the very situation in which we find ourselves in a way only Dr. Hunter can.

Many are beginning to realize the slow approach to dealing with this problem is untenable. I describe here why any belief that ObamaCare will be repealed at the federal level is unrealizable. I also describe why any striking of the individual mandate by the Supreme Court will only hasten single payer socialized medicine of government backed insurance cartels. In both cases, some entity whose interest is the bottom line and not your personal health will stand like a wall between you and your doctor. However, we forget that ObamaCare is a symptom of the disease of Statism. Thomas Jefferson noted that it is sheer madness to assume that any federal entity will act to limit its own power, so we are left with what appears to be an immovable object. When faced with such a situation and when all the objective observations point to the inefficacy of current political movements and strategies it is time to check one’s premises. What is missing from our approach? What has worked in the past and worked well in so many other situations that we are currently ignoring? The answer to that question is clear – a massive campaign of non-violent passive-aggressive civil disobedience. Henry Thoreau understood this. When faced with a situation in the body politic where standard tools are impotent in the face of overwhelming power two options become available – violent revolution or civil disobedience. The later stands out not only as a viable solution, but one that can bring lasting change while empowering the governed to transform into those who govern themselves as our founders intended.

I urge the reader to read in its entirety the treatise by Thoreau. I certainly do not agree with the essay in its entirety, but disagreement on a few points does not negate the value of wisdom gleaned. Many years separate Henry Thoreau from you and I so it is not at all surprising that some references are esoteric while others will be quickly seized upon and held up by detractors as evidence the entire work be nullified forthwith. Just keep in mind that those who have made use of this work have prevailed and its power stands on its own against any naysayers, for who can deny the facts of history or the great men and women who have used Thoreau’s philosophy on the matter of civil disobedience as a successful means to their goals of freedom and liberty? While we struggle with the issue of minority rule by the self-created fiat of a few in DC, this timeless work is our guide in taking back that which has been taken away from us. Here are some select parts of the essay I found to possess the greatest power (emphasis mine):

Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it.

Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.

In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay,” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away

It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated.

Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse.

Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it. They speak of moving society, but have no resting-place without it. They may be men of a certain experience and discrimination, and have no doubt invented ingenious and even useful systems, for which we sincerely thank them; but all their wit and usefulness lie within certain not very wide limits. They are wont to forget that the world is not governed by policy and expediency. Webster never goes behind government, and so cannot speak with authority about it. His words are wisdom to those legislators who contemplate no essential reform in the existing government; but for thinkers, and those who legislate for all time, he never once glances at the subject. I know of those whose serene and wise speculations on this theme would soon reveal the limits of his mind’s range and hospitality. Yet, compared with the cheap professions of most reformers, and the still cheaper wisdom and eloquence of politicians in general, his are almost the only sensible and valuable words, and we thank Heaven for him. Comparatively, he is always strong, original, and, above all, practical. Still, his quality is not wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer’s truth is not truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution.

They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual.

We stand on the precipice, corralled to this place by years of apathy and gripped by the chains of those who feel powerless, swept up by events instead of defining them. One day each of us will face and question the purpose of our existence. Perhaps as we are dying, or perhaps on some quite afternoon many years from today or sooner for those who are older. On that day, we will look back over the course of our life and ask of ourselves, “What have I done to better the world”? Did I bow before tyranny, or stand up and face it? We are about to be pushed over the cliff. Some of us will all but gladly jump of our own volition. Who amongst us will pivot about and face the wardens of our prison and free ourselves?

In other news and opinion:

The Consent of the Governed. A very timely piece.

Diversity, by the nature of its definition, does not lead to harmony in and of itself. It takes an extra ingredient to glue the pieces together. This is true of an ecosystem, an economy, a biosphere, a galaxy, a life-form – there is always some underlying principle or principles that bind the diverse parts together in a way that allows them to interact usefully. It is a culture which provides the unifying foundation which directs a diverse populace towards some mutually beneficial goal. The purpose of culture is to unify diversity, to provide the structure and the foundation whereby the individual pieces of the puzzle can be fit together into a whole, completing the image of what it means to be a member of society within that culture. This is how diversification as a principle becomes a useful tool for survival. It is not how liberals view diversity.

Liberalism’s casting of diversity as an absolute turns logic on its head. To them it is imperative that one conform to the idea of diversity. The fact the liberal mind is unaware of this paradox reveals much about the limits of liberal thinking. They seek to diversify unity, with each subculture claiming unity within itself and operating under a different set of principles, the country quickly looses is cohesiveness and begins to rot from within. In the liberal world, there is no big tent to shelter diversity, no foundation to stand on and no unifying principle. We find ourselves in a freefall towards mediocrity. We can see the consequences of such misguided thinking around us every day.

The progressive propensity to emphasize the later in the the hyphenated identity – think Italian-American or African-American – is the root of the problem. Liberals strive so hard to accept that people are of Italian, African, Irish, and other descents that in their ignorance they forget that we are primarily American. It is quite possible some if not most liberals encourage such nonsense and fortify their position with the usual progressive attack and defense tactics. Support mandatory English classes for children of Mexican immigrants and you risk being called a racist.

One American culture, many-subcultures is a good model, or one American culture, many races could be another. Still, for a country to survive and remain strong, the foundation of all distinctions must be made on the foundation of a single culture, in the same way that distinctions of group responsibility within a corporation must be grounded on a single corporate culture.

It’s just common sense, which is why the liberals struggle with the very idea. Even with the above analysis, I often wonder what if would sound like inside the mind of a liberal. I imagine the vacuous empty space devoid of everything – including the chirping of crickets. No use sticking around if nobody is home.

Cross-posted.

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”…Abraham Lincoln.

Source: Why the Civil War Came

Education is the cornerstone of any well rounded individual and in the aggregate sets the stage for understanding our past, learning from our mistakes, and being able to recognize patterns in contemporary events. When education is turned into a propaganda tool, we all lose – at least those who resist tyranny.

“To the victors go the spoils” is an idiom of great wisdom about cultural dominance and the evolution of political systems, but also the revisionism required to keep up appearances and buttress the prevailing ideology. Such is the history of our country. Statism exists today due to a long train of abuses from the early days of our Republic, through the Marshall court and subsequent Supreme Courts, the tyrannical rule of Abraham Lincoln, the New Deal of President Franklin Roosevelt, progressive politics, and the so-called “compassionate conservatism” of George W. Bush. Truth be told, the government grew – even under Ronald Reagan.

Today we are taught a history so chalked full of half-truths and outright obfuscations it is no wonder the federal government’s growth into a power behemoth continues unchallenged. Many of us are completely unaware that the Constitution as intended by our founders defines states rights in such a way as to trump federal powers. In other words, the final arbiter of the constitution is not the Supreme Court, but the states. Even secession is legal and the Civil War, inaptly named as it did not involve two factions attempting to take over the government of an entire country but rather was a War for Southern Independence where the South wanted to be its own country, did not settle the matter. More on that in future posts. So prevalent is the myth that secession is illegal that Justice Scalia, one of the more conservative voices on the Supreme Court today, repeats this myth. However, I do not advocate secession and will deal with the subject from a strictly legal perspective in a later article in this series.

What your teacher never told you will cover a lot of ground in the coming months. It is meant to expose real American history and combat the progressive revisionism required to keep the Statist agenda and ideological myth alive and well. The first topic will be Abraham Lincoln himself. Everything I state in this post is factual and I challenge anyone, historian or scholar, to refute it. Future posts on Abraham Lincoln will out the President as a tyrant admired by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf and expose the War for Southern Independence as a war not to free the slaves but rather as an economic and cultural war designed to destroy the Southern culture and consolidate power. The second case is partially made in this post, but a great deal more data exists that will be covered in future writings in this series. So let’s start with the fact that Abraham Lincoln – or Honest Abe as we have been taught to call him – was actually a white supremacist. If this shocks you, it should – I certainly was. However, facts are facts. What you are about to read will make you very uncomfortable and start you on a path to challenge everything you have been taught. I hope you will check the facts and convince yourself – don’t take my word for it. That is how the progressives operate, not me. I don’t want to control you, but empower you, so check out everything I write. Free your mind.

Every political system is maintained by a myth that justifies its existence. Without such a myth, submission to the power of the state by its subjects could not be accomplished. As long as one believes in the evolution of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a Marxist system is able to justify its repression without regards to the level of cruelty, suffering, and loss of human life. The metric used against any argument that justifies the existence of the state is the dominant myth that expresses the entrenched beliefs of the society to which it belongs. In short, the myth must be propagandized. Today in this country, this propaganda is carried out by primarily by liberal media and our system of education.

Vigilance is required to keep the imperial power from pacifying the population. The imperial power in this case is the Union as defined in the War for Southern Independence. In classrooms across this country, students are convinced in the righteousness of the Northern cause, that the South is better off because it lost the war, and a sense of shame is instilled in students in Southern schools that carry on into their adulthood, forever destroying any sense of cultural identity. Slavery is wrong – of that most of us will agree – but President Lincoln’s attitude towards slavery changes as it fits his needs. Deeds and words before the war vs. during the war differ greatly and were tied to strategies to win the war by redefining a war of conquest and control as a moral war against slavery. Therefore, his statements concerning black men and women are critical in understanding his true intentions. As will be demonstrated below, these views were blatantly racist – not bordering on it – but full-fledged and in your face. If children were taught real history, and in particular, were introduced to the real Lincoln, many would begin to seriously question why a memorial exists for an tyrant and racist in DC and why his face is carved on Mt. Rushmore. It would become apparent just how well the victors propagandized the myth.

Lest the reader think I am alleging a well coordinated conspiracy of grand proportions – an argument often used by detractors wishing to keep your attention focused on the myth and away from truth – I’ll cut them off at the knees right now. Once a society accepts a myth, it propagates itself. It is the propaganda weapon par excellence as it requires no defense. Challenge the myth and you are easily dismissed as racist, heartless, against the little guy, for big business, or insert your favorite liberal talking point here. I would now like to introduce to you President Abraham Lincoln, white supremacist and racist.

I’ll let Lincoln’s words and actions speak for themselves. One cannot do better than allow the communication and deeds of the subject under scrutiny to define and elucidate their true nature. It then is up to the establishment myth makers to attempt their Cirque du Soleil intellectual contortions that usually start with the context argument. The gauntlet I throw down to such rebuttals is simple – put it in context then. The result – they can’t and will often bury their argument deeper and deeper, becoming unwilling assistants to destroying the prevailing myth and buttressing the original point at the expense of any counterpoints. Truth wins, they lose – a rather simple formula. In Lincoln’s own words:

During a speech to Charleston, Illinois in 1858, Lincoln said:

I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.

If you are sitting there with you mouth open, you are not alone. Let’s continue:

In a letter to James C. Conkling dated August 26, 1863 Lincoln wrote:

I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive—even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept.

Translation: Provide a carrot to the slaves that will motivate them to fight and die for you to meet your own ends. They are the means to your goal of dominance. Manipulate them, use them, do whatever is necessary, but get the slaves to fight for you. And this is just the tip of the tyrannical iceberg, so to speak. No wonder Hitler talks admirably about Lincoln in Mein Kampf.

As an Illinois Senator, Lincoln voted against black suffrage and refused to sign a petition to allow black testimony in courts. He was also a strong supporter of colonizing freed slaves, believing they could never assimilate into American society. And here is a doozy – while President Lincoln actually favored an amendment to the constitution allowing the purchase and deportation of slaves and ordered the State Department to look into possible locations for settlement such as Haita, Ecuador, and the Amazon.

In August 14th, 1862 Lincoln addressed a black audience:

But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence [blame the victim].

It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. …I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life, perhaps more so than in any foreign country, and hence you have come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case.

Also a little known fact is that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves, but only slaves not under Union control. By the end of the war, over 500,000 slaves had escaped to the North and 200,000 of them joined and fought with the Union. This single act alone helped the Union win the war and provided an extra added benefit. It helped turn the war from an act of aggression by the Union for control over the Southern states and its economy into a moral crusade and re-defined the war as a war about slavery. This, along with other reasons related to cotton trade with Britain and France, lead to those countries throwing their support behind the Union. By the end of the war, the Thirteenth Amendment freed all the slaves and became the carrot referenced above.

Today we have a memorial – to a racist and a white supremacist. His face sits on Mt. Rushmore as one of the great figures in American history. The mythology continues to be taught in our schools and many of us, myself until recently, believed that narrative. However, now that America is waking up, perhaps it is time to revisit our history, to ensure our children are taught the truth and that we ourselves are armed with knowledge. Once the myths are exposed, the entire edifice collapses.

Our march to freedom from the Statist ideology starts with an understanding of what the constitution really says in the absence of not just progressive revisionism, but that of so-called right leaning revisionists who sit in positions of federal power and continue to propagate the myth that national power trumps state power. We have been lead to believe in this falsehood, resulting in a growing federal government under both parties at the expense of our own self-power and right to self-governance. Once we begin to peel back the onion, only then will we see that putting our hopes for a future of liberty into the hands of federal judges, politicians, and a few lawyers is a recipe for disaster. Only when we realize the myth tells us that our type of leader will make a difference – that they won’t be corrupted by the Beltway culture when every piece of objective evidence screams to the contrary – only then will we realize that non-violent passive-aggressive civil disobedience, nullification, and other tools will be required to truly win this country back. The longer we wait, the more time we waste and the less chance we have. History has provided us with an opportunity and the window to snatch back liberty is short and closing. Time is our enemy, for we do forget, and like cattle being lead to the slaughter, we will fall in line because we know of no other way. The myth will become our reality. The Republic will fall.

When in doubt, check your premise against the myth. If it fits, you are probably doing something wrong. If you resort to making excuses or detracting from effective tactics then stop and think. Somebody else does not write our rules of engagement – we do – and if we write them in such a way as to cutoff a perfectly good strategy such as nullification or non-violent civil disobedience we have nobody but ourselves to blame when we lose.

Sources and books of interests:

• The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
• Lincoln Reconsidered: Essays on the Civil War Era
• Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe
• The Politically Incorrect Guide To American History

Cross-posted at Wolves of Liberty.

However, when it comes to my family and protecting them forget about that passive-aggressive, diplomatic BS. Mess with a member of my family and you better hope I am not around, otherwise you’ll be unlucky enough to be on the business end of a Glock 45 or AR15 and, if your stupid enough, the recipient of some of the ammo in said weapons. Maybe its the Italian in me.

I live in Texas, and by now most of use have heard of the violence that is starting in the border towns and making its way north. Even in Oklahoma, where my brother is a Lieutenant in a police department of a major city, they are briefed on gang and drug violence. It is a growing epidemic, so severe that Sheriff Arvin West from Hudspeth County in Texas told ranchers in his county:

You farmers, I’m telling you right now, arm yourselves. As they say, the old story is it’s better to be tried by twelve than carried by six, and I don’t want to see six people carrying you.

Conceal and carry time for the wife – maybe a P245. A little heavy, but the woman can handle it and I prefer the 45 caliber over a 9mm any day. Just ask a coroner or ER doc and they will tell your a lot more people survive hits from .38’s and 9’s than .45’s or .357 magnums.

Which brings me to what happened to my wife. Before continuing, the woman I married is the type of person who is very passive in a car. If someone cuts her off, she does not honk the horn, flip them off, or pull up along side them to scream obscenities. She knows such actions can have consequences. I am a little more aggressive, but have learned to pull back after spending years with my wife in the passenger seat playing the role of Mrs. Bucket from the British comedy Keeping Up Appearances: “Mind the pediatricians dear!”. Guys, you know what I’m talking about (joking honey).

My wife is driving home from her job when she is cut off by a driver in an old foreign maroon colored car – the type of car so old you know it will never pass state inspection. Inside is a young Hispanic male. My wife slams on her brakes, pulls back, and when the driver does not speed up, she accelerates her vehicle to pass and then pulls back into the lane in front of the punk well enough ahead of him to not give the appearance of attempting to cut him off.

Next thing she knows, she of off on a high speed chase. First he pulls up next to her and starts screaming obscenities. He then attempts to cut her off. She pulls a maneuver and ends up back in front of him and turns onto our street. He follows her. She decides that, instead of pulling into our apartment and letting the little punk know where she lives, she would double back to a gas station where she knows there is usually a police vehicle.

When she gets there, no such luck. She pulls into a parking spot and stays in her vehicle. The punk drives up and opens his window, still screaming obscenities and daring her to get out of the car. Customers walking out of the store turn around and walk back in. He begins to flash obvious gang signs and using language typical of a street thug. At this time, my wife pulls out her phone and pretends she is using it to call the police. As we can’t dial 9-11 on our cell phones, she hopes the ruse will work and begins to act like she is providing a description of the vehicle. The SOB keeps cursing at her and daring her to get out of the car. Big tough man picking on a woman. God, I wish I were there. Oh, what fun I missed and what pain this bastard escaped.

My wife, having exhausted all her options, decides to head back towards our apartment as the gangster follows her. At the last second she makes a dangerous right turn at a high rate of speed and enters our apartment complex. The idiot following her is caught off guard and slams on his brakes too late and attempts to reverse his vehicle. As other cars are already heading his direction, he capitulates and drives on.

For the next three hours my wife is left shaking as she comes down off the adrenaline high. She feels helpless and went so far as to ask me if I would take some time off work the next day and allow her to follow me to where she works. I agreed.

I was actually disappointed he was not waiting. I don’t suffer from fear. Having had four heart attacks starting at age 38 (I am now 43) and 25 stents there is very little that scares me, and some little punk or group of punks or gang is not one of them. I was quite prepared to unload into the sorry bastard if he was stupid enough to return. Thankfully for him, he must have went home and did a few bong hits and fell asleep.

So that’s it. My wife is now very interested in getting a conceal and carry. I don’t blame her and support this decision 100%. We live near a range and I’ll take her shooting as often as she wants. I love to fire a good weapon that reminds me that I live in a country where I can protect myself, which leaves me with a final thought. I would also throw out my passive-aggressive non-violent approach to solving problems if anyone ever tried to take away my right to defend myself. If anyone – ANYONE – ever attempted to take away my firearms, one of us is going to bite the dust.

Politically incorrect? Too friggin’ bad.

Cross-posted at Wolves of Liberty

Michael Boldin’s post We Refuse over at the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) defines the core beliefs he holds as founder of the TAC:

The Tenth Amendment codifies in law this principle of popular sovereignty – that “We the People” of the several states created the federal government to be our agent for certain, enumerated purposes – and nothing more. But unfortunately, that’s not how things have been working, and very little that the government does is actually authorized by the constitution. And, this is a problem that didn’t just start in January 2009 – it’s been going on a long, long time.

He then asks the question, “What to do about it?” (emphasis mine):

Question – What do we do about it?

• Do we call and email our representatives in Congress and ask them to limit their own power?

• Do we march on D.C. and demand that the government limit its own power?

• Do we sue them in their own courts and ask their judges to limit their power?

• Do we vote the bums out in 2010, or 2012 – and ask new politicians to limit their own power?

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers – that power would endlessly grow…regardless of elections, separation of powers, courts, or other vaunted parts of our system.

Guess what – they were right. For a hundred years, we the people have been suing, and marching, and lobbying, and voting the bums out – but yet…year in and year out, government continues to grow and your liberty continues to diminish – and it doesn’t matter who is the president, or what political party controls congress – the growth of power in the federal government never stops.

The problem we face today is not about personalities or political parties – it’s about power. Until we address the absolute fact that the federal government has too much power, things will never change.

The emphasized text defines the very crux of the issue that surfaces when we begin to take it upon ourselves to change a party from within. To believe this actually makes a difference in the current environment of continuous growth in federal power is dangerous. The real issue that must be tackled is the growth of the federal government, how and why this growth occurred, why it is anathema to the very principles held by our founders, and what to do about it. Dr. Larry Hunter writes in The Soft Despotism of Democratic Fascism:

By all means my fellow Americans, go to the polls in November and vote out the bums who are most aggressively subverting our free-market republic and transforming it into Democratic Fascism, i.e., Democrats. But just know when you do, the people you replace them with, Republicans, are themselves subverting the American free-market republic by offering nothing but Socialism Lite as an alternative.

So many scoundrels; so few alternatives.

Had John McCain been elected president in 2008, we almost certainly by this time would have seen a version of RomneyCare enacted into law, which is a lite version of ObamaCare, an idea hatched inside conservative think tanks as a Socialist Lite alternative to HillaryCare all those years ago—can’t stand to be the Movement of No don’t you know.

A trial run of a scaled-down model of the democratic fascist healthcare reform machine was enacted into law with the Medicare Prescription Drugs (Part D) program in 2003 by a Republican president and Republican Congress: a Rube Goldberg device that conscripts the private sector to run the democratic fascist drug machinery, complete with a lite version of an individual mandate—call it contracting out tyranny. Indeed, RomneyCare and its prescription-drug prototype is precisely the template the Democrats used to forge public-private insurance and drug cartels beneath a private patina. No wonder the stock prices of the pharmaceutical companies and the biggest health insurance companies rose markedly during the run up to ObamaCare and right after it was signed into law…

…With only a few exceptions, Republicans are not demanding a roll-back of the welfare state, not talking about scaling back the size of government from its current almost 38 percent of GDP to 15 percent or less. Not more than a fraction of them talk seriously about a total repeal of the income tax (which only half the American people pay) or repeal of the Federal Reserve System, which subverts sound money and undermines economic growth, and no more than couple of them have any clue about how to restore sound money. Beyond a handful, there are no courageous Republicans calling for an end to empire and a return from our counterproductive search abroad for monsters to destroy. Fearful of their own shadows, there are not significant numbers of Republicans urging a dismantling of the domestic police state with its creeping total-information awareness system that is gradually smothering individual freedom and privacy; indeed South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is actually pushing hard for a biometric national ID card. No Republican is calling for constitutional amendments to put the federal Leviathan back in chains, the kind of chains we all can believe in.

So, once you throw out the Democratic rascals and replace them with Republican scalawags, don’t expect things to change much. While every republican in Congress voted against ObamaCare, the Grand Old Party cannot now even muster the courage to run on a platform of repealing it.

Perhaps not in this election nor even in the presidential election to follow but soon the American people will come to understand a very sad and frightening fact about the United States today: Elections no longer work to divert the nation’s decent into the soft despotism of democratic fascism; they simply perpetuate the fraud of two parties, one Establishment, democratic in appearance, increasingly fascist in operation.

I urge the reader to survey the material presented here, particularly Dr. Hunter’s expose of the scurrilous truths about current Beltway politics practiced between the two parties titled Who Lost Healthcare.

The need we all feel for action is pressing. The current target of the symptom of unconstitutional governance by a strong central power is ObamaCare. Talk of repeal is thick in the air – lawsuits and rumors of lawsuits even thicker. Talk of taking back the party from the ground up is the strategy of the day for many.

Repeal will never happen for obvious reasons. It sounds good, looks good on paper, but is impossible until 2013 due to the power of the veto pen and the realities on the ground. To over-ride a veto takes more votes in the Senate than the Republicans could hope to have under the best of circumstances in the upcoming 2010 midterms. Therefore, 2013 is the best chance for repeal and only if Obama loses the election in 2012 and the Republicans control both chambers of the legislature. Even then, we must assume and count on Republicans having the nerve to take on such an undertaking, something recent history quite clearly demonstrates as contra-indicative of GOP tendencies. Not to mention the fact that most if not all of the bureaucracy for ObamaCare will already be in place, making the repeal of the entire bill a dangerous undertaking as insurance companies and doctors – those who are still around – position themselves to work within the new framework. The damage to the existing system, already done, could be exacerbated as the entire structure is torn down. So much inertia will exist within the scaffolding and foundation of ObamaCare the momentum of this monstrosity of a bill would require great courage to take on, repeal, tear down, and replace. I don’t believe for a second ObamaCare will be repealed and putting our eggs in that basket is dangerous and negligent.

Then there is the lawsuits challenging the individual mandate. Forget for a moment the absence of any real enforcement mechanism for the insurance mandate. Many scholars believe the mandate will not be struck down by the Supreme Court. As the entire history of the Supreme Court since the days of the Marshall Court is a history lesson in how the federal powers absconded with the rights of the states and the people through judicial activism and negligence, I would not be surprised. But I will cede ground and assume that it will be struck down. What occurs then? What are we left with? ObamaCare absent the mandate is a recipe for either single-payer socialized medicine of government backed insurance cartels (fascist medicine). If the mandate cannot be collected, then by default taxes will need to be raised. As it will take years for this case to make it to the Supreme Court, the arguments in the previous paragraph still hold. Strike the mandate with Republicans in control and watch the GOP bailout a few large insurance companies creating a cartel-like environment where insurance companies now make your medical decisions for you with the backing of the government. Great system.

As for those who think taking back the party and changing it from within is the panacea to our problems, I can only point to the above information from Mr. Boldin and Dr. Larry Hunter. There is not point of reference to indicate this approach possesses any efficacy whatsoever. As indicated above, the evidence is quite to the contrary. There is also this to consider:

Further evidence of Federal lucre and its consequences can be found in many aspects of welfare programs enacted in past century and the beginning of this century:

• As of 2003, Medicare we underfunded to the tune of $27 trillion, four times the national debt at that time. This funding crisis was in terms of future obligations versus projected tax receipts. No wonder a Value Added Tax is now being discussed. Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven found in 2003 that an average male that reached age 65 will receive $71,000 more in benefits from Social Security and Medicare that he had put in. Contrast that with the average twenty-five year old male expected to pay $322,000 more in taxes that he would ever receive.

• Prior to Medicaid, doctors provided services to the poor for free or at reduced rates. Prior to Medicaid poor families had higher hospital admission rates than those in wealthier brackets and both were almost on par with each other concerning the number of doctor visits per year. Medicaid ended that and resulted in a massive decline in reduced-cost and free services to the poor as the government’s payments for medical care for the poor now compensated doctors and hospitals for services once rendered at reduced rates or pro bono. Medicare and Medicaid basically transferred income from the middle-class taxpayer to middle-class health-care workers and the sudden stimulation of demand played a large role in raising the cost of healthcare. The free-market, effectively chocked off by government regulation and welfare services, was unable to work to lower cost and increase consumption by allowing for natural market competition mechanisms.

• A study in 1960 by Charles Murray concluded the Great Society lead to stagnation for the poor.

• Budget cuts are a myth. Even during President Ronald Reagan’s tenure the rate of increase in government spending slowed but continued its upward trend. While defense spending played a large role, non-defense spending was 17.5% of GDP in 1985 compared to 10.1% in 1965. In the aggregate there was neither tax nor budget cuts during the Reagan era. Spending grew faster than taxing, but both lines continued to grow. While some welfare spending was cut slightly, some spending increased by as much as 18% from 1981 to 1989.

• Of even greater surprise is that even though Reagan reduced the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%, taxes overall actually increased in the decade of the 80s, with some increases negating and then offsetting the reductions of 1981. Social Security taxes in the early 80s were among the largest in U.S. history.

• The Tax Reform Act of 1986 increased taxes by closing loopholes and eliminating some tax credits. Federal taxes averaged 18.9% of GNP during the 80s, compared with 18.3 for the 70s and 18.2 for the 60s. Even under Reagan, federal government grew.

• One of the greatest twists on logic in DC is the idea of cuts. Under President Clinton’s seven year budget proposal the President called for a $500 billion dollar increase in federal spending while Republicans called for a $350 billion dollar increase. I can look at that sentence all day and I still do not see the work cut. There is no reduction in federal spending by either Clinton or the Republicans. Yet the liberal press was able to tout the tired old line of Republican cuts and tie them to popular federal programs, leading 47% of Americans to believe Republican cuts too deep. Again, what cuts? When Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed a 6% annual growth in Medicare spending and Clinton a 7.5% growth, the liberal press and political commentators went apoplectic over the proposed cuts to the Medicare program proposed by Speaker Gingrich.

• Both parties are guilty of this political double speak, redefining the meaning of the word cut to mean a reduction in how fast the government grows.

All of our current solutions are nothing less than men gathered around a campfire screaming into the night to scare away the predators. Lawsuits, repeal, changing the party from within – all take time, none are guaranteed or even likely to make a difference either to ObamaCare or the issue of federal lucre symptomatic of a practically supreme centralized government that should not even possess these powers to begin with. The real change needed is the use of education and information. For example, did you know the final arbiter of the constitution is not the Supreme Court, cut the states? Did you know that nullification has been successfully used by the states to stop a federal law at the boundaries of that state? Do you know what nullification is?

Back to Mr. Boldin from the TAC, who continues (emphasis mine):

Question – What do we do about it?

Jefferson and Madison gave us the answer. In response to the unconstitutional attacks on liberty that were the Alien and Sedition Acts, they secretly authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. Here are a few excerpts that really define exactly how things are supposed to work when two or more branches of the federal government conspire against the constitution and your liberty.

the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government

whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated [by the Constitution], a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy

So while it might be important to call, petition, demand, march, sue and vote bums out, because they’re all bums, there’s much more we’re supposed to do. When the federal government violates your rights, you’re not supposed to wait four years for new politicians in the hope that they’ll fix it. You’re not supposed to wait two, or four, or more years for some black-robed judge to pronounce that they’ve violated your rights. You are supposed to resist those violations of your liberty as they happen – and it is your state’s solemn duty to do the same.

Mr. Boldin then provides information on nullification resolutions and laws within the states:

• Already a dozen states have passed 10th amendment resolutions reaffirming the Constitution as the founders and ratifiers gave us.

• 25 states have passed laws and resolutions nullifying the Real ID act – stopping it dead in its tracks in most of the country.

• 7 states have passed Firearms Freedom Acts – nullifying some federal gun laws and regulations in their states.

• 14 states have now passed laws nullifying unconstitutional federal laws on marijuana

• 3 states have already passed Health Care Freedom Acts to ban federal health care mandates in their states.

• Other states are considering nullification laws on cap and trade, the misuse of state national guard troops, monetary policy and much more.

However, even nullification has its own issues as it also relies on state politicians to rescue us from the federal government and re-instate our rightful position as the real power brokers within our states. Probably one of the most accurate truisms concerning politicians was made by President Reagan:

It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.

From Shane Musgrove writing at the TAC:

Are the States and their representatives any better? My assumption is that some, if not many, fall into the same political traps, yet not so deeply nor to the same extremity. I believe with great hope along with many others that there are representatives at the State level who do take these matters as genuinely concerning and view it as their responsibility to protect their citizens from what we can now define as “federal lawlessness.” I commend you on your courage, will, integrity, and your strength.

Now, as Linscott said, “You cannot expect the problem to fix the problem,” referring to the federal government, so we emphatically hope that these problems will be answered at the State level. So, the answer to the perplexing philosophical statement is none other than the States, their representatives, and the people that vote them into office.

Therefore, what follows is in essence, “A Call from ‘We the People’ to All State Representatives.”

As a preface, it is a responsibility of the States to assert their rights, specifically in times such as these. It is absolutely necessary to recognize that responsibility and accountability exists among State representatives rather than open-ended, unmoving opinions based on political philosophy and liberal views of the Constitution. To the best of my knowledge, an oath is taken in all States in some form of an edict to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State.” In addition, it should be noted that this call for responsibility is void of any form of violence or sedition, lest the leftist accusations of “inciting violence” and “hate” come forth with great force.

Therefore, let it be said: For legislators who are weakly or mildly concerned with these problems and see your duty as a representative half heartedly, resign.

For governors who do not have the courage to stand and fight for State rights in accordance with the following words from James Madison, resign.

Strong words, but are they enough? Looking at the list of states with non-binding resolutions vs. the list of states we need to actually nullify via law not only ObamaCare but any other attempt at federal over-reach before this country falls off the financial cliff, I am not convinced. That is why it is incumbent upon us to initiate a program of massive non-violent passive-aggressive resistance in the spirit of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. As Gandhi once said:

40,000 British troops cannot force 300 million Indians to do what they will not do.

This is true of our situation as well – a few elites in Washington can not make a majority of American’s accept something they are unwilling to endure. Shortly after the War of Independence, our founders looked for the source of the problem that allowed tyranny to fester and thrive, a tyranny so abusive the only way to abolish it was to remove it by force. Wisely, they recognized the sovereignty of Britain lay in the hands of a few, concentrated in the Parliament itself. As they set about creating a new form of governance, our forefathers rejected the very idea of a strong central sovereignty, the United States of America was to be a Union of sovereign states, and the role of the federal government limited by definition. Despite liberal revisionism, the fact remains the Constitution was not ratified by national referendum, but by individual conventions in each state. This fact is indisputable and definitively makes the case that the Uniting of the States was not intended to be a under a strong federal power, but rather that of thirteen sovereign states under a limited federal government.

Since its ratification, our Constitution, under constant assault by activist judges, corrupted legislators and Presidents, is now turned on its head. Thomas Jefferson noted that:

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

The very nature of man is corrupt and today, after more than two centuries of the corruption of power we find a small island off the coast of France replaced by a city called Washington DC.

This state of affairs cannot be allowed to stand. At risk is the future of this country and its people. Our goal is to educate and the taking back of this country through non-violent civil disobedience and the constitutionally sound tool of nullification. Over time I will outline the tactics and continue to define the philosophy of this approach. Never will we rely on the assistance of those whose stake in this fight is the loss of the addictive and corruptive power gained at our expense. One may as well attempt to force a crack addict to part with their beloved drug. Until the Statists are utterly destroyed under the weight of truth and knowledge this Republic is in danger of utter ruin. If is only through self-power that we can win this fight.

This is the hill we live or die on.

Cross-posted at the Wolves of Liberty

On tax day, he show cases the tax cuts in the stimulus plan, other tax break, and refusal to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year.

“So I’ve been amused in recent days by these people having rallies,” he said to laughter. “I think they should be saying thank you.” Big applause, and calls of “Thank you” from the crowd.

The man sure can lie with straight face. Either that, or he believes his own propaganda, along with the worshiping zombie crowds that fill his teleprompter driven drivel.

After much thought, I did find it appropriate to thank Obama for a whole litany of accomplishments and deeds performed by the Self-Anointed One.

• Thank you Obama for an unemployment of 9.7%, and real unemployment (workers who stopped looking, marginally attached workers, and underemployed workers) of 17.5%.
• Thank you Obama for siding with Marxists Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez when Honduras President Manuel Zelaya decided to throw out the Constitution of his country and stay in power past his term before being unceremoniously marched out of the country by the military which fulfilled its oath, stepped back, and allowed the Honduran Congress to appoint a successor. Those inconvenient Constitutions sure can be a bitch to budding Marxists.
• Thank you Obama for your America apology tour.
• And for trillion dollar bailouts, budgets, deficits.
• Let’s not forget heavy government regulation that further stifles our economic recovery. Thanks a million Mr. President.
• And we can’t forget to thank you for supporting tax increases at all income levels.
• Or indicating you have no idea how basic economic theory works.
• And a big shout out for insulting our intelligence. We know if you increase taxes on small business (what you call the wealthy), big business (such as oil), then everyone, including middle class America, end up paying the tax. Which means we should also thank you for:
• Showing us you would be a horrible contestant on Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?
• Thank you Obama for selling out our children’s future and attempting to enslave them to a bloated government.
• For the nationalization of many industries, including automotive and health.
• For undermining the CIA and our military by publishing documents that reveal our interrogation techniques.
• For canceling important weapon systems
• For bowing, and bowing, and bowing ad nauseam to world leaders like an impotent second class citizen unworthy of manhood.
• For weakening this country by providing terrorists the same legal protections as U.S. citizens.
• For omitting “Islamic Terrorism” from security documents while allowing the Department of Homeland Security to publish reports labeling soldiers and conservatives as potential right-wing extremists.
• For stonewalling on the Fort Hood massacre investigation:
• For creating a shadow government of czars who are radical Marxists and crooks.
• And lets not forget to thank you for alienating Israel, our only real ally in the Middle East, while fostering a potentially explosive situation in that region. Bully for you.
• An I am sure that many in Iran would love to join us Americans in thanking you for turning your back on Iranian protesters while they were slaughtered.
• While we are at it, thanks in advance for assisting Iran in creating a nuclear warhead. Awesome!
• And thanks for helping me win that bet. It is possible for a President to be worse than Jimmy Carter.
• But most of all, thank you for pulling this country together in opposition to your policies; for making us stronger and setting the stage for a comeback of epic proportions for fiscal conservatism as happened after we were subject to four years of Jimmy Carter. Of course, you won’t be thanking us for that, not when your explicit goal is weakening and destroying the greatest nation on this planet.

So thank you in advance for failing – something I guarantee will happen.

Cross-posted.

Mr. Blow throws down the gauntlet. Do we pick it up or walk away? Will it be the slow death of relying on others, or the assured victory of self-power multiplied ten, twenty, thirty-million times or more?

Relying on politicians will not solve our problems; neither will relying on the courts. These band-aids may work for a single issue, but the broader abuse of power and its corruptive influence continues to exist, laying the groundwork for additional egregious violations that will, once again, require us to rely on the power of others to solve a problem only we as a people can and should address. Once again we will be exposed to months and months of obfuscations, misdirection, propaganda, and outright lies.

Our goal is nothing short of wresting our rights back from the statists in DC – it is not just to repeal ObamaCare. ObamaCare is a symptom of a much larger disease – that of too much power in the national government. A singular focus on one issue at the expense of the true threat to our liberty is frankly dangerous; it is a gamble when the stakes are high. However, until the cancer is removed, any remedy resting on the backdrop of the current statist tyranny in Washington is the equivalent of using chemotherapy to extend a patient’s life a few months, knowing full well that death is the ultimate victor.

Political solutions only make sense in an ecosystem where the rights of the people trump the rights of those in DC. I don’t disagree with recommended solutions to take back the party at the local level and project such efforts to higher political spheres at both the state and national levels, but I completely reject any notion this will do any good as long as the real issue which faces us is left to fester unchallenged – that of statism and the contempt and tyranny it carries with it at the highest levels of government and the fear and untruths that propagate to all other levels of society living under the illusion that national power is the ultimate arbiter of your life. The very notion is anathema to the meaning of the word independence.

The disease of tyranny spreads quite easily, and we could send an army of politicians to DC that meet our criterion only to be disappointed at the results. However, if the power rests once more in the hands of the people, the problem mitigates itself. Without near absolute power, there is no large-scale corruption. We must recognize this truth if we are to have any hope of succeeding.

Self-reliance in the style and form our forefathers demonstrated is desperately needed. As progressives over the years have run about the country stirring up apathy, it is our duty to wipe the sleep from our eyes. Our energy is high, but misdirected. Rallies, faxes, emails, phone calls – this list goes on and on – had no impact on the final result. In the end, against the wishes of a majority, ObamaCare passed. It is time to pivot the focus of that energy. The Tea Parties have a new tool at their disposal, yet untapped, that fit not only the spirit of resistance but the goals as well. While last minute dashes to pressure members of Congress may have some effect, it is obviously not enough. This unused tactic is tailor made for Tea Party activists and its time we all learned to use them to maximum effect.

The tools of passive-aggressive resistance will pull the rug out from under the tyrants in DC. It will take a level of sacrifice that we may no longer possess the sheer guts to face. We carry signs, we talk of taking back the party, but the reality is we are going to have to get a little muddy and, in the process, possibly experience a bit of discomfort ourselves.

Recently, I was forwarded an email from a Google group that discusses such issues. The particular communication focused like a laser on the real flaws in current tactics designed to deal with the sources that threaten our way of life. Nothing worth saving is going to be easy and any solution that solely relies on the power of others (politicians and federal courts) instead of self-power should be soundly rejected if they stand apart from the larger cause of the current ailment. The efficacy of such approaches exists only in the context of a larger strategy targeted at the primary cause that acts as the foundation upon which all other issues rest upon. Strategies the rely of the power of others must be subsumed by a strategy that deals with this principal problem – this foundation:

Glenn Beck urges us to emulate Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Well, we sure aren’t. Yes, we have had our protests but they were unobtrusive (on weekends and out of the way) and they were blatantly ignored. Gandhi and King, on the other hand, held their protests in the thick of things. The protested right down on Main Street, at noon, during the week – and at lunch counters, right in front of the other customers, and the world. They were arrested when they refused to move, dragged away by police and jailed, often beaten with clubs and pummeled by fire houses and bitten by police dogs. What they did, couldn’t be ignored. Their peaceful presence under the violent hand of the government exposed the government for the thugs they were.

Gandhi and King continued to show peaceful courage in the face of government violence until the world – then the government – finally listened to them and changed their oppressive ways.

Until we move past our polite “Sunday School” gatherings we will continue to be ignored. Until we find the courage to truly emulate these past leaders, we will continue to be ignored. The question is: Are you willing to sit down on the streets and sidewalks around the capitol and in the hallways of Congress and refuse to move until the government listens to you? Are you willing to be arrested and possibly beaten, and put in jail, without resistance? If you are, then you have the courage of these past historic movements. Until there are enough of us who possess this kind of courage, our protests will continue to be ignored.

If there is a sufficient number of brave men and women among us who have the courage to do more than just chant and carry signs and politely listen to speakers, then let us stout-hearted men and women converge on Washington and sit on the streets and sidewalks and in the hallways of Congress and peacefully refuse to move, and continue to do this until we are heard. We pay for these streets and sidewalks and hallways, so let us sit down on what we own and stay there until the world, then the government, notices us and ends its oppression of its people.

How many among us have this kind of courage?

I am often amazed at the story of David and Goliath. Where others measured themselves against the size of the giant and concluded victory was impossible, David measured not himself against the size of Goliath, but measured Goliath against the God that accompanied David. From this perspective, David saw Goliath as nothing but a tiny nuisance. Right is on our side, and we stand on the higher moral ground. Just as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi occupied the higher ground and won against all odds, the same stands true for us. We should not be looking at this problem and see a Goliath. We should look at this problem and see a tiny nuisance and face it without fear, secure in the knowledge that our victory is assured.

Pick up that gauntlet.

This statement is simply not true — “The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government” –

All the 10th Amendment does is CONFIRM, AFFIRM, STATE, whatever verb you choose that HOWEVER one defines the “scope of federal power,” those powers falling outside that definition are reserved to the states, period, end of story. The 10th Amendment DOES NOT define the scope of federal power; the rest of the Constitution does (or is supposed to do) that. That fact that the rest of the Constitution fails adequately to define the scope of federal power is a testament to the flawed nature of the Constitution, to flawed judicial interpretation, to a flawed Constitution that permits untethered judges to render such incorrect decisions and get away with it, or to some combination of the foregoing. The 10th Amendment is no easy fix to our woes; indeed the glaring contradiction it represents, i.e., it reserves to the states a null set of powers, indicates the problem resides deep inside the Constitution itself, and that is where we have to fix the problem.

My obvious question back is if the problem resides in the Constitution itself, how do we fix the problem? I know of only two ways to do so, although my friend may have something in mind I am unaware of, and it seems a much heavier lift to fix the Constitution than to nullify a federal law.

While I completely agree with my friend about the reason we find ourselves in our current predictament, the argument provided in this diary stands on pretty solid assumptions. There are no illusions it will be easy, but I don’t believe in the word impossible.

His reply to my query was troubling, particularly in reference to lawsuits of the individual mandate (bold emphasis mine) (italic editorials mine). It was also rather funny:

Yes, the problem IS profound and there is no easy fix. That is just the fact.

For nullification to work, however, the states have got to be able to leverage INACTION, which I don’t think they can do with ObamaCare. I will be very surprised, for example, if the courts find the states even have standing to sue over the individual mandate.

Where the national ID card, the 55 mph speed limit or any of a number of Medicaid/SCHIP mandates are concerned, the feds could mandate all day long and all the states had to do is refuse to comply and the mandate would fall unless the feds were prepared to send in federal troops. Instead, the feds used monetary means to squeeze states by the (reference removed by me but you get the drift). The states have it within their power to stop a lot of federal over reach dead in it tracks if only they would stand up to the feds and tell them to take their federal funds and stick them up Uncle Sam’s (reference removed by me – again, I’m sure the reader gets the drift). But the states WON’T stand up to the feds and they won’t give up the funds. The minute the feds threaten to retaliate financially or otherwise, the states fold like a cheap suit, sort of like the Republican Party (now there’s a kick in the….

That is why I say we have turned into a Talk Nation not an Action Nation. All we do is talk, talk, talk, whine, complain, cry and moan, scream, shake our fists and fart in public. If we are serious, we will start taking action. The actions don’t have to be dramatic and certainly violence is not called for. American males are so bloody cowardly anymore. They (we) should take a page from the females in our lives. What is the most effective thing a female does to get her way? NOTHING. Call it passive aggression or whatever you want to call it but it is the kind of leverage girls learn very early to use on boys. We need to become passive aggressive with the feds. Ignore them when they demand you do something. That is what the hinterlands did to Moscow. The Soviet Union did not collapse because the center didn’t hold — it did. The Soviet tyranny collapsed because the hinterlands simply ignored the center and the periphery melted away. Now, the problem is of course that unlike the American male, who has no recourse anymore when their women become passive aggressive, the feds have accumulated enormous power and the minute they threaten to use it, Americans and their state politicians fall right in line.

If people really were fed up (no pun intended) they simply would not purchase insurance and they would refuse to pay the fine. Would states come to their defense, and if so how, when the feds tried to collect the fines or render punishment for refusing to pay? Who knows? Has anyone even thought about how the states could come to the defense of its citizens who individually decide to defy the feds in this regard? See what I mean? Talk, talk, talk.

My friend is happily married and often jokes about how women are the real bosses. As I am also married, I can also attest to the judo of passive aggressive behavior women are so good at utilizing like Kung Fu artists. I think they take a secret class that we are not privy to. Please know there is no sexism involved in my friends response – it’s all tongue and cheek. He is quite enamored of his wife as I am mine. But he does have a point. Why would he and I come to the same conclusion? Girls out there, its time to step up and teach us what you learned all those years ago. I know its a secret society, but your country needs you.

In closing, I received an email today from Darla Darwald of ResistNet that states that women make up a majority of Tea Party ranks. Providence?

While the exchange did not change my mind concerning nullification, and the statement concerning the courts not ruling in our favor on the individual mandate coming from someone of my friend’s stature, I now see the solution will be hard, it will require leadership and perseverance and rests solely within our own hands. The exchange made me realize even more the need to push harder for a non-violent reaction by the people. I read somewhere today that state legislatures around the country are polling at very low levels. Perhaps that is where we need to concentrate. Passive aggressive resistance backed up by real men (and women) in state office willing to defend the rights of residents in their states. It also seems as if my friend is saying it can’t be done because we have lost the will to pull it off – that it’s too hard for us. Maybe he’s right. I hope and pray he is not. Done on a great enough scale, I see no reason this can’t be done. The question remains do we have the political and personal will to see it through? It is here where my friend and I diverge.

When Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter signed HO391 into law on 17 March 2010, the “national” news media circled the wagons and began another assault on State sovereignty. The bill required the Idaho attorney general to sue the federal government over insurance mandates in the event national healthcare legislation passed. The lead AP reporter on the story, John Miller, quoted constitutional “scholar” David Freeman Engstrom of Stanford Law School as stating that the Idaho law would be irrelevant because of the “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution.

In his words, “That language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law, so it really doesn’t matter what a state legislature says on this.” Now that Barack Obama has signed healthcare legislation into law, almost a dozen States have filed suit against the federal government, with Idaho in the lead. Battle lines have been drawn. Unfortunately, the question of State sovereignty and the true meaning of the “supremacy clause” may be swallowed up in the ensuing debate.

As more states are joining in, it is worth noting that so-called constitutional scholars do not really exist. The constitution is not a very difficult document to understand. The real meaning of the phrase “constitutional scholar” should be replaced by “constitutional case law scholar”. However, a close look at what such a scholar actually knows about the origins of the constitution and what the founders intended it to mean makes it abundantly clear that many so-called scholars are not, in fact, scholars in the sense of understanding both the foundations and subsequent evolution of the document’s impact on this country, nor modern deviation from the original intent of the founders. One by-product of the modern study of constitutional law is that for many in the field case law and precedents are primary while the foundations and history of the document are glossed over or entirely ignored. What does that tell us? It tells us that, since the foundations have been mired and replaced by 200 years of nationalist tendencies instantiated by Marshall with little relief in the intervening years, many current scholars in in the field are actually completely clueless or chose to ignore inconvenient facts that don’t fit the narrative of their worldview. Ask them about the Marshall Court and you will get a list of cases along with commentary, but mention that it was the Marshall Court that took the sound defeat of nationalists at the Philadelphia Convention and turned it into a victory and you will be met by a blank stare or a nationalist talking point that exposes the naivety or agenda of the speaker. You also will not hear any mention of why America in 2010 looks a lot like America in 1776 in reference to the many being lorded over by the few. Brion McClanahan continues (emphasis mine):

Engstrom’s opinion is held by a majority of constitutional law “scholars,” but he is far from correct…

…The so-called “supremacy clause” of the Constitution, found in Article 6, states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding [emphasis added].”

The key, of course, is the italicized phrase. All laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, or those clearly enumerated in the document, were supreme, State laws notwithstanding. In other words, the federal government was supreme in all items clearly listed in the document.

As stated earlier, the constitution is not a difficult document. So grab your nearest copy and look for the words “national healthcare” or any synonymous phrase. The fact you will not find such wording indicates national healthcare is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. How embarrassing for Engstrom. Of course, that does not stop him from continuing to display a complete ignorance of the constitution. Read the whole article. Here I wish to point out a few other pertinent items (emphasis mine):

By the time the Constitution was debated in the several State ratifying conventions in 1787 and 1788, the “supremacy clause” galvanized opponents of the document. The Constitution, they said, would destroy the States and render them impotent in their internal affairs. The response from proponents of ratification illuminates the true intent of the clause. William Davie, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from North Carolina and proponent of the Constitution, responded to attacks levied on the “supremacy clause” by stating that:

This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land. Every power ceded by it must be executed without being counteracted by the laws or constitutions of the individual states. Gentlemen should distinguish that it is not the supreme law in the exercise of power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations [emphasis added].

Davie wasn’t alone in this opinion. Future Supreme Court justice James Iredell of North Carolina argued that, “This clause [the supremacy clause] is supposed to give too much power, when, in fact, it only provides for the execution of those powers which are already given in the foregoing articles….If Congress, under pretence of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution [emphasis added].”…

…Ultimately, the three most powerful States in the Union, New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia, demanded that a bill of rights be immediately added to the Constitution; near the top of those recommended amendments on every list, a State sovereignty resolution. These ultimately became the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Clearly the intent of this amendment was to mitigate any design the federal government had on enlarging its powers through the “supremacy clause.” If the power was not enumerated in the Constitution and the States were not prohibited by the Constitution from exercising said power, then that power was reserved to the States.

The crux of the article that will shape the debate as ObamaCare lawsuits wind their way to the Supreme Court is well articulated (emphasis mine):

Several other constitutional “scholars” have weighed in on the debate in the last week, and each has invoked the “supremacy clause” to defend their opposition to State action against healthcare. Duke Law Professor Neil Siegel went so far as to suggest that the States are not reading the Tenth Amendment correctly. In perhaps the most outlandish statement of the debate, he also said, “Any talk of nullification bothers me because it’s talk of lawlessness.”

I guess Mr. Siegel has failed to consider that Idaho bill HO391 was passed by a legitimate legislative body elected by the people of the State. That would make it lawful.

Brion McClanahan recalls a very telling quote by a great patriot:

Of course, this debate ultimately boils down to loose interpretation verses strict construction. Thomas Jefferson had the best line on this issue.

When asked to read between the lines to “find” implied powers, Jefferson responded that he had done that, and he “found only blank space.”

Herein lies the crux of the matter – the blank space. The blank space that has been filled in for 200 years by those who would create an ecosystem ripe for the growth of tyrannical rule and contempt fo the unwashed masses. How else does one explain the lucre and arrogance of Congress and the President force-feeding ObamaCare to an unwilling public? The burning question is, will the Supreme Court side with the other two branches?

For two centuries the judicial branch acted the enabler to the Congressional addiction to power. Two centuries to grant Congress virtually unlimited powers. Two centuries for a judiciary promising to uphold the constitution while crossing two fingers together behind their collective backs. Each finger represents the usurpation of powers that belong to you and me. One finger is the Supremacy Clause and one is the Commerce Clause. It will be very telling as ObamaCare lawsuits make their way through the maze of the court system to see if the judiciary will finally imply it understands its own role in shredding the constitution or whether they will continue to conspire with the executive and legislative branch in a triumvirate of tyranny.

This battle will prove once and for all whether tyranny rules our land. I doubt it will resolve the issue of state’s rights vs. nationalism. An entire compendium of cases since 1810 would need to be undone and power wrested from the federal government either by the people along with their states, or by the people under their own power through non-violent passive-aggressive massive civil disobedience. My money is on that later requirement.

Highly recommended article: What Would Jefferson Do? Nullify Now!

crossposted.

40,000 British troops cannot force 300 million Indians to do what they will not do.

Power in numbers. If Americans don’t want ObamaCare, we don’t have to accept it. We have been conditioned that we must accept it, or that we must rely on the Supreme Court or Congress to save us, but what if the problem is the Supreme Court and Congress? What then? Micheal Boldin provides the answer:

Now that Heath Care legislation has passed, the obvious question for opponents is this: Now What? My answer is best summed up with just one word:

Marijuana.

No, I don’t mean that you should go out and smoke away your anger and frustration. Instead, you should feel empowered. The best way to explain this is by telling the story of a disabled mother from Northern California.

ANGEL’S STORY

Angel Raich has been permanently disabled since 1995. She has an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder and other serious medical conditions. In 1997, her doctor felt that marijuana would be an effective medication.

Angel used homegrown marijuana, and she and her physician claim that it’s helped significantly. You may not agree with Angel’s choice, but it’s one made in accordance with California state law, which allows for such use. The federal government, however, has not shown much respect for state laws in recent decades, and chose to take action. After DEA agents seized and destroyed all six of her marijuana plants, she sued to stop them from doing so again.

The suit went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in Gonzales v Raich, Angel lost. The 2005 ruling made clear that the federal government did not recognize state laws authorizing the use of marijuana – in any situation.

The culprit here is the Commerce Clause, first defined in loose terms by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1824 case of Gibbons v. Ogden. Justice Marshall is famous for his legislating from the bench and turning the defeat at the Philadelphia Convention of the nationalists, who believed in a strong central government with powers over the states, into a victory. Future Supreme Courts would take even more license with the Commerce Clause to grant Congress virtually unlimited powers – even under so-called conservative Chief Justices and conservative courts.

Mr. Boldin continues:

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

The court ruled that control over a plant grown and consumed on one’s own property was authorized under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “regulate…commerce among the several states.” It has never been amended.

Like any legal document, if the words of the Constitution mean today what they meant at the moment it was signed, we must understand just what those words meant at the time of its ratification…

…With this in mind, the Supreme Court, which is not a set of nine infallible gods, ruled incorrectly. But rule, they did. Thus, all three federal branches agreed that State-level laws allowing marijuana were a no-go. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas gave a stark warning:

“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption…then Congress’ Article I powers…have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”

If this is starting to make a bit of sense, it should. The Supreme Court ruling should have ended the matter, right? Even with the incorrect assumption held by most Americans that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution it did not. More than half a million people are registered users of medical marijuana, with millions more unregistered. So who is the final arbiter of the constitution? The states are, as our founders clearly wished it to be. Remember the nationalists were thumped at the Philadelphia Convention, it was only Marshall’s legislating from the bench that began to form the illusion the Supreme Court was all-powerful. Mr. Boldin continues:

RESIST DC

Even though she lost the case, Angel indicated she’d continue to use marijuana. At the time of the ruling, there were 10 states that had such laws. Not one of them has been repealed. Since then, another 4 states have passed similar laws, and many others are considering them, including South Dakota, Kansas, and New Hampshire…

…What’s been the result? The federal government will occasionally arrest some high-profile users, but taken in the perspective of the multitudes consuming the plant, the threat is quite low.

And, in mid-2009, recognizing a need for “efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources,” the Justice Department announced that it would back off the prosecution of medical marijuana patients even further.

Now it’s time to segway into the health-care arena. What, pray-tell, does the above have to do with ObamaCare? It’s the lesson, actually that, as Mr. Boldin states:

When enough states pass laws defying federal laws, and enough people actively defy them too, D.C. simply doesn’t have the manpower to arrest and prosecute all of us.

Many of us are relying on a political solution from Washington to solve our problems. Or perhaps we are putting our hope the Supreme Court will come to the rescue and not interpret the Commerce Clause in some novel way that will increase the power of Congress to control our lives to stunning new heights. For those who place their hopes in such entities I only have to say, good luck. Past experience dictates that such hopes are sure to be dashed, and even if a battle is won, the war will be lost until the people take action and not rely on the power of others to do the work they need to do. Never in history have people been rescued from tyranny by the very enablers of that tyranny, and the march to big government will always continue under both parties. It is only a matter of degree. As Dr. Larry Hunter points out in Who Lost Healthcare? (emphasis mine):

What do Harlem Globetrotters basketball, professional wrestling and American politics all have in common? They are FAKES…

…The sad thing is, most conservatives actually think American politics is a real contest between different visions and alternative practical courses for America. Au contraire. Politics in America today is between two Establishment political parties that need each other as foils—gotta’ have that “bad guy”—egged on by the mouth-radio carnies. The dirty little secret is most of the participants fundamentally agree on the need or the practical necessity of perpetuating and growing the welfare/warfare state. They differ only in degree, not kind.

The proof of this assertion is unambiguously clear: Government in the United States continues relentlessly to get bigger, more intrusive and oppressive no matter which political party is in control, no matter for how long. Yes, each party proceeds at a different pace and by different routes but they all herd us to the same destination nonetheless, confirming Thomas Jefferson’s observation that, “The natural tendency of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.”…

…The joke is on those Americans who actually believe a restoration of limited government, individual freedom and personal liberty are the objectives of either political party. The poor saps have spent their entire lives paying the full price of admission to cheer on the Washington Generals. How pathetic is that? Pitiful.

So, when the history of the government takeover of healthcare is written and the question asked, “Who lost healthcare?” the answer will be unambiguous: “Republicans, who failed to take a political risk and refused to employ every parliamentary device at their disposal to stop ObamaCare from being enacted into law.”

Conservatives, irate at the Democrats, will make heroes of Republicans for fighting the good fight rhetorically and overlook their unwillingness to act. They will flock to the polls and throw lots of Democrats out of office. Republicans will claim a mandate—but a mandate to do what, slow the boil?

So where do we go from here? Back to Michael Boldin and nullification:

This kind of activism – while it clearly carries personal risk – should be a real blueprint for people that have been consistently unable to find constitutional relief in Congress, the Executive, or the Courts.

Marijuana users: Love ‘em or hate ‘em, but show some respect for them, as many have suffered greatly for doing what they believe is right. People who believe strongly about other issues, like health care mandates, would do well to learn from them.

What should be done about federal control over health care? The same thing that should be done for every unconstitutional federal law, regulation, or mandate – Nullify Now!

If the politicians in Washington fail us (and there is already plenty of backtracking on promises of repeal) and the Supreme Court rules against the people, what then? By ignoring a perfectly good approach to taking back power from a tyrannical few in DC, we have only ourselves to blame. By putting our eggs in the federal basket and failing to pressure our state leaders to pass laws nullifying ObamaCare and coordinating with other states to do the same, we miss a real opportunity. An opportunity to send a message to Washington that, even if the Supreme Court sides with you and even when you back down from pledges to protect the people, we can still win. There are millions of us and only a few of you. We refuse to accept your tyranny and we do so without firing a single shot. All we have to do is ignore you, just like you ignored us.

Be sure to check out other posts at the Tenth Amendment Center that describe how legislation is shaping up, what local Sheriffs should do, how a state can react when Congress threatens to remove federal funds, and other items. Also, check out Nullification – Our Constitutional Option.

Remember, sometimes if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Relying on politicians and judges to save us is a perfect example of why this little pearl of wisdom is still good advice.

Cross-posted.