By way of Hotair, Texas will be getting Predator drones to wage war on drugs. I guess the pro-war folks/anti-immigration folks think this is a good idea.

Here’s the story from the San Antonio Express News. Not only does it get the banner treatment, it gets the all-too-rare exclamation point to boot. In the annals of Drudge-iana, only the red font and the dreaded red-font-with-siren are more esteemed, my friends.

One teensy quibble on my part, though. Isn’t this old news?

An unmanned aerial drone will soon fly over Texas skies as drug-cartel violence continues to escalate on the U.S.-Mexico border, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate hearing Tuesday.

Texas is the last border state to receive a Predator drone, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said that has hurt intelligence capabilities to federal, state and local law enforcement on the ground…

Napolitano said Texas was the last Southwest border state to receive a drone because “Texas airspace is more crowded.”…

In Juarez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso, some 700 people have died in shootouts and drug-related violence this year.

So the big news isn’t that drones will now be patrolling the border, it’s that they’ll now be patrolling the Texas border, which … really isn’t big news, especially since Arizona’s had four of these suckers in the air since 2006 and is still having major problems. In fact, the head of the Border Patrol warned back in 2005 that they’d be better off spending millions not on drones but on new agents and/or helicopters, which are far more agile. Henry Cuellar seems sold on them, though, but whether that’s because they’ll put a dent in drug trafficking or because they’re politically useful as security theater to reassure Texans, I leave for you to judge.

And before you ask, no, the drones aren’t armed. Blowing up convoys of bad guys is reserved for Al Qaeda, not drug cartels.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Drudge banner: Predator drones to patrol Tex-Mex border.

So the answer to 700 people dying in shootouts and drug-related violence is to put military technology in our skies? How about we question the idiocy of our war on drugs. People are dying because drugs are illegal. Push it underground and your only way to solve disputes is to use violence. You sure can’t go suing a fellow drug dealer for infringing on your business, so what do you do? Well, of course, we know what they do. They get their guns out. If you want to decrease the number of deaths, get rid of the stupid drug war.

Also, are people stupid enough to think this is where the use of drones will end? What happens if there is another terrorist attack? You think immediately these drones won’t be called on to start patrolling the entire nation? I’m sure Obama would love to have a few above the tea parties. How about to track down a murder, rapist, or child molester? Wouldn’t people buy into the idea of using such technology on such evil people? Of course they would, and before you know it, we have drones monitoring our every move, spying on us in our houses and making sure you stay in line with what the government says is proper behavior.

Come on Prof, that would never happen. Really? How about tanks? Were tanks developed for war? Of course they were, and now you see them used by police forces across the country. Whatever technology we develop and use in war will eventually be used against us by our own police state. The sooner people begin to realize that, the sooner we can possibly save this country from tyranny. Chances are its too late though.

In a letter to Edward Carrington, before the Constitution was written, Jefferson talks about the up risings in America during Shay’s Rebellion.

DEAR SIR, — … The tumults in America, I expected would have produced in Europe an unfavorable opinion of our political state. But it has not. On the contrary, the small effect of these tumults seems to have given more confidence in the firmness of our governments. The interposition of the people themselves on the side of government has had a great effect on the opinion here. I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

You have to love the way Jefferson puts things. “…whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” shows how Jefferson did not trust government, and that the only way for government to remain accountable was to have a press that informed the people of exactly what the government was doing on their behalf. Considering all the backroom dealings, the couple thousand page bills, and Obama shutting the press out of meetings with foreign leaders, can we say that we even have a government with newspapers (open information)? I would have to say we do not, and as such would tend to agree with Jefferson that I would prefer newspapers without a government. At least then, I could get information and make choices myself, instead of slime ball politicians making them on my behalf, and then not letting me know how those decisions were made and what those decisions entail.

But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.

Jefferson must have never thought about what the public schools would end up doing to our literacy rate.

I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe.

Here Jefferson sure sounds like an anarchist. He argues that public opinion is just as powerful as laws. Could it be happiness is not derived by the so-called tranquility created through government, but instead by the free choice of how to live your own life? Public opinion does not require force. There is no gun pointing at you. Instead you are choosing to abide by public opinion in order to get along with your neighbor and to be accepted into society. No one is forcing you. You could just as easily choose to not abide by public opinion and either work to change the opinion or setup a society based on new public opinion. It is by this free choice that Jefferson believes that societies without government enjoy “an infinitely greater degree of happiness”.

Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor. The want of news has led me into disquisition instead of narration, forgetting you have every day enough of that. I shall be happy to hear from you sometimes, only observing that whatever passes thro’ the post is read, & that when you write what should be read by myself only, you must be so good as to confide your letter to some passenger or officer of the packet. I will ask your permission to write to you sometimes, and to assure you of the esteem & respect with which I have honour to be Dear Sir your most obedient & most humble servt.

via Edcarringtonlttr.

Wonder what Jefferson would think of our government today? Would he consider a government who runs up a $13 trillion debt that will enslave it’s citizens wolves? Would the people who are looted to pay for enslavement programs for the poor and the poor who are enslaved be considered sheep? How about the money stolen from tax payers to hand over to wealthy bankers? Does that qualify our governors as wolves? And are we sheep when our governors stick guns to our heads and tell us what we must buy?

Surely, Jefferson would see that our government has become the wolves, and we the people have become the sheep.

But, he would speak glowingly of the people who are now rising up and becoming attentive once again, for it is this spirit that Jefferson cherished.

In order to make it seem like the government and the banking sector aren’t one in the same, President Obama is rolling out his teleprompter to deliver a speech blasting Wall Street for acting like a bunch of ignorant drunks. Who cares that the Fed was supplying the booze.

From the Wall Street Journal

President Barack Obama will return to Manhattan’s Cooper Union on Thursday, two years after a campaign speech that laid out his vision for Wall Street, to castigate a financial industry that he will say has too often forgotten the ordinary Americans who have suffered from its reckless irresponsibility.

OK, I know what you’re thinking. Here is the leader of our government blasting Wall Street for forgetting “ordinary Americans  who have suffered from its reckless irresponsibility”. This is the same government who forgot about the ordinary Americans almost a century ago. This is the same government who tried manipulated the real estate market by promoting “everyone should own a home”, which led to millions of American losing their homes and millions of others left to pick up the pieces. This is the same government who’s robbed the middle class by devaluing the currency over 30% just in the past decade. This is the same government who’s created an unsustainable empire that’s led to wars, terrorism and the hatred of America. Oh, and this is the same government who is enslaving us and our children to foreign debt holders who will have us working as slaves to pay them back. Oh please, President Obama, tell me how the evil Wall Street banks forgot about ordinary Americans.

The speech comes at a pivotal moment in Senate negotiations over a sweeping measure to re-regulate the financial industry. After trading barbed accusations, senators from both parties now say they are near a deal that would preserve the framework of Mr. Obama’s plan. By appearing just two miles from Wall Street, Mr. Obama hopes to raise the political pressure and seal the deal.

“A free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it,” Mr. Obama will say, according to speech excerpts released Wednesday night. “That is what happened too often in the years leading up to the crisis. Some on Wall Street forgot that behind every dollar traded or leveraged, there is family looking to buy a house, pay for an education, open a business, or save for retirement. What happens here has real consequences across our country.”

What an ignorant a-hole. Behind every dollar is nothing. That is the problem. Our government has become our modern day money changers. Unfortunately, while the people can be fooled, the free market can’t. It will blow your house of cards down eventually, which is what happen. Wall Street and the mortgage industry is not a free market. Obama is either ignorant or flat out lying. These are two of the most regulated industries we have. In a free market, you wouldn’t use monopoly money backed up by nothing. In a free market, you wouldn’t have government pushing people to buy homes with taxes credits and incentives. In a free market, you wouldn’t have bailouts and the FDIC basically telling the banks to do what they want because they’ll print more money if needed.

As he has done several times in the year-long debate, the president will implore industry executives to call back the lobbyists engaged in “furious efforts” to thwart or water down his legislation.

“I am sure that many of those lobbyists work for some of you,” he will say, according to the excerpts. “But I am here today because I want to urge you to join us, instead of fighting us in this effort. I am here because I believe that these reforms are, in the end, not only in the best interest of our country, but in the best interest of our financial sector.”

Sure sounds like something a mafia thug would say. Lobbyist are sent to argue the side of their client. When you have people with guns that say they are going to start shooting, of course you are going to have people sending representatives to argue why their clients shouldn’t be shot. Maybe if we had a free market, where the government wasn’t pointing guns, we wouldn’t need lobbyists.

The legislation would grant the federal government the power to seize teetering financial giants and dismantle them the same way the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation now can seize failing banks. It would create a new financial consumer regulator, would boost the strength and budget of the securities and exchange commission and would impose new transparency rules on the trading of derivatives, the complex financial instruments that helped bankrupt Lehman Brothers and nearly wipe out American International Group and Merrill Lynch.

More moral hazard. Just what we need. How about we let them fail, and let everyone know that we will let them fail. When everyone knows the government is going to step in no matter what happens, they will rightly assume that they can take idiotic risks that they otherwise wouldn’t. People bet on CDOs and housing because they knew the government would not let housing collapse, in particular Fannie and Freddie.

Mr. Obama will treat his return to Cooper Union as something of a triumphal homecoming, with a touch of “I told you so” in the speech. Two years ago, he called on Congress to give the Federal Reserve more supervisory power over the biggest financial institutions and to demand tougher new capital and liquidity requirements. Pending legislation largely follows that demand. Congress appears ready to meet his request, now two years old, for a new financial consumer regulator. His calls for stronger, international accounting standards and financial stability requirements have been taken up by the Group of 20 nations, although talks are proceeding haltingly.

This is just hilarious. “he called on Congress to give the Federal Reserve more supervisory power” is Obama’s “I told you so”? The Federal Reserve is the reason we had this mess. This is like saying we should give Madoff more power to regulate the purse snatchers of the world.

His 2008 suggestion of streamlining the hodgepodge of “overlapping and competing regulatory agencies” has been abandoned. But he will dwell more on the warnings he issued in that first Cooper Union address.

“I take no satisfaction in noting that my comments have largely been borne out by the events that followed,” he plans to say. “But I repeat what I said then because it is essential that we learn the lessons of this crisis, so we don’t doom ourselves to repeat it. And make no mistake, that is exactly what will happen if we allow this moment to pass – an outcome that is unacceptable to me and to the American people.”

“One of the most significant contributors to this recession was a financial crisis as dire as any we’ve known in generations,” Mr. Obama will say in a highly-anticipated speech at the Coopers Union, a college in New York.

He will tell the expected crowd of 700 that America must learn from the mistakes of the economic crises and enact legislation to help prevent it from happening again.

Yes, we live with a broken record government. We always need more legislation to help prevent something from happening again. Over and over we are told they must act to protect us. Only they aren’t protecting us. They are stacking the deck more in their favor. If you want real reform, ask them to quit protecting us.

Obama’s push for financial reform has intensified in recent weeks and he has lashed out at Republicans for meeting with Wall Street lobbyists. In his speech he is expected to say that legislative proposals in Congress would help restructure the rules that allowed Wall Street to take risky bets that Americans ended up paying for.

Republicans have to be completely tone def. What morons would meet with Wall Street lobbyists after everything that just happened? Oh well, I’m hoping for a third party anyway.

He will state that he won’t accept compromises that would weaken the bill, particularly in the area of derivatives, complex financial instruments that played a role in the economic crisis.

He will also say that financial reforms must set limits on the size of risks that banks can take, and include provisions that would make it easier for a failing institution to unwind before taxpayers would be affected. He will also say he believes in a free market. “But a free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it,” he said. He will add, “That is what happened too often in the years leading up to the crisis.”

-By Jared A. Favole

via Obama to Castigate Wall Street – WSJ.com.

Hahahaahahah, Obama will also say he believes in the free market? This sounds like the plantation owner telling his slaves how much he believes in freedom. What a damn joke. I can see it now. “I believe in the free market. Now let me tell you all the regulations, loop holes, incentives, kick backs, and advantages I’m going to hand out. Also, we’re going to print more fake money that we will filter through these same evil banks. This free market stuff rules!”

Yesterday on Facebook, I asked why we let politicians steal our money to then turn around and attempt to bribe us with it with tax credits, cuts and incentives. One of my newer Facebook friends then mentioned how the federal government bribes the states as well. I responded that maybe we should only be taxed by our states. Then if the feds wanted taxes, they would have to tax the states. This would cause friction between the feds and the states again, and I may just be dreaming, but I think it would cause states to tell the feds to go pound salt when they wanted to create new federal programs.

If you are a governor or state legislator, would you not want to keep your state’s tax money in your state? You are accountable to your people, and the better your state is ran, the better your chances of getting re-elected. If the feds decide to create a new entitlement program, would it improve your state? Would your people say, “Yeah, send our hard earned money to Washington. They will handle it properly.”, or would they say, “What the hell are you sending our hard earned money into that cesspool for? You know they are going to waste it. Guess I’ll be voting for your opponent next election.”

Also, wouldn’t this give “The People” more power? Wouldn’t the people basically be able to overturn federal laws by changing their state legislators? If a bunch of candidates who say, “We are not going to send your tax money to Washington for tracking down pot heads. It’s a complete waste of money.” gets elected by the people, wouldn’t the people be better represented? The states could then basically nullifying the laws each election.

OK, I can hear some of the concerns now. “Yes, but wouldn’t you just then have state legislators doing the same things as federal legislators, stealing your tax money and then bribing you with it?” The answer is yes. Here’s the catch though. With states, they have to be competitive. If one state taxes too much and promises too many programs, they’d become uncompetitive. Businesses and people would move to a more competitive state. This would force states into restraining themselves. Competition is the key, and there is no competition with the federal government.

“Yeah, yeah, but what about those states who don’t have a lot of tax payers?” Well, then they’d have to be really restrained. They’d probably be a great draw to people who want less government all around. While not completely government free, they’d be about as close as you could get, and that would entice many people. Also, if there aren’t a lot of tax payers there, then why should other tax payers have to subsidize them? If they want to live there, then let them pay to live there. Other citizens should not have a gun stuck to their head and robbed to pay for some other states government when they chose to live in a more populated state.

“What about federal laws? They would become meaningless, because states could nullify them so easily.” OK, I’m waiting for the negative consequence. This sounds great to me. This would keep the federal government down to the size it should be. It would only have the power that is specifically granted and approved by the states. For example, most states want military defense, so I’m sure they would all be willing to contribute. On the other hand though, would states have paid for our empire around the world? Would they have funded the war in Iraq? Chances are they would have not. The people would not want to waste their money, which they would have much more control over under a tax system like this. They also would not allow the federal government to steal their money to hand it off to other countries as bribes…I mean AID. I’m not saying AID would be non-existent. Maybe you have a state with a large Latino population, and they would like some of their money contributed to AID in Latin America. The beauty is the entire country is not compelled to do it. The entire country is not compelled into sending money to countries where their interests are not being represented.

Lastly, this would help both conservatives and liberals get what they want. Conservatives can migrate easily to small government, low tax states, while liberals can move to high tax, socialized states. The great thing about it is socialism could collapse on it’s own. A state that became heavily socialized would have to bear it’s own burden, and if it’s as great as the liberals tell us, then people will voluntarily move there. They would choose to live under socialism, but it could not force the productive parts of the country to subsidize it’s ideology.

I’m sure other people have contemplated this idea and have had much better dialog on it than I. It would be great to hear other people’s opinions, both pro and con. Let me know your thoughts in the comment section.

From my local paper comes even more proof of government’s complete incompetence. Why anyone trusts government is beyond me.

Pennsylvania hasn’t paid the annual recommended amount to its school and state employee pension funds in years, and won’t for at least another decade if lawmakers adopt a budget proposal designed to spread costs into the future.

The state is not alone with that tactic.

As 2009 pension reports trickle in, it appears cities, states and schools across the country are cutting back on pension fund contributions in order to shift money to budget needs. Of 71 funds that reported 2009 contributions in the Boston College report, about 40 percent of them met their recommended contributions.

The annual recommended contribution is the yearly amount required to cover administrative costs, the cost of benefits employees earned in a given year and the cost of paying off any unfunded liabilities. Typically, employees and employers — in this case the state, city or school district — each pay a portion of the tab.

“It was easy to cover this stuff up. Nobody is going to look at something like this in good times because it is so easy to cover it up. … That’s why (governments) went ahead and increased benefits, saying the stock market would cover it and it wouldn’t cost anything. I knew a day of reckoning was coming,” Dean said.

Easy to cover up? Are people catching on that government is a fraud? If the private sector did this, they’d be hauled before congress and used as a public sacrifice to the Capitalism Is Evil gods.

Although many states and municipalities adjusted benefits for new employees, courts have ruled they must meet their obligations to retirees and active employees.

“Now when someone asks about pension problems, I tell people you better check city hall, because they may be selling your child’s soccer field to pay for pensions,” Dean said.

Pennsylvania increased benefits for state and school employees and lawmakers in 2001, added a cost-of-living raise for retirees in 2002, and then reduced contributions to the funds and spread costs out over a decade to soften the blow of market declines.

Don’t worry. I’m sure the intelligentsia can figure this out.

Munnell said researchers could offer no easy solutions.

“We don’t have anything brilliant to say. There is little in the way of public options to fix this quickly,” she said.

Uh oh!

via Triblive.com

While the rest of us are cutting back, struggling just to get by, and many of us haven’t been able to afford contributing to our retirements, the government just keeps spending. They keep making more and more promises to government workers, who produce absolutely nothing. Of course, guess who has to backup those promises? It’s not the slimy politician or bureaucrat. It will be us, the tax payer. We will have to work extra weeks of unpaid labor just to hand over to the government, like slaves trying to increase their masters wealth.

Why do government workers even get pensions? Who in the private sector gets pensions anymore? The private sector has moved away from the pension system because it’s  unsustainable. Of course, the morons in government don’t care about that. This is just another example of government not doing what’s best in the long term like private businesses do. This is why government should be extremely small, and private businesses should handle the services we want as consumers. The privates sector has moved toward 401k, IRAs, etc. These are self managed by employees and do not require long term commitments by employers. Not with government though. Government workers retire young with huge benefit packages. They didn’t produce anything while they are working, and now they get to sail off into a tax payer funded sunset.

Alright, so I’m on Facebook, and I see someone posted this picture. Following it was typical LOL type of comments. What really makes me LOL is how liberals think only government can handle essential services like fire protection. Do they just assume that if government ceased to exist tomorrow (I know, I’m daydreaming) that all the sudden people would stand by asking themselves who is going to put a burning house out? It’s as if the government created the idea of extinguishing a fire and is the only group of people who know how to do it.

That was my first thought. Second was the caption of “No, thanks – I’m a libertarian.” I’m a registered Republican, but I probably more align with libertarian ideas. Do these statists think libertarians are against fire departments? Do they think that if libertarians wanted no government what-so-ever, that they would not establish services to handle fire protection. If you’ve ready this post, you know fire protection could be provided by your insurance company.

If insurance companies payout based on the amount of damage done in a fire, wouldn’t they have an incentive to develop fire protection and fire fighting services? It’s only the blinded view of the statist that can’t see other options other than state power. Do they need the government to tell them how to interact with their friends, family, neighbors, etc? No, they interact based on their self interest. The same would happen with fire fighting.

INSTAPUTZ: Hehindeed..

In the first part of Federalist Paper XXXIX, Madison talked about what a republic is, and I posed the question “Are we a republic?” While in the first part Madison talks about what a republic is, in the second part of the paper he discusses whether our government is a national (democracy) government, where states no longer hold power, or whether our government is a federal government meaning it is divided into “sovereign States”.

“But it was not sufficient,” say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, “for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.” And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.

First, one must ask why those who just fought the revolutionary war wanted to preserve the “FEDERAL form”. The reason is individual states knew that their values, ideas, industry, etc were not the same. Just like individuals with different backgrounds value things differently, so did the states. They knew that if the states gave into a national government, they would have outright democracy where the majority rules over the minority. While you would still have democracy on the state level, those within the individual states would have similar backgrounds and interests. If on the other hand it was a national government, meaning a nationwide democracy, the highly populated states could force their values and economics on a larger number of lesser populated states. Quickly the more heavily populated states would control the government, and you would have tyranny. By keeping the “CONFEDERACY”, states could govern the way their people wanted to be governed. Southern states could have low tariffs to help export tobacco, while northern states could raise tariffs hoping to boost domestic industry. If the government is national, it would favor the populated states at the expense of lesser populated states.  It would and unfortunately it did raise tariffs, which was one of the reasons for the civil war. The southern economy suffered under tariffs that were put into place to support northern industry.

Without inquiring into the accuracy of the distinction on which the objection is founded, it will be necessary to a just estimate of its force, first, to ascertain the real character of the government in question; secondly, to inquire how far the convention were authorized to propose such a government; and thirdly, how far the duty they owed to their country could supply any defect of regular authority.

First. In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.

On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

Here Madison highlights that it is the states as “distinct and independent States” that are ratifying the Constitution. It is not automatically ratified by a majority, but it must be unanimous, meaning that is it not democratic. States, if they did not want to ratify the Constitution, would not be compelled into membership by the majority. It would appear that membership into the union is voluntary, which would mean that it is not democratic. Democracy is not voluntary for those who disagree with the majority.

The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features.

The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which States may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. So far the national countenance of the government on this side seems to be disfigured by a few federal features. But this blemish is perhaps unavoidable in any plan; and the operation of the government on the people, in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, may, on the whole, designate it, in this relation, a NATIONAL government.

Here Madison is just saying that the government powers will be exercised nationally, because they ultimately are laws on individuals. They would not be applied to individuals in one state and not another. Also, they would not be laws on the States.

But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

Here Madison lays out some great points about a national versus a federal government. In a national government, the national government is the ultimate power. It rules over all other governments, including local governments. It would have the power to abolish those governments and tell them how to operate. Under a federal government, the federal government is not all powerful. It cannot exercise power over states, municipalities, or even the local school board. This is why you see our government use other measures. It long ago found a way around this limitation. By stealing our incomes through the income tax, it is now able to to use that money to bribe states and local governments. If states and municipalities want federal funding, they have to submit to the federal government’s will and do what they tell them do to. If they don’t, they basically have their money stolen and handed to the other governments who bow down to their master. They are then bribing the other states to participate in what they disagreed with.

If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly NATIONAL nor wholly FEDERAL. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the MAJORITY of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by STATES, not by CITIZENS, it departs from the NATIONAL and advances towards the FEDERAL character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the FEDERAL and partakes of the NATIONAL character.

Lastly, Madison goes into how the government is changed. The amendment process is not federal, because it does not require each state to ratify it. It is not democratic either, because it requires more than a simple majority to ratify an amendment. Also, it is not ratified directly by the people. It is ratified by the states.

I think Madison points out in most instances it’s federal with some national hues to it. Unfortunately, I think he thought it would remain this way. We have moved further and further toward national government where every issue now becomes national. Every law, idea, etc is pushed to the national level and implemented on the whole of the people. We are no longer more federal than national, and while Madison’s argument was compelling at the time, I think those who opposed the Constitution were more prescient.

William F. Buckley, Jr. once said he’d rather entrust our government to the first 400 people in the phone book than the faculty of Harvard. What he meant was he trusts the common sense wisdom of the average American more than the political elites, who think they know best how everyone else should live. This video shows how true this is.

Also, while Republican party loyalists think the GOP believes in the Constitution and liberty, here is the GOP’s biggest stalwart showing how false that is.

From HotAir.com

The lady in the audience, who Tom Coburn basically ridicules in another part of this discussion as a brainwashed idiot who only watches Fox News, seems to understand how government works better than the senator. She simply points out that people can have their liberty taken from them and put in jail if they don’t buy insurance as our overlords have mandated. What’s Coburn’s reply? “Putting people in jail is not the intention.” Really? That makes me feel better. As long as that’s not the intention, who gives a rat’s ass what the outcome is.

I’m sure it wasn’t the intention of the slave master to kill his slave either. He just wanted him to work. When he refused to work, he beat him. Then when he tried to defend himself, the slave master just had to kill him.

He then goes on to say the intention is for the IRS to coerce you into abiding by your overlord’s dictates. This is different how? Does Coburn know what the IRS uses to back up it’s threats? If you do not pay your taxes what happens? Oh sure, they’ll start off by only fining you, but what happens if you insist on claiming your right to make your own choices about what you should do with your own money? You will quickly find yourself being arrested and sent to prison. Then what happens if you try to defend yourself against your imprisoners? Wonder what Coburn thinks would happen then? You would quickly find yourself dead, just as the slave who defies his slave master.

Every demand the government makes on you is backed up by that one underlying threat of taking your life from you. Sure they’d rather you comply without resorting to killing you, but if it becomes necessary, you will comply or die. If you do not comply, you’ll be fined. If you don’t pay your fines, you’ll be imprisoned. If you fight for your freedom from imprisonment, you will be killed. While most Americans think this is OK, because you should just have did what they told you, it is just proof that you are not free. You are a slave to the government, who just wants you to work like you’re told.

Today, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals actually stood up for the free market and property rights. Let’s hope this is a sign of things to come.

The DC circuit Court of Appeals gave the Obama administration a big dash of cold water on the limits of its authority to impose rules on communications networks today. In essence, the court recognized Comcast’s property rights to determine its own terms of service for Internet use, and the implications could affect Barack Obama’s plans to mandate broadband expansion as well:

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC’s authority to impose so-called “net neutrality” obligations on broadband providers. …

The decision also has serious implications for the massive national broadband plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs clear authority to regulate broadband in order to push ahead with some its key recommendations, including a proposal to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities.

via Hot Air » Blog Archive » Breaking: Appeals court rejects FCC authority for Net Neutrality.

Net neutrality is a governmental trojan horse to take control of the internet. This is a win for the good guys. For those of you who may have missed my blog on why net neutrality is a bad idea, you can read it here.

Robert Ringer has a blog up about a coming US dictatorship.

In my article ”Saying Yes to the Party of No,” I commented on how pleased I’ve been to see Glenn Beck talking about a subject I’ve been writing about since the late seventies: a government-declared state of emergency leading to a ”temporary” dictatorship.

I have long believed that the mathematics of an insatiable entitlement society in the U.S. guarantees a runaway inflation, which likely would be followed by anarchy and chaos – a perfect excuse for government to resort to strong-armed totalitarian measures to ”restore order.” My model has always been Germany’s Weimar Republic in the 1920s, where runaway inflation brought Adolf Hitler to power.

I originally believed that the runaway-inflation scenario in the U.S. would play out in the early 1980s, but a combination of Ronald Reagan and an explosion in computers and electronic technology made possible by the remnants of our capitalist system headed it off.

And here’s my odds based on what I know and see today:

• The chances of a declared state of emergency and ensuing dictatorship prior to the 2010 elections: 25%
• The chances of a declared state of emergency and ensuing dictatorship prior to the 2012 elections: 50%
• The chances of the U.S. dollar becoming worthless within three years: 25%
• The chances of the U.S. dollar becoming worthless within ten years: 90%
• The chances of the Republicans cutting back on major entitlements if they regain power in the 2010 elections: Zero
• The chances of the Republicans cutting back on major entitlements if they win the presidency and an overwhelming majority in Congress in 2012: 5%
• The chances of the so-called tea-party people (i.e., everyday Americans who believe in liberty) winning out over the long haul: Hmm … let me procrastinate on that one a bit before I lay odds.

via Robert Ringer’s Voice of Sanity Blog.

So, what do you think the chances are? Unfortunately, I think too many Americans think this could never happen, which means more than likely it will. Americans have become lazy about freedom and assume its something that has always been there and always will be. History on the other hand is a long list of dictatorships, tyrannies. and empires.

Personally, I think the article is interesting, but irrelevant. Who cares if we are a dictatorship or not, if our government is already oppressive and tyrannical. A government that moves from securing your individual rights to engineering society, stealing from producers, and spreading empire is no longer a government of free people. To pursue those goals it becomes oppressive and tyrannical.

Because everything the government says is backed up by force, because it has a monopoly on force, government is oppressive by its very nature. Our Constitution was constructed to prevent oppression and tyranny, and it meant to direct the power of government towards individual liberty. That is what made America so great. Unfortunately, it has failed. After just a little over 200 years, the Constitution has been bent to justify tyranny. With the latest health care bill, the government has literally stuck a gun to every citizens head and said you will buy what I say or face the consequences.

Dictatorship or not, we already live under a government of despots.