Sarah Palin’s Understanding of the First Amendment

Posted by Jason | Posted in Miscellaneous | Posted on 09-12-2010

0

It’s a shame that every time I hear Sarah Palin speak, my opinion of her goes to new lows. I do not hate her as liberals do, but I do think she’s a disaster for the Republican party and for our country if she’s ever President.

After her site was attacked by hackers in response to her calls to label Julian Assange a enemy combatant, she emails ABC News about her constitutional rights.

“No wonder others are keeping silent about Assange’s antics,” Palin emailed ABC News. “This is what happens when you exercise the First Amendment and speak against his sick, un-American espionage efforts.”

via Exclusive: Sarah Palin Under Cyber-Attack from Wikileaks Supporters in ‘Operation Payback’* – Political Punch.

So, Sarah Palin thinks her First Amendment rights are being violated by hackers? Does she not realize the Constitution applies to the government? Hackers responding to idiotic calls to label everyone a terrorist is not a government infringement on freedom of speech.

Next, does Sarah Palin realize what is in the First Amendment with the freedom of speech, freedom of the press? She literally wants the government to violate the First Amendment with Assange, but then says private individuals are violating her First Amendment rights. It’s actually funny how clueless she is when she makes statements like this. What’s not funny is how many zombies are shaking their heads yes while she says them.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 7.5/10 (6 votes cast)

Federalist Paper XXXIX part 2 – A National or Federal Government

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government, History | Posted on 09-04-2010

0

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.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Federalist Paper XXXIX part 1 – Are we a republic?

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government, History | Posted on 29-03-2010

1

Over the weekend, I was reading some of the Federalist Papers. In particular, I was reading Madison’s Federalist Paper XXXIX, which discusses whether the proposed Constitution would create a national government, basically a democracy where the majority rules, or a federal government, where the government in broken down into a “confederacy of sovereign States”. He begins by discussing whether the proposed government is a republican government.

The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.

After highlighting how many other nations claimed to be republics, while at the same time having all or parts of their government ruling over the people without the people bestowing those powers unto them, Madison explains that the Constitution is not just claiming to be a republic in words but in action.

If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character.

So, how are we stacking up as a republic these days? Do we have people administering the offices for a limited period of time and good behavior? Does Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd ring a bell as to if our officials serve for limited time periods and good behavior? Madison explains what happens when you do not have time limits on those serving, when he says it “would be degraded from the republican character”, meaning those serving would no longer represent the people.

Also, does our government get it’s powers from the “great body of society” or from “inconsiderable proportions, or a favored class”? Between Wall Street and the enslaved entitlement recipients, I’d say it now gets it’s powers from the latter. What does Madison say that leads to? If it’s the latter “a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.” Sounds about right to me. While our government still claims to be a republic, it does not represent the people. It now has structured privileged classes that do not look out for the “great body of society” but enslaves a large enough portion to maintain the appearance of a republic, while at the same time favoring those who grease the palms of elected officials.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Obama, Our Fascist in Chief

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 22-02-2010

4

You seriously have to laugh at the idiocy of our government officials. They simultaneously do things that drive up costs at the same time they try to cap costs. It’s like trying to squeeze the air out of one end of a balloon at the same time trying to keep it from going to the other end.

Seeking to revive his stalled health-care legislation, President Barack Obama is proposing a new idea to address health costs, giving the federal government authority to block insurers from making premium rate increases.

Sorry, one second. I’ll be right back…………

Ok, I didn’t think so. I was looking to see where in the Constitution it says the Federal government has any power to block private enterprises from raising their prices. Competition will prevent private enterprise from raising their prices above market prices. Oh, that’s right our government prevents competition between states.

The move raises the ante after two weeks of presidential bashing of rate increases including WellPoint Inc.’s decision to raise premiums for some California customers by as much as 39%. WellPoint has defended its price increase as unavoidable in light of rising health costs.

While I would hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, this huge rate hike sure comes at an opportune time for ObamaCare. I mean, if I wanted to help out Obama, I would probably do just this. This would make people just mad enough to say “Screw it. Let the government take over the industry. How can they justify a 39% increase.”

Meanwhile, once the health care theft bill is passed, the insurance companies have a huge increase of new customers who have no choice but to buy their crappy products. After all, the customers has a gun pointed at them.

Private insurance companies are now regulated by the states, which review proposed rate increases. Under the Obama proposal, the federal Department of Health and Human Services would gain the power to review and block premium increases.

via Obama in New Health Push to Block Insurers From Raising Premiums – WSJ.com.

Wow, I didn’t realize there was no federal regulation of the insurance industry. The Wall Street Journal really did break news this morning. Can we confirm this and burn all the papers in the federal registry?

States, like the rest of our government idiots, do tell insurance companies they have to provide coverage for all kinds of medical conditions even when the customer doesn’t want or need it. This does not help consumer. They are not getting something for nothing just because state governments tell insurance companies they have to provide certain coverages. The customer still has to pay for services they never wanted and do not need.

Then in order to make sure the citizen can’t avoid the idiotic ideas of their local states, the federal government steps in and makes sure you are trapped. They make sure you cannot buy insurance from across state lines. This is no different than how they trap us into the expensive drug market we have here in the US. Because we aren’t allowed to buy drugs from across the border, drug companies can charge whatever they want.

After all this anti-free market, anti-consumer, anti-freedom idiocy is put into place, you get demagogues like Obama saying the free market has failed. He must step in. The government must have the power to take over the private sector in order to save us. Meanwhile, the only saving we need is from our fascist government.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Great Speech by Judge Napolitano

Posted by Jason | Posted in Miscellaneous, Video | Posted on 20-02-2010

3

Great video I found on the Daily Paul.

All Republicans need to watch this. I don’t think they realize, while they are claiming they are for liberty, they are handing the government the tools to steal that liberty because of their foreign policy positions.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Bipartisanship Is Achieved…But It’s On Taking Away Your Rights

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 16-02-2010

1

Have you ever felt like politics in the US is just bumper bowling? The people bounce back and forth between the two parties, all the while moving down the lane towards tyranny. Everyone votes for Republicans when they preach the virtues of small government. Then when they realize Republicans want to use the fear of some foreign boogieman to take their civil liberties away and to maintain an empire, they bounce back to a liberal Democrat who claims to be against war and to be for civil liberties.

Soon the people realize the Democrats are just another bumper keeping the people on the path towards tyranny. Of course, now the neocons over at HotAir are coming out against the possible civil rights violations that the Obama administration is considering. These are the same neocons who loved ignoring constitutional rights when they were in power. The truth is both parties would prefer to take your liberties all at once, but the chance of a revolution forces them to do it slowly.

After the people (No not me.) voted for Obama in hopes that he would end the wars and bring the troops home, they quickly found out that Obama expanded the wars, increased bombings and is now looking to make indefinite imprisonment the law of the land. Don’t worry though, Lindsey Graham, who believes himself representative of the real Republican party, backs Obama.

From HotAir.com.

As Allahpundit noted last night, the push to create an indefinite-detention law to allow the government to hold al-Qaeda terrorists is not a new idea, but it is a bad idea. It springs from a return to the law-enforcement model and the desperation of an administration that has begun to feel the limitations of their approach. That’s why the White House has once again begun floating trial balloons to which it hopes Congress will react with legislation, and unfortunately some on Capitol Hill — including one prominent Republican — want to provide that cover:

The White House is considering endorsing a law that would allow the indefinite detention of some alleged terrorists without trial as part of efforts to break a logjam with Congress over President Barack Obama’s plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday.

Last summer, White House officials said they had ruled out seeking a “preventive detention” statute as a way to deal with anti-terror detainees, saying the administration would hold any Guantanamo prisoners brought to the U.S. in criminal courts or under the general “law of war” principles permitting detention of enemy combatants.

However, speaking at a news conference in Greenville, S.C. Monday, Graham said the White House now seems open to a new law to lay out the standards for open-ended imprisonment of those alleged to be members of or fighters for Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

via Hot Air » Blog Archive » Indefinite detention law a bad idea.

Wonder if Allahpundit was saying it was a bad idea when Bush was ignoring the fourth, fifth, six and eighth amendments of the Bill of Rights? Oh, that’s right. It doesn’t apply to enemy combatants. The founders believed these to be natural rights, but to neocons it must mean natural born citizen’s rights. Wait. Wait.

Andy McCarthy tries to do a snow job on Jose Padilla and Ali Saleh al-Marri:

Jose Padilla (who, unlike Abdulmutallab, is an American citizen) was designated an enemy combatant and held without trial after being arrested inside the United States; so was Ali al-Marri. Ultimately, both were prosecuted in the civilian system — but only years later, after the intelligence community had ample opportunity to exhaust their capacity to provide useful information.

In fact, they were put back in the criminal justice system because the courts were about to wipe the floor with the Bush administration over Padilla, and as I’ve reported before, the Obama administration over al-Marri. They weren’t put back in because their capacity to provide useful information had been “exhausted.” What I love about this line of argument is that it directly contradicts the ones Republicans make in favor of detaining Umar Abdulmutallab in this manner. Republicans argue that military detention allows the government to get otherwise “perishable” intelligence quickly, but Padilla was held for three and a half years in military custody, al-Marri for nearly eight. That’s some pretty non-perishable intelligence.

via TAPPED Archive | The American Prospect.

I forgot. They aren’t even meant for all citizens. All that has to happen to take away these natural rights is for anyone in the government to claim you have terrorist connections.  I guess under Republicans it’s up to neocons to decide who gets rights and who doesn’t. Under Obama is it Holder, Van Jones, SEIU or some other socialist group?

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

“What Would It Take For Americans to Realize They Are Not Free?”

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 29-01-2010

0

Just the other day I was having a discussion with my dad, where I said I don’t trust either party. I  said both parties want to take our liberties and control us. They are both bought and paid for by some special interest group. To this, my dad said I was becoming too cynical. In typical Neo-con fashion, he told me how evil the Democrats are and how Republicans are so much better.

A couple days later, I come across Bob Murphy’s post highlighting how George W. Bush and Barack Obama, a Republican and a “anti-war” Democrat, can care less about our Constitution. Despite the Bill of Rights, they believe all they have to do is label someone a terrorist, and they have the right to imprison the person without cause or trial. Now to take it one step further, they have the right to kill that person (could be you one day) based on their judgement alone. All they have to do is label you a terrorist or say you are helping terrorists and put you on their “hit list”. Considering how horrible they are at the no fly list, I hate to see how this list pans out.

Here’s Bob’s post.

What Would It Take For Americans to Realize They Are Not Free?

I was having lunch with someone today (name being withheld in case he doesn’t want this broadcast) and we were musing over the contradiction in the average American’s mind. On the one hand, if you asked Americans to rate professions in terms of their morality or decency, politicians would come in at or near dead last, and if they beat out lawyers, that wouldn’t be much help–most politicians are lawyers.

But at the same time, when it comes to the life-and-death decisions that U.S. politicians make, most Americans give them the benefit of the doubt–often ridiculously so. Sure, they might have made a mistake in, say, invading Iraq, but it really was always about protecting Americans and freeing Iraqis from a brutal thug. The CIA guys just goofed, that’s all.

So anyway, my buddy asked something like, “At what point are Americans going to wake up and realize they can’t trust their government?”

My answer, “When it’s too late for them to do anything about it.”

Note that I wasn’t just trying to say something dramatic, at which point the snare drums kick in and lightning cracks in the background. I meant it quite seriously: The people in charge have to keep up appearances so long as it’s necessary for the overwhelming majority to actually trust that the system basically works. In contrast, in more totalitarian regimes, a large portion of the population knows full well that the rulers are evil, and they are kept in place by fear and helplessness. (They also might think there are no better alternatives.)

So with that in mind, let’s quote from today’s post by Glenn Greenwald. We have already learned that Americans won’t revolt–heck, won’t even vote against an incumbent–just because of worldwide CIA secret prisons and systematic torture of POWs. OK fine. What about this?

The Washington Post’s Dana Priest today reports that “U.S. military teams and intelligence agencies are deeply involved in secret joint operations with Yemeni troops who in the past six weeks have killed scores of people.”…

But buried in Priest’s article is her revelation that American citizens are now being placed on a secret “hit list” of people whom the President has personally authorized to be killed…

Read the full post at Free Advice: What Would It Take For Americans to Realize They Are Not Free?.

So back to the question Bob posed in his title, “What Would It Take For Americans to Realize They Are Not Free?”  I am hoping that people are waking up to what our government has become, a corrupt, over grown, oppressive government of the bankers, by the bankers, and for the bankers.

It’s funny how people like my dad (his counterparts on the left do the same thing) will ascribe the most horrendous intentions to Democrats (some are justified), but he does not see the intentions of the Republicans. When I mentioned this article to him today and how easy it would be to label anyone a terrorist, he said, “Yeah, I can’t see that ever really happening.” Do you think it is just coincidence that our government found the perfect boogie man to get US citizens to give up their liberty, condone the suspension of habeas corpus and now kill off Americans at the President’s behest?

Like I said in my post about us living in the real world Matrix, this Democrat vs Republican scam is setup to get people to ignore what is really happening. By cheering on your team, you become too invested in winning to notice your team has the same intentions. Both teams want to take your liberty, enslave you to Washington and Wall Street, and all the while make you think it’s your choice.

So are you really free just because you get to choose between one party or the other, but you get the same result from both? Imagine if I said the following to you.  “You are free, baby. I don’t want to take your rights away. You are free to choose. I don’t care what three days a week you work for me, it’s your choice. Oh, and don’t worry about this gun pointed at you. It’s here to protect you from those evil people trying to harm what we got going on here. You sure are a lucky sum bitch to have me here protecting you like this. Ok, decide which days and get to work. I know I had to shoot one of our workers, but he was helping those evil people. I just know it. It was completely justified. Trust me.”

Would you still think you are free?

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (5 votes cast)

Democracy is everyone fighting to get control of the gun

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government, History | Posted on 27-01-2010

3

George Washington warned us that “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.”, but we Americans forget that. Government is nothing but a gun. It maintains a monopoly on force, and it uses that monopoly on anyone who would challenge it.

We don’t realize that all our elections are is different special interest groups fighting it out in the polls to gain control of the gun. Each special interest group runs commercials, writes op-eds and trys to convince the general public that the gun is better off in their hands. They will use the gun to make things right, to make them better for everyone. Do not pay attention to who they are pointing the gun at, because they promise not to point it at you.

This warning should have been ingrained in us, coming from a man who could have been King. Our founders knew the government was a gun, so they wrote the constitution to limit the instances in which that gun could be employed. This is why they wrote the constitution in the first place. There were issues under the articles of confederation that made it extremely hard to be a nation. These were things like trade wars between states, states printing their own currency making it impossible to have a medium of exchange, etc. The founders reluctantly handed a gun to the federal government and said, “Here is the gun, and we want you to only address these specific items with this gun.” In order to protect citizens from the gun, they wrote specific rights that could not be trampled by the gun, which we know as the Bill of Rights.

Fast forward to the early 1900s, and you have a group of people, progressives, with ideas that they think they can create society based on their ideology. They realize they can achieve their vision, despite the fact that most people do not want to live out their vision. People prefer to live life as they themselves see fit, but the progressives know that if they can gain control of the gun, the people will have no choice.

This vision has come from both sides of the isle, and both sides love wielding the gun in the direction that they see fit. It has become unfathomable to them and increasingly to us as a people to think that people can possibly make intelligent, rational decisions for themselves. They have convinced us, through government schools, propaganda and their media accomplices, to believe that the gun is there to protect us. They are only pointing the gun as us to make sure we aren’t harmed. It is not government that needs to be limited as the founders believed, but it is freedom that needs to be limited to make sure no irresponsible decisions are made. People don’t even questions who’s defining responsible.

We let the government, an immoral institution if you believe violence is immoral, define our morals. If government says milk is now illegal, we automatically would assume all milk farmers are criminals if they continue milking cows. Then when government decides that they can coerce more taxes by allowing some government controlled milking, they tell us they will allow some milking with strict regulation and licensing. If this sounds far fetched, how is this different than alcohol and gambling. You can’t play a card game in your basement, but you can go to a government sanctioned casino to feed your money to their rich friends.

All this craziness in our society and every societal ill we have comes from this gun being wielded about and forcing upon society decisions and values that would otherwise not be what people would choose for themselves if they were free to choose for themselves. To rephrase Reagan, “The gun isn’t the solution, it is the problem.” It’s time freedom makes a come back, and it’s time we start taking bullets out of the gun. No person or institution is moral if it uses violence to coerce you.  No one weilding a gun can make better decisions for you and your family than you could. It’s time for us get back to what our founders believed, which is people should be free to live out their lives in pursuit of happiness free from coercion.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 8.9/10 (8 votes cast)

Health Care Nullification

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government, Health Care | Posted on 29-12-2009

0

Here’s a great post I found by way of The Daily Paul.

For the past few days, I’ve received loads of emails urging me to get active regarding the healthcare vote – most of which had a subject line similar to: “Last Chance to Stop National Healthcare!”

Well, if you believe the only way to protect your rights is by begging federal politicians to do what you want, then these emails are certainly right. The vote went as expected, and so will the next.

So if you think marching on D.C. or calling your Representatives, or threating to “throw the bums out” in 2010 or 2012 or 20-whatever, is going to further the cause of the Constitution and your liberty – you might as well get your shackles on now. Your last chance has come and gone.

But, those of you who visit this site regularly already know that the Senate’s health care vote is far from the end of things – and you also know that even when it goes into effect (which I assume some version will), it’s still not the end of the road for your freedom.

The real way to resist DC is not by begging politicians and judges in Washington to allow us to exercise our rights…it’s to exercise our rights whether they want to give us “permission” to or not.

Nullification – state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal laws – is the way forward.

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

It’s peaceful, effective, and has a long history in the American tradition. It’s been invoked in support of free speech, in opposition to war and fugitive slave laws, and more. Read more on this history here.

Regarding nullification and health care, there’s already a growing movement right now. Led by Arizona, voters in a number of states may get a chance to approve State Constitutional Amendments in 2010 that would effectively ban national health care in their states. Our sources here at the Tenth Amendment Center indicate to us that we should expect to see 20-25 states consider such legislation in 2010.

20 States resisting DC can do what calling, marching, yelling, faxing, and emailing has almost never done. Stop the feds dead in their tracks.

For example, 13 states are already defying federal marijuana prohibition, and the federal government is having such a hard time dealing with it that the Obama administration recently announced that they would no longer prioritize enforcement in states that have medical marijuana laws.

Better yet, in the last 2+ years more than 20 states have been able to effectively prevent the Real ID Act of 2005 from being implemented. How did they do that? They passed laws and resolutions refusing to comply with it. And today, it’s effectively null and void without ever being repealed by Congress or challenged in court.

While the Obama administration would like to revive it under a different name, the reality is still there – with massive state-level resistance, the federal government can be pushed back inside its constitutional box. Issue by issue, law by law, the best way to change the federal government is by resisting it on a state level.

That’s nullification at work.

Over the years, wise men and women warned us that the Constitution would never enforce itself. The time is long overdue for people to start recognizing this fact, and bring that enforcement closer to home.

The bottom line? If you want to make real change; if you want to really do something for liberty and for the Constitution…focus on local activism and your state governments.

Thomas Jefferson would be proud!

via Health Care Nullification: Things have just gotten underway | Tenth Amendment Center.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Serfdom vs. liberty in 2010 – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 27-12-2009

0

Great op-ed in my local paper.

It was in 1774 that John Adams reminded how the “most sensible and jealous people are so little attentive to government that there are no instances of resistance until repeated, multiple oppressions have placed it beyond a doubt that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties.”

And that’s not merely to “oppress the individual or a few,” the father of the Constitution added, “but to break down the fences of a free constitution, and deprive the people at large of all share in the government, and all the checks by which it is limited.”

Mr. Adams, of course, would have been labeled a “right-wing extremist” or a “militia maniac” by today’s “progressives” in Congress who have been working so assiduously to soil the fabric of America. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would dismiss Adams’ sentiment as “un-American” and tap dance around its implications of unconstitutional freelancing.

But on the cusp of a new year and the second decade of the 21st century, this is where America finds itself: Constitutional perverts and rule of law scofflaws are in charge, the once-creeping crud of socialism has broken into a trot and an increasing number of good and decent people really are mad as hell and not willing to take another centimeter of the shaft.

And perhaps, just perhaps, revolution is nigh.

“Revolution” is a dicey word in any era. Indeed, it can be accomplished by the ballot and not the bullet. But the Founders and the Framers had no qualms about the latter. How soon today’s “leaders” — supposed custodians of the Constitution but merely unionized garbagemen — seem to forget that America was born in armed revolt and that the luminaries of the era acknowledged its necessity in the defense of natural rights.

Certainly, and as Thomas Jefferson reminded in the Declaration of Independence, “governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” But the heaviness and permanence of the corrupt nature of our government surely will force the hand of the people to press the button or pull the trigger in the new year.

So shameless are corruption’s practitioners and their enablers that their behavior is rationalized through euphemisms. Bribery of the sort that would land those in the private sector in the pokey for 10 years is called “legislating” in Washington. It is rewarded with tenure by voters either too enamored with the supposed windfall to understand that the depth of the pickpocketing reaches to their ankles or with memories far too short to effect change in the next election.

Pennsylvania, the State of Independence, now is the State of Corruption. Grand jury allegations more than suggest the state Legislature operates as a corrupt, criminal enterprise. And the words of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights from 1776 never have tolled more clearly: “The community hath an indubitable, inalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish government, in such a manner as shall be by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal.”

“Suckling at the public teat,” you’ll notice, is missing.

Americans and Pennsylvanians faces a crucial test in 2010. They can either continue traveling down the road to serfdom or return to liberty’s boulevard. The republic’s future hangs in the balance.

via Serfdom vs. liberty in 2010 – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)