Romney Not Going to Win the Election

Ok, all you Romney supporters bouncing around out there.  It’s time to face some facts.  Romney will NOT win this election.  I didn’t way he CAN’T, I said he WON’T.  It is, of course, possible.  All things are possible.  The problem is that he won’t pull it off. 

Here’s why.  Romney is a business man.  He’s good at business.  He’s also a politician.  He’s been pretty successful at that too.  But Obama.  Oooooo-bama!  HE is a CAMPAIGNER.  That man could out-campaign damned near anyone on the planet.  Add to that the fact that there is a lot of racial motivation at play, and as a black man, he automatically gets the vast majority of the black vote as well as a large percentage of the overall minority vote before he even opens his mouth……

How is Romney going to compete?  The only possible answer to that is poorly.  Romney is not as smooth as Obama.  He doesn’t have automatic drawing power simply because of the color of his skin.  He’s not the incumbent (incumbents nearly always have the advantage – better the evil we know than the evil we don’t know, right?).  And he’s not preaching the right messages.  He still is talking about Obamacare far too much.  His message needs to be “get our troops home” and “fix the economy”.  Period.  Plain and simple.   That’s not what he’s saying, though.  That’s not what he believes.  It’s not what he’ll do.  And it’s going to cost him this election. 

State + Alcohol = Mass Confusion

It would appear that stupidity abounds, no matter where you may be.  With Washington finally getting rid of the state liquor monopoly, this Friday being the first day that hard alcohol can be sold in non-State run retail space, the confusion that set in before the bill was even passed is still going strong. 

All over Facebook and the Twitterverse, people are talking about the 27% “increase” in the taxes on liquor that was included with the bill, and horribly misinterpreting that tax.  Even some news agencies, who shall remain nameless, are getting it stupefyingly inaccurate, and these people get paid to present the facts. 

Meanwhile, while all of Washington is abuzz with shock and awe, confusion and wonder, Idaho is busily flexing their moral-muscle and banning a certain brand of vodka.  Why, you ask?  Well, this brand of vodka was obviously dangerous!  It has a name that might possibly be insulting to a certain group of constituents.  It could even be religiously offensive.  Five Wives Vodka, made it Salk Lake City, could possible offend Mormons, what with the name that insinuates polygamy and a picture of five women hitching up their skirts on the front of the bottle. 

This vodka was so offensive that the Idaho state-run liquor stores are refusing to carry it.  Since Idaho runs their liquor sales in the same way Washington does (until Friday), that effectively closes the entire Idaho market to a manufacturer for no reason but the whim of the powers that be in Idaho. 

Meanwhile, back in Washington, the 27% “increase” in liquor costs will be more than offset by the fact that the WSLCB is no longer able to tack on their 52% markup on every bottle.  If you do the math, you may notice that 27% is less than 52% (25% less, in fact) and store will be competing for your business, so they won’t be able to just tack on that 25% as a profit margin and keep the prices the same that they were.  You’re likely to be paying between 10% and 20% less for your liquor purchases now, and you get the choice of where to go and the additional benefit of different stores choosing to stock items that the state run stores didn’t opt to have. 

While Washington, by privatizing liquor sales, is looking at reduced cost, increased convenience and increased selection, Idaho continues the government monopoly model and has likely cost jobs for a distillery in Utah because they didn’t have a PC enough name and label for the people of Idaho, who must be easily offended since the legislature has to censor what they see on shelves.

DSHS Employee Arrested for Food Stamp Theft

A 44 year old Graham woman who works for the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, the entity in charge of the States Food Stamp program, was placed under arrest on suspicion of food stamp theft. 

The Pierce County DSHS office was contacted by a former client who had turned in his EBT card in September of 2010 when he received a letter stating that he needed to recertify for his benefits.  He thought that a bit odd, as he had asked the account be closed, and the office found that the card had been used to make purchases totally more than $3200 since that time. 

They asked the Washington State Patrol to investigate, and the subject of the investigation was moved to a different assignment in DSHS for the duration.  The investigation concluded with her arrest for four counts of unlawful redemption of food stamps, which is a felony. 

On a lighter note, I’m sure she spent the $3200 she save in food purchases for something really awesome, and we all get the joy of helping to pay for it.  Now that she got caught, we get to pay her room and board for a few years as well.  The only ‘win’ to be found in this story anywhere is the guy who managed to get himself financially stable enough not to need the state assistance anymore.  What’s even more impressive is that he voluntarily went in and turned in the card, even though he likely could have kept drawing benefits for at least a little while longer. 

He used the system for precisely what it was intended for.  To help get back on his feet.  One could only hope that there might be a few more people out there like this guy.  Hat’s off to you, good sir.  I hope you have kids, and are teaching them to be as responsible as you are.  We could use a few more people like you in this country.

WEA Endorses GOP Candidate & Gov. Gregoire Appoints GOP Senator to State Position

You didn’t read that wrong, the Washington Education Association, an organization that typically is considered “left-leaning” by people who consider themselves to be “right-leaning”, has endorsed across the void.

Kim Wyman, Republican candidate for Secretary of State, is the first statewide candidate to receive an endorsement from the WEA.  As unions typically tend to favor Democratic candidates, and teachers tend to favor democratic candidates, it comes as a bit of a shock that a teachers union might go for a GOP offering. 

The WEA also endorsed two Republican candidates for the state Legislature, among the usual smattering of Democratic candidate endorsements. 

Added to this unusual showing of non-partisan political maneuvering, we have Governor Gregoire’s appointment of GOP Senator Cheryl Pflug of Maple Valley to a state position on the Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, which pays $92,500 per year.  This is nearly double what a State Senator is paid, and comes with the added benefits of not having to run for election, and being a six year appointment.  Some cynical folks will likely say this appointment was made in order to get Pflug, the incumbent, to drop out of the Senate race to allow a Democratic candidate to have a better chance at winning, but being Pflug was one of only 4 GOPers to support legalizing gay marriage in this state, she had already likely alienated a decent sized chunk of her more “traditional marriage” favoring supporters out there. 

With all this cross party action going on, one can’t help but wonder…. are we finally going to see a little work in this state towards fixing problems regardless of party affiliation, or is this just a quirk of the game?

Medical Marijuana–The Controversy Continues

Over and over again, we’ve watch the same debates play out in different places.  Should it be legal?  Should it be legal only with a prescription?  Should it be totally illegal?

There seems no end to the varying opinions on this.  Marijuana is a controversy that just won’t go away.  As someone who believes the war on drugs is completely outside the scope of the Federal Government, I firmly believe that there should be no Federal level regulations on any drugs.  However, the states still have the power to make laws, and they are not constrained by the US Constitution in the way the Feds are. 

In Washington State, Marijuana became legal for medical use, with a prescription and a handy-dandy medical marijuana card so you can show the cops that yes, indeed, you’re allowed to have this, a couple of years ago.  The state goofed, however, and never codified the system for distribution.  This left a giant gaping hole for the Feds to wander in, ignoring the fact that Washington had passed legislation allowing medical marijuana.  There have been numerous Federal Raids of dispensaries that popped up since the legalization, and the Feds continue to arrest and prosecute more individuals all the time.

It’s high time (pun intended) that the powers that reside in Olympia get in gear and define exactly what the correct and legal method for purchase, sales, transport, and possession of medical marijuana is, so that there can be clear state laws to prevent Federal Agents from raiding indiscriminately.  While most people are unaware, State law actually trumps Federal law in all but a very few, strictly defined matters.  The Federal Government is constrained by the Constitution in what it’s allowed to do, and while they don’t follow the laws as they are supposed to, if a State were to stand up for itself and say “hey, this is OUR law, it’s OUR power, stay out!”, there wouldn’t be a whole lot the Feds could do about it. 

Washington needs to set the example, pass legislation defining exactly what the mechanisms are for legally obtaining, selling, transporting, growing, harvesting, using, controlling, or possessing marijuana are, and part of that legislation needs to include a clause making it illegal for any employee, official, agent, officer, or representative of this state, or any county, city, or municipality within it, to assist the Federal Governments enforcement of their own illegal drug laws within our borders. 

The time has come, Olympia.  Stand behind your decisions, stand up for your citizens, and stand firm against the Feds.  We are a free state of free people, and DC needs to be reminded of that.

Higher Education Costs on the Rise–Still

Just read a story at http://www.theolympian.com/2012/05/16/2107098/state-help-for-higher-education.html and felt I really needed to comment on this.

First of all, the main thrust of this article is “we gotta do something, government, help us, help us” in regards to tuition.  Tuition is being artificially jacked up because of government interference, and we’re demanding that government do something to “help” with it. 

The article continues to sight declining State funding of Universities over the last several decades.  A major contributor to declining state funding has been the Federal Government taking on an ever increasing roll in funding universities, as well as subsidizing loan programs, artificially keeping interest rates lower than they would/should be, and other things to “make education affordable for everyone.”

While this sounds like a laudable goal on the face of it, the fact is that this serves to encourage schools to offer programs that appeal to a broader range of people who can suddenly get a government guaranteed loan to go to school, regardless of whether or not the programs is actually useful.  It encourages the schools to offer more and more courses that, while appealing to some, offer degrees that are more useful as toilet paper than they are as degrees.  The schools encourage people to explore a great many of these programs, increasing the amount of time people spent in school, which in turn increases the amount of money the school takes in. 

The students don’t care, since they don’t have to pay for anything until later, and many of them simply do not understand that they are taking useless classes at far above market value prices.  The number of people being granted a degree increases every year, which devalues the degrees that others earn, and makes it so a Bachelors Degree is worth about what a High School Diploma was 50 year ago, as far as job potential goes.

The government has done far more damage than good in their quest to “make education affordable to all.”  By artificially holding down interest rates, while simultaneously lowering the bar to qualify for loans, and then backing those loans so the banks don’t have to risk anything, they government has created a situation where tuition can rise astronomically, raising the cost of education while at the same time decreasing the value one receives for that money.  It’s like inflation squared.  Education is a great goal, but it needs to be a personal goal.  If you don’t need to work hard prior to going to college, you’re unlikely to be successful at working hard in college, and beyond.  This is why 53% of Bachelors Degree holders under 25 are underemployed or unemployed.

So we demand the government step in to “help” again?

Define Libertarian

Not too shabby.  Makes a solid point.  Watch along.

Libertarian is a Verb

Kucinich Not Planning a Washington State Run

Dennis Kucinich, longtime Democratic Congressman from Ohio, has finally put an end to speculation about his intention in regards to a Washington State Congressional seat.

As strange as this situation is, after eight terms consistently being reelected, Ohio had enough negative population growth to end up losing two Congressional seats.  Kucinich ended up in a district that was merged with a neighboring district, and was forced into a showdown with Marcy Kaptur, the Dem currently seated in that other district.  After a primary lost to Rep Kaptur, Kucinich

Despite repeated visits to Washington State, even before his primary loss, and a fair deal of support from some local Dems who cite his anti-war, pro-union stands as major reasons to support him, former Rep Kucinich has decided that he will not be moving to Washington to attempt a run at Congress. 

I say that’s fine.  We need more Democrats in this state like we need more rain in Seattle, and Kucinich is far from what I’d term as a stable individual.

I do need to note that he has shown himself to be a pretty straight shooter in regards to doing what he said he’ll do, and that’s no small thing for a Congressman.  I don’t like a great deal of the things he’s done, but at least he’s not lying left and right like most other politicians.  That deserves some respect by default.

Obama and Romney–Carnival Hucksters

This is a great article I found on TenthAmendmentCenter.com.  Recommended reading.  Funny, and makes a strong point that I’ve been trying to get people to see for a bit now.

Walking along the midway of this grand carnival we call national politics, a brightly lit booth caught my eye. Dance music boomed from a loudspeaker, punctuated by the staccato voice of the carnie urging me to play his game.

“Step right up, step right up! Power to the states, right here! Come play the Tenth Amendment game!”

As I approached, I realized none other than Mitt Romney was running the booth. Behind him, I saw six bright yellow milk jugs stacked in a pyramid. Curiosity got the best of me.

“What’s this about?” I inquired.

“Knock down the federal health care pyramid and win a prize!” Romney boomed, somehow managing to speak without disturbing his bright toothy smile.

“What’s the prize,” I asked, still somewhat skeptical.

“Why, your liberty!” he beamed.

I picked up the hard wooden ball. Printed on the side were the words, Tenth Amendment.

“What’s this?” I asked, weighing the ball in my hand. It felt good. Right. Powerful.

“Well, it’s all about the Constitution. The federal government doesn’t have the right to make you buy health insurance,” he said knowingly.

“You mean like you made the folks in Massachusetts do?” I asked hesitantly.

A frown flickered across his face; then the smile returned.

“There are some similarities between what we did in Massachusetts and what President Obama did, but there are some big differences. And one is, I believe in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. And that says that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved by the states and the people,” he said. “We put together a plan that was right for Massachusetts. The president took the power of the people and the states away from them and put in place a one-size-fits-all plan. It’s bad law.” 1

I rubbed the ball absentmindedly, pondering my options.

“Go on, try it,” he urged.

“How much?”

The smile broadened. “Not much. Just one token.”

I pulled a token out of my pocket and flipped it in the air a few times.

“Come on, give it a toss,” Romney said expectantly.

What the hell, I thought. Seems easy enough. And lord knows, I could use some more liberty. So I tossed Mitt the token, took aim and heaved the ball at the milk jugs.

Thwack!

A perfect throw.

Yellow jugs shot into the air, pirouetting like ballerinas before tumbling to the ground. I did a little victory fist-pump and stepped forward to collect my prize.

But Mitt looked angry.

“You lose!” he howled.

“What?” I responded incredulously. “I knocked over all of them. I win.”

Romney pointed at some green jugs scattered about among the yellow. “You knocked over the green ones. That’s against the rules. You lose.”

I hadn’t even noticed the green ones, but as Romney’s assistant reset the jugs, I realized that green ones were positioned in the shadows directly behind the yellow jugs, placed in such a way as to become virtually invisible. The setup made it next to impossible to knock over the yellow jugs without also toppling the greenies.

“So, what are the green ones,” I inquired, trying to contain my anger at being jipped.

“Medical marijuana,” Romney sneered with obvious disdain.

“And I can’t knock those over with the Tenth Amendment ball?”

“I think medical marijuana should not be legal in this country. I believe it’s a gateway drug to other drug violations. The use of illegal drugs in this country is leading to terrible consequences in places like Mexico, and actually in our own country. I oppose legalization of marijuana. I oppose legalizations of other kinds of drugs.” 2.

“But isn’t that also a decision reserved to the states and the people?”

“Go away, loser,” he growled, turning his back on me.

I stomped away, angry. But what could I do? I should have known the game was rigged. They all are, right?

So I ambled along the midway, bought a big stick of cotton candy, washed it down with a cold Coke and then gnawed my way through a funnel cake. I felt better. Giddy almost.

That’s when another booth caught my eye.

This one had louder music and brighter lights. AC/DC blasted from loudspeakers, and a strobe light played over the ground in front of the game. Even from a distance, I could see President Obama manned this booth. The familiar “O” logo painted on the roof was a dead giveaway.

Obama beckoned me over. “Step right up! Step right up! Play the greatest game at the carnival,” he intoned enthusiastically, flashing his pearly whites as he spoke.

“So, what’s this game?” I asked, my recent frustration now a faint memory.

“It’s the Tenth Amendment game,” Obama quipped. “Power to the states.”

“Wait a minute,” I said. “I played that game already over…”

Obama cut me off. “This one is better. Easier. And more fair. Just shoot a duck and you win.”

I leaned in and peered closely at the row of ducks on a conveyer belt slowly making their way from left to right across the booth. The ducks alternated – two males with a tux, followed by two females in wedding gowns.”

The president apparently read the confusion on my face. “Gay marriage!” He handed me a gun with Tenth Amendment printed on the side. “I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.” 3.

“What do I get if I hit one,” I asked, weighing the gun in my hands. It felt good. Right. Powerful.

A presidential pause.

“Liberty.”

I was sold. The sign indicated it just cost one token, so I flipped one over to Obama and he plucked it out of the air. I aimed…steady…slowly pulled the trigger…

Plink.

Over went the duck.

But I knew in that moment I wouldn’t win a prize. A cannabis plant hidden behind the duck fell over too.

“I’m sorry. You lose,” Obama said in a patronizing tone

“Let me guess,” I say, resignation dripping from my words. “Medical marijuana.”

“Let me be clear, I am the president.” Obama lectured. “State medical marijuana programs violate federal law. I must send in the DEA to arrest those criminals so my Justice Department can prosecute them all.”

“But isn’t medical marijuana also an issue that should be left to the states and the people?”

“Shut up, loser.”

I glared at the president. “So you can’t win. This game is rigged. You just want power to do things your own way!” I bellow. “You are nothing but a carnival huckster. Just like that other guy, Romney!”

Obama merely smiled.

“What did you expect?” he asked with a shrug. “We work for the same people.”

Gay Marriage–Everyone is Wrong!

Ok, first and foremost, I’m failing to see why this entire nation is being blinded by stupidity on this issue.  We have religious folk screaming that allowing homosexuals to marry is an “attack on the church” or “attack on <insert religion of choice here>”.  So for you folks I say shut up.  I know people like this.  They are intelligent, well spoken, logical people.  So why can’t they see past this BS?

Now, for your gay people out there screaming about this being a matter of the state granting you equal rights.  Also, shut up.  States do NOT “grant” rights.  You HAVE rights.  States can attempt to put together legislation that recognizes those rights.  States can ignore your rights and not bother to codify it.  More likely, though, States put forth laws to try to limit your rights.  You don’t need the state to “give” you your “rights”.  Beyond that, marriage is not a “right”.  Freedom is a right.  If you’re free, you marry who you damned well please, whether the state has any laws for it or not.

On to the problem.  Everyone is tied up over whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry.  Like it’s any of your business what someone else does, or is allowed to do.  But the hell out your egomaniacal busy-bodies!  Unless they’re marrying you, it’s not your business.  The problem is that States and the Federal Government seem to think they have anything to say about marriage at all, whether it be hetero or homo or something as yet undefined.  It is not their business.  It is yours.

States started licensing marriage as a means of control.  Too many people were interested in interracial marriages, and that just couldn’t be allowed!  So the states made licensing requirements.  If you wanted to be married, you had to apply for a license to do so.  Coming up on almost a century of this crap now, and instead of telling people they can’t marry outside of their race, now the state is telling people they have to marry the opposite sex.  Oppression is oppression, regardless of the justification you find in religious texts or the basis of that oppression. 

Legally defined marriage is a tool for behavior modification, control, and oppression by the State.  Period.  The problems isn’t HOW the state defines marriage, the problem is that the State defines marriage at all.

Bank of America Messed with the Wrong Guy

Had an email a couple weeks ago that said something along these lines.  Tried to check it out on snopes.com, they had it marked as inconclusive.  Since then, this issue seems to have blown up pretty well.  Here's an interview with the owner of McMillan Firearms, the person who was on the receiving end of B of A's attempted shafting.  Interview conducted and posted by the National Association for Gun Rights.

Support the National Association of Gun Rights at http://www.nagr.org

Illegal Aliens Tax Loophole?

The news this last week had many mentions of illegal aliens finding tax loopholes to claim child tax credits.  (http://www.wthr.com/story/17798210/tax-loophole-costs-billions)

The one thing that really stands out to me in this is the whole “illegal immigrants claiming exemptions for dependents that don’t even live in this country is horrible abuse of the tax payers” mentality.  There are several reasons I say this. 

First, illegal immigrants all pay taxes.  The majority of them even pay the IRS their income taxes.  Many of those don’t claim refunds at all, even though they are technically entitled to some of that money back by IRS rules, because they are afraid of doing anything that might get them sent back.  So there’s a lot of money going into the system.  This doesn’t count state and local taxes, such as property tax (paid through their rents) and retail sales tax (paid every time they make a taxable purchase).  Not to mention fees for drivers license, telephones, internet, etc.  Everywhere you go you’re taxed.  So are they. 

Second, this mess isn’t the fault of the illegal immigrants.  Note, I do not say “undocumented”, because that’s bullshit.  They are illegal, plain and simple, stop trying to sugar coat the whole damned world.  They are doing much like the vast majority of us are doing.  They are using whatever means they have at their disposal to get as much money as they can back out of the government.  Now, this method is of questionable legality, so I cannot condone it.  However, each and every one of you takes whatever deductions you can find come tax time to try to keep as much as you can, and you know it.  Don’t blame them for using this ridiculous cluster of crap we call our tax code in a way that benefits them.  That’s human nature.  Blame the IRS.  Tax codes in this country are a joke.  And a poor joke at that, since it’s not even remotely funny.  Get rid of the convoluted crap, and magically there will be no way to “game the system”.

Lastly, people are still upset that illegal immigrants are here in the first place.  Most people are pretty accepting of legal immigrants.  The only real difference between the two is how they got here.  Many illegals don’t want to break the law, but they want to try to find a better life and have no other way to get here.  The vast majority of illegal immigrants are good, hard working people who want a better life for themselves and their families.  We make is so damned hard to get into this country legally that they don’t really have much of an option.  I can’t blame them.  I’d sneak across the border too.  Fix the immigration problem by making it easy to get in legally and difficult or deadly to try to come in illegally, and all of a sudden nearly all new immigrants will do it the right way.

Shocking, I know.  Symptoms go away when you cure a disease.  Who’d have thought that.  Instead of sitting around bitching about all the little things that are bad, how about we remove our heads from our butts and fix the problems that lead to those issues.  This entire situation is due to unnecessarily complicated and convoluted tax code combined with piss-poor immigration policies in this country.  Both of which are the job of Congress to change, and instead they argue about minor and immaterial nuances of both. 

Congress, DO YOUR JOB!

Bookstaber Quotes Karl Marx Online

Karl Marx, father of Socialism, Communism, and Marxism, three different views of the same overall philosophy, was recently quoted in a blog.  The blog of an official of the Obama Administration.

Rick Bookstaber, of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (a mess of unelected goons created by the Dodd-Frank dung-splat) recently posted this little gem on his blog (full post available at http://rick.bookstaber.com/2012/05/class-warfare.html).

The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the laborer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working-day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working-class. – Marx, Das Kapital

Marx’s theories formed the most anti-American views of the 20th century, and are alive and well in the 21st.  This nation was founded on Capitalism, as Capitalism IS freedom.  Capitalism is freedom to market your goods and skills and obtain a price for them based on their worth to others.  Marxism and it’s brothers are methods of working for what the government tells you you’re going to charge, giving the portion they tell you to give over to their control, and change your rates only when (or if) they tell you to do so.  That is not freedom.  That is slavery to the Government. 

With all the hub-bub that has been around since Obama first came on the scene, with him being a revolutionary Marxist in college, his relations with known Socialists, terrorists, Marxists, revolutionaries, and Communists, and the newest, him using “Forward” for his campaign slogan (a simple word which has extremely strong and numerous historical links to Socialist/Communist political agendas) you would think that people who are working for him would have the smarts to quote someone besides Marx. 

Apparently, you would be wrong.

Whitehouse to Curb Wasteful Spending

Yes, indeed.  Did you laugh as hard as I did when reading that headline?

Today around noon, Reuters reported that Obama’s chief budget officer will issue new guidelines on Friday to boost efficiency and protect taxpayer dollars from being misspent.  The guidelines will include a freeze in real estate holdings and a cut to travel spending for federal agencies, as well as requiring government owned vehicles not be replaced until they are (don’t take a drink now or it will come out your nose) at least three years old, or have been driven 60,000 miles. 

Try saying that with a straight face.  No, seriously.  Try it.  The folks in the White House really should be in Hollywood. 

Get a freakin clue!  We need someone, somewhere, somehow who has some common damned sense and can realize that saving millions, as this initiative is supposed to do, means jack shit when we’re already TRILLIONS in the hole.  My wife comes up to me and says the car needs repairs.  The bill is $3500.  I hand her a penny and tell her to put that aside to pay for it.  That’s where we’re at as a nation, and that’s how clueless the White House and Congress are about these things.  They put together a pretty little play to try to get reelected.  It’s a fact.  It’s actual.  Not a damned thing is satisfactual. 

Nullification–Not Just for the States Anymore

The recent outrage against the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act has sparked a lot of talk of nullification.  I’ve written about it once or twice, as have many others more well versed.  Nullification, simply put, is the act of a state declaring that a Federal Law is null and void due to being unconstitutional.  There is plenty of historic evidence that the states have this power (Kentucky Resolutions of 1798; Virginia Resolutions of 1799; 10th Amendment) and some states have availed themselves of this power in the past.  Virginia recently passed a law making it illegal for any state agent or officer to assist and Federal agent or officer in detaining a citizen without due process.  That’s a big (and beautiful) step. 

But is this power limited to States?  Why should it be?  The 10th Amendment proclaims that all powers not specifically assigned to Federal Government by the Constitution inherently stay with the States or with the People.  Seems logical, since all political power originates from the people, and the Government is the tool formed by the people to take care of the daily business.  If the power is inherently the peoples to begin with, that means those people have every right to defend themselves, whether at a state, county, city, or neighborhood level.  Even if such defense is against the Great Overlords of DC.  I’d argue it’s especially so, in that case. 

The cities of Fairfax and Santa Cruz, California certainly don’t believe that power is only for the states.  Both have passed laws making the unconstitutional deprivation of due process by the Federal Government illegal in their municipalities.  Both have made the choice to stand against tyranny and defend their citizens against abuses. 

What about your city?

The Hidden Message Behind The Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flag…. you know the rest.  At least you ought to.  If you don’t, your unpatriotic, I’m told.  As a matter of fact, if you choose not to participate any time someone leads the pledge you’re not patriotic.  Why is that?

Because we’re told so, of course.  How DARE you disrespect the country like that.  Children are taught from their first day in government educational facilities that they need to stand up, put their hand over their heart, face the flag, and recite this little phrase every single morning before we get down to work.  While I love my country, I find this troubling. 

One nation we may be, but indivisible we most certainly are not.  Nor are we truly supposed to be a “nation” in the traditional definition of the word.  A nation is a large area or group of people under control or rule of one central government that claims to be sovereign from other such entities.  Is that the United States?

Unfortunately, it is.  More and more every day.  However, that is NOT what we are supposed to be.  We were founded as a collection of states that had delegated very specific and limited powers of governance to a central authority for the sake of moderation in disputes and directing defense.  The Federal Government was established to help mediate between the states and coordinate matters of defense.  It was never intended to be a “ruling entity” at all. 

This “pledge”, which was originally written as a marketing slogan, was instituted in school as a way to slowly introduce the ideas that we are one nation.  Over the decades since the founding fathers declared us a free nation and established the rule of law here, we have move, slowly but steadily, towards that which we fought to break away from in the first place.  No longer are we a collection of sovereign state.  No longer are citizens free to pursue happiness, unless they obtain permission from the government.  No longer can we defend what is our from those who would take it from us.  No longer can we keep what we make or earn through our own labors.  The Government wants a cut so they can help others.  The Government won’t allow you to do that for your own good.  The Government wants you to pay your “fair share”, which will never be high enough no matter how much it is.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America.  A broken nation, over regulated, with taxation and penalties for all.

A Little “Journalism” Goes A Long Way

Lord, have mercy!  Reading some of the crap that passes for journalism will just about make you heave.  You can read the same story on two different websites and come away with entirely different feelings about what happened, as well as a completely different view of what happened. 

The say every story has two sides.  Never is that more true than in what we laughingly call “reporting” here in the US.  First and foremost, the job of a reporter is to report, as neutrally as they can manage (face it – we’re human – we have opinions) on the actual events of any given situation.  Now, just look around at the titles of some of these articles.  Don’t even read the article, just look at the titles. 

Today, there were two articles I saw about the same thing.  One was on the LA Times website, and the title was something like “Republicans block plans to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling on June 1” (July 1? – whatever).  Basically, loudly proclaiming that the Republicans are pricks that don’t care about you or your education. 

The next one came from a right-leaning site, the name of which escapes me right now.  It was an article about the same thing (the Senate vote to invoke cloture on the student loan interest rate debate today) and the title was along the lines of “Democrats refuse to accept GOP plan to curb student loan interest rate hike”.  In a nutshell, the title says “Dems are prices that don’t care about you or your education.” 

Meanwhile, this doesn’t actually have a damned thing to do with education.  The simple fact is that the interest rates on these loans have been artificially held down for decades, but federal regulation (those same idiots arguing over how to artificially hold it down some more).  Beyond that, because of federal guarantees, more people have access to loans that they really can’t afford than ever.  Also because of that, more people spend more time in school, leading to a shortage of jobs for well educated people, which has lead to the AA being useless, the BA/BS being nearly useless and a Masters landing you roughly the same position that an AA would have gotten you 30 years ago.  Except that a Masters requires 5 or 6 years instead of the typical 2 for an AA, and costs you much, much more. 

There’s also this great new trend that colleges started to try to keep people there longer, thus spending more money.  Classes and entire courses of study dedicated to things that, while maybe interesting, are completely useless to you as a candidate for almost any job on the planet.  Things like Art History, African Studies, Dance and Choreography, and Weapons of the Renaissance.

While some of these classes actually sound interesting, what career are you preparing yourself for?  About the only thing you can do with a course of study like that is teach classes about that subject.  That’s not a hell of a lot of job security.  Why not study something that might actually give you a few options for jobs, and allow you to make a living, support yourself, and pay off the student loans?

All of this has been made possible by the Feds keeping interest rates artificially low, and guaranteeing loans to allow more and more people to go to school for longer and longer periods of time at colleges who are raising prices higher and higher.  While that might sound like a good thing when you just skim the surface (more people going to college = good), it’s a horrible thing when you consider that many of those people are simply not equipped to make intelligent decisions or use common sense.  As such, they get useless degrees in things that really don’t make a damned bit of difference in the job market, rack themselves up with $100k in debt that they can’t afford, default on the loan (sticking the taxpayers with the bill) and then live on food stamps or whatever jobs they can find, which have nothing to do with their course of study in the least.

So, the Feds spend money to weaken the job market, increase the cost of education, promote more “educated” people with useless degrees, increase the number of welfare recipients, and cause a decline in overall wealth and standard of living all across the nation.  And they are arguing about how to do it some more, because they can’t agree on which method is best to screw us over with.  All the while the media is promoting what they believe to be the right person/group/party/entity’s plan to weaken the nation and cost us all money by specifically writing pieces that they pass off as “news” that espouse the views of either themselves, their editors, or their organization as a whole. 

That’s what passes for journalism in this nation today.

Why Vote Libertarian?

Here’s a couple of very good reasons.

Reason 1

 

Reason 2

The Powers that Be…

Perhaps the most terrifying thought in the minds of many is a government that controls all information.  I know there are some out there, hopefully not a majority, who will say “who cares”, but those people are just damned fools.  Every government in history that has had solid controls over what information it’s people had access to used it for their own purposes.  They didn’t establish control and then leave it alone.  The took control of what they wanted, removed some pieces, altered others, denied access to some without permission, and some information was simply not accessible to anyone.  Do you think our government is any different?  They certainly don’t have a great track record.

Government does not control information for the good of humanity.  Government does not control information to ensure it’s easily and readily available to anyone anywhere.  Government controls information because information is power, and it allows the government to more fully control it’s people. 

In March, there was an article in Wired (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1) that details plans for a new NSA datacenter in Utah.  That’s enough to trigger a bit of worry in anyone who realizes how much data, control, access, and power the NSA has in your everyday life. Hell, it’s likely that I’m on a watch list somewhere, even before I wrote this, and I’m not a terrorist, have never made threats, don’t condone violence except in defense, and in fact encourage people to always follow the laws, even as I encourage them to get involved in the system to take control and change the laws.  I’m certain that’s enough to get me flagged somewhere in the system, at some level, as a possible threat to keep an eye on.

That will be much more easily achieved, now that the NSA has their brand new datacenter and super computers getting all setup.  From what we’ve been able to gather, this datacenter will be able to archive damned near every electronic exchange on the planet, and if any of that information is of interest, they have a system that can crack nearly any encryption known to man in no time flat.

Someone in the counter-intel community needs to get crackin (pun intended) on another solid encryption algorithm, something that’s got some bitness to it, that can slow this sucker down a bit.  If it takes the system days or weeks to crack an encryption, that’s not security.  If it takes it years or decades, then we’re talking about at least a little bit of security.  Centuries would be better, that way by the time they get anything, you’re already dead.

Now someone somewhere is screaming about the “need” for this to watch terrorist and defend our nation.  Fine.  That’s great.  If only that were the case.  They are gathering information on anyone and everyone in the world that they feel like gathering information on.  Including Americans.  Without showing probably cause.  Without a warrant.  Without the courts being involved at any level.  Some mid-management type in the NSA says “watch this guy” and it happens. 

If that doesn’t scare the hell out of every person on the planet, especially Americans who think they are Constitutionally protected from invasions of privacy by their own country…… there is something seriously wrong in their head.

Nation Wide Citizen Emergency Response Network

I think that title sounds pretty decent.  We need something like that.  In most areas of the country, if you need police, fire, or medical help in an emergency, you call 911 and someone shows up.  How long it takes them to get there varies a great deal, depending on the type of emergency, your location, the number of first responders working that shift in your area, and the other calls that are coming in at that same time.  I think, overall, we as a nation do relatively decent with our emergency responses.  There are areas that are horrible, but not nearly as many as you would be lead to believe, although there is plenty of room for improvement in most areas. 

What if you need protection against the police?  What if the state is busily violating your rights, and you need help to fight back?  No, I’m not talking about a physical altercation with law enforcement, or terrorist acts.  I’m talking about legal, moral, ethical, and financial assistance against they tyranny of the government when it’s your turn to be squished under the thumb, and your time will come.  Who do you call?  Who can come and help you?  Who can help get the word out about your plight?

That’s what such a network could do.  Basically an emergency alert network, monitored by volunteers who can sign up to receive alerts for things happening in their general area, or from across the nation if they desire.  People who are willing to help spread the word about what’s being done to you.  People who are willing to come to the jail and bring you a little money for phone calls, or maybe even lawyers who are willing to help with your case.  Perhaps even people willing to respond to the scene and make a video or audio recording of the proceedings in order to help ensure you have evidence at your trial, assuming that there are any volunteers close enough to do so when you first send the alert.

We could go so far as to have mobile apps.  Click the icon, and it automatically sends an emergency alert to the website with your longitude and latitude, and your phone number.  You can have your information pre-registered so people receiving the initial alert will have your name and call-back information, and the long/lat can be cross referenced on Google Maps to provide an approximate location and driving directions.  Once the alert has been sent, the first person to click on it can open it for editing where they can mark it as a false alert or verified emergency.  They verify it by calling the number and (hopefully) speaking to you (or maybe even the arresting officer).  If they are unable to verify it, we can mark it as unverified – unable to contact, and still dispatch as much volunteer assistance as we have in the area. 

It would take several months to years to build up a sufficient force of volunteers to adequately cover even a small portion of this nation, focusing of course on larger metropolitan areas where it’s both much more likely you’ll have run ins with the government, and also much more likely there will be volunteers nearby who can help you when you need it.  This would be something most certainly best left to a non-government entity, as it’s specifically designed to be used to protect you from the government. 

I think this may be a very worthy idea to pursue.  I also think there are some similar ideas out there that could be leveraged to help grow this. I know I ran across at least one in the past, which was basically being run as an email distribution list.  We could take this idea to the next level.  What should we call it?  Citizens Coalition Against Government Abuse?  Citizens Against Tyranny (we could all be CATs– )?

I believe over the next several weeks, I’m going to try to explore some ideas in this direction and start designing a small scale website that could handle the processes described.  Who knows, maybe I’ll get lucky and be able to grow this into a true weapon to defend us against our government.  God knows we need all the help we can get!

Illegal Immigration and Immigration Reform

For years now, I’ve been hearing people pitch a fit about immigration, illegal immigrants, etc.  Over and over and over I hear the same ignorant arguments about “taking our jobs” and “don’t pay taxes” and more similar ridiculousness.  I’m here to set the record straight, and propose a fix.

For years I’ve been telling anyone who was nutty enough to listen to me how to fix this problem.  The problem isn’t that they come here, it’s that they come here illegally.  There’s no control over the system, and the Federal Government, who is ultimately responsible for border security, does nothing.  Well, they do a lot, but none of it is useful. The majority of these illegal immigrants that people are complaining about are Mexican.  That’s simple to figure out.  They share a border with us, and have a poor standard of living.  So they want to come here to improve their lot in live.

So why do Mexicans come here illegally?  Why can’t they just do it the “right” way?  Are they all criminals who want to flout the law? 

Of course not!  It is the fault of the Federal Government, once again, that so many come here illegally.  Here’s the deal.  Immigrating to the US costs a lot of money, and takes a great deal of time.  Mexicans who want to come here typically don’t have much, if any, money.  They are hungry, poor, tired, and want to make a better life for their children.  They might starve to death, or watch family members starve to death, waiting for approval to come here legally. Add to that the relative ease of crossing the border undetected (even if caught they are dropped off back in their own country after getting a free meal or two so they can try again) and it’s no wonder they choose to do it the illegal way.  It’s quick, simple, and effective.  That’s what I’d do, too. 

Here’s a magic solution. Stop making it so damned hard to come here legally, and start making it hard to come here illegally.  If you were risking your life to cross that border illegally, and had a 2% chance of making it across alive, but could walk up to any border checkpoint, apply for residency, and be approved and into the country in less than a week, which choice do you suppose these people would make?  The hordes of Mexicans coming across that border are, by and large, a group of people looking for a better life.  Sure, there’s a few criminals, drug runners, rapists, and overall freaks.  Find me a group of people anywhere that can boast no criminal element, and I’ll show you a group that’s lying about or ignorant of their own members. 

Add to that states like Arizona, who have an extreme problem with illegal immigration, to the point that it threatens their economy, services, government, etc.  They try to take action to enforce federal laws that the Feds conveniently forget about, and suddenly the US DOJ is suing them.  The media blew their laws completely out of proportion, and made it sound as if they were out hunting every Hispanic they could find to throw them out of the country, and still nobody can come up with a plan to deal with things better. 

Meanwhile, the majority (over 2/3) of illegal residents of the United States are still paying all of the taxes that legal residents pay, as well as not getting many of the benefits that legal residents would get.  Primarily out of fear of getting caught, many won’t apply for the few benefits that they actually could qualify for still.  Not that I’m arguing for these social programs, as they should be tossed out as well, but why should we deny a group of people access to something that they are paying for? 

Here’s the fix for all of the problems caused by illegal immigration.  Make it extremely easy to come here legally. Make it a death defying, harrowing, dangerous act to even try to come here illegally. You’ll see people lined up to try to get here, all neatly documented, registered aliens with proper ID and tax numbers, ready to work their butts off and boost the economy to make it better for every current or future US resident. 

Unleash the true power of immigration.  Bring us your tired, your poor; your huddled masses yearning to breath free.  We will show them freedom, and all prosper from it.

Protests and Riots in Downtown Seattle

Throughout the afternoon, I’ve heard reports of vandalism, protests, and riots in downtown Seattle.  While I’m not in the least bit surprised, given that people around here like to piss and moan about their lot in life much more than they like to actually do anything about it, I am a little disappointed that, once again, a group of people who come together to protest are invaded by ass-clowns who turn out to be destructive, ignorant crap-weasels. 

I don’t know how many people there were protesting whatever the “not fair” of the week item is, and quite frankly I don’t care, but the reports I saw said that there were roughly 50 people involved in smashing some store fronts, spray painting an anarchy symbol on a Porsche (guess that guy had it coming for being successful) and broke some windows out of the Federal Courthouse, causing it to close early today.  I’m quite certain that the majority of people, as usual, were peacefully protesting something that they strongly believe in, and though I may not support whatever issue they were protesting, I certainly support their right to do so.  Now, because of a few dozen a-holes in the crowd, the leading story on the news tonight will be about the damage.  Whatever message they were trying to convey will be lost.  And the a-holes have their moment of fame.

In all seriousness, I hate protests. The vast, vast majority of protests that I’ve seen are people complaining about something that was caused by government action, and demanding government action to fix it.  We desperately need the Feds to take a long walk off a short pier, but these people are demanding more and more regulations to fix some perceived problem, not even realizing that the problems they are protesting were caused by those folks in DC in the first place.  I support their right to be out there voicing their opinions 100%, even if I think the opinions they are voicing is mindless, ignorant, ill thought out drivel that they don’t understand in the least. 

Now we have a declared state of emergency in Seattle, with the police ordered to confiscate any weapons being carried (legally or otherwise – not sure where the Mayor gets this power, but it’s defined in the city code – I suspect the city code is illegal at the state level, but hasn’t yet been challenged) and the peaceful protest for <insert cause here> has been destroyed. 

I have a suggestion for anyone going to a protest. No matter what you’re protesting, or how peaceful you plan for it to be.  Carry pepper-spray.  When some jackasses get out of control, hose them and call the police yourselves.  Then the news would report about your peaceful protest, and how when a few people started to get out of control, the rest of the group quickly put an end to their destructive antics and called the authorities to take care of it. 

Boy, what a better message that would be to send to the nation.  Instead of “we’re a bunch of self-righteous SOB’s who can do what we want” people will see “we disagree with policy, but will vehemently defend the rights of others and strictly enforce legal and ethical adherence within our group, even while demonstrating against something”.

The Founding Fathers

I have read several different articles lately regarding a sort of “revised” history.  Obviously, as we learn new things or study different aspects of history, some views and thoughts about the past are bound to change.  Sometimes it’s something minor, sometimes it’s something major, but it’s bound to happen from time to time. 

One of the most recent articles I read was in regards to a new interpretation of Thomas Jefferson and what views influenced him politically.  The article I read was from the Tenth Amendment Center (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com) and was specifically discussing a new view that was taken by a couple scholars, basically pushing their own political views and trying to show how Jefferson believed the same as they do.

The basic beliefs that they are pushing, which they call “Republicanism”, is a socialistic view on public (group) happiness, participation, and power which completely disregards individualism.  Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers were very individualistic.  They fought a war and founded a nation in order that individuals be free to decide their own path in life, and how best to travel that path. 

While the theory of Socialism is nearly perfect, but the system was, is, and will continue to be an epic failure because it disparages the individual in favor of the group.  While the group is important, the individual is more important, as the individual is the building block of the group.  That’s like building a beautiful new brick building, adding extremely finely crafted details – sculptures, pillars, etc. – but using whatever bricks you could find without regard to quality, manufacturing process, or size of the bricks.  Further, slap them in and ignore them. 

Sure, that building will stand for a while, but eventually it’s going to fall down.  When you spend too much time on beautiful details and ignore the structural cores, whether we’re talking politics or architecture, the result will crumble.

What I Would Love to See a Governor Do

What is the most important quality of a Governor?  Leadership?  Charisma?  A background in Law?

I think those are all fine qualities, but I would argue that the best quality I could find in a governor would be a desire and will power to do what is right.  How many people can honestly say they have both?  In particular, how many politicians can say they have both?  Or either, for that matter.

What is the “right” thing to do when you’re the executive in charge of a state?  How is the “right” thing determined?

I think the right thing to do, no matter what your level in politics, is to defend the rights of the people you represent.  The Mayor and the City Council should defend citizens of that city against unlawful encroachments from County and State levels.  Likewise, Representatives and Senators, as well as Governors, have a duty and obligation to defend their constituents from encroachment by the Feds, as well as ensuring that local governments are following all applicable laws.  How many people feel that your state government is really there to defend you?  I don’t trust my state government any more than I do my Federal government, with the exception of a very few reps who I’ve personally met and conversed with who I honestly believe are there to look out for people.  People like Senator Joe Fain of the 47th Legislative District in Washington State.  Joe votes for freedom, and individual rights, regardless of what anyone else might thing.  I have found no cause to doubt that he truly want’s to ensure individual rights are protected, and I hope that I never do (don’t let me down, Joe). 

As part of the defense of the people you represent, should a Governor stand up to the Feds?  Of course they should!  In places like Arizona and Virginia, we’ve seen the beginnings of a state standing up for itself.  Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, has been seen wagging her finger at the President.  Virginia recently passed a bill into law making it illegal for any state agency, employee, or elected official to assist the Federal Government in detaining any resident of Virginia without due process and probably cause.  Virginia basically told the Feds to shove the NDAA sections 1021 and 1022 up their keisters, we’re not having it!

So what would I love to see a Governor do?  I’d love to see a Governor stand up one day and address a group of people, getting full press coverage, and say:

I have established a commission of nine volunteers - made up of Constitutional scholars, judges, and lawyers – to review all Federal laws and determine if the Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to enact that law.  Each unconstitutional Federal Law will be have a bill drafted and introduced to our state legislature, individually, to nullify that law.  The commission will also make a recommendation to either replace the unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, federal law with a similar state law or to replace it with nothing.  Once this is completed, this commission will begin work on Washington State laws, comparing them to the Washington State Constitution and making the same recommendations to the legislature.  This commission will be an ongoing thing, reviewing all new laws at the State and Federal level and making recommendations as they go.  It will be known as the Constitutional Review Commission, and will continue in operation perpetually.

Further, if any member of this commission should no longer be able to continue in the position, for whatever reason, the Governor at that time will join the commission in selecting possible candidates to replace that person.  The commission will then vote on those candidates, and if necessary the Governor will serve the tie breaking vote.  The elected replacement will then be confirmed by the State Legislature to serve as a volunteer in that position for as long as that person wishes.

That would be the greatest thing I’d ever heard from any Governor.

The Next Steps Towards Liberty

This is a post taken directly from http://tenthamendmentcenter.com.  It was just too good not to post.  You can view the original post at http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/04/01/the-next-steps-towards-liberty/.

While you’re there, look around, send them a donation, or click some ads.  These people do fantastic work, and they need all the help they can get.  After all, they defend your rights as much as mine. 

The Next Steps Toward Liberty

Posted by Chris Dixon

One could only imagine the words George Orwell might have to say about the world around us. The visionary of a dystopian future or a man of warning unheeded, he has written a lot of what did come true. There is Animal Farm,  which showed how a new government formed on equality becomes totalitarian and powerful because of lust and greed. Even more well known is Nineteen Eighty-Four, which carries two major themes: the power of propaganda and the expansion of the police state.

We’re at a defining moment in history.

Trillions of dollars in debt, a number in the financial world difficult to stomach (unless you have enough propaganda artists), and because of the turmoil, a government slowly chokes its clinching fingers upon the throat of the Constitution. Both sides of the spectrum have seen grassroots uprisings that threaten the establishment in both parties, with Occupy on the left and the Tea Party on the right. Each has its issues, whether it be social justice or elimination excessive taxation, and it has fueled its growing relevance. But they, like their establishment counterparts, fail to come together towards any meaningful goals. The media still remains successful in maintaining a dark and politically bloody divide.

Liberty has failed to unite up until this point, because of various issues. Capitalism has been given a bad name because of corporatism, and thus, the mere mention of the former incites hatred from the left. But is capitalism all that bad? Not so much, as the big corporations would not have the big government steroids that enable a much larger advantage over the smaller, fair players. On the right, social conservatism enables them to rival their counterparts in the competition for biggest big government policies.

Best way to save the economy? Restore constitutional governance? Make sure two consenting adults do not enter into a contract that does not affect anyone else, simply because it is not of our approval.

It would seem as though we’re never going to find common ground. Can we?

Enter National Defense Authorization Act.

REDEFINING THE DIVIDE

As previously established, the divide has always been conservative vs. liberal or Republican vs. Democrat. Ayn Rand once noted that there is only one real battle, and that is freedom vs. tyranny. Republicans fight those bad people in the other party that believe in economic slavery and the Democrats fight those bad people in the other party because they believe in social control. Never mind that Republicans have Medicare Part D and TARP to brag about, while the Democrats continue to insist on social freedom while protecting the government control over that freedom.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 changed everything. Republicans and Democrats found themselves under the same rallying call. Groups scattered at every corner of the spectrum, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the Tenth Amendment Center, began standing up to the bill. The point of controversy? Sections 1021 and 1022. The first deals with detention without trial, with the second dealing with military custody.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-California) claimed in an article on RedState that the bill did nothing more than confirm what was previously known as of the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force: that they  “affirm that the military may lawfully detain foreign individuals who are engaged in armed conflict with the United States.” He further states that the provision “explicitly exempts U.S. citizens from the requirement.”

All is well, right? Once again, the government solution is always the answer to the problem, right?

Congressman Justin Amash (R-Michigan) however offered a different perspective. While many government figures in the executive and legislative branches have claimed it does nothing more than merely confirm what the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force authorized, Congressman Amash notes that it already authorized indefinite detention. So when Section 2011 of NDAA confirms what we already knew, it does technically uphold the indefinite detention.

In a very careful and complex way, we were nearly fooled. In regards to the bill’s successful passage, Congressman Amash correctly observed, “The NDAA’s backers succeeded in part because of the bill’s length and complexity.”

But we won’t get fooled again. And so goes the infighting within the Republican Party, while Democrats rally against it as well. For political gain?

For liberty.

MAKING A STATEMENT

The Tenth Amendment Center’s NDAA legislative tracking page has a few resolutions passed, a couple half way there, and several introduced. The most recent statement was made by Maine, with the House voting in favor on March 19th and the Senate doing so twenty-four hours later. Although the resolutions themselves are non-binding, they send a clear message: we won’t back down.

This is an important first step to put states on the map. Virginia, Utah, and Maine have all successfully done so. 47 states remain. In the meantime, it is important for these three states to move forward and take the lead. Putting force to the statement, by taking a stand, will encourage others to take the time and effort to stand up.

TAKING A STAND

The Tenth Amendment Center offers three pieces of draft legislation, for varying levels. The first, which the three states noted above have done, is a resolution affirms the roles of government and calls on the federal government to backdown. Although three states have taken this on successfully, NOBODY has made it beyond this point.

Yet.

Because straight-forward nullification may not be viable because of its mainstream reputation and the lack of awareness among the mainstream, it is necessary to take steps. First, the resolution. Then, the non-compliance act. The non-compliance act is an actual law and is binding, which takes the next step of refusing state support of the indefinite detention provisions of the federal law. State agencies would be lawfully required to refuse compliance with the federal government in enforcing the National Defense Authorization Act.

Only then, can a state tackle the final step of the nullification act, which would take the non-compliance act a step further by also making the federal law illegal and setting penalties for those who attempt enforcement.

CAN IT BE DONE?

It seems like a difficult idea to stomach for some: the small little state government taking on the behemoth the federal government has become. How can a state government, that relies on the federal government for funding on many projects, possibly stand its ground?

Flashback to where it all began: the launch of the Tenth Amendment Center and the jumpstart of the modern nullification movement. 2006 saw what has never occurred before on such a large scale and so fast, as many states moved forward to refuse compliance with REAL ID. States either outright refused to allow the bill to move forward in their territory, or they refused to fund the compliance of it, as the States were forced to foot the bill.

Now that the big scary beast has been taunted, it’s going to strike back, right? Funding cuts or threats thereof, federal agents hitting the ground running?

Think again.

March 2, 2007 came around and after the bill’s passage on May 11, 2005, the federal government was still facing heavy resistance it was not used to. The result was the announcement that enforcement would be extended for two years, with the deadline now December 2009.

That was that. The federal government means business and they’re going to put their foot down, right? The states won’t have any impact.

Think again.

The new year rolled around in 2008 and resistance still hadn’t calmed, despite the best hopes from the bureaucrats in Washington D.C. who want to perform the noble deed of keeping us safe from ourselves. Come the 11th of January, another announcement came from the federal government: you’ve been extended, until 2011.

Well, we were lucky to get this far without any real push back. Even with half of the states in the union, at the very least, standing their ground, we were still due to fail. Right?

Wrong.

March 2011 rolled around without much change in the situation, as states still refused to stand down. Still frustrated, but not giving up after six long years, the federal government sent another message to the states: once more, you have been given another chance. The current extension has the date of implementation at January 15, 2013.

Nobody has backed down yet. An extension is likely coming, seven years later.

WE THE PEOPLE

We the people have spoken on various issues, with the Tenth Amendment being applied to right-wing issues such as healthcare, as well as left-wing issues such as the wars. Although the Constitution knows no partisan boundaries, it is used in partisan politics as a weapon to win elections and damage one’s foes. It has become a tool for gain, instead of a shield for the people.

Become a member and support the TAC!

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, with it’s indefinite detention provisions, changes everything. With Occupiers and Tea Partiers, liberals and conservatives, coming together, the people are putting aside their petty differences to stand for what’s right.

United we stand, divided we fall. The message rang true after September 11th, 2001 and it still remains a fact of reality. We, as the greatest experiment in liberty that human history has ever known, must remain united. We can point fingers in our local coffee shops as arguments echo down the halls of Congress, and we can bicker all day, but it will divert us.

This is what the establishment wants. This is what tyranny relies on.

Division leads to easier submission.

But we’re Americans. As a free people, strong and principled, we’re better than that. And we’re going to prove the world wrong by relighting the torch of liberty and holding it high for all the world to see.

And we will do it with nullification.

Chris is the state chapter coordinator for the Maine Tenth Amendment Center.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Or make a donation to help keep this site active.

The War on War

It seems like everywhere we turn, we’re hearing about the new war on <insert political catch phrase here>.  What a freakin load.  We have Christians screaming about the War on Christmas, Democrats screaming about the War on Women, and the President himself busily trying his best to encourage a War on Success. 

What about a War on War?  I’m sick and tired of these a-holes pulling out the word “war” to describe everything.  They use that word specifically because of the bad feelings and images it brings forth.  Anyone who is trying to influence you to feel negatively about something could do a lot worse than putting the word “war” in their press release and speeches. 

It goes beyond just the extreme overuse of the word, though.  We are currently engaged in military operations in several countries.  We are in more than one country in Africa, along with Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  God only knows were else we are.  Hell, we’re likely to send troops to the Arctic to storm the Castle of the Penguins at any point.  We are the world police, but we don’t enforce the laws of the nations we visit. Instead, we tell them to do it different, and then force them to change.  Perhaps some things do need to change, but how do we have that right?  They are their own nation.  They didn’t ask for our opinion.  They didn’t request assistance.  We simply took it upon ourselves to go let them know they’re doing it wrong.  There are plenty of things we do wrong in our own country, but if Canada sent military forces in to try to straighten us out, we would not cheer.

Yet we cheer when we send in the troops to “fix” other nations.  NO wonder the world thinks we’re arrogant.  We are!

The word “war” is becoming the catch phrase of a generation.  There’s a war on everything.  Around every corner.  We’re bringing Democracy to nations that don’t want it and didn’t ask.  We bring Political Correctness to the masses for fear we might insult someone, anyone.  We overthrow legitimate elected rulers to put in power people who will be more receptive to what we would like to see happen.  We are in a perpetual state of war, at home and abroad, at an ever increasing cost in economic, social, and political terms, not to mention the number of lives spent in military missions that were nothing more than unnecessary invasions of sovereign nations.  People are dying for our government to play “Simon Says” all across the globe. 

Enough is enough.  Bring the men and women of our armed forces home, end military aggression against any and all nations, and stop spending money that my great, great, great grandchildren haven’t earned yet.  You cannot fix what you don’t understand, and looking at our own nation, particularly the economy, it’s very clear we don’t know what the hell we’re doing, either.

What Exactly is the Bill of Rights?

I think most people know of the Bill of Rights, and can even name one or two of them.  Although, I’d bet most people would be hard pressed to put the requirements with the amendment number.  Well, maybe the Second Amendment, since it gets a fair deal of play.  Likely the Fifth Amendment would be relatively popular as well.

What does the Bill of Rights do?  Who does it pertain to?  Why do we need the Bill of Rights at all?

Anyone…. Bueller… Bueller… Bueller…

Nobody?  That’s about what I expected, honestly.  I didn’t know much about it until I started really paying attention and studying politics and the founding documents.  It’s amazing the things you can learn just by doing a little studying. 

The Bill of Rights limits the scope and power of the Federal Government.  It pertains directly to the Federal Government, and what they are not allowed to do.  It also specifically makes mention of the States a few times.  We need it to clarify some things left out of the original Constitution.  For instance, the First Amendment, most commonly known for Freedom of Speech (and sometimes wrongfully referenced for Separation of Church and State, which is nowhere in the Constitution or any Amendments), recognizes freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and stipulates that Congress can neither recognize an official religion nor prevent someone from practicing the religion of their choice.  Notice, it does not say you can’t have the 10 Commandments on a plaque in a court house or any other such non-sense.  It specifically tells Congress what it cannot do.  It cannot censor you for non-violent speech or protest.  Nor can it censor the press.  Nor can it require or prevent you from practicing any religion. 

The Bill of Rights is not a document granting you some rights you didn’t already have.  It’s a document recognizing rights that are inherently in people, based on free will, and forbidding Congress from attempting to interfere with those rights. 

Likewise, the other nine Amendments set forth in the Bill of Rights are not granting you any special power or privilege you didn’t have.  They are all recognizing rights that are yours, and forbidding interference.  In some places you’ll find mention of the States.  In particular, the Tenth Amendment is my favorite. It calls out in detail that the powers of Congress and the Federal Government are limited to what is enumerated in the Constitution, and ONLY what is enumerated in the Constitution.  It goes on to specify that any and all other powers that can be imagined are reserved specifically for the States or the people to decide for themselves.

A right cannot be granted.  People are saying they have a right to medical care.  Bull.  A right doesn’t depend on someone else providing it for your.  Saying you have a right to medical care is like saying you have a right to a small portion of another persons life (the doctors and nurses).  That cannot be. 

I have heard people saying they have a right to a job.  I can’t even fathom how they arrived at that, but it fails for the same reason.  Someone has to employ you, and you cannot claim you have a right to someone else’s time, money, or possessions.  That’s foolish, at best.

My favorite is the right to vote.  There is absolutely NO right to vote in a federal election.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  Nor should there be.  If anything, we should be limiting the people who are allowed to vote.  For one, if you’re living solely off the tax money of others, whether as a politician, welfare recipient, or government employee, you should not be allowed to vote for any positions that have any control over the money that is paid to you.  To allow Federal Employees to vote for people who authorize budgets for Federal Departments is a conflict of interest.  Why would they not vote for the person who promises them the most for the least amount of work?  Short sighted self interest is what humanity does best.

Rights are inherent in you.  They do not require action from another person or entity to make them rights.  They do not require assistance from others to provide your right to you.  You have the right to live, liberty, and property.  You have a right to defend yourself.  You do not have a right to get things for free, or to make others take care of some sort of need or desire for you.  Your rights depend entirely on you. 

They also need you to defend them.  Stand up for yourself, and demand that you State stand up against Federal Tyranny on your behalf.  Don’t vote for the person with the best lies.  Vote for the person who knows what a right is.  Pick wisely.

THIS is what this Election is All About

Someone, for the love of God, listen to what is said and understand what is being done.  Obama and Obama-lite (Romney) are not the solution.  They are two heads of the same beast.  

Vote for real change, not the pretend change that the GOP and Dems offer while continuing business as usual after the elections.

Why Abraham Lincoln was a Horrid President

               
Abraham Lincoln, greatest of Presidents, beloved of school children everywhere in our land.  How could he not be a great man?  He held this nation together during a time of turmoil. He freed the slaves.  Honest Abe. 
Sounds like the ideal politician.  Except history knows that’s all crap.  It’s pure propaganda.  For one, a politician being known as “Honest” is pretty unlikely.  Even the ones that truly are honest wouldn’t be nicknamed as such, because that would make it too hard to fight against them.  Ridiculous. 
What about holding this nation together, and freeing the slaves?  Well, he didn’t actually do either.  The GOP has recently started a campaign to win the hearts and minds of black Americans pointing out that Abe was a Republican and freed the slaves.  This is the kind of garbage that is taught in public schools, too.  Lincoln freed the slaves of the Confederate States.  Which he didn’t have the power to do, since they were a separate nation at that time. 
“What’s that?” you say?  A separate nation?  Yes, indeed, as soon as the Southern States declared their intentions to leave the Union, they were in fact a separate nation.  Not only international law, but our own Constitution agrees on that.  While there is no mechanism in the Constitution dictating the method for states to leave, there is no mention of them having no right to do so.  That in itself guarantees that they do in fact have that right, under the 10th Amendment. 
The 10th Amendment specifically states that all power not delegated to Congress or the Federal Government, nor specifically forbidden to the states, in the Constitution is reserved for the States or the People.   That means the states and the people have nearly unlimited power, and the Federal Government has extremely limited power.
So, by extension, the moment the states left the union, they were free of any and all Federal Regulation.  Which in turn means a few things.  First, the Civil War was not a civil war.  A civil war, by definition, is a war between two factions for control of a government.  There was no such war.  The Confederate States had their capital, the Union had it’s capital, and the Confederacy wanted nothing to do with controlling the Union. They wanted to be free of the Union.  The Union, on the other hand, was set on capturing, conquering, and controlling the Confederacy.  It also means that, far from a defensive action to “hold this nation together”, this was a militaristic aggressive action taken against another nation.
Now, on to the slavery issue.  He didn’t end slavery.  He didn’t free black people.  He wanted to not allow it to spread to any new states or territories, and he made several statements to the effect that it was wrong, but he also made statements, on numerous occasions, that he had no intentions or design on changing anything in regards to slavery in the states where slavery was legal.  During the war between the states, slaves were originally classified as equipment, and could be captured as such.  Later, there were offered the chance to earn their freedom by joining Union forces to fight against the South.  This appealed to many slaves, who had a natural human desire for vengeance or justice, or just wanted to help free others. 
Lincoln was also very sure that blacks and whites would never be able to live in harmony, and the relations between the two, if they lived in the same nation, would always have to be one of superior/inferior. As a white man, believing such, he was content that whites should remain the superior race.  Since he had freed all the Southern blacks during the war (as a means of encouraging them to run away to the North and weaken the armies and economy of the South, not because he cared in the least) and he believed that they could not live together with white people as equals, he was working on plans to solve that problem after the war. 
The most likely plan involved the several hundred thousand acres in what is now Panama.  An owner of a shipping company had somehow ended up as the controlling party of this land, and offered it up for use in Lincolns relocation plans.  The idea being that they transport the blacks there to resettle them, they mine the coal that was supposed to be richly deposited across the area, and sell it back to the US Navy.  The blacks would then use the profits from those sale to found their nation, planting crops, forming their government, etc.  There seems to be some historical argument as to whether or not they would have been a free nation, or perhaps a semi-free US Territory.  Either way, it was land that was uninhabited where Lincoln could solve his problem of blacks and whites living together. 
Before he could see this plan through, someone shot him in the back of the head.  Thus Lincoln, the great liberator of the black people in the United States, the great man who held a nation together, is proven to be the man that violated the rights of millions to forcibly require the unconditional surrender of a free nation so he could swallow it whole and deport a large majority of it’s workforce (the slaves) to another nation where he wouldn’t have to deal with them anymore.  Lincoln, the racist tyrant who ignored the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land, which he took an oath to uphold and defend.  The rest, as they say, is history.
If you’re interested in reading more, most everything that is covered in this blog and a great deal more can be found at http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html.