Great article today at Loyal to Liberty

Here again I jump through a couple of unnecessary hoops in order to create a direct link to Dr. Keyes's excellent article. In this case I think it's worth the extra effort.

(BTW, the reason I don't generally like doing this is because it creates a scenario in which a failure to establish the link is more likely. Which, of course, means that in the event of a failure, then it has to be done all over again. I.e., a simple waste of time and effort. And I can be very impatient about things like that. But I really should be taking this up with Dr. Keyes, shouldn't I?)

Read More

Continental Congress 2009

I thought readers would probably find this interesting, particularly if you're supportive of the TEA Party movement, the Tenth Amendment movement and so forth and so on. Per the usual with such videos posted on YouTube, there are related videos that you might also want to check out. Additionally here is the Continental Congress 2009 website where you may read more about this idea, the procedures for voting for delegates from your state, and etc. I leave it to you to find your way around the site.

I'm sure I'll be discussing this in a future entry soon. So stay tuned. In the meantime feel free to share anything you have to offer on the matter in the comment section of this entry.

Read More

Term limits again?!

There's probably not a single political issue out there that unites more disparate factions than the term limit issue. Would-be government reformers seem to align on this issue almost to the man.

A few days ago I was reading a discussion involving term limits at the Tenth Amendment Center. Everyone was pretty much in agreement that we need to install term limits in the federal constitution, but one commenter in particular made the statement that term limits is a "no-brainer." Which is to say that if you don't support the popular idea of term limiting the federal Congress, then you're something like the village idiot.

Well, I must be the village idiot. And village idiot that I am, I dared to challenge this individual on his assumption. Anyway, the moral of that particular story is that if you lack a good workable knowledge of the constitution and its explication in the Federalist Papers, you best not tangle with someone that possesses it. Oh, I was nice about it; I didn't engage in any personal attacks (what would have been the point?). But when I suggested that this individual might want to read the Federalist Papers to gain a better understanding of the federal constitution, and why the framers included certain provisions therein while leaving others out, I was informed that I was the one that didn't understand the constitution, and that the Federalist Papers offered no instruction on the subject because that was the government they (the framers) were trying to improve when they wrote the Constitution. Well, at this suggestion I simply advised that my interlocutor google the terms "Federalist Papers," and "Articles of Confederation," because it seemed he might be confusing the two. These young whipper-snappers!, I don't quite know what to think about 'em sometimes. ;-) I tend to think, though, that the modern educational apparatus in America, with all of its concern about "self-esteem," absolute equality and so forth and so on, has a tendency to bring out the very worst in individuals and they lack a certain humility and deference that is proper for the relatively uneducated and inexperienced to possess. But that's just a theory and it's beside the point...

A few days later the question arose again under a different article at the Tenth Amendment Center. Same basic results -- people jumping on board advocating for a term limit amendment added to the federal Constitution. And again I felt I needed to challenge this position. But let me just say, without going into a lot of detail, that (1) the founders were well aware of so-called "career politicians," the avarice, inrigue, ambitions and so forth that they possess. Yet they still didn't include term limits (modern definition) in the federal constitution. And (2) the constitution the founders created is a complete working system; a system that, like any other system, when you begin mucking around with it making changes and alterations which, on the surface, appear to be "limited" you later tend to find that they have unintended, unforseen negative consequences which affect the whole structure, and therefore the whole effectiveness as to its original intent, of the government as the founders originally designed it. But our founders didn't leave us without explanation on this point of term limiting the federal Congress. We may read something about it in Federalist no. 64, among other places.

But my main point about federal term limits is this -- I personally couldn't ever support a constitutional amendment that alters the original fundamental structure of the federal government, or that undermines its design and its legitimate purpose. We've done that enough times already with everything from "birthright citizenship" for the children of illegal aliens, to the imposition of a federal income tax, to the "democratic" election of our Senators in the 17th amendment, to limiting the terms of presidents, etc. And this is the very reason I've never supported the FMA. I'm a strong advocate of traditional marriage, but I don't want some federal beaurocracy engaging in fraud, waste, and abuse, issuing marriage licenses and taking ultimate control of the marriage issue. No; my consistent position has been that I can never support a given amendment proposal unless it can be shown to be in keeping with the original intent and design of the government. And when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, this popular clamoring for federal term limits is simply an attempt to establish more mob rule. We've got enough of that already, in my humble opinion. Besides, what makes people think that a state like Massachusetts will not replace a Ted Kennedy with a clone of Ted Kennedy as soon as he's out, I will personally never know. If the people can't control themselves without term limits, how in God's name are they going to control themselves with them? And as our founding fathers were quick to point out to us, we can't always know that people are on the right side of an issue for noble reasons, and vice versa. In other words, don't think for a minute that everyone is on board with term limits because they want to "limit" the size and influence of the federal government. Let me tell you something -- probably the vast majority of people vying for federal term limits have an opposite goal in mind. But, you know, we moderns tend to think that democracy is the ultimate in good government.

Read More

Why do I always put the term federal, as generally applied to the central government, in scare quotes?

Well, partly because the U.S. Government, as it now stands, is probably about as far away from being a "federal" government as any government can possibly be. And partly because when we ... spontaneously? ... refer to the central government as THE Federal Government, we simply obfuscate the meaning of the term federal and its derivatives, rendering the term, particularly as it applies to these United States, effectively meaningless (I'll grant that some people understand what the term means, yet still use the descriptive "federal government" in reference to the central authority as a matter of convenience and habit.).

If it is even possible, at this point in the game, to save the country, we must restore the federal principle to its rightful place in our system of government. To do that, we must know first what the term means. But, irregardless of whether we can save the country or not, it will serve us all well to be considerate about the way we use such terms.

I will quote again William James who said:

"There is nothing so absurd than when you repeat something often enough, people begin to believe it." (the statement doesn't originate with James, but he is most often accredited with it, nonetheless.)

Referring to the central government as The Federal Government, as we're so apt to do these days, has (had) this effect I think. Likewise, it has been stated so frequently and so often over the course of decades in this country -- the doctrine of the "separation of church and state" -- that people actually think that the actual words are contained in the U.S. Constitution. And, of course, you all know by now that one of my pet peeves is the common reference to the Constitution as being (in and of itself) the Supreme Law. But the term federal has a specific meaning, particularly as it applies to the United States.

There is an article by Clarence B. Carson newly posted at the Tenth Amendment Center this morning, originally published in 1983 (several years before I became politically aware), entitled The Meaning of Federalism. I posted a short comment to the article this morning in which I invoke Noah Webster and his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, as well as his descriptive of the United States as a Federal Representative Republic. Also, the author mentions the original mode of selecting U.S. Senators as an integral part of preserving (or, re-establishing in our current situation) the federal principle in American government. Do read the article. And keep in mind that it was originally published back in 1983. Further erosion of the federal principle has since occured.

Read More

Good Article

At The Tenth Amendment Center is posted a good article by Patrick Krey entitled "Constitutionalism 101." My belief, at this point, is that we've already crossed over the rubicon. Yes, it's a fatalistic viewpoint, but it doesn't mean I think such articles or attempts to re-assert the bounds of power originally laid down in the Constitution are meaningless, or exercises in futility as it were.

Here is an excerpt from the final section of the article titled The Future of Constitutionalism:

It is human nature to be tempted to “read” one’s personal feelings into the Constitution. Doing this allows someone to declare anything they like as constitutional and anything they dislike as unconstitutional. That approach of substituting one’s personal beliefs for the supreme law of the land is in direct conflict with our nation’s founding. It’s bad enough when individuals do it in the course of their personal lives, but absolutely unforgivable when our public officials do it in their representative capacity.

Yes, readers will recall that I've stated many times that I think the term "unconstitutional" is an overused, misapplied term from both the left and the 'right'. As I've explained before, the term is used to describe something that the person using it doesn't particularly care for all too often. My personal preference, therefore, is the term "extra-constitutional." If a thing is blatantly unconstitutional, then fine, by all means let's use the term in those cases. Otherwise, let's not be so careless as to declare something not constitutional that is not clearly unconstitutional. As for you ungovernable (unrecoverable) leftists, well, you have your reward.

Otherwise, as I read through the article I kept finding myself anticipating that the fourteenth amendment might be cited directly by the author because of the destructive way in which it has been interpreted and applied by the courts. But no such luck. The only real reference made to that amendment is when the author cites a passage from Raoul Berger, author of Government by Judiciary, The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment. But recall as a prime case in point, that the SCOTUS, in its majority opinion in the case Kelo et al, vs. New London, referenced the fact that the fourteenth provided the teeth by which it (the Court) could "take private property for public use" at its own whims. Prior to the establishment of the fourteenth, the court proclaimed, this was almost impossible given the ambiguous language of the founders in the 'takings clause.' Hmmm.

Then there's the declaration made so often today that the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the land." Again, this is something I've covered countless times before. I do tire of repeating myself, and I know you tire of it as well. But the fact is that the Constitution is not, in and of itself, the Supreme Law of the Land. Read it again. Please.

Anyway, do read the article in its entirety. I have a lot more to say on the subject, but I'm completely out of time this morning. Maybe one of you can help kick off a discussion in the comments section. See ya on the flipside. :-)

Read More

On the powers of government

As any decent coach will tell you, the fundamentals are the most important parts of an athlete's game, for they are the building-blocks on which everything else in the athlete's career rests for success.

I've often said that the principle applies as well in politics (and religion). Whenever our 'game' begins to suffer, at the individual, and/or the team level, it's probably time to put considerable time and effort into revisiting and re-establishing the fundamentals. Successful coaches spend a great deal of time on the fundamentals during the "off season." No; it isn't particularly fun or interesting, but it is necessary.

One of the main problems with politics (and religion) in America, as I see it, is that we have long-since abandoned any pretense of establishing and securing a good foundation in the fundamental principles of legitimate government. Interesting that we should neglect this duty when it has been made so easy for us to cheerfully abide in it. America's Schoolmaster, Noah Webster once said of this government that it "presents the first example in modern times of a government founded on its legitimate principles." Well, that was then and this is now, but how did he mean?

When we boil it all down to the fundamentals, there are but three powers of government: The legislative, or the planning/decision-making power; the executive, or the power to put the plan to execution; and the judicial power, or the power to judge the effectiveness and efficiency of the plan, and to advise alterations when determined necessary.

Now, I'm not talking about the separation of powers, or the so-called branches of government, both of which are integral parts of our constitutional form of government. Remember, I said the fundamentals. Those aspects of government are not the fundamentals, they are merely built upon the foundation of the fundamentals, or, they are logical extensions from the fundamentals, which are the powers of government.

I said above that it seems odd to me that we should neglect to attend to something made so easy for us. What do I mean by that statement? Well, if we'll take the time to actually read the Constitution once in a while, we'll find that in the opening sentences of Articles I, II, and III the powers of government are laid down in their simplest form. Everything following those first sentences in each article respectively, is built upon the foundation, recognition and establishment of that specific power of government, to wit:

Article I, section 1, U.S. Constitution:

"All legislative Powers herein granted..."

Article II, section 1, U.S. Constitution:

"The executive Power shall be vested in..."

Article III, section 1, U.S. Constitution:

"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in..."

And there's no way of getting around it. Those are the fundamentals of government, those are the powers of government. Each individual is a complete 'government' in himself, for he (generally unknowingly but nonetheless) exercises these powers of government on a daily and a continual basis. He may not be very good or efficient at it due to any number of factors, but he does so nonetheless. Anything he does outside himelf, or outide his immediate family interests, however, requires that others be involved acting in capacities built upon the foundation of one or other of the powers of government depending on the nature of his relationship to the others. I could give innumerable examples of the way this works, but I don't really think I need to. The main point here is to get us thinking in terms of the importance of the fundamentals to good government.

Once again, if government is failing or breaking down, then it's probably high time we spent a good deal of time and effort on re-establishing the fundamentals. And that all starts with the individual, for as they say "the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts."

Read More

Tenth Amendment update

As reported at the Tenth Amendment Center, lawmakers from various states, including Randy Brogdon of Oklahoma, on May 5, 2009 issued a Joint Announcement on State Sovereignty:

Over the course of decades, there have been increasing federal mandates and acts designed to effectively step in and legislate the affairs of our various states from Washington D.C. Federal usurpation into state affairs severely limits the ability of state governments to operate according to their citizens’ wishes. We believe that the best government is one which governs closer to the people…. The current price of erosion of states’ rights exceeds $11 trillion. Without the countless attempts in Washington to duplicate and micromanage our states’ affairs, much of this debt could have been avoided.

Amen, and amen. But don't these legislators know that the all-powerful 'federal' government can simply "occupy the field" and "intend a complete ouster" of the state and local authorities, and, poof!, it's done? Apparently they didn't get the memo on that. Or, if they did get the memo, they simply reject it, as do I.

Brace yourselves, y'all, we're headed down a road that hasn't been traveled, nor maintained, in quite some time. We'll have to clear away trees and overgrowth, and fill the potholes as we go along.

Read More

How did it go? -- Update to preceding entry

The first of the scheduled fourteen part Loyal to Liberty, live interactive Webinar series hosted by Alan Keyes is now officially in the books. Even after having procrastinated until the eve of the first session to register for the meeting, only then to learn that there was a problem with my paypal account which prohibited me from completing the registration process initially, I did finally manage to get myself registered and was in attendance, a full fifteen minutes early, for the meeting. Several individuals, however, were not so fortunate as I.

At the scheduled start time for the meeting (9:30pm ET), there were only about four or five people present as I recall. In order to accomodate the majority who had not yet logged on to the meeting, Dr. Keyes extended the start time by about fifteen to twenty minutes, during which time most of the remainder of the people who were ultimately in attendance came straggling in one at a time. Although a few others came in as much as 45 minutes to an hour late. My understanding is that several people actually never showed up.

There was time made prior to the intitial presentation by Dr. Keyes for the participants to check their microphones and become familiar with the various features of the forum. Which was a good thing since this is a rather new technology, or, it's at least new to most of us laymen I would suspect. Some people were obviously having trouble getting their microphones to work, I being one of them even though I'd tested it before entering the forum.

In short, there were obviously some problems during the maiden session, most of which were related to a lack of familiarity with the service and its functions. Those kinds of problems will tend to disappear over time, and I expect a much smoother second session.

All of that aside, Dr. Keyes gave an initial presentation which probably lasted upwards of thirty minutes in which he shared a number of insights. I jotted down a few notes during the presentation, and I'll try to transmit them to you in a way that is coherent (I'm a rather poor note taker).

The subject of last night's conference was, of course, Preserving the Constitution. Dr. Keyes started his presentation out by saying, according to my notes, that the challenge would not be an easy one because our people and our leaders no longer appreciate our form of government. He then moved naturally into a short dissertation on the need for Balance, or a balanced understanding of our Constitution and the form of government that it, in fact, establishes. Of course this was music to my ears, Balanced Constitutional Government being a main theme on this blog (see post label "Balanced Government"). My next note has to do with a six-hour-long Alexander Hamilton speech mentioned by Dr. Keyes, under which I have written that Hamilton discussed "the problem with government itself," and "maintaining a stable democratic system." A final note on Hamilton's speech I have written in my notes is that he basically broke people down into two classes, 1) The Princes, or the ruling class (people who have an ambition to rule over others), and 2) everyone else (people who hail from a range of backgrounds and possess a great variety of talents and giftings, but who have no particular ambition to rule over others.). I have no further notes on Hamilton's speech written down, but if memory serves Dr. Keyes carried this discussion forward relating that Hamilton discussed in the speech, again, how to strike a proper balance governmentally between the two classes so that the ruling class couldn't gain an improper ascendancy over the non-ruling class and vice versa, and the general need for both as essential parts of a balanced system. Dr. Keyes then went on to talk about the inherent instability of democracies, using the African country of Zimbabwe as a prime example (I can't speak to that, not being familiar with the history of Zimbabwe.). According to my notes Keyes's presentation ended on the subject of Zimbabwe and a limited discussion on its transition from a government run by the few, or an oligarchy which enjoyed economic success at the expense of justice, to a mob-rule style democracy in which everything was lost [For a clearer understanding of Dr. Keyes's position on the problems with Zimbabwe and how he relates it to America, see Dr. Keyes's new article Zimbabwe in America's Future?]. Dr. Keyes then invited the participants to join in a Q&A session.

Unfortunately for me only a few minutes into the Q&A session we had a thunderstorm pass over causing my internet connection to fail, and I spent the vast majority of the remainder of the meeting trying to reconnect to the conference. So, I missed most of the Q&A session, as well as the open discussion session which followed. The only note I have written down from that portion of the meeting is a notation concerning Dr. Keyes's mention of the scriptural admonitions that Christians are to be as salt and yeast, which Dr. Keyes spoke to a bit pointing out that both salt and yeast, although when added have significant effects, are added in very small proportions to the whole. I had, prior to losing my connection, indicated that I had a question for Dr. Keyes, but as fate would have it the thunderstorm prevented his giving me the floor. At this point I don't recall why the question came to me, but I intended to follow it up with a question about Balanced Constitutional Government as well. I jotted the initial question down as the last entry in my notes:

"Will a society based on Biblical-Christian principles and values reflect a particular form of government, and if so, can you speak to what form of government such a society will generally reflect?"

Overall I thought the first session went relatively well, and I'll certainly be in attendance at the next one. If for no other reason than to see whether we've made any progress in the way of preparations, successfully logging on, and learning how to properly use the functions of the webinar service. I hope to see you there too!

Read More

People for the American Way vs. People for the American Way

I wrote in a recent entry about the organization "People for the American Way," saying there that the members of, and people otherwise friendly to, that organization can have no conception of what People truly for the American Way know to be the genuine American Way.

Reckon the People for the American Way will ever understand what the People for the American Way are all about, or the extent of their power? Nah. So I guess we'll just have to keep teaching it to them.

Read More

Chuck Baldwin on the killing of the M.I.A.C Report

In a footnote added to his follow-up article on the M.I.A.C. Report, Chuck Baldwin -- named among three third-party presidential candidates, supporters of whom the report declared to be "prone to violence" and "militia membership," as I wrote about here -- observes that the means utilized to bring about the rapid death of this report can and must be used wherever we find the tentacles of tyranny positioning themselves to crush our beloved liberties.

Baldwin writes:

*Notice, too, that we did not need the major media to achieve this victory. We cut off this one branch of the tyranny tree without the help of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX NEWS (with the exception of Glenn Beck), or even the Drudge Report. Victory was achieved with the weapons of talk radio, syndicated Internet columns, Internet blogging, local news media, and word of mouth.

You see, folks, we can achieve victory without the major media. But we must stay focused and actively involved in our respective State governments. "We the people" are still the power of this country. And don't let anyone deceive you into believing anything else. Therefore, take heart in knowing that your diligence convinced the State of Missouri to rescind its atrocious MIAC report. Now, don't let it stop there. Let's faithfully cut off the tentacles of tyranny wherever we find them. Amen?

The main article is posted here. (H/T: OutragedPatriots.com)

Additionally Bob Unruh of WND has filed a similar report critical of the MIAC report and its contents:

Citing ALIPAC, Unruh writes:

The 'Missouri Documents,' as they came to be called, listed over 32 characteristics police should watch for as signs or links to domestic terrorists, which could threaten police officers, court officials, and infrastructure targets.

"Police were instructed to look for Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, and the North American Union/SPP/North American Community. The 'Missouri Documents' also said potential domestic terrorists might like gun shows, short wave radios, combat movies, movies with white male heroes, Tom Clancey Novels, and Presidential Candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin!" ALIPAC wrote.

I don't know about you, but this to me reads more like a list of items that would be of concern to your typical All-American native son (or daughter). That is, when he wasn't busying himself with playing or coaching baseball, eating grandma's apple pie at a family gathering, instructing his children in the art of self-government, or doing volunteer work for his local church and his local community. Or, of course, writing at a political blog. ;-)

Read More

Oklahoma Rep. Charles Key gets it

Read More

Hunker down people, things are fixin' to get rough!

Is Gerald Celente all he's cracked up to be among certain television and radio media personalities? I don't know, but it seems like Mr. Celente has put together a pretty impressive portfolio of accurately predicting certain trends before they actually begin to manifest themselves in a significant and noticeable way.

Perhaps like me you've seen Mr. Celente appear recently as a guest on various network news programs such as Glenn Beck's show on Fox News. Of course the guest segments on those shows are always too short to get a good feel for who these personalities are and how believable they may or may not be. Celente is nonetheless capitalizing on the economic uncertainty amongst the folks, thus making a name for himself beyond the confines of New York City and economic elitists. And he's making dire predictions for our short term future, including, yes, 2009.

So what is Mr. Celente predicting for this year, 2009, and how can we get to know him better? See below the fold.

________________________________________________________

Here's the first segment of Celente's guest appearance on the Alex Jones radio program from Dec. 18, 2008:



Also, here's Celente's appearance on Art Bell's Coast to Coast radio show of the same date:



And here's the first segment of Catherine Austin Fitts's December 19, 2008 appearance on Coast to Coast where she discusses the same topic and in which she offers some down-to-earth practicable steps that individuals can take in order to prepare themselves, their families, and their local communities to best deal with the impending economic collapse. In other words, to become more self-sufficient, self-sustaining, and self-governing on an individual and a local level:

Read More

Limits or Balance, or both?

In connection with the video posted at the AFB, and also with the Democracy or Republic entry posted below, some of you may be interested in this Oct. 2007 AFB discussion on limiting government via governmental balance.

The discussion initially got a little heated between myself and our libertarian friend ol' shep, but we finally came to an understanding agreeing that re-establishing governmental balance is a superior concept to that of placing artificial arbitrary restrictions on government in order to limit its power to do evil. If you care to read the discussion avoiding all of the initial hostility exhibited between myself and ol' shep, you can start about here (Note: I was writing at that time under the pen name D. Webster.).

Also, for a better understanding of what "Balanced Government" is as we at the AFB have attempted to explicate it, see my AFB article What is Balanced Government?. I need to make some revisions to the article, but the basic concepts are all there. Also, the article, in fact both of these AFB articles are permanently linked at the top of this blog's left sidebar under the heading Select AFB Articles.

Read More

Them's fightin' words!

Take a look at what has been introduced in the New Hampshire legislature, A Resolution affirming states' rights based on Jeffersonian principles (H/T: Vanishing American):

That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism -- free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and... (emphasis mine)

Quick!, someone grab a mirror, I think this dude might be breathing afterall! I'll definitely be sending out a few letters and emails to selected politicians in the coming days.

(The state of Washington has drawn up a similar resolution.)

What does this mean? Both the state of New Hampshire and the state of Washington voted Barack Hussein Obama in the presidential election, 54.3% and 57% respectively. It seems somewhat peculiar, therefore, that these resolutions would originate in these particular states. Nonetheless it is in Oklahoma's interest to join these states and draft a similar resolution in behalf of re-affirming our unalienable rights under the Constitution and the ninth and tenth amendments. After all, and as I've said several times before, our immigration law, H.B. 1804 is, you can bet your bottom dollar, just one of the many things currently in the sights of of the wild-eyed nuts (Reid, Pelosi, et al) in the leftist federal Congress and the Hussein administration. Once more, I'll be sending a few emails to select Oklahoma House and Senate members asking them to propose similar protective measures in our state. And I certainly encourage you to do the same in your own states.

Read More

Understanding the Constitution

(Note: In my right sidebar under the fifth heading "Links of Interest" is a permanent link to the Federalist Papers there for your perusal. I've written before that it was through my own reading and study of the Federalist Papers that I came to the knowledge of how destructive to our form of government the fourteenth amendment has been, original intent of the framers of the fourteenth notwithstanding. Subsequent amendments have further worked to the destruction of the federal principle so vital to our system, and the fourteenth amendment (original intent notwithstanding) paved the way to this destruction. A good familiarity with the Federalist Papers is essential to understanding the original intent of the men who sat in the Constitutional Convention. And there's the added bonus of discovering the great genius of these great Americans in devising the balanced system that they did.)

If you think you understand the Constitution, the depth and breadth of the principles contained therein and the form of government it establishes, here is a lengthy excerpt from the introduction of a new book on the subject titled "Defending the Republic" which will help you discover how much (or how little) you know and understand about the constitution in reality.

Read More

Political Liberalism, governmental imbalance, and the Deceptive Quality

In my June 15, 2007 AFB article, What is Balanced Government?, I wrote the following concerning my theory of an internal healing quality inherent to Balanced Govenment:

... Having put quite a lot of thought to it, I have concluded that there's a quality inherent to balance that is somewhat elusive under a mere cursory investigation. For my own purposes I have denominated this "the non-deceptive quality." For the sake of putting a definition to it, I will say this: Balanced Government does not abide deception, or the practice thereof. ...

I quote that passage from the article because it was brought to mind as I read this commentary by Tom Tancredo over at the Team America site. Here is an excerpt from the article:

The opponents of immigration enforcement have stooped to a new low in Arizona with their latest attempt to undermine the state's workplace verification laws. After exhausting their usual tactics, they are resorting to outright and intentional deception of the voters. This November, Arizonans will vote on Proposition 202; which will be described to them as such:

"Stop Illegal Hiring" Act is an initiative designed to crack down on unethical businesses who hire illegal immigrants. This initiative targets employers who hire workers and pay under-the-table in cash, which fuels illegal immigration in Arizona. It revokes the business license of employers who knowingly or intentionally hire illegal immigrants. This initiative increases penalties for identity theft, as illegal immigrants often use stolen identities to conceal their undocumented status...

If this were all I knew about Prop 202, I'd wholeheartedly support it; and the initiative backers are hoping that voters won't learn anything about the initiative beyond the title.

Read the rest of the article to find out what the real motive behind this proposition is.

My purpose here is not to criticize for the sake of criticizing, particularly someone I greatly admire like Mr. Tancredo, but his rhetoric implies that he gives credit where credit is not due. I understand why Tancredo would feel compelled to use the language contained in the opening sentence, but isn't what these liberals are doing purely consistent with the inherent nature of their political ideology? What is political liberalism in truth but deception? Have Arizona liberals really "stooped to a new low" in attempting to deceive the People of Arizona into throwing down the very walls which they themselves only recently erected for their future security? It may be a new tactic, or one we're not used to liberals employing to achieve their ends, but it's in no way a "stooping to a new low" for liberals, as if to say that this new method is below even them.

My impression is that Tancredo's rhetoric, well intended and righteously indignant as it is, serves to illustrate the vital necessity of our accepting the reality of what liberalism truly is, and to what extent it will go in order to achieve its ends. Until that time we cannot begin to understand by what means we must restrain it, given that it cannot and will not restrain itself; that it must be restrained, if it is to be restrained at all, by a force outside itself.

I say to you in the words of the Psalmist that liberals are the heathen of the earth raging and imagining a vain thing saying, let us break their bands assunder and cast away their cords from among us.

Incidentally the exact same thing applies to the problem of Islam. Like liberalism Islam is an inherently deceptive belief system which literally knows no bounds to its ability and willingness to deceive by any and all means in pursuit of its ultimate ends. Islam has but one objective and it will stop at nothing to achieve it. The same applies to liberalism.

Read More

Alliances to save the country

In an age in which we're seeing our country's constitutional principles being flouted from on high as just so many words that no longer apply because conditions have changed and we're so much more enlightened now than our fathers were (Ha!), and in which we see little, if any, resistance at the lower levels to these impositions on us from those that quite literally have no power that WE do not lend them, temporarily, under the conditions that they use them wisely and properly and honor the conditions of their oaths; when someone comes along saying he will begin advocating for a restoration of the federal principle in an effort to save the country from impending doom, that person is tugging at my heart strings:

Dr. Yeagley wrote:

I'm going to start campaigning for states rights. Maybe we can plug in the US Constitution at that level. Washington is truly hopeless at this point.

Good to have you onboard, Dr. Yeagley! Without a restoration of the federal principle in America, we are truly doomed. While you're at it, please consider joining forces with those of us who advocate for an Article V Convention for proposing amendments.

There is a Constitutional process, little known to most Americans and never yet exercised, for wresting power from the central government back to the states and to the People where it rightly belongs. And it is tailor made for such a time as this. Indeed, times like these is the very reason the founders inserted this little known gem into the Constitution. This process is, as I dubbed it for my own purposes years back when I first discovered it, "The state initiated method" for proposing amendments, which is to say that it only involves Congress and the national authority as acting on the sidelines, so to speak. The People, by merely calling such a convention, assert themselves and their authority over the national government.

It would involve no less than what George Washington described in his Farewell Speech as "a solemn act of the whole People of the United States," simply to initiate, much more to see it through to its end. At this very moment in time we have the required number of states (two thirds) to initiate this method on something like the FMA if we so choose, and probably enough states to meet the requisite number required (three fourths) to ratify such an amendment. But my preference would be to initiate the process under some overarching banner under which would fall such amendment proposals as the FMA, review of the judicial power, and so forth.

In the end what I personally should like to see by this method a propping up of the ninth and tenth amendments; a reassertion of the principle that power emanates from the People, not from the unaccountable and despotic central government.

I've written about it many times, and several times recently, at my blog and elsewhere if you or any of your readers care to check it out.

Read More

New Article by FOAVC co-founder

Friends of the Article V Convention co-founder Joel S. Hirschhorn has written a new article, the entirety of which he posted in a comment to my October 14 entry You want a solution? Here ya go.

As the blogger comment section isn't designed to accomodate a full length article, and since the "recent comments" feature of this blog seems to have some kind of a glitch which allows it to post new comments only intermittently, I've re-posted the article below.

Thanks to Mr. Hirschhorn and to all the folks at FOAVC for the fine work they're doing there advocating for an Article V Convention. Ours is the beginning of a new alliance I'm sure.

When the Federal Government Fails the People

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

The hardest thing for Americans to do right now in this presidential election season is to fight distraction and, instead, focus on the failure of all three branches of the federal government. And also to resist the propaganda masquerading as patriotic obligation that voting will fundamentally fix the federal government. The real lesson of American history is that things have turned so ugly that electing a new president and many new members of Congress will at best provide band-aids when what is needed is nothing less than what Thomas Jefferson wisely said our nation would need periodically: a political revolution.

The basis for this view is that the institutions of the three branches have been so corrupted and perverted that they no longer meet the hopes and aspirations embedded in our Constitution.

It is easy to condemn George W. Bush as the worst president in history. The larger truth is that the presidency has accumulated far too much power over the past half century. This has resulted from the weakening of the Congress that no longer, in any way, has the power of an equal branch of government, not that any recent Congress has shown any commitment or capability to execute its constitutional authorities. Concurrently, we have become accepting of a politicized Supreme Court that has not shown the courage to stop the unconstitutional grabbing of power by the presidency and in 2000 showed its own root failure in choosing to select the new president.

Worst of all, modern history has vividly shown Americans that the federal government has usurped the sovereignty of the “we the people” and of the states, and has even sold out national sovereignty to a set of international organizations and the greed of corporate-crazed globalization.

The current economic and financial sector meltdown is just another symptom of deep seated, cancerous disease of government that has sold out the public because of the moneyed influence of the corporate and wealthy classes of special interests. The serious disease is a long festering unraveling of the constitutional design of our government. Each of the three branches of the federal government is totally unequal to each other and completely incapable of ensuring the constitutional functioning of each other. Checks and balances have become a fiction.

These sad historic realities have been produced because of an all too powerful and corrupt two-party political machine that has prevented true political competition and real choices for voters. This two-party system has thrived because of corruption from money provided for Democrats and Republicans to maintain the status quo that is the ruination of our constitutional Republic.

Yet the hidden genius of the Founders and Framers was to anticipate how the Republic would most likely unravel under the pressures of money and corruption. Unknown to nearly all Americans is a part of the Constitution that all established political forces have worked hard to denigrate over our entire history. They fear using what is provided as a kind of escape clause in the Constitution, something to use when the three branches of the federal government fail their constitutional responsibilities. What is this ultimate solution that those who love and respect our Constitution should be clamoring for?

It is the provision in Article V to create a temporary fourth branch of the government – in the form of a convention of state delegates – that operates outside the control of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court, and that has only one single function: to consider proposals for constitutional amendments, just like Congress has done over our history, but that must also be ratified by three-quarters of the states. One of the most perplexing questions in American history that has received too little attention is simple: Why have we never had an Article V convention?

One possible answer might be that what the Constitution requires to launch a convention has never been satisfied. But this is not the case. The one and only requirement is that two-thirds of state legislatures apply to Congress for a convention. With over 600 such state applications from all 50 states that single requirement has long been satisfied. So why no convention?

Because Congress has refused to honor the exact constitutional mandate that it “shall” call a convention when that requirement has been met. Simply put, Congress has long broken the supreme law of the land by not calling a convention, and virtually every political force on the left and right likes it that way. Why? Because they have learned to corrupt the government and fear an independent convention of state delegates that could propose serious constitutional amendments that would truly reform our government and political system to remove the power of special interests and compel all three branches to follow the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

With great irony, the public has been brainwashed to fear an Article V convention despite many hundreds of state constitutional conventions that have never wrecked state governments, and that in countless cases have provided much needed forms of direct democracy that have empowered citizens and limited powers of state governments.

There is only one national, nonpartisan organization with the single mission of educating the public about the Article V convention option and building demand for Congress to convene a convention. It is the Friends of the Article V Convention group that has done something that neither the government nor any other group has ever done; it has been collecting all the hundreds of state applications for a convention and making them available to the public at www.foavc.org.

With a new president and many new members of Congress, now is the ideal time for Americans that see the need for obeying the Constitution and seek root reforms to rally behind this mission of obtaining the nation’s first Article V convention. The new Congress in 2009 should give the public what the Constitution says we have a right to have and what Congress has a legal obligation to provide. Always remember that the convention cannot by itself change the Constitution, but operating in the public limelight it could revitalize what has become our delusional and fake democracy. The main thing to fear is not a convention, but continuation of the two-party plutocracy status quo. Sadly, no presidential candidate, not even third-party ones, has spoken out in support of Congress obeying the Constitution and giving us the first Article V convention.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention and can be reached through www.foavc.org.]

Read More

Draft Amendment

One of the problems with modern America, as I see it, is that we have a government severly out of balance. Recently I've been hitting, rather incessantly, on the fact that the tenth amendment is, for all intents and purposes, a dead letter. This is not a new revelation to me, but more examples of what I've known for years keep coming forth, as is natural under certain conditions.

Let me put it to you this way, whenever Congress, or the federal judiciary can simply declare, with impunity, that a constitutional principle no longer applies because of some arbitrary, extra-Constitutional reason like "Congress has occupied the field and intended a complete ouster" -- a basis on which, unchecked, the central government can overthrow every constitutional right reserved to the states and to the People -- and the states, not to mention WE THE PEOPLE, are not so much as even alarmed by this tendency of the central government to absorb into itself all powers formerly reserved to themselves respectively (re: powers denied the central government), then you have a huge problem on your hands which requires immediate attention and subsequent action.

Under these conditions, the statement "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.," or that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.," is a nice saying'n'all, but really, how are these sayings meaningful; in exactly what way do they, in and of themselves, prohibit the central government from encroaching on the rights of states and of the People? Answer: They don't. Thus the ninth and tenth amendments are dead letters; thus the People and the states wherein they reside are slaves to the central government.

Now, let me be clear, the central government didn't just all of a sudden devise a collusive strategy and conspire to overthrow the Peoples' rights. And even if it had done so, which it didn't, that doesn't mean the People do not themselves bear some, if not most or all, of the ultimate responsibility for what has occured. There's no government in the world, including the United States, that can enslave a free people. And you can quote me on that.

But here is my point:

At some point the People must reassert themselves and rein in their government. And they must, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, "create new guards for their future security." The purpose of this "creation of new guards" is obviously to prevent, insofar as is humanly possible, their government from usurping its proper Constitutional authority. It is in this vein that I've drafted the following rewrite of the tenth amendment, U.S. Constitution:

Section I: The People reserve to themselves and to the states wherein they reside all powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

Section II: The several states which at any time are part of this union, and from the date of the ratification of this article, shall at every fifth leap year succeeding, call a convention for review of the Constitution, and on the applications to Congress of two thirds of the state conventions for Constitutional review, the Congress shall be compelled to call a convention for addressing the states' concerns. The states shall determine, by two thirds majority vote, and at every third convention interval, by what mode to direct the Congress to act, but the fifth article of the Constitution, or any provision thereof, shall not be infringed.

Section III: The People prohibit review of this article by the Federal Judiciary, or preemption thereof by the United States, but the Judiciary may act as advisory to the Congress.

Readers are welcome and encouraged to try their own hand at it with whichever Constitutional provisions you think most need shoring up. And that was my purpose in the draft amendment above, it is a reassertion of an original Constitutional principle, and a strengthening thereof. Sections II & III reveal yet other purposes.

Read More

You want a solution? Here ya go:

The other day VA wrote in an entry at her blog condemning those who seem to have a real talent for being critical of people who would dare complain about the wrongs and injustices perpetrated by our government on the people of America yet do not offer any practicable solutions. It's as if these people think that if you don't have a ready-made point-by-point solution to offer them, then they are duty bound to try to silence you. Meanwhile they offer no solutions themselves, and as VA rightly pointed out in her post, merely engage in that which they so vehemently object to. Where I come from we call that "irrational."

Yes; I've been subjected to the exact same treatment by the exact same type personalities. I personally think these people just simply like to argue for the sake of propping up their own egos. But we must remember, this is the age of the "one-size-fits-all,ten-step program" for solving all your problems. The irony is that there are about a gazillion of these one-size-fits-all, ten-step programs for solving all your problems out there. LOL

But look, if you're one of the aforementioned people and you demand that complainers like myself offer a solution rather than just complain, boy do I have a humdinger for you! It was originally written as a comment to an entry over at Dr. Yeagley's place, but I couldn't get it to post there for some reason so I'm posting it here. But I forewarn you, it ain't no ten-stepper, if that's what you're lookin' for:

TM to Dr. Yeagley:

Dr. Yeagley,

I hope you decide to keep BadEagle.com up and running. As Mike said, we need all the patriots we can get and then some ... now more than ever! Popularity has nothing to do with it, principle has everything to do with it. Genuine Patriots willingly sacrifice themselves in the face of looming danger.

You're right about states' rights. The re-establishment of federalism as a governing principle in America is vital to our ultimate survival. Speaking of which, I think I need to return to my roots; to the fundamentals. It used to be, not so long ago, that I refused to refer to the national government as the "federal government," it being incorrect from a historical and an originalist perspective to refer to the national entity as anything other than just that. Using the term "federal government" is incorrect terminology precisely because there's nothing "federal" about a centralized national government which has more or less destroyed the federal principle in America. It's really a contradiction in terms. The correct denomination for the form of government the (original) U.S. Constitution establishes is a "Federal Representative Republic." Words mean something, and if we don't resolve to use these words properly as they apply to our government, the average American Joe will always associate the word "federal" with the national government, and will continue to operate in a brain dead world in which he has no clue what the founders intended by the term "federal;" he'll never understand the national-federal structure that the constitution establishes, and so on and so forth.

On this idea of secession...

While I think secession is an option which has to remain open to us, it is a last resort option because it means nothing less than all-out civil war. Can you imagine what an all-out 21st Century American civil war would look like?! It would make our other civil war look like child's play. So the secessionist movement (which seems to be gaining some momentum, by the way) in America is, in and of itself, an ill-conceived movement in my opinion. To repeat what's already been said before, "be careful what you wish for." As someone named Jake put it in a comment to a recent LA Times story about the secessionist movement,

"if we could somehow restore to the states enough rights to check the power of the federal government, secession would not be needed."

Jake is on to something here. He realizes that secession has to remain an option -- a last resort option -- to us, but I think I detect in his tone that Jake is effectively saying "there has to be a better way; surely someone knows of a way to restore the federal principle while avoiding the awful spectacle of an American civil war that secession from the union would most definitely bring about."

Happily for all of us there is such an option, a constitutional option, that we've never, as a unified group of states under the banner of a singular purpose, tried before. It's a little gem tucked away in Article V, U.S. Constitution that few Americans even know about. There are two legitimate ways, you see, of proposing amendments to the constitution, either the Congress does it within itself, or, the People do it through their state legislatures. Either way, though, the constitutional prescription must be followed. That simply means, in the latter case, that two thirds of the states must petition Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. In such a case, the language of the article states that the Congress "shall" call a convention. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 85 the language of this method to mean the obvious, that the language is preemtory, that it leaves no discretion to Congress. In other words, if these conditions are met, Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments. I should also clarify that this is not the same thing as calling a "constitutional convention," in which the whole of the constitution would be considered for revision or alteration. It is simply what the language in the article describes it as, a convention for proposing amendments, and if certain of those amendments are adopted by three fourths of the states then they become part of the constitution.

There are several reasons we should advocate for this method, and this method only, of setting our government aright, not the least of which is that it is the only method available to us that would effectively require the sanction of the whole people of the United States and would thus set off a nationwide debate involving all Americans of all ranks who have enough moral fortitude left in them to give a hoot about the life destroying nature of our present government. Many apathetic Americans would thus be aroused to make a contribution to the cause because they would know that their contribution would actually mean something, something significant.

Now, I'm well aware that there's an element out there ('conservatives' in particular) that fears basically any attempt or design to alter or change, or even clarify our constitution, and therefore, in knee-jerk fashion anytime the idea is brought forth, tries to quell it with loud declamations and ominous predictions about what amending the constitution portends. I admit that I'm not real sure what it is these people are trying to conserve. I've shown many many times that the ninth and tenth amendments aren't worth the paper they're written on, thus the U.S. Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on. The ink was barely dry on the fourteenth amendment before the courts began to use it to destroy the last vestiges of freedom left to the states and to the People -- those constitutional rights and principles that the civil war itself did not destroy. I don't know about you and your readers, but I should rather live under a form of government in which I'm relatively sure what the terms and conditions are as opposed to a form of government in which its agents pretend it to be one thing yet is something altogether different in reality.

Let the debate begin...

Now if someone will come along and kindly reduce this solution to ten separate steps under one overarching purpose, then we can have a gazillion and one of these programs in existence. Any of you criticizers, you cynics and detractors out there wanna give 'er a shot, hmmmm? Thought not.

Read More