What is “Government” and How Can it be Understood Rationally

Ever step back and think, “what is this mysterious yet seemingly all-pervading force in our lives we call government?” Oftentimes, we are so conditioned to seeing the workings of “government”, that we fail to see the bigger picture; we fail to see it for what it truly is.

A noted anarchist named Lysander Spooner once wrote a brilliant piece called NO TREASON. No. VI. The Constitution of No Authority., in which he lays out the rational and legal framework for what “government” actually is and can be.

You may think to yourself, “I know what government is, that’s an easy question”; but I trust that you will think differently if you review Lysander Spooner’s work. There are so many aspects of this thing we call “government” that you take for granted as being true and just. Further analysis, using simple basic logic, shows that the accepted logic of what government is and can be, is indeed quite fallacious. In fact, most people haven’t a clue what the government is, why it is here, who is behind it and why.

‎”…Go to A……… B……… [a particular person whom you wish to tax], and say to him that “the government” has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his, that we choose to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of “the government,” and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band). If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards, charge him (in one of our courts) with murder, convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that “our country” is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and “save the country,” cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done, that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore.

It is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And how much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to support “the government,” it needs no further argument to show…”

–Lysander Spooner

If this interests you, I’d encourage you to read the full text, or listen to the audio version of the full text on the player below.

Mo Brooks: Police State Endorsing Lawyer Scum

Saw the following posted recently about an exchange between Mo Brooks and a local liberty activist, the CONgressman is from my district in North Alabama. I have also written to Mo Brooks and received the same kind of crap in response. It looks like this Mo Brooks character is typical sellout lawyer scum.

Hopefully we can oust him in the primaries next time around.

All-

I went to the political get together at the Melting Pot at 5:00 today and Confronted Mo Brooks on why he supported the extension of the Patriot act. Here are my notes from the event:

Mike Ball and Mo Brooks will be at the Holiday Inn in Madison tomorrow (14 May) to speak at the Republican meeting there. The meeting will start with a social at 8:00 and presentation at 9:00. Anyone who wants to ask Mike Ball about why he supports Forever Wild (with its private hunting lodge for state congressmen), or Mo Brooks as to why he supports increasing the debt ceiling or extending the Patriot act can approach them then.

Here is how the conversation went on extending the Patriot Act:

Mo, can you tell me why you supported extending the Patriot Act

I did it to prevent a terrorist nuclear attack on the US. I haven’t seen any data or specifics that indicate that there is a problem with the Act. There is oversight and I have heard of no problems.

Mo, there have been thousands of people that have been monitored and spied upon without a court order, there is no judicial oversight. The vast majority of requests to spy on people are rubber stamped without due cause.

Have you ever heard of anyone being hurt by this? I haven’t.

Mo, people are issued National Security Letters (over 190,000 requests from 2003-2006) that gag them so there cannot be any media coverage of any abuses. If they try to talk to anyone they will be put in prison. Also, under the Patriot act anyone can be imprisoned for an indeterminate time without due process and denied an attorney to represent them.

Someone would have said something if there was a problem.

Mo, that’s what I was saying, people cannot say anything because if they do they can go to prison.

Mo was visibly disturbed that I should question him and it was obvious to me that he did not want to hear any facts that would be contrary to his stance on the issue.

At that point Mo accidentally spilled a drop of chocolate on his shirt, he excused himself to clean his shirt. He stayed at the bar for 3-5 minutes cleaning his shirt, and then he disappeared. After about 20 minutes I figured he was not coming back and I left.

Later he spoke to George and offered to meet George for lunch. I talked to George and I might go with him to continue the conversation. We will see.

We Cannot Have Rights Without the Corresponding Responsibilities

Do you consider yourself a sovereign human being with all of the rights and responsibilities that go along with this? Many of us are quite well versed in our rights, often from an early age; neglected are the responsibilities we must attend to, in order to preserve our rights.

If we fail to attend to our responsibilities, then our liberties are continually at risk and we are in jeopardy of becoming permanently dependent on the shaky infrastructure of state-funded safety nets.

This dependancy can be true whether we are rich, or poor; it is not just for those of us who are on welfare. There are plenty of systems in place in the developed world to allow rich people to be, pretty much, non productive consumers, if they so choose; the same can be said for many of the poorer people.

The many complex and interleaved layers of society, have left room for a good many non-productive activities; it has, in effect, made non-productivity sustainable. The sustainability of this non-productivity, only lasts as long as the layers of society remain in tact and in relative harmony. When this harmony becomes materially interrupted, chaos is likely to result, with a subsequent loss of liberty for the non-prepared among us.

Deep dependency comes at a great cost, for a variety of reasons. When the supply of goods and services, provided by the welfare/warfare state, becomes interrupted; individuals who have become deeply dependent on the layers of society will likely lose their rights very quickly.

Whereas those who are responsible, productive and well prepared, will better maintain those rights; because they will not need to rely so much on outside help from the state. The more layers of state-funded assistance we build; the more people will tend to become complacent and non-productive; further exacerbating the problems our society faces.

Anyone who has ever visited a Native American reservation can attest that the years of U.S. government payments to these individuals, has by and large, not made their lives any better. It has instead made an entire society of, mostly impoverished individuals, dependent on checks from the government; many of whom have barely adequate living conditions. While it was likely a well meaning act to provide these individuals with assistance, it has merely put off the inevitable day, when they will have to figure out their own way of providing a living for themselves.

I want to share with you a podcast by Jack Spirko of thesurvivalpodcast.com, in which he goes into this topic in great detail. He further explains what I have outlined above, as well as what we can do to ensure our rights are protected, whether or not the government is protecting them for us.

Episode-411- Rights – Responsibilities and Dependence

Listen to Survival Podcast Episode #411

Today we discuss the myth of the “safety net” that is touted by the media. In doing so we will come to understand how deep dependence is among both the extremely affluent and extremely poor segments of society. We will go deeper though and come to understand how the disconnect between rights and responsiblities are the root of the program.

Join me today as we discuss…

• Free medical care is not enough – wait till you hear this!
• Want a free cell phone get on Medicaid, Section 8, etc. yes it is true
• What the Medicaid program shows us about what will come from Government Health Care
• Why in the future the sheeple who resisted the “Public Option” will beg for it
• People in NYC who use ovens and refrigerators for closets – yes really!
• The full court media press against “states rights”
• The lies about states rights and when the Federal Government is required to intervene
• Why each “right” must come with responsibilities
• What responsibilities come with the “right to life”
• What responsibilities come with the “right to liberty”
• What responsibilities come with the “right to the pursuit of happiness”
• Why understanding responsibilities and rights leads automatically to preparedness

Why Healthcare is not a Right

Here is an interesting interview in which Congressman Ron Paul is asked about his notion that healthcare, as well as other goods and services are not rights. He explains this in detail and shows that making goods and services “rights” violates the rights of others; because the government has to take from somebody else in order to hand out goods and services to people who don’t have them. Taking of goods and services from one person to give to another is not the hallmark of a free society.

RT: “You’ve said before that you feel that healthcare is not a right. Can you justify that?”

Ron Paul: “I think very easily: you have a right to your life, you have a right to your liberty and you ought to have a right to keep what you earn in a free country; but you don’t have a right to ‘stuff’. You don’t have a right to services or things like a house or a job; because, in order to get that, the government would have to take it from somebody else.

If somebody claims you have the right to a car and they don’t have one and the government gives them a car; they have to take the money or the car from someone else, so it’s a contradiction in terms. If somebody claims that they have a right to something; they have to violate somebody else’s right.

So the most you can expect in a free society is for the government to make an attempt at protecting rights, not to try to redistribute wealth; if you do that, all people lose their rights.”

Ron Paul: “…What I’ve tried to do in the past is offer something that would replace government programs; because there’s lots of ways you can deliver services and good other than through government mandates and government spending; because inevitably that fails…”

TSA Wants Kids and Grandmas Naked

John Tate | Campaign for Liberty

After a lone Nigerian would-be terrorist tried to detonate explosives in his underclothes Christmas Day on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, TSA immediately grabbed for even more invasive power over American citizens.

Most disturbingly, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) wants to implement full-body scans at the nation’s airports-allowing unelected bureaucrats to virtually strip-search and gawk at kids, moms, grandmothers, grandfathers — you and all other American passengers — through your clothes.

Predictably, misinformation on the graphic nature of the images and ability of TSA personnel to copy, photo, and save the images poured forth from TSA flaks.

I have included direct contact information for the TSA at the end of this post. Call them today and let them know how disgusted you are with their latest plan to invade our privacy.

It’s a peeping tom’s dream, and a nightmare for those of us who believe in the great American principles of liberty, restrained government, and privacy.

Unless we stop this outrage, TSA agents will be snooping at the undergarments of such “threats” as American kids, grandmothers, and grandfathers. And if you or they refuse? You will be physically searched by TSA employees just like a criminal after being arrested.

The TSA’s dirty little secret is the agency has been pushing for full-body imaging since 2002 and even introduced the technology at a handful of airports in 2007-without ensuring that passengers knew they were being watched in this manner.

As Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said, “Nobody needs to see my wife and kids naked to secure an airplane.”

Despite self-serving assurances from the TSA, these full-body scans are an unconstitutional, unacceptable intrusion into the privacy of American passengers nationwide.

Last year, Campaign for Liberty Director of Development Steve Bierfeldt sued the TSA for detaining him for carrying cash. Because Steve so strongly stood up to them, the TSA backed down from its unconstitutional searches of passengers’ non-terrorism-related property.

But such victories for liberty are rare in today’s America and must be fought for by a vigilant public jealous of its liberty.

We now risk losing the gains we have made against the surveillance state, all because of the “systemic failure” of the federal government-as Obama himself called it. Now the TSA wants to know far more about us than just the amount of cash we’re carrying.

Use the numbers below to contact them today as we show the TSA that the freedom movement will not sit idly by in this fight.

Just as Big Brother advocates jumped on the intelligence failure of 9/11 to nationalize airport security, they once again want to use their own failure as an excuse for more power.

But we know that this latest move will not keep us safe. So far, it has been passengers and flight crew who have stopped such incidents as this and the attempted “shoebombing” of December 2001.

They can keep stripping away our privacy and liberty, all to foil the last attack, but the terrorists will continue to circumvent any of their freedom-crushing “security” measures.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano has explained, “Airline travel is safer today because pilots have guns, cockpit doors are like bank vaults, and the passengers have become courageous. All this was done by individuals in the private sector, not by the government. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if the feds had not stripped us of our natural rights to keep ourselves safe-by keeping and bearing arms-9/11 would never have happened.”

If we want to diminish the threat of terrorism and fly more safely, we can restore the Second Amendment, hand airline security back to the private sector, and end our government’s policy of foreign interventionism.

Contact the TSA’s “Office of Civil Rights” by phone toll free at 1-877-EEO-4-TSA (1-877-336-4872) or (800) 877-8339 (TTY) and by email at TSA-ContactCenter@dhs.gov.

Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Let us do our part to show Washington and the TSA that Americans not only deserve and want both, but that we will not stop until our privacy and all our other freedoms are secure.

On the Misguided Agenda of the Leftists

One of the biggest problems in America today derives from the fact that most of the people, from the boomer generation on, haven’t a clue of the purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America. They tremble in fear at the thought of law abiding citizens possessing guns; while they have no objection at the 100,000+ federal government officials who have guns and use them to compel people to conform to questionable laws, which often undermine the Constitution and the protections afforded to the individual under law.

The original purpose of the second amendment was to protect the individual from possible tyranny of the Congress. If you need any confirmation of what happens when the people are disarmed; just look at Iran, China and the U.K. In all of these situations the people are severely limited in their ability to exercise free speech; their liberties are also curtailed to such an extent that life has become quite difficult to live without government intrusion.

Indeed, we are headed in the same direction as the countries mentioned in the United States of America; but I firmly believe the pace is slowed and the lines are drawn, by the fact that the citizenry are well armed and there is a facet of the population, however small, who understands the need to safeguard liberty from all enemies foreign and domestic.

The fact is, these leftists (and there are leftists on both sides of the aisle), while they may be well meaning in many cases; they are undoing what took centuries of struggle and bloodshed to achieve. If only they would read and understand the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the other writings of the founding fathers; they wouldn’t dare attempt to curtail liberty and build a larger and more invasive government.

Alas, they do not understand the protections afforded to an individual, or the reason for them; they are content in their self-righteous crusade to abolish the protection of the individual by undermining the original intent of the founders of the republic. I find it truly disheartening to see intelligent people supporting universal health care, gun controls, cap and trade energy taxes and the like; I know from these policies that they have not a shred of understanding of why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were authored; or why the founding members of our society sought to fight off the influence of the red coats.

My suggestion to leftists who don’t care for the original intend of the Bill of Rights, is to spend some time in countries where there are no protections for individuals; in fact, move there if you like tyranny so much.  Instead of trashing the liberties and the economy of the last great stronghold of liberty, just move to a place that has already been sacked like England, where you can be watched from dawn ’till dusk on CCTV cameras and you can wait months to get treatments using the “free” health care.

The Liberal Fear of Guns

By Jacob Hornberger | Campaign For Liberty

Liberal columnist David Sirota is scared, and he believes that the First Amendment is intended to eliminate his fear. In a column entitled “Freedom from Fear — and the Second Amendment,” Sirota argues that because some people get scared when they see guns and think that the gun owner is going to shoot them if they say the wrong thing, the Second Amendment is a threat to the First Amendment. Read the rest of this entry »

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Alaska Governor Palin Asserts Sovreignty Under Tenth Amendment

If you watched the post-election interview with Greta Van Susteren, you’ve seen that Sarah Palin is actually nothing like the scripted persona often smeared by the media. In my view, this image of Palin was carefully cultivated to throw the election towards Barrack Obama.

What we have here, is an example of a growing trend of states re-asserting their Tenth Amendment Constitutional rights. Despite Washington DC’s effort to be the dictators of our everyday lives, their efforts will ultimately flounder.

They will fail because they cannot finance their spending spree, in any practical sense. Their lack of foresight will cause the dollar to fail. Once the dollar is finally demolished, I forsee the Federal Empire crumbling and a fracture into smaller centers of power; perhaps it will be the states who absorb the governing authorities.

In my view, a Tenth Amendment revolution is the best possible outcome. We don’t need these out of control dictators in the District of Columbia anymore than I need a hole in my head.

Palin to feds: Alaska is sovereign state

Constitutional rights reasserted in growing resistance to Washington

By Chelsea Schilling | World Net Daily

Gov. Sarah Palin has signed a joint resolution declaring Alaska’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution – and now 36 other states have introduced similar resolutions as part of a growing resistance to the federal government.

Just weeks before she plans to step down from her position as Alaska governor, Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Kelly on July 10, according to a Tenth Amendment Center report. The resolution “claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

Alaska’s House passed HJR 27 by a vote of 37-0, and the Senate passed it by a vote of 40-0.

According to the report, the joint resolution does not carry with it the force of law, but supporters say it is a significant move toward getting their message out to other lawmakers, the media and grassroots movements.

Alaska’s resolution states:

Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

Be it further resolved that this resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

While seven states – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their legislatures pass similar decrees, Alaska Gov. Palin and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen are currently the only governors to have signed their states’ sovereignty resolutions.

The resolutions all address the Tenth Amendment that says: “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.”

The Tenth Amendment Center also reported that Florida State Sen. Carey Baker, R-Eustis, introduced a memorial earlier this month urging “Congress to honor the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and United States Supreme Court case law which limit the scope and exercise of federal power.”

“Now more than ever, state governments must exercise their Constitutional right to say no to the expansion of the federal government’s reckless deficit spending and abuse of power,” Sen. Baker said. “With this resolution, our Legislature can send a message to Washington that our state’s rights must be respected.”

The full text of Florida’s memorial is available on the Tenth Amendment Center website.

As WND reported, South Carolina’s proposal, S. 424, is titled: “To affirm South Carolina’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution.”

Essentially it’s a reminder that the United States is made up of individual states; it’s not a federal authority broken up into political subdivisions.

In South Carolina, the proposals remains pending in the state Senate, where Sen. Lee Bright said he still hopes that it will be adopted this year.

The proposal there notes specifically that the “federal government was created by the states … to be an agent of the states,” and the states currently “are treated as agents of the federal government,” many times in violation of the Constitution.

Bright told WND the movement is spreading from state to state as fast as lawmakers discover it.

Michael Boldin, a spokesman for the Tenth Amendment Center, said his organization has created a posting for all such proposals to be tracked.

Among the states where such proposals at least have been considered are Louisiana, Colorado, Wisconsin, Florida, Illinois, West Virginia, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Nevada, Oregon, Alabama, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia, Kentucky, Alaska, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Minnesota, South Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Texas, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Missouri, Iowa, Montana, Michigan, Arizona, Washington and Oklahoma.

In Louisiana, it passed the Senate in May and the House in June.

In Idaho, it passed the House in March and the Senate in April.

In North Dakota, it passed the House and Senate both in April, with the House a short time later adopting changes made by the Senate.

In South Dakota, it was approved by both houses of the Legislature and under that state’s rules does not need the governor’s signature.

In May, Rep. M.J. “Manny” Steele, a Republican in South Dakota, wrote that he believes up to $11 trillion is being wasted in the coming years by Washington’s efforts “to duplicate and micromanage our states’ affairs.”

He said states should manage their own affairs and not be dependent on a federal cash cow to make ends meet. Likewise with industries, he said, citing federal cash dumps on the banking, insurance and automobile industries.

Steele told WND his dollar estimate was based on what President Obama himself has allocated in the coming years to spend on stimulus packages, industry bailouts and the like.

“If we would just let the market take care of these things,” he said.

His letter noted that Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Carolina legislatures joined South Dakota’s in passing some statement on the Tenth Amendment this year. The results vary based on state procedures, however. In Oklahoma, the governor vetoed the plan and it was launched on its second trip through the legislature and has been passed by the House.

“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.,” Steele said. “Federal usurpation into state affairs severely limits the ability of state governments to operate according to their citizens’ wishes.”

We’re All Terrorists Now

Edgar J. Steele | NickelRant.com | March 25, 2009

MP3 Audio: Listen to the Entire Broadcast

“The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.”
— Woodrow Wilson (Speech in New York, September 9, 1912)

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
— H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

We’ve come through the Looking Glass. On this side, however, is Wonderland with a decidedly Orwellian twist.

The Red Queen has morphed into a Marxist President (still red and still in charge, though).

The Mad Hatter is Little Timmy Geithner, wannabe Treasury Czar of the World, whose Tea Party is hosted on Wall Street while other “tea parties” are convened by patriots throughout America in response.

The maddening Cheshire Cat is our media, with that smile conveying nothing but misdirection and gibberish.

“Some are more equal than others,” said Orwell through his piggy little Animal Farm overseer. We know who are the “others.” Thee and me, of course. For extra points, guess who are the “some” of whom Orwell wrote.

Painting the Roses Red

“We’re painting the roses red,” sang the playing-card soldiers when asked by Alice why they were drenching all the white roses in the kingdom with bright red paint. All the minions of the new Administration are busy repainting roses throughout America.

However, as observed by Shakespeare, “What is in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Bush’s policies still are the same, regardless of the spin now being accorded them by the Obamatrons. We’re still in Iraq. Gitmo still is in business. America’s southern border still is wide open. The Bush bailouts continue unabated, but now are on steroids.

It’s enough to make your head spin, isn’t it?

Each week brings a fresh batch of outrageous events and news items that further marginalize an ever-growing percentage of Americans. Last week brought a bumper crop, headed by an incredible document leaked by someone in the Missouri police bureaucracy. Entitled “The Modern Militia Movement,” the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) document popped up on Alex Jones’ web site and promptly sent shock waves throughout the patriot community.

You’re a Terrorist Now

Have you ever supported in any way Republican Ron Paul of Texas? How about last year’s Libertarian Party Presidential candidate, Bob Barr? Or the Constitution Party’s Presidential candidate, Chuck Baldwin? According to MIAC, you are a “militia-influenced terrorist.” Yep, you heard me right. You are a terrorist. Look, I couldn’t just make up stuff as outlandish as is this sort of thing. Truth continues to be stranger than fiction. We’re painting the roses red.

Better go scrape that bumper sticker off your car, because MIAC specifically identifies it as evidence that you should be watched and approached with caution. MIAC is just one of 58 “fusion centers” funded throughout America by the federal Department of Homeland Security with over a quarter-billion dollars, tasked with identifying “potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations” (per the MIAC web site) in America.

Are you opposed to the coming North American Union (NAU), whereby America is subsumed within a new government encompassing all of North America? How about the New World Order (NWO), whereby America surrenders her Constitution altogether in favor of becoming just another cog in a world government? Speak out against either the NAU or the NWO in any way and you are a terrorist, says MIAC, courtesy of your tax dollars spent in its support. Read the rest of this entry »

On Liberty and Life

We must maintain our liberties. We must fight corruption wherever it lie. We must help others to realize that the Constitution of the united States of America must remain true to its original intent.

Our predecessors fought off the forces of the British crown, while our contemporaries kneel down and kiss their rings. They wrongly confiscate our monies through “income taxes” and “inflation,” then send it to the wall-street elite, who cannot produce anything of real value.

This America of today is overrun with minions, doing the bidding of the king. Grateful to him as they beg him to relinquish every liberty and every form of real wealth they hold dear. If there isn’t a real change, some day in the near future, we may find that all of our choices are made by the ruling government authorities; and we are not able to venture off on our own and live the way we choose.

We’re losing a little each day, of what made us a great people. The saddest part is the mind numbing complacency, as the people of today watch it all go away; seldom a word is said in condemnation.

The solution to this dilemma is quite simple, we needn’t fear nor hide. All we must do is uphold the Constitutional values of our founders, and realize that liberty lives in each of us; as we are the sole enforcers of the Constitutional law that forms the foundation of our people.

The meaning of the Constitution was never meant to be decided by an elite court, a president, or a body of politicians. The meaning is plain and clear, on the document itself. It defines the role of government and how we can best conduct our affairs, to ensure the protection of the individual, above all; not special groups or professions.

So, it is incumbent upon us all, to enforce the Constitution, by refusing to go along with corrupt practices, that violate these founding principles.

At one time men would die for liberty. Did it ever occur to us today, to gain an understanding, of why the preservation of liberty is so essential?

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

Listen to the Audio Version of this Speech

March 23, 1775
By Patrick Henry

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it. Read the rest of this entry »