From My Vantage Point

Government versus Private Business

2009-08-15T08:08:00.000-07:00

After reading Lew Rockwell’s column about Obama comparing his proposed health care plan to the postal service, I got to thinking about other government services that do not compare to the same services provided by the private sector. Rockwell, in his article, compared how hard work on the part of such as UPS and FedEx have allowed them to succeed, while continued government subsidizing has caused a repeated loss at the USPS, and that the USPS has not allowed any competition to its “right” to deliver first class mail.

What services that the government provides are better than a private option?

To begin with, one would say that the military could not operate without government help, but I would argue that it is because of government help that the military operates at a handicap. If left to only those who are trained military minds, the efficiency of the military would far exceed what it does now, as would the cost of that military. There would be no tiptoeing in places such as Viet Nam and today, Afghanistan. With military minds completely running the show, leaving government diplomacy out of the picture, we would have probably already captured Osama bin Laden with nowhere near the losses we now have suffered. In fact, with only military minds running the military, we probably wouldn’t have gotten involved in some of the conflicts that we have. Government intervention has only slowed the progress of the military in achieving its goal of winning the battle, regardless the cost to the enemy. I can only imagine how the Revolutionary War would have gone if diplomats, instead of George Washington, were in charge of it. We would still be speaking with a British accent.

What about domestic police protection, you might ask. You say we couldn’t get by without government providing us police protection. I agree, we need police protection to keep the weak from becoming prey to the unscrupulous strong, but it is government intervention in this area that has weakened the ability of law enforcement to do the job they are trained to do. Again, if only experienced law enforcement people were making the rules, there would be no need for Miranda laws that keep so many guilty from being punished. Reasonable force would not be looked upon as police brutality, and police would not be afraid to do their jobs out of fear of being sued or losing their jobs. Imagine Elliot Ness and his group being limited to what they could do in the twenties. We would still have Al Capone types running things in Chicago and New York. Oh wait, we do have, only now they are in government.

Government can only continue to operate like it does, at a loss, because it can do to the people what it would not allow the people to do to themselves. It steals from them, not at gunpoint, but by making laws that allow them to extort from us nearly half of our earnings, if we have any earnings, to pay for their programs and support their losses. It takes from those who are willing to work for a living and gives what it takes to those who are not. It votes itself raises each year without asking if they are affordable. Imagine, at your workplace, that you were able to tell your bosses that you were going to take a raise without their approval. Do you think you would get the raise? You would be lucky to keep your job in the real world; that is the real world without government interference. Government legislation today would not allow your employer to fire you unless there was some sort of reason that they approve of. Otherwise, your employer could be sued and suffer great losses by edict of some government court system.

What about your company retirement plan, is it as good as what government people give themselves, at our expense? Where can you find a job where you can work for two years or so and get a retirement plan that will pay you an amount equal to your yearly salary when you leave that job? And that’s for life, not just a couple of years. How long would your own retirement plan remain solvent with a plan like that?

Public service was originally designed to be just that, service, not a career choice. Citizen government was what the founders had in mind. They would not recognize the length of “service” by the likes of John Dingell, Robert Byrd, or Ted Kennedy, to name but three. Stromm Thurmond would have been put out to pasture long before he turned one hundred. Most who began this country would not have considered serving in their positions for more than one term. In the first place, it didn’t pay well enough to make it a full time job, and they already had full time jobs at home. Most were either businessmen or farmers whose business and farms required their attention, and they were only giving their time for a limited period. Those early founders would not have considered a career in politics possible. Things sure have changed, but not for the better.

Secession Myths Busted

2009-08-11T20:23:00.000-07:00

The following is reprinted from the Texas Nationalist Movement website

1. The entire question of secession was settled during the Civil War.

Myth Busted - the application of Federal military might to invade, occupy and forcibly repatriate the Southern states in no way answered the legal question of the legality of secession. In point of fact it can rightly be argued that the Federal government exceeded its delegated powers by using force against a the states.

2. Secession is the same as revolution and revolutions always mean bloodshed.

Myth Busted - A revolution is a change in government, secession is merely a separation of governments, a divorce or a dissolution of a compact.

3. No state have ever seceded anywhere in the world.

Myth Busted - recent examples would include, Montenegro, Lithuania, Estonia, All of the former Soviet Republics, and even Scotland regained some of her sovereignty in 1999 (something she lost in 1805)

4. If one or more of the various states secedes it will likely end up no better than a third world country, isolated, alone and poor.

Myth Busted - Not true, a free Alaska would be Saudi Arabia with snow, California would be the world's 7th largest economy. Other states would of their own choosing form trade alliances and various confederations or even federal unions. The point is these would be on their terms, governemnt of and by the people.

5. The United States was born on the 4th of July 1776, a state has no right to leave.

Myth Busted - The United States was not born in 1776, that was thirteen free and independent colonies shedding the yoke of imperialism. The United States was born with the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, its parents being the free and independent states.

6. If a state were to leave the Union it would mean war, the Federal government would never allow it.

Myth Busted - This myth plays right into the very notion of tyranny and governmental control. If the Federal government were to invade a state seeking to establish self-determination using the very same justification found in the Declaration of Independence would that act in and of itself not be enough to convict the Federal government of tyranny? Governments are supposed to do what the people allow, not the other way around.

7. Secession is treason, secessionist are traitors.

Myth Busted - The love of one's state is not treason, loyalty to one's home is not treason. The belief in government of and by the people is not treason. The belief in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution reserving all rights not specifically delegated to the Federal government to the States and People is not treason. Tyranny, oppression and perversion and usurpation of the Constitution is treasonous.

*This document courtesy of the American Secession Project

The Case For American Secession

2009-08-11T20:02:00.000-07:00

The following is a reprint of an article written by Kirkpatrick Sale of the Midlebury Institute, and taken from the Texas Nationalist Movement website

The Case for American Secession
By Kirkpatrick Sale of the Midlebury Institute

(Chronicles magazine, November 2005)

*rehosted here with the express permission of Mr. Sale

There has always been talk about secession in this country by those variously disgruntled on both the right and left, but since the last Presidential election, which showed great and deep-seated divisions in American society on a variety of fundamental issues, that talk has grown exponentially. I would not argue that it will actually lead to a dissolution of this nation into separate states or regions or confederacies, but that is not by any means inconceivable, and I would say that the issue should be taken seriously and examined carefully.

The first question to be asked, and it is not a frivolous one, is whether secession is legal—whether the Constitution can be read, and history cited, as permitting (or at least not forbidding) a state to declare its independence from the Union. Scholars have come down on both sides of this issue, but that fact alone suggests that there is a legitimate argument to be made. To put it simply:

The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the U.S. to the states or the people, so states may act unless specifically prohibited. The Constitution in fact says nothing about secession, and as Confederate states were seceding Congress considered an amendment forbidding secession, which means that the principle wasn’t there in the first place. Three of the original thirteen states (Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia) kept an explicit right to secede when they joined the Union, and since that was never challenged of questioned it must be a right that all states enjoy. And in the 19th century, before South Carolina began the bandwagon of secession in 1860, seven states (Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Georgia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Vermont) enacted acts of nullification—meaning their refusal to recognize some or all of the powers of the national government—without any retaliation by Washington.

Of course Lincoln’s government acted as if secession were illegal and unconstitutional, and its victory established the practical case, operable to this day, that states will be punished if they try to secede, and the Constitution is irrelevant. But it did not establish a legal case, and the legal (not to mention moral) argument for the right to secede remains strong. So strong that even if it were denied in the U.S. courts it would likely be defended in the court of world opinion by many of the world’s nations, including those in the European Union and those that have recently exerted that right (in the former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, for example). And that might make it difficult for the Federal government to act against a state that has voted for secession, particularly if there were no overriding moral issues (a la slavery) and the state proved agreeable to negotiation over Federal property and assets within its boundaries.

Even accepting that, a second question arises over whether a Federal government could allow a state or especially a group of states to secede, regardless of rights, if it threatened the sovereignty and power of the remaining nation. Washington might not want to let California go, as much as the neocons might like it, for fear that Cascadia (Oregon and Washington) and New England (and who knows how many disgruntled others?) would follow suit. If it still had the military means and the loyalty of the remaining troops, it might be expected to contrive a way (a Gulf of Tonkin or WMD excuse) to justify the invasion of a secessionist nation.

And yet, and yet. It is hard to think that a Federal government would actually command its troops to mow down Los Angelenos and San Franciscans the way they do the innocents of Falluja and Najaf, or withstand the barrage of criticism, domestic and international, if it did; such an act would more likely propel additional secessions than gain support. It is harder still to think that the troops would actually carry out such an order, killing (ex)Americans on (ex)American territory. And if the troops did actually succeed in conquering and occupying an independent state, the population would be virtually uncontrollable—if it is not possible to win the hearts and minds of Vietnamese and Iraqis by invasion, think how much less possible it would be to win over people who had voted for secession with the full knowledge that it might lead to war,

It is not fantastic, then, to imagine that instead of a futile war Washington would be willing to negotiate a settlement, in the hopes that, by giving concessions on autonomy and self-regulation, say, and by demonstrating the extent of the Federal dollars lost, it could win a secessionist state back into the Union. In some cases that might well happen, and if it failed it would at least show a government intelligent and confident enough to act as a future ally rather than a marauding warmonger. And as an ally, it might be able to establish diplomatic and trade ties that would allow it to still use such resources and talents of the new state as it wanted, perhaps even the bases it had previously used. With the additional benefit of no longer having to maintain Federal offices, regulators, highways, parks, dams, and such, and even presumably with a negotiated fee in compensation for these lost assets.

There is another strategy that a Federal government determined to squash secession might take, involving no troops, no war, nothing but a few phonecalls. Washington might put pressure on large chain operations—Wal-Mart, Target, McDonald’s, General Motors, Gannett, and many others—to cease doing business in the secessionist state, lest the Feds make things difficult for them in all the others. And unless the secession is so widespread that more states are out than in, a highly unlikely outcome, the corporations will comply and shut down and withdraw their businesses in the independent state.

Would that—or even the threat of that—cut the legs out from under a secessionist state and force it to come crawling back to the Union? I think not, for several reasons.

First, a seceding state would have to be, and would want to be, in great measure self-sufficient, providing for itself those goods and services it could not trade for with the outside world. Like Japan historically, and a number of other new states, it would create a phenomenon that Jane Jacobs has called “import replacement,” the building of bicycles at home, recycling the metals and materials from the dumps and by the wayside, instead of buying them from abroad. It would certainly not be able to offer bikes for sale as cheaply as Wal-Mart does, at least at first, but it would put many more people to work per bike than Wal-Mart, and strengthen its economy in ways that would eventually enable its people to buy the more expensive product. Imagine this going on for a host of other goods across the state, replacing those that can be made by intelligent recycling and manufacturing, refitting and reusing others, developing hand crafts as a substitute for machinery to create others, refusing to make those that are pointless, wasteful, environmentally harmful, or costly, and foregoing many that turn out after a while to be neither necessary nor desirable. Wal-Mart would not only not be missed, it would be seen as having been a foolish enterprise that foisted too much needless “stuff,” in too many useless varieties, of too shoddy a manufacture, with too much added-in transportation costs, on a gullible and malleable public.

And if the citizens of the new state really missed some big chain store and couldn’t work out a replacement, they would stoically bear that burden as good and loyal patriots.

A second reason that the economic threat would not have much force is that the new state might well start out with more money in its coffers because it would not have to pay Federal income, gasoline, telephone, and other taxes; seventeen states (twelve of them “blue,” interestingly enough) now pay more to the Federal government than they get back in Federal benefits. California, for example, got back just 78 cents in benefits for every dollar it sent to Washington in 2003 (according to the Tax Foundation), and as the independent Republic of California would thereby have an extra 22 cents in its pocket for every dollar—that would have meant, in 2004, that the citizens would have $88,000,000 lying around that wouldn’t be going to Washington and they could use for local projects. Sounds like a pretty nice cushion to me.

Of course not every state is California, and the attempt at some sort of economic independence would work out differently in different places—and if it looked like a state couldn’t be on its own economically it would be very foolish to launch a secessionist movement. But a great many states in this country could be economically viable on their own, with arrangements that would let them trade with outside nations, including the U.S. and Canada. Besides, the necessity of economic survival is a very fertile mother, and like many small nations an independent state could find ways of making itself useful in the economic world; indeed some of the richest nations—Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Cayman Islands, Iceland, Belgium, San Marino, and Singapore, for example—are some of the smallest, and that’s leaving aside the Persian Gulf oil states.

The last reason for being optimistic about small-state viability, and the nullity of the Wal-Mart strategy, has to be put in the context of the economic future of the United States. I happen to be among the growing band of people who believe that there will be extremely difficult times ahead, and in the nearer rather than farther future, as a combination of crises and calamities pushes us to a completely new kind of society. They include the dwindling of cheap oil supplies (which already seems to have begun) and skyrocketing gasoline prices, the collapse of the value of the dollar from the spiraling trade deficit and national debt, the bursting of the real estate bubble, the effect of global warming on agriculture and fisheries, the rise of sea levels, the spread of diseases old and new, the increase in severe weather (of which Katrina is a foretaste), the diminution of fresh water, the exhaustion of tropical forests, the erosion of arable soils, the continued pollution of air and water, the depletion of mineral resources, and the whole impact of human activity on the global environment (“Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted”: Ecosystem Millennium Assessment, March 2005).

As a result of all that—or indeed of any of several parts of that—the national economy will have to transform itself. It will in fact be less a national than a local economy, particularly as gasoline supplies diminish and become prohibitively expensive and the dollar becomes an increasingly irrelevant measure of worth. James Howard Kunstler, whose new book The Long Emergency is about the likelihood of just such a future, writes that it

will require us to downscale and re-scale virtually everything we do and how we do it, from the kind of communities we physically inhabit to the way we

grow our food to the way we work and trade the products of our work….Anything

organized on the large scale, whether it is government or a corporate business enterprise such as Wal-Mart, will wither as the cheap energy props that support bigness fall away.

And then a small independent state, which can be more or less buffered from the national emergency and dependent on a relatively self-sufficient economy, makes a lot of sense.

Which might be the best argument for secession right there. If the future is going to be anything like what we alarmists are saying, there would seem to be a need to establish small-scale institutions and enterprises and trading circles as soon as possible, along with revivified community enterprises and cottage craftsmanship, and a statewide level suggests itself as the appropriate scale. And if that can be done in connection with political and cultural independence, such economic independence makes a powerful and attractive package. More than that, perhaps a necessary one.

Necessary, and, I want to argue, desirable. This country simply is not working right—as both the war in Iraq and the bumbling of Katrina (at all levels) make clear—and its corruption and inefficiency are harmful to the bulk of the population. The Federal government, aside from being bureaucracy-bound and politically hamstrung, is too big and complicated and inherently incompetent, and its attempt to provide for 280 million people and maintain a global empire of 725 military bases has proved to be impossible, placing terrible political and financial burdens on everyone. Secession would allow populations to escape this Leviathan, keep its human and financial resources from going down that rathole, avoid association with the failed politics of an ugly empire, and set its own policies (on same-sex marriage, abortion, stem-cell research, and so on) without interference from a distant central government increasingly in the hands of corporate interests and right-wing ideologues. It would allow a blue state a chance to escape from the policies and culture of a red-state government and set its own course. It would, in short, allow people to leave the country they dislike without leaving the homes they cherish. What could make more sense?

Kirkpatrick Sale - is the author of thirteen books, including Human Scale and Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision (University of Georgia Press). He is a founder and director of The Middlebury Institute for “the study of separatism, secession, and self-determination.”

MEDICAL CARE AND CAR CARE

2009-07-21T10:10:00.000-07:00

Like caring for your family sedan is necessary in order to keep it running right, caring for your individual health is also required in order to enjoy the benefits of life. Sometimes it is necessary to take your car to an experienced mechanic to fix a problem that you can’t deal with personally, and it is also necessary to visit a medical professional on occasion in order to solve a problem that you have little or no knowledge about.

By doing regular upkeep, like oil changes and some lubrication, changing spark plugs when necessary, or replacing a fan belt or radiator hose, maintaining a good finish on the exterior of the car, keeping tires inflated to the proper pressure, and numerous other small but necessary jobs, an individual can avoid taking his car to the dealer or mechanic, thus saving money that is needed elsewhere.

The dealer or mechanic will still have all of the work they can handle with major things like engine overhauls, body and fender repair, transmission replacements, and other major problems that the average car owner either can’t do or doesn’t have the tools for. It is required, in order to stay in business, that the dealers or mechanics charge a fee that allows them a profit so that they will be there the next time you need their services, plus allow them to make a decent living.

Medical care works pretty much on the same order. Much of what the medical profession treats today are regular maintenance problems that could have and should have been taken care of by the individual. In the same manner as not abusing your car and expecting it to continue to perform as advertised, an individual cannot continue to abuse his or her body and expect it to continue to function as designed by our Creator. There are some things that require the need of a professional human being mechanic; that is one who works on the problems of our bodies that we can’t work on ourselves. Like the mechanic or dealer who must make a profit in order to be there when we really need them, the medical professionals also need to show a profit in order to be there when needed.

We are now told that we must have universal health care, meaning in reality, universal medical care, since health care is your responsibility, not your doctor’s. We are told that everybody must have this universal coverage or be fined.

When someone is forced to take on something that they don’t want, like medical coverage insurance, there is a very real possibility that it is going to be over used and abused. Doctors and hospitals will be even more overwhelmed than they now are, and care will be diminished while costs will necessarily rise for the service. Rising costs do not mean that hospitals and doctors will be reimbursed accordingly, as the cost for each procedure will be determined by the medical care provider; our loving government.

If the same applied to your auto mechanic, and he could not charge the rates necessary to maintain a profit, he would soon go out of business, leaving you to look for another mechanic. The same situation will apply to hospitals and doctors when they cannot maintain a profit. Those now studying to be doctors will choose some other field instead, and hospitals overcome with increasing costs and no way to cover them, will have to close.

Also, imagine that when your neighbor takes his car to the dealer or a mechanic for a service that once cost one hundred dollars, and now there was a law that said that service would only be compensated for to the tune of fifty dollars by the government plan, and on top of that, you would have to chip in to pay for your neighbor’s service. Would you stand for that? I think not, so why should you stand for the same circumstance in the medical care business?

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, an old saying tells us, but even though the system may be in need of repair to some degree, central government is breaking it even more, making it totally unusable for all.

SOME QUESTIONS CONCERNING SECESSION

2009-07-18T12:06:00.000-07:00

There are those involved in the secession movements, who have some legitimate concerns that will need to be answered. I don’t pretend to have all of the answers, but I will share my opinion with you.

I recently heard back from a gentleman who is the West Texas State Director for the Patriotic Resistance Movement. He is not for secession because he feels it would cause an influx to Texas from other states that would not choose secession, and he probably has a legitimate concern. However, those who would come to Texas would be productive people who want to keep more of what they would earn, while at the same time, we would be witnessing an exodus from Texas of those who do not believe in secession and those who choose to live off of the welfare state. I see no down side to this.

Another concern I have seen quite a lot is wondering how those now on Social Security would continue to be compensated if we secede. Another legitimate concern; but let’s examine it more closely.

Today there are countless Americans living on Social Security who chose to make their homes in other countries, because American dollars go further than the local monetary unit. Americans now eligible for Social Security who chose to live in the Republic of Texas should, and probably would be no different. That said, Social Security is on a schedule to go bankrupt by around 2017. That being the case, the point seems to be moot. With the current loss of jobs in the US now, fewer workers are still left to contribute to the Social Security funding, which will probably hasten the demise of the system, as well as Medicare.

That’s another concern; medical coverage. As already mentioned, Medicare is on the rocks and will probably go down with or before Social Security, so it cannot be depended on anyway. If Obama’s health care plan gets voted in, those in the top earning bracket will be taxed an additional 5.4% to pay for it. How long would you expect the top earners to stay in a United States that is sucking their lives away? They would probably come to Texas, or some other state that secedes from Washington, bringing their productive ability with them, creating more jobs for Texans and more income which will make health care more within the reach of all Texans. (Or to which ever seceded state they chose to migrate.)

I know there are other concerns, such as security; but let’s face facts. Under the current system we have no security on our borders now, and at least we could enforce the southern border protection against violation. Texas’ National Guard is not a federal force, but under the control of the Governor of Texas, and would be under the control of the leaders of the new republic. We would have a force equal to or larger than most of the nations of the world. I don’t think we would see an attack by what ever is left of the United States military once secession take hold. I doubt if there would be much cooperation from members of the military now, to invade a state that elects to secede.

For the most part, I see little downside and many benefits to any state seceding from Washington, especially in today’s climate. Washington will eventually implode under its own weight, and I see no reason for freedom loving Americans from which ever state, to go along with the self destruction.

IT'S BROKE AND IT CAN'T BE FIXED

2009-07-14T20:57:00.000-07:00

What do you do if you have something that is broken beyond repair; say a computer or television set that would cost much more to repair than a new one sells for? I know what I would do. I would toss it out and buy the newer model that is not only cheaper, but works much better to boot.

We have such a situation now in Washington DC. We have a federal or central government that is broken beyond repair. The big problem is that we cannot toss it out. We have tried that in the past and it doesn’t work; at least we have replaced some of the defective parts only to find that the parts we put in were just as defective as the parts we threw out.

So what is the answer to fixing the broken government? I don’t think there is one. Some of us have tried to get our state governments to use the powers granted to them by the U.S. Constitution, and invoke the tenth amendment, but that is seemingly going nowhere.

There are some groups around the country that are pushing for their states to secede from Washington DC, and I commend each and every one for trying. Frankly, I see no other choice if we are to remain free from government intervention in our lives.

There is one such group attempting to unite each state; CUSS, or Citizens United for State Sovereignty. Their first goal is to establish states rights through the tenth amendment, and that idea has legs, as there are now something like 35 states considering legislation to do so.

I don’t see that happening, however, since most state officials are beholden in some respect to Washington, and others are afraid of the consequences if they fail.

Another group, of which I am a member, is the Texas Nationalist Movement, whose main goal is secession and re-forming the Republic of Texas. I support that effort if invoking the tenth amendment fails, but I would rather continue to live in a United States of America free from an unconstitutional central government. Is that going to happen? Probably not; so choosing the alternative seems to be the only road to follow; secession.

I would like to hear your opinions on this subject. Please respond.

Are you ready to live in a third world country?

2009-07-11T12:01:00.000-07:00

Beware of new legislation

Global warming proponents know exactly what they are doing. Those in the highest positions in that movement know as well as the rest of us how to read the reports that the earth is in fact not warming, but cooling.

Do they care? Of course they do. Al Gore has publicly stated that the only way this global warming legislation will work is through “global governance”.

When the evidence is too great that we are experiencing global cooling, the left will take the credit for it due to their programs, and will continue to increase the limitations on productivity in this country until we are a third world nation ourselves. The only way for a productive corporation to exist is to relocate to a country like China or India that does not enforce such legislation against producers.

The equality of outcome or results is what is most important to the left, not the equality of opportunity. When everybody in this country is equal, in their eyes (except for themselves), all will be right with the world. The best way to make all equal is to bring down those who are now successful to the level of those who are not; to bring down those who work hard to earn a decent living to a level where they will be equal to those who choose not to work. What better way to do that than the way they are going about it now?

With the Markley/Waxman legislation passing in the house and in danger of passing in the senate, Americans will be facing rising costs like we have never seen in the past. If you think that four-dollar a gallon gas was high last summer, wait till you see what cap and trade brings. If you thought your electric bill was high last summer with your air conditioning running, or in the winter if you have electric heat, wait till you see what happens if Markley/Waxman kicks in. Unless you have your own wind generator or solar panels covering your roof, you probably won’t be able to afford to use your electricity.

Same thing applies if you use propane of natural gas in the winter. Prices for those two commodities are necessarily going to go through the roof.

Since everything we buy is delivered to the store by truck or train, expect to see the price of everything else we consume go up in proportion.

Planning on selling your home in the future, to maybe upgrade or relocate to another area? You are going to have to go through an extensive inspection before you can put your home on the market, and if it is found that you are lacking in some of the necessary requirements of the new legislation, such as an outlet for plugging in a ‘green car” or multiple pain windows, or what the government decides is adequate insulation, or a proper roof structure, etc, etc, etc, you must make the improvements or not sell your home.

If we don’t speak up now and put a stop to this government intervention into our lives, it may soon be too late to speak up.

Is Secession a Right? An American Civics Lesson

2009-06-28T05:55:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Dr J Michel Hill for the inspiration and to KGCRider at the Texas Nationalist Movement for posting it.

On Secession and Southern Independence
[LOS] News and Updates, May 24, 2009

In light of the recent interest in secession, there are some fundamental points we need to understand in order to counter those who claim that this time-honoured remedy against tyranny is un-American and even treasonous.

The voluntary union (or confederacy) of States known as the United States was born of a secessionist movement against Great Britain, and our Declaration of Independence is, at base, a secessionist document. How, then, can secession legitimately be called un-American?

When our Founding Fathers broke the bonds of political association with the British Empire in 1776, the former colonies became free and independent States constituting thirteen separate communities, each asserting its sovereignty. This arrangement received confirmation in the Articles of Confederation (1778) and the Treaty of Paris (1783). Americans themselves, as well as their British foe, acknowledged that each State was a separate and sovereign entity.

The sovereignty of the separate States is an important issue in understanding how the United States was formed under its Constitution of 1787-88. When delegates met in Philadelphia in May 1787, they came as representatives selected by the people (i.e. citizens) of their respective States. The people of the States did not give their delegates any authority to make binding agreements; rather, they could only discuss proposed changes to the Articles of Confederation. Any changes to the Articles would become effective only if ratified in convention by the citizens of the separate States.

The result of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was, of course, the U.S. Constitution. However, the document was not binding until nine of the thirteen States ratified it for themselves. That happened in 1788, and those nine States entered into a compact (or contract) with each other and, by doing so, created the political union known as the United States (or, more accurately, the States United). Four States, for a time, remained outside of the union and thus were not bound by the compact. Eventually, though, all thirteen States ratified and united.

It is important to note that no State (or States) could answer for another State. Each State acceded to the compact by its own sovereign will. Moreover, all of them understood that they might secede from the compact by those same means-by a ratifying convention of their citizens or representatives.

Nowhere does the Constitution forbid a State from seceding from the union. In fact, the Tenth Amendment (contained in the Bill of Rights of 1791) expressly confirms "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." The power to force a State against its will to remain in the union is absent among the powers delegated to the general (or federal) government; therefore, the right of secession is reserved to the States, or more precisely, to the people of the States.

Some of the New England States threatened to secede several times before 1860 (e.g. 1803, 1807, 1814, and 1844-45). At no time did the Southern States deny them this right. However, when a number of Southern States seceded in 1860-61, Lincoln and the Republican Party went to war to prevent them from exercising their Constitutional right. Simply put, Lincoln placed the forced "unity" of the States above the Constitution itself, and this action set him in opposition to the principles of the American Founders.

Northern victory in 1865 marked the end of true Constitutional government in America. In its place, the American Empire now defines the limits of its own power without serious regard to the Constitution. Formerly free and sovereign States have become little more than administrative provinces of an all-powerful central government in Washington, DC.

Without a serious challenge to its authority, which the acknowledged right of secession is, our government will not reform itself. We are not free people if we are not free to leave.

Our colonial ancestors acknowledged what our present government (and popular opinion) denies: that, at some time, dissolving our political bonds might be a necessary and proper course. That time came in 1860-61, and The League of the South believes it has come again.

Secession, as Thomas Jefferson acknowledged, is the assertion of the inalienable right of a people to change their form of government whenever it ceases to fulfill the purposes for which they created it. Under our Constitution, this should be a peaceful remedy. The decision of a State or States to withdraw peacefully from a political association is not revolutionary or rebellious. On the contrary, the government that is no longer responsive to its people, a government that denies its people their inalienable rights, is revolutionary. The right of secession is never more necessary than when it is denied.

Some say that secession is impractical and/or unattainable. It certainly is both as long as the people of the States remain ignorant of it as a remedy to tyranny handed down to them by earlier generations.

We, the people of the States, still have the weapon and the legitimate power of reform (sovereignty). The only thing we lack is the collective will to wield it.

Crap and Trade

2009-06-27T09:15:00.000-07:00

by Darrel Mulloy

"This program is designed to give government the power and the mechanism to increase the cost of energy produced by fossil fuel to a price higher than the cost of energy produced by wind and solar sources. This agenda item will give government the power to essentially control the economy, by controlling the supply and price of energy that runs the economy. It will also give government the appearance of protecting the environment, which is a sop to environmental organizations and to the international community. And it will extract windfall taxes to allow government to redistribute America's wealth to achieve the social equity goals of the Democratic socialist majority."

Henry Lamb, from WND 6/27/09

We may see this monstrosity passed by the senate or maybe not. Senator Imhoff of Oklahoma says it doesn't have a chance, but with an almost bulletproof majority, especially if Al Franken gets the seat from Minnesota, it isn't likely that it doesn't have a chance, and if passed by the Senate, it will be signed into law by the usurper in chief, and unless we do our part, we will have to live by it.

Friday afternoon late, the House of Representatives voted 219-212 with three not voting, to pass the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009’’ or better known as Crap and Trade (Cap and Trade).

Conservatives around the country might like to know that there were eight Republicans who voted in favor of the measure, and two who did not vote. A swing of only five of those votes would have resulted in defeat instead of passing.

For your interest, those Republicans who voted for the "Crap and Trade" were:

1. Mary Bono Mack California 45th district
2. Michael Castle Deleware at large
3. Mark Kirk Illinois 10th district
4. Leonard Lance New Jersey 7th district
5. Frank LoBiando New Jersey 2nd district
6. John McHugh New York 23rd district
7. David Reichert Washington 8th district
8. Chris Smith New Jersey 4th district

And the two Republicans who did not take the time to vote were:

9. Jeff Flake Arizona 6th district
10. John Sullivan Oklahoma 1st district

If one of these congressmen (or woman) is yours, call, write, email or fax them and let them know how you feel.

There is NO constitutional authority for this kind of legislation and we have the right under the tenth amendment to refuse to allow it to be enforced.

"Powers not delegated to the United States (federal government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (the Constitution) to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (word in paremphasis mine)

America, it's time to say no more.

I have recently joined the Texas Nationalist Movement in their effort to secede from the U.S. government. I want to see the tenth amendment enforced before such a move is made, but lacking that move, secession seems to be the next step to take.

Those interested in finding out more about the Texas Nationalist Movement can see more about it here.

Come on Americans. Get off your lazy duffs and lets all do something to take this country back from the socialists who are trying to ruin it.

Whipping the wrong horse

2009-06-22T09:41:00.000-07:00

Coming up on the Fourth of July, are going to be hundreds, maybe even thousands of TEA parties. Americans across the land will be voicing their concern over government abuses. They will be protesting the federal government and how it has taken on powers that are restricting the freedom of all Americans.

Started as a tax protest, the TEA parties have added other government abuses to their list, and that is a good thing; but are we addressing the right governments?

Everyone, well practically everyone, would agree that the federal government has overstepped its constitutional bounds, and taken on some powers that were not granted to them by the Constitution. We can't say we weren't warned. Alexander Hamilton as long ago as 1788 said in Federalist #78 "There is no position that depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people, are superior to the people themselves; that men, acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

Our founders were wise enough to allow the states a way out, when such as what Hamilton spoke of actually happened. It is a clever little piece called the tenth amendment, which allows the states to declare that the federal government has no business telling them that they have to do anything they say that is not authorized by the Constitution.

Americans across the land this Independence Day should be directing their attention to the state governments through their elected representatives and governors; telling them that we will no longer allow federal government to interfere in matters that belong only to the states. To date, there are thirty five states who have made some declaration that they will begin enforcing the tenth, to one degree or another. It is up to We the People to build a fire under those in our state governments to follow through. In the fifteen states that have not so declared, it is up to the citizens of those states to see to it that they too, make such a declaration.

We want freedom and liberty; freedom from burdensome taxes and liberty to run our lives the way we deem best, as long as it doesn't harm another individual. We want to be able to start a business if we want to without jumping through a bunch of government hoops, and we want to be free to fail if we don't run that business right; we want to be able to see to it that our children are given a proper education, one that we approve of; we want to stop seeing laws approved by the people overturned by judges who don't seem to be able to understand the Constitution. I could go on, but you get the point.

We're tired of a central government overstepping their authority by buying up businesses, propping up failing banks, and for that matter, telling those banks how and to who they must loan their money. We're fed up with a system where our "representatives" in congress allow their power to be usurped by the president by overreaching use of executive orders and presidential directives. We're tired of partisan politics, period.

We have seen enough of federal bureaucrats keeping us from using our own land as we choose to do, or to be able to build on that land because it might be home to some sort of "endangered" mouse or snail. We don't want appointed bureaucrats doing the job that we elected our representatives to do, and we don't want those representatives doing things they are not authorized by the Constitution to do.

In order to achieve that end, it is the responsibility of the people to see to it that those we elect on the most local levels are responsive to our voices. The states all have governments that are by design, independent from Washington DC, and it is about time that we held their feet to the fire and demanded that they assert their right under the tenth amendment to the Constitution.

One nation, divisible!

2009-06-16T17:56:00.000-07:00

Like a lot of us here in cyberland, I just got an email from Dr. Ron Paul telling us about the upcoming Obama medical plan. This isn’t going to be a piece about “single payer” health insurance or for that matter any government run scheme of any kind.

What occurred to me as I was reading the email was that Dr. Paul has a bigger following than any one member of congress, either House or Senate, with followers from every state in the USA. His C4L, or Campaign for Liberty is growing in number each day under the stewardship of John Tate, and finally, congress is recognizing the importance of one of his pieces of proposed legislation, HR 1207 calling for an audit on the Federal Reserve, and has agreed with him, with over half of the House of Representatives signing on as co-sponsors. Other pieces of his proposed legislation have largely been ignored, however, finding as few as zero co-sponsors. Since his recent run for the nomination for president some in congress are noticing that the things he has been talking about are starting to happen, and are starting to listen to him. Unfortunately, there are too few members willing to pay attention.

America, that is the American voter, is a lot like those in congress. They hear but they don’t listen. Sometimes, like those in congress, they even refuse to hear.

The point I am trying to make is that throughout our country from Alaska to Texas, from Hawaii to Maine, there are Ron Paul fans. No other member of our government can make that statement, aside from the man who would be king himself, our pretender to the throne, Barry Soetero or Barack Obama, or what ever his real name is. His is more like a cult following than those who follow Ron Paul’s line of thinking.

In fact, cult may be the proper term for those who so admire Obama. Evan Thomas of Newsweek did recently say he was “sort of God”, and there are those who believe he is some sort of messiah.

Unfortunately, this country is divided now about 50/50, with one half leaning left and the other leaning right. Both have fringes or radical elements, with the radical left being led by Barack Obama and the radical right being led by no one in particular. In fact, the entire right seems to be led by no one in particular. Rush Limbaugh is considered by some to be the leader of the conservative movement today, but he is not on the fringe and he refuses to lead anyway.

Today’s Republican party is divided between the true conservatives and the neo-conservatives. The former wants to return to the ideals of Ronald Reagan and the latter want to open up the Republican tent for any and all ideals. One such is former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who endorsed Obama over John McCain and says that Republicans want to pay more taxes and get more government services. Yes, he says he is still a Republican. Draw your own conclusions. He gives a whole new meaning to RINO, a title that used to fit well on the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Arlen “the defector” Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins to name a few. Powell has out RINO’ed the best of the RINOs.

In all candor, however, if Powell were to announce that he were a candidate in 2012, there is a god bet he could get elected by the ignorant apathetic voting public.

This leads me to believe that we as a nation are ripe for division into two distinct nations. I think that separation is the only bloodless solution to our current problems, and it may not be truly bloodless. It would be more bloodless than a revolution, which is the only other rational solution. I don’t think it would be hard to do, if those states that are now fighting government mandates made the move to declare their independence. If one state made the gesture, I am sure there would be others to follow, and I for one would move to one of those states in a heartbeat, as I am sure would many others. I am quite confident that if such a thing happens in the near future, that Texas would be among the first to declare. I still own property there and intend to build on that property with the hope to return to a free state. At last count, I think there are 35 states that are invoking the tenth amendment and telling the fed that those powers not granted to them by the Constitution were not going to be recognized in their states. My only question is;
what’s the matter with the other fifteen states?

Anyway, that’s my rant for now.

Bill of Rights does not apply to you

2009-05-29T08:50:00.000-07:00

According to Sonya Sotomayor, Oboma's nominee to sit on the highest court in the land, you and I don't have rights under the Bill of Rights, at least if we are among the few who live in the fifty states, that is.

Sotomayor's court, arguing against the right of individuals to own a gun, stated that "It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.” (read entire article from CNS here)

Following the logic of that court's decision, and by the way, Sotomayor's as well, none of those rights guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights could be enforced by the federal government if an individual state declared to the contrary. If you live in California, for example, and they told you that you did not have the right to attend the church of your choice, I guess by Sotomayor's rule, you could not. If you live in Massachusetts, and you wanted to speak out against the liberal government of that state, and they said you can't.....you can't, according to Sotomayor and her court.

Think you have the right not to be searched without a warrant? Guess again if Sotomayor and her court had their way, and your state agreed. It's bad enough that we have all practically lost the freedom of the press, with most major news sources in the pocket of the Democrat party. By the way, isn't it the troublesone tenth amendment that says that "Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectivly, or to the people."? Accordingly, the states only have the power to reject legislation or mandates that are not granted to the Fed as powers by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is not among that list.

The Constitution is the law of the land, as written, not interpreted by some black robed jurists; especially when we cannot get two bodies of them to agree with one another. Sotomayor's Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is in disagreement with the liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, which stated that is is the individual's right to own and bear arms, not just the military or law enforcement.

Sotomayor is a dangerous threat to freedom in America, and although it can be argued that she is only replacing another liberal judge, she is in fact, much more liberal than David Souter, and will remain a judge long after some of the more conservative judges have been replaced with more liberals.

Conservatives in the senate, if there are any left, should filibuster her nomination and refuse to approve her. There are still a few judges out there that understand the meaning of the Constitution. The Senate should make Obama find one of them.

States finally fed up?

2009-05-13T10:07:00.000-07:00

A column today in WorldNetDaily talks about how there are now 35 states considering imposing the tenth amendment that the federal government has overstepped its authority.

Outside of an actual secession, this may be the best thing to happen to America in nearly 100 years. Since the Woodrow Wilson administration there has been a gradual creep by the federal government to usurp powers from the states and give them to the central government in violation of the Constitution.

If 35 states have legislators who can see the error of the federal government in taking from the states those rights that were granted to the states and the people respectively, maybe there is hope for this country.

It is not all Republican legislators in these states that support the action. There are a number of Democrats who also feel that it is time to reign in the federal government.

If thirty five out of fifty insist that the central government return to its constitutional duties, then maybe, just maybe, the tide is turning and we the people actually do still have a voice in how this nation is to operate.

Highway Robbery

2008-06-18T17:26:00.001-07:00

My wife and I just returned home from a road trip that took us 4500+ miles. We live in Oregon, where gasoline now includes 10% ethanol and is over $4.00 per gallon. When we left we filled at our local station at $4.09 per gallon and drove to Caldwell, Idaho where gasoline is still just gasoline with no ethanol in it. Idaho and Wyoming were the only two states we traveled in that had no ethanol in the gas.

We drove through South Dakota, Minnesota, and Nebraska and saw corn fields flooded from heavy snow melt and torrential rain. The fields that were planted were mostly ruined from the rain and many fields that had not been planted would not be for some time due to the muddy conditions in the fields. Much of Iowa has been flooded and a lot of the corn crop in that state will also be lost, along with thousands of homes.

I kept close records of our gas mileage and kept my speed to a consistent 55 mph on the highway. I was amazed at the difference between the mileage of straight gasoline and 10% ethanol. We averaged a little over 26 mpg on straight gasoline and just less than 23.5 mpg with the ethanol blend, a difference of a little more than 10%.

Gasoline with ethanol where regular gasoline was also available cost about ten cents a gallon less than the regular gasoline, so if a motorist opted to use the ethanol blend he would be paying one dollar less for ten gallons than the motorist using straight gasoline. However, the motorist using straight gasoline, under the same driving conditions would get the same mileage with only nine gallons of fuel, compared to the ten gallons used by the ethanol user. Considering that each gallon was near the four-dollar mark ($3.79 for ethanol and $3.89 for straight gas, for example), that left the ethanol user paying $2.79 more in each ten gallons for the same mileage under the same conditions (the $3.79 per gallon minus the ten cents per gallon difference).

We have been told that ethanol is a renewable energy source, and will help us off of our dependency on foreign oil. How can that be when we can get the same miles from nine gallons of regular straight gas as we can from ten gallons of gasoline with 10% ethanol?

We have seen the price of food, from cereal products to chicken, beef and pork skyrocket. Anything that uses corn as part of its process has had to go up in price, as less corn is available for human and animal consumption and more and more is used to add to our gasoline, doing absolutely no good. Even where other grass and vegetable products are used to create ethanol, they are grown at the expense of corn and other grain crops. There is now a worldwide shortage of grain, the main staple of third world countries, and in the places where people can least afford it, they are starving to death due to increased prices and lower supplies.

I have written to both of my U.S. Senators and my representative in the U.S. Congress as well as my state senator and representative and asked them to push for ending the ethanol project and to allow drilling in ANWR and the continental shelf where we have ample supplies to last us for at least sixty years according to conservative estimates. If government is serious about wanting to end the dependency on foreign oil, ethanol certainly is not the way to do it. Drilling in our own country will send the immediate message to OPEC that we will soon be out from under their thumb, and that alone will reduce world oil prices and increase supplies. The OPEC nations now have a monopoly and as soon as that monopoly is threatened, the prices have to fall. When they can no longer dictate the price per barrel of oil, they must be competitive.

Write to your representatives in congress both at home and at the federal level. If they hear from enough of us they will listen. Regular snail mail works best; phoning is better than email, but email is good as well. Find out who your representatives are if you don’t already know. Write them or call them. We have been bamboozled for too long now and it is costing us hard earned dollars. If we don’t do something to stop the use of ethanol and to increase the drilling in our own country we have no right to complain about the high price of gasoline. Remember, the first three words in the Constitution are “We the people"

How to get elected

2008-03-28T17:38:00.000-07:00

In order to have proper representation in our government, we must first have people who really want to represent the people, not just get elected to live off of the government and get the government perks and pensions. We should find people who are sincere about wanting to serve a limited time and make a change for the better in that time they do serve. But how do we get those people elected?

A person who is interested in serving must plan far in advance of his running for office. Most of us can't just walk in cold off of the street with ideals and expect just those ideals to get us elected. Even though we may be in the position of right, it makes no difference if we aren't heard by those who will do the electing.

Ron Paul is a good man, probably one of the best men we have ever had run for the office of president. Ron Paul had some great ideas as to how this country should be governed. Ron Paul was probably the most economically educated candidate we have ever had. Ron Paul's foreign policy, although never tried in our lifetime, is probably closest to the founders of any candidate in modern times. Ron Paul's vision of limited government matched almost exactly that vision of our founders. Lately, a lot of the pundits who for some reason didn't praise Ron Paul himself, are praising his policies and solutions, but still not Ron Paul himself. You have to wonder why.

Keeping in mind that there are a lot of Ron Paul revolutionaries that are considering a run for public office at some level in the next election cycle, I think it is important that those who are considering a run first find out why a man with Ron Paul's knowledge and beliefs could not gain ground in 2008.

The mainstream media doesn't like Ron Paul. That's OK, they don't like most Republicans. They got on McCain's bandwagon because they thought he would be easy for the Democrats to beat in November, and even if somehow he did win, he is as much a Democrat as most Democrats, certainly more than Zell Miller, or even possibly Joe Leibermann.

If someone like Ron Paul, no let's say Ron Paul, had a speaking voice and a stage presence of a Barak Obama, what would have been his chances of getting the nomination in '08? I believe he would have been unbeatable. In the war of ideas, Ron Paul was armed to the teeth, but in the war of presentation he was all but totally unarmed. Ronald Reagan did not have near the understanding of either economics or foreign policy that Ron Paul has, but he could sure deliver the lines, and that is what got him elected. He also believed in what he was doing and no one could dissuade him from following through on what he proposed. I believe he was a great president, but Ron Paul could have been a great president too. We will never know.

Those Ron Paul revolutionaries who are considering seeking elected office, this column is written for you.

1. Learn to be a public speaker. If necessary take a course or two in how to best present yourself to the public. Consider a course in drama of some kind, where you can be put on a stage in front of a lot of people and deliver lines without looking at a script or notepad. If you are sincere about what you are talking about you shouldn't need notes. Ron Paul never used notes, he knew what he wanted to say, he just didn't know how to deliver the message. To those closest to him his message was clear, but when addressing a large gathering he could not connect with the people. I am not taking anything away from Ron Paul, he is the best, but Ron Paul did not prepare his life to be a politician. It is commendable that he has chosen to serve his district from Texas, and it is within his reach to speak to his district more on a one on one basis, but outside of his district, Ron Paul will not be elected. If he decided to run for the Senate from Texas, I would be willing to bet the farm that he would not win. Finishing poorly in the Texas primary is evidence of that.

2. Learn how to debate. While you are taking your course in public speaking, consider a debating course. TV debates are not debates, they are debacles. However, it is going to be important to know how to defend your position against your opponents, whether in a primary or against the Democrat who will be opposing you. If you can't defend your position with conviction, it will be hard for your audience to believe you.

3. Study your opponent, understand how he or she attacks. Be prepared for anything they may throw at you. If there is something in your background that they might use to damage you, dig it out before they do and defend or explain it. Don't stand around with egg on your face after an opponent trys to embarrass you. Remember, you can't un-ring the bell, and if your opponent says it first, it will get the greatest coverage.

4. Look the best you can in front of your audience. You don't have to have Armani suits to make a good impression, but you should still try to dress as well as you can. You should always be well groomed, hair and nails properly trimmed. If you wear a beard or mustache, that's OK, (unless you are a woman) but be sure they are properly groomed. Remember the old saying, "clothes make the man". That may not be entirely true, but it sure adds to the whole picture of that man. Humility is a good trait, but don't be humble in front of your audience, be bold. A nice suit of clothes will make you feel better about yourself, and it is a small expense when you consider what is at stake.

5. Learn how to communicate one on one. You will be required to meet all sorts of people, and you must be prepared to relate to them in a sincere manner. If you can't convince one person at a time to vote for you, you will have a hard time convincing an audience to do the same.

6. Know the issues on which you are running. If you believe that foreign policy needs changing, find the best way to make a good argument for what you believe. Study and have answers ready when asked. Never talk on an issue that you only have a feeling about. Study that issue to death, until you have as much understanding of it as you can. Don't be put into a position of standing there with a dumb look on your face when a voter, or worse yet your opponent, asks you a question about your position. You can be sure that the media will be right there when something like that happens. You don't want that picture of you on the front page.

7. Be prepared to have your feelings hurt. If you are thin skinned, maybe you should consider some other position, like support staff for a candidate. If you can take the low blows, and you are willing to work as hard as you have ever worked, study as hard as you have ever studied, sleep as little as you have ever slept, and travel as much or more than you have ever travelled, if you have strong convictions and believe in the Constitution and will defend that Constitution, then maybe, just maybe, you will win your chosen office.

Good luck.