DOJ Threat to Texas is a Threat to ALL

This threat to Texas is aimed at all of us.
You may be aware of what is happening in Texas now with regard to their anti-TSA bill and the new threat from the federal government. Pressure from the public can make a difference! Let’s show Texas we’re with them in this fight!

It’s vitally important for the public to realize the falsehood of the TSA and DOJ’s use of the Supremacy Clause to justify their actions. Federal “laws” arising from outside the delegated powers in the Constitution are not made “in pursuance thereof” and therefore are simply not the supreme law of the land. They would also have us believe the supremacy clause gives them the ability to dismiss our Fourth Amendment rights. The Federal Government will prevail only if We the People allow it. Stand with Texas now.

Informational links and New Jersey’s anti-TSA legislation summary are below.

Details

Will Rick Perry Stand for States Rights?

May 31st, 2011 With Special Session called, Texans urge Governor Perry to stand by his states’ rights position by including HB 1937 (TSA groping bill) Austin, TX – Having been betrayed by the Texas Senate, a coalition is organizing to encourage Governor Perry to include HB1937 as part of the upcoming special session. The coalition…

Details

Tentherism in a Nutshell

The minute you tell someone that you are a tenther, they assume that you are a conservative, because the Tenth Amendment has a lot to do with state’s rights. This much is true – tenthers are conservatives. But a different kind of conservative.

It is the kind of conservative that may believe in laws that regulate our behavior, but really doesn’t care what laws people implement in other states. A tenther assumes that I can ban drugs in my own state, but California is free to do otherwise. It seems to resemble libertarianism, but even some libertarians are OK with allowing a single government to rule over the entire society. And because of this they attempt to implement their ideas on that level.

A tenther can be a communist, a liberal, a conservative, a social conservative, or a libertarian. A tenther simply embraces the idea that everyone shouldn’t live under the same political authority. This allows different political positions to exist under the banner of tentherism, as long as each ideological position adheres to the idea that political authority is limited to a small geographic area within the larger society.

Each one of these positions will naturally dissolve in favor of individualism, because the minute you realize you are powerless over the entire whole of society, you stop attempting to use the political authority to make other people conform to your will. It becomes pointless to change the world through political power if that political power doesn’t exist over the entire world itself.

Details

Agriculture Cuts to Usher in the Apocalypse

Harold Camping is “flabbergasted” that the world did not end on May 21st as he had predicted. I think it’s because he didn’t account for the devastation that will be wrought by Republican budget cuts for fiscal 2012, which doesn’t begin until October 1st. Therefore, Camping’s new predication that the world will end on October 21st is much more plausible.

Yesterday the House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee that deals with agriculture and nutrition programs passed its bill, which will now be considered by the full committee. According to the committee’s numbers, discretionary funding for these programs in 2012 would be $17.2 billion – a $2.7 billion reduction versus 2011.

According to a statement released by the subcommittee’s ranking member, Sam Farr (D-CA), the four horsemen are readying their saddles:

Farmers will be broken. Jobs will be lost. Ag economies will crumple.

Wow, even though “the farm economy [is] booming”? I half expect to see Rep. Farr waving a “The End is Near!” sign from a street corner in early October.

Details

An Opportunity to Say NO!

A few days ago, the Tenth Amendment Center posted this facebook status update

BREAKING: Feds actively lobby on a bill in Austin – AND issue direct threat to Texas over TSA nullification bill today….Texas appears to have crumbled. More news and details coming soon…

When this article posts tomorrow, there will be more details available, but right now I don’t know the entire situation.  I have learned, from the Lone Star Report that the US Department of Justice sent a letter to the Texas legislature saying,

“If HR [sic] 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute… Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.

“We urge that you consider the ramifications of this bill before casting your vote,”

As a result of this “arm twisting”, Dan Patrick, the sponsor of the TSA nullification bill pulled it – saying, “I will pull HB 1937 down, but I will stand for Liberty in the state of Texas”.  While I can appreciate the pressure that Representative Patrick was under, this was a mistake.  He may like to think so, but on this occasion, he did not stand for Liberty.

Details

Unconstitutional in so Many Ways

Most people who criticize the (Federal) healthcare overhaul do so with the main focus (understandably) being on the most in-your-face aspect of the bill.. namely, the personal mandate.  This is likely owing to the blatantly fascistic nature of requiring someone to purchase a private product from another person.  It could also be because of the clearly “paternalistic” nature of passing a law to make someone do something “for their own good,” as if a stern lecture or a spanking would be waiting for those who disobeyed.  Because of the magnitude of the overstep in this one aspect of the law, lots of other less obvious violations have been missed and ignored.  I would like to take a look at them in this article.  Upon research, I discovered several (major) different ways that Obamacare is not only unjust, but it violates the original intent of the Constitution.  I have categorized the examples by which part of the Constitution they violate.

The General Welfare Clause

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”

Clearly, by my reading of federalist 41, the General Welfare clause was simply intended to be a qualifier on the taxing powers of the Federal govt., saying in effect that everything the Federal govt did had to be attached to another enumerated authority granted within the Constitution.  The spending had to be beneficial to all within the Union; therefore, you could not give a benefit to one individual, class or state, that wasn’t given to all.  Or in other words, you cannot take from one, or some, to give to another or others!  Violations by Obamacare of this clause in the Constitution include, but are certainly not limited to:

– The outright bribe(s) given in the “Louisiana purchase,” and the “corn husker kickback.” By giving preferential treatment to 2 states over the others in order to bribe members of the Senate to vote against the interests of the rest of the country. This bill is not in the general welfare, but the specific welfare of the states that have been given preferential treatment.  The Nebraska deal was stripped out in the final bill but even more graft was added in, so all of this violates the General Welfare clause.

Details

Five arrested during First Amendment protest at Jefferson Memorial

Updated May 29 with additional information provided in an interview with one of the men arrested.

WASHINGTON (May 28, 2011) – Police arrested five people at the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. Saturday.

Their crime?

Silent dancing.

Eddie Dickey, 37, was among those arrested. He said police charged him with “dancing in a restricted area” and held him in jail for about 2.5 hours.

A group of about a dozen people showed up at the memorial to protest a recent court ruling upholding the 2008 arrest of Mary Oberwetter.

Oberwetter was part of a group of 18 people who went to the Jefferson Memorial in April of that year to celebrate the third president’s birthday. Just before midnight, the flash mob began dancing silently to honor “the individualist spirit for which Jefferson is known.”  U.S. Park Police warned the group to stop and ultimately arrested Oberwetter, charging her with demonstrating without a permit and interfering with an agency function.

Those charges were later dropped.

But Oberwetter challenged the arrest in court, arguing that it violated her First Amendment right to free expression. In January 2010, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates threw out the lawsuit.

“The purpose of the memorial is to publicize Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, so that critics and supporters alike may contemplate his place in history,” Bates wrote. “The Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the memorial, in order to maintain ‘an atmosphere of calm, tranquility, and reverence.’”

Details

Nullification on the Left Coast, and Everywhere

If anything can get the humane left and thoughtful right on the same page, it’s opposition to the central state in Washington, the wars, the lies, the nationalist police forces, the corporatist welfare schemes, and everything else. In particular, the idea that the federal government is not supreme, that the several states have some say in setting policy, should be a common denominator in any political movement for fiscal sanity, civil liberties, and peace. Tom Woods’s Nullification: How to Resist Tyranny in the 21st Century is the decentralist movement’s manifesto, showing that the anti-federalists of today are anything but Republican shills.

Yet we who oppose Washington are libeled by the Rachel Maddows of the world as “Tenthers”—an implicit admission that to care about the most hardcore parts of the Bill or Rights is too kooky for the mainstream left. But the urge to strip the feds of their exclusive power is not only a conservative inclination. It was California, I’m a little proud to say, that has most embarrassed the national government on the tyrannical war on drugs, forcing the liberal fascists in DC to tone down their totalitarian medical marijuana raids in my state, which did this simply by ignoring federal law.

Details

An opportunity to learn about Nullification

The “peace president” bombs. The TSA gropes and scans. Feds prohibit hemp farming. And federal agents snoop in the name of patriotism, leaving citizens feeling helpless and bullied. How can Americans stop an overreaching federal government that puts lobbyists and special interests ahead of the people? Thomas Jefferson and James Madison gave us the answer.…

Details

A President That Ignores the Law Is a Dictator

Our Founding Fathers carefully drafted the Constitution and defined that the power to declare war properly falls in the hands of Congress.  This was no accident.  The creators of this country understood that such a power cannot and should not rest on the shoulders of one single man. They understood that the power to wage war is a serious one and that for the safety of the American people the power to declare war must carefully depend on the discretion of many, not on the whims of one.   Some argue that the president is the head of the military and therefore should have the authority to declare war as he sees fit.  This argument is not only absurd but unconstitutional.  Our nation is founded on the safety of separation of powers.   Giving blind authority to one man means abandoning the principles of representative government.

Several presidents have ignored the constitutional provision and have initiated military force without consent from Congress.  After America endured the war in Vietman, the longest military engagment ever suffered by the American people, without so much as a declaration of war,  it became clear that American presidents must be limited from blatantly ignoring constitutional provisions. The War Powers Act of 1973 specified that a president could not send military forces into action for longer than 60 days without congressional approval. The requirements were clear. The president  can only initiate military actions if Congress has declared war, if Congress has approved use of military force or if there is imminent danger. 

Details