Signs in the heavens, signs following: A new age of Jefferson

“The spaceship has landed,” said Steve Jobs here at the end. Perhaps he was talking about several things. We at the turn of the millennium are sensitive to signs. Even the steady and solid same as the visionary holiness preachers who see “signs following” in the eastern hollows of old Kentucky. And this week we have seen signs. An earth quake in Louisa co., virtually in Thomas Jefferson’s back yard. One that shook the Washington monument and left a few cracks. And gold dropped more than a hundred bucks all in an afternoon.

That second is a good thing. Gold is a harbinger . . . a measure of wellness or weakness in the general economic environment. A drop in gold as dramatic as this, like a hurricane or an earthquake, comes from somewhere. Too bad that only the Natural Law Party which by the way very much likes Dennis Kucinich (and I do too) takes the view of physicist Wolfgang Pauli of what is called the collective unconscious. Pauli called it synchronicity: Nature and the human spirit is compliance. Everything means something, everything is connected. So what brought sudden confidence in the gnostic economic situation? Possibly the President leisurely taking to the sands in blissful New England and keeping his hands off things. Possibly the rise of a new figure from Texas who brings responsibility and maturity to government like we have not seen in at least 18 years in presidential politics.


Not your Public Education’s General Welfare Clause

Please join us for TRX: Tenther Radio on August 31, 2011 right here – listen live by clicking the play button at that time on the right. Join the conversation with your comments and questions by calling (323) 843-6008.

We’re honored to have a full educational hour on the General Welfare clause from Rob Natelson


Was Bill Buckley a foreign policy leftist?

by Jack Hunter

EDITOR’S NOTE: Jack Hunter will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! Jacksonville.  Get tickets here – – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS


Some of the loudest voices on the right continue to categorize Ron Paul’s foreign policy views as “leftist.” It is true that like many on the left, Paul has been a staunch opponent of the Iraq War, our decade-long presence in Afghanistan and the recent intervention in Libya.

Paul believes that the only just war is a war of defense. When America was attacked on 9/11, Paul supported going into Afghanistan because he believed what most Americans believed — that the Taliban was harboring those behind the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. When America is attacked, she defends herself. This is what most Americans think of as “national defense.”

But what Paul’s critics on the right call “national defense” is often something quite different. The concept of preventive war — that is, going to war with nations that “might” be a threat at some point — is something new and without precedent in our history. This part of the Bush Doctrine, coupled with the notion that America can — and must — spread democracy throughout the globe, has become many conservatives’ default foreign policy position.

But this is a strange position for conservatives, because it is not conservative. President Woodrow Wilson’s notion that it was America’s mission to “make the world safe for democracy” was a clarion call for liberals and progressives of his era — and was considered utopian gobbledygook by conservatives. In a 2005 interview, columnist George Will and William F. Buckley explained:

WILL: Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?


James Madison on the “General Welfare”

I thought it would be good to bring James Madisons own words when describing how the General welfare clause in articleI section8 was to be construed, and dismissing fears of constructions such as we have today.


Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.”


Liberty for Security: A Reasonable Trade-Off?

It seems with each new day in modern America, we learn of some new threat to our safety and our future. But we often take comfort in knowing that there is a plan. Those we have elected to watch out for the common good surely already have the situation under control. They are just letting us know about the threats so that when we notice that a bit of our liberty has been constrained, we will understand why. They remind us that they need the resources and authority to handle the threat so that we can be safe and so that our future can be secured. Most of us think that a bit of liberty for more security is a reasonable trade off and few have questioned it, until recently.

Now, people are beginning to ask hard questions:


Patriots Watch Interviews Michael Boldin

Billy Baer and Dan Haggerty of Repatriot Radio’s “Patriot’s Watch” interview Michael Boldin, founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center. Many topics are discussed in this hour-long episode. Patriot’s Watch is broadcast every Wednesday at 3PM to 4PM on WNJC 1360AM. “Going to the federal government to fix problems created by the federal…


Nullification as a Gateway Drug

Some familiar themes here, but I am emphasizing that the most significant thing about state nullification, about which I have written a book, is that the very discussion of it involves straying from the ideological concentration camps in which our political and media establishments would confine us.  We need to stray from those camps at every…


Nullification: Its Roots and Applications

Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey talked nullification with Barb Adams on the Radio Amerika Now show on Aug. 20. Mike discussed the historical and philosophical roots of nullification, and then went on to talk about the practical applications of the principle today. “Most people have never even heard of nullification, and the…


Small Business Administration to Close?

According to Lloyd Chapman, the hyperbolic president of the American Small Business League, legislation introduced by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) would close the Small Business Administration. Chapman actually stated on a Fox Business News show that Burr’s bill is “the worst idea in the history of America.” And here I thought it was Rick Santorum’s decision to run for president.

Unfortunately, Burr’s legislation does not close the SBA. It merely combines the SBA, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Labor into one bigger bureaucracy that would be known as the “Department of Commerce and the Workforce.” In other words, it just rearranges the deck chairs. Title VI of the bill spells out what programs would be terminated (not much) and I don’t see any mention of the SBA.

Although I don’t consider Burr’s bill to be the worst idea in the history of America, I’m not excited about it either. Not only would it not cut federal spending in any meaningful way (if at all), it’s an idea that’s over a hundred years old. A Department of Commerce and Labor was created in 1903. In 1913, the Department of Commercewas born when the Bureau of Labor was split off to form a new Department of Labor.

The title of an anti-Burr bill piece recently penned by Chapman calls the SBA “the Most Important Agency in Washington Today.” That’s probably news to even the SBA. Chapman starts off by claiming that “Republican members of Congress have once again drafted legislation aimed at ending all federal programs that assist small businesses.” Huh?

Then there’s this whopper:


GOP Members’ Position on Payroll Tax Cuts Unbelievable

Obama is predicted to include a proposal in his anticipated “Jobs Plan” that would extend the existing payroll tax cuts.   These tax cuts would leave the employee’s contribution to FICA at 4.2%.   However, if these cuts are allowed to expire, the employee’s rate will go back up to 6.2%. From this recent Huffington Post article:…