Where is the Small Government Party?

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the issue of the upcoming election.  We are not an actual political organization here at the Tenth Amendment Center, per se’, but one thing I do think about is what has become of our Republic.  We are pursuing the means (nullification) we believe will result in the highest likelihood of a restoration of the Republic, as envisioned by the Founders themselves.  Still, I’d like to weigh in on a subject that I believe gets very little attention.  The two-party system.

Now… I don’t really believe in the two-party system, because I believe that it presents the country with a succession of very bad choices which progressively become worse and worse as time goes on. For those who do believe in a two-party system, however, perhaps some proverbial fat to chew on: What do those two parties have to stand for?  That is, if all the choices society wants a say in are encompassed in those two parties, which one is the small government, and which is for big government?  Which is for morality? And if one is for morality, is the other for immorality?  Do all of the immoral people have a “duty” to vote for the immoral candidate?  How about the candidates in favor of conscription (the Draft)?  And my wife might like to know which candidate represents people who like Carrot Cake!?

I ask these admittedly silly questions to bring to light to the idea of maintaining our freedoms. If we are to prevent government from growing progressively larger and more oppressive, we need to be able to vote for a “small government” candidate. He would presumably come from a small “government” party, so.. which party is that party today?  The majority of people would no doubt say that the Republican party is the “party of small government,” but are they?  If they are to remain the party of small government, don’t they need to put forward actual small government candidates from time to time?! Who here thinks Romney is the candidate of small government? PUT YOUR HANDS DOWN YOU LOOK RIDICULOUS!!!

Details

Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21

by Alex Newman, Originally published at The New American

Alabama became the first state to adopt a tough law protecting private property and due process by prohibiting any government involvement with or participation in a controversial United Nations scheme known as Agenda 21. Activists from across the political spectrum celebrated the measure’s approval as a significant victory against the UN “sustainability” plot, expressing hope that similar sovereignty-preserving measures would be adopted in other states as the nationwide battle heats up.

The Alabama Senate Bill (SB) 477 legislation, known unofficially among some supporters as the “Due Process for Property Rights” Act, was approved unanimously by both the state House and Senate. After hesitating for a few days, late last month Republican Governor Robert Bentley finally signed into law the wildly popular measure — but only after heavy pressure from activists forced his hand.

Virtually no mention of the law was made in the establishment press. But analysts said the measure was likely the strongest protection against the UN scheme passed anywhere in America so far. The law, aimed at protecting private property rights, specifically prevents all state agencies and local governments in Alabama from participating in the global scheme in any way.

“The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21,’ ” the law states, adding a brief background on the UN plan hatched at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro.

The people of Alabama acting through their elected representatives — not UN bureaucrats — have the authority to develop the state’s environmental and development policies, the official synopsis of the law explains. Therefore, infringements on the property rights of citizens linked to “any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama” are also prohibited under the new measure.

Of course, as the law points out, the UN has enlisted a broad array of non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations in its effort to foist Agenda 21 on the world — most notably a Germany-based group called ICLEI, formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives. But the new measure takes direct aim at that problem, too: “the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from” any such entities, as defined in Agenda 21 documents. 

Details

ObamaCare: Release the Kraken

One question legal minds might entertain when pondering whether ObamaCare ought to be overturned is this: Should any law be constitutional that is so damned ugly? Whether one looks at process, product, implementation, or its legal defense, ObamaCare is unrelievedly repulsive. Better to strangle such monstrosities in their cribs than let them propagate.

Of course, aesthetics was not on trial in Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. But as America waits for the Supreme Court to render its decision later this month on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), let’s go down memory lane and consider the process that got us here.

In his 2008 campaign, candidate Obama was against the mandate that individuals buy health insurance. But Obama had also campaigned on “change,” and so upon attaining the presidency he did just that and accepted a bill where the mandate was the funding linchpin. As a candidate, Obama made pledges that the process of writing the bill would be transparent, with real-time updates on C-Span and the Internet. Pledges of transparency were tossed aside when it came to dealing with the pharmaceutical industry and its drive to block re-importation of drugs from Canada. Other aspects of process to consider include:

Details