Podcast: Play in new window | Download Add to iTunes Rob Gray, director of the American Open Currency Standard, recently testified before Ron Paul’s Congressional Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy. Rob joins us tonight to talk about his experience – and 5 things he learned about DC. The big message to Congress? Humanity is not…Details
Judge Napolitano Reacts After The Daily Caller Acquires Emails Showing Treasury’s Role in Cutting Off Pensions to Non-Union Workers
Funny isn’t it? As the states rights debate gains more attention, the room gets too crowded for the actual Tenther viewpoint. Take for instance “Meddling for Morality: Republicans are for states’ rights – when it suits them,” a column in The Economist.
The writer largely gives Democrats a break but does mention them in the second to last paragraph (within parentheses). Credit is always due to mainstreamers who nail the GOP on its selectivity about where to draw the line between state and federal power. Nullifying ObamaCare is popular while simultaneously abortion restrictions ought to be legislated from D.C. say the phony conservatives, but couldn’t the author have gone a bit further?
Trevor Lyman of the Liberty Crier took The Economist to task for failing to mention Democrats as equally guilty for paying lip service to great nationalism while 17 states are actively disobeying Supreme Court medical marijuana proclamations. But there is something more sinister, something more deeply flawed in The Economist columnist’s approach.Details
Why not centralize power?
Why not simply do away with state governments completely? Disband our city councils? Dissolve our county commissions?
Placing all authority in the federal government would certainly prove more efficient. It would eliminate confusion and erase competing jurisdictions. It would allow the politicians and bureaucrats in D.C. to “get things done” without resistance or interference from “lesser” bodies. We could have uniform laws and regulations across the country.
But even the most ardent supporters of federal power don’t take things that far. I’ve yet to hear the cry “Dissolve the states!”
Perhaps the DC’vers secretly desire that end, but they don’t say it in public. Why? I think because most Americans still balk at centralizing power – at least to that extent. They intuitively recognize the inherent danger in vesting that much authority in a single body with no check on its power. Americans distrust monopoly, and most, at least if they really stop and think about it, know that empowering the government to “do good” also empowers it to “do evil.”Details
According to the Associated Press, Mitt Romney supports postponing the sequestration cuts scheduled for January 2, 2013 by at least one year:
The Republican presidential contender said Friday during a campaign trip to Las Vegas that the cuts would be “terrible,” particularly for the military.
Congress approved the cuts as part of a deal to reduce the deficit. They were designed to help lawmakers come up with a better plan. But that didn’t happen — so the cuts are scheduled to go into effect next year.
Romney says he wants President Barack Obama and lawmakers to work together to put, in his words, “a year’s runway,” in place to give the next president time to reform the tax system and ensure the military’s needs are met.
In other words, Romney’s position on sequestration is no different than the rest of the spendthrifts in Washington.
Romney’s punt coincides with the enactment of legislation that requires the White House to detail precisely what it would cut in January. The Office of Management and Budget has 30 days to release the report. The idea originated with congressional Republicans who relish the opportunity to get the president on record for proposing cuts to military spending. Democrats went along after the bill was changed to include provisions that force the White House to spell out cuts to domestic programs. The goal for both parties is to get the various special interests and their accomplices in the media to go bonkers when the report is released.Details
While on vacation in a neighboring state helping my son-in-law build a second bathroom for his soon to be family of six, I noticed more fully what I have always known; if your base is wrong so is everything else. Nothing was square, plumb or level. Things fit, and almost fall into place as if by design, when the base is right. When the foundation is level and when studs are vertically placed 16 inches on center 4 by 8 sheets of sheetrock fit perfectly, as does every thing else. If, as in my case, there are no true reference points, or constants, nothing is right, nothing fits. I had to begin anew with a rectangle room without a single wall from which to get a true bearing. Getting back to the basics that I new to be true, was painful and many times harder, but it had to be done.
In construction, as in all areas of endeavor, there are tools to get us back to proven constants such as a squares, chalk lines, or levels. In other fields it may be a ruler, compass, or a Bible. Ancient mariners used the North Star as a constant. Math, algebra, geometry are based upon constants. In chemistry water is always, and forever will be, H2O and freezes at 32 degrees. In government the constant should be the Constitution. My point. What are your constants? What do you use to decide if something is true?
Are there constants in all fields of study—even in political science? When I find another out of harmony with myself, I want to know his/her constants. What do you read or watch? What is your base? I am unimpressed when I hear the labels republican, democrat, liberal or conservative as these change—thus are not constants. John F. Kennedy, a liberal and a democrat, would make George W. Bush, a conservative and a republican, look very liberal. These terms are not trustworthy over time.Details
In light of all the distortions and half-truths that are constantly repeated, let’s be clear –what sparked the ire of our founders was not taxes; it was tyranny. Their theme was not simply Taxed Enough Already – it was Tyrannized Enough Already. Their tolerance for tyranny was taxed to the max – that’s the taxation the founders could no longer take.
The original tea party was not just about money and the driving force toward American independence was not simply taxation. At the crux of the matter were the PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT that created the taxation – taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. It was about government eliminating the common rights of the people. The motivation behind the tea party event was Great Britain’s attempt to remove the people’s right to electively engage in trade, by mandating purchases only from the government…
But if our Trade is to be curtailed in its most profitable Branches, & Burdens beyond all possible Bearing, laid upon that which is suffered to remain, we shall be so far from being able to take off the manufactures of Great Britain, that it will be scarce possible for us to earn our Bread…? [Samuel Adams, May 15, 1764, Boston Record Commissioners' Report, vol. 16, pp. 120-122]
Sam Adams went onto explain that the act of arbitrary taxation makes slaves out of a free people:
For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing [sic] we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves–It strikes at our British Privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain: If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves? [Samuel Adams, May 15, 1764, Boston Record Commissioners' Report, vol. 16, pp. 120-122, emphasis added]
Sam Adams saw the big picture. He knew that if the king assumed the power to lay taxes contrary to the common rights of the colonists, without giving the people any voice, there would be no limit to the power of this government.Details
Comments From the Tenth Amendment Center on the initiative to resist the implementation of Obamacare by the simple act of the sovereign state just saying NO!Please sign the petition and share with everyone you know in Georgia who is concerned with the usurpation of powers not delegated to the general government by DC. We need to get at least 1000 signatures and there is much work to do. yet. Please show the nation that Georgia citizens are not willing to buckle to demands of a runaway federal government, and we will not stand for DC usurping power which inalienably belongs to the state!
Comments from the Georgia TAC:
Going to the federal government to fix problems created by the federal government isn’t just a bad idea – it doesn’t work!
As Thomas Jefferson and James Madison advised – when the federal government violates the constitution, it’s up to US – in our states – to stand up and say NO.
To the Affordable Care Act – we say Nullify It!
“Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers…..a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” That’s Thomas Jefferson’s message for unconstitutional acts like the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare. James Madison told us that the states are “duty bound to interpose…to arrest the progress of evil….”
Today, we see undelegated powers – and the progression of evil. In response, our state needs to stand up and say NO. Please introduce, consider, and pass the “Federal Health Care Nullification Act” – as included in this petition. This bill will make clear that the state considers Obamacare to be unconstitutional – and will take all measures necessary to prevent its enforcement.
Only when enough people and enough states stand up to say NO! – can the Constitution reign supreme. The time for us to act is now.
Governor Nathan Deal has made his thoughts plain on Obamacare’s effect on the economy and the quality of healthcare here in Georgia: Georgia Governor Nathan Deal Against Obamacare
Nullify NDAA Sections 1021 & 1022 In Texas. Here’s The Words. Which Texas Legislators Will Add The “Music”?
(The nullification of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012)
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the United States federal government authorization to exercise only those powers delegated to it in the Constitution (Article 1, Section Eight) and nothing more. The guaranty of those limitations on federal power is a matter of contract between the several states in general, the citizens of the state of Texas in particular, and the federal government of the United States at the time the Constitution was agreed upon and adopted.
Whereas, Article VI, Clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States provides that laws of the United States are the supreme law of the land provided they are made in pursuance to the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.
Whereas, the enactment into law by the United States Congress of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Public Law 112-81, is inimical to the liberty, security, and well being of the citizens of the state of Texas, and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power authorized by the United States Constitution.
Whereas, the Office of the President of the United States has asserted the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists allows for the President to indefinitely detain, without charge, persons including United States citizens and lawful resident aliens, whether or not they are captured within the confines of the United States.Details
Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the “No More Solyndras Act.” As Taxpayers for Common Sense notes, however, the bill should probably be called the “More Solyndras Act” because it would still allow the Department of Energy to approve loan guarantee applications that were submitted by Dec. 31, 2011. Today the House Energy…Details