Hold His Feet to the Fire? Please

Republicans have all but acknowledged that Mitt Romney is not a conservative, and that he is no different in substance than Barack Obama, and they have settled. Some, those still in denial, steadfastly hold on to his rhetoric, but most have accepted that their nominee is so zealous for political power that he has no qualms about playing either a progressive or conservative, so long as he wins an election. It seems then, that Romney will change his rhetorical tone just as quickly as he’ll spray tan for Univision on Wednesday, and scrub it all off for 60 Minutes on Sunday.

In a near-textbook case of denial, many on the Right have acknowledged all of this, but insist that voting for him is still the “lesser of two evils,” and what’s really important is “defeating Obama.” Their answer is to simply hold “Mitt Romney’s feet to the fire” once Obama’s gone.

But what is “holding his feet to the fire,” what does it look like (aside from the obvious connotation with torture, repression, and despotism)?

More to the point, how do activists hold a president’s feet to the fire? After all, he has the power to drone us all to death with the stroke of pen, and make us buy stuff, even if we don’t want to. I’ve given this some thought and have concluded that it can’t be done; you’d have to be living in some bizarro-world to think otherwise.

For instance, if they (the Republicans, Tea Partiers, and anyone else planning to vote Empty Suit 2012) think they’re going to hold his feet to the fire, why don’t they hold Obama’s feet to the fire now, what’s stopping them?

Oh, but you see, Obama’s too much of an ideologue, he’s too immersed in his Marxist-Socialist-Leninist ways, he can’t be persuaded to change his ways, they’d reply.

OK.

Details

Nullification Advances in Michigan, Colorado and Massachusetts. Tenther News: 09-24-12

This episode is made possible in part by the new Nullification Movie. Now available for order at tenthamendmentcenter.com/movie

*******

After some heavy courtroom back and forth on NDAA kidnapping powers resulted in the federal government still holding on to the power to “indefinitely detain” anyone without due process, the People of Michigan have an opportunity to take liberty into their own hands instead of waiting on the highly suspect and unreliable federal court system.

State Rep. Tom McMillin introduced House Bill 5768, which would require all state agencies and employees to refuse compliance with such detention powers being used against any person in the state of Michigan. Tomorrow, Tuesday September 25, there will be a meeting of the Oversight, Reform and Ethics committee to consider the bill. Activists are urged to attend and voice support at the Anderson House Building in Landing, Michigan.

Also this morning, the Oakland County commissioners will consider similar legislation on a local level – introduced by Jim Runestad. We’ll be sure to update you with more information as we have it at tenthamendmentcenter.com

Susanne Posel at Infowars.com reports that the Obama Administration is using another excuse to restrict firearms ownership. Through the Justice Department, they given the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives the authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses.” In effect: those who are convicted of crimes involving alcohol and/or substance abusers will have their right to bear arms revoked.

By misuse of the civil-forfeiture doctrine, rights and constitutional limitations are circumvented while the owner of the property will have it taken without recourse.

Details

Michigan Nullifying the NDAA: A Work in Progress

Monday, September 24, 2012 saw an intrepid group of Michiganians attend the General Government Committee of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners in support of Commissioner Jim Runestad’s Liberty Preservation Resolution. The purpose of this resolution is to register opposition to the indefinite detection sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA and to provide at least some comfort to county residents in the form of recognition by elected officials of the clear and present danger posed by this latest DC-created emergency.

Blake Filippi, Tenth Amendment Center legal analyst and creator of the resolution (which was customized and localized by meeting participants David Lonier and Dennis Marburger), was on the phone from Rhode Island to answer legal and historical questions from the commissioners. Numerous county residents spoke eloquently about the problems faced.

  • Those problems created by the 2012 NDAA
  • the Freedom 7 lawsuit in Federal District Court against the legislation by Chris Hedges and other journalists
  • Judge Forrest’s injunctions – temporary and permanent
  • the immediate knee-jerk appeal by the Administration
  • the right and the duty of counties and states to employ Thomas Jefferson’s “rightful remedy” of Nullification when the Feds act lawlessly and outside the boundaries proscribed by their rule book – The Constitution.

There was also some discussion of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as well as the Principles of ’98. Kerry Bentivolio, GOP nominee for the Eleventh District Congressional seat delivered an impassioned and principled appeal in favor of the resolution and the protection of the People’s Liberty to the committee. Commissioner Runestad was at his most articulate as he covered all the bases in a very comprehensive, yet concise, manner. Blake Filippi answered all questions in a dignified, knowledgeable and respectful manner.

Details

Wrong Bill, Gill

Despite Facebook referring to the following of certain pages on their site as “Liking,” there are times it is useful to “Like” what one does not like.  This proved to be true yesterday, when the New Jersey Senate Democrats included on their Facebook page their intent, spearheaded by Senator Nia H. Gill (D – Essex), to move forward with legislation she is sponsoring to implement the health care exchanges as dictated by the Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare, a.k.a. in NJ, PalloneCare.

Senator Gill was primary sponsor of the “new bill,” which is actually the same as the previous bill Governor Christie rightly vetoed earlier this year.  The veto drew praise from the New Jersey Tenth Amendment Center, as well as various conservative and libertarian groups throughout the state.

Gill’s bill, S2135, has been submitted to the Senate Commerce Committee, while the companion bill, A3186, is in the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee.  One has to wonder if having the Senate bill in the Commerce Committee rather than the Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee is an attempt to sneak it past the voters.  If so, we’re smarter than that…right?

Details

What If November Changes Nothing?

by Judge Andrew Napolitano

What if the principal parties’ candidates for president really agree more than they disagree?

What if they both support the authority of the federal government to spy on Americans without search warrants? What if they both support confining foreigners, uncharged and untried, in Guantanamo Bay? What if they both believe the president can arrest without charge and confine without trial any American he hates or fears?

What if they both believe in secret courts – kept away from the public and the press – that can take away the rights of Americans? What if they both think the president can disregard the Constitution when it comes to the rights of those the government has confined to speedy trials, to confront witnesses and evidence against them, and to counsel of their choosing? What if they both believe the government can use evidence obtained under torture at trials in American courts? What if they both think the president can incarcerate those he once prosecuted, even after acquittal?

What if both major presidential candidates believe they can fight any war, assassinate any foe or assault any country using the military or the CIA, and they need not ask Congress for a declaration of war as the Constitution requires, nor account to Congress or the public as the law requires? What if they both want American troops to remain in Afghanistan, even though no foreign country in history has successfully done so, and even though the culture in Afghanistan is as lawless, as vicious to women and children, and as harmless to America today as it was when President Bush invaded it in 2001?

What if they both think this costly and fruitless war – the longest in American history – is somehow good for American freedom and security, even though most Americans do not? What if they both refuse to understand that the longer we are killing people in foreign lands who can cause us no real harm the more likely will people from those lands come here and bring us real harm?

Details

Communists and Founding Fathers Opposite on Democracy

Given our constant drift from a Republic to a Democracy, it might be well to review what historical philosophies most favored the latter form of government. The Founding Fathers and the Communists were total opposites on the word Democracy, one distained; the other loved. Guess which one hated and which one loved?

First, those who favored Democracy: the most blunt was Karl Marx, the father of communism. He wrote, “Democracy is the road to socialism.” Vladimir Lenin, the one activating the communist philosophy into a government in Russia, agreed. In his 1905 work, Two Tactics of Social Democracy, he saw Democracy as a strategy leading to his desired socialist revolution. “Social-Democracy, however, wants, on the contrary, to develop the class struggle of the proletariat to the point where the latter will take the leading part in the popular Russian revolution, i.e., will lead this revolution to the democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.”

In a letter to Inessa Armand in 1916, he added, “We Social-Democrats always stand for democracy, not ‘in the name of capitalism,’ but in the name of clearing the path for our movement, which clearing is impossible without the development of capitalism.” Class conflict and the philosophy “share the wealth” were, and remain, central to the empowerment of communism.

Next, those who abhorred Democracy: as far as we can tell the list included all the Founding Fathers. Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1759, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Years later, when Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention, a woman inquired of him, “What form of government have you left us?” the brilliant Franklin answered, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The phrase expressed some doubt as to whether man could understand the value of a Republic enough to protect it from a Democracy.

Details

Obama Admin. Argues for Warrantless Cellphone Tracking

In a document filed September 4 in the D.C. District Court, the Obama administration argues that there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in a person’s cellphone GPS data. The president’s lawyers argue that they do not need a warrant to request cellphone company records regarding a customer’s movements and location as tracked by their signal towers.

In its argument against a motion filed to suppress the government’s use of a defendant’s cellphone location data, the Obama administration claims that the customer tracking records kept by cellphone service providers are no different from other business-related “third-party records” such as store receipts and bank account statements, and customers have no legal basis for any additional expectation of privacy.

The feds are making their case for warrantless tracking of citizens in a re-trial of an accused drug dealer whose conviction was thrown out by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of United States v. Jones.

In the Jones case the high court held that warrantless installation of tracking devices on cars was unconstitutional. In light of that decision, lawyers for the federal government are shifting their focus to Jones’s cellphone tracking data.

Wired describes the decision and the White House’s reaction:

Details