Yes, Usually it’s Partisan; Get Over It

One criticism leveled against nullification is that it is usually a “partisan thing.”

In other words, most of the proponents of nullifying Obamacare are Republicans.  Also, a vast majority of proponents of nullifying the war on drugs are Democrats.

This is a true statement.

With most nullification efforts now underway, the effort is partisan.  This is not a real argument against the movement; it is simply an observation.  In reality, any effort, with certain exceptions, will of necessity be partisan. (As it will be nullifying an act of the federal government controlled at the time by one party or the other).

Of course, these same critics would hold up the Patriot Act (passed by a Republican, and sustained now for five years by a Democrat) as some shining example of good governance.  To these people, the fact that an act passed Congress, the Senate, and was signed by the president, gives automatic legitimacy, as long as some of the people who passed the bill were on both sides of the “aisle.”  They would have you believe that the acts of Congress all represent the consensus  of the nation at large.

But what is consensus?

Details

Nullification Outlaws

Usually, nullifiers are called racists. But now we have some dude spouting on how dangerous the nullification movement is because he believes YOU are too stupid to handle liberty and take responsibility.

In the Philly Post, Charles D. Ellison equated nullifiers to Duck Dynasty watching, rebel flag waving, outlaws in the driver’s seat heading down the path to America’s apocalyptic future.

Mr. Ellison, master of the status quo, wanted to show how that the nullification movement is disrupting the balance between two parties. He went on to assert the Civil War obviously resolved the question of who is the sole authority over 100 years ago, and that this new pesky nullification movement is messing that up.

Ohhhh Charlie!!!! You are so lame. And ignorant!

But wait! We’ve been down this road sooooooo many times before that I’m willing to look at this differently. Hey, I’m adult enough to try and see this from Charlie’s point a view. Let me try it out. Let’s see what it looks like through the eyes of someone who ignores important parts of the supremacy clause, ignores the fact that our form of government is a republican form, and believes that the Civil War settled things.

Details

Dianne Feinsten Defends NSA Spying, We Push Back

Dianne Feinsten Defends NSA SpyingLast week, during a hearing in the Imperial Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Dianne Feinsten went to bat for the NSA – defending their wildly unconstitutional spying program as “lawful, effective and constitutional”

This is in light of the fact that the NSA intends to collect all U.S. telephone records and put them in a searchable “lock box” in the interest of “national security.” That’s how PCWorld reported on what General Keith Alexander, the NSA’s director, told U.S. senators.

There is no upper limit” on NSA telephone-records collection, Alexander said. “I believe it is in the nation’s best interest to put all the phone records into a lock box that we can search when the nation needs to do it.”

Fact: The 4th Amendment doesn’t authorize this kind of mass intrusion into your privacy, no matter what these people happen to say.

Details