Jesse Ventura Petitions for More Government

Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura has a list of demands, and over 10,000 people have signed his petition at

Ventura and his supporters had better be careful what they wish for and how they go about trying to make it happen, though. They may just end up destroying whatever “Democracy” they’ve set out to “regain.”

The federal elected officials, to whom the petition is addressed, must face the threat of some grand electoral overthrow if they don’t vote and act correctly this time! And how must they vote and act exactly? No, not in accordance to the US Constitution! But instead directed by the whims and wishes of the body and the mind of Jesse Ventura.

Ventura opens the letter with


Don’t Run for Federal Office, Tenthers. It’s a Trap!

We might be losing another good man to the federal beast.

South Carolina state Senator Lee Bright has decided to primary Lindsey Graham next year in an attempt to throw the notorious liberty hater out of government once and for all.

Certainly, Bright would be an improvement over his predecessor, assuming he can unseat the incumbent. Sen. Lindsey Graham is perhaps the biggest enemy of the Bill of Rights in the Senate. Even in the Congressional cesspool, he stands out as especially verminous. Bright would represent the people of South Carolina better than Graham ever could, and he’s off to a good start calling Graham a ‘community organizer for the Muslim brotherhood’ in one of his first interviews as a candidate. Superficially, there is a lot here for a liberty activist to like.

But upon closer review, Bright is making a mistake. Liberty is not going to be reclaimed by winning a federal election. If he pulls off the upset and wins, Bright will join a small handful of senators who talk tough against big government. Like Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, he can raise a big stink and draw attention to the corruption going on within the federal government, but he will likely be very ineffectual in restoring our constitutional rights. Conversely, staying  put as a state senator, he could actually be effective in reclaiming liberty for South Carolinians by nullifying federal laws.


Judicial Watch: Partisan Hacks on the Constitution?

The folks at the conservative legal blog Judicial Watch are hopping mad that the Obama Administration and their buddies at the ACLU are waving the white flag of surrender in the drug war.

Wait. What?

According to a Jun 10 blog post titled ‘DOJ Takes ACLU’s Lead on Pot Shops; Ignore the Law‘ which looks like it may have been written in bizarro world.

“The fact remains that federal law prohibits [marijuana] and therefore it’s a slap in the face to law and order that these illicit enterprises are surfacing around the country, especially in the area surrounding the U.S. government. A national news report points out that two new pot businesses will operate in the shadow of Congress and will mark one of the boldest moves yet for the nation’s marijuana movement.”

This possibility, however contrived, horrifies the ‘law and order’ conservatives over at Judicial Watch. So much so that they are willing to trample the Constitution to continue their “war” on a plant. The so-called “War on Drugs” rests on the same constitutional authority as most of the other American wars over the last 70 years.


Question me? Consider this: why did the federal government need a constitutional amendment to fight its war on alcohol?

The Constitution delegates no power to the federal government to prohibit marijuana.


Some Utah Republicans Get It, Some Don’t

Some sentences are so contradictory, so self-evidently oxymoronic that they stop you in your tracks.  For example, maybe you have a friend who says something like, “I’m a vegetarian, but I really love cheeseburgers.”  Hearing this, you’re likely to give your friend a bewildered look and say, “Dude…huh?”

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, the reported response of some Utah politicians elicited a similar reaction.  As reported by The Universe, “Prominent Utah Republicans overwhelmingly applauded the Supreme Court for recognizing same-sex marriage as a states’ rights issue but expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court is not in harmony with the Congressional majority that favors DOMA.”


How can it be simultaneously acknowledged that regulation of marriage is  a state issue and bemoaned that a federal law that nationalized the issue was struck down?  What can account for such an obvious contradiction?  As always, the devil is in the details  It is enlightening to understand which Utah Republicans acknowledged this issue as the domain of the states and which didn’t.