Archive | The Opposition RSS feed for this section

Your Choice: Thomas Jefferson or the Status Quo

By on August 5, 2010 in Nullification, The Opposition

When I appeared before hundreds of members of the Iowa GOP late last June on the eve of the state party convention and received a standing ovation from throngs of party loyalists, I knew the business-as-usual crowd would be annoyed. I had just finished explaining that if we are serious about limiting government, as opposed to giving pretty speeches and wringing our hands, we will have to make use of all the mechanisms of defense Thomas Jefferson bequeathed to the states, and not just the ones that don’t offend Katie Couric or the New York Times.

Nathan Tucker has fired the inevitable shot back, in the form of a more or less predictable review of my book Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. I urge you, dear reader, to download a free chapter of the book at NullificationFreeChapter.com, and see if it intrigues you. Mr. Tucker, I am sorry to report, is not intrigued.

Jefferson’s argument is stated simply enough. If the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. In his famous Report of 1800, James Madison reminded Virginians and Americans at large that the judicial branch was not infallible, and that some remedy must be found for those cases in which all three branches of the federal government exceed their constitutional limits.

I argue, along with Jefferson and his long and honorable pedigree, that the states created the federal government, which they obviously did, and that as a principal to the federal compact each state reserves the right – if I may quote Jefferson himself – to “judge for itself, as well of infractions [of the Constitution] as of the mode and measure of redress.” Otherwise, the federal government will expand without limit.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Comments { 1 }

The Constitution is Dangerous to Incumbents

By on August 4, 2010 in The Opposition

Writes Tim Shoemaker at the Campaign for Liberty:

Watch this video clip from a town hall in Pete Stark’s district (CA-13). The crowd voiced their disapproval when he states: “The federal government can do most anything in this country…”

Comments { 1 }

The Political Inquisition Begins

By on August 2, 2010 in Activism, Big Brother, Big Government, The Opposition

Witch Trials

If this article doesn’t frighten you, it’s probably because you aren’t doing anything that really threatens to limit big government. As I read this article, a sinking feeling started to develop in the pit of my stomach. Is this what happens when patriotic citizens and state legislators begin to actually challenge entrenched RINOs and upset the statist quo? Frankly, it’s more than a little scary.
Continue Reading →

Comments { 2 }

How to Out-Left the Left

By on July 30, 2010 in Interviews, Media, The Opposition

A couple of days ago I appeared on Wisconsin Public Radio to discuss Nullification, my new book.  Although the conversation was probably more civil than what would have unfolded had I been a leftist on many right-wing programs, I had my share of shocked and appalled callers.  I think I handled them pretty well.  WPR wrote to say they’d received some good feedback from the program, citing a woman who wrote that although she didn’t share my ideology, “to me, this is one of the most refreshing guests you’ve ever had.”

cross-posted from the LewRockwell.com blog

Comments { 1 }

Left-Liberal Columnist: Eek, Nullification!

By on July 21, 2010 in Nullification, The Opposition

Much as I’d like to think some people on the Left might reject knee-jerk nationalism, articles like this one are all too typical.  Let me paraphrase: nullification (which the poor guy can’t even define) and rebellion are wicked.  Cut it out.  Obey your overlords.  You are born to be ruled.  And forget that “question authority” thing — where’d you get that?

Oh, and he’s thought of a new twist on the zombie video: Calhoun, Calhoun, Calhoun (even though Jefferson was the main originator of the idea, which is why Andrew Jackson referred to it as the “Virginia Doctrine”).

cross-posted from the LewRockwell.com blog

Comments { 1 }

States’ Rights Are Not Wrong

By on July 7, 2010 in Nullification, State Sovereignty, The Opposition

A very long, but well-documented article on the history of nullification – and its current efforts in ….of all places …. the Huffington Post.

Read it – it’s really good, and gives great ammo for discussing this issue with your friends on the left. We all have them. Admit it. (I even have a few friends on the right, too!)

Here’s a tiny excerpt of Nullification ≠ Discrimination: States’ Rights Are Not Wrong

Next time you hear the word nullification, think Underground Railroad. Or war resistance. Or legalized pot. Or “Down with Big Brother.”

Comments { 1 }

Taking Tentherism seriously in Minnesota

By on July 5, 2010 in Tenthers, The Opposition

A good article in the Minnesota post on how some politicians are jumping on the Tenther bandwagon – but aren’t the real deal. No surprise, of course, but nice to see this coverage. Here’s an excerpt:

You don’t have to be crazy, stupid or evil to believe that over the years, federal power has grown far beyond anything envisioned by the framers of the Constitution and far beyond the federal powers explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. I certainly believe it.

Where does the questioning end?

But it sometimes seems when Tenthers demand to see the Constitutional enumeration for something that Congress has done, they are usually using the logic of the 10th to oppose on constitutional grounds something they already oppose on political/ideological grounds. Do they believe in strict constructionism as an inviolable principle, or only when it advances their own agenda?

click here to read the rest

Comments { 1 }

Washington Post Attacks Ron Paul

By on June 14, 2010 in Media, The Opposition

The Washington Post, house organ of the Fed-banking-Wall Street complex, attempts to smear Ron Paul today. Check the headline and the deliberately unflattering photo, as well as the biased article itself. But Ron Paul has no sway of this sort in congress. He could have had it, but he chose not to play that game. Instead he has used his position to teach America and the world about sound money, freedom, and peace. He has persuaded individual congressmen, but–God bless him–he has no power in the conventional sense, has not sought it, and does not want it. So, are gold investments a conflict of interest because he also promotes the gold standard and competitive currencies? First, he has the right to protect his family with the money he earned as a successful physician and investor. Second, it is Greenspan and Bush, and Bernanke and Obama, who made gold go up in terms of dollars, not Ron Paul. If he had his way, gold would no longer be an investment. It would be money. But although Ron has no power in the Gingrich-Pelosi sense, he has vast influence, especially with young people. Millions of them. That’s why WaPo wants to hurt him. But he swats them away like a bothersome bug.

UPDATE from Eli Cryderman:

The Washington Post was purchased in 1933 by Federal Reserve Chairman Eugene Meyer. His son-in-law, Philip Graham took over in 1946 and after his death in 1963, Katherine Graham (Meyer’s daughter) took control. In 1979, Katherine’s son (and Meyer’s grandson) Donald Graham took over up until 2008, when his college buddy ran it for a few years until Katherine Weymouth, Katherine Graham’s granddaughter took over. All are ivy-league elites (some from influential families) who couldn’t possibly have any financial interest in keeping the fiat, house of cards monetary system going. One dead-tree rag would never prop up another dead tree instrument of exchange for mutual benefit, would they?

re-posted from the LewRockwell.com blog

Comments { 1 }

New Book Coming: Smear Artists Ready

By on May 22, 2010 in Nullification, The Opposition

My new book, Nullification, is coming June 29. Wait until you see the cover design. The design people are brilliant.

The smears that will be hurled my way are entirely predictable. No one is allowed to adopt, much less advocate, an unapproved opinion, especially one directed at the heart of the regime, and anyone doing so can expect the heretic treatment. (The Left, once a revolutionary movement, is now a bunch of shills for power and established institutions. “Question Authority” is long, long gone.) I will be portrayed as a sinister person who wants to bring back the Southern Confederacy, though why a libertarian would want to restore a regime that protected slavery and engaged in military conscription and monetary inflation is never explained. (But when Woods was in college [sixteen years ago], he…. Yes, that’s what they are actually going to pull. Nevermind all this.)

I’ve already smacked down two geniuses: here and here. There will be more.

My own political philosophy, which embraces 100% self-ownership, and thus is opposed to all forms of forced labor always and everywhere, is described in this lecture (the next video in the series starts when the previous one finishes). Anyone who tries to pretend I support slavery (slavery!) is therefore not just a numbskull, but a liar. I am more antislavery and (for that matter) antiwar than any one of my critics will be. I guarantee that.

In anticipation of the parade of automatons, I’ve just added a section to my articles page called “Against the Smearbund.”

The more hysterical the attacks are, though, the better. Because then, when the inevitable person of good will reads the book and sees how reasonable and persuasive it is and how firmly grounded in American history its arguments are, he’ll start to wonder about the hysterics: what the heck is their gripe against this book? Sure, they might disagree with its conclusions, but it’s obviously not crazy or evil. Why won’t they treat its arguments on their merits? Might these people just be irrationalists who want to intimidate people into silence?

These are just the questions we want people asking. Why can’t these critics (if I am not dignifying them by assigning them such a hallowed designation) honestly debate what are obviously reasonable arguments? Why must they resort immediately to smear-and-destroy mode? Anything that discredits the smear artists is an advance for freedom.

cross-posted from www.thomasewoods.com

Comments { 2 }

The Lehigh Valley Independent’s Tenther Coverage

By on April 27, 2010 in Media, The Opposition

Writing in the Lehigh Valley Independent, Jon Geeting uses Pennsylvania’s governor race to open a discussion about Tenth Amendment Advocacy.  It is difficult to excerpt from Mr. Geeting’s article without losing context, so I’ll suggest that you go read it.  It’s not very long.

In summary, Mr. Geeting uses the recent dust-up that arose when Attorney General Corbett referred to the Constitution as a “living document” to springboard into criticism of Congressman Rohrer for his support of the Tenth Amendment.  This seems to be the core of Mr. Geeting’s objection to Tenth Amendment Advocacy:

He [Rohrer] doesn’t believe in case law, and is constantly flouting an extremist view that the 10th Amendment means states have veto power over nearly any exercise of federal power.  His view of the Constitution is literal.  If the Framers didn’t explicitly write on the paper that we should have a national healthcare system, then we shouldn’t have one.  If the Framers didn’t write in Social Security, it’s unconstitutional.  It’s absurd.

So we’re to believe that Corbett is a main stream thinker and Rohrer is an extremist, because of his literal view of the Constitution.  Extremist?  If we follow the link to the Pennsylvania Independent that Mr. Geeting provided, we find Corbett quoted as saying,

Mr. Corbett said in response to Mr. Rohrer “I continue to maintain that the Constitution must be strictly adhered to and protected. …  My conviction that the Constitution must be upheld is so strong that I believe every piece of legislation, regardless of popularity or end result, must comply with this age tested document word for word.”

Judge for yourself, but I don’t see a whole lot of difference between Corbett’s “the Constitution must be strictly adhered to and protected” and “the Constitution is literal”, the view which Geeting attributes to Rohrer.  If both leading candidates from the Republican party hold this view, I think we can dispose of the slur, “extremist”.  Especially since Mr. Geeting’s article seems to imply that he views Corbett as a main stream thinker.

The reality is that the states have not just a right, but a duty, to nullify (or veto, as Mr. Geeting calls it) unconstitutional laws.  We have seen this, not just in theory and history, but also in recent practice.  Twenty five states have “vetoed” the unconstitutional REAL ID act and citizens in fourteen states have legal access to medical marijuana as a result of state laws that “veto” the federal marijuana laws within the states’ borders.  Is it extremist to observe actual activities which are continuing successfully in many states, even now?

Mr. Geeting closes his article with a straw-man description, excerpted from Think Progress, of what tenthers believe.  I can only wonder why he chose to go to Think Progress for a second-hand description.  It might have been more informative if, instead, he had run a few web searches and found a web site run by a real, live, tenther.  If Mr. Geeting had run a couple web searches, he might have instead closed with this excerpt from the Tenth Amendment Center,

The 10th Amendment doesn’t prohibit the feds from doing anything that “isn’t specifically spelled out in the Constitution” as this person claims, or as he’s saying other people claim. The 10th prevents the feds from exercising any power that hasn’t been delegated to it by We the People.”

While it may seem like an academic distinction, it certainly is not.  The Founders debated this issue in depth and wanted to make sure that the federal government wasn’t hamstrung, and unable to deal with changes the future would obviously bring.  So they called upon the Common Law doctrine of “principals and incidents” to ensure that government could adapt.

Comments { 0 }