03/27/17

The State of Jefferson is a growing movement to Form A More Perfect Union

The goal is to eliminate over-regulation, over taxation, and under representation. We will create a new state that would exercise its rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments to halt the Federal government from over-reaching laws according to the US Constitution. We need to ensure that the income generated in our state stays in our state. We need a state with fewer agencies (CA has over 500!), lower taxes, less bureaucracy, state sovereignty, and personal freedom. But for this freedom we need fair representation.

California: Too Large to Govern

CA’s form of government is not adaptable to CA’s present size. In 1879 the size of the legislature was frozen. There were 1 million people. Now 38+ million people live in CA. Our vote has been diluted almost forty to one. The reactionary California political establishment is clinging to a system constructed to fit the population CA had in 1879. Now we suffer from lack of representation, and dilution of vote. We have been disenfranchised! A small rural state of Jefferson is the answer. We already have 350,000 people that want liberty including Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independants and all those wanting a better life for themselves and their children.

111 state representatives impose regulations on rural California counties and their 9 elected Assembly Members and Senators; laws that benefit cities to the detriment of the rest of the states residents. From these restrictions, much of the northern counties have become impoverished through loss of industry and jobs, and the addition of higher taxes and regulations. CA has approximately 1.1 trillion dollars in debt including unfunded liability. This did not originate nor continually skyrocket from rural CA. The northern mostly rural 21 counties have 9 elected state representatives. The remaining 111 urban elected state representatives make decisions that adversely effect our rural areas. We have 3 representatives where Los Angeles alone has 35. To break it down for you, Northern CA holds only 3 out of 80 seats in the CA Assembly, 3 out of 40 seats in the CA Senate, and 2 out of 53 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. And get this, there are 35 rural counties and 18 urban counties. With no representation at the state level we have no say over how taxes are spent. Elected representatives located in the Los Angeles Basin and San Francisco Bay Area make all of the decisions for rural CA. The fact is our voice, our vote is irrelevant. And that makes now the time!

There is a solution: a legal, constitutional remedy…

Create a 51st state from California’s neglected, over-taxed, deeply-regulated northern counties. Northern California has no chance of proper representation under the current interpretation of the Supreme Court opinions, and our votes will never count due to this imbalance. Urban voters make decisions that adversely affect rural areas, whether intentional or not.

We’ll pay our fair share.

Part of a formal separation includes absorbing our fair share of the current state debt. Our share of existing California debt which Jefferson would inherit is covered! A financial analysis was performed using the actual 2015/2016 budgets from 23 northern counties to show needed expenditures. Without sending this money to Sacramento, the northern counties are indeed viable on our own. The model shows a surplus of $3.5 billion without reducing the current expenditures. Schools, roads, public safety, and infrastructure are accounted for.

The Time Has Come For 51 “A Jefferson State of Mind”

The online official site: soj51.net

For questions, literature and local info: 530-246-9706

08/31/16

Totalitarianism: Feds Move To Nationalize State Election Systems Amid Cyber Attacks

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

In a development that is alarming in more ways than one, Jeh Johnson and DHS are making noises that we should federalize states’ voting systems because of hacking by the Russians and others. That should send a very cold shiver down your spine. Not only have the feds pretty much taken over the mainstream media, they now want to control our elections. Let me see… where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! Every single dictator on the planet has done the very same thing, just not as slyly. If this happens, we are no longer a Constitutional Republic. We become an outright banana republic run by despots.

Yahoo! News broke the hacking story first:

The bulletin does not identify the states in question, but sources familiar with the document say it refers to the targeting by suspected foreign hackers of voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois. In the Illinois case, officials were forced to shut down the state’s voter registration system for 10 days in late July, after the hackers managed to download personal data on up to 200,000 state voters, Ken Menzel, the general counsel of the Illinois Board of Elections, said in an interview. The Arizona attack was more limited, involving malicious software that was introduced into its voter registration system but no successful exfiltration of data, a state official said.

The FBI is now warning all states that they should start securing their voting systems to avoid hacking in the next election. Let me ask you this, shouldn’t the states have been doing that all along? Why now? DHS and the FBI are now referring to the election systems as critical infrastructure, like the power grid and Wall Street. First off, they’ve never done a thing about the power grid. They want to nationalize utilities so the government controls them too… but no one has done a thing to invest in modernizing and strengthening the power grid. As far as Wall Street goes, that is a reference to banking which they have pretty much already nationalized, but I guess they want to ‘further’ control it. Don’t you see the power grab here? Venezuela anyone? The feds now have control over our power grid, media, food and financial sectors. Now they want an iron grip on voting… exactly what do you think will happen? We don’t have a two party system anymore. They are basically in cahoots with one another, so voting has already been compromised. Now this.

Frankly, I fear the Russians hacking the system to mess with our elections. But that doesn’t mean that I want to hand over our voting process to the federal government any more than I want the Internet handed over to the UN and foreign countries, which Obama is making happen as well. Nationalizing the voting process is breathtakingly unconstitutional. If it happens, you will never be able to trust the results ever again. There was a reason our Founding Fathers wanted the states to have the power over elections and it was to prevent something like this. An arrogant move towards a despotic regime and it’s happening right before our eyes.

The talk of nationalizing the voting structure started before the Russian hacking of Arizona and Illinois’ election boards. This has been talked about for a while now. It should be all over the news, but as usual… crickets.

From Jeh Johnson:

“We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said.

“There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure,” he said at media conference earlier this month hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

DHS clarifies further on their website: “There are 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”

What happens when those in power control everything that defines out country and our survival? To let them control all this instead of putting it under the purview of the states and private entities is simply insane. It’s begging for a dictatorship.

A White House policy directive adds, “The federal government also has a responsibility to strengthen the security and resilience of its own critical infrastructure, for the continuity of national essential functions, and to organize itself to partner effectively with and add value to the security and resilience efforts of critical infrastructure owners and operators.”

Johnson also stated that the primary issue is that there isn’t a central election system since the states run elections. “There’s no one federal election system. There are some 9,000 jurisdictions involved in the election process,” Johnson said.

“There’s a national election for president, there are some 9,000 jurisdictions that participate, contribute to collecting votes, tallying votes and reporting votes,” he said. Yes and that runs so well. Not. It’s already corrupt and rigged and now they want that to apply to ALL ELECTIONS. They are using security and the fact that we are vulnerable as an excuse to seize power over voting. It doesn’t take a genius to see it.

Georgia’s top election official is flatly digging in his heels and saying no thank you to the fed’s so-called assistance. He’s correct in saying that the Obama Administration is ginning up a cybersecurity threat to intrude on states’ authority. That is exactly what is happening and I totally agree with Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

“It seems like now it’s just the D.C. media and the bureaucrats, because of the DNC getting hacked — they now think our whole system is on the verge of disaster because some Russian’s going to tap into the voting system,” Kemp, a Republican, told POLITICO in an interview. “And that’s just not — I mean, anything is possible, but it is not probable at all, the way our systems are set up.” I think the Russians are a serious threat, but the power and the responsibility should still reside with the states. Somebody needs to actually, you know, read the Constitution.

In an earlier interview with NextGov, Kemp warned: “The question remains whether the federal government will subvert the Constitution to achieve the goal of federalizing elections under the guise of security.” Trust, me they will… Obama has nothing to lose and he’s setting the stage for Clinton. Kemp sees a “clear motivation from this White House” to expand federal control, citing Obama’s healthcare law, the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation and the increased role of the Education Department in local schools.

Kemp is far from alone. Election officials in other states are now ringing the alarm bells as loudly as they can, but it is hard to be heard in a media vacuum that squelches your voice. Many election officials see the classification of their election systems as critical infrastructure as the first stage of a more intrusive plan. They are not wrong here.

“I think it’s kind of the nose under the tent,” said Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos, who is a Democrat. “What I think a lot of folks get concerned about [is] when the federal government says, ‘Well, look, we’re not really interested in doing that, but we just want to give you this,’ and then all of a sudden this leads to something else.” Oh, you bet it does.

“Elections have always been run and organized by the states,” said Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill, another Democrat. “And I think there has always been a fear that there would be federal intervention that would not recognize differences among the states.” Yes, there has and rightly so. Things are so whacked out, I’m now agreeing with Democrats. SMH. Merrill went on to say that having this kind of rhetoric this close to a major election is not helpful. That’s an understatement.

This kind of thing makes you paranoid. First you worry that the Russians are rigging the election for one of the candidates. Then you worry that the feds are just waiting to pounce on an excuse to make our elections utterly meaningless. This gives either candidate fodder to claim if they lose, that everything was rigged.

Bruce McConnell, a former DHS deputy undersecretary for cybersecurity under Obama, outright rejected Kemp’s suggestion that states should fear greater federal involvement in elections. “I think it’s pretty clear today which is the greater risk to the republic: citizens losing complete confidence in our election system, or the states working carefully with Washington to prevent disaster while keeping the 10th Amendment well in mind,” said McConnell, now the global vice president at the EastWest Institute. He was referring to the Bill of Rights provision that declares limits on federal authority. Which is exactly what the feds are trying to nullify and subvert.

A number of lawmakers from both parties have urged the administration to improve cyber-protections for parties, political groups and election offices. So did a bipartisan group of security experts from the Aspen Institute, who said in July that “voting processes and results must receive security akin to that we expect for critical infrastructure.” Right, yes… the Aspen Institute, which is a Progressive Marxist front. Of course they would be for this.

Johnson said on Aug. 3rd that DHS “should carefully consider” the critical infrastructure question. Twelve days later, he held a conference call with state election officials in which he discussed a possible role for Washington. Kemp was not happy with this and again, I don’t blame him. He found it troubling. Agreed. He also pointed out that it all has to do with the definition of ‘critical infrastructure’. Again correct… they are controlling the language here, so it gives the feds a foot in the door.

The White House is now coming forward and claiming that Kemp and others who are concerned about the constitutional implications of this are wrong about the law. “The concern about … ‘we’ll be designated as critical infrastructure and then we’re going to be regulated’ is just based on a false premise,” said the former official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. The official instead argued the benefits of this fascist move.

Kemp was unmoved by these word games and argued that it was clear during Johnson’s conference call with state election officials that a regulatory push “was obviously something that had been in the works.” “Everybody that was on that call was in lockstep with Secretary Johnson,” he added. On that same call, state officials accepted the offer to create an election cybersecurity partnership committee. Careful folks… that looks a lot like political candy to me.

Say it with me… TOTALITARIANISM. That’s what this amounts to. To federalize voting is to strip the states and voting Americans of that power and hand it to the government.

Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror. A distinctive feature of totalitarian governments is an “elaborate ideology, a set of ideas that gives meaning and direction to the whole society.”

Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” His words are haunting us today and we had better stop the Marxists before they gain such a stranglehold that the Republic is throttled. Tyranny has returned to America… not on a horse this time, but via cybersecurity.

02/1/16

Why is small town America being inundated with Muslim immigrants?

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Looks like my old stomping grounds in Montana are heating up. People there are not taking Obama’s plan to force refugees on them lying down. There was a protest in Missoula, Montana at 10 a.m. this morning over that very issue. It is just one of many battles brewing out there in small town America.

Small towns in the sparsely populated parts of America are the perfect place to relocate these refugees. Especially, if your agenda includes politically terraforming the country. The West is historically conservative in their politics. Many are Republicans and Libertarians. Even the Democrats hearken back to an earlier time when they were more conservative in nature. Obama and the Democrats can’t have that. They need to have an entire country willing to submit to Marxist diktats. They need areas seeded with those who will vote Democrat and ensure that they stay in power no matter what.

And it’s not just voting demographics that are pushing this move either. I personally believe that there is a warped logic to all of this. That if Islam can be made the predominant religion in America, people will be more easily controlled. That’s insane of course and won’t work, but there you have it. Instead, Shariah law will be implemented and you will see the same atrocities occurring in Europe happen here. The big difference being, that at least for now, Americans are armed and will use those weapons to protect their neighbors, loved ones and country.

Bringing in the refugees also moves forward the Cloward and Piven strategy to overwhelm the system so it will collapse and cause chaos in the streets. These people want to tear the system apart, so they can replace it with something truly heinous. The Obama administration will never admit that this is the plan, but can you honestly look at what is going on today and tell me it isn’t? Our borders are wide open. We are not vetting anyone to speak of and security here in the US is worse than before 9/11.

Communities in states such as Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and Kansas are being infused with Muslim refugees even though they are not wanted by the residents or the local law enforcement. The feds and their leaders are not giving them a choice. Wyoming is the only state currently not participating in the program, but even the governor there wants to jump in it. Living in large cities would be too costly for the refugees and more can be accomplished with seeding them across the plains. In a small town, they can turn everything to their advantage in short order. Since many of our larger cities are already flooded with immigrants from south of the border and from Muslim nations, in many respects they have at least partially fallen to the ploy already. This is the fundamental transformation of America in play. South Carolina, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota and Michigan are vigorously fighting against this program and Obama’s ‘change’.

The same entitlements, jobs, lodging and freebies will be given to these refugees in small town America. But that will mean taking more and more away from locals in these same communities. These immigrants bring crime and disease with them. As crime rises, people will leave which will hasten the take over of these towns. At least that is what Obama and his friends hope for. I pray that people dig in and decide to stay and fight if they can.

Which brings me back to Missoula where they had a protest this morning in front of the county courthouse. Refugees are being brought into Helena and Missoula and the people there don’t want them. We’re talking about hundreds of Muslims. Other rallies in Twin Falls, Idaho and Fargo, North Dakota are planned as well. I have friends in Idaho that just won’t stand for this invasion.

It’s the same old story here. NGOs with lots of money and a pro-immigrant agenda are seeking out politicians who can be bought basically, or that can be forced into compliance one way or the other. These individuals, such as Sand Point, Idaho, Mayor Shelby Rognstad, conspire against their constituency until they are forced by the people to back down. The politicians in Missoula seem to have sold out to this movement. Oh, what I wouldn’t give to find out what each of them was offered in exchange for their support in resettling large number of Islamic refugees in their areas.

Witness the great sellout:

Here in “Big Sky Country” local politicians in Missoula, working with pro-immigrant NGOs, are inviting the federal government to begin sending Syrians, comparing them to the Hmong refugees who fled Vietnam’s communists in the late 1970s. They have not been deterred by the fact that 98 percent of Syrian refugees are Sunni Muslims, the vast majority of whom FBI Director James Comey admits are impossible to vet for ties to terrorism.

Despite Comey’s warnings, the Missoula Board of County Commissioners sent a letter on Jan. 13 to the U.S. State Department requesting Syrian refuges. “We look forward to seeing approximately 100 refugees per year resettled in Missoula,” the letter states.

“Missoula is an ideal city for resettling refugees,” the letter continues. “Our community enjoys good schools, incredible natural beauty, and a low unemployment rate, among other factors.”

Not for long if you bring these transplants in. We haven’t learned a damned thing from watching what is going on over in Europe. How do you justify the rapefugees in Germany and Sweden, who treat rape as game for a large number of players at a given event? How can you ignore the violence, the murders, the depravity that is the Ummah? What’s wrong with these people? Do money and power mean so much to them that they don’t care that they are selling America out to a hellish nightmare movement? Imagine your wives, daughters, mothers, neighbors… little children… subjected to these beasts. What would you do?

I lived in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. My daughter still lives up that way. Sandpoint, Idaho is not far from there. The good people there are making a stand against politicians who would bring in these refugees. And they are winning. Just last week they voted to withdraw a resolution supporting refugee resettlement; stopping, at least for now, a bitter war between the residents and the politicians. The people at that meeting were enthusiastically victorious and cheered as newly elected (and probably short-lived) Sandpoint Mayor Shelby Rognstad asked the council to withdraw the resolution from consideration. A measure meant to counter statements from Bonner County commissioners and Sheriff Darryl Wheeler opposing the resettlement of refugees, the resolution was intended to restate Sandpoint’s commitments to human rights, according to Rognstad.

“This resolution has only served to divide us and this community,” said Rognstad, as he requested the withdrawal. “That saddens me.”

I’ll bet it does because his bread was probably buttered with goodies if he played ball. He was roundly lambasted by the audience over his moronic, treacherous statements.

Twin Falls, Idaho has also been fighting the refugee resettlement program tooth and nail. But they are not having nearly as much success as Sandpoint has unfortunately. The Twin Falls Times is now reporting that starting on October 1st, approximately 300 Muslim refugees, mostly from Syria, will arrive there. There are 45,000 people in Twin Falls. I lived there for a while when I was little. It was idyllic. Not for long… that’s just the first wave. There are more on the way from Iraq, Syria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Community leaders were told at a recent Boise State University conference held for “stakeholders” — including church groups and social service providers — that a couple of thousand refugees are planned to a arrive statewide soon.

This is nothing less than an invasion and a displacement of the people who have lived in these areas for generations. It is the redistribution of a religious demographic and this will not end well. Over 90% of the refugees from Syria alone are Sunni Muslims. And in their midst are terrorists, I guarantee it. They will move in and begin converting whole communities to Islam using sweet talk and threats. Many, many more mosques will pop up that are funded by the likes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The call to prayer will be heard where the buffalo roam and the antelope play. Shariah law will worm its tentacles into each community. I’m not being dramatic. I’m telling you this will happen if this keeps up.

This is how countries fall and slaves are made. This is the Caliphate moving into our midst and those who support ISIS will set up house in these small towns. What do you think will happen? And it won’t take that long either. It didn’t in Germany, France, Norway or Sweden. Why would it be different here?

We are being lied to by the Obama administration and by our leaders. They claim they will bring in 10,000 a year. Don’t make me laugh. You can look for a minimum of 100,000 to 200,000 a year to come in once the floodgates are opened. Obama himself has said this and he means it. All of these refugees will come from Islamic countries and the vast majority will be Muslim. Almost none of them will be Christians.

They do not assimilate… they do not integrate. Instead, they force communities to conform to how they wish to live. People need to check into what is going on and what is about to happen where they live. Your politicians will not willingly tell you. Why is this happening? It’s simply a political agenda. One that wants more power and money for those in control and one that wants to get rid of our pesky constitutional rights and subjugate Americans. Obama acts more like a proxy for the mullahs of Iran these days than President of the United States. We each need to fight this in our communities before it is too late. This is the beginning of the Hijrah migration here in the US and it is the ultimate enemy within.

11/29/15

Treason, Cowardice, and the Islamic Invasion: Why States Must Revitalize The Militia

By Publius Huldah

To All State Governors and State Legislators:

War is coming to America. Obama is importing young able-bodied males to make civilizational jihad on us; and Congress can’t summon up the moral courage to stop him.

To see what is ahead for us, watch this 20 minute video. It depicts the Islamic takeover which is right now going on throughout Europe as European countries are being repopulated by millions of young able-bodied Muslim males (euphemistically called “refugees”) who are explicit about their intention to breed the native Europeans out of existence, and replace the European cultures with Islamic culture.

And Obama is bringing it here.

This paper discusses the two courses of action set forth in Federalist Paper No. 46 for situations such as this: (1) The States must refuse to cooperate with the federal government; but if that doesn’t solve the problem, (2) The States must use their State Militia to defend their State and Citizens.

Invaders are not “Refugees” or “Immigrants”

Those pushing for an Islamic takeover of Europe and North America are referring to these able-bodied young Muslim males as “refugees”. The use of that term brings the Muslims who are brought into the United States within the federal Refugee Resettlement Act. And since the Constitution delegates power over immigration to Congress, and Congress re-delegated refugee policy to the President, the States must submit to Obama’s Will and accept the “refugees” he forces on them. Thus goes the specious argument recently made by Ian Millhiser.

But we will look at the Truth.

What does our Constitution say about Immigration and Naturalization?

Immigration (or migration) pertains to new people coming to this Country to live.¹ Naturalization refers to the process by which an immigrant becomes a Citizen.

Our Constitution does delegate power over immigration and naturalization to Congress. Article I, §9, clause 1, delegates to Congress (commencing January 1808) power to control migration. ² Article I, §8, clause 4, delegates to Congress power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

But what is going on now with the importation of large numbers of able-bodied young Muslim males is not “immigration” as contemplated by our Constitution. It is an act of war being committed against the People of the United States by their President. The plan is to overthrow our Constitutional Republic and set up an Islamic Caliphate over America. ³

That is Treason – it is Insurrection. It is not “immigration”, and it is not “refugee resettlement”.

The States must refuse to cooperate

Michael Boldin’s recent informative article explains how the federal resettlement program works: The federal government coordinates resettlement of “refugees” with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) located within the States, and thus circumvents state and local governments. Accordingly, the States should promptly stop all such NGO involvement; take control of the programs themselves; and then refuse to cooperate with the federal government.

James Madison, Father of our Constitution, spells this out in Federalist No. 46 (7^th para). Respecting unpopular acts of the federal government:

“…the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

But if the federal government persists, then the States must move to the next Step.

Our Constitution Imposes the Duty on the Federal Government to protect us from Invasion

Article IV, §4, requires The United States to protect each of the States against Invasion:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…” [emphasis mine]

In Federalist No. 43 (3^rd para under 6.), Madison says of this provision:

“A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it…” [emphasis mine]

Article I, §8, clause 15 delegates to Congress the power:

“to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

Article 1, §8, clause 16 delegates to Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. The States retain the power to appoint the Officers and conduct the training.

Article II, §2, clause 1 makes the President Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. [But remember: the federal government may call forth the Militia only for the three purposes listed in Art. I, §8, cl. 15].

But the federal government hasn’t called forth the Militia to protect the States from the Islamic invasion. To the contrary, the President is importing the invaders and foisting them on the States.

So! What are States and The People to do? Because the President is aligned with the invaders, and Congress filled with moral cowards, must we passively submit to having ourselves and our Christian and Jewish children killed, and then let our surviving burka dressed daughters and granddaughters be handed over to the clitoris cutters?

No! The People have the Natural Right of self-defense; and the States have the reserved Power to defend their Citizens. With the State Militia, The People and the States have the means to exercise this Natural Right and reserved Power.

The States must Revitalize their State Militia

What is the Militia? As Dr. Edwin Vieira’s excellent series ⁴ on the Militia and how it guarantees the right to keep and bear arms shows, the Militia has a long history in America. That history began with the English settlements in the early 1600s. Every free male was expected to be armed and prepared at all times to protect himself, his family, and his community. Laws in the Colonies gave effect to this requirement. So at the time of the drafting of our Constitution in 1787, everyone knew of this 150 year long history of free American males being required to be armed, trained, and ready at a moment’s notice to answer the call of Duty.

Accordingly, the above identified “militia clauses” were written into our Constitution of 1787.

In 1792, Congress implemented these militia clauses and passed “An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States”. This Act required all able-bodied male citizens (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and 45 to enroll in their State Militia, get a rifle and ammunition pouch, and train.

As Section 1 of the Act shows, the adult able-bodied male Citizens of a State are The Members of their State Militia. So, continuing the long-standing colonial tradition, Members of Congress in 1792 thought it such a fine idea that all male citizens be armed and trained and members of their State Militia, they required it by federal law!

So! As Art. I, §8, cl. 15 shows, Congress is authorized to provide for calling the Militia into national service to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. But what if the federal government refuses to act?

Alexander Hamilton provides the answer in Federalist No. 29. Hamilton shows that one of the purposes of the Militia is to protect the Citizens of the States from threats to their liberties posed by the federal government (7^th & 12^th paras); and that the States’ reservation of power to appoint the Officers secures to them an influence over the Militia greater than that of the federal government (9^th para).

And on the use of the Militia to repel Invasions, Hamilton says (13^th para):

“In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition…”

True, it was contemplated that the “United States” would be the entity which protects the States against Invasion (Art. IV, §4). But when the federal government has demonstrated its determination that the States ARE TO BE OVERRUN BY INVADERS, then the People have the natural right to defend themselves, and their States have the retained Power to employ the Militia to defend them from those into whose hands the federal government has demonstrated its determination to deliver them.

The States are within their retained Sovereign Power to call up their State Militia to fend off invaders. Article I, §10, last clause, is an expression of this retained sovereign Power of States of self-Defense:

“No State shall … engage in War, unless actually invaded…”

Clearly, the States may use their State Militia to engage in War to defend the States from Invasion.⁵

James Madison spoke to the same effect as Hamilton respecting federal tyranny. In Federalist No. 46 (9^th para), Madison speaks of a federal government so consumed with madness that it sends its regular army against the States:

“…Let a regular army … be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. … [To the regular army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. … Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms [an insurmountable] barrier against the enterprises of ambition…” [boldface mine]

Look to Your State Constitution for Provisions re Your State Militia

Article VIII of the Constitution for the State of Tennessee provides for Tennessee’s Militia. Consistent with the tradition which has existed in this Country since the early 1600s, all Tennessee Citizens are members of this Militia. Article I, §28, TN Constitution says:

“That no citizen of the state shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law.”

Read your State Constitution. What does it say about the Militia? What do the implementing State Statutes say? Is your State Militia active? Why not? For information on revitalizing your State Militia, see Dr. Vieira’s three part series, “Are You Doing Your Constitutional Duty For “Homeland Security”?

Conclusion

Madison closes his magnificent 9^th paragraph in Federalist No. 46 with this:

“…Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.” [emphasis mine]

But we became “debased subjects of arbitrary power”. So now, will we lay down before the Invaders and Insurrectionists and those in our federal government who aid and abet them? Or we will man up, revitalize our State Militia, and show the world that we still have some “free and gallant Citizens of America” in this land?

Endnotes:

¹Our Framers contemplated that immigration would be restricted to people who shared our culture and values – e.g., Federalist No. 2, 5^th para.

But Americans got conned into believing that an ideal culture is multicultural. Thus, with Teddy Kennedy’s immigration reform act of 1965, our borders were opened to all. We congratulated ourselves on our new virtues of “tolerance” and “diversity”. But the goal of the multiculturalists was to eradicate our unique Culture – we were too gullible to see it. So now, the enemy is inside the gates, and more are coming in. And Islam doesn’t tolerate multiculturalism.

² “Open borders” adherents bristle at the assertion that Congress has constitutional authority to restrict immigration. They insist that Art. I, §9, cl. 1 addresses only the importation of slaves and says nothing about free immigrants. But the text distinguishes between “migrations” and “importations”, and the Duty is levied on “importations”, not “migrations”. Slaves, being “property”, were “imported”. Free Europeans “migrated”. The power of the States to determine such persons as it was proper to admit, expired January 1808. There are various letters and speeches from our early days confirming this. I’ll write it up when I get time (if this doesn’t turn on the light). For now, see Federalist No. 42 (6^th para):

“…Attempts have been made to pervert this clause [Art. I, §9, cl. 1] into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice [slavery], and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.” [boldface mine]

Our Framers understood that the national government must be able to determine who is allowed to come here. That’s why Art. I, §9, cl. 1 delegates to Congress power to control immigration, commencing January 1808. And isn’t one of your complaints against the federal government that it has refused for so long to control our Borders?

³ See the website for The Center for Security Policy (Frank J. Gaffney) HERE. There you can read The Plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate and take over all American Institutions. They are working to make this Country part of a global Islamic caliphate. Open your eyes NOW.

⁴ Do read all 8 of Dr. Vieira’s papers in this series. They get very moving.

⁵“Troops” as in Art. I, §10, last clause, are professional full-time soldiers. States may not keep “Troops” absent consent of Congress. But the States’ Militia is a permanent State institution. The States retain their pre-constitutional powers over their Militia, subject only to the federal government’s limited supremacy set forth in the 3 Militia clauses [See Part 2 of Dr. Vieira’s paper HERE.] PH

07/25/15

The Religious Origins of the Sanctuary Movement

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Thanks to Donald Trump, the major media are being forced to cover the illegal immigration movement, such as the proliferation of “sanctuary cities” across the U.S. that attract criminal aliens, give them legal protection, and let them back out on the streets to commit more crimes. But the really taboo topic is how these sanctuary cities grew out of a movement started by the Catholic Church and other churches.

Over 200 cities, counties and states provide safe-haven to illegal aliens as sanctuary cities, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reports. What has not yet been reported is that the Catholic Church, which gave President Obama his start in “community organizing” in Chicago, has been promoting the sanctuary movement for more than two decades.

What’s more, in April, a delegation of U.S. Catholic bishops staged a church service along the U.S.-Mexico border and distributed Communion through the border fence. At the same time, Pope Francis said a “racist and xenophobic” attitude was keeping immigrants out of the United States.

No wonder the pope’s approval ratings have been falling in the United States. Overall, Gallup reports that it’s now at 59 percent, down from 76 percent in early 2014. Among conservatives, it’s fallen from 72 percent approval to 45 percent (a drop of 27 points).

“Few people are aware that this extreme left branch of the Catholic Church played a large part in birthing the sanctuary movement,” says James Simpson, author of the new book, The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.

Simpson says Catholic Charities, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and its grant-making arm, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, are prominent elements of the open borders movement.

The sanctuary movement has its roots in the attempted communist takeover of Latin America.

With the support of elements of the Roman Catholic Church, the Communist Sandinistas had taken power in Nicaragua in 1979. At the time, communist terrorists known as the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) were threatening a violent takeover of neighboring El Salvador. President Ronald Reagan’s policies of overt and covert aid for the Nicaraguan freedom fighters, known as the Contras, forced the defeat of the Sandinistas, leaving the FMLN in disarray. In 1983, Reagan ordered the liberation of Grenada, an island in the Caribbean, from communist thugs.

Groups like the Marxist-oriented Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) were promoting the sanctuary movement for the purpose of facilitating the entry into the U.S. of illegal aliens who were supposedly being repressed by pro-American governments and movements in the region. The U.S. Catholic Bishops openly supported the sanctuary movement, even issuing a statement in 1985 denouncing the criminal indictments of those caught smuggling illegal aliens and violating the law. Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits the transportation or harboring of illegal aliens.

Two Roman Catholic priests and three nuns were among those under indictment in one case on 71 counts of conspiracy to smuggle illegal aliens into the United States. One of the Catholic priests indicted in the scheme was Father Ramon Dagoberto Quinones, a Mexican citizen. He was among those convicted of conspiracy in the case.

Through the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, an arm of the Bishops, the church has funded Casa de Maryland, an illegal alien support group which was behind the May 1, 2010, “May Day” rally in Washington, D.C. in favor of “immigrant rights.” Photographs taken by this writer showed Mexican immigrants wearing Che Guevara T-shirts, and Spanish-language communist books and literature being provided to rally participants.

An academic paper, “The Acme of the Catholic Left: Catholic Activists in the US Sanctuary Movement, 1982-1992,” states that lay Catholics and Catholic religious figures were “active participants” in the network protecting illegals. The paper said, “Near the peak of national participation in August 1988, of an estimated 464 sanctuaries around the country, 78 were Catholic communities—the largest number provided by any single denomination.”

A “New Sanctuary Movement” emerged in 2007, with goals similar to the old group. In May, the far-left Nation magazine ran a glowing profile of this new movement, saying it was “revived” by many of the same “communities of faith” and churches behind it in the 1980s.

One group that worked to find churches that would provide sanctuary to immigrants in fear of deportation is called Interfaith Worker Justice, led by Kim Bobo, who was quoted by PBS in 2007 as saying, “We believe what we are doing is really calling forth a higher law, which is really God’s law, of caring for the immigrant.”

But conservative Catholic Michael Hichborn of the Lepanto Institute says Interfaith Worker Justice is run by “committed Marxist socialists,” and that Bobo is “highly active and involved with the Democratic Socialists of America,” a group which backed Obama’s political career.

07/3/15

FAIL – Americans Don’t Know Why We Celebrate 4th of July!

Hat Tip: BB

Media analyst Mark Dice asks beachgoers in San Diego, California some basic questions about America’s 4th of July Independence Day celebration and their answers are quite disturbing.

OBAMA’S AMERICA=> Mickey Mouse Can’t Answer FOX 4th of July Questions – He Doesn’t Speak English (VIDEO)

Sounds like the McDonald’s we went to in Tulsa (Sapulpa) two days ago. They spoke NO English – repeated our order back in Spanish… got it wrong eight times and never did give hubby the right size of coffee. FAIL.

06/14/15

States Need Budgets – but Enumerated Powers Limit Federal Spending

By Publius Huldah

We will never solve our political and fiscal problems if we continue in our present state of ignorance of the fundamental distinction between the federal Constitution and the State Constitutions.

With our federal Constitution, we created a national government to which we delegated only a handful of enumerated powers. If you would trouble yourself to read the federal Constitution, this fact would jump out at you and hit you over the head. [THIS simple chart will get you started.]

The federal government doesn’t need a budget because Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers. Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of delegated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes. ¹

And if you read your State Constitution, you will see that those who ratified it [foolishly] created a State government of general and unlimited powers subject only to the exceptions carved out by its Declaration of Rights. ²

Since State governments were created to possess general and unlimited powers, State governments may lawfully spend money on just about anything they want. ²Accordingly, State governments need budgets to limit their spending to receipts.

But Federal Spending is limited by the Enumerated Powers

The federal Constitution lists the items Congress is permitted to spend money on. If you read through the federal Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to Congress and the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress is lawfully authorized to spend money. Here is the list:

The Census (Art. I, §2, cl. 3)
Publishing the Journals of the House and Senate (Art. I, §5, cl. 3)
Salaries of Senators and Representatives (Art. I, § 6, cl. 1)
Salaries of civil officers of the United States (Art. I, §6, cl. 2 & Art. II, §1, cl. 7)
Pay the Debts (Art. I, §8, cl. 1 & Art. VI, cl.1)
Pay tax collectors (Art. I, §8, cl.1)
Regulate commerce with foreign Nations, among the several States, and with Indian Tribes (Art. I, §8, cl.3) ³
Immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
The mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
Attorney General to handle the small amount of authorized federal litigation involving the national government (e.g., Art. I, §8, cls. 6 & 10)
Post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
Patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
Federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9 & Art. III, §1)
Military and Citizens’ Militia (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
Since Congress has general legislative authority over the federal enclaves listed in Art. I, §8, next to last clause, Congress has broad spending authority over the tiny geographical areas listed in this clause.
The President’s entertainment expenses for foreign dignitaries (Art. II, §3); and
Since Congress had general legislative authority over the Western Territory before it was broken up into States, Congress could appropriate funds for the US Marshalls, federal judges, and the like for that Territory (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2).

So! That’s about all Congress is authorized by our original Constitution to spend money on. ⁴ Did I leave anything out? To find out, take 20 minutes and, armed with a highlighter, read carefully through the original Constitution and see for yourself.

Let’s look at some of the appropriations bills passed by the First Congress: ⁵

HERE is the Act for the establishment and support of Lighthouses, Beacons, Buoys, and Public Piers, of August 7, 1789 (expenditure authorized by Art. I, 8, next to last clause);

HERE is the Act providing for the Expenses which may attend Negotiations or Treaties with the Indian Tribes, and the appointment of Commissioners for managing the same, of August 20, 1789 (expenditure authorized by Art. I, 8, clause 3 & Art. II, §2, cl. 2);

HERE is the Act providing for the establishment of the Post Office, of September 22, 1789 (expenditure authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 7); and

HERE is the Act providing for the compensation of federal judges and the Attorney General, of September 23, 1789 (expenditure authorized by Art. III, §1 for the federal judges; & for the AG, Art. I, §6, cl. 2 & Art. II, §2, cl. 2 & Art. I, §8, last clause)

Read these appropriations bills: They are single subject, short, easy to understand, and illustrate how appropriations bills ought to be written.

So, do you see? Congress is to make the appropriations for the objects of the enumerated powers delegated to the national government.

Pursuant to Art. I, §9, clause 7, Congress is to periodically publish a Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures.

We don’t need a federal budget because the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money.

Accordingly, the federal Constitution doesn’t provide for a Budget. We never had a federal budget until Congress passed the unconstitutional Budget and Accounting Act of 1921.

We got the crushing federal debt because for 100 years, Congress has been IGNORING the existing constitutional limits on its spending. Most of Congress’ spending is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the delegated powers.

The Answer to our political and fiscal problems is already laid out in the federal Constitution: Downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers and return the usurped powers to the States or the People.

Why are Some Pushing for a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA)?

Many of those clamoring for a federal BBA don’t know about the fundamental distinction between the federal and State Constitutions. But they want to do something about the out of control federal spending; they are told a BBA is the answer; and so, without giving it much thought, they jump on the bandwagon.

But others have an evil agenda in pushing for a BBA – an agenda so evil that if they disclosed it, most Americans would reject it:

All versions of a BBA transform our federal Constitution from one which created a national government with only a few enumerated powers to a national government of general and unlimited powers. This is because BBAs substitute a “budget” for the enumerated powers; and accordingly, the national government would become lawfully authorized to spend money on whatever they put in the Budget!

That unlimited spending power on whatever they want is what would transform the national government into one of general and unlimited powers.

To add insult to injury, while all versions of a BBA pretend to limit spending; they actually permit increases in spending and increases in debt whenever a majority votes to do so. ⁶

Conclusion

When the history of our time is written, do not let it be said that the American People were too lazy and stupid to be free. Do not let tricksters take away our glorious Heritage. Wake up! Stop applications for a convention for a BBA from being passed in your State. If your State has already passed such an application, educate your State legislators and get them to rescind it.

Endnotes:

¹ The constitutional powers of the national government were supposed to be exercised with the proceeds of excise taxes & impost tariffs, with any shortfall being made up by an apportioned assessment on the States based on population.

² The powers of State governments are also restricted by the federal Constitution: The list of prohibited powers at Art. I, §10, and by those few powers delegated exclusively to the national government.

³ HERE is the proof of the original intent of the interstate commerce clause.

⁴ The 13^th, 14^th, 15^th, 16^th, 19^th, 24^th, and 26^th Amendments increased the powers and spending of the federal government by expanding federal powers & litigation against the States and The People. It was necessary to amend the Constitution to remedy the defect of slavery; but there was a better way than the 13^th -15^th Amendments.

⁵ HERE is a helpful site for locating early Acts of Congress. Once you have the title and date of an Act, you can find the official source at the Library of Congress: e.g., THIS provides what one needs to find the official edition HERE.

⁶ Compact for America’s pretended BBA is actually a tricky device for imposing a national sales tax or value added tax on the American People – on top of the income tax – and does nothing to limit federal spending. Yet deluded State Legislators are now proposing it in Michigan as SB 306. You can find a short and simple section by section analysis of Compact for America’s BBA HERE.

04/22/15

Nullification is a Natural Right!

By Publius Huldah

What did our Framers really say we must do when the federal government usurps power?

They never said, “When the federal government ignores the Constitution, amend the Constitution”.

They never said, “File a lawsuit and let federal judges decide.”

Instead, they advised two manly remedies. We’ll look at one of them – nullification – in this paper. ¹

First, let’s look at the Constitution we have.

Our Federal Government has Enumerated Powers Only

With our federal Constitution, we created a federal government. It is:

A federation of sovereign States united under a national government ONLY for those limited purposes itemized in the Constitution;
With all other powers reserved by the States or the People.

We listed every power we delegated to the federal government: Most of the powers delegated over the Country at large are listed at Article I, §8, clauses 1-16.

All our Constitution authorizes the federal government to do over the Country at large falls into four categories:

Military defense, international commerce & relations;
Immigration & naturalization;
Domestically, create a uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
With some of the amendments, secure certain civil rights.

That’s basically it! All other powers are reserved by the States or the People. Depending on how you count, Congress only has 18-21 powers over the Country at Large. ²

It is only with respect to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution that the federal government has lawful authority.

If it’s on the list, Congress may make laws about it.
But if it’s NOT on the list, Congress usurps power & acts unlawfully when it interferes.

Is “education” on the list of delegated powers? Raising children? Health Care? Environmental regulation? Is most of what they do on the list? Since these are not delegated powers listed in our Constitution, the federal government usurps power and acts unlawfully when it meddles.

So then, what do we do when the federal government usurps powers not on the list?

Don’t Submit to Unconstitutional Laws – Nullify Them! ³

Our Framers said the federal government is our “creature” and must obey our Will as enshrined in our Constitution. And when it doesn’t, we must defend the Constitution by invoking our natural right of self-defense:

Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist No. 28 (last 5 paras): [I’m condensing]

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted … [by] … State governments [which] will … afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority…” [emphasis mine]

Hamilton says in Federalist No. 33 (5^th para):

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” [emphasis mine]

Thomas Jefferson said in his draft of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, 8^th Resolution:

“…where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact … to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them…” [emphasis mine]

James Madison commented on this in his Notes on Nullification (1834):

“… the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression…” [emphasis mine]

Note that Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison said nullification is a natural right – it is NOT a “constitutional right”. Rights don’t come from the Constitution – they come from God. ⁴

HERE is Madison’s “Report of 1799-1800 on the Virginia Resolutions”. He said under his discussion of the 3^rd Resolution [I’m condensing]:

The States, in their sovereign capacity, are the parties to the constitutional compact; and are thus the final authority on whether the federal government has violated the Constitution. There can be no tribunal above the authority of the States to decide whether the compact made by them has been violated by the federal government. (p 192)

That if, when the federal government usurps power, the States don’t stop the usurpation, and thereby preserve the Constitution; there would be no relief from usurped power. This would subvert the Rights of the People as well as betray the fundamental principle of our Founding. (p195)

That the Judicial Branch is as likely to usurp as are the other two Branches. Thus, the Sovereign States have as much right to judge the usurpations of the Judicial Branch as they do the Legislative and Executive Branches. (p196)

That all 3 Branches of the federal government obtain their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the authority of the States. And if the Judicial Branch connives with other Branches in usurping powers, our Constitution will be destroyed. (p196)

So the Judicial Branch does not have final say as to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact. Otherwise, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of the judicial branch with the other branches in usurping powers, would subvert the Constitution forever. (p196)

In Federalist No. 46, Madison says, respecting unconstitutional acts of the federal government:

the People can refuse to cooperate with federal officers [7^th para];
State officials can oppose the feds [7^th para];
State Legislatures can invent legislative devices to impede & obstruct the federal government [7^th para];
States can cooperate in concerted plans of resistance [8^th para];
States can easily defeat the federal government’s schemes of usurpation [10^th para]; and as the last resort,
States must defend themselves from the federal government – that’s why the People are armed.

So Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison tell us: When the federal government asks or directs States to do things which aren’t on the list, the proper response is, “No!”

State Governments Must Man Up and Preserve our Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence says at the 7^th para that the colonials “opposed with manly firmness” the King’s “invasions on the rights of the people”.

We need today that same manly opposition to tyranny. And we are starting to see some: The Tenth Amendment Center says over 200 bills have been filed this year in State Legislatures to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government. E.g.:

To allow terminally ill people access to experimental drugs & medical treatments despite FDA rules – drugs & medical treatments are not on the list! And the 10^th Amendment didn’t stop them from usurping powers in this area.

Deny resources and assistance to the National Security Agency – spying on us is not on the list! And the 4^th Amendment didn’t stop them from spying on us!

Nullify federal bans on growing hemp & marijuana. Agriculture and drugs are not on the list! And the 10^th Amendment didn’t stop them from usurping powers in this area.

An Indiana Legislator filed a bill to nullify all federal EPA Regulations – environmental protection is not on the list! And the 10^th Amendment didn’t stop them from usurping power over the environment.

Disarming the American People: If Congress by law, or the President by executive order, or the BATF by rule, or the supreme Court by opinion, or the federal government by UN Treaty, orders The People to turn in our arms, We must refuse to comply. The Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to disarm us. Gun control is not on the list! And the 2^nd Amendment didn’t stop them from regulating ammunition, firearms, and firearms dealers.

Accordingly, States should pass laws directing their firearms and ammo dealers to ignore all federal dictates which pretend to restrict arms, firearms, ammo, and sales of same. The Law should also provide that the State Attorney General will defend any Citizen of the State from unlawful acts committed against him by agents of the federal government attempting to enforce unconstitutional federal dictates within the borders of the State.

Prayer in the Public Schools: When, in 1962, the US supreme Court began its war against Christianity by banning prayers in the public schools, State legislatures should have passed laws directing their public schools to ignore the unconstitutional opinion of the supreme Court. “Religion”, “prayers”, and “public schools” are not on the list of delegated powers. And the 1^st Amendment didn’t stop them from “prohibiting the free exercise of religion”.

Brave Citizens Must Man up Also.

As noted above, Madison says in Federalist No. 46 that the People can refuse to cooperate with federal officers.

Rosa Parks & Martin Luther King showed us spine 50 years ago when they nullified the State & local Jim Crow laws by refusing to obey those unconstitutional laws.

Recently in Connecticut, Citizens refused to obey an unconstitutional State law which pretends to require them to register their firearms. Art. I, §15, CT Constitution says:

“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

If you are a “Citizen”, you have the right to bear arms – that’s all you need in Connecticut. So the Connecticut Statute making it a felony to possess guns which are not registered is unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, § 15 of the State Constitution.

And The People – as the creators of the State government – are the ones to ultimately decide!

All nullification requires is a spine. And Rosa Parks & MLK showed us what spine looks like: You say, “No more!”

The “we lost the civil war” objection to Nullification.

Those who chant this objection seem to have in mind the “nullification crisis of 1832”. Let’s debunk it:

The southern States were agricultural. They bought manufactured goods from England. England bought southern cotton. Infant industries in the North East were producing some of the same manufactured goods as England; but because they were more expensive than the imports, they couldn’t compete.

So in 1828, Congress imposed a high tariff on the imports. The Southern States called this the “tariff of abominations”, because it made the English goods too expensive to buy; and when the Southern States stopped buying English goods, England stopped buying Southern cotton. This devastated the Southern economy.

Note that Congress has specific authority to impose tariffs on imports: Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. So the Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional.

The nullification crisis of 1832 was brought on because S. Carolina wanted to “nullify” the Tariff Act of 1828 – a constitutional law! South Carolina developed a bizarre theory that

A State has a “constitutional right” to nullify any federal law; and
The nullification is presumed valid unless ¾ of the States say it isn’t valid.

In James Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1834), he discussed and debunked S. Carolina’s theory. He said:

The federal government has delegated authority to impose tariffs;
The Constitution requires that tariffs be uniform throughout the United States;
States can’t nullify tariffs authorized by the Constitution;
¼ of the States don’t have the right to dictate to ¾ of the States on matters within the powers delegated to the federal government; and
Nullification is not a constitutional right.

Near the end of his Notes, Madison quoted Thomas Jefferson’s famous statement:

“…but where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact …to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits …” [emphasis mine]

Madison then says:

“Thus the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression.” [emphasis mine]

Do you see? Madison’s points are:

States may not properly nullify constitutional acts of the federal government; and
When an act of the federal government is unconstitutional, nullification is a NATURAL RIGHT – not a “constitutional right”. ⁵

Start Doing YOUR Duty

Your Duty is to read our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and learn The List of Enumerated Powers. YOU were supposed to enforce the Constitution with your votes. But instead of supporting only candidates who knew and obeyed our Constitution, you abdicated your Responsibility and voted for candidates who told you what you wanted to hear.

For the Sake of your Country and Posterity, you must also renounce cowardice and appeasement as the response to evil.

If you fail us, hell on Earth is just around the corner.

Endnotes:

¹ The other Remedy is to elect faithful representatives. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 20, 1788 at [223], James Madison said our Constitution depends on the people having the “virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom” to office. In Federalist No. 44 [12^th para from end], he says when Congress usurps powers, and the executive and judiciary departments go along with it,

“…a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers…” [emphasis mine]

But we keep electing ignorant phonies who know nothing about our Constitution. Why do we do this?

² THIS Chart lists the enumerated powers over the Country at Large and illustrates how Principles in our Declaration of Independence were implemented in our Constitution.

³ Stop quibbling over terminology. As a People, we have lost the ability to think conceptually. When some don’t see the word, “nullification”, in a writing, they insist the writer didn’t support it. But the concept is refusal to submit to unconstitutional laws. You can call it “non-violent civil disobedience”, “that original right of self-defense”, “resistance”, “refusal to obey”, “impeding & obstructing”, “nullification”, “interposition”, or something else. I use “nullification” because the term has a distinctive meaning and was used by our beloved Thomas Jefferson. You may call broccoli “broccoli”, a “green vegetable”, a “cruciferous vegetable”, a “super food”, or “little trees”. But “broccoli” is the most precise and distinctive term. Do you see?

⁴ So when Michael Farris, and others who tell us a convention is the only way out, disparage nullification as an “extra-constitutional doctrine”, the proper response is: Nullification is NOT a “constitutional right or remedy” – it is that NATURAL RIGHT of self-defense which pre-dates and pre-exists the Constitution. Farris has repudiated our Founding Principles that Rights come from the Creator God, and that the purpose of government is to secure the Rights GOD gave us (Declaration of Independence, 2^nd para). In Farris’ brave new world, “rights” come from the Constitution – where they are subject to the will of human governments. See, e.g., his so-called “parental rights” amendment HERE. “Child raising” is not now on the list of delegated powers – but §3 of Farris’ “parental rights” amendment would delegate power over children to the federal government. Read it.

⁵ Rights don’t come from the Constitution! They come from GOD! PH

03/24/15

FEMA and the Science of Extortion

By: T F Stern
The Moral Liberal

There are several articles on the Internet which put forth the idea that FEMA intends to withhold money from states which don’t sign on to the premise of man made global warming. They use the updated term, Climate Change; but their religion of man made harm to Mother Earth continues as the foundation of their faith.

Frank Minero’s piece, Sorry Rick Scott, Admit Climate Change Is Real Or Florida Loses $100 + In FEMA Funding, caught my attention as it contained some rather inflammatory language.

“They’ll need to think long and hard on this one. The stakes are high. If they stick with their ignorant, anti-science rhetoric, they stand to lose millions in federal aid.” (emphasis added)

Would someone define ‘anti-science rhetoric’? Doesn’t Minero mean folks who won’t fall for junk science substituted for real science and the political agenda associated with the Church of Man Made Global Warming?

At one time science was the search for truth regardless of where that path led; but we live in a time when political agendas foretell results and computer generated models validate theories without the need for actual or authentic data, how convenient!

Minero does a touchdown dance at the end zone of his article proving that Climate Change ‘science’ is nothing more than a political hoax.

“Here’s a list of the eighteen offending states: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, South Dakota and Wyoming. Not surprisingly, most of the anti-science policy comes from red states.

This is great news for the people living in red states. Now petty politics and greed won’t doom them to the absolute worst consequences of climate change.” (again, emphasis added)

Those who voted for the Democrat/Socialist/Communist (interchangeable) agenda of man made global warming will be rewarded with taxpayer funding (a politically incorrect term to be replaced with ‘people’) of FEMA programs.

If, on the other hand, you require proof of this unsettled science, which is nothing more than a shake down scheme to redistribute wealth, then we will use the power of media to ridicule your pathetic attempts to stave off being robbed in order to advance the liberal agenda.

Never mind that actual scientific findings prove the IPCC report as having been considerably flawed, to the extent that it might have been a total fabrication. Never mind that the World’s top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just [a] Quarter what we thought – and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong.

Imagine that, the global warming ‘estimates’ were off by around 75%! The data fed into computer models used to twist the arms of law makers in order to bring about a United Nations one world government isn’t accurate. Flipping a coin would give better results; at least that way you’d be right half the time.

If that isn’t enough, Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace recently shot down the Climate Change hoax when he addressed the Senate committee charged with coming up with legislation to combat global warming.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” he said as he explained, “he left the group when it became more interested in politics than the environment.”

It would appear the anti-science rhetoric being spread around has been by the environmental alarmists.

03/13/15

The Founders Didn’t Fail—We Are Failing The Founders

By: Benjamin Weingarten
The Federalist

Conservatives are understandably depressed in the wake of Speaker Boehner and the Republican-controlled Congress’ predictable caving on executive amnesty.

Let me stop right there by emphasizing that I only said conservatives. Were our republic healthy, every single American would be depressed that President Obama’s amnesty—which on dozens of occasions he said he did not have the authority to enforce—will continue apace to the benefit of lawbreakers at the expense of American citizens.

Americans would be further demoralized at the notion that our president politicized the sovereignty of our nation represented by failing to protect its borders, all in a transparent attempt to win a permanent Democratic majority—which the shortsighted Republican establishment seem perfectly fine with, since they want immigration and the idea of “those racist Republicans” to become non-issues.

Some are lamenting the cowardice of our representatives, and to that I quote a former NFL Coach: “They are who we thought they were!”

I have even seen one article arguing that the Constitution itself has failed. But the Constitution and our Founders did not fail. Human nature has not changed between 1787 and 2015. There were undoubtedly plenty of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century booze-swilling, cigar-smoking iterations of John Boehner lumbering around Capitol Hill.

What has changed is the size and scope of government, the number and composition of people who are voting, and the public’s general indifference to and acceptance of the greed, graft, lying, and all matter of corruption that have become commonplace in public life. There is also a heck of a lot more bread and circuses to keep us fat, happy, and distracted from what our supposed leaders are doing.

Government Is Too Big to Control

Entitlement reform is not going to capture the imagination of the American people like a llama chase or the color of a dress. And it bears noting that many of the Founders themselves were involved in sordid activities, and even willing to accept a king.

But that king’s powers would have looked downright puny compared to those President Obama wields today; and what corrupt politicians did way back when feels less offensive than the systemic abuse and political malpractice on display now, in part because the nation our founders—exceptional citizen legislators—entrusted us with was substantially smaller and less intrusive.

Today, when you have hundreds of agencies and millions of pages of laws, when the federal government is among the largest employers in the world, hyper-regulating almost every aspect of our society, creating arcane and byzantine rules designed to reward one set of constituents or another over and above the American people, not to mention the rule makers, rule interpreters and compliance officers themselves—this naturally creates not only an unwieldy and unaccountable federal government, but one that will invite and reward people willing to pull the kinds of shenanigans we see today.

To the percentage of the public that is actually informed as to what is going on in government, there are simply too many egregious things occurring on a daily basis, not to mention again the Siren song of bread and circuses, for anyone to keep track of it all or know where to focus one’s energies and pitchforks.

The Failure Is Our Fault

What defines an informed voter itself is of course open to interpretation, given what the majority of people are taught in our hallowed Democrat-controlled community organizing institutions, also known as schools; and given that one can read The New York Times, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and Vox, and watch “The Daily Show” each day to qualify as informed by today’s standards, without knowing anything about what the other half of the country thinks and believes.

On amnesty specifically, as a lame-duck president without control of either house of Congress, Barack Obama is completely unchained, simply running roughshod over our laws. That a supposed constitutional scholar is rendering the system of checks and balances and separation of powers meaningless; that the executive branch is usurping the legislative branch, while congressmen say one thing and stand by idly doing another, is not a reflection that the Constitution or founders failed.

Rather, these travesties reflect that the American people are failing the founders.

We elected Barack Obama twice, in spite of his words, actions, and associations, which have unsurprisingly led to these disastrous six-plus years. The presidents who preceded him were not much better, though no one would have posed the question of them as Mark Steyn recently dared: “If he were working for the other side, what exactly would he be doing differently?”

We elected the congressmen who with rare exceptions (see Lee, Sen. Mike) continue to stand by while Rome burns, and who are derelict in their duty to defend and protect the Constitution, including against its brazen violator who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Welfare Versus Defense: Who Wins?

We have failed to persuasively enough make the case that we cannot thrive as a nation just by slowing government’s rate of growth and hiring smarter technocrats, but must literally be slashing the federal budget by 50 percent, abolishing agencies en masse, allowing Americans to opt out of the welfare state (including programs which can only pay my generation back in devalued dollars like Social Security), ensuring that we have not small deficits but massive surpluses to pay down our debt so the interest alone does not consume all the money we pay to the feds each year, and demanding a massive devolution of power back to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs.

And if our fellow Americans choose to live in socialist basket-case states, they are free to do so without reaching into your and my pockets at the point of a gun.

At root and underlying all of these issues, we have allowed the Left to control the media, academia, and the rest of America’s key cultural institutions, such that the vast majority of our fellow citizens are reflexively progressive and cannot even conceive of the types of changes I just mentioned. This is how the radical, morally and economically bankrupting leftist policies can be considered mainstream, while freedom can be considered fascistic.

This inherent progressivism narrowly underlies Republican acquiescence to the growing leviathan, and dictates the type of leaders that America broadly finds palatable, which has led us to this perilous place in our history in which all of our worst enemies are ascendant, while we are fast on the road to bankruptcy and serfdom, with our only choice between welfare and defense.

When entitlements and our armed forces are sitting side by side on the chopping block, which do you think a war-weary, economically pummeled American public is going to choose?

We Need a New Generation of Savvy Statesmen

No, the Constitution hasn’t failed, and our founders haven’t failed. We the people have failed during the hundred-year progressive march. So now we are burdened with the doubly difficult task of trying to win the long game of culture and the short game of politics.

I have much more faith in the latter over the former—that over time the chances are greater that we develop the strategy and tactics to beat an establishment incumbent class than win America’s cherished cultural institutions, which form our national soul.

Our national soul determines whether the Constitution is a piece of parchment or enshrines principles like equal rights for all and special privileges for none, that law resides above man, that men are not angels and that we must compel government’s non-angels to control themselves, and that the most important thing in America is protecting the rights of the minority, the most important of which is the individual.

And the inspiration for our national soul should reside not in our Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence that breathes life into it, a majestic document that we have ignored for far too long.

Don’t Blame Boehner—Blame Us

In any event, we the people have all the leverage in the world. The Boehners and Mitch McConnells will listen to us when the political cost of siding with the Chamber of Commerce is so great that their political lives depend on it.

Using the power of the purse as a lever to control the president, or threatening let alone bringing forth articles of impeachment are political remedies, and they are not being used not only because the Republican establishment that makes up the majority of the majority in Congress are risk-averse and often spineless, but because the majority of the American people are not demanding it.

That impeachment brings howls of racism alone shows a failure of our culture to separate the original sin of slavery from the demerits of the job done by this president, to separate identity politics from the individual.

Until and unless we devote all of our efforts to winning the long and short games with a constant, strategic, relentless full-court press, we are going to see amnesties ad nauseum, Obamacare not only not abolished but metastasizing, the federal budget and debt continue skyrocketing, comparatively small things like the Export-Import Bank chugging along and, yes, the welfare state expanding and our defenses shrinking while Islamic supremacists, Russia, China, and their proxies grow ever-bolder and more confidently bellicose.

We the people have much work to do if we want to keep any semblance of our republic, as Benjamin Franklin challenged us to do. And we hold the power in our hands.

But do we have the will and capability to exert it?

Ben Weingarten (@bhweingarten) is publishing manager and editor of TheBlaze Books. Ben is a graduate of Columbia University, where he majored in economics-political science and contributed to outlets including the Breitbart sites and the Ludwig von Mises Institute.