Category Archives: Sovereignty

Hypocrisy at its fullest

Posted on by

Hypocrisy: the essences of the Obama Administration.

Of all the irredeemable acts of Obama’s administration, one of the worse is its selective enforcement of the law, or, in some cases, attempting to enforce federal regulations as law. We have an excellent example of the former in the latest kerfuffle. The State of Kansas has passed and Governor Brownback has signed a series of laws that upholds Kansas’ 10th Amendment rights, 2nd Amendment rights, and reaffirms the state’s sovereignty.

Eric Holder says the Kansas law is unconstitutional.

Eric Holder Tells Sam Brownback That Kansas’ New Gun Law Is Unconstitutional

Posted: 05/02/2013 7:31 pm EDT  |  Updated: 05/02/2013 8:09 pm EDT

Eric Holder Sam Brownback

Kansas officials are vowing to fight United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s claim that the state’s new ban on federal gun laws is unconstitutional.

Holder wrote Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) in late April that the new law which would prohibit the enforcement of federal gun laws on all guns that are made and stay in Kansas violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause and that the federal government would be willing to take Kansas to court over the law, the Associated Press reported Thursday. In April, Brownback signed the law, which is being described as the most pro-Second Amendment measure in the country. It says that any federal agent who enforces a federal gun law on a “made-in-Kansas” gun would face felony charges.

“Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities,” Holder wrote to Brownback. “And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities.”

On the other hand, Holder has no problem with federal employees not enforcing immigration law, nor failing to support DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Eric Holder is not the Supreme Court. He can’t decided what is or isn’t constitutional. There is a process in place to follow for that determination, not a simple fiat from the federal bureaucracy.

Governor Brownback disagrees with Holder’s statement.

Sam Brownback Brushes off Eric Holder’s Opinions on 2nd Amendment Protection Act

Posted by

Today, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback sent a letter in response to Eric Holder’s direct threat against the state for its new law, the 2nd Amendment Protection Act.  It reads, in part:

The State of Kansas is in receipt of your letter in which you place Kansas on notice regarding the view of the Obama Administration concerning the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act.

This first sentence of Brownback’s letter is the most important. Holder’s letter took the position that the new Kansas law is unconstitutional – without question. And because of Holder’s view that he is the decider of all that is constitutional or not in this country, he threatened the state – and thus the People – of Kansas.

Brownback showed quite a bit of savvy with that sentence. He absolutely brushed off Holder by pointing out that his letter only represented “the view of the Obama Administration…”

Just because Eric Holder claims that the Kansas law is unconstitutional, doesn’t make it so. And Holder’s claim that he had no idea about “fast and furious” probably doesn’t make that so either.

Sam Brownback did a great service to the People of Kansas by reminding them that Holder is just sharing his opinion.

He also noted that the Kansas nullification law comes from the source of political power to which no American government is above – the People themselves.

“The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will.”

Eric Holder doesn’t get to tell the People what THEIR constitution means. It’s the other way around.

The entire interchange brings forth a series of questions: If the federal government chooses to enforce one set of law while choosing to not enforce another set of law, should the states recognize the authority of the federal government to enforce any set of law? Does the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the law” equate to equal enforcement of the law? Is the failure to enforce existing law a failure to support that protection?

The final question derives from the above. Is the failure of the federal government, through selective and capricious enforcement of law and federal regulation violate the contract between the central government and the states?

More and more, states are examining that last question. None, yet, have responded. A prudent choice…but at some point, if the federal government continues on its current path, the answer the states may collectively choose, is, “Yes.”

Facebook

Property: What do we own?

Posted on by

I read an interesting article today in The American Thinker. It asks a question, “Do we own ourselves?” Now, many people would consider this a rhetorical question. “Of course we ourselves,” they’d say. It’s obvious.

Personally, I agree with them. But not all do. Statists, as Mark Levin and others like to call them, don’t—and they have historical examples to prove their point. The examples they use, people as subjects (UK), as citizens (FR), as serfs (RU), as peons (MX/SP), are examples that drove us and our forefathers, to create this nation, the United States.

Those who would agree with me—those who believe we own ourselves, have historical examples, historical heritages to support our views as well. We have our Judeo-Christian heritage. The Bible and the Talmud document Man’s relationship with God—a personal relationship, not a collective one. If we concede ownership of ourselves to anyone, it is to God, not a secular state.

Timothy Birdnow, writing in The American Thinker, has an article in the most recent issue that demonstrates the divergence of views on people as property. Too many believe the Civil War and the 13th Amendment, Article I, ended slavery. That Amendment may have ended “legal” slavery, but not the philosophy nor the concept of people as property supported by centuries of European thought and writings from Rousseau to Marx to Benito Mussolini, to more modern writers of the Progressive movement.

The Individual as Property

By Timothy Birdnow, May 1, 2013

…

What is the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the State? America was founded on principles found in the Bible and in the writings of 17th century philosophers such as John Locke.

John Locke pointed out in his First Treatise on Government:

Though the Earth… be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.

So, all men have first and foremost the right to own themselves.

This is of critical importance because it is this most fundamental principle that the modern Left and Right part company over. Liberals do not believe this basic assertion, preferring to believe that we as a collective own each other. This distinction is absolutely critical, because it informs our beliefs in terms of actions.

The English Philosophers Hobbes and Hume argued that property was a creation of the State, and were not held in high regard by the Founders of the United States. If property is a creation of the State, then one can argue that the State has sovereignty over the individual.

…

As in communism and fascism, the entire undercurrent of modern liberalism is anti-individualism. Even the Anarchists, though they may seem to be radical individualists, ultimately seek the collectivization of property as a means to grant themselves the individualism they seem to believe in — making them as statist as any other leftist branch. Without property rights one cannot have individual rights.

It is no surprise that the general degradation of property rights should coincide with the rise of statism and the devaluing of the individual. Either we own property — including ourselves – or we do not.

Rousseau, Marx, Mussolini all disdained the concept of personal ownership or personal sovereignty. To them and modern progressives, the individual must be subordinate to the state. 

This is the concept that allows Mayor Bloomberg to issue his edicts to govern our personal lives, what we eat, how much, what we do, and may or may not own. Bloomberg believes he can issue those orders because the “citizens” of New York City are property of the state, in this case New York City. The City (State), therefore, can impose its collective will on their property, the residents of the city.

A more recent example was the Siege of Boston and pillaging of personal rights from the residents of Watertown. In their search for the Marathon Bombers, the State, ignored the 1st and 4th Amendment rights of the residents of Watertown because as property of the state, those residents had no rights not allowed by the state. History shows us that what the state has given, the state can take away. View those photos of people being rousted from their homes at gunpoint, look at them being forced from their homes, hands raised, helpless before armed troops.

Do we own ourselves or do we not? The progressives say no. That is why they wish to disarm us. An armed populace has the ability to resist the state’s effort to make us their property.

I invite you to read Birdnow’s article. It does invoke thought.

We’re not L.O.S.T.

Posted on by

U.S. Navy CarrierBy L.O.S.T., I mean the Law of the Sea Treaty.  It’s a treaty that has been in the works for decades. Everytime it’s come forth, it has failed to be ratified.  Until Obama, I don’t believe any President has actually been stupid enough to sign it. Obama says he will. why am I not surprised?

Even with Obama’s signature, the treaty will still require a 2/3’s (67 votes) approval in the Senate. Senator Jim DeMint says he now has 34 votes of those who will not vote for the Treaty.  It should be 40 votes…if it weren’t for the RINOs.

DeMint: Law of the Sea Treaty now dead

The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty now has 34 senators opposed to it and thus lacks the Senate votes needed for U.S. ratification, a key opponent of the treaty announced Monday.

But the treaty’s main Senate proponent denies the treaty is sunk, saying plenty of time still exists to win support before a planned late-year vote.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, which entered into force in 1994 and has been signed and ratified by 162 countries, establishes international laws governing the maritime rights of countries. The treaty has been signed but not ratified by the U.S., which would require two-thirds approval of the Senate.

Critics of the treaty argue that it would subject U.S. sovereignty to an international body, require American businesses to pay royalties for resource exploitation and subject the U.S. to unwieldy environmental regulations as defined.

The list of treaty opponents has been growing, and on Monday, Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican and a leader of efforts to block it, announced that four more Republicans have said that they would vote against ratification: Sens. Mike Johanns of Nebraka, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Rob Portman of Ohio and Johnny Isakson of Georgia.

There is great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the liberal side. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) says passage is, “a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ for the Law of the Sea.”

Proponents of ratification argue that member nations are establishing rules of the sea that the U.S. would have to adhere to without a vote. They also argue that by ratifying the treaty, the U.S. would protect its claims and rights to mine America’s continental sea shelves and offshore waters for natural resources without interference from other countries or other entities.

Without ratification, U.S. energy companies won’t have the security they need to invest in exploring those areas for resources, supporters say. — Washington Times.

It is difficult for me to understand how giving up our sovereignty of our own coastal shelf is beneficial. Why should we pay a UN tax to drill on our own continental shelf?  The protection of our shores is a primary reason why we have a Navy — to secure our shores from foreign encroachment.

Advocates point to the Bush (43) administration’s support for the treaty.  Let’s get real here. As much as I like George Bush, he wasn’t much of a conservative.  This is more like a child explaining why he jumped off the bridge into the creek because, “Johnny and Paul did it!” (Real life experience there.)  There is too much “Me too-ism” in Washington as it is. So much of the activity of our government, the senseless proposals that appear because some other country has done it, is just plain stupid, a whim of someone with little thought or care of the consequences.

A Resurgence of Sovereignity

Posted on by

Every day, it seems, a new political atrocity occurs in Washington, DC. A number of States are beginning to push back. One form is legislation by states reaffirming their 10th Amendment rights by declaring that federal authority does not exist for firearms, manufactured, sold and possessed within the state.

The extracts below are taken from a New York Times column, States’ Rights Is Rallying Cry for Lawmakers.

Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican, signed a bill into law on Friday declaring that the federal regulation of firearms is invalid if a weapon is made and used in South Dakota. — New York Times, March 16, 2010.

Utah has passed similar legislation.

“Who is the sovereign, the state or the federal government?” said State Representative Chris N. Herrod, a Republican from Provo, Utah, and leader of the 30-member Patrick Henry Caucus, which formed last year and led the assault on federal legal barricades in the session that ended Thursday. — New York Times, March 16, 2010.

Other states are passing legislation that “opts the state out” of any federal health care regulations.

…Oklahoma’s House of Representatives approved a resolution that Oklahomans should be able to vote on a state constitutional amendment allowing them to opt out of the federal health care overhaul. — New York Times, March 16, 2010.

Other states are reasserting their control over their National Guard units.

And in some cases, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, the politics of states’ rights are veering left. Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, for example — none of them known as conservative bastions — are considering bills that would authorize, or require, governors to recall or take control of National Guard troops, asserting that federal calls to active duty have exceeded federal authority.

…

“Everything we’ve tried to keep the federal government confined to rational limits has been a failure, an utter, unrelenting failure — so why not try something else?” said Thomas E. Woods Jr., a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a nonprofit group in Auburn, Ala., that researches what it calls “the scholarship of liberty.”

Woods is one of my favorite constitutional and historical writers. I’ve posted a number of reviews of his boot, “33 Questions about American History you’re not supposed to ask“.

33 Questions about American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask

33 Questions about American History, Part 2

33 Questions about American History, Part 3

33 Questions about American History, Part 4

Woods is an advocate of nullification, that is that states have the right to nullify or opt out of federal legislation that the state deems to be harmful or not in the state’s best interest. That concept is growing.

You can read the entire New York Times column here.

Google under attack! China?

Posted on by

On Drudge today, Google made a surprising announcement that it will be partnering with the NSA to improve the security of Google’s network and systems. Google and other commercial enterprises have been under severe attacks from foreign agencies. Google and China have been in opposition over censorship orders from the Chinese government.

There will be a Hue and Cry from those around the world who view any cooperation between a corporate entity and government with alarm and suspicion. They will view any such agreements as collusion to invade personal privacy.

Anyone who spends any time on the internet knows that users really have no privacy on their communications and shouldn’t expect any. Advocates of encryption admit that such will only delay any serious inquiries, not block them.

I use Google as a preferred search engine. I have an email account with Google and this blog is hosted by Google. I’m not totally pleased with all of Google’s corporate actions but I’m less pleased with their competitors—Microsoft for instance, than I am with Google.

Here is an excerpt from today’s Washington Post. Follow the link for the entire column. Be aware that the Cyber War has been going on for over a decade. It is now getting more publicity but the attacks against our nation’s network infrastructure will not cease. When I worked for a large communications company, I was aware of foreign attacks against the company’s networks and systems. Few got through. Some did and deposited some virii on occasion. The company was ever vigilant and very alert for any incursions. It was an unending battle. Now Corporate America will have to step up thier efforts to do the same and harden their systems. Too many just give lip service to corporate security. They will pay severely if they don’t take remedial action immediately.

By Ellen Nakashima
Thursday, February 4, 2010; A01

The world’s largest Internet search company and the world’s most powerful electronic surveillance organization are teaming up in the name of cybersecurity.

Under an agreement that is still being finalized, the National Security Agency would help Google analyze a major corporate espionage attack that the firm said originated in China and targeted its computer networks, according to cybersecurity experts familiar with the matter. The objective is to better defend Google — and its users — from future attack.

Google and the NSA declined to comment on the partnership. But sources with knowledge of the arrangement, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the alliance is being designed to allow the two organizations to share critical information without violating Google’s policies or laws that protect the privacy of Americans’ online communications. The sources said the deal does not mean the NSA will be viewing users’ searches or e-mail accounts or that Google will be sharing proprietary data.

The partnership strikes at the core of one of the most sensitive issues for the government and private industry in the evolving world of cybersecurity: how to balance privacy and national security interests. On Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair called the Google attacks, which the company acknowledged in January, a “wake-up call.” Cyberspace cannot be protected, he said, without a “collaborative effort that incorporates both the U.S. private sector and our international partners.”

But achieving collaboration is not easy, in part because private companies do not trust the government to keep their secrets and in part because of concerns that collaboration can lead to continuous government monitoring of private communications. Privacy advocates, concerned about a repeat of the NSA’s warrantless interception of Americans’ phone calls and e-mails after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, say information-sharing must be limited and closely overseen.

“The critical question is: At what level will the American public be comfortable with Google sharing information with NSA?” said Ellen McCarthy, president of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, an organization of current and former intelligence and national security officials that seeks ways to foster greater sharing of information between government and industry.

On Jan. 12, Google took the rare step of announcing publicly that its systems had been hacked in a series of intrusions beginning in December.

The intrusions, industry experts said, targeted Google source code — the programming language underlying Google applications — and extended to more than 30 other large tech, defense, energy, financial and media companies. The Gmail accounts of human rights activists in Europe, China and the United States were also compromised.

So significant was the attack that Google threatened to shutter its business operation in China if the government did not agree to let the firm operate an uncensored search engine there. That issue is still unresolved.

The Coming Revolution?

Posted on by

There appears to be the beginnings of a, so far, quiet revolt across much of the country. First was the State Sovereignty movement started by Montana and followed by a growing number of states including Texas, Alaska, my own state of Missouri, and perhaps this coming session, Nebraska.

Omaha.com reports…

Nebraska legislators seek to assert state sovereignty

By Martha Stoddard
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU


LINCOLN — At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:

Butt out of state business.

Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.

The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

Nebraska wouldn’t try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.

“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”

The tension between states’ rights and federal authority has been a repeated theme in U.S. history, starting with arguments among the founding fathers.

…

Richard Duncan, a constitutional law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law, said legislative resolutions send valuable political messages even with no legal weight.

“It’s kind of a nice warning that people are growing tired of the size of the federal government,” he said.

Under the 10th Amendment, states and citizens retain all powers not specifically given to the federal government.

Sovereignty supporters argue that the federal government has overstepped those bounds on matters such as endangered species protection and seat belt laws. Others say the Constitution, as interpreted by courts from the 1800s on, gives the federal government broad authority.

I don’t have a complete list of states that has joined the Sovereignty movement, but it is well into the double digits. Those joining have been, so far, from the Red States.

With the statists’ push to enact ObamaCare, Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas adds this warning.

Perry raises possibility of states’ rights showdown with White House over healthcare

By DAVE MONTGOMERY
dmontgomery@star-telegram.com

…
Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as “Obama Care.” But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a “number” of states might resist the federal health mandate.

“I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying ‘no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare,” Perry said. “So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats.”

Many people on both sides of the political line seem to think that the next revolution with be triggered by some individual who has finally reached the breaking point and resists the federal government violently. On the left, they all cry about the “racist, right wing, gun-loving extremists.” On the right, they cry about the “JBTs” or “Jack-booted Thugs” coined by conservative radio host Gordon Liddy after the BATF riot excesses at Ruby Ridge and Waco, TX.

Instead, it may come from another route as the States finally reach their collective limit at the abuses of the central government and they begin to exercise their rights under the 10th Amendment. Leftists poo-poo this as irrelevant citing the commerce clause and legislation that allows the FedGov to supersede state rights. They cite Lincoln and the first Civil War for the abolishment of States Rights and think the issue dead.

They are wrong. The States Rights issue is not dead. It has just been ignored and asleep for awhile. It is now awaking. Pray that the States are successful because if they are not, the alternatives will be terrible.

Facebook

The Coming Revolution?

Posted on by

There appears to be the beginnings of a, so far, quiet revolt across much of the country. First was the State Sovereignty movement started by Montana and followed by a growing number of states including Texas, Alaska, my own state of Missouri, and perhaps this coming session, Nebraska.

Omaha.com reports…

Nebraska legislators seek to assert state sovereignty

By Martha Stoddard
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU


LINCOLN — At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:

Butt out of state business.

Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.

The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

Nebraska wouldn’t try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.

“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”

The tension between states’ rights and federal authority has been a repeated theme in U.S. history, starting with arguments among the founding fathers.

…

Richard Duncan, a constitutional law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law, said legislative resolutions send valuable political messages even with no legal weight.

“It’s kind of a nice warning that people are growing tired of the size of the federal government,” he said.

Under the 10th Amendment, states and citizens retain all powers not specifically given to the federal government.

Sovereignty supporters argue that the federal government has overstepped those bounds on matters such as endangered species protection and seat belt laws. Others say the Constitution, as interpreted by courts from the 1800s on, gives the federal government broad authority.

I don’t have a complete list of states that has joined the Sovereignty movement, but it is well into the double digits. Those joining have been, so far, from the Red States.

With the statists’ push to enact ObamaCare, Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas adds this warning.

Perry raises possibility of states’ rights showdown with White House over healthcare

By DAVE MONTGOMERY
dmontgomery@star-telegram.com

…
Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as “Obama Care.” But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a “number” of states might resist the federal health mandate.

“I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying ‘no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare,” Perry said. “So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats.”

Many people on both sides of the political line seem to think that the next revolution with be triggered by some individual who has finally reached the breaking point and resists the federal government violently. On the left, they all cry about the “racist, right wing, gun-loving extremists.” On the right, they cry about the “JBTs” or “Jack-booted Thugs” coined by conservative radio host Gordon Liddy after the BATF riot excesses at Ruby Ridge and Waco, TX.

Instead, it may come from another route as the States finally reach their collective limit at the abuses of the central government and they begin to exercise their rights under the 10th Amendment. Leftists poo-poo this as irrelevant citing the commerce clause and legislation that allows the FedGov to supersede state rights. They cite Lincoln and the first Civil War for the abolishment of States Rights and think the issue dead.

They are wrong. The States Rights issue is not dead. It has just been ignored and asleep for awhile. It is now awaking. Pray that the States are successful because if they are not, the alternatives will be terrible.