Ammunition Accountability Act

From Charleston Voice

Well the Liberal Gun Grabbers are at it again. Now they want to fingerprint your bullets. They will charge you more. They will make it a crime to possess bullets that do not bear a serial number. Your name and designated serial number ammo will be stored in a sweet ol' database, of course. Tricky bastards are running this game at the state level, trying to fly under the radar and avoid national outrage. Probably there is legislation pending in your state right now.The 2008 Legislative session has begun, and the Ammunition Accountability Act is being introduced across the country. Below is a summary of legislation that has been introduced throughout the United States. To view the bills' status click on the links to the individual bills. Sample Legislation:

The Ammunition Accountability Act-Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.

I am amazed but not surprised. Contrary to all the debates carried on for years that our gun rights would be stripped Janet Reno style in midnight raids (providing us the opportunity to shoot some of the criminals in the door jam, on the stairs and just outside the bedroom before they kill us) it is all going down by degrees- "sneaky-like". Notice if you will that a vast majority of the states considering this are southern states.....We have lost our minds and our way.

Stumble It!

Not With a Bang, But With a Whimper

This is How The World Ends - Part IV

If, as I have contented in the first three parts of this series of post, the following is true -

1. We Americans are woefully ignorant of our rights, our Constitution and political philosophy in general
2. Our Constitutional Republic from those nice stories in history books is long dead
3. Our election process is completely incapable of fixing any of this (or our other massive problems of wars, failed economies etc. etc.)

Then what does the future hold and what are the solutions (or coping mechanisms if no solution is apparent)?

Some talk of a revolution in our future - but revolutions are a complicated business. Middle classes do not start revolutions or even participate or support them until they are well under way and almost over. Sure the middle class often provide the intelligentsia of a revolution but that is a small part of the bigger requirement. The rich do not start violent revolutions - they buy what they want in influence and power. The true foot soldiers of any revolution are the dispossessed, the poor and down-trodden.

Therein lies the fix, the poor and downtrodden in the US are riding pretty fat and happy (by relative standards of poor and downtrodden) on a US government gravy train. There are enough people within government that are capable of reading that understand the key ingredients in civil discontent. So long as a willing and compliant middle-class exists to consume and pay taxes the government will be able to buy the happiness and contentment of the poor. It is as simple as that.

In any event, no sane man looks to revolution with glee. Anyone that believes the War of American Independence was a revolution simply does not understand what the term really means. It was a separatist, nah a secession movement, not a revolution.

The foot soldiers (those poor and down trodden) are apt to follow the banner of any fool with a plan and a promise once the shooting starts. Change for the sake of change is something rationale people fear, particularly considering the history of revolutions.

No, the government will keep the poor placated, and in the event they occasionally rise up in violent riots the government will put them down and the middle class will rejoice that their welfare was protected.

There are probably many in the middle class that would like the idea of change, even if it involved violence. They probably also have a solid idea of what they would do to put everything back the way it was meant to be. But, when the rubber hit the road as they say the mad middle class guy has a house, a mini van and he really does not have time to start a revolution because he has to be at work by 9am in the morning. Middle-classes almost always trade safety and security for rights and freedoms.

Secession then you say. Well as an strong advocate of the legality of secession and a proponent of states' rights you might think I would say this is the solution...I doubt it.

First, if we are honest about it there is but one government now. Our states have lost all of their rights and all of their will to attempt to assert any rights. Government down to the local level is intertwined via federal grants and regulations. In cases where the federal government has not overtly asserted some control or influence many of our state and local government officials deffer to the question of "what is the national standard".

Second, our states no longer have any semblance of a heterogeneous culture or common polity. A woman from Arkansas can be a Senator from New York for goodness sakes. People move, leave familial and cultural bonds in pursuit of paper money and trinkets. A secession movement would have a very hard time in any state with such a mix of people.

Third, the middle class is bought and paid for just as the poor - it is called social security. Until it fails people expect to get what is coming to them - secede and lose that...never. A soul sold for 30 pieces of silver.


Pretty grim stuff and I am simply not wise enough to see a way out of this. Early on in this series of post I used comparisons of the German people from 1933 on to relate to some of our traits. We talked about the coup attempts on Hitler's life and the fact that a real revolution was never a possibility in Germany. Hitler may have died in one of the coups but nothing essential would have changed. The undoing of the Germans had already occurred, they were powerless (I did not say blameless) to alter their fate. I fear we are in the same boat. We cannot vote our way out of this mess now (too may accommodations in the past), revolution is not a realistic possibility and neither is secession.

I like optimist, they inspire people. Doomsayers just scare the heck out of folks. Yet, I find it difficult to muster optimism about our future.

I will now do something I have never done in my life, quote Martin Luther King Jr.

I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God

This was from a speech called "It's A Dark Day In Our Nation" explaining why he opposed the Vietnam War but the words are applicable for any number of events in our recent and not so recent history.

We have done wrong. We have allowed greed, lust, gluttony, sloth, wrath, envy and pride to rule us. We have even turned those vices into virtues of sorts. We have abandoned the wise teachings, learned through history, of our forefathers in preference for our perceived enlightened wisdom of modernity. We have traded liberty and freedom for safety and security.

Commenting on the American experiment Alex de Tocqueville said, "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." and "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Pretty astute for a Frenchman in the mid 19th century but correct nonetheless.

And thus the world we thought we always knew, in the final analysis, ended not with a bang but with a whimper.

Stumble It!

This is the Way the World Ends - Part II

Have you ever stopped to consider that The Glorious Revolution was really not that glorious. I am serious, the last ruling Stuart monarch did his family name no service by running to France in the face of William III of Orange but the events that followed were certainly less impressive from a constitutional perspective. The end result, the monarchy replaced via methods completely outside of the scope of constitutional means - in effect establishing a de facto government in the Kingdom of Great Britain. Ok, it is all water under the bridge and perhaps does not matter, unless you are a stickler for the rule of law, then this little historical fact has some merit.

Have you ever considered deeply that The War For Southern Independence (or Second American War of Independence or even the American Civil War if you absolutely must) played a key role in fundamentally altering the nature of our republic - to the degree of perhaps eliminating legitimate government of law, de jure, and replacing it with a de facto government not of consent but of conquest?

Ok I see a few of you raised your hands on the last issue, but I would venture to bet that of the minority that understand that last point few think it matters much to our modern situation.

What about FDR and his New Deal? Are you like most Americans in the belief that he did what he had to do in hard times to set things right?

I could go on, the list could occupy my writing each day for many years on the examples and reasons why we have lost hold of the foundations of legitimate government and why it matters. It mattered in Britain in 1688 - pragmatist made decisions that they thought best in the short term with the result of involving Britain in continental wars that were not of their interest. These things matter here as well as our noble idea of Republic has deteriorated into something much less wholesome.

Most Americans are unwilling, or unable, to look at our past to see why these things might matter.

In my last post I talked about the crimes of the German people in relation to their enabling of Hitler. These were crimes born of pragmatism, i.e. we want someone to fix "this" now, and a fundamental ignorance of issues related to rights and constitutional law. The German people were educated beyond their European peers on most matters but woefully ignorant of key elements of western political philosophy. I say, without fear of contradiction, that the American people are today infinitely more ignorant of such ideas.

These things matter, yet the masses do not know. In the words of that evil Rumsfeld, they do not even "know what they do not know".

How is it that Americans accept, without riots, protest and yes even revolt The Patriot Act? How do we accept reinterpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act and allow troops to patrol our streets alongside increasingly belligerent and dangerous militarized police?

The same way we accepted the IRS, Social Security, federal police forces, a steady erosion of states rights and any number of of other clearly unconstitutional things that our Federal government took upon itself to do and in doing so added powers unto itself it was never given by us or our states. We accepted it, a few spoke out and then it passed into yesterday's news.

We have a pretty good track record of a few voices crying out, "hey that is not right" when government does these things and then moving on with life. I ask you, what is the point in having a contract, having laws and rules, if one party redefines the rules as it wishes and the other party never actually does anything to set things right?

Some say this is why we have elections but apparently the election process has done nothing to stem the tide of government, specifically the federal government, assuming any powers unto itself it desires.

These things matter, they matter when the population is too ignorant to know when wrong is done to them or too scared to do anything effective about it on the rare occasion that they do realize.

When the world as we know it finally passes from current knowledge into a fabled history it will be in large part because of the sloth, ignorance and avarice of the population.

Stumble It!

Bill of Rights Day

December 15 was Bill of Rights day - it came and went without notice much as our actual rights seem to have passed into a distant memory.

The Freeholder comments - "Some people have asked the rhetorical question "What is worth fighting for?" I'd say that these are as deserving of our "life, liberty and sacred honor" just as much now as they were then. And we'd better start getting ready to fight for them again."

And I agree.

Stumble It!

Crisis Points or Same Stuff Different Day

In an environment where crisis is the order of the day and the Government is the organization with the answers to crisis the items I list below seem nothing more than the standard, ordinary fare.

Maybe, maybe not, but worth consideration all the same.

U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution

The Ohio legislature is considering a joint resolution "[a]pplying to the Congress of the United States pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution to call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments." Should this resolution pass both state houses, only one more state is required before a convention must be called. (Mises)

This started as a conservative idea in the 1980's, most of the states that have passed a resolution calling for this convention in the last 27 are Southern States. The folks behind this had the best of intentions but this was a bad idea from the get-go and now perhaps it could get infinitely worse. From the WND article:

"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.

A brief review of the history of the last Constitutional Convention ought to inform anyone that believed they can control the genie once outside of the bottle that this is not the case. Obama might just be the man to lead the discussion of fundamentally changing our Republic and doing away with the nasty trappings of the old republic.

Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.

Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

"Redistributive Change", a constitutional convention would certainly provide the opportunity to effect such change in words that Old Republic Constitutionalists could no longer dispute.

Then there is this...

WTP Obama Citizenship Challenge or if you like watch the We The People Press Conference.

The honest truth is if people really read, understood and got righteously indigent about the realities the We The People Foundation point out reference a number of issues a real shooting revolution would be well under way, and that I honestly mean. But, revolutions and insurgencies simply do not grow out of simple truth. Only the core, the die-hard, fight over simple truth, the rest fight or not related to economics or safety/comfort.

Nothing will come of this, as many point out the fact that this all may be highly irregular and unconstitutional will not stop the conspiracy of silence and get the questions about Obama's birth answered, and considering the history of irregular and unconstitutional acts we ought to expect no more.

Of course all of this is just "silly Constitutional stuff"...it is all about the economy stupid and there is plenty there to cause a real crisis....

Stumble It!

The Headlines Read "Nationalization"

WASHINGTON -- Congress and the White House inched toward a financial rescue of the Big Three auto makers, negotiating legislation that would give the U.S. government a substantial ownership stake in the industry and a central role in its restructuring.

This was predictable and yet I am still speechless.

Corporatism = Socialism (according to AnarchoCatholic)

perhaps more accurately

Corporatism + Socialism + Nationalism = Fascism (for clarity if I wrote that today I would replace "nationalism" with "statism", I believe misplaced nationalism is bad but statism sums up what I meant better)

Here is a wonderful term "Post–Constitutional America” or as Sorbran put it a condition in which the "U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government". (read the article)

Nationalization of significant portions of an entire industry must have been on one of the missing pages of my copy of the Constitution.

Stumble It!

Time For A Change

I read a post the other day and I cannot now recall where or by who but the point that the author made was that the Ron Paul Revolution will be short lived. Those disaffected souls that now support Dr. No will not throw their support behind any of the other GOP candidates and there is not another Ron Paul on the horizon to galvanize the troops and keep the revolution alive (assuming that Dr. Paul does not win the election).

Without discussing those assumptions much further I will simply say that I agree for the most part - what the author proposed is probably a realistic outcome. The fact is real conservatives do not have a home in either party. There is nothing conservative about the Republican or Democratic approach. One wishes to curry favor with the masses by transferring wealth through government programs, the other wishes to curry favor with big business by providing subsidies and protection. The end result of both approaches is bigger government, each approach is progressive, neither approach conserves anything that was or should be in our society.

In the 1980's many believed that conservatism had been vindicated after the failed attempts of Barry Goldwater in 1964 to win the presidency and not only thwart the Great Society but push back the nefarious New Deal.

My father was a Goldwater Republican (I was even named after Mr. Goldwater), I was a Reagan Republican. However something significant occurred between 1964 and 1980. Two significant things in fact. First, the real roots of the Republican party were always there. The GOP owes its very existence to the Federalist/Whig brand of ideology that is responsible for so much of what is wrong with he republic today. It was the Federalist that abandoned their charter to alter the Articles of Confederation. The Federalist gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts, the first legislated tyranny since the revolution. It was the Republican Party that single-handily redefined the Constitutional limits of federal power and killed States' Rights and Federalism. Republicans annexed Hawaii against the will of their monarch and people. The Republican Party played a large role in the idiocy of prohibition - something any conservative knows the Federal Government has no authority or role in. It is the Republican Party that has again passed tyrannical legislation in the form of the Patriot Act and redefined jus ad bellum to include the noxious notion of preemptive war. It is the Republican Party that champions the rights of non-human, soulless corporate entities.

For all of the evils and nonsensical ramblings of the socialist democrats and their flaky ideas regarding nationalized medicine and other inane ideological blunders - the Republican Party is not one inch more Conservative. The two major parties are just different sides to the same coin.

Many of my kin, blood and cultural, rejoiced in the 1980's with the rise of the Religious Right -"Finally, we will put things right". For all of the good intentioned notions of the rank and file followers of the Moral Majority and other similar groups the result and impact on American politics was even more disastrous than the nonsense surrounding prohibition. If the Religious Right was a truly conservative movement - in terms of conserving what America was and should be - their efforts at social conservatism would have been focused almost exclusively at the state and local level. Their national efforts would have focused on true conservatives that understood the Constitution, the 10th Amendment and the nature of federalism and states' rights. Instead of acting as conservatives these groups acted as progressives, seeking to use the political system to effect change, change that required an increase in the role and power of the federal government. That was certainly not a conservative approach.

One day they will see that what you give to the federal government it is hard to take back. Perhaps there was a moral majority in the 1980's but what happens when there is an "immoral majority" that seeks to use that very same federal government power that they foolishly established? You wanted to define marriage, tell states about abortion, define prayer - would you want a majority of heathens doing the same? It will happen because of foolish progressivism in the name of "doing good" and we will be powerless to stop it if the precarious majority fails.

Religious conservatives dismiss Ron Paul because he will not come out and say things like -"If I were president I would work for (insert whatever moral legislation you wish)". This is precisely because Paul understands the Constitution and the dangers of progressivism. It seems we Christians are much happier supporting a reformed Rudy (hey Robertson says he is ok), or one of the other fellows because they take a stand on a moral issues (they talk a good game). We are missing the point, it is not the place of the federal government to regulate these issues, we ought to seek a man that would put these issues back where they belong - with us at out state houses.

Perhaps the Ron Paul revolution will be short lived - then again perhaps the pundits are wrong. Perhaps, just maybe true conservatism will again thrive, perhaps the supporters of Paul will not just fade away (win or lose). Third parties in the 20th Century have not fared well therefore maybe it is high time that the Republican Party became relegated to third party status. If folks that call themselves conservative fully understood what being a conservative meant there would not be a Republican Party - it would have been thrown on the ash heap of history in 1864 or soon thereafter and certainly it would not enjoy the support from otherwise good intentioned folk it counts on today.

If there is the be a Ron Paul revolution (i.e. conservative revival) I welcome it, I sincerely hope it shakes the very foundation of the current political system of a bad choice and an awful choice. It is unlikely that the Republican machine can or will be reformed from within as so many have hoped for - the basic ideology is just all wrong, their heritage of wrong is written all over the party. The only hope is to throw the system away and start anew.

I pray that Ron Paul wins the election but I am prepared for the possibility that the system will simply not allow such (send me your hate mail). This makes me no less of a supporter, it makes me a realist, it means I am committed for the long haul. I am fully prepared to adjure the realm, weather many moons of socialist democratic rule to stand true to conservative principles. A philosophy such as conservatism cannot die so long as people remember. It is time to stop compromising with a system that respects neither the law upon which our nation is built or the principles that gave that law birth.

I challenge you, if you are a true conservative, if you are truly an heir to the legacy of Jefferson and those men that envisioned a republic, not a socialist mobacracy then you must examine your entire concept of politics in America. If you continue to be blinded by the dog and pony show presented by the faux conservative GOP you are either a fool or an enabler.

It is time for a revolution (although it is not a revolution at all it is merely a revival of our conservative heritage and right thinking about the role and nature of our central government). Turn off the talking heads, read the Constitution and support Ron Paul and come what may refuse to ever go back to the role of loyal subject to a party that is neither conservative nor right.

Stumble It!

Our Founding Fathers studied the Magna Carta

While you're boning up on the Constitution, be reminded that a source for consideration in drafting our Constitution was the Magna Carta of 1215. Our founding fathers would identify his arguments in favor of the 5th and 8th Amendments originating more than 500 years before. Do you know what those amendments are? Know then, if we only had chief justices like Owen installed in our Supreme Court instead of the black-robed Mafia, our survival as a free people may stand a chance.

You will find many other elements of our Constitution embodied in the Magna Carta. It's not
that long a document. Be sure that Dr. Paul's read it. So should you. How can anyone be passionate to defend something (Constitution) if they are ignorant of its origins?

Your Founders knew the history of freedom and individual liberty inside and out. So does Ron Paul.

Stumble It!

Ron Paul's Position

Ok, so you may (or may not) ask - why do I support Dr. Ron Paul for President.

Weyrich claims in a recent article that Paul has "strange ideas" but never really clarifies this.

It is too bad some of the ideas he advocates are strange because many of the things he says makes sense.

Strange enough some people confuse Weyrich with an actual paleoconservative. - I think not.

What of these strange ideas?

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

This is true and something found on a campaign site- a rare occurance. You do not need to listen to Paul's speeches or read his words to really know where he stands - look at the man's voting record in Congress over the last 20 years. You will know that he really means what he says - find another politician out there that really can say that.

I know, I have said it before, one man and one election cannot restore the republic. However, enough people fully supporting a man that stands on the right principles (whether he wins or loses) is the absolute right step.

Ron Paul has stood firm on a strict interpretation of the Constitution the entire time he has worked in Congress - that is the number one reason I support him.

Surely that is not the strange idea mentioned above. What of his stance on the other hot-button issues.

American Sovereignty - 100% right, no NAU, NAFTA, UN or other foreign entanglements

"We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."


Border Security and Immigration - 100% spot on target

"Physically secure our borders and coastlines; Enforce visa rules; No welfare for illegal aliens; End birthright citizenship; Pass true immigration reform"


Taxes and Debt - Amen

"Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.... We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."


Health Freedom - he is the doctor

"I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements

I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations."

Home Schooling - my children are home schooled thank you very much

"My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate.

I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. I also believe that, as long as No Child Left Behind remains law, it must include the protections for home schoolers included in sec. 9506 (enshrining home schoolers’ rights) and 9527 (guaranteeing no national curriculum).

Federal monies must never be used to undermine the rights of homeschooling parents. I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to encourage a culture of educational freedom throughout the nation."

Privacy and Personal Liberty - who but a tyrant could disagree?

"The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.

We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.

I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives."


Property Rights - again only a tyrant could disagree

"Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property."


Social Security - fixing FDR's socialist nightmare

"It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.

We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors."

The Second Amendment - praise the lord and pass the ammunition

"I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment."


War and Foreign Policy - 100% correct

"Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America... We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution....Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations."

Stumble It!

Re: A Simple Plea for Federalism

Nick Gillespie over at Reason comments on a story worth reading and considering.

From Ron Hart

My solution to the unworkable yet appealing idea of secession is to devolve more powers to the states and fewer to Washington. It is what our Founding Fathers intended. And if you read the Federalist Papers, you will realize that they never intended our central government in Washington to be this expansive and overbearing.

If you want an abortion, then move to a state that allows it. If you want to smoke weed, then go to California. If you think that we should pay for everything a lazy welfare person demands, then go to a state that gives them flat-screen TVs and, instead of government cheese, offers an assortment of French cheeses that are both delicious and presented in a pleasing manner.

The basic reason that we fought for our independence is to do what we damn well please as long as it does not harm others. Yet at every turn, the federal government seems to want to make us do as they think we should, even if it comes down to using windmills, driving a Toyota Prius, or now, being forced to join the Hillary Health Care Plan....

Our free-spending federal government thinks it is doing things well, and is filled with enough hubris to believe that it should tell other countries what to do - it calls it foreign policy. The real answer is that less money and power need to be vested with them and more at the state level.

In this Hart has it just right, I would like nothing more than to remain united with other Americans in their states for the common good. If we take the Federalist Papers as the real intent of the Federalist and not some attempt to answer away criticism and get The Constitution accepted at all cost then we find within those documents good words. The Antifederalist certainly did not buy into the hype, their warnings have become reality.

However, laying that aside, The Constitution certainly is, at present, our best hope. If we could turn back the clock so to speak, to a time when the States had Rights and the Federal Government had limits and politicians always asked the question "is this constitutional" before proposing some new grand scheme things would indeed be much better. More than a supporter of secession I am first and foremost a supporter of a limited Federal Government, a strict interpretation of the Federal Constitution and freedom of the States and The People to do each and every thing they please that was never delegated to the Union. Citizenship belongs back with the states, as it was when the Union was formed.

Secession is not unworkable, it is just not necessary right now. That is not to say that it is not important to talk about it, to keep it in the public mind and to continually proclaim it as a legitimate right of our States. We simply cannot abandon our fate to one that forever ties our prosperity and freedom to the notion of Union. If we abandon the notion of secession, we thereby abandon all hope of restoring the Republic. Without the right to secede, all other rights become provisional and the 10th Amendment means nothing - it becomes something that is defined by the Federal Government itself - that is tyranny, benevolent or otherwise it is tyranny.

As I wrote in my last post, Ron Paul certainly is a wonderful breath of fresh air into the otherwise corrupt and perverse political landscape. Millions of us should get out and support him, we should support Constitutional Party candidates in local and state elections. We must lay aside the failed notions of pragmatism and "we simply must win". That has accomplished nothing, if you are a conservative like me you see this failure clearly within the GOP and the candidates they routinely roll out for our perusal. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans support any degree of restoration of the Republic - meaning a proper interpretation of the nature and role of the central government. We should not honor them with our treasure or concern - even if it means our votes will not be counted.

The solution to almost everything that ails The United States can be found within the simple notion of devolving back to what our government was intended to be - no other ideology, political party position or single-scope issue approach will save us.

Don't lose heart, don't take my words as defeatism - stand firm for those that believe and support the right things, no matter how many temporary defeats we may suffer. Heck, get involved!

Stumble It!

Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton?

Hold your horses cowboy - don't close that browser just yet. If you are like me, and for the sake of your wife and loved ones I hope you are not, you grew up believing that Ronald Reagan was "The Man" and Margaret Thatcher was the "Iron Lady". I joined the military with the words of Reagan echoing in my head about the need to stand on a wall and face down the bear of communism. Thatcher and Reagan were an inseparable team it seemed in the opposition to the Soviet Union.

There is another side of Margaret Thatcher that most Americans do not know about - but more on that later.

In 1913 Great Britain was prepared to consider and probably "grant" home rule to Scotland. I say "grant" because the notion that sovereignty could be withheld from a nation that preexisted Britain, a nation that only lost its independence after centuries of invasion, coercion and deceit is absurd. Britain could no more "grant" to the Scots that which was rightfully theirs than I can create gold via sheer will. That is not the point however, in 1913 a home rule bill passed the first reading of the British Parliament and everything seemed set. World War I ended the progress of the bill and in the fever-pitch following "The Great War" to grant self-determination to peoples across the world, the Scots were forgotten.

Fast forward to the 1980's, the voting patterns of Scotland and England clearly began to show a shift in what Scots thought was important versus the rest of Britain. Very young conservatives like me in America may have loved Thatcher for her foreign policy but Scots disdained her domestic policies and her paternalistic attitude toward their desires to do things their own way.

A commenter on a Guardian story sums it up:

Despite my very close English connections, I've never been comfortable being British after growing up under Thatcher and seeing how differently England and Scotland voted during those years. It left a great impression that fundamentally England and Scotland are very different - one more "me" oriented and one more socially aware. Several years living in England later on didn't change that view.

Most observers of the movement toward devolution and nationalism in Scotland point directly at Thatcher as the catalyst to reignite centuries old embers. Speaking of a Thatcher visit to Glasgow in 1997 SNP leader Alex Salmond suggested that her visit was "the best advertisement for Scottish self-government possible". A recent History Channel documentary I viewed "Essential Scottish History" spoke to this fact and her influence in galvanizing Scottish nationalism.

For nearly 300 years the Scots had tried it the Unionist way, for nearly 300 years they had seen the downside of representative democracy in action . As a minority, a suppressed nation, they came to know exactly what union meant. It took several attempts to elect the "right" people, pass the right bills etc. before they collectively woke up to this fact in sufficient numbers to push for a return of their own parliament but they did wake up, thanks in large part to Margaret Thatcher.

Perhaps you already see why I placed Hillary Clinton in the title line with Margaret Thatcher - perhaps I do not need to write the rest of this, I think you already get my point.

Small minorities all across these united states are disenfranchised with the way things are, for their own reasons - some to the right others to the left. Most within these minorities still see the hope within one man - "if we can just get him/her elected all will be well." Of course the majority is either apathetic or still delusioned by the non-competition provided by the two non-opposing national parties (but those unwashed masses are not our concern).

On the right many of us support Tancredo or Dr. Paul (a minority if the MSM is to be believed) and within this group of supporters most actually believe. Heck, I want to believe - but I don't. I believe that despite our support Dr. Paul, for instance, simply will not win. The GOP has already established it has no intention of letting it happen - they want one of their men. What does that leave? A third party option that will ensure Hillary the win or sitting home, not voting for the scoundrel, false conservative the GOP trots out - which of course also ensures Hillary wins. Either way, Hillary wins.

I am not a defeatist, Dr. Ron Paul is the right man for the job, Tancredo (or better yet Alan Keyes) might make a decent VP but it will not happen. If it did happen and Paul stuck by his past voting record we would see a presidency with the most vetoes and the most vetoes overridden in the history of this republic. Not that this would be a bad thing, but the fact is what it is. (in it own way a Paul win would highlight just how wrong things are at the core)

Dr. Paul deserves our support, our earnest support. Above anyone else in government he has stood firm on a strict interpretation of The Constitution. Supporting him, despite the odds, is simply the right thing to do - a trigger point must come and it cannot come unless decent, feed-up people continue to dream and continue to see their dream shattered by the current system.

The election is Hillary's to win unless she herself losses it in the coming months - ours is but to stand firm on principles and support that which is right, not what is pragmatic. There is too much pragmatism in politics.

I would have thought that after 7 years of neoconic folly the body of conservatives would rise from the autopsy table and demand a man like Dr. Paul - we see this is not the case in the vast majority, why on Earth would any real conservative support Giuliani, Romney, McCain or Thompson? I don't know - I am without an explanation. After the lies, deceit and downright trampling of the Constitution under Bush I would expect a real conservative revolution but it has occurred only on the fringes.

I would like to think that after 4 years of Hillary real conservatives would wake up and say "enough", I would like to think that they would look at the GOP as an organization infested with false conservatives and bad ideology and demand a change. I would like to think that a combination of tyranny and lies under Bush and socialism and idiocy under Clinton II would wake my own people up and have them screaming in streets for freedom and independence from this republic gone astray - realizing that a vote does not equal a voice in a system this large.

I would like to see that and maybe we will, right now I am confused as to why more of my own people are not in the streets demanding that Ron Paul occupy the White House at the earliest opportunity.

The Scots woke up (partially) will we?

Stumble It!

We Don't Need No Stinking Debate Here

The post on Redstate, “Attention, Ron Paul Supporters (Life is *REALLY* Not Fair),” begins, “Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.” (via Politico)

I gave up on RedState a long time ago, I have never seen one fresh, innovative, logical or conservative idea posited there. I had no idea that honest discussion was such a threat to "conservatism" until Daniel pointed this out in a recent post. He sums it up pretty nicely:

Unfortunately, this latest is just a symptom of the broader conformism on the “mainstream” right, particularly on matters of foreign policy, and represents the mentality of a movement that has been losing its ability to maintain and grow its political coalition. Paul’s campaign has thrived on the message that conservatism and Republicanism can and should still mean respect for the Constitution, liberty and a sane foreign policy–the very kind of rejuvenating and reforming message that the GOP needs if it is to retain the loyalty of millions of disaffected small-government conservatives and libertarians–and where Paul is making converts the folks at RedState, to adapt a phrase, are interested in finding heretics. It is a great irony this year that it is the purists who are actually swelling Republican ranks, while the pragmatists and big-tent folks are doing their best to empty that tent. Republicans will object that new Paul supporters will not support the GOP once Paul’s campaign is finished, and they may be right. RedState has just given Paul supporters one more reason to stay home or vote third party.

Morrissey over at Captain's Quarters gets it wrong in his assessment of all of this:

Banning them simply for their support for a candidate seems more like an admission that Redstate lacks that ability.

This has nothing to do with a two-bit GOP shill site and its inability to effectively support and defend the unconstitutionality of almost every GOP policy - this has to with the indefensibility of the ideology behind GOP "conservatism". The entire field opposing Paul is comprised of clowns and crooks.

In one very important way it is crucial that freedom-loving Americans are rallying around a man that stands on principles and believes in the rule of law. Ultimately we need these sorts of things, we need to see that the system will not allow the sort of honest discussion Ron Paul wants to have, we need to see first hand the great lengths phony conservatives will go to in order to avoid honest debate. We need to see, in the final analysis, that the system is broken and it will take more resolve and more work than just an election to fix it.

Stumble It!

The Most Dangerous of Ideas

COLUMBIA — Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell is calling for a national constitutional convention that would give states the right to deny benefits to illegal immigrants and have them forced out of the country. [ ht Gamecock]

Let us not forget that the first Constitutional Convention was called to do nothing more than deliberate on matters related to modifying the Articles of Confederation. What did they do? They completely abolished the "perpetual union" created by that document and created a completely new form of government. It is interesting to note that Rhode Island remained outside of the new union created by the Constitution for a year, existing as a free nation-state as all the 13 original states had done until 1783. (I wrote a piece a while back concerning these events if you are interested)

The point of all of this is that if you wish to solve a singular issue such as immigration a Constitutional Convention is certainly not the answer. Would you trust the buffoons in Washington or any of our state houses to address issues as serious as the wording of the Constitution. With their propensity to compromise I can clearly envision the scope of work expanding to issues such as "clearing up ambiguities" in the wording of "nasty things" like the Bill of Rights.

We simply do not have leaders of character or conviction that I would trust meddling with the Constitution in any sort of convention. Just think for a minute the mess those idiots would make of the document - just think what a field day the socialist would have creating new "rights" related to healthcare, insurance and numerous other programs that would take money from me and you and redistribute it to others.

I am not certain that the individual states are not well within their rights to regulate immigration as it stands. This is particularly true if one looks hard at the illegitimacy of the 14th Amendment. Beyond that and even if one accepts the 14th Amendment as defined by the courts I can still imagine a dozen ways that states could stand up and police illegal residents up within their borders - what the Federal government has to say about it be damned.

Glenn McConnell is from my home but he is no friend of my state or of conservatism - he has proven that too many times in the past. This idea of his is foolish and ill-conceived.

Stumble It!

Fundemental Questions

The headline reads "Iran Tensions Could Trigger Accidental War". I was most intrigued by the 'accidental' portion of the title. In the body of the article, published in the Air Force Times we read:

“A mistake could be made and you could end up in something that neither side ever really wanted, and suddenly it’s August 1914 all over again,” the U.S. officer said on condition of anonymity, because of the sensitivity of the issue. “I really believe neither side wants a fight.”

Again I am intrigued. An accident is something that occurs essentially without warning and is essentially blameless. A mistake implies negligence and some overt act that set the conditions for the mistake - not an accident at all.

The wording, and thinking, is just all wrong here.

I am still baffled why we are even talking about the possibility of an 'accidental' war with Iran when so few people have yet to address the fundamental questions of the rule of law.

Why have we been at war for almost six years without a Congressional declaration of war? How on Earth do we sit by and worry about our leaders "deciding" us into yet another conflict while we have yet to hold them accountable for their criminal acts up to this point?

The fundamental question is not will be go to war with Iran, nor is it how will it start. The question that must be answered is how have we allowed the rule of law to be subverted and wars waged unjustly without real protest.

Stumble It!

Nice Start

BOSTON (Reuters) - Maine lawmakers on Thursday became the first in the nation to demand repeal of a federal law tightening identification requirements for drivers' licenses, a post-September 11 security measure that states say will cost them billions of dollars to administer.

Maine lawmakers passed a resolution urging repeal of the Real ID Act, which would create a national digital identification system by 2008.

"Urging Repeal" is a good start and I am happy to see a few states addressing this issue. I really want to see a few states nullify this law entirely and simply ignore this un-Constitutional imposition from on high.

Stumble It!

The Big Sky Country Stands Up

The Charleston Voice passed along this little tidbit.

HELENA -- Lawmakers in the Montana House of Representatives collectively thumbed their noses at the federal government Monday by approving two bills exempting guns from federal regulations and driver's licenses from national standardization requirements.

The bills by Reps. Diane Rice, R-Harrison, and Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, do different things but are driven by the same concern: the erosion of personal liberties by the federal government.
Koopman said Monday his gun bill, House Bill 366, would inspire a home-grown industry of gun-makers who produce firearms to be sold in Montana. It also sends a message reaffirming states' rights.

[...]

Rice is sponsoring HB 304, which would prevent the state from cooperating with the federal government in establishing nationwide standards for noncommercial driver's licenses.

[...]

There was virtually no debate about the bill before lawmakers voted 94-6 to pass it, with a third and final vote expected today.

My question is - how do we find and elect state legislators in other states that actually understand The Constitution, the nature of the federal compact and the concept of States' Rights?

Montana is apparently leading the way in the battle to preserve the rights of the states against the continuing usurpations of the Federal Government.

Stumble It!

The Chief Lawyer Bashes the Bill o' Rights

(Link Via Rebellion) AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. (AP)— Attorney General Alberto Gonzales contended Saturday that some critics of the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program were defining freedom in a way that poses a "grave threat" to U.S. security.

First, I hate the Air Force, just had to say that.

Second, I was once a Constitutionalist, but more or less no longer. To be a Constitutionalist you have to accept certain premises.

1. the Federalist did not lie
2. the anti-federalist were wrong
3. humanism, human reasoning and the enlightenment were/are right
4. human nature is capable of managing centralized power

I still believe that the Constitution is the de jure law of the land, the de facto circumstance notwithstanding. It still forms the contract that binds the states with the artificial entity called the Federal Government. It is supposedly still the vehicle by which the states and the people delegate certain limited rights, privileges and powers to the Federal Government. That is true at least in theory.

Let us work with the theoretical - the Federal Government is restricted to certain specified powers. So then, what of these freedoms that some - according to Gonzales- are defining wrongly?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It seems among other things we have the right to be secure in our "papers". The drafters of the Bill of Rights certainly could not envision a world in which electronic communication replaced written "paper" communication. Their intent is, however, clear; communication, in whatever form is protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

Every lawyer in the American Colonies, to include every person involved with the drafting and writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was very familiar with Blackstone's Commentaries on English Common Law. These four volumes served as de facto law in the colonies where civil law was not yet written. The ideas contained therein, about the relationship of the citizen to government and the rights of citizens, influenced these men. These commentaries must be consulted to determine exactly what was intended with the 4th Amendment.

First Blackstone's definition of rights:

RIGHTS are however liable to another subdivision ; being either, first, those which concern, and are annexed to the persons of men, and are then called jura personarum or the rights of persons ; or they are, secondly, such as a man may acquire over external objects, or things unconnected with his person, which are stiled jura rerum or the rights of things.

So we have jura personarum - rights of persons and jura rerum or the rights of a person over things - the Fourth Amendment speaks to both of these rights; it speaks to a man's rights to his private property (things) and to the security of his person. Blackstone describes the common law view of private property thusly:

SO great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it ; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.

This is what the framers of The Constitution understood property rights to mean, and they certainly understood "effects" and "papers" to be private property.

How is it then that a man like Alberto Gonzales, when speaking of warrantless spying on American citizens, can say:

We believe the president has the authority under the authorization of military force and inherent authority of the constitution to engage in this sort of program, but we want to supplement that authority.

He went on to describe the view that such violations of ancient rights were in fact:

is superficial and is itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the American people

This from the very man with the chief job of protecting the Constitution. Liberty at what price Mr. Attorney-General?

Blackstone warns:

...these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property. So long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free ; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed.

I am but a simple country boy really, a humble Soldier - as John Kerry said recently I did not study too hard in school, otherwise I would have a different profession. I am an infantryman by trade and an engineer by education - I am not a lawyer. I am of the opinion that simple but profound things are comprehensible by men like me. I cannot fathom that something as important as basic rights should be so complicated or nuanced as to required elaborate interpretation. The Constitution is written with words any basically educated adult can understand. How can this possibly be so difficult? How can our own government attempt to continually redefine the contract, its powers and our rights?

It seems to me it is all right there in black and white, but like I said - I am just a simple country boy.

Stumble It!