I usually don’t write about particular candidates in Congressional races, but this one really caught my attention, not only for the fact that New Jersey really does not need any new taxes, but also because the state itself could use a third generation small business owner who also happens to be a strict Constitutionalist and a politician who actually understands science enough to see through the obfuscations of global warming alarmists.

David Larsen is a man who recognizes cap-and-trade for what it really is – just another power grab and wealth redistribution scheme. If you want real change, then on Tuesday, June 8th say yes to Republican David Larsen and no to Representative Leonard Lance, who currently occupies the seat. You see Leonard Lance is what we call a RINO – that sort of squishy Beltway Republican who will often surprise you by doing something inane like voting for cap-and-trade. Voting for cap-and-trade is not the act of a fiscally responsible representative, especially given the current climate – pun intended – of the now unestablished science of global warming. When political agendas collide with science it is the people – you and I – who pay the price. And a hefty price it is. The only warming these days is in the anthropogenic global warming science community. It is there you will find a great deal of hot air.

Remember climategate? If not, here is refresher of many posts from American Thinker on the subject. The bottom line is how so-called scientists were exposed as biased hacks when emails were leaked that explicitly described how data was fudged to fit the climate scare narrative.

Today Al Gore, self-appointed leader of the Global Warming scare is being sued by The Weather Channel & 30,000 scientists worldwide. That has not stopped the winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, obviously awarded for the explicit demonstration of incompetence in a given field in which the recipient possesses no expertise, from continuing his crusade for your money. At least he has that invention of the internet thing going for him.

And guys like Leonard Lance are all too happy to join the previous Vice President in absconding with our hard earned cash, all under the guise of discredited science.

So serious is the climategate scandal it has also prompted another lawsuit from Peabody Energy Company (PEC) against the EPA; a suit which may lead to criminal prosecution.

One would think that with such overwhelming evidence the books have been cooked and the lid torn off exposing one of the greatest political tainting of science in its entire history, that politicians would be rushing away from cap-and-trade back into the reality-based world. The fact they are not says one of two things. Either they are completely ignorant of the scientific process and climategate cover-up or they are agenda driven hacks. As both cases would shed a negative light on any candidate, it is clear that anyone who voted for cap-and-trade does not deserve to hold elected office. As New Jersey’s elected representative for the 7th district last year Leonard Lance voted for cap-and-trade legislation in the House. Here is what his vote means to those of you in not just New Jersey but the rest of the country as well.

Visit the website of David Larsen for Congress to find out more about cap-and-trade. The bottom line is that some in your government are prepared to basically burden you with a tax while not calling it a tax, and they will do so under the umbrella of junk science and in the name of power and money. The Heritage Foundation estimates the total cost of living per average household in the U.S. will increase by $3,000 per year or more; in New Jersey the cost of living could increase by as much as $6,000.

Here is a nice little video outlining the issue of cap-and-trade and the position of Representative Leonard Lance who voted to put his hand in your pocket last year because a bunch of agenda-driven scientists provided him the cover to do so:

Of course, our story would not be complete without the gratuitous backpedaling that politicians like Leonard Lance are famous for. If I were Dan Rather – which thank God I am not – I might be tempted after watching the following video to come up with a useful metaphor. Perhaps something along the lines of “Leonard Lance is tap dancing faster than a barefooted Michael Flatley on a hot bed of coals”. Yeah, I think I like that one.

Watch Leonard Lance dance, wiggle, and attempt to spin his way out of his vote for cap-and-trade.

The die has been cast. The question is clear. Who has dibs on your money? You, or a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians using scientists as political fodder to get their grubby hands on more of your money? It’s not a hard choice. On June 8th vote for a man of reason and fiscal sanity. Vote for David Larsen.

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”…Abraham Lincoln.

Source: Why the Civil War Came

Education is the cornerstone of any well rounded individual and in the aggregate sets the stage for understanding our past, learning from our mistakes, and being able to recognize patterns in contemporary events. When education is turned into a propaganda tool, we all lose – at least those who resist tyranny.

“To the victors go the spoils” is an idiom of great wisdom about cultural dominance and the evolution of political systems, but also the revisionism required to keep up appearances and buttress the prevailing ideology. Such is the history of our country. Statism exists today due to a long train of abuses from the early days of our Republic, through the Marshall court and subsequent Supreme Courts, the tyrannical rule of Abraham Lincoln, the New Deal of President Franklin Roosevelt, progressive politics, and the so-called “compassionate conservatism” of George W. Bush. Truth be told, the government grew – even under Ronald Reagan.

Continued at Wolves of Liberty (I am slowly moving over to this new site).

In other news and opinion:

The go-fly list for terrorists

9.9%

Report: Houston student suspended for taking down Mexican flag

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

Cross-posted at Wolves of Liberty

I am a non-violent guy. When it comes to restoring constitutional governance to this country, my method of choice is nullification and non-violent passive-aggressive resistance in the vein of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Admittedly, there is probably a point where I would turn my back on these strategies and take a – shall we say – more direct approach, but if that ever happened the egregious attack on our liberties would have reached a point where many Americans would be – quite literally – up in arms.

However, when it comes to my family and protecting them forget about that passive-aggressive, diplomatic BS. Mess with a member of my family and you better hope I am not around, otherwise you’ll be unlucky enough to be on the business end of a Glock 45 or AR15 and, if your stupid enough, the recipient of some of the ammo in said weapon.

I live in Texas, and by now most of use have heard of the violence that is starting in the border towns and making its way north. Even in Oklahoma, where my brother is a Lieutenant in a police department of a major city, they are briefed on gang and drug violence. It is a growing epidemic, so severe that Sheriff Arvin West from Hudspeth County in Texas told ranchers in his county:

You farmers, I’m telling you right now, arm yourselves. As they say, the old story is it’s better to be tried by twelve than carried by six, and I don’t want to see six people carrying you.

Conceal and carry time for the wife – maybe a P245. A little heavy, but the woman can handle it and I prefer the 45 caliber over a 9mm any day. Just ask a coroner or ER doc and they will tell your a lot more people survive hits from .38’s and 9’s than .45’s or .357 magnums.

Which brings me to what happened to my wife. Before continuing, the woman I married is the type of person who is very passive in a car. If someone cuts her off, she does not honk the horn, flip them off, or pull up along side them to scream obscenities. She knows such actions can have consequences. I am a little more aggressive, but have learned to pull back after spending years with my wife in the passenger seat playing the role of Mrs. Bucket from the British comedy Keeping Up Appearances: “Mind the pediatricians dear!”. Guys, you know what I’m talking about (joking honey).

My wife is driving home from her job when she is cut off by a driver in an old foreign maroon colored car – the type of car so old you know it will never pass state inspection. Inside is a young Hispanic male. My wife slams on her brakes, pulls back, and when the driver does not speed up, she accelerates her vehicle to pass and then pulls back into the lane in front of the punk well enough ahead of him to not give the appearance of attempting to cut him off.

Next thing she knows, she of off on a high speed chase. First he pulls up next to her and starts screaming obscenities. He then attempts to cut her off. She pulls a maneuver and ends up back in front of him and turns onto our street. He follows her. She decides that, instead of pulling into our apartment and letting the little punk know where she lives, she would double back to a gas station where she knows there is usually a police vehicle.

When she gets there, no such luck. She pulls into a parking spot and stays in her vehicle. The punk drives up and opens his window, still screaming obscenities and daring her to get out of the car. Customers walking out of the store turn around and walk back in. He begins to flash obvious gang signs and using language typical of a street thug. At this time, my wife pulls out her phone and pretends she is using it to call the police. As we can’t dial 9-11 on our cell phones, she hopes the ruse will work and begins to act like she is providing a description of the vehicle. The SOB keeps cursing at her and daring her to get out of the car. Big tough man picking on a woman. God, I wish I were there. Oh, what fun I missed and what pain this bastard escaped.

My wife, having exhausted all her options, decides to head back towards our apartment as the gangster follows her. At the last second she makes a dangerous right turn at a high rate of speed and enters our apartment complex. The idiot following her is caught off guard and slams on his brakes too late and attempts to reverse his vehicle. As other cars are already heading his direction, he capitulates and drives on.

For the next three hours my wife is left shaking as she comes down off the adrenaline high. She feels helpless and went so far as to ask me if I would take some time off work the next day and allow her to follow me to where she works. I agreed.

I was actually disappointed he was not waiting. I don’t suffer from fear. Having had four heart attacks starting at age 38 (I am now 43) and 25 stents there is very little that scares me, and some little punk or group of punks or gang is not one of them. I was quite prepared to unload into the sorry bastard if he was stupid enough to return. Thankfully for him, he must have went home and did a few bong hits and fell asleep.

So that’s it. My wife is now very interested in getting a conceal and carry. I don’t blame her and support this decision 100%. We live near a range and I’ll take her shooting as often as she wants. I love to fire a good weapon that reminds me that I live in a country where I can protect myself, which leaves me with a final thought. I would also throw out my passive-aggressive non-violent approach to solving problems if anyone ever tried to take away my right to defend myself. If anyone – ANYONE – ever attempted to take away my firearm, one of us is going to bite the dust.

Politically incorrect? Too frigging bad.

In other news and opinion:

Riot Police Called in to Protect Obama from Out of Control Tea Party. Look at these vicious thugs!

Thank god the security forces were heavily armed and well prepared with full body armor or this guy with a bullhorn could have done some serious damage:

Police state: How Mexico treats illegal aliens

Breaking news from Michelle Malkin: I am not white!

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

Cross-posted at the Wolves of Liberty.

When the federal government violates your rights, you’re not supposed to wait four years for new politicians in the hope that they’ll fix it. You’re not supposed to wait two, or four, or more years for some black-robed judge to pronounce that they’ve violated your rights. You are supposed to resist those violations of your liberty as they happen – and it is your state’s solemn duty to do the same…Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin’s post We Refuse over at the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) defines the core beliefs he holds as founder of the TAC:

The Tenth Amendment codifies in law this principle of popular sovereignty – that “We the People” of the several states created the federal government to be our agent for certain, enumerated purposes – and nothing more. But unfortunately, that’s not how things have been working, and very little that the government does is actually authorized by the constitution. And, this is a problem that didn’t just start in January 2009 – it’s been going on a long, long time.

He then asks the question, “What to do about it?” (emphasis mine):

Question – What do we do about it?

• Do we call and email our representatives in Congress and ask them to limit their own power?

• Do we march on D.C. and demand that the government limit its own power?

• Do we sue them in their own courts and ask their judges to limit their power?

• Do we vote the bums out in 2010, or 2012 – and ask new politicians to limit their own power?

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers – that power would endlessly grow…regardless of elections, separation of powers, courts, or other vaunted parts of our system.

Guess what – they were right. For a hundred years, we the people have been suing, and marching, and lobbying, and voting the bums out – but yet…year in and year out, government continues to grow and your liberty continues to diminish – and it doesn’t matter who is the president, or what political party controls congress – the growth of power in the federal government never stops.

The problem we face today is not about personalities or political parties – it’s about power. Until we address the absolute fact that the federal government has too much power, things will never change.

The emphasized text defines the very crux of the issue that surfaces when we begin to take it upon ourselves to change a party from within. To believe this actually makes a difference in the current environment of continuous growth in federal power is dangerous. The real issue that must be tackled is the growth of the federal government, how and why this growth occurred, why it is anathema to the very principles held by our founders, and what to do about it. Dr. Larry Hunter writes in The Soft Despotism of Democratic Fascism:

By all means my fellow Americans, go to the polls in November and vote out the bums who are most aggressively subverting our free-market republic and transforming it into Democratic Fascism, i.e., Democrats. But just know when you do, the people you replace them with, Republicans, are themselves subverting the American free-market republic by offering nothing but Socialism Lite as an alternative.

So many scoundrels; so few alternatives.

Had John McCain been elected president in 2008, we almost certainly by this time would have seen a version of RomneyCare enacted into law, which is a lite version of ObamaCare, an idea hatched inside conservative think tanks as a Socialist Lite alternative to HillaryCare all those years ago—can’t stand to be the Movement of No don’t you know.

A trial run of a scaled-down model of the democratic fascist healthcare reform machine was enacted into law with the Medicare Prescription Drugs (Part D) program in 2003 by a Republican president and Republican Congress: a Rube Goldberg device that conscripts the private sector to run the democratic fascist drug machinery, complete with a lite version of an individual mandate—call it contracting out tyranny. Indeed, RomneyCare and its prescription-drug prototype is precisely the template the Democrats used to forge public-private insurance and drug cartels beneath a private patina. No wonder the stock prices of the pharmaceutical companies and the biggest health insurance companies rose markedly during the run up to ObamaCare and right after it was signed into law…

…With only a few exceptions, Republicans are not demanding a roll-back of the welfare state, not talking about scaling back the size of government from its current almost 38 percent of GDP to 15 percent or less. Not more than a fraction of them talk seriously about a total repeal of the income tax (which only half the American people pay) or repeal of the Federal Reserve System, which subverts sound money and undermines economic growth, and no more than couple of them have any clue about how to restore sound money. Beyond a handful, there are no courageous Republicans calling for an end to empire and a return from our counterproductive search abroad for monsters to destroy. Fearful of their own shadows, there are not significant numbers of Republicans urging a dismantling of the domestic police state with its creeping total-information awareness system that is gradually smothering individual freedom and privacy; indeed South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is actually pushing hard for a biometric national ID card. No Republican is calling for constitutional amendments to put the federal Leviathan back in chains, the kind of chains we all can believe in.

So, once you throw out the Democratic rascals and replace them with Republican scalawags, don’t expect things to change much. While every republican in Congress voted against ObamaCare, the Grand Old Party cannot now even muster the courage to run on a platform of repealing it.

Perhaps not in this election nor even in the presidential election to follow but soon the American people will come to understand a very sad and frightening fact about the United States today: Elections no longer work to divert the nation’s decent into the soft despotism of democratic fascism; they simply perpetuate the fraud of two parties, one Establishment, democratic in appearance, increasingly fascist in operation.

I urge the reader to survey the material presented here, particularly Dr. Hunter’s expose of the scurrilous truths about current Beltway politics practiced between the two parties titled Who Lost Healthcare.

The need we all feel for action is pressing. The current target of the symptom of unconstitutional governance by a strong central power is ObamaCare. Talk of repeal is thick in the air – lawsuits and rumors of lawsuits even thicker. Talk of taking back the party from the ground up is the strategy of the day for many.

Repeal will never happen for obvious reasons. It sounds good, looks good on paper, but is impossible until 2013 due to the power of the veto pen and the realities on the ground. To over-ride a veto takes more votes in the Senate than the Republicans could hope to have under the best of circumstances in the upcoming 2010 midterms. Therefore, 2013 is the best chance for repeal and only if Obama loses the election in 2012 and the Republicans control both chambers of the legislature. Even then, we must assume and count on Republicans having the nerve to take on such an undertaking, something recent history quite clearly demonstrates as contra-indicative of GOP tendencies. Not to mention the fact that most if not all of the bureaucracy for ObamaCare will already be in place, making the repeal of the entire bill a dangerous undertaking as insurance companies and doctors – those who are still around – position themselves to work within the new framework. The damage to the existing system, already done, could be exacerbated as the entire structure is torn down. So much inertia will exist within the scaffolding and foundation of ObamaCare the momentum of this monstrosity of a bill would require great courage to take on, repeal, tear down, and replace. I don’t believe for a second ObamaCare will be repealed and putting our eggs in that basket is dangerous and negligent.

Then there is the lawsuits challenging the individual mandate. Forget for a moment the absence of any real enforcement mechanism for the insurance mandate. Many scholars believe the mandate will not be struck down by the Supreme Court. As the entire history of the Supreme Court since the days of the Marshall Court is a history lesson in how the federal powers absconded with the rights of the states and the people through judicial activism and negligence, I would not be surprised. But I will cede ground and assume that it will be struck down. What occurs then? What are we left with? ObamaCare absent the mandate is a recipe for either single-payer socialized medicine of government backed insurance cartels (fascist medicine). If the mandate cannot be collected, then by default taxes will need to be raised. As it will take years for this case to make it to the Supreme Court, the arguments in the previous paragraph still hold. Strike the mandate with Republicans in control and watch the GOP bailout a few large insurance companies creating a cartel-like environment where insurance companies now make your medical decisions for you with the backing of the government. Great system.

As for those who think taking back the party and changing it from within is the panacea to our problems, I can only point to the above information from Mr. Boldin and Dr. Larry Hunter. There is not point of reference to indicate this approach possesses any efficacy whatsoever. As indicated above, the evidence is quite to the contrary. There is also this to consider:

Further evidence of Federal lucre and its consequences can be found in many aspects of welfare programs enacted in past century and the beginning of this century:

• As of 2003, Medicare we underfunded to the tune of $27 trillion, four times the national debt at that time. This funding crisis was in terms of future obligations versus projected tax receipts. No wonder a Value Added Tax is now being discussed. Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven found in 2003 that an average male that reached age 65 will receive $71,000 more in benefits from Social Security and Medicare that he had put in. Contrast that with the average twenty-five year old male expected to pay $322,000 more in taxes that he would ever receive.

• Prior to Medicaid, doctors provided services to the poor for free or at reduced rates. Prior to Medicaid poor families had higher hospital admission rates than those in wealthier brackets and both were almost on par with each other concerning the number of doctor visits per year. Medicaid ended that and resulted in a massive decline in reduced-cost and free services to the poor as the government’s payments for medical care for the poor now compensated doctors and hospitals for services once rendered at reduced rates or pro bono. Medicare and Medicaid basically transferred income from the middle-class taxpayer to middle-class health-care workers and the sudden stimulation of demand played a large role in raising the cost of healthcare. The free-market, effectively chocked off by government regulation and welfare services, was unable to work to lower cost and increase consumption by allowing for natural market competition mechanisms.

• A study in 1960 by Charles Murray concluded the Great Society lead to stagnation for the poor.

• Budget cuts are a myth. Even during President Ronald Reagan’s tenure the rate of increase in government spending slowed but continued its upward trend. While defense spending played a large role, non-defense spending was 17.5% of GDP in 1985 compared to 10.1% in 1965. In the aggregate there was neither tax nor budget cuts during the Reagan era. Spending grew faster than taxing, but both lines continued to grow. While some welfare spending was cut slightly, some spending increased by as much as 18% from 1981 to 1989.

• Of even greater surprise is that even though Reagan reduced the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%, taxes overall actually increased in the decade of the 80s, with some increases negating and then offsetting the reductions of 1981. Social Security taxes in the early 80s were among the largest in U.S. history.

• The Tax Reform Act of 1986 increased taxes by closing loopholes and eliminating some tax credits. Federal taxes averaged 18.9% of GNP during the 80s, compared with 18.3 for the 70s and 18.2 for the 60s. Even under Reagan, federal government grew.

• One of the greatest twists on logic in DC is the idea of cuts. Under President Clinton’s seven year budget proposal the President called for a $500 billion dollar increase in federal spending while Republicans called for a $350 billion dollar increase. I can look at that sentence all day and I still do not see the work cut. There is no reduction in federal spending by either Clinton or the Republicans. Yet the liberal press was able to tout the tired old line of Republican cuts and tie them to popular federal programs, leading 47% of Americans to believe Republican cuts too deep. Again, what cuts? When Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed a 6% annual growth in Medicare spending and Clinton a 7.5% growth, the liberal press and political commentators went apoplectic over the proposed cuts to the Medicare program proposed by Speaker Gingrich.

• Both parties are guilty of this political double speak, redefining the meaning of the word cut to mean a reduction in how fast the government grows.

All of our current solutions are nothing less than men gathered around a campfire screaming into the night to scare away the predators. Lawsuits, repeal, changing the party from within – all take time, none are guaranteed or even likely to make a difference either to ObamaCare or the issue of federal lucre symptomatic of a practically supreme centralized government that should not even possess these powers to begin with. The real change needed is the use of education and information. For example, did you know the final arbiter of the constitution is not the Supreme Court, cut the states? Did you know that nullification has been successfully used by the states to stop a federal law at the boundaries of that state? Do you know what nullification is?

Back to Mr. Boldin from the TAC, who continues (emphasis mine):

Question – What do we do about it?

Jefferson and Madison gave us the answer. In response to the unconstitutional attacks on liberty that were the Alien and Sedition Acts, they secretly authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. Here are a few excerpts that really define exactly how things are supposed to work when two or more branches of the federal government conspire against the constitution and your liberty.

the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government

whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated [by the Constitution], a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy

So while it might be important to call, petition, demand, march, sue and vote bums out, because they’re all bums, there’s much more we’re supposed to do. When the federal government violates your rights, you’re not supposed to wait four years for new politicians in the hope that they’ll fix it. You’re not supposed to wait two, or four, or more years for some black-robed judge to pronounce that they’ve violated your rights. You are supposed to resist those violations of your liberty as they happen – and it is your state’s solemn duty to do the same.

Mr. Boldin then provides information on nullification resolutions and laws within the states:

• Already a dozen states have passed 10th amendment resolutions reaffirming the Constitution as the founders and ratifiers gave us.

• 25 states have passed laws and resolutions nullifying the Real ID act – stopping it dead in its tracks in most of the country.

• 7 states have passed Firearms Freedom Acts – nullifying some federal gun laws and regulations in their states.

• 14 states have now passed laws nullifying unconstitutional federal laws on marijuana

• 3 states have already passed Health Care Freedom Acts to ban federal health care mandates in their states.

• Other states are considering nullification laws on cap and trade, the misuse of state national guard troops, monetary policy and much more.

However, even nullification has its own issues as it also relies on state politicians to rescue us from the federal government and re-instate our rightful position as the real power brokers within our states. Probably one of the most accurate truisms concerning politicians was made by President Reagan:

It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.

From Shane Musgrove writing at the TAC:

Are the States and their representatives any better? My assumption is that some, if not many, fall into the same political traps, yet not so deeply nor to the same extremity. I believe with great hope along with many others that there are representatives at the State level who do take these matters as genuinely concerning and view it as their responsibility to protect their citizens from what we can now define as “federal lawlessness.” I commend you on your courage, will, integrity, and your strength.

Now, as Linscott said, “You cannot expect the problem to fix the problem,” referring to the federal government, so we emphatically hope that these problems will be answered at the State level. So, the answer to the perplexing philosophical statement is none other than the States, their representatives, and the people that vote them into office.

Therefore, what follows is in essence, “A Call from ‘We the People’ to All State Representatives.”

As a preface, it is a responsibility of the States to assert their rights, specifically in times such as these. It is absolutely necessary to recognize that responsibility and accountability exists among State representatives rather than open-ended, unmoving opinions based on political philosophy and liberal views of the Constitution. To the best of my knowledge, an oath is taken in all States in some form of an edict to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State.” In addition, it should be noted that this call for responsibility is void of any form of violence or sedition, lest the leftist accusations of “inciting violence” and “hate” come forth with great force.

Therefore, let it be said: For legislators who are weakly or mildly concerned with these problems and see your duty as a representative half heartedly, resign.

For governors who do not have the courage to stand and fight for State rights in accordance with the following words from James Madison, resign.

Strong words, but are they enough? Looking at the list of states with non-binding resolutions vs. the list of states we need to actually nullify via law not only ObamaCare but any other attempt at federal over-reach before this country falls off the financial cliff, I am not convinced. That is why it is incumbent upon us to initiate a program of massive non-violent passive-aggressive resistance in the spirit of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. As Gandhi once said:

40,000 British troops cannot force 300 million Indians to do what they will not do.

This is true of our situation as well – a few elites in Washington can not make a majority of American’s accept something they are unwilling to endure. Shortly after the War of Independence, our founders looked for the source of the problem that allowed tyranny to fester and thrive, a tyranny so abusive the only way to abolish it was to remove it by force. Wisely, they recognized the sovereignty of Britain lay in the hands of a few, concentrated in the Parliament itself. As they set about creating a new form of governance, our forefathers rejected the very idea of a strong central sovereignty, the United States of America was to be a Union of sovereign states, and the role of the federal government limited by definition. Despite liberal revisionism, the fact remains the Constitution was not ratified by national referendum, but by individual conventions in each state. This fact is indisputable and definitively makes the case that the Uniting of the States was not intended to be a under a strong federal power, but rather that of thirteen sovereign states under a limited federal government.

Since its ratification, our Constitution, under constant assault by activist judges, corrupted legislators and Presidents, is now turned on its head. Thomas Jefferson noted that:

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

The very nature of man is corrupt and today, after more than two centuries of the corruption of power we find a small island off the coast of France replaced by a city called Washington DC.

This state of affairs cannot be allowed to stand. At risk is the future of this country and its people. Our goal is to educate and the taking back of this country through non-violent civil disobedience and the constitutionally sound tool of nullification. Over time I will outline the tactics and continue to define the philosophy of this approach. Never will we rely on the assistance of those whose stake in this fight is the loss of the addictive and corruptive power gained at our expense. One may as well attempt to force a crack addict to part with their beloved drug. Until the Statists are utterly destroyed under the weight of truth and knowledge this Republic is in danger of utter ruin. If is only through self-power that we can win this fight.

This is the hill we live or die on.

In other news and opinion:

Michelle Malkin on establishment Republicans: John S. McCain, Will You Please Go Now?

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

Cross-posted at Wolves of Liberty News.

Michelle Malkin exposes the theatrical collusion that has come to define Washington not only in the political arena, but between politics and big business:

The GOP wants SEC correspondence disclosed. Here’s that story. In related news, Goldman Sachs cheerleader and beneficiary Rahm Emanuel met with NYC business elite about the financial reform plan.

That’s not all:

While President Obama assails the culture of greed and recklessness practiced by the men of Goldman Sachs, his administration is infested with them. The White House can no more disown Government Sachs than Da Boss-in-chief can disown Chicago politics.

Read the whole post.

Most troubling is Greg Gordon article at McClatchy exposing the White House visitor logs:

While Goldman Sachs’ lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman’s chief executive visited the White House at least four times.

White House logs show that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein traveled to Washington for at least two events with President Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign received $994,795 in donations from Goldman’s political action committee, its employees and their relatives. He also met twice with Obama’s top economic adviser, Larry Summers.

…Goldman’s connections to the White House and the Obama administration are raising eyebrows at a time when Washington and Wall Street are dueling over how to overhaul regulation of the financial world.

…According to White House visitor logs, Blankfein was among the business leaders who attended an Obama speech on Feb. 13, 2009, and he also joined more than a dozen bank CEOs in a meeting with Obama on March 27, 2009.

Blankfein also was supposed be among the CEOs who met with Obama in December, but he and two others phoned in from New York, blaming inclement weather.

He and his wife, Laura, were listed on the logs among 438 presidential guests at the Kennedy Center Honors the previous week.

…Several former Goldman executives hold senior positions in the Obama administration, including Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Mark Patterson, a former Goldman lobbyist who is chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Robert Hormats, the undersecretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs.

Jacobs of the University of Minnesota said that the administration now risks “kind of a feeding frenzy.”

“The administration has to be very careful,” he said, “because . . . they’re seen as the ones who bailed out Wall Street. If there are indications that the administration was talking to regulators or to Justice Department people about when and how Goldman or other firms would be investigated, I think that’s going to create almost a mob scene.”

I am reminded of Dr. Larry Hunter’s lessons in political theater:

What do Harlem Globetrotters basketball, professional wrestling and American politics all have in common? They are FAKES.

Oh, the consequences are real enough and can be catastrophic. And, the players are not fakes; some are marvelous performers and others are fine athletes (was there ever a better ball handler than Meadowlark Lemon or a political bone crusher better at the political Hammerlock and the High Crotch Takedown than Nancy Pelosi?); it is the contest that is fake; it is choreographed violence, cliffhanging drama; a blood sport with real blood carefully let that titillates a gullible audience. Although professional wrestlers appear to be bitter foes inside the ring, outside the ropes they are drinking buddies, just like U.S. Senators. Wrestling matches, like congressional debates, are carefully choreographed and the punches, gouges and kicks are pulled or exaggerated for effect. The blood in the ring is real enough—wrestlers frequently use a small razor to ‘blade’ (cut themselves) to draw blood—which completes the illusion and makes the match more exhilarating and dramatic for the fans.

So is this just more theater in the road to over-regulation of the free market? Did the actors already know their assigned parts before the drama began? One wonders.

In other news:

Update on Navy SEALs case

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

It’s come to this: Senate subpoenas Obama WH over Fort Hood shootings:

Over five months have passed since Army Major Nidal Hasan massacred fourteen people at Fort Hood, and Congress has lost patience with President Obama. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has gotten few answers from the Pentagon and the Obama administration about how Hasan was allowed to remain in a position to commit that murder spree despite multiple requests. In a rare show of bipartisanship, Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins issued subpoenas to force the White House and the DoD to start providing answers.

Now add this to the mix from the Daily Telegraph: Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood:

President Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and the majority of women around the world associate it with “gender justice”.

The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir’s national women’s officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular “man-made law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism”.

They called for Sharia Law to be “the source of legislation” and said that women should not be “permitted to hold a position of leadership in government”.

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that “promiscuity” and the “breakdown of traditional values” were what Muslims admired least about the West.

She said: “I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.

I guess Miss Mogahed has never watched the movie The Stoning of Soraya M., a movie with an ending so difficult to watch my wife had to cover her eyes with her hands sobbing. There is no perception issue with Sharia law in the West and the fact that Obama has done nothing to address the statements of Miss Mogahed is very troubling. Add to this the fact that Obama sides with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez in condemning Honduras for defending its Democracy while standing impotent and watching idly as Iranians are slaughtered by extremists and one soon realizes the mounting evidence of either outright naivety and incompetence, or explicit support for radicalism.

His recent snubbing of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the demands that Israel kowtow to the Anointed One’s demands, his walk tall and carry a tiny twig approach concerning Iranian nuclear weapons while holding nuclear arms reduction talks lead one either to believe this man is the very definition of arrogance and negligent behavior, or something more sinister is afoot.

Google Sharia law. Watch the Stoning of Soraya M. and tell me your not concerned the statements of Dalia Mogahed are allowed pass as acceptable in the Obama White House.

Cross-posted at The Wolves of Liberty News.

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

Obama says Tea Partiers should be thanking him:

On tax day, he show cases the tax cuts in the stimulus plan, other tax break, and refusal to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year.

“So I’ve been amused in recent days by these people having rallies,” he said to laughter. “I think they should be saying thank you.” Big applause, and calls of “Thank you” from the crowd.

The man sure can lie with straight face. Either that, or he believes his own propaganda, along with the worshiping zombie crowds that fill his teleprompter driven drivel.

After much thought, I did find it appropriate to thank Obama for a whole litany of accomplishments and deeds performed by the Self-Anointed One.

• Thank you Obama for an unemployment of 9.7%, and real unemployment (workers who stopped looking, marginally attached workers, and underemployed workers) of 17.5%.
• Thank you Obama for siding with Marxists Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez when Honduras President Manuel Zelaya decided to throw out the Constitution of his country and stay in power past his term before being unceremoniously marched out of the country by the military which fulfilled its oath, stepped back, and allowed the Honduran Congress to appoint a successor. Those inconvenient Constitutions sure can be a bitch to budding Marxists.
• Thank you Obama for your America apology tour.
• And for trillion dollar bailouts, budgets, deficits.
• Let’s not forget heavy government regulation that further stifles our economic recovery. Thanks a million Mr. President.
• And we can’t forget to thank you for supporting tax increases at all income levels.
• Or indicating you have no idea how basic economic theory works.
• And a big shout out for insulting our intelligence. We know if you increase taxes on small business (what you call the wealthy), big business (such as oil), then everyone, including middle class America, end up paying the tax. Which means we should also thank you for:
• Showing us you would be a horrible contestant on Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?
• Thank you Obama for selling out our children’s future and attempting to enslave them to a bloated government.
• For the nationalization of many industries, including automotive and health.
• For undermining the CIA and our military by publishing documents that reveal our interrogation techniques.
• For canceling important weapon systems
• For bowing, and bowing, and bowing ad nauseam to world leaders like an impotent second class citizen unworthy of manhood.
• For weakening this country by providing terrorists the same legal protections as U.S. citizens.
• For omitting “Islamic Terrorism” from security documents while allowing the Department of Homeland Security to publish reports labeling soldiers and conservatives as potential right-wing extremists.
• For stonewalling on the Fort Hood massacre investigation:
• For creating a shadow government of czars who are radical Marxists and crooks.
• And lets not forget to thank you for alienating Israel, our only real ally in the Middle East, while fostering a potentially explosive situation in that region. Bully for you.
• An I am sure that many in Iran would love to join us Americans in thanking you for turning your back on Iranian protesters while they were slaughtered.
• While we are at it, thanks in advance for assisting Iran in creating a nuclear warhead. Awesome!
• And thanks for helping me win that bet. It is possible for a President to be worse than Jimmy Carter.
• But most of all, thank you for pulling this country together in opposition to your policies; for making us stronger and setting the stage for a comeback of epic proportions for fiscal conservatism as happened after we were subject to four years of Jimmy Carter. Of course, you won’t be thanking us for that, not when your explicit goal is weakening and destroying the greatest nation on this planet.

So thank you in advance for failing – something I guarantee will happen.

In other news and opinion

Obama mocks, we remember

Dems fall into their own Pay-Go trap

Obama mocks tea partiers: You should thank me for cutting taxes

Obama Claims to Be “Amused” by Tea Party Rallies; Thinks Protesters Should “Thank” Him

Joe Klein: Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are guilty of borderline sedition

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

Recently, Charles M. Blow wrote an article in the New York Times stating rather arrogantly that we can’t have our country back. Read the entire post from Right Wing News and note Mr. Blow’s sheer contempt for us. It is breathtaking and maddening at the same time. If you take high blood pressure medication, it may be a good idea to pop a pill before reading the post.

Mr. Blow throws down the gauntlet. Do we pick it up or walk away? Will it be the slow death of relying on others, or the assured victory of self-power multiplied ten, twenty, thirty-million times or more?

Relying on politicians will not solve our problems; neither will relying on the courts. These band-aids may work for a single issue, but the broader abuse of power and its corruptive influence continues to exist, laying the groundwork for additional egregious violations that will, once again, require us to rely on the power of others to solve a problem only we as a people can and should address. Once again we will be exposed to months and months of obfuscations, misdirection, propaganda, and outright lies.

Our goal is nothing short of wresting our rights back from the statists in DC – it is not just to repeal ObamaCare. ObamaCare is a symptom of a much larger disease – that of too much power in the national government. A singular focus on one issue at the expense of the true threat to our liberty is frankly dangerous; it is a gamble when the stakes are high. However, until the cancer is removed, any remedy resting on the backdrop of the current statist tyranny in Washington is the equivalent of using chemotherapy to extend a patient’s life a few months, knowing full well that death is the ultimate victor.

Political solutions only make sense in an ecosystem where the rights of the people trump the rights of those in DC. I don’t disagree with recommended solutions to take back the party at the local level and project such efforts to higher political spheres at both the state and national levels, but I completely reject any notion this will do any good as long as the real issue which faces us is left to fester unchallenged – that of statism and the contempt and tyranny it carries with it at the highest levels of government and the fear and untruths that propagate to all other levels of society living under the illusion that national power is the ultimate arbiter of your life. The very notion is anathema to the meaning of the word independence.

The disease of tyranny spreads quite easily, and we could send an army of politicians to DC that meet our criterion only to be disappointed at the results. However, if the power rests once more in the hands of the people, the problem mitigates itself. Without near absolute power, there is no large-scale corruption. We must recognize this truth if we are to have any hope of succeeding.

Self-reliance in the style and form our forefathers demonstrated is desperately needed. As progressives over the years have run about the country stirring up apathy, it is our duty to wipe the sleep from our eyes. Our energy is high, but misdirected. Rallies, faxes, emails, phone calls – this list goes on and on – had no impact on the final result. In the end, against the wishes of a majority, ObamaCare passed. It is time to pivot the focus of that energy. The Tea Parties have a new tool at their disposal, yet untapped, that fit not only the spirit of resistance but the goals as well. While last minute dashes to pressure members of Congress may have some effect, it is obviously not enough. This unused tactic is tailor made for Tea Party activists and its time we all learned to use them to maximum effect.

The tools of passive-aggressive resistance will pull the rug out from under the tyrants in DC. It will take a level of sacrifice that we may no longer possess the sheer guts to face. We carry signs, we talk of taking back the party, but the reality is we are going to have to get a little muddy and, in the process, possibly experience a bit of discomfort ourselves.

Recently, I was forwarded an email from a Google group that discusses such issues. The particular communication focused like a laser on the real flaws in current tactics designed to deal with the sources that threaten our way of life. Nothing worth saving is going to be easy and any solution that solely relies on the power of others (politicians and federal courts) instead of self-power should be soundly rejected if they stand apart from the larger cause of the current ailment. The efficacy of such approaches exists only in the context of a larger strategy targeted at the primary cause that acts as the foundation upon which all other issues rest upon. Strategies the rely of the power of others must be subsumed by a strategy that deals with this principal problem – this foundation:

Glenn Beck urges us to emulate Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Well, we sure aren’t. Yes, we have had our protests but they were unobtrusive (on weekends and out of the way) and they were blatantly ignored. Gandhi and King, on the other hand, held their protests in the thick of things. The protested right down on Main Street, at noon, during the week – and at lunch counters, right in front of the other customers, and the world. They were arrested when they refused to move, dragged away by police and jailed, often beaten with clubs and pummeled by fire houses and bitten by police dogs. What they did, couldn’t be ignored. Their peaceful presence under the violent hand of the government exposed the government for the thugs they were.

Gandhi and King continued to show peaceful courage in the face of government violence until the world – then the government – finally listened to them and changed their oppressive ways.

Until we move past our polite “Sunday School” gatherings we will continue to be ignored. Until we find the courage to truly emulate these past leaders, we will continue to be ignored. The question is: Are you willing to sit down on the streets and sidewalks around the capitol and in the hallways of Congress and refuse to move until the government listens to you? Are you willing to be arrested and possibly beaten, and put in jail, without resistance? If you are, then you have the courage of these past historic movements. Until there are enough of us who possess this kind of courage, our protests will continue to be ignored.

If there is a sufficient number of brave men and women among us who have the courage to do more than just chant and carry signs and politely listen to speakers, then let us stout-hearted men and women converge on Washington and sit on the streets and sidewalks and in the hallways of Congress and peacefully refuse to move, and continue to do this until we are heard. We pay for these streets and sidewalks and hallways, so let us sit down on what we own and stay there until the world, then the government, notices us and ends its oppression of its people.

How many among us have this kind of courage?

I am often amazed at the story of David and Goliath. Where others measured themselves against the size of the giant and concluded victory was impossible, David measured not himself against the size of Goliath, but measured Goliath against the God that accompanied David. From this perspective, David saw Goliath as nothing but a tiny nuisance. Right is on our side, and we stand on the higher moral ground. Just as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi occupied the higher ground and won against all odds, the same stands true for us. We should not be looking at this problem and see a Goliath. We should look at this problem and see a tiny nuisance and face it without fear, secure in the knowledge that our victory is assured.

Pick up that gauntlet.

In other news and opinion:

Power and corruption combine to silence dissent: Henry Waxman: The Witch Hunter of Capitol Hill

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

Brion McClanahan writes on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution:

When Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter signed HO391 into law on 17 March 2010, the “national” news media circled the wagons and began another assault on State sovereignty. The bill required the Idaho attorney general to sue the federal government over insurance mandates in the event national healthcare legislation passed. The lead AP reporter on the story, John Miller, quoted constitutional “scholar” David Freeman Engstrom of Stanford Law School as stating that the Idaho law would be irrelevant because of the “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution.

In his words, “That language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law, so it really doesn’t matter what a state legislature says on this.” Now that Barack Obama has signed healthcare legislation into law, almost a dozen States have filed suit against the federal government, with Idaho in the lead. Battle lines have been drawn. Unfortunately, the question of State sovereignty and the true meaning of the “supremacy clause” may be swallowed up in the ensuing debate.

As more states are joining in, it is worth noting that so-called constitutional scholars do not really exist. The constitution is not a very difficult document to understand. The real meaning of the phrase “constitutional scholar” should be replaced by “constitutional case law scholar”. However, a close look at what such a scholar actually knows about the origins of the constitution and what the founders intended it to mean makes it abundantly clear that many so-called scholars are not, in fact, scholars in the sense of understanding both the foundations and subsequent evolution of the document’s impact on this country, nor modern deviation from the original intent of the founders. One by-product of the modern study of constitutional law, is that for many in the field case law and precedents are primary while the foundations and history of the document are glossed over or entirely ignored. What does that tell us? It tells us that, since the foundations have been mired and replaced by 200 years of nationalist judges, many current scholars in in the field are actually completely clueless. Ask them about the Marshall Court around 1810 and onward and you will get a list of cases along with commentary, but mention that it was Marshall who took the sound defeat of nationalists at the Philadelphia Convention and turned it into a victory and you will be met by a blank stare or a nationalist talking point that exposes the naivety of the speaker. You also will not hear any mention of why America in 2010 looks a lot like America in 1776 in reference to the many being lorded over by the few. Brion McClanahan continues (emphasis mine):

Engstrom’s opinion is held by a majority of constitutional law “scholars,” but he is far from correct…

…The so-called “supremacy clause” of the Constitution, found in Article 6, states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding [emphasis added].”

The key, of course, is the italicized phrase. All laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, or those clearly enumerated in the document, were supreme, State laws notwithstanding. In other words, the federal government was supreme in all items clearly listed in the document.

As stated earlier, the constitution is not a difficult document. So grab your nearest copy and look for the words “national healthcare” or any synonymous phrase. The fact you will not find such working indicates national healthcare is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. How embarrassing for Engstrom. Of course, that does not stop him from continuing to display a complete ignorance of the constitution. Read the whole article. Here I wish to point out a few other pertinent items (emphasis mine):

By the time the Constitution was debated in the several State ratifying conventions in 1787 and 1788, the “supremacy clause” galvanized opponents of the document. The Constitution, they said, would destroy the States and render them impotent in their internal affairs. The response from proponents of ratification illuminates the true intent of the clause. William Davie, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from North Carolina and proponent of the Constitution, responded to attacks levied on the “supremacy clause” by stating that:

This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land. Every power ceded by it must be executed without being counteracted by the laws or constitutions of the individual states. Gentlemen should distinguish that it is not the supreme law in the exercise of power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations [emphasis added].

Davie wasn’t alone in this opinion. Future Supreme Court justice James Iredell of North Carolina argued that, “This clause [the supremacy clause] is supposed to give too much power, when, in fact, it only provides for the execution of those powers which are already given in the foregoing articles….If Congress, under pretence of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution [emphasis added].”…

…Ultimately, the three most powerful States in the Union, New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia, demanded that a bill of rights be immediately added to the Constitution; near the top of those recommended amendments on every list, a State sovereignty resolution. These ultimately became the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Clearly the intent of this amendment was to mitigate any design the federal government had on enlarging its powers through the “supremacy clause.” If the power was not enumerated in the Constitution and the States were not prohibited by the Constitution from exercising said power, then that power was reserved to the States.

The crux of the article that will shape the debate as ObamaCare lawsuits wind their way to the Supreme Court is well articulated (emphasis mine):

Several other constitutional “scholars” have weighed in on the debate in the last week, and each has invoked the “supremacy clause” to defend their opposition to State action against healthcare. Duke Law Professor Neil Siegel went so far as to suggest that the States are not reading the Tenth Amendment correctly. In perhaps the most outlandish statement of the debate, he also said, “Any talk of nullification bothers me because it’s talk of lawlessness.”

I guess Mr. Siegel has failed to consider that Idaho bill HO391 was passed by a legitimate legislative body elected by the people of the State. That would make it lawful.

Brion McClanahan recalls a very telling quote by a great patriot:

Of course, this debate ultimately boils down to loose interpretation verses strict construction. Thomas Jefferson had the best line on this issue.

When asked to read between the lines to “find” implied powers, Jefferson responded that he had done that, and he “found only blank space.”

Herein lies the crux of the matter – the blank space. The blank space that has been filled in for 200 years by those who would create an ecosystem ripe for the growth of tyrannical rule and contempt fo the unwashed masses. How else does one explain the lucre and arrogance of Congress and the President force-feeding ObamaCare to an unwilling public? The burning question is, will the Supreme Court side with the other two branches?

For two centuries the judicial branch acted the enabler to the Congressional addiction to power. Two centuries to grant Congress virtually unlimited powers. Two centuries for a judiciary promising to uphold the constitution while crossing two fingers together behind their collective backs. Each finger represents the usurpation of powers that belong to you and me. One finger is the Supremacy Clause and one is the Commerce Clause. It will be very telling as ObamaCare lawsuits make their way through the maze of the court system to see if the judiciary will finally imply it understands its own role in shredding the constitution or whether they will continue to conspire with the executive and legislative branch in a triumvirate of tyranny.

This battle will prove once and for all whether tyranny rules our land. I doubt it will resolve the issue of state’s rights vs. nationalism. An entire compendium of cases since 1810 would need to be undone and power wrested from the federal government either by the people along with their states, or by the people under their own power through non-violent passive-aggressive massive civil disobedience. My money is on that later requirement.

Highly recommended article: What Would Jefferson Do? Nullify Now!

More news and opinion:

Dean: Of course ObamaCare is wealth redistribution!

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center provides a peek at how just how ObamaCare can be stopped. Before continuing, keep this quote from Gandhi in mind:

40,000 British troops cannot force 300 million Indians to do what they will not do.

Power in numbers. If Americans don’t want ObamaCare, we don’t have to accept it. We have been conditioned that we must accept it, or that we must rely on the Supreme Court or Congress to save us, but what if the problem is the Supreme Court and Congress? What then? Micheal Boldin provides the answer:

Now that Heath Care legislation has passed, the obvious question for opponents is this: Now What? My answer is best summed up with just one word:

Marijuana.

No, I don’t mean that you should go out and smoke away your anger and frustration. Instead, you should feel empowered. The best way to explain this is by telling the story of a disabled mother from Northern California.

ANGEL’S STORY

Angel Raich has been permanently disabled since 1995. She has an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder and other serious medical conditions. In 1997, her doctor felt that marijuana would be an effective medication.

Angel used homegrown marijuana, and she and her physician claim that it’s helped significantly. You may not agree with Angel’s choice, but it’s one made in accordance with California state law, which allows for such use. The federal government, however, has not shown much respect for state laws in recent decades, and chose to take action. After DEA agents seized and destroyed all six of her marijuana plants, she sued to stop them from doing so again.

The suit went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in Gonzales v Raich, Angel lost. The 2005 ruling made clear that the federal government did not recognize state laws authorizing the use of marijuana – in any situation.

The culprit here is the Commerce Clause, first defined in loose terms by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1824 case of Gibbons v. Ogden. Justice Marshall is famous for his legislating from the bench and turning the defeat at the Philadelphia Convention of the nationalists, who believed in a strong central government with powers over the states, into a victory. Future Supreme Courts would take even more license with the Commerce Clause to grant Congress virtually unlimited powers – even under so-called conservative Chief Justices and conservative courts.

Mr. Boldin continues:

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

The court ruled that control over a plant grown and consumed on one’s own property was authorized under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “regulate…commerce among the several states.” It has never been amended.

Like any legal document, if the words of the Constitution mean today what they meant at the moment it was signed, we must understand just what those words meant at the time of its ratification…

…With this in mind, the Supreme Court, which is not a set of nine infallible gods, ruled incorrectly. But rule, they did. Thus, all three federal branches agreed that State-level laws allowing marijuana were a no-go. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas gave a stark warning:

“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption…then Congress’ Article I powers…have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”

If this is starting to make a bit of sense, it should. The Supreme Court ruling should have ended the matter, right? Even with the incorrect assumption held by most Americans that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution it did not. More than half a million people are registered users of medical marijuana, with millions more unregistered. So who is the final arbiter of the constitution? The states are, as our founders clearly wished it to be. Remember the nationalists were thumped at the Philadelphia Convention, it was only Marshall’s legislating from the bench that began to form the illusion the Supreme Court was all-powerful. Mr. Boldin continues:

RESIST DC

Even though she lost the case, Angel indicated she’d continue to use marijuana. At the time of the ruling, there were 10 states that had such laws. Not one of them has been repealed. Since then, another 4 states have passed similar laws, and many others are considering them, including South Dakota, Kansas, and New Hampshire…

…What’s been the result? The federal government will occasionally arrest some high-profile users, but taken in the perspective of the multitudes consuming the plant, the threat is quite low.

And, in mid-2009, recognizing a need for “efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources,” the Justice Department announced that it would back off the prosecution of medical marijuana patients even further.

Now it’s time to segway into the health-care arena. What, pray-tell, does the above have to do with ObamaCare? It’s the lesson, actually that, as Mr. Boldin states:

When enough states pass laws defying federal laws, and enough people actively defy them too, D.C. simply doesn’t have the manpower to arrest and prosecute all of us.

Many of us are relying on a political solution from Washington to solve our problems. Or perhaps we are putting our hope the Supreme Court will come to the rescue and not interpret the Commerce Clause in some novel way that will increase the power of Congress to control our lives to stunning new heights. For those who place their hopes in such entities I only have to say, good luck. Past experience dictates that such hopes are sure to be dashed, and even if a battle is won, the war will be lost until the people take action and not rely on the power of others to do the work they need to do. Never in history have people been rescued from tyranny by the very enablers of that tyranny, and the march to big government will always continue under both parties. It is only a matter of degree. As Dr. Larry Hunter points out in Who Lost Healthcare? (emphasis mine):

What do Harlem Globetrotters basketball, professional wrestling and American politics all have in common? They are FAKES…

…The sad thing is, most conservatives actually think American politics is a real contest between different visions and alternative practical courses for America. Au contraire. Politics in America today is between two Establishment political parties that need each other as foils—gotta’ have that “bad guy”—egged on by the mouth-radio carnies. The dirty little secret is most of the participants fundamentally agree on the need or the practical necessity of perpetuating and growing the welfare/warfare state. They differ only in degree, not kind.

The proof of this assertion is unambiguously clear: Government in the United States continues relentlessly to get bigger, more intrusive and oppressive no matter which political party is in control, no matter for how long. Yes, each party proceeds at a different pace and by different routes but they all herd us to the same destination nonetheless, confirming Thomas Jefferson’s observation that, “The natural tendency of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.”…

…The joke is on those Americans who actually believe a restoration of limited government, individual freedom and personal liberty are the objectives of either political party. The poor saps have spent their entire lives paying the full price of admission to cheer on the Washington Generals. How pathetic is that? Pitiful.

So, when the history of the government takeover of healthcare is written and the question asked, “Who lost healthcare?” the answer will be unambiguous: “Republicans, who failed to take a political risk and refused to employ every parliamentary device at their disposal to stop ObamaCare from being enacted into law.”

Conservatives, irate at the Democrats, will make heroes of Republicans for fighting the good fight rhetorically and overlook their unwillingness to act. They will flock to the polls and throw lots of Democrats out of office. Republicans will claim a mandate—but a mandate to do what, slow the boil?

So where do we go from here? Back to Michael Boldin and nullification:

This kind of activism – while it clearly carries personal risk – should be a real blueprint for people that have been consistently unable to find constitutional relief in Congress, the Executive, or the Courts.

Marijuana users: Love ‘em or hate ‘em, but show some respect for them, as many have suffered greatly for doing what they believe is right. People who believe strongly about other issues, like health care mandates, would do well to learn from them.

What should be done about federal control over health care? The same thing that should be done for every unconstitutional federal law, regulation, or mandate – Nullify Now!

If the politicians in Washington fail us (and there is already plenty of backtracking on promises of repeal) and the Supreme Court rules against the people, what then? By ignoring a perfectly good approach to taking back power from a tyrannical few in DC, we have only ourselves to blame. By putting our eggs in the federal basket and failing to pressure our state leaders to pass laws nullifying ObamaCare and coordinating with other states to do the same, we miss a real opportunity. An opportunity to send a message to Washington that, even if the Supreme Court sides with you and even when you back down from pledges to protect the people, we can still win. There are millions of us and only a few of you. We refuse to accept your tyranny and we do so without firing a single shot. All we have to do is ignore you, just like you ignored us.

Be sure to check out other posts at the Tenth Amendment Center that describe how legislation is shaping up, what local Sheriffs should do, how a state can react when Congress threatens to remove federal funds, and other items. Also, check out Nullification – Our Constitutional Option.

Remember, sometimes if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Relying on politicians and judges to save us is a perfect example of why this little pearl of wisdom is still good advice.

In other news:

Andrew Breitbart Offers $10,000 to United Negro College Fund

Some Republicans Still Don’t Get It

AP: Say, guess what we just found in ObamaCare!

Keep the Hopenchange: Personal incomes drop

ObamaCare: What the GOP could (but probably won’t) do now

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.