Below, is a very insightful article, from The Tenth Amendment Center, which gets squarely to heart of today’s problems, in this country, both politically and as a whole:
For years, the Tenth Amendment Center has drawn the ire of both the American right and left, but generally for different reasons. To the left, we were neo-Confederates trying to mask our desire to somehow reintroduce slavery and Jim Crow segregation by promoting nullification and state’s rights. We draw the ire of the right for challenging unconstitutional wars and the federal War on Drugs.Continue reading →
“The moment war is declared…the mass of the people, through some spiritual alchemy, become convinced that they have willed and executed the deed themselves. They then, with the exception of a few malcontents, proceed to allow themselves to be regimented, coerced, deranged in all the environments of their lives, and turned into a solid manufactory of destruction toward whatever other people may have, in the appointed scheme of things, come within the range of the Government’s disapprobation. The citizen throws off his contempt and indifference to Government, identifies himself with its purposes, revives all his military memories and symbols, and the State once more walks, an august presence, through the imaginations of men. Patriotism becomes the dominant feeling, and produces immediately that intense and hopeless confusion between the relations which the individual bears and should bear toward the society of which he is a part.”
– Randolph Bourne (War is the Health of the State)
For many years, we have been hearing Democrat factions speak of this 20th Century concept of Democratic Socialism, which sought to keep the concept of free elections alive in The United States, while, at the same time, empowering Government to create these Socialist and quasi-Socialist programs, aimed at providing every child with an education, helping those in times of trouble, to provide a safety net for seniors in their retirement years, and so on.
While, on the surface, from a purely emotional level, these Government-ran programs may sound well-intended, they are fraught with problems, both in an economic sense, and in the sense of growing Government, exponentially. I could easily devote an entire post just to that topic, but for now, I will leave it at that.Continue reading →
Below, is a very insightful article, from The Ron Paul Liberty Report, which points out, perfectly, the difference between FREE trade, and Government Interference:
Government is a destroyer, but it doesn’t just destroy physical and tangible things. It also destroys intangible things like language and the meaning of words. For example, did you know that originally “liberals” were individuals that believed in liberty and were against government intervention? Today, the word “liberal” means the exact opposite.
Today, we read in the government-licensed press that President Trump has signed an executive order removing the U.S. from a “free trade agreement” known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Washington Post tells us: “A Republican president signed an executive order getting rid of a free trade deal on Monday.”Continue reading →
Below, is a very insightful article, from FEE.com, on Ayn Rands brilliant economic insights, as to how The United States Government, sadly, for years, has been marching us toward Fascism:
In a letter written on March 19, 1944, Ayn Rand remarked: “Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Socialism are only superficial variations of the same monstrous theme—collectivism.” Rand would later expand on this insight in various articles, most notably in two of her lectures at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston: “The Fascist New Frontier” (Dec. 16, 1962, published as a booklet by the Nathaniel Branden Institute in 1963); and “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus” (April 18, 1965, published as Chapter 20 in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal [CUI] by New American Library in 1967).
The world conflict of today is the conflict of the individual against the state. Continue reading →
Below, is Judge Andrew Napolitano giving his assessment of the first Presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And, further, making the case as to why both of these candidates are very sad choices to be the next President of The United States.
“Please understand that I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law — by force — and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes.
I do not insist that the supporters of these various social schools of thought–the Proudhonists, the Cabetists, the Fourierists, the Universitarists, and the Protectionists — renounce their various ideas. I insist only that they renounce this one idea that they have in common: They need only to give up the idea of forcing us to acquiesce to their groups and series, their socialized projects, their free- credit banks, their Graeco-Roman concept of morality, and their commercial regulations. I ask only that we be permitted to decide upon these plans for ourselves; that we not be forced to accept them, directly or indirectly, if we find them to be contrary to our best interests or repugnant to our consciences.
But these organizers desire access to the tax funds and to the power of the law in order to carry out their plans. In addition to being oppressive and unjust, this desire also implies the fatal supposition that the organizer is infallible and mankind is incompetent. But, again, if persons are incompetent to judge for themselves, then why all this talk about universal suffrage”?
Below, is a very insightful video with Michael Boldin, founder of The Tenth Amendment Center, in regards to The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and how the Federal Government was sending out Federal agents to round up escaped slaves from the various States, and sending them back into slavery.
Despite what many of us may have learned in school, it was State sovereignty, and State “nullification” [of Federal Laws] that allowed escaped slaves to seek refuge in a number of the various States.
Below, is a very insightful commentary by Judge Andrew Napolitano in regards to Hillary Clinton. The Judge implies the right question, which is, did Hillary Clinton circumvent Federal Law, in regards to classified information, and thus commit espionage?
“In the wake of Brexit, do libertarians have a real opportunity to make the case for breaking away? Is it time to stop trying to convince millions that liberty is better, and start unyoking ourselves? Can secession and nullification movements really work against political elites? And how do we get started at the local level? Michael is the perfect guest to answer these questions.”
Below, is an amazing clip, by Judge Andrew Napolitano, from the great show, “Freedom Watch,” which, sadly, went off the air in 2012. In this monologue, the Judge, brilliantly, goes right down the line, proving, irrefutably, that we have a rogue “Federal” Government:
Below, is a very telling article, from The Wall Street Journal, on the expanding militarization of the “Federal” Government:
Special agents at the IRS equipped with AR-15 military-style rifles? Health and Human Services “Special Office of Inspector General Agents” being trained by the Army’s Special Forces contractors? The Department of Veterans Affairs arming 3,700 employees?
The number of non-Defense Department federal officers authorized to make arrests and carry firearms (200,000) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000). In its escalating arms and ammo stockpiling, this federal arms race is unlike anything in history. Over the last 20 years, the number of these federal officers with arrest-and-firearm authority has nearly tripled to over 200,000 today, from 74,500 in 1996.Continue reading →
In 1787, after The United States Constitution was written, and prior to it’s ratification, in 1789, there were a considerable amount of citizens, in the thirteen respective States, who were very skeptical about ratifying this Federal Constitution, and thus creating this new Federal Government. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote a collection of articles and essays called The Federalist – which, today, we refer to as The Federalist Papers – in hopes to gain support in favor of ratification. Conversely, a series of essays were written by a few men, writing under pseudonyms, warning against ratification, and making the case that the proposed Constitution was not sufficient in guarding against tyranny.
The anti-Federalists, as they were called, insisted that a Bill of Rights be included in this new Federal Constitution if it were to have any hope of gaining their support. Eventually, the Federalists conceded to a Bill of Rights, which would be drafted in the form of Constitutional Amendments and sent to the States for ratification once The Constitution was ratified and the first Congress was convened.
While today, The Bill of Rights is largely accepted as a critical part of our Federal Constitution, it is very interesting to read the conflicting opinions of that time, as both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists made very valid and very insightful observations. Below, I will first share the anti-Federalist point of view. Below that, I will share The Federalist point of view. After reading both, and considering the state of our Government, today, it’s not hard to see the validity of both points of view.Continue reading →
Below, is a very insightful article, from Reason.com, by Judge Andrew Napolitano, on the Natural Right to self defense, and the fallacies of gun control:
Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years—Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino, and now Orlando—took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so. The government cheerfully calls these venues “gun-free zones.” They should be called killing zones.
As unspeakable and horrific as is the recent slaughter in Orlando, it has become just another example of the tragic consequences of government’s interfering with the exercise of fundamental liberties. After a while, these events cease to shock; but they should not cease to cause us to re-examine what the government has done to us.Continue reading →
Any decent person would be saddened over this senseless loss of life in Orlando, Florida. It is extremely sad every time we hear about another mass shooting. And, we mourn for every life lost. However, for better or worse, we do not all agree that restricting the ownership of guns, in any way, would do a bit of good in stopping these senseless crimes.
On Bill O’Reilly’s Monday night appearance on The Stephen Colbert Show, O’Reilly and Colbert were talking about this tragic shooting in Orlando. In this segment with Colbert, as reported by TheBlaze.com, O’Reilly says some very troubling, and misleading things, in my humble opinion.
In today’s world, people are taught to believe that we have collective rights. In other words, your rights depend on what gender, color, race, religion or other group you belong to or identify with. But, that is a complete inversion of the very principles that this country was Founded on.
Collective rights tend to treat people like sheep, that can be herded around by those who call the shots, or write the Laws, as these rights are always hinging on the whims and wishes of some other party. They can be dehumanizing, as well, in many ways, as so-called collective rights are not concerned with you as an unique human being with your own unique wants, needs and cares.
People who advocate for so-called collective rights, egregiously, often see force – whether explicit or by Law – as a means to make others bend to their will. And, more times then not, that is destructive to the recipient’s own individual liberties, which only serves to cause more animosity and friction amongst our citizenry, and further perpetuates the vicious cycle of retaliation.
And, furthermore, just because some irate group can get some Politicians to write something into Law, that does not make it right, just or moral.
The below video is Ron Paul, in 1988, perfectly explaining the principles of Libertarianism:
Libertarians make few, if any exceptions for Government. If we, as average citizens, are to be bound by certain moral standards, then, we can not expect or give power to our Government(s) to operate outside of those same moral constraints.
For years, we, as United States citizens, have been taught that in our Federal Government we have three separate and independent branches of Government, consisting of the [President] Executive Branch, the [Congress] Legislative Branch, and the [Supreme Court] Judicial Branch.
I have little doubt that the men who wrote The United States Constitution, and created this Federal Government, intended for these three branches to be independent, and thus to prevent all Power from being aggregated into the hands of a few. And, to a large extent, they were very successful in that there is, often, a healthy tension between these three branches of Government. To say, however, that these three branches are completely independent, largely, is a myth, imho.
For many years, we have been told that our military is protecting our Freedoms. And, for decades, our military has been in a perpetual state of war. We, most certainly, do not have a military shortage either; our military is spread out across the entire globe. Yet, every year it feels like we are losing more and more freedoms.
If the military is protecting our freedoms, wouldn’t it stand to reason that we should be abundantly free?