Local Media Embarrassed By State Sovereignty Resolution

After reading the editorial, Time marches on — but backwards (Wed. Oct 21) in the Paris Post Intelligencer (subscription may be required), one should question the use of intelligencer in the name of this paper.

Given the editor’s affinity for arguing for more government power, one should not be too surprised at which side of the fence the editor is on, but the numerous “state sovereignty” bills and resolutions (more on that later), cannot be boiled down to “backward” opinions and petty partisanship.

Sure, these are partly in response to a Democrat administration and many of these so called “states’ rights” folks were nowhere to be found during the dismal years of Bush/Cheney when they should have been making noise about No Child Left Behind, Faith Based Initiatives, and the Patriot Act, etc.

But still the issue cannot be discredited by painting it as silly Republican agenda and backward thinking. The reader need not miss the hypocrisy of labeling this as mere partisanship.

The state sovereignty issue is not small potatoes. When the anti-Federalists were holding out, it was the bill of rights that got them on board. The tenth amendment did not state anything new in the Constitution, but was a recapitulation of the document’s limit on federal government power along with the ninth amendment.

Furthermore, the editor’s examples of abuses are not idiotic. They are legitimate abuses. One should find humorous the patronizing rhetoric that the author employed…

“the concept of state sovereignty is a noble one. The constitution takes pains
to limit the powers of the federal government, and those powers reserved to the
states should be protected diligently.” (emphasis mine)

…then go on and mock legitimate petitions of redress. The author is basically paying “lip service” to the Constitution while scoffing it in ideology.

The tenth amendment reserves ALL powers to the state or to the people except those which are expressly given to the federal government by the Constitution or prohibited to the states by the Constitution.

Minimum wage? Not a power given to Uncle Sam.

Healthcare? Again, not even addressed in the Constitution.

Have part ownership in any business? Really? Engels and Marx would be giddy with delight, but nope no Constitutional authority here.

Regulating emissions on my car? You might make a huge stretch of the “general welfare” clause and come up with a measly and still unwinnable argument.

As for the horribly inaccurate statement regarding Alaska being the only other state that has “joined in the effort to rein in federal powers,” it takes a simple web search and a little bit of current knowledge to find that this is horribly misleading.

I am sure that the author was only referring to states that have actually signed this into law as only Alaska and Tennessee have, yet he should not get a pass for semantics.

As of October 1, 2009, state sovereignty resolution have passed both houses in Louisiana, North Dakota, Idaho, South Dakota, Oklahoma, (those are awaiting the respective governors’ signatures) and the aforementioned Alaska and Tennessee.

These same resolutions have been passed by one (or more) houses in Texas, Ohio, Mississippi, Indiana, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Michigan, and Arizona.

Nearly every other state has introduced similar resolutions awaiting action. In all, 37 states have introduced state sovereignty resolutions. Of those only three have failed to pass as of October 1.

And while the editor is ashamed that his home state has (at least in rhetoric) reaffirmed its sovereignty, it is long overdue. Perhaps the media and pundits along with the power hungry on the hill should be the ones with bags on their heads.

The real question that begs to be answered, though, is will the state stand its ground?

My guess is no.

The GOP's Shallow Fight

After eight years of Bush, it seems that Chuck Baldwin was right. The “conservatives” are getting their fight back. This is in reference to Baldwin’s article back in 2008 speculating that a Democratic victory might just be good for the “conservative” movement as it would get them out of their chairs and cause them to express an iota of passion regarding politics.

Though it would see that during the eight years of Bush the only movement among the visible GOP was leftward.

Here in August of 2009, though, a renewed vigor can be seen, a fight against Socialism and this new Chairman, er…President. The fuse? Healthcare Reform.

With this, all of the nation’s problems are being heaped upon the Democrats whether they caused it or not. Among the Republican voters that I have spoken with, they seem united to put all the blame on the Democrats for the housing mess. It is a fact that there were calls to more closely monitor Fannie and Freddie by key GOP members while Franks and Dodd consistently said there were no problems with Fannie and Freddie.

Also a fact is that it was under the Clinton administration that the housing initiative began, Clinton himself signing it into law in 1999, which sought to increase home ownership to lower income folks.

These facts cannot be disputed, but the GOP is not immune to such scrutiny in the housing sector either. It was in one of Bush’s addresses to the nation that he declared that it was in his administration that more people "own their own homes than ever before" (never mind the fact that very few people owned their own homes).

Central planning under Bush, though, is as much a culprit as the liberal housing bill. The easy money philosophy of Greenspan and Bernanke had as much or more to do with the bubble that formed.

Now that Bush is out of office, though, the GOP is on the warpath to fight the wickedness that they refused to or else could not recognize in the prior administration. The code word is Socialism.

Healthcare reform was picked as the fighting line back in the primaries when so much was said by Obama and his colleague H. Clinton on the subject. Why though? Is the socialism of healthcare so much different than the socialism of No Child Left Behind?

Or why has the conservative base not attacked Medicare, Social Security or unemployment and disability taxes? Or how about public education in general?

The conservative movement has no teeth because it is always only a few years behind the left. It has no credence because it argues against Socialism while fully supporting it in other areas.

A serious discourse among GOP supporters needs to take place in order to resolve these issues. Why is socialized medicine unnecessary and evil, but public education, Social Security, Medicare, farm subsidies, FICA, unemployment, etc. are necessary and righteous?

All of these examples entail taxing (read stealing from) individuals in order to redistribute to other sectors or more evenly among the sectors from whence it was confiscated.

In short, it would seem based on the evidence, that the GOP is fighting this not because they are against socialism, but because they are against the Democrats. The same could be said of the Democratic supporters in regards to the Republican administration’s bailout of the financial sector and AIG.

The GOP, known in times past for its Christian values, should heed the wise words, “Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:5)

If You Read Only One Book On Economics...

For a few worthless fiat bank notes you can get a wealth of knowledge on the current economic collapse from Austrian economist and senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute...
Thomas E. Woods.

This book takes all of one extended evening to read, but is a must read for those interested in the REAL reasons for the “current economic downturn” and contains all that one needs to prepare himself to refute the silly Keynesian arguments for more government intervention.

Woods nails this one down in laymen’s terms giving absolutely no one any excuse whatsoever to neglect their own education in regards to real economics.

He takes on the various fallacious reasons why the recession has happened and exonerates the bogeymen that the media and government officials tend to accuse while showing that centralized government planning is the culprit for all “booms and busts.”

The book…

Meltdown: A Free Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse.

Scrape up the money and order it now, then pass it along.

The Unintended Consequences of Political Pandering

Texas governor Rick Perry may very well have been pandering to the crowd at a recent event in which he invoked the political philosophy of secession, but supporters of states’ rights are lauding his rhetoric at least.

The subject has been popping up a lot more lately. If one cares to remember the smear that Todd and Sarah Palin received for their involvement in the Alaskan Independence Party, they would note that in a sense, Pandora’s Box was opened.

Now considering the twenty two states that have resolutions in their respective states being considered reaffirming Article X of the Bill of Rights (Tenth Amendment), the subject is becoming more commonplace and a bit less controversial among the masses.

The media, though, has not been so kind and ironically so. Many have demonized Gov. Perry and the various independence movements as unpatriotic and treasonous. Funny thing is that under the same enumerated Bill of Rights that call for state sovereignty, there is a really popular article endearingly dubbed “freedom of the press.”

As to the allegations of being unpatriotic, one would assume that these idiots could connect the dots between the current desire of a people to peaceably disassociate themselves from an overgrown federal government that legislates nearly every aspect of their lives from afar and a people in the 1700’s who had a desire to peaceably disassociate themselves from an overgrown monarchy that legislated from afar.

One must ask these conformist, these statist…One must ask them with a hint of sarcasm, with the confidence of being much more intelligent and coherent than said statist…He must asked them, “Who the hell do you think the patriots were?”

Never-the-less, there will always be Loyalists who rush to defend Leviathan.

The good news is that those who favor states’ rights and reject the current system of government are usually much better informed than the antithesis. Furthermore, the breech of the subject itself allows for those of superior intellect to be more flagrant in their conversations about the subject.

The fact that what was once thought by the populace as being settled in 1865, is again becoming controversial to the point that all of the Royalists feel the need to openly condemn it and call for those involved to be ostracized and possibly charged with a crime is a great sign. It means they are taking it seriously.

So Governor Perry, in your sincerity or in your lack thereof, you have furthered a cause that is most primitive and basic to the history of these nation states and requisite in the determination of the authority of the state OVER the federal government.

Chains You Can Believe In

There must have been a spelling error in Obama’s campaign slogan. Either that or what he meant by change was that after he is elected he’ll change his policies.

Just this morning, the New York Times (that bulwark of journalisic integrity known for its cutting edge editorials; satire inserted)reported that the Obama administration is second guessing their decision to close Guantanamo Bay.

I am sitting here wondering what radical changes are in the works. By change I had assumed that Obama would insist on moving the country in the opposite direction that it was heading in the Bush administration, yet, he has only taken up Bush’s policies more aggressively.

Take the economy for example. The Bush administration pursued a hardcore Keynesian economic policy of formidable government intervention in the marketplace and personal lives of Americans.

Obama’s idea of change…?

Pursue the same policies much more aggressively. All the while Americans seem divided on which despot to support. The Obamanites can point to no clear changes that Obama has instituted or plans to institute. The Bushites really cannot say anything after the last eight years of King George W.

One may attempt to point to Obama’s promise to end the war in Iraq, yet even if he withdraws the US occupation of this sovereign country, it would be a purely semantical argument to insist that this is any kind of change considering the fact that he is merely transferring military might from one front to another (Afghanistan and Pakistan).

I believe the campaign slogan referred not to change, but to chains. Samuel Adams spoke of these same chains when he said so well…

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may your posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

The "Crime" Tax: An Introduction

Financial punishment of the “criminal” and the requirement of them to pay “court costs” sound pretty catchy to the democratic totalitarians of the state. The general mood is that those who break the “law” should have to pay for the system that provides for “justice.”

Of course the majority of Americans would go along with this as it is in fact so seated in the mob rule mentality. But then, Americans have lost all capability to reason the dangers of this program.

“Why,” one might ask, “should law abiding citizens be required to pay for the trial of alleged criminals?” It was not very long ago that the author had the same ignorant mindset, but reason thus finally prevailed.

Many will cower back from the author’s insistence that the financial obligations of the justice system should be born by the collective society in which said justice system operates. Folks will also scoff at the idea that punitive damages (fines) should never be awarded to the state.

To understand why, one must understand the nature of rulers and recognize what is going on across America.

The general thesis would be that the state makes a handsome profit derived through “enforcing laws.” There are some big problems with this. The first would be that the state will be tempted to make more activities illegal, punishable by fines and court costs. Another pitfall here is that if certain crimes were eradicated, then the state would be cutting its revenue from that crime therefore why eradicate the problem.

There are actual examples locally of “law enforcement” seizing “alleged drug proceeds” without charging the suspect with any crime and letting them go on their way.

Anyone that is oblivious to the fact that personal liberty has suffered at the hand of the civil magistrate must be blind or extremely ignorant of his surroundings. (And probably quit reading this already.)

One need only look as far as the various licenses required by the state to participate in otherwise lawful activities! Like working, marrying, traveling, hunting, etc, etc. The list is endless. This has been dealt with briefly in Rights License.

When the government decrees that an activity requires a license, what they are in fact saying is that the activity is itself illegal. Surprisingly enough, the state does not even mask the reason certain activities are licensed.

There are two types of licenses. One is regulatory or one that the holder obtains by proving his ability to safely perform a certain activity (contractor’s license). The other type is called a revenue license. This is a license that’s only function is to provide for the revenue of the state. One may rather call it extortion. (See the author’s appeal to the state about this here.) How this is different than the cosa nostra, one can only wonder.

As to the nature of rulers, anyone with a mustard seed of historical appreciation will be convinced that rulers tend to become despots when unbridled by the people.

Still some pragmatists and statists may object to paying for the trials of the alleged criminals. To the pragmatist, there is nothing to say that will change his mind for he is not principled enough to stand for any idea until he, himself, is the direct victim of such pragmatism. To the statist, what can be said? Criticizing the system is akin to blasphemy.

To those, however, that are truly concerned about liberty and justice, this is a subject that should shed light on the motives of the state. It should also worry you particularly in these times in which municipal revenues are on a sharp decline due to a decline in sales tax receipts, income taxes, various licensing and fees revenues, and property taxes. (Interestingly enough the author’s property taxes increased this year as the property assessor is apparently unaware of plummeting real estate prices.)

Given the current “economic crisis,” one can be secure in the fact that the state will be looking for ways to makeup for these losses. What better way than telling the comatose electorate that more legislation is needed for various make believe problems and that in order to curtail and deter certain activities like eating unhealthy foods, using tobacco, putting your own safety at risk, working without an employer, marrying, etc. Those who partake of such activities should be penalized further. (Make your checks payable to the state, of course.)

Of course the taxes and licensing will not end here. The state sees its electorate as potential revenue. And as has been stated, as the past revenue sources dry up, they will be finding other untapped sources. Of course, they always have their “war on drugs.”

Why the Evangelicals Have Lost the Pro-Life Battle

For some time I have desired to address the philosophical inconsistencies of the modern evangelicals' views on abortion. I will begin by stating that there are very few consistent "pro-lifers" out there. I will go as far to say that probably around 90% (or greater) of the conservative Christian population (I exclude the liberal christians who have embraced homosexuality, female pastors, etc.) is actually pro choice while claiming to be pro life.

The problem arises when they add that little clause, "except in cases of rape or incest." In those cases, they are ardently pro choice. When addressed, the argument for abortion always includes a thirteen year old girl raped by her evil step uncle. The Christian is quick to allow for choice of termination in such cases.

Funny thing is, they have picked the most repulsive imaginable scenario to justify their newly acquired pro choice stance.

Now here I must interject that I will not be so presumptuous as to claim that this would be an easy situation, nor will I pretend that I would be ho-hum about it, but any other attitude would undermine the whole argument that pro lifers use.

How can one claim that abortion is the murder of a person, yet justify it on these grounds?

The best way I can address this is to quote from Scripture. I would hope Christians would yield to God's Word.

2 Kings 14:6Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."

Now here we have a mandate that the civil magistrate is not to punish the children for the sins of the father and vice versa.

The civil punishment for rape is death, yet our culture does not even exercise that, while Christians are eager to allow for the voluntary execution of the child, though. How can this be? I would on one hand argue ignorance, but I would suppose this would be naive. I should think it would more accurately be described as pragmatism and autonomy.

So the challenge to Christians is to yield to Scripture. The battle cannot be won through compromises and cannot be won while Christians are themselves pro-choice.

Render Unto Caesar....?

I thought this article was interesting coming from LRC. In it the author attempts to deal with the “Render unto Caesar” quote that so many Christians use to legitimatize their undying support of the Leviathan state.

Being unaware of some of the historical aspects, I must say that it seems that he has dealt with it well, particularly by asking, “What is Caesar’s?” Kudos to Paul McDade for putting this into context for me some time ago by stating unequivocally . . . “God says what is Caesar’s, not Caesar.”

Peter the Prognosticator

My good friend and old hunting partner Greg Linville sent me this interesting article on Peter Schiff from Fortune 500.

While he does get some kudos, there is a subtle anipathy toward bears. . . I think.

Take a gander.

Who Knew?

Who knew that the federal government made $20 billion off of the mandated switch from analog to digital?

I did not until tonight when Heard it on News Hour with Jim Lehrer. As of now, I have no link to support this, but as the report indicated, the government auctioned off the digital "signals" and "earned" around $20 billion.

I have been wondering the whole time why this was a federal government issue, now I know. . . REVENUE.

More Power To The Fed?

The headlines read,

"Fed may win sweeping financial oversight
Some worry plan would give central
bank too much power."

Can the central bank really have too much power (satire)?

Look on the bright side maybe this will hasten the empire's demise.

Just Another Day For Politicians...

Dr. Nathan Hoeldtke's thoughts for the day:


"John Edwards ran for president while his wife was terminally ill and he was fathering a child with another woman. Governor Blagojevich openly invited bribes for Obama's Illinois senate seat, even though he knew he was under criminal investigation. Eliot Spitzer enjoyed numerous encounters with prostitutes after spending years criminally prosecuting others for the same activity. And Charles Rangel, the man who serves as chairman of the committee that writes the tax code, "forgot" to pay taxes on his Dominican Republic property for 20 years!


And people are always talking about Christians being hypocrites! The arrogance exhibited in the above panel is breath-taking to say the least. . . (and they are all Democrats--but maybe that's just a coincidence)."

As always, thanks Nate.