STATES RIGHTS AND THE MEXICAN INVASION

"Mexicans in Arizona should carry documentation and “act carefully” after the state passed a law requiring local police to determine the immigration status of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally, Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said."
Bloomberg

I'd be the first to admit I'm not a world traveler but I'm thinking; isn't carrying your passport and acting carefully good advice for anyone traveling abroad?

...“There is an adverse political environment for migrant communities and all Mexican visitors,” Mexico’s ministry said. “It’s important to act carefully and respect the local laws.”

From people that I've talked to that do travel quite a bit, the same could be said to an American traveling in France, or Quebec, for that matter.

..."Mexican President Felipe Calderon said April 26 that his country’s citizens are “angered and saddened” by the Arizona law, which he said “doesn’t adequately guarantee respect for people’s fundamental rights.”

Well, President Calderon, Americans are angry and saddened that you can't stop the drug cartels from crossing our borders and killing our citizens. We're also a little pissed that you send slaves to our country to take our jobs from us. Killing us and taking our work doesn't show a whole bunch of respect for our basic human rights, either.

"...Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said during congressional testimony in Washington today that her agency has “deep concerns” about the law and that it will “detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing serious crimes.” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said today that the Justice Department may go to court to challenge the statue."

If the laws aren't worth enforcing then why do we have them on the books?

The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defence;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization;
To define and punish...Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
United States Constitution

While I see nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal government's involvement in health care, cap and trade or bailing out the "too big to fails", there is a whole lot said about it's responsibility to control the borders. Yet, while our political leaders plot to take our freedoms through unconstitutional programs, the thought of actually fulfilling their Constitutional duties, you know, the one's they swore to uphold, doesn't seem to cross their minds. Perhaps if they had done their duty, we wouldn't be having to see the states pick up the ball.

Because the states are formed by the people and represent them, the states have the same right to self defense as that possessed by their citizens. When the Constitution was written to form the federal government the states authorized giving the federal government power to protect them in Article 1, Section 8. In so doing they did not abrogate their own rights and authority to defend themselves if the federal government refuses to act.

Arizona is defending itself against invasion because the federal government won't.

Just because the people form a police force for the common defense doesn't mean I don't have the right to shoot you if you enter my home without my permission. It's no different for the states.

STATES RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS- WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE

"Obamacare may be the last straw. It strips away fundamental economic liberties, empowering the federal government to de facto nationalize everyone's body by controlling our health. Americans are compelled - upon pain of penalty and eventual imprisonment - to purchase insurance.

Moreover, the law codifies the federal funding of abortion. Taxpayer dollars will be used to subsidize the murder of innocent life. Hence, Mr. Obama has violated the social compact: He has abrogated the conscience of pro-lifers, making them tacitly complicit in the slaughter of the unborn. Obamacare is a radical assault upon fundamental religious freedoms.

The Obama revolution threatens to tear America apart. This has happened before. Slavery eventually triggered the Civil War between the industrial North and the agrarian South. Abortion is the slavery of our time - the denying of basic human rights to an entire category of people.
Washington Times

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that we are entering times so similar to those that preceded the War Between the States that I have to believe the future will end with the same results. America is splintering. Compare the news of today to what was happening just prior to the outbreak of war in 1861.

We have a large segment of our society that are not recognized as persons. In the 19th century it was the blacks that were denied their personhood in the Dred Scott decision. Today it is the unborn child. In both cases the judicially defined lack of personhood denied both groups the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We have political deals being made today that are designed to benefit certain business groups, deals such as health care, TARP and cap and trade. All of these deals exceed the powers granted the Congress in the Constitution. In the 1850's we had the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a piece of legislation designed to allow expansion of the railroads. While the transcontinental railroad did eventually lead to massive profits for politicians and businesses (not to mention nearly bringing down the Presidency of U.S. Grant through the corruption of the Credit Mobilier), because of its connection to the question of slavery it sparked the war along the Missouri-Kansas border in 1854, the first shots fired in the War Between the States. Health care is tied to the question of abortion in nearly the same way.

The question of state sovereignty was at the heart of all of this. The question of who held the power in this country, Washington or the states, was the root cause of a war that took the lives over a half million Americans. Taxation and Washington's power to use it to force individual states and their citizens to support programs that benefited one group while damaging another were at the center of the debate. Today, as state Attorney General's file suit and state legislatures create laws to enforce the Tenth Amendment to the constitution their arguments and reasons are the same as those put forth by the Southern states as they tried to stand against tyranny.

And just as it was 150 years ago, all of the underlying anger, the political strife and the public arousal just needs a reason, something to rally around, some spark to set it off. Something has to be seen as the moral justification to set the country aflame. In 1861 it was slavery; today it is abortion.

Some states (Thank God) have laws that are far more restrictive in regards to abortion than federal law. The citizens of those states may very well, by citing the Tenth Amendment, declare their intention to opt out of a system that is morally indefensible. Those of us that understand that we are participating in the murder of children now just by paying our taxes will look to our states for protection. It is our only possible recourse and defense. If a state decides that it has the authority under the Tenth Amendment to opt out, just as it did at Ft. Sumter the federal government will do something to provoke war. You see, South Carolina didn't fire on the fort because it wanted war, it fired because a foreign government (the United States) refused to vacate ground owned by a sovereign state, and further was attempting to resupply it. Lincoln provoked South Carolina to start a war. Today's government is more than capable of the same sort of thing.

And before I wrap this up, there is one more similarity between then and now; Lincoln and Obama both hail from Illinois.

History just continues to spin in circles.

A REPLY TO A LOCAL LETTER AND ANOTHER POINTLESS OUTBURST ON MY PART

A local newspaper, "The Eureka-Pacific Current News Magazine" published a letter to the editor yesterday from Susan Cunningham, a local lefty that has a long history of writing socialist diatribes to the local journals. I'd print a copy of her letter here but cannot find it online because the Current has the worst website I've ever seen.

Anyway, Ms. Cunningham seems to be upset that some of us are calling for the reassertion of states rights and the Tenth Amendment. She seems to believe that if we just "...talk to each other, respect each other and work together" everything will be alright. I suppose we should all hold hands and sing kumbaya, too.

Ms. Cunningham believes that a strong central government and a whole host of social programs can cure anything. She has bought into the lie. Further, she is either ignorant of history or so ideologically driven that she is blind to it. This isn't supposition on my part. I've been reading her letters for years.

I wrote a reply to her letter which is so long it will never be published (I'll submit it though. Sometimes I think the local paper is happy to have something to take up some column inches) but since I have this blog and I've now got something to fill space I figured I'd go ahead and post it here.



On page 16A of the February 2010 issue 2 your newspaper published a letter from Susan Cunningham addressing the issue of state sovereignty and states rights. She believes that the states hold a position inferior to that of the federal government, a view that would have been totally foreign to our Founding Fathers. Ms. Cunningham is echoing the sentiments of political leaders that harken back to the Whig party, from which sprang the Republican Party and its first President, Abraham Lincoln.

Ms. Cunningham writes that she is “…not sure how states can become “sovereign” without seceding…”. I would like to help clear this up for her. States are sovereign political entities because their sovereignty was given to them by the people that make up the members of the state.

Sovereignty exists in the individual. He receives it from God along with his unalienable rights. Man possesses rights and sovereignty because God extends them to us as a gift. The Founders recognized this. Individuals working together in an act of free will created states, endowing the states with a portion of human sovereignty and rights, a loan if you will. Those states, acting at the direction of their citizens and through their chosen representatives, created the federal government with first, the Articles of Confederation and finally with the Unites States Constitution. The states do not hold an inferior position to the federal government but in fact hold a position of superiority. The citizens are then in turn superior to the states. The lesser cannot create the greater and all government in America is created by the people and meant to serve them. From the Declaration of Independence:

“…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The Founders recognized the superiority of the states. In their writings they consistently acknowledge the fact that the states superseded and created the federal government and that the states were to hold a position of higher rank over the federal government. Alexander Hamilton, a champion of strong central government, had this to say in Federalist 32:

“But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.”

James Madison in Federalist 45 says this:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.”

And Thomas Jefferson in The Kentucky Resolves of 1798:

“…That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government…”

So you see, Ms. Cunningham, the idea of sovereign and independent states was central to the design of our Republic. The primary purpose of the federal government was to be, according to Madison, “… exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.” The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution addresses this point specifically:

“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.”

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution list the eighteen powers specifically granted by the states to the federal government as a loan.

It’s true that the Supreme Court decided that the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause expanded the powers of government beyond the limits established by Article 1 Section 8 but this is not what the Founders intended. Of course, one must ask why the Founders wrote a specific list of eighteen powers granted to the federal government if they intended the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause to give carte blanche to the legislature. James Madison warned of the consequences of just such a decision, consequences we see played out on a daily basis:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

It is this very usurpation of power by the federal government that those of us that seek the resurgence of state sovereignty hope to curtail. We don’t want secession. We want the Republic to function as it was intended to function, with power coming from the people, through the states and to the federal government, not the other way around as we have it now.

Like most supporters of a strong central government Ms Cunningham places Abraham Lincoln high upon a pedestal. She brings up the War Between the States and correctly points out that it was a war over the issue of states rights but she never tells us how the South believed those rights were violated. Ms. Cunningham then goes on to dismiss the issue of states rights as “rhetoric”, just words, all sound and fury signifying nothing. She tries to change the subject to slavery in a backhanded attempt to point to it as a primary cause when this is not the case. She goes so far as to quote Lincoln's words in the Gettysburg Address:

“…conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

Wonderful words yet said for political affect, not because he believed them. Like most members of the Lincoln cult Ms. Cunningham neglects to quote the words from Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address:

“…I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so…

…No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

Nor does she quote these words from the same address, the words that give the real reason Lincoln started a war that killed over 500,000 Americans:

“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

For, while Lincoln felt no obligation to the enslaved, he was more than willing to go to war to collect taxes and tariffs. And that was the real cause of the war, tariffs and taxes imposed on the states in a manner that violated the Constitution and state sovereignty.

We are facing a similar situation today as the federal government forces unfunded mandates on the states, forcing them to pay for programs that the Founders would have never allowed and that violate the clear intent of the Constitution. The states must take back the power that is rightfully theirs and restore the Republic to a sound and sustainable footing. Few want secession and to say that this is the purpose of those that want strong sovereign states is a lie. We want our country back and we want to be left alone! If secession were the only course left after everything else had been tried, well then I suppose, so be it. The destruction of our Constitution and the slavery of a Socialist Utopia are not the answer and not an option. The Constitution and its original intent must be preserved, for the good of America and the world.

My favorite President, Jefferson Davis had this to say:

"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.''

I think that accurately sums up the feelings of a goodly number of Americans today. Pray that we can find our way through this without destroying ourselves.

WILL THE STATES START TO DEMAND WASHINGTON FOLLOW THE RULES?

Does anyone remember Ft. Sumter?

Since the Coinage Act of 1792 specifies that our money must contain precious metals I don't see anything wrong with the legislation being proposed by Rep. Pitts. It seems as though he is just insisting that the government follow its own rules.

Bonny Blue Flags are starting to fly across America once again!

"South Carolina Rep. Mike Pitts has introduced legislation that would mandate that gold and silver coins replace federal currency as legal tender in his state.

As the Palmetto Scoop first reported, Pitts, a Republican, introduced legislation this month banning "the unconstitutional substitution of Federal Reserve Notes for silver and gold coin" in South Carolina.

In an interview, Pitts told Hotsheet that he believes that "if the federal government continues to spend money at the rate it's spending money, and if it continues to print money at the rate it's printing money, our economic system is going to collapse."

CBS

"And be it further enacted, That there shall be from time to time struck and coined at the said mint, coins of gold, silver, and copper, of the following denominations, values and descriptions..."

Coinage Act of 1792

RON PAUL-REDUCE ABORTION BY LIMITING POWER OF THE COURT

Just another reason why I'll never vote Republican again. Note that in this interview Paul claims to have attempted to bring this legislation forward when the Republicans, the "party of life" controlled both Houses and the Presidency but "...I couldn’t get people too interested in it". I'm sure that's because it was perceived as something that would rock the boat; maybe make fund raising for re-election a bit more difficult. So more babies died because it wasn't politically expedient to stand up and protect them, or at the very least try to do something.

So, as far as I'm concerned, a pox on both their houses. I'm voting for the Constitution Party wherever I have the chance. I'm tired of being played for a fool and I'm tired of being party to the murder of innocent children because I supported a party that will do nothing to protect them.

"...I don’t think there is anything wrong with trying to move the courts in that direction, but there is a lot faster way of doing that. And that is to restrict or limit the jurisdiction of the abortion issue from the federal courts. And I have a piece of legislation that would do that where if a Roe v. Wade incident came up again like it did in Texas a long time ago, it could not be heard by the federal courts and the state law then would stand.

That law restricting this jurisdiction can be done by a majority vote in the House and the Senate and the President’s signature. I have worked on that, especially when we had the majority as Republicans – but I couldn’t get people too interested in it. I think we could do it quicker.

It isn’t the perfect solution. The argument I hear against it is “oh, all you’re doing is legalizing abortion in the states.” But if you don’t do something like that, you allow the federal government to stand and legalize it for every single state. I see it as an answer and that doesn’t restrain anybody from trying to amend the Constitution, or waiting to change the Supreme Court. But I think many, many abortions would be prevented, just think if we had passed that back in 1975. You know some states may still have abortions, but there would be a lot of states would not have it. We would have to work within our states, and that, of course, is the way the Constitution is written, and that is the reason I pushed it in that direction."

Life Site News

AMERICA USED TO BE IN COLOR

"The Missouri Senate has given first-round approval to a wide-ranging bill affecting county and local governments.

The measure includes numerous provisions on issues that have arisen only in some parts of Missouri. One section, proposed by a senator from Columbia, would allow surrounding Boone County to establish a curfew for people younger than 17. Another section would let counties build jails outside the county seat.

The bill also gives some communities permission to levy or increase taxes on hotel and motel guests.

Senators endorsed the bill Wednesday after considering roughly two dozen amendments. Final approval in the Senate would move the measure to the House."

KOAM TV

This is almost a man bites dog story. In an age when government, in particular Washington, seems intent on moving power away from the people it warms my heart to see Missouri doing just the opposite. The closer government is to the people the more likely it is that it will govern well. It's actually surprising that the issues mentioned above couldn't be addressed at the local level without having to change a state law. None of these issues should have ever risen beyond a city or county level. (I would guess that these laws are vestiges of the War Between the States when the Federal Government invaded my state and needed to control local resistance. Boone County was right in the middle of this.)

This allows for competition between cities and counties. Let the people decide what amount of government they want in their lives. If local laws become too onerous people will leave for other less restrictive places. But, if the amount of government is "just right" people will flock to a city or county for the perceived benefits.

This is the way our country was designed to function. That's why the states are sovereign political entities. Competition between states and even between the counties within them create growth and innovation. The homogenized, one size fits all behemoth that Washington has been working to create since the wrong side lost in 1865 has had just the opposite effect.

When I was a kid Route 66 was the road we took when we went somewhere. It was the closest thing to a sideshow at the carnival you could find on four wheels. Every town and county was different. Quirky is the only way to describe it. Weird billboards, bizarre buildings, dancing chickens and people that were real characters were the mainstay. Every time we went somewhere I knew adventure lurked around each twist in the road. The entire highway, which was really nothing more than a ribbon of two lane county highways stitched together to form a path across the country, was a testimony to free market entrepreneurism. That's because the businesses along the way didn't have the whole panoply of alphabet soup agencies from a foreign government approving their every decision. To the extent there was any control at all it came from the town or county these businesses resided in; and it was in the best interest of these local governments to see that these businesses flourished.

Traveling by car lets you get a feel for the places you move through in a way that nothing else can. When I was a kid we traveled through a country of individuals working to achieve a dream. Now, when I travel, I drive down an interstate, efficient to be sure, but bland and gray. Each exit has the full complement of McDonalds and Cracker Barrels, one no different than the next. I'm not traveling through Missouri, Phelps County or Rolla anymore; just America, a one size fits all, everything boiled down to the lowest possible denominator kind of place. All is done in the name of corporate efficiency; every hamburger shaped the exact same way for shipping convenience and prepared in a factory environment by slack jawed automatons so that the taste and texture never varies. And not a dancing chicken to be found.

We've lost our soul here in the USA; and our will to live. As we changed from a Republic to an oligarchy the color drained from our faces as we took on the sorry countenance of sheep being led to the slaughter. We have been convinced that hope lies in a good job at a gray corporation and that the reward is a bigger TV and new car. We no longer believe that hope lies in God and our reward here on earth is freedom. No, we've happily traded our real reward for security; we've trade the carnival ride exuberance of risk for the placid congeniality of safety.

But this is a lie. When we rely on others for our safety we can never be safe. Life is not a safe undertaking and no one can make it so. Americans used to embrace the danger; and the adventure. And I used to see that passion along Route 66, when I was a kid and TV's were black and white but America still had color.

STATES RIGHTS AND THE IRS

"When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective’, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Nullification has a long and interesting history in American politics, and originates in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds, to the point of ignoring federal laws.

Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States."

The Tenth Amendment Center

I was thinking last night about the effects of nullifying the health care act and how the Federal Government would fight back. It's interesting that the IRS has been chosen as the enforcement arm of the health care bill. Actually, it's brilliant.

Let's say I'm an employer. The Federal Government tells me that I am required to hold back money from my employees to cover their health insurance. The state says that I can't do that because the Fed has no authority within the state and to do so would violate state law. What am I going to do?

If I don't hold back the money then the IRS could seize my accounts and force me to pay. Will the state override this seizure? I suppose that if the bank was chartered by the state with no connection to the Federal Government that would be possible. But that would require an entirely new banking system. Taken to its logical conclusion it would require local currency and the ability to decouple from the Federal monetary system and stand alone.

In the real world banks are completely controlled by federal law and regulation. So what do you think the chances are that a bank will refuse the IRS when it comes calling? And it's not like the IRS has to even show up to do the deed. Everything will occur electronically. How can the state enforce it's laws under this scenario?

All of the above also applies to individuals. If you are self employed and don't pay your insurance your accounts will be seized. How can the state stop that from happening?

Here's how. For every dollar taken from its citizens to cover federally mandated health care the state could withhold tax money that it would normally send to Washington and reimburse the healthcare premiums. This will put the focus on the state, taking leverage away from the IRS. Like all bullies they would prefer to pick on the weak, and that is what individual citizens are. But, if we stand together as a state we stand strong.

I just wonder if the politicians that are voting for these nullification acts have really thought through what they are starting? What I wrote in the last paragraph is the same sort of state action and state unity that led to the War Between the States. The politicians are playing a game. Sure, many probably believe in states rights and the Tenth Amendment but how far are they willing to go? Most are showboating, playing to the Tea Party vote in hopes of reelection. The only problem is, this isn't politics as usual. They are opening a can of worms that goes all the way back to the founding of this country. The power of the states versus the national government was never really decided. Lincoln forced a decision on the people, but because it was forced it was never truly accepted or settled. Well, it's back.

The politicians that are playing this game, with no sense of history, need to realize they are striking matches in a room full of dynamite.

1861 IS KNOCKING AT OUR DOOR AS HISTORY GOES IN CIRCLES

"Virginia's Democratic-controlled state Senate passed measures Monday that would make it illegal to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a direct challenge to the party's efforts in Washington to reform health care."

Washington Post

I think that it's great that Virginia has decided to try to enforce the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. But how far are they willing to go? Will they call out the State Guard to defend their citizens when the Feds send troops to enforce the law as they see fit? Or will the state just roll over and tell the Fed, "So sorry, we didn't really mean it."

Virginia and the other states including Missouri that are passing or attempting to pass legislation of this sort either need to prepare to take a stand or else stop going down this road. If the Fed succeeds in bullying the states into accepting healthcare against their will then the Feds will have succeeded in nullifying, once and for all, the Tenth Amendment.

However, if the states stand up, refusing Federal interference inside their borders, they will spark a Constitutional crisis. I say they need to stand up but they must realize what this means.

Looking back in history I can think of two very similar situations. One was the South Carolina Nullification Act of 1832. This centered around the issue of Federal tariffs and their enforcement inside the boundaries of a sovereign state. War between South Carolina and the Federal Government was narrowly avoided when the Fed backed down after the state called up troops and signaled its willingness to fight over the issue.

The second time was also in South Carolina. After it seceded from The US, again over the issue of tariffs, South Carolina entered into negotiations to remove Federal troops from Fort Sumter. Lincoln purposefully sent ships across South Carolinas border to resupply the fort in an attempt to spark conflict. He succeeded and we all know how that turned out.

I support the states and their efforts to return the Tenth Amendment to the prominence it was intended to have. However, I've talked to my local representative about this issue and I don't think he understands the stakes. He is a strong supporter of states rights and is sponsoring legislation similar to Virginia's. He also thinks that I exaggerate the risk. He is blind to history and the threat to Federal power that this sort of legislation represents. There is more money than I can imagine at stake in the battle over states rights. Power and money go hand in hand and neither are relinquished without a fight.

So, as the states move forward in their bid for sovereignty I hope they run up the Bonny Blue Flag and stock up the armories. If they don't they will be signalling a complete lack of serious intent and will be swallowed up once and for all by those that covet power and control.

The times that try mens souls are coming; prepare for the fight!

CALIFORNIA TO BECOME WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF U.S. INC.

This is just the beginning as the Progressives destroy states rights in a bid to consolidate all political power at the Federal level. California will get its money. After all, they are "too big to fail". With the money will come a total loss of sovereignty as state government become an outpost of Federal control. The Tenth Amendment will be erased as Obama completes the job begun by Abraham Lincoln.

ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL

Animal Farm posted a rant today about his total disgust with the Senate and Health Control. I couldn't agree with him more.

This got me to thinking about Washington and its ability to control and direct our lives. This isn't what the Framers had in mind.

So, forget Washington. Focus on local politics; dog catchers, school boards, county politics. The progressives have infiltrated these local groups to such an extent that they will be able to control voting at the national level. We need to cut this off at the root.

Insist on the reestablishment of state militia groups under the controlling authority of the governor. This is to keep militia within the bounds established by the Constitution. These militias will be needed to enforce state sovereignty as spelled out in the Constitution. Again, this has to be done at the local level by electing state reps that share the same goal.

If we can control our states we can control our country. The Progressives have focused our attention so thoroughly on national politics that we haven't been paying attention at home. They've done this so that they could flank our defenses; defenses established by the Constitution through the Tenth Amendment.

Communists work this way. They are happy with the small victories knowing that they add up over time. They always make sure to gain control over the institutions that have the most ability to impact public opinion, starting with the schools. They always work from the bottom up. The cancer stays hidden until it can erupt, fully malignant into public view.

Take over your local political committees, regardless of affiliation. People of good will can disagree about details while working towards the common goal of protecting our Constitution and our way of life. This isn't right or left, this is right or wrong.

Learn how the system works so that we can use it to our advantage. Do the same things the commies do and fundamentally change the direction that they have established. We've got to get deadly serious about this because we are running out of time and options. It may be too late already.

If working within the system doesn't get it done the next step will involve guns. We will end up with something similar to the French Revolution; needless bloodletting with a result that will still be terrible. We can't let it get there. We have to save our Constitution and our country.

We have to realize that we are fighting for all the marbles. The winner will take all.