When a civilization abandons its morality, no rationalization can be devised to justify its continued existence. It is likely that many reasons can be given for this abandonment in the Western world, although I am convinced that one predominates—the expansion of law. Law once governed various kinds of behavior. It has now encroached upon various kinds of speech and is even being applied to the realm of belief. When someone is accused of having done something wrong, the reply offered usually is something like, “What was done complied with all legal requirements.” But “right” has never been defined as “conforms to law,” because thoughtful people have long noticed that the law itself can be a great crime, and the worst criminals in a culture can be its lawgivers, as the people of Ireland, Portugal, France, Spain, Greece, and Great Britain are now finding out. Americans will soon find it out too.

Numerous critics of classical economists over the past two centuries have argued that it is immoral when judged by any of the recognized moral codes. Major aspects of it clearly violate the Golden Rule. It violates many, perhaps all, of the Ten Commandments. It conflicts with various teachings of Jesus. Aristotle’s Ethics can be used to demonstrate its viciousness. It violates Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Mill’s Utilitarianism. Yet some of its proponents continue to argue that The Wealth of Nations is not inconsistent with moral principles. Clive Cook and Gavin Kennedy recently made such a claim, but what they cite as evidence doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

First of all, they base the claim on Smith’s earlier book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in which he argues that conscience results from observing the condition of others, generating sympathy, which then serves as the basis of moral judgments.

Although I have no doubt that different communities view this book differently, the philosophical community has generally considered it sophomoric. In my decades as a professor of philosophy, not once did I see the book included in the standard philosophical curriculum. Most philosophy professors I knew had little knowledge of the book’s existence. So even if someone could cogently argue that The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations are philosophically consistent, that argument would have little bearing on whether classical economics is moral.

Smith has never been recognized in philosophical circles as a major thinker. As a matter of fact, he’s hardly recognized at all. And even some economists have noticed the sophomoric nature of his thinking. One highly respected, renowned economist, whose name I shall let the reader guess at, said this: “His very limitation made for success. Had he been more brilliant, he would not have been taken so seriously. Had he dug more deeply, had he unearthed more recondite truth, had he used more difficult and ingenious methods, he would not have been understood. But he had no such ambitions; in fact he disliked whatever went beyond plain common sense. He never moved above the heads of even the dullest readers. He led them on gently, encouraging them by trivialities and homely observations, making them feel comfortable all along.”

Yet Kennedy lists the elements of morality that Smith included in The Wealth of Nations. “[Smith] was no libertarian. . . . His idea of ‘natural liberty’ was almost the opposite of what it is usually taken to mean (namely, ‘do as you wish’). He was at pains in both books to emphasize the importance of self-control, of regard for the opinions of others, and of an expansive role of government in providing security, rule of law, and economic infrastructure. Way ahead of his time, he was even in favor of compulsory schooling.” An interesting list, but not one that justifies the view that Smith’s view of the economy is moral. A moralist would have expected to see something about poverty, hunger, and suffering, all of which are absent.

A serious, irrefutable proof of the immorality embodied in The Wealth of Nations and classical economics in general is easily devised.

Classical theorists like Smith aver that products derive their value from the labor that goes into producing them, and that labor, itself, is bought and sold. Wages, which are the price of labor, have a natural price which is the price needed to enable labor to subsist and to perpetuate itself without either increase or decrease. These dogmas are known as the labor theory of value and the subsistence theory of wages respectively. Some revealing implications can be derived from them.

First notice this oddity: labor produces products and the amount of labor expended determines their value. But labor is paid not the value of the products it produces but merely a subsistence wage. I defy anyone, economist or not, to justify that principle on moral grounds. Can Cook or Kennedy find an application of sympathy in this principle?

Second, the subsistence theory of wages describes a condition similar to that used by animal husbands in dealing with livestock. Classical economics treats labor as animal husbandry treats cows. Can treating a fellow human being as a farm animal ever be morally justified? Where is sympathy found in this? Working people, labor, those who create all the culture’s wealth, are nothing but farm, factory, and when necessary, cannon fodder.

But economists will say that these aspects of classical economics are not paid much attention any more. Perhaps, but what economists pay attention to and what goes on in the economy are different things. The Wall Street Journal’s report that 70 percent of people in North America live paycheck to paycheck demonstrates conclusively that the subsistence theory of wages is still being applied; our economists are just not honest enough to tell us about it.

If a subsistence wage is all that this economy pays working people, how would the culture determine how to treat those people not in the workforce—the aged, the infirm, and the handicapped, even the unemployed? Classical economics has no answer to this question because classical economics does not exist to provide for people generally. Classical economics divides the populace into two groups—capital and labor. Anyone not in one of these groups is somehow irrelevant, which explains why the President and other governmental officials always speak of the upper class and the middle class but never mention the lower class. Yet no one seems to notice that speaking of an upper and middle class without speaking of a lower class is meaningless.

The upshot is that if the dogmas of classical economics are applied consistently, there is no need for any people not capable of functioning in the workforce. So, in keeping with this implication, Andrew Mellon, President Herbert Hoover’s treasury secretary recommended that Hoover fight the depression by ”liquidating the farmers, liquidating the workers, and driving down wages.”

Of course, if this were openly advocated, the outrage would be uncontrollable and the system would be torn asunder. So this fact is obscured by the provision of “safety nets” that provide little safety, since what they are comprised of cannot exceed or even equal the subsistence wage. So Americans have social security which provides no security, unemployment compensation which is too meager to subsist on, welfare which is really illfare, and chancy access to healthcare at best. Yet those who promote this economy can, it seems, always find money to buttress business, create killing machines, and fight continual wars. What few seem to realize is that these consequences are logical implications of the dogmas of classical economics and come straight out of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Livestock, when unneeded, are routinely shipped to slaughter.

The United States and much of the so-called Western World are wallowing in widespread budgetary and sovereign debt crises, and the world’s financial elite are forcing many European nations into severe austerity programs much to the chagrin of European peoples. Some of these nations have been referred to by the acronym PIGS, which is apt since pigs are a species of livestock. So what we have, of course, is swineherds sacrificing their livestock for the benefit of the international financial community which cares nothing for people or even the nations they reside in. These financiers validate Jefferson’s view that merchants have no country. They also have no morality, not even a smidgen. Neither do the economists who promote this economy.

Signs that the American swineherds are preparing to abandon their own herd by imposing an austerity program on it are displayed in the report of Obama’s Deficit Reduction Commission and the insistence of our Republican Congressmen that spending on “entitlements” either be reduced or paid for while spending on wars, foreign aid, and the military be allowed to continue and even increase without any provisions whatsoever for paying for them. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that warfare and foreign aid are necessary economic principals while the American people have fallen into that group of economically irrelevant people that those like Andrew Mellon would have the government liquidate. So the unemployed should be allowed to starve, and the ill should be allowed to perish—both of which principles are perfectly consistent with the “morality” of classical economics.

Yet the most difficult thing to understand is what the proponents of this economy believe the purpose of it all is. What is the goal of all of this destruction, suffering, and killing? Does it give them some kind of deranged pride? Does a banker really feel good when he is told his bank evicted hundreds of families in the past week? Does a general rejoice when he is told that dozens of the enemy and scores of his own troops have been killed in the battle just fought? Does a legislator drink a toast to progress when it is learned that hundreds of children in her/his district go to bead hungry each night? If so, what kind of human beings are they? If not, just what can they possibly be thinking?

All the moral codes mentioned in this piece are Western in origin; yet none now plays a role in how the people of this civilization behave. When a civilization abandons its morality, no rationalization can be devised to justify its continued existence. It is likely that many reasons can be given for this abandonment, although I am convinced that one predominates—the expansion of law. Law once governed various kinds of behavior. It has now encroached upon various kinds of speech and is even being applied to the realm of belief. If there is a single aspect of human life that is not now circumscribed by law, I do not know of it. So when someone is accused of having done something wrong, the reply offered usually is something like, “What was done complied with all legal requirements.” But “right” has never been defined as “conforms to law,” because thoughtful people have long noticed that the law itself can be a great crime, and that the worst criminals in a culture can be its lawgivers, as the people of Ireland, Portugal, France, Spain, Greece, and Great Britain are now finding out. Americans will soon find it out too.

by Prof. John Kozy

THE TIME HAS ARRIVED: REBELLION IS AT HAND!
By Greg Evensen – September 19, 2010

The countdown clock and the last chance for “The Founder’s Legacy” of patriotic Americans willing to lay it all on the line for a new Republic, has hit 0:00. Rebellion is no longer an option, a late night “what if” discussion around a bottle of good wine and snacks. It is now the mandated response of oath keeping citizens and Constitutional defending men and women who have heard Paul Revere in 2010. That “watchman,” who made the most famous call to prepare for rebellion in the history of the world, has come again, through all of us who have been riding across our land for several years and warned of the arrival of this most critical moment. It did not materialize lightly or without a desperate realization that it was on the way, and when it did appear at the horizon, life has not and will not ever be the same. Whether you accept this assessment or not, you will be involved in its reality, prepared or not, on board with the need to reclaim this country for freedom’s sake or not, courageous enough to muster with the band of the free and brave or not, you WILL still be counted among those who stood and fought with your countrymen, or posterity will judge you as cowards unworthy to live free.

If you need a “Manifesto” to justify your opposition to “traitors” in communistic, statist Washington D.C., and a supremely evil Presidential cabal headed by Obama, then here is one.

Health Care is now “law of the land” and an affront to the Constitution in every word. That law alone is worthy of open rebellion. The REAL ID Act and its “Nazi like” classifications of who you are and what you will be allowed to do is just the beginning. ANY of the federal agencies that are obvious rights breakers (FBI, IRS, BATFE, CIA, NSA, DHS, FEMA, USDA, FDA, CDC, etc.) and thousands of bureaucrats who owe their souls to a democracy of devils, head the list of particulars that define our corrupted rulers.

Control through the police state is the hallmark of tyranny throughout history. America in 2010 is no different. Specifically, the enemies list begins with the USDA, for the chipping of, and headcount of, every domestic animal in the nation. For what purpose have they done this? It is for control and the furtherance of that police state to be steered by the Agricultural Industry’s Czar in Washington. The “Defense of Farmers” rebellion could be this battle cry.

The FDA is next and covets complete control of all pharmaceuticals and natural remedies to corner not only the financial aspect of their war on American’s health freedoms, but so that they can also prohibit people from charting their own health destiny when it comes to how they will live and “treat” themselves against disease. For a huge profit, people are forced into taking poisonous vaccinations more deadly than the disease. This incursion into people’s lives and criminalizing health choices is alone worthy of rebellion.

S510, the regulation of gardening and the trade of vegetables/fruits, strikes at the heart of a free nation and a citizen’s right to provide sustenance for themselves and others should be completely protected against intrusion by government at any level. We had a “Whiskey Rebellion,” we now need a “Tomato Rebellion” as well.

The list unfortunately goes on and on………. Domestic gun control advocates who are both ignorant and evil, have joined the United Nations, Hillary Clinton, the US State Department, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Charles Shumer, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, ad nauseum, in a leftist utopian’s dream state of a no firearms society. By confiscating the last means of the people to defend one’s self and to simultaneously protect the criminal crime syndicate in Washington, the war lords on the Potomac hope to defang the Constitutionalists back home. This single issue is the heart and soul of the rebellion that is at hand.

Global taxes to be assessed against all Americans to underwrite the world governance structure when completed and enacted, is another definition of the reason why people rebel.

Internet and communications control, manipulation of the food supply, worthless crops grown with Genetically Modified seeds, the ongoing “legalized” robbery of the American nation by the Federal Reserve and the banking monopoly, all call for a move by the patriots of this land to destroy the beast and reclaim our sovereign right to be free from control and exchange righteous goods and services with a gold and silver system totally free of any kind of central bank—EVER!

Unconstitutional legislation at all levels as an ongoing way of doing governmental business backed by courts and “whore judges” needs a “governmental extinction level event” of its own by the same patriots who have declared open rebellion on every aspect of abusive, wanton, destabilizing bureaucratic dictatorship and the police state rules that govern it.

S1619 the “Livable Communities Act” which is the UN Agenda 21 sustainable living dictatorship that rules energy, zoning and housing using an environmental program offered by insanely corrupted Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D) Ct. He, along with sodomite Barney (rent men from my apartment fame) Frank, brought us the Freddie Mac & Fannie May economy busting debacle, has S1619 up for consideration at this moment. Corruption on this scale, and greed with no end by sworn members of Congress, is worth a rebel cause. Add to this list “victims of racial persecution” Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel, and you have a Hall of Shame that needs to be burned to the ground.

The ultimate goal of S1619 is to force you into police state controllable mega-cities and return all rural and forested lands to the wild equals environmentalism disguised as social engineering run amuck.

A surveillance society where tens of thousands of intersections, roadways, airports, rail and bus depots, parking lots, city streets, apartment complexes, schools, stadiums and shopping malls among thousands of other “public” places are under computer program “ identify and apprehend” software, have Nazi control freaks in Washington drunk with power. Oh, and buy the way, you can add to that planes, drones and government X-ray vans capable of locating weapons, drugs or supposedly, illegals in your vehicle while riding down the road as sentinels against “terrorists and patriots.” Feel better? Well, add these horrors to the list, and that mandates patriot rebellion vans to run the government beasts out of town.

The real time consideration by Congress of placing your retirements, 401s, IRA accounts and any other personally held financial instruments under governmental control and confiscation is another justification to grab the reins of this runaway, grind it to a halt, and send the diseased horses to the dog food factory.

Have these examples among thousands, given you a picture of how far we have moved toward a true governmental police state? Are these few enough to convince you that it is NOW time to rebel?

By definition, to rebel is to say no emphatically and not budge from that position. (Revolution, by definition, is sudden or violent change). You draw the line “after a long train of abuses” and tell the government at all levels NO. No more dictatorship, no more laws, rules or regulations. Not one inch more. And if you try, then we move from rebellion to outright insurrection or revolution as outlined in our Declaration of Independence. You know, the little letter sent to King George on July 4, 1776.

This was the signed statement by men brave enough to stop the British governmental abuses and begin an armed confrontation and an all out battle to establish a free nation. Rebellion draws the final line. Insurrection, if required, takes them out and sets up new guards protecting freedom with the use of armed force by the citizens themselves. Rebellion is both verbal and actionable by withholding taxes, resistance in carrying out unconstitutional laws, defying governmental edicts, and grinding to a halt “illegal business as usual” by authorities who don’t give a damn what you think or desire. To not rebel at this point is to say in effect, I agree and support what government is doing in its present form and all of the illegal agendas that government is creating. The same is true of the court system. It is corrupt beyond repair. People must either disengage from the court system or disobey judges who restrict the jury’s deliberational freedom and then acquit the accused based on a court’s application of unconstitutional law or edicts. Freedom by acquittal and nullification of bad law itself is a patriot’s greatest weapon and responsibility. It is mostly unused because juries refuse to take the reins of power from the judge in the jury room and effect the final say as is their right and obligation to a free society.

The threshold question is this: If you are forced to pay a levy (taxes) to a corrupted government, are you obeying Romans 13? That Scriptural invective refers clearly to obeying a moral and upright government. God would not have you obey an unlawful government in which you were complicit and guilty of financing the sin and moral destruction of that nation—let alone in a state that sponsors abortion and constant war. Do not fall for that one. Is it not bondage—involuntary servitude—in fact slavery if you are forced to support and “pay” for an immoral government? Ask yourself the same question in reverse. Explain to everyone’s satisfaction how under these conditions, you are NOT a slave by anyone’s definition, if you are forced to support and contribute extortion money to make it happen.

If all the other descriptions in this essay are true, or you recognize and accept that they exist as given, then how can you not be at rebellion’s front door this very moment? Don’t complain that I am causing a problem where none exists. Don’t look for any excuse to avoid the painfully obvious conditions under which you, your family, and all other citizens in this nation find themselves confronting. You have been conditioned to accept each of these rebellion worthy situations as “normal” and part of an evolving social activist “democracy.” Therefore, under that justification, a little change can be expected and, not to worry, it is all for your greater good and the world’s expectation of compliant, guilt ridden, historically ignorant, Americans anyway. The Supremely stupid Supreme Court is now siding more and more with world opinion as to the legality of American’s actions rather than the dictates of our own Constitution. Other courts are giving credence to the demands of Muslim hate filled Quran based Sharia law. Rebel, rebel, REBEL!

In a nutshell, that is why we are where we are right now. We have been worn slick by flim flam men and women of the worst kind. Good is evil and evil is good. The “looking glass world” of Alice and the rabbit has taken us straight to the Queen of Hearts and he is the President and his evil court.

When precious friends and long contributing watchmen like Steve Quayle, Hawk Talon, Chuck Baldwin, and other warriors in the trenches pull up the tent and trek to the mountains, “then look up, for your redemption draweth nigh.” God speed and protect these wise men and their families. I pray the same for you and your families.

Liz and I are no longer prepping. Our job is done. We no longer beg family and others to listen and prepare. We will, for a while, continue to train groups across the country and at our home. However; generally speaking, the last cries from the wall by this “Watchman” have been sounded. My radio show, “Voices from the Heartland” is on each Sunday from 2-3pm CDT on the Republic Broadcasting Network and we are giving our final efforts to get people on board before it’s too late.

The direction of this battle will be determined by how the police state responds to a final position of no more, no way. From that point forward, we will follow the example of our nation’s founders and the leading of God’s Holy Spirit. End of story.

We have held steady long enough………………

Why are RINOS indistinguishable from democrats in their arguments? They ARE democrats, infiltrated into the GOP.
RINO McCain spent $21 MILLION against a REPUBLICAN -A CHUNK of those millions was raised from Republicans so McCain could defeat OBAMA. McCain HOARDED the money and gave the election to Obama. And McCain says we all HAVE to vote for HIM. Why? His amnesty stance is Obama’s stance. A RINO is a DEMOCRAT with his fingers in GOP money. McCain WASTED GOP money – a Democrat leech on the Republicans.

FCC Charade to Justify Internet Regulation, Control and Censorship

The Federal Communications Commission has “extended their comment period” on the subject of regulating the internet. This “comment period” is a charade to create the appearance that the public has some sort of voice in the seizure of power that they are about to attempt.  

The Federal Communications Commission is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security.  Like every other ‘administrative agency’ the unelected bureaucrats at The Federal Communications Commission unconstitutionally make up “laws”, but call these laws “regulations”.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’

           Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The

precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.”
         George Washington’s Farewell Address 1796   

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent.  Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasions of their liberty by evil-minded rulers.  The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
           Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandies

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
           The Declaration of Independence

Administrative agencies enforce their own laws by assessing fines, and issuing orders. They conduct their own trials, but call these trials “hearings”. Thus, they wield legislative, executive, and judicial power all in the same agency.

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
          James Madison Federalist Paper No. 47
The First Amendment promised us the freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. There was no broadcast media at that time; therefore radio and television were not mentioned. Federal Communications Commission justified the regulation of the broad cast media by claiming that regulation was needed because of the sharing of the air ways.

The Internet Service Provider is now being told that they are now regulated by the Federal Communications Commission; which in turn, receives guidelines from the Department of Homeland Security. Of course there is no legitimate justification for Federal Communications Commission regulation of the internet; since it does not use shared air ways. The FCC expects us to comment on HOW they should regulate the internet. The simple answer is:

The FCC should regulate the internet IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER!
If you feel like begging the FCC will do some good, then go ahead and comment.

I would suggest that INSTEAD you contact your constitutionally elected representatives, and ask them to regulate (or abolish) the FCC. They should at least insist that the FCC must obey the constitution or lose all of their funding.

Freedom of speech - use it or lose it 
   When they took away the 4th Amendment,
we were quiet, because we didn’t deal drugs.
  When they took away the 6th Amendment,
we were quiet, because we were innocent.
   When they took away the 2nd Amendment,
we were quiet, because we don’t own guns.
   Now they are taking away the 1st Amendment,
and very soon, if we continue to be quiet,
we will have no choice but to be continue to be quiet.

To get name of Legislators:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/basics/?style=comm 

Capitol Switchboard:  202 224 3121 ask for your Congressman or Senator
The “Regulation in America” Issue of The New American magazine.  

http://americanistbookstore.com/books/regulationinamerica-issuethenewamericanmagazine/

Source:

http://targetfreedom.com/bills-in-congress/fcc-charade-to-justify-internet-regulation-control-and-censorship/

Michael Boldin
Tenth Amendment Center
September 9, 2010

There are a few core beliefs that guide me in everything I do as the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

1. Rights are not “granted” to us by the government – they are ours by our very nature, by our birthright.

2. ALL just political authority is derived from the people – and government exists solely with our consent!

3. We the people of the several states created the federal government – not the other way around!

4. The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government in the Constitution – and nothing more.

5. The People of each State have the sole and exclusive right and power to govern themselves in all areas not delegated to their government.

6. A Government without limits IS A TYRANNY!

7. When Congress enacts laws and regulations that are not made in Pursuance of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the People are not bound to obey them.

These seven items – are what establish the proper role of government under the constitution. But sadly, an honest reading of the constitution as the founders and ratifiers gave it to us makes clear that MOST of what D.C does today is NOT authorized by the constitution.

Question – What do we do about it?

Do we lobby congress and ask federal politicians to limit federal power?  Do we go to federal courts and ask federal judges to limit federal power?  Do we vote the bums out in the hopes that the new bums will 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…..

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 about power – and until we address the absolute fact that the federal government has too much power, things will never change.

Question – What do we do about it?

Answer – Jefferson, Madison and others advised us on what we should do when 2 or more branches conspired against the constitution and your liberty….and it’s best described with a few quotes from Jefferson:

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

But wait – that’s not all. He went on to say that all undelegated powers exercised by the federal government are “unathoritative, void and of no force.” And, that a “nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

NEW MOVEMENT

In 2007, Maine…one state rep introduced a non-binding resolution opposing the REAL ID Act

In 2008, two state legislators in Oklahoma introduced a simple non-binding resolution reaffirming the Constitution as defined by the 10th amendment,

In 2009, one state rep in Montana introduced a Firearms Freedom Act, to nullify some federal gun laws and regulations

In 2009, one state rep in AZ introduced a Health Care Freedom Act, effectively banning a national health care plan in the state.

And that’s grown into a nullification movement like this country has never seen –

• Already nearly a dozen states have passed 10th amendment resolutions

• 25 states have stopped the real id act dead in its tracks in most of the country.

• 8 states have passed binding laws nullifying some federal gun laws and regulations in their state – including Wyoming, which included a penalty of a fine and imprisonment for fed agents violating the state law

• And 5 states have already passed laws to nullify federal health care mandates – with more on the way.

The reality is this – when enough people say no to the federal government, and enough states pass laws saying no to the federal government – they will not be able to enforce their unconstitutional mandates on us.

ROSCOE FILBURN

During the Great Depression, while millions of people were out of work or starving, the FDR administration required American farmers to restrict production of wheat in order to raise prices.

As a farmer, Roscoe Filburn was told he could plant a little over 10 acres of wheat, which he did grow and sell on the market. He also decided that it was in his best interest – possibly because he had less revenue due to the production limitations – to plant another 10 or so acres. But, the “excess” wheat grown was used at home to feed his livestock, among other things. He never sold it, so he saw this as being outside the scope of Congressional power to regulate “interstate commerce.”

What did the federal government do? The expected – they ordered Roscoe to destroy his crops and pay a fine. Think about that for a moment and you’ll really understand the evil of having too much power in too few hands. At a time when large numbers of people were starving, these thugs in government forced people to reduce production for the sake of raising prices. From this, it seems clear to me that corporate bailouts have been going on a long, long time in America.

Roscoe sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In Wickard v Filburn, the Court ruled against him and the result was that the Federal Government assumed a power that was new in the history of this country. It now had the power to control the growing and consuming of something that never left one’s back yard.

LOST LIBERTY

John Adams, In 1775 he wrote, “liberty once lost, is lost forever.” He went on to explain that when the People allow government to gain power and restrict liberty, it will never voluntarily give that power back. Liberty given up to government power will never be returned to the people without a long and difficult struggle.

If we fast forward to present times, we can see this principle at work.

ANGEL RAICH

In the 1990s, the People of California voted to legalize consumption of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Angel Raich, who has a huge cancerous tumor in her brain was told by her doctor and California law that using marijuana to relieve some of the pain associated with her cancer was acceptable.

The Feds don’t take too kindly to states passing laws in direct contravention to theirs. Marijuana, for example, is illegal on a federal level in all circumstances, and federal agencies have consistently said they don’t recognize state laws. You can probably guess what happened, right?

Federal agents destroyed Angel’s homegrown marijuana plants without much resistance. Like Roscoe before her, Angel sued. 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.

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.”

WHAT THE…?

You might be asking, “What’s the point of this?” Well it’s pretty simple. The constitution is not about political parties. It’s not about political ideologies. It’s about liberty. It’s about limiting the federal government to certain enumerated powers so the most difficult and most divisive issues can be dealt with where they belong – close to home.

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.

This is the lesson, the blueprint – the Supreme Court may have an opinion on Obamacare, but let them come and enforce it! They may have an opinion on the EPA and Cap and Trade, but we don’t have to go along with it. And if Texas does what she should be doing – which is following the Constitution every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses – she would say no to every federal gun law, she would say no to all the EPA, she would say no to all the Obamacare mandates, and maybe even the marijuana laws too.

The reality is this – we don’t need approval from the federal government to stand up for our rights. We need to stand up for them whether they want us to or not!

LIBERTY

Over the past 2 years, I’ve been interviewed by mainstream media sources literally dozens of times. And whether it’s Fox News, or CNN, or the New York Times, the reporters invariably ask the same question, “What political party do you support?” Each time, I give them the same answer, “The Tenth Amendment Center is a non-partisan think tank that supports the principles of strictly limited constitutional government.”

They always have virtually the same follow up question too – “what about you? As the founder of the Center, what’s your political background, what political party do you support?”

“None,” I tell them. I don’t know if they believe me, but it’s true.

I’m no conservative, and I’m no liberal. I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. And I’m not a green or a libertarian, or a socialist or an anarchist. I’m not even an independent.

All I am is me, and all I want is to live free. Thank you for joining me…

First of all, I agree with the Judges decision, it is up to Congress
to impeach the President, article 2 § 5. It is up to the Senate to try
the case, article 3 § 6.

Furthermore, this is another reason I am an independent candidate for
Congress and not a GOP republican candidate. GOP republicans mouth the constitution but do not act upon it. For example, I believe I am the only congressional candidate for congress in the entire nation who says, if elected, on day one I will call for the impeachment of Mr. Obama over his eligibility.

The honorable efforts of people such as Terry Lakin, Orly Taiz and others have brought this impeachable offense to light and warranted this action, while people like Glen Beck who has disparaged the socalled birthers and the GOP republicans who are unwilling to rock the boat for political reasons are as much at fault as any democrat, all have shunned the rule of law.

The eligibility of Mr. Obama is one of the greatest issues facing the
survival of this nation if we are to remain a nation of law and the GOP
has completely capitulated over this matter. So do not blame a Judge who may have ruled in favor of Terry Lakin, but rather chose to defer to the Constitution, but blame the GOP who say they support the Constitution but is unwilling to impeach MR. Obama and have a Senate trial of their own.

The GOP has had two years to impeach Mr. Obama, and GOP candidates have had all spring and summer to make this a campaign issue, but they have all been silent. I hate the GOP for not standing up for the Constitution they say, in words, they support.

Once this country wakes up to the fact the two party system is the
greatest threat to the survival of this nation and that Patriots must do everything they can do to destroy this evil two party system, then and only then will we be on the road to recovery.

Alan Lowberg
Independent Candidate for Congress, Maine’s first district.
www.standforfreedom.info

We Need A Revolution, Not A Movement

Chuck Baldwin
August 29, 2010

The elections of 2008 (and the early elections of 2010) produced two significant phenomena: the “Ron Paul Revolution,” and the “Tea Party Movement.” And, mark it down: both of them will have profound effects upon the upcoming November elections–and upon the 2012 elections as well. Call them what you want, however, America doesn’t need another movement; it needs a genuine revolution.

The Tea Party movement, while still a force with which to be contended, has already been diluted and compromised.

The Tea Party movement, while still a force with which to be contended, has already been diluted and compromised. The primary elections plainly reveal the reality of this fact. The high spots so far are the defeats of Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Bob Bennett in Utah. The low spots so far are the reelection of John McCain in Arizona and the election of Dan Coats in Indiana.

John McCain’s election, in particular, demonstrates how many conservatives and “revolutionaries” still don’t get it. If any State in the union should have an up-close-and-personal look at what we are up against, it would be the people of Arizona. After all, they are on the front lines in the fight of one of the most important battles currently being waged in our country: illegal immigration. And John McCain is one of the worst offenders in terms of facilitating and encouraging this illegal invasion. Yet the people of Arizona reelected McCain to the US Senate. (It would interesting to know how many illegal aliens voted for McCain, would it not?)

Then again, John McCain received the enthusiastic endorsement of former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin. This endorsement obviously brought McCain thousands of Tea Party votes that otherwise would have gone to his principal opponent, J.D. Hayworth. McCain is not the only Big-Government globalist neocon to receive Palin’s endorsement. Many of Palin’s endorsees are neocons; which leads to one of the biggest problems with any so-called conservative movement: allowing celebrity-type “conservatives” to become the de facto leaders and spokesmen for what should be a true grassroots, people-generated rebellion. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are the two biggest culprits in this regard.

Mark my words: Palin and Beck may see themselves as part of a conservative “movement,” but they want nothing to do with an old-fashioned, honest-to-God, Patrick Henry-style revolution. In fact, they are doing everything in their power to keep such a revolution from taking place.

This does not mean that Palin and Beck do not contribute some good things to freedom’s fight. They do. The problem is, for every good thing they contribute they counterbalance it by supporting establishment principals, such as John McCain and Newt Gingrich, and attacking non-establishment players and ideas, which serves only to keep the Big-Government power structure firmly ensconced in Washington, D.C.

Get real, folks, and start thinking for yourselves. Ask yourself why Fox News never (or hardly ever) invites non-establishment patriots to appear on their network. Why do you not see former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts on Fox News? Why do you not see former Georgia congressman and Presidential candidate Bob Barr on Fox News? Why do you not see former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura on Fox News? Why do you not see former Director of the US Office of Economic Opportunity and Presidential candidate Howard Phillips on Fox News? Why do you not see Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin on Fox News? The list is endless.

Fox News is not “fair and balanced.” It is as controlled and manipulated as any other media news network. The only thing it balances is the other networks’ infatuation with the Democrat Party, by promoting Republican candidates and ideas. What it does not do is educate and inform the American people with the truth as to what both major parties are doing to destroy our country. But remember, Fox News is owned by Keith Rupert Murdoch, the same man who helped finance Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the US Senate, and who is as much of a globalist as anyone in Washington, D.C., or New York City.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

As an aside, and speaking of Hillary Rodham, I predict that she will replace Vice President Joe Biden BEFORE the 2012 elections. I’ve said that in private for many weeks, and now say it in this column–remember, you heard it here. The Clinton-Bush Crime Syndicate (CBCS) needs Hillary in the White House badly, and Obama has readily accepted a subservient role in the criminal affairs of CBCS (for very profitable reasons, no doubt). And with the CBCS bosses pretty much running things at the White House (they don’t worry about domestic or social issues, providing that these do not interfere with their international criminal activities), is it any wonder that Obama has already taken more vacations than most Presidents take during an entire term?

And it is the influence of globalists and neocons upon national and international politics that the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck simply do not get–or do not want to get. And because many Tea Partiers are so enamored with these two (and allow them to do much of their thinking for them), they remain clueless as well.

Ladies and gentlemen, America is in the throes of socialist and Marxist political upheaval. The curtain could fall at any time. The American people need to wake up to this truism: a “conservative” movement–even a conservative Tea Party movement–will not save us. The only thing that will save us is an old-fashioned State revolt.

Arizona had the opportunity to become a modern-day version of 1775 Massachusetts. But Arizona has probably forfeited that leadership role by 1) reelecting John McCain, and 2) being willing to allow federal courts to dictate law to a sovereign State. Instead of taking its case to the federal courts, Arizona should simply tell the federal government that it will enforce its own State laws (including the newly enacted anti-illegal immigration law) regardless of what any federal court says or doesn’t say. At some point, that is exactly what some State (or group of states) in this union is going to have to do, or liberty will be forever lost.

As long as freedom lovers are content to remain satisfied with the status quo by allowing party politics and media celebrities to dominate their efforts, there will be no stopping this socialist avalanche that is crashing down upon us. The Tea Party movement of 2010 (if left free of Big-Government neocons) could certainly translate into positive developments this November; that is for sure. A revival of the “Ron Paul Revolution” in 2012 could also make a significant contribution, but it is going to take a State revolution to seal the deal. I, for one, am ready.

Did Andrew Breitbart Lay A Trap For Sherrod’s Fraud… Unbelievable!!!
He proved it originally with his brilliant handling of the ACORN ‘hooker’ scandal which he skillfully manipulated so that the corrupt media was forced, against its will, to broadcast corruption in one of Obama’s most powerful political support groups. But Breitbart’s handing of that affair is nothing compared to his brilliant manipulation of the Shirley Sherrod ‘white farmer’ scandal.

It all began last Monday, July 22, 2010. As the country watched in horror, Breitbart released a snippet of a tape on his “Big Government” site which showed an obscure black female official of the Dept. of Agriculture laughing to a roomful of NAACP members about how she’d discriminated against a destitute white farmer and refused to give him the financial aid he desperately needed. As she smirked to the room, she’d sent him instead to a white lawyer – ‘one of his own kind’ – for help. The black woman was Shirley Sherrod – and almost immediately she became the center of a firestorm of controversy which exploded throughout the country. Within a day of the release of that infamous tape, the head of the Dept. of Agriculture, spurred on by Obama, demanded – and received – Sherrod’s resignation. Breitbart had won.

But then seemingly Breitbart’s actions began to explode in his face. As Sherrod screamed in protest, FOX News released the entire text of her speech last March to the NAACP. And there on tape Sherrod was shown supposedly repenting of her racism against a white farmer and instead championing his fight to win funds to keep his farm afloat. Within hours of that entire tape being revealed, the entire world turned against Andrew Breitbart. Conservatives throughout the country were enraged that he’d endangered their reputations by releasing a ‘doctored’ tape. Breitbart, they thundered, had dealt a fatal blow to the conservative media. I confess that I also was horrified at what I saw as the clumsiness and stupidity of Breitbart in ‘doctoring’ a tape to make a supposedly innocent woman look guilty. But now I discover I have been as guilty of haste to judgment of Breitbart as the Dept. of Agriculture was of Ms. Sherrod.

Only now am I realizing the real purpose for Breitbart’s release of that tape snippet. It was to allow him to cunningly trick the media into exposing one of the most shocking examples of corruption in the federal government – a little known legal case called “Pigford v. Glickman”.

pajamasmedia.com/…/?singlepage=true

“In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997.” The case was entitled “Pigford v. Glickman” and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims.

But then on February 23 of this year, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment. In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to “Pigford”. The amount was a staggering $1.25 billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs – 400 black farmers – had now swollen in a class action suit to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America.

There was only one teensy problem. The United States of America doesn’t have 86,000 black farmers. According to accurate and totally verified census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Oops.

Well, gosh – how on earth did 39,697 explode into 86,000 claims? And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion? Well, folks, you’ll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the “Rural Development Leadership Network” but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action – Shirley Sherrod. Oops again.

beforeitsnews.com/…/…o_Sherrods_Dismissal.html

Yes, folks. It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the United States – a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more interesting. Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in this race fraud. As it turns out, the original judgment of “Pigford v. Glickman” in 1999 only applied to a total of 16,000 black farmers. But in 2008, a junior Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack Obama.

Because this law was passed in dead silence and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide depression to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim.

But Breitbart knew. And last Monday, July 22, 2010, he cleverly laid a trap which Sherrod – and Obama – stumbled headfirst into which has now resulted in the entire world discovering the existence of this corrupt financial judgment. Yes, folks – Breitbart is a genius.

As for Ms. Sherrod? Well, she’s discovered too late that her cry of ‘racism’ to the media which was intended to throw the spotlight on Breitbart has instead thrown that spotlight on herself – and her corruption. Sherrod has vanished from public view. Her ‘pigs’, it seems, have come home to roost. Oink!
–
R.W.F.

www.rumormillnews.com/…/forum.cgi