By  Willie Soon and Paul Driessen

Newly proposed air pollution rules impose exorbitant costs for illusory health benefits.

In December 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency released new Clean Air Act “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.” Once again, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson touted the supposedly huge benefits of controlling emissions of mercury (Hg) and other air toxics from U.S. coal- and oil-fired power plants (or electric generating units, EGUs).

The people of Idaho may welcome this new rule, since EPA’s miraculous modeling machine has promised to prevent “six premature deaths” and create “up to $54 million” in health benefits by 2016 – even though not one coal-fired EGU in Idaho fits the EPA’s final rules. Even the District of Columbia, which has only one oil-fired unit, will somehow, magically realize “up to $120 million” in health benefits, presumably from new restrictions on coal-fired units in Maryland or Virginia.

The average U.S. citizen, however, can be excused for no longer being willing to be penalized by EPA – the Extreme Punishment Authority – for such minimal, imaginary and manufactured benefits.

In fact, the final rule may be the most expensive one ever devised by EPA. And yet, even EPA admits, the alleged “hazards to public health” from mercury and non-mercury emissions from American EGUs are “anticipated to remain after imposition” of the new regulations.

As to benefits, EPA computer models claim Hg emission cuts will reduce average per person “avoided IQ loss” by an undetectable “0.00209 IQ points,” with estimated “total nationwide benefits” of $500,000 to $6.1 million by 2016. For the electric utility sector, says EPA, net job creation from the rules will be “not statistically different from zero” and could be between minus 15,000 and plus 30,000 jobs.

In fact, the new regulations will likely eliminate tens of thousands of jobs annually, especially in energy-intensive industries that rely on low-cost electricity to survive and face growing competition from foreign companies that pay far less for energy, labor and raw materials. Small businesses will also get hammered.

“EPA cannot certify that there will be no SISNOSE from this rule,” the agency admits. “SISNOSE” is EPA-speak for “significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities.” In other words, the rules are likely to inflict significant economic harm on small businesses, and thus on the health and welfare of numerous (former) small business owners, employees and families. The agency failed to explain why it has once again ignored the adverse impacts on human health and welfare caused by its rules.

EPA also confessed that U.S. power plants actually contribute a mere 3% of the total mercury deposited in computer-modeled American watersheds, and thus in fish tissue. Citizens will justifiably wonder where the other 97% comes from, and why we should spend so much money for so little benefit. (The “missing” mercury comes from foreign sources and from volcanoes, subsea vents and other natural sources.)

To see how extreme EPA’s scenarios are, consider five more egregious errors in the final regulations. First, EPA admitted it could “calculate risk” for only 3,100 (4%) of the continental USA’s 88,000 watersheds.

Second, for over 60% of the 3,100 watersheds it did model, EPA took only one or two fish mercury measurements – making it virtually impossible to adopt even valid 75th-percentile fish mercury values. There is a breaking point where extremely poor statistical sampling renders EPA’s pretentious number crunching, conclusions and rules invalid. That breaking point has clearly been reached.

Third, the agency’s estimates for mercury exposure risks are solely for “hypothetical female subsistence consumers” who daily eat almost a pound of fish that they themselves catch in U.S. streams, rivers, and lakes over a 70-year lifetime. That’s less than 1% of U.S. women. For the rest of American women (who eat mostly ocean fish, purchased at a grocery, on a far less regular basis), EPA’s rules are irrelevant.

Fourth, EPA admits that only 22 to 29% of its computer-modeled watersheds are “at risk” from EGU mercury, even when it erroneously assumed that at least 5% of total Hg deposition into the watersheds came from U.S. power plants. If the modeling criteria were tweaked only slightly – to reflect average freshwater fish consumption rates for American women, and require that at least 15% of total mercury deposition be attributable to EGUs – not one U.S. watershed would be at risk.

Finally, EPA ignores the presence of selenium in nearly all fish. Its strong attraction to mercury molecules protects fish and people against buildups of methylmercury (MeHg), mercury’s biologically active and more toxic form.

Combining any series of small probability scenarios results in a near-zero likelihood that the events will actually happen. If each of five scenarios has only a 20% chance of happening, the likelihood that all five will happen is 0.032 percent.

As the preceding analysis suggests, the probability that all the EPA’s improbable scenarios will actually happen is virtually zero; the likelihood that its new regulations will benefit human health is also zero.

However, EPA still stubbornly “disagrees that [mercury] exposure levels in the U.S. are lower than those in the Faroe Islands.” Exposure to MeHg in the U.S. is “the same” as in the Faroe Islands, EPA insists.

The agency is simply wrong.

Extensive medical and scientific studies demonstrate that average Americans are exposed to at least 5 to 10 times less MeHg than average Faroe Islanders. The islanders consume large quantities of pilot whale meat and blubber – which is high in methylmercury, high in PCBs and low in selenium. As a result, their blood mercury concentrations can be up to 350 times higher than the mean blood mercury levels measured by the Centers for Disease Control for average American women.

The Faroe Islands study is irrelevant to mercury exposure risk for average Americans. EPA’s use of that study is deceptive. American women and children are safe from any likely threats from mercury.

To top it off, EPA itself proclaims: “The emissions limits in today’s rule are technology-based … and do not need to be justified based on their ability to protect public health.”

In other words, if the technology exists to eliminate these pollutants, the agency will impose the new regulations – regardless of their cost, their effect on electricity prices and reliability, their impact on factory and other jobs, and whether the rules actually do little or nothing to improve human health.

It has become increasingly obvious that EPA’s real goal is to assert its authority over ever-increasing segments of our economy; reinterpret medical and scientific studies to fit its regulatory agenda; and replace as many coal-fired power plants as possible with costly, unreliable renewable energy systems.

American voters, elected officials and courts need to challenge these radical, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, demand an end to EPA’s distortion of science and reality – and reverse these flawed rules.

Willie Soon is a natural scientist with strong interest in mercury and public health issues. Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality.

 

WesternFront America

The outrage continues over the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) passed by the U.S. Senate. Those political animals have confirmed rotten, activist judges for decades destroying our lives and that includes the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dr. Richard Cordero put together an extensive collection of evidence to politically correct, Justice Sonia Sotomayor is guilty of fraud and a participant in a cover-up in concealing assets as part of a judicially run and tolerated bankruptcy fraud scheme.

GOP Senators Ignore Sotomayor’s Criminal Activities

Sotomayor lied through omission on her original sworn statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee and even though she made a correction, she continued to lie about a condo she owns in Florida. Web of deception.org uncovered the documents.

Sotomayor’s confirmation vote rescheduled

Despite all the hard proof, the Senate Judiciary still confirmed an individual who should have been indicted by a federal grand jury; the statute of limitations has probably now run out. The U.S. Senate was too cowardly to deny Sotomayor a seat on the court because of her ethnicity and back lash by special interest voting blocs.

On May 18, 2006, those poltroons once again voted like lunatics: “The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment — even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents.” Yes, illegal employment are the key words, but you can bet any senator who voted for it will get votes from millions of illegal aliens who are voting – illegally.

One can fill a book with anti-American, unconstitutional bills and treaties passed by the U.S. Senate in my lifetime. Like the U.S. House of Representatives, they continue to vote massive borrowed dollars for unconstitutional cabinets like the EPA, the Federal Department of Education, foreign aid and more – without a scintilla of legal authority to do so.

This issue is both constitutional and legal. First let me address the issue of what the Seventeenth Amendment is for those who might not know: It was a proposed constitutional amendment which would allow election of U.S. Senators by the people. Of course, this is 1,000 percent the opposite of those wise men who birthed this constitutional republic.

When the First Continental Congress was convened via a resolution of the Congress of the Confederation, one of the first issues discussed on May 29, 1787, was the balance of power for a newly created federal government:

3. Resolved, that the National Legislature ought to consist of two branches.

4. Resolved, that the member of the first branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States every _____ for the term of _____; to be of the age of ____years at least and so forth.

5. Resolved, that the members of the second branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by those of the first, out of a proper number of persons nominated by the individual Legislatures, to be of the age of ____ years at least and so forth.

James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers #45: “The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures.”

John Jay, co-author of The Federal Papers is quoted: “Jay then informed Governor Clinton that, unlike the Senate, where the two-thirds rule was in force for treaties and impeachment, the lower house had nothing to do with treaties; it represented the people whereas the Senate represented the states–for the Federalists always a significant distinction.”

The framers of the Constitution wisely understood the absolute necessity of ensuring we the people would have the right to vote for our representative in Congress, and at the same time because they all jealously guarded freedom and liberty, the states must also have equal representation. We the people would have the ability to remove via the ballot box, miscreants and scoundrels, while the state legislatures could recall their U.S. Senators who acted against the best interests of their state.

The Senate was supposed to be a sort of checks and balances, but that noble concept disappeared when U.S. Senators were then voted into office by special interests and mobs demanding more and more from the people’s treasury. The absolute right of the states to equal representation was wiped out when the Seventeenth Amendment was declared ratified on April 8, 1913.

The level of ignorance on this issue shocks even me. I once read a comment below a news item regarding former senate candidate, Joe Miller, [R-AK] after he came out supporting a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. The useful fool who submitted the comment said old Joe wouldn’t have to run for office and worry about getting beat. Miller’s opponent and alleged eventual winner, Lisa Murkowski, RINO, opened the pie hole in her face: “…was the first to criticize Miller’s comments, issuing a news release entitled “Joe Miller reaching new extremes every day.”

“We have seen Joe Miller take some extraordinary positions in this campaign, but I never imagined he would support disenfranchising himself and every other Alaskan,” Murkowski said in a statement. “Joe is no longer content with simply taking away federal support for Alaskan families, now he wants to take away their right to select our United States senators.”

Yeah, those who gave their lives and blood to create this republic reached “new extremes” when they voted to create two separate bodies for the U.S. Congress, one for the people and one for the states.

Think Murkowski wants to give up her power as a U.S. Senator? When pig’s fly. That foolish hen votes for legislation that affects my life and I can’t vote her out of office. Another dangerous female, Olympia Snowe, RINO from Maine, voted for the unconstitutional Obamacare declaring her constituents wanted it! Well, I’m not her constituent and I sure as hell don’t want it. The vile, Charles Schumer, [D-NY] would like to see the Second Amendment wiped off the books and every time he votes for a bill, I have no way to send his “progressive” backside packing.

The U.S. Senate over the years has ratified treaties killing nearly eight million good paying jobs sending them overseas. This has had a direct impact upon the states as far as growth, unemployment and so many problems, it would take fifty columns to cover. All because of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that was not ratified by the necessary number of states at the time – 36.

I know, there are a lot of groups out there pounding the pavement begging the outlaws in the U.S. Congress to repeal that amendment. No. How many more lies are we going to support? It sickens me to think about the lies from Pearl Harbor to the Bay of Tonkin, KAL 007, the OKC bombing, 9/11, you name it. How many more lies do we cover up instead of standing up for the truth and dealing with it?

The truth is the outlaws in the U.S Congress are not going to repeal that amendment even if it were legally ratified. House members want a senate seat and senators want the White House.

I have been on this fraud for more than 15 long years. Over the course of 2011, I sent a handful of state representatives and a couple senators proof that amendment was not ratified. Really, a massive amount of documentation. I ask if they would file a lawsuit in their official capacity as state legislators to stop any senate candidate or incumbent from being on the ballot in their state; standing would not be an issue. No one has the right to run for the U.S. Senate under a law that does not exist, period.

While not the course I suggested, I thought my prayers were answered when I found out a bill was written and was to be introduced this month in the New Hampshire General Court (Legislature): H.B. 1126 – “This bill requires members of the general court to nominate candidates for United States. senator.”

However, last week I felt like I had been sucker punched when I found out from Rep. Davenport that due to a procedural error, the bill will not be introduced this session. I do thank Rep. Davenport and his colleagues for their work which will continue on this issue.

While it is devastating, it’s not the end. That bill, should it have been introduced, would have prompted the question: “Wait – we can’t do that. The Seventeenth Amendment allows direct election of U.S. senators.” That would be true, however, no one can find the vote by California making ratification one state short even if you pooh-pooh away all the errors by states during the ratification process. Bill Benson originally researched the Sixteenth Amendment non ratification nearly 30 years ago; he also did the Seventeenth at the same time. What I have done is back up his research and more. Now many state legislators have it and so do you.

Over the past decade and a half, I’ve heard the stonewalling and excuses about changes to the amendment made by states: punctuation and actual word changes not mattering. Wrong. More than a decade ago, Constitutional attorney, Larry Becraft, who has more than 35 years experience fighting in federal courts and giving the IRS some of it’s worst bloody noses, filed a lawsuit in the State of Oklahoma over the non ratification of the 16th Amendment; known as the federal income tax amendment. He writes:

The legal necessity for concurrence in legislative acts.

“Philander Knox was Secretary of State back in 1913 and was by law the public official to whom the States which allegedly ratified this amendment were to send their notices of ratification. When enough of these documents were received by Knox, he commenced a review of them and drafted a report dated February 15, 1913. Therein, Knox noted that “under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the right to approve or disapprove the proposed amendment.” But having said this, Knox went on in the same report and noted all the various changes that the states had made to the amendment.

“This proposition that state legislatures cannot alter or change a proposed constitutional amendment is derived from an establish legal principle which requires that legislative bodies, when considering any given legislative act, must agree to the exact same wording and punctuation of that proposed law. This legislative principle was discussed in a booklet titled How Our Laws Are Made, Document Number 97-120, 97th Congress, First Session, written by Edward F. Willett, Jr., Law Revision Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives:

“Each amendment must be inserted in precisely the proper place in the bill, with the spelling and punctuation exactly the same as it was adopted by the House. Obviously, it is extremely important that the Senate receive a copy of the bill in the precise form in which it passed the House. The preparation of such a copy is the function of the enrolling clerk.

“When the bill has been agreed to in identical form by both bodies– either without amendment by the Senate, or by House concurrence in the Senate amendments, or by agreement in both houses to the conference report– a copy of the bill is enrolled for presentation to the President.

“The preparation of the enrolled bill is a painstaking and important task since it must reflect precisely the effect of all amendments, either by way of deletion, substitution, or addition, agreed to by both bodies. The enrolling clerk…. must prepare meticulously the final form of the bill, as it was agreed to by both Houses, for presentation to the President…. each (amendment) must be set out in the enrollment exactly as agreed to, and all punctuation must be in accord with the action taken.”

Of course, our lawsuit was kicked to the curb by the court and we didn’t have enough money (The Wallace Institute) to take it to a higher court. I doubt it would have succeeded because most judges are simply gutless without an ounce of integrity.

I want you to go look at this case: Sullivan vs. U.S., et al. A 2003 case which clearly demonstrates federal judges are too cowardly to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and should be thrown off the bench by Congress. While that case dealt with war and the Monroe Doctrine, read the actual words of Judge James C. Cox, beginning on page 23: “..you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment (16th)”. And, “I think I’m correct in saying that actually the ratification never occurred.”

According to that judge, it’s okay fraud sends Americans to prison. That federal judge spontaneously brought up the Sixteenth Amendment (federal income tax) and clearly stated what Bill Benson proved in his research and went to prison for: it was not properly ratified. How many hundreds, if not thousands are rotting in federal prisons because of a law that does not exist? One too many while the American people dutifully lay bare their personal lives to the IRS in the hope they avoid an audit.

As for the Seventeenth, this needs to be considered: Can a constitutional amendment be constitutional if it amends the Constitution by a back door method?

Full text of “Constitution Jefferson’s Manual And Rules Of the House Of Representatives Of The United States Eighty Seventh Congress”

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose, Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

For those states who voted not to ratify or those who were out of session at the time and didn’t vote – the Seventeenth Amendment clearly does as they did not give their consent to be deprived equal suffrage in the Senate. I don’t think people can appreciate the battle that went on during the first Contential Congress until they read Max Ferrand’s historical work, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. It’s free on the Internet, but I have the three volume soft copy set (1800 pages). It is a remarkable walk through history.

The Seventeenth Amendment clearly violates Article V for the following states who did not ratify the Seventeenth Amendment: Utah (explicitly rejected amendment); Alabama; Florida; Georgia (refused to vote on it); Kentucky; Maryland; Mississippi; Rhode Island; South Carolina; Virginia.

I went to the National Archives in Washington, DC and retrieved the proof that amendment was not ratified. Dozens of states made changes to the text in one form or another. All documents can be viewed and printed here.

Long ago I focused on this letter given to me in the mid-1990s by an individual with impeccable credentials. As you can see, it is a letter from the the archivist at the Secretary of State’s office stating: “There was no debate or voting record listed in the California State Senate or Assembly Journals”. On what? The ratification of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments.

It is alleged California voted to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment on January 28, 1913. Next, please look at this journal page I personally retrieved from the California State Archives. 1913. See item 7 regarding the constitutional amendment to elect U.S. Senators: May 20, 1913: From Committee. Without Recommendation. How could it go from committee without recommendation on May 20th if it was allegedly voted on five months earlier? It wasn’t.

Over the years, the folks at the California State Archives have been so kind and helpful in my research. This past summer I drove 100 miles to Angelo State U, the closest repository of old records and went through their microfilm. That promoted me to again contact California to request court certified copies of the journal records for 1913. Guess what? They’re all on the Internet now and what do those official records from California show for January 28, 1913?

There was no vote that day or any other for the Seventeenth Amendment. I had my web master down load everything and also put it on a CD, which I sent to the state reps and senators listed below. I did it to protect the truth, i.e., a journal page which looks authentic suddenly appears with the proper vote. I knew there was no vote back in 2000 because I went to the California State Archives (15 minutes from my home then) and asked for a search. I went back the next day and was informed by the head archivist no such vote was found.

The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as well as the Sixteenth) was clearly not ratified by enough states. There is also another problem. I tried to obtain an investigation from the State of Georgia, but they don’t do mail requests anymore because of budget cuts. I was going to ask Rep. Bobby Franklin to help me, but God, rest his soul, that fine man died unexpectedly on July 26, 2011, from heart disease; I was so shocked. What did I want Bobby to help me with? The State of George did not vote on that amendment. Their governor at the time commissioned an investigation: Congress did not properly adopt the amendment before it was even sent to the states. I printed out everything I could find at Angelo U of the bickering between congress critters at the time and the amendments, but I wish I had a copy of that investigation. State reps and senators can probably get a copy because they are elected officials.

The bottom line is this: We are being destroyed from within. The top issues in this country crushing us are Agenda 21, the unconstitutional “Federal” Reserve and the federal income tax. Our major job sectors gutted because of vile treaties like NAFTA pushed through by then Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Obamacare and endless new regulations coming out of alphabet soup agencies that are unconstitutional, killing the states and employers. The states have no representation in Congress; they are little more than doormats. The states must stand up and fight back as those representatives were going to in New Hampshire with H.R. 1126 or allow the federal machine to crush them and all of us.

That isn’t going to happen until one state takes the first step in challenging the non ratification of that amendment. It may be okay with the federal judge in the Sullivan case that people are rotting in prison for an amendment that wasn’t ratified, but it’s not okay with me and I hope not okay with you. And, please, I’m sick to death of the mealy mouthed excuses that it can’t be done or chaos would ensue or the legislatures would appoint the same flavor of corrupt individuals that keep getting elected by the mobs. I would say Apollo 13 qualified as a situation where chaos might have taken over, but it didn’t. Strong minds, professionalism and faith brought those astronauts home.

We are a different nation now than in 1913. We have the power, literally, of the people at the state level to make damn sure those appointed senators represent the rights and interests of the state which benefit all of us or we vote out the state representatives and senators who appointed them. If we truly are to be a nation of self governance, then we have to take control. Those individuals in the state houses work for us, not the other way around.

This will only happen when a few state legislatures go for the cure. Do what Rep. Joshua Davenport did – get a bill introduced THIS session. This is an emergency, so maybe there is some way it can be done in your state. Those counterfeit U.S. Senators are killing jobs, making more and more regulations hurting the rights of your citizens, not to mention our God-given rights. Yes, it IS an emergency as we slide further into the continuing nightmare.

Okay, forget New York, California and states like mine (Texas) who are out of session until Jan. 2013. It would be close to impossible to get a special session called for something so important as fraud and the right of the state to expose it. Every state has its own rules about introducing bills, but if you want something bad enough, it can get done.

Over the years I have been asked to endorse senate candidates; I have refused. I have not voted for a senate candidate since 1996. I will NOT be party to the continuing fraud. No individual has the right to run for the U.S. Senate. I know “senators” like Rand Paul are very popular and if this fraud were exposed, their state legislature can still appoint him to carry on. This is a mess (with both amendments), but by golly, it can be dealt with one step at a time. Or, do we continue to live with lies, fraud and destruction?

No more resolutions asking Congress to pretty please, repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. That will never happen and it’s not even the legal way to address this. While I would like to have seen a few state legislators challenge ballot access, too many state judges are cowards just like federal judges.

Here are the individuals I sent the material to besides the representatives in New Hampshire: Rep. Phil Hart [Idaho], Rep. Pete Nielsen {Idaho], Rep. Bryan Hughes [Texas}, Senator David Williams {Kentucky], Senator Howard Stephenson [Utah], Rep. Leo Berman [Texas], Rep. Matthew Shea {Washington State] Rep. Lois Kolkhorst [Texas] and Rep. Jim Landtroop [Texas]. While I did not send him the materials, if you live in Arizona (think the slimy, corrupt John McCain), I would contact Sen. Ron Gould. He knows all about this fraud. All are fine individuals. If we don’t try, we will surely continue down the abyss.

This is NOT a political party issue. It’s about fraud and the real intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. It’s about the right of the states in this Union to have representation in the U.S. Congress.

Now, how bad to we want to get rid of rotten, corrupt senators and how bad do the states want to reclaim their rightful place in Congress?

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Enough to make your voice heard at your state house – now? Many state legislatures are only in session a few months and then close up shop. We can’t continue to put out a thousand brush fires coming out of the Senate. Once a bill is introduced in a state, then it’s up to the people of that state to literally storm the state house demanding passage; non violently of course. Remind them November is coming.

Here is a special page I set up to help educate legislators as well as my fellow Americans about the destruction of the Seventeenth Amendment and past efforts. We are on the cliff, folks. I do hope the good people who are promoting repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment turn their efforts towards getting a bill passed just like the one in New Hampshire, H.R. 1126, that sadly, won’t get introduced this year.

No more lies. No more covering up because it is the easy way out.

Important links:

1- Inside Oklahoma’s 16th Amendment lawsuit

Geoff Metcalf interviews attorney Larry Becraft on ratification challenge
2- The Oklahoma Protest – 16th Amendment

There has been no court challenge to the Seventeenth Amendment because it takes tons of money and there isn’t a single federal judge in this country with the intregrity or courage to take it on

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn’t left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.

Devvy’s regularly posted new columns are on her site at: www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts.

E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink.net

Related articles

• The Tea Party: Repealing the 17th Amendment to Rescue the Tenth (legallyeasy.rocketlawyer.com)

 

WesternFront America

Sen. Rand Paul (R–KY) made the news Monday when he declined to get up close and personal with TSA guards at the Nashville, TN airport. Paul entered the security line; dumped his belt, glasses, wallet, shoes, cell phone and pocket change in the attractive plastic bin and walked passively through the full–body scanner.

Unfortunately while his chromosomes were enjoying this brief radiation bath, the scanner set off a “random” alarm that sent the crack TSA Grope Group into action. In Paul’s words, “TSA also wanted my dignity” and he refused their demand that he submit to a full–body latex massage.

Channeling years of innocent flyers before him, Paul showed them his leg (evidently something about this limb aroused, no pun intended, the suspicions of the Guardians of the Airways), said he was a frequent flyer and asked to be rescanned.

TSA replied no grope, no hope.

When Paul again refused, he was detained in a holding area. Laboring under the mistaken belief he still had a few rights, the senator called the office to say he would not make his scheduled speech.

This angered the TSA drone that informed Paul he should not have used his phone to call for help. There the situation remained until the TSA director appeared and allowed him to re–enter the scanner and take a later flight.

The difference here is that for the rest of us the director would not have appeared to save the day and most likely we would have been arrested for refusing the scan and trying to leave, as Mr. Don’t Touch My Junk learned.

Now Paul knows what the rest of the flying public has learned: TSA is a law unto itself and is designed to intimidate the public and insulate its employees from outside accountability.

When I buy BVDs and open the package I learn that “Inspector #38” has approved my drawers. But when I get home after a trip and discover some TSA minion has been rummaging through the unmentionables, all I have is a standardized notification with no indication of who actually did the inspection.

Consequently I’ve discovered surprises while unpacking. A TSA guard, who was too stupid to squeeze the plastic catch, cut through a luggage strap and deposited the unusable remains inside my bag. I’ve had thirsty TSA personnel open a sealed liquor bottle and sample the contents. In each instance I called the number on the form (1–800–Don’tHoldYourBreath), left a message and had the complaint ignored.

Compare this with a traffic stop. A motorist has the name and badge number of the officer and local number to call if there’s a complaint. If worse comes to worst, often you have the video from the dashboard camera to review.

TSA has none of this.

TSA employees have assumed the trappings of law enforcement without any of the training or responsibility. Consider the evolution of TSA uniforms. From the original white shirt with no badge we now have a blue uniform with a shiny gold badge, indistinguishable from that of a real police officer. Yet TSA guards lack the training of even a rural policeman.

For his part, Paul did not demand special treatment; although he got it shortly after the TSA figured out it was a member of the US Senate they were detaining. I’m sure Paul’s photo will be posted in the Nashville TSA break room with a ‘Do Not Grope’ order attached and he will have no future problems there.

The simple, obvious and wrong solution would be to exempt federal elected officials from TSA screening. If I had my way they would have to be screened twice just to show them what the rest of us put up with on a daily basis.

One of the many problems with the porcine, pervasive government we enjoy today is that elected officials who pass the laws and the bureaucrats that implement the laws don’t have to suffer the effects of the laws.

If more elected officials were forced to undergo the same red tape and petty harassments the people who pay their salaries do, there would be one of two outcomes. Less government interference with individual liberty or — what I’m afraid would happen — more exemptions for our betters, since everyone knows they aren’t a terrorist, bank robber, embezzler or fill–in–the–blank. Either way, voters would know and be able to adjust voting behavior accordingly.

You may know you’re not a terrorist either, but try telling that to the TSA when you want to take 5 ounces of shampoo on your next flight.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
703-583-6277
571-969-1995 Google Voice
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/michael-shannon

 

WesternFront America

If the US Constitution was still in effect, was still an operational document, was still the law of the land, then the Transportation Security Administration would be in very deep trouble today. However, as we have all come to know all too well, the constitution is all but totally ignored today, especially under the administration of the Obama Regime.

When Obama was sworn in, the constitution was considered, found to be inconvenient for his socialist agenda, and ignored.

The latest blatant violation of the US Constitution was the much-publicized “detainment” of Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky — while he was enroute to Washington, DC to exercise his duties in the US Senate. That “detainment” was totally unconstitutional … period.

You see, Senators and Representatives cannot be arrested for a crime, except for treason, felony, or breach of peace, while meeting in Congress or while traveling to or from a meeting of Congress.

If Senator Paul was detained, then he was arrested. Consider this: “(v) Arrest is the action by which a person is stopped from his normal activities by virtue of a legal authority or sanction, either by detaining him or by stopping his external accesses.” (SOURCE)

Don’t believe me?

Read it for yourself:

Article 1, Section 6 … US Constitution:

1:  The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.⁶ They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Now, THAT’S the wording from the text of the US Constitution … the law of the land.

I do not particularly agree with that portion of the US law, but it DOESN’T MATTER. It is THE LAW! Until such time as there is an amendment to the constitution affecting Article one, Section six to change or remove those few words, it remains the law of the United States.

There has been much bloviating in the press and in the blogosphere since the incident happened. So I don’t expect my opinion to make much difference, at all.

However, on the outside chance that you might care, allow me, please, to point out, once again, that our government, as it is currently constituted, is NOT following the law of the land. We have, in my opinion, a rogue government in place in Washington, DC.

The Transportation Security Administration is just another government agency out of control. It is a power hungry bully; full of itself, and — in the real world — it does more to restrict freedom of movement in this country than it does to ensure it.

On the TSA’s website they say: “We are 50,000 security officers, inspectors, directors, air marshals and managers who protect the nation’s transportation systems so you and your family can travel safely.” (SOURCE) I dare say the “volk” of the Gestapo, in 1930’s Germany, thought of themselves in much the same manner.

I have been offering commentaries for decades and there has been a common thread running through the millions of words of opinion I have shared. It is this: We Americans are voluntarily giving up our freedom.

Have you noticed how we whine and complain when the Congress is tied up in knots and unable to legislate? We seem to have forgotten that to legislate is to pass laws.

Every time a law is passed some of us lose a little bit more of our freedom. Eventually, ALL of us lose small portions of our freedom, until one day, we finally stop and take stock of our current liberties — and we find we are in deficit. Our freedom is gone and we are in hock to the government.

It seems to me that pretty much sums up our current situation.

Freedom, once lost, is almost impossible to reclaim. Much like an ocean liner,  it takes a very long time to stop a government with the momentum of the US government.

Back in 2010 we sent a new batch of conservatives Senators and Congresspersons to Congress with a clear mission to bring the Congress to a halt and keep it static until the Obama Regime could be ended in November — and we could gain control of enough of the national legislature to begin the process of returning sanity to our government.

Both the left and right wings of the American political spectrum have reviled them. Even so, they have done a fair job at slowing the Congress down.

Somehow, Americans have lost their love of the freedom and liberty for which our forefathers gave their lives and fortunes.

Now, if you think I am being overly dramatic here, I ask you to look again at what a government agency did to a US Senator and ask yourself, if they can do that to one of the most powerful men in the country, WHAT can they do to me?

J. D. Longstreet

***********************************
VOTE CONSERVATIVE IN NOVEMBER 2012
***********************************
Conservative? Then visit “INSIGHT on Freedom” at http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/ Find conservative comment on nearly everything at “INSIGHT on Freedom!”

 

WesternFront America

This is one of the most important columns I’ll ever write and I’ve written several thousand over the years.

While millions were guzzling the booze, the usurper, Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, decided to sign the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s eve while playing in Hawaii on borrowed taxpayer dollars.

As millions who are informed about the internal destruction of this country read the language of S. 1867 and the house version, H.R. 1540, controversy arose over several sections (1021, 1022 and in the senate bill 1032); in particular the word requirement.

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY continues over to page 362:

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS. The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

 

WesternFront America

The Founding Fathers, authors of the Constitution, were obsessed with any form of government that could become too powerful, too willing to use force to oppress citizens. They had cause. They had fought a long war against the greatest power of their age, ruled by a king with nearly absolute power. They fashioned an instrument designed to ensure that the President could not rule by edict and defused power among three branches of government.

We have a President currently running for reelection against Congress, Wall Street, Republicans, and the right of citizens to be free of an overly intrusive government.

Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution says: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

All appointments of the President must be approved by the Senate while it is in session and the Senate, even over the Christmas and New Year’s vacation has remained in session, if only in a pro forma, technical manner. Every three days it has been convened to assert its powers.

Even so, President Obama has announced several “recess” appointments, all clearly a challenge to the Senate and all clearly a tyrannical power grab. He appointed Richard Cordray as the first director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a new function that puts government between the lender and the citizen. In theory, all loans in the future will be subject to government approval. This is Communism, not Capitalism.

In addition, he appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board, intended to arbitrate disputes between unions and corporations. None of them have appeared before a Senate committee for vetting. It was this board that demanded Boeing shut down its new factory in South Carolina, one of many “right to work” states that empower workers with the right to determine whether they want to join a union or not.

Neither Obama, nor any president who preceded him can make appointments without the “advice and consent” of the Senate. (Article II, Section 2). As recently as the first week of the year, referring to the Senate, Obama asserted that “I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them.” He has no such obligation. Those are the words of an incipient tyrant.

These actions put me in mind of Niccolo Machiavelli, famed as the author of “The Prince”, a book of advice to Lorenzo de Medici who was the ruler of the former republic of Florence, one of many city states in Italy. Born in 1469 and died in 1527, Machiavelli living during the early years of the Renaissance, a period that saw the flowering of literature, science, art, religion and politics. Historians consider it a bridge between the Middle Ages and the modern era.

The renaissance was a period of social and political upheaval, one in which the various princes ruled so long as they could protect their principalities against wars by others seeking to expand their powers. “The Prince” is largely seen as advice on how a prince may have to resort to the methodical use of brute force and deceit to hold onto power, but it was more than that. It was a guide to ruling people with a minimum of oppression.

“It should be borne in mind,” Machiavelli wrote, “that there is nothing more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes in a state’s constitution.” Obama is engaged in an attack on the U.S. Constitution.

Of princely power, Machiavelli wrote, “The people are everywhere anxious not be dominated or oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles are out to dominate and oppress the people. These opposed ambitions bring about one of three results; a principality, a free city, or anarchy.” The Constitution ensures a free nation with limited federal powers and is a guard against anarchy.

Evidence of Obama’s narcissism and drive for complete power is ample. He is on record as saying the Constitution is composed of “negative” limits on power. Others regard the Constitution as the ultimate protection against the unlawful use of power. This is particularly evident in the Bill of Rights which was appended to the Constitution because several of the first States would not ratify without it.

In his advice to Lorenzo de Medici, Machiavelli raised the question of “whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. Within the context of the time, he said, “it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.” In the run up to Christmas, Americans bought guns in record numbers which suggests there is considerable fear of Obama and the results of his policies over the past three years.

We have witnessed and been victimized by a Democrat-controlled Congress that forced Obamacare on an unwilling public. We have seen the rise of Islamic fanaticism as the result of his failed policies toward Iran and the Middle East. We have had record breaking debt imposed on us by his failed “stimulus” policies. We have seen continued efforts to reduce our military power and to thwart access to our ample energy resources of oil, natural gas, and coal.

It is a long list of usurpations of power that endanger the nation domestically and internationally. Whether it was done out of stupidity or a deliberate effort to harm the nation can be debated, but the most outstanding attribute of Obama has been his continual lying and Machiavelli notes that “the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived.”

In this effort, Obama has been greatly aided by the mainstream media with a few notable exceptions. The trust that once reposed in the nation’s print and broadcast media has been eroded and will be hard to regain. The trust given Obama is long gone by all but a few ignorant and lazy citizens content to have their lives ruled by an over-reaching executive branch of government.

The election process will rid us of Obama and likely many of those Democrat legislators who have supported his policies. The House is controlled by the Republicans and the Senate is likely to follow.

Meanwhile, we must guard against the present occupant of the White House. Americans waged a war against oppression in the past and will, if necessary, do so again.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

 

WesternFront America

We have said many times that Obama envisages Congress as an inconvenient impediment to his agenda to create a strong socialist central government in the United States of America.  If there was ever a single iota of doubt in the minds of Americans that Obama is seeking to assume all US government power unto himself, then his recent actions in naming a head for the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members to the National Labor Relations Board and totally by-passing Congress to make those appointments – while the Senate was still in session – should remove all doubt.

What we have here, dear reader, is a full-out raw power grab by the Executive Branch of the US government.  This move by Obama is an abuse of power. It is arguably unconstitutional — and should be grounds for impeachment.

If the US Congress does not take immediate steps to stop the power hungry mob in the White House then the US will, very soon, find itself the newest tin-pot dictatorship with a petty tyrant in total control of the government.

(A reminder:  Only days ago the media was asking why Americans were buying so many guns. You have just seen the answer to that question.)

Look:  We have a would-be emperor on our hands right here in America, the world’s last hope for democracy.

Obama’s disrespect for the US Constitution is breathtaking.  Not only does he disrespect it – he defies it!

As we continue to see Obama’s tentacles spread through the government with his new agencies, Czars, and a myriad of additional rules and regulations handed down by his henchmen – is it too far a stretch to predict that by next fall the Obama Administration will declare a national emergency and suspend the election set for next November?  No, I am not kidding — and I fear it is NOT an exaggeration.

Americans are in serious trouble and I don’t mean with out national economy.  We are in critical danger of losing our freedom and liberty as a country.  I would not be surprised, any day, to see the news channels suddenly break in with a bulletin that Obama has dissolved the Congress and placed the country under martial law until a date uncertain, far in the future, when our economy has been, er, stabilized.

Farfetched?  Really?  I mean – REALLY?  We have a branch of our government out of control, people.

This in-your-face move by Obama demands action by Congress to stop his abuse of power in its tracks.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said:  “Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people,” (SOURCE)

Senator McConnell is absolutely right.

John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio and Speaker of the US House of Representatives, said Obama’s action was: “an extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab by President Obama that defies centuries of practice and the legal advice of his own Justice Department”

“The precedent that would be set by this cavalier action would have a devastating effect on the checks and balances that are enshrined in our Constitution,” (SOURCE)

The fact is – Obama has spat upon those constitutional checks and balances referenced by Speaker Boehner.  The longer Obama stays in office the more America resembles a banana republic, with a tin pot dictator holding the reins of power.  Move over Hugo Chavez!

Of course Obama’s defiance of Congress is an integral part of his political campaign for reelection.  But this time he has gone to cussed far. There can be no question now that Obama is a threat to the freedom of the American people.  His seeming thirst for power begs the question:  Is Obama the American Putin??

Here we have a man in the Presidency who is, I believe, constitutionally unqualified to be President by reason of the circumstances surrounding his birth.  His father was a citizen of Kenya and not an American citizen. The Constitution declares a candidate for US President must be a natural born citizen of the United States, which means — BOTH mother and father must be American citizens.

We Americans know less about Obama than any other President in US history.  Is his name Barack Hussein Obama or Barry Soetoro?  Was he born in America – or Kenya?  Whose Social Security number does he really have? A number of other people have, or have had, the same number. The record of his education is blurry at best.  He is reported to have been a college instructor on the US Constitution, yet he seems to totally ignore it when it gets in the way of his insatiable thirst for power over the American people.

Let’s face it. Obama is a truly scary figure in American politics today. I am convinced he has a dark agenda for America and that agenda is a threat to the freedom of the people of America.

J. D. Longstreet

***********************************
VOTE CONSERVATIVE IN NOVEMBER 2012
***********************************
Conservative? Then visit “INSIGHT on Freedom” at http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/ Find conservative comment on nearly everything at “INSIGHT on Freedom!”

 

WesternFront America

The last two months of 2011 saw Americans buying guns in record numbers. December 23^rd saw more guns bought in one day that ever before. It set a record.

In an article at “The Telegraph,” a British News site, entitled: “Americans buy record numbers of guns for Christmas,” Nick Allen writes: “According to the FBI, over 1.5 million background checks on customers were requested by gun dealers to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in December. Nearly 500,000 of those were in the six days before Christmas.

It was the highest number ever in a single month, surpassing the previous record set in November.

On Dec 23 alone there were 102,222 background checks, making it the second busiest single day for buying guns in history.

The actual number of guns bought may have been even higher if individual customers took home more than one each.” (SOURCE)

Mr. Allen goes on to say: “Explanations for America’s surge in gun buying include that it is a response to the stalled economy with people fearing crime waves. Another theory is that buyers are rushing to gun shops because they believe tighter firearms laws will be introduced in the future.” (SOURCE)

To be sure BOTH the explanations mentioned above are valid — but there’s more to it that that.

Back in January of 2009, in an article entitled: “Americans Are Arming Themselves. Why?” I wrote the following: “The popular explanation is that Americans are afraid of what this socialist Congress and president will do to deprive Americans of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Well, that is CERTAINLY a PART of it, but I think there is more, much more, and a far more serious explanation… and, I am convinced the government believes as I do.

See, I think the American people are preparing themselves to go toe to toe with their government. I believe the American people are making a statement. That statement is: “This Far and No Farther!” In other words, “We are going to give you socialists a chance. But, if you step over the line, if you attempt to deprive us of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, we will not tolerate that.”

Some of us older Americans remember what happened when the socialist took over in Russia in 1917. It is NOT going to be allowed to happen here.

I think it is meant to counter the act of the Bush, and soon, Obama Administrations of bringing combat troops back to The States and stationing them here, on US soil, reportedly for population control in the event of “social unrest” or massive acts of “civil disorder or disobedience” keyed by any number of things including the economy going through the floor, or, well, I’ll let your imagination fill in the blank, because, frankly, the subject is so delicate, I don’t even want to touch it! 

I have concluded, rightly or wrongly, that Americans are sending a signal to their government. That signal is: “We won’t be bullied. There will be a price to pay if you dare step over the line.”  Congress and the President had better pay attention.  It is low profile stuff at the moment, but it can get very big, very fast. And… it is VERY dangerous!” (SOURCE)

Our overseas cousins have great difficulty understanding American’s love of the gun. But it really IS quite simple. You see — America was born at the muzzle of a gun. We won our freedom at the muzzle of a gun. We expanded our country from the Atlantic to the Pacific at the muzzle of a gun. We fought our own war over state’s rights at the muzzle of a gun. We preserved our freedom by defeating the Japanese and the Germans at the muzzle of a gun and we have assisted a number of countries to maintain, or regain, their freedom at the muzzle of a gun. Even now, as I write, the US military is patrolling the waters of the Persian Gulf to protect the transport of approximately 40% of the world’s oil and ensure it’s passage through the Straits of Hormuz — at the muzzle of our big naval guns, and we continue an attempt to salvage Afghanistan and drag it into the 21^st century by fighting off religious fanatics — at the muzzle of a gun.

Americans understand the importance of the ability of every man to defend himself, his family, and his freedom. We also understand the importance of assisting our global neighbors in defending their freedom — for the loss of their freedom brings the threat one step closer to our shores.

Americans have a scared duty to halt the encroachment of domestic tyranny. Freedom is our birthright and we WILL defend it.

Many Americans are deeply concerned over the state of the world today. We remember what happened in the 1930’s when the world found itself in similar circumstances to today. It led to a world war.

Then, too, there is this: We rather like the rogue nations, the terrorists, the tyrants, and tin-pot dictators to know that the American public is armed to the teeth, ready, and willing to defend our country should they, through some mental aberration, have designs on it. The LAST thing you want to confront is a PO’ed American with a gun!

Oh, … and we like to hunt, too.

J. D. Longstreet
***********************************
VOTE CONSERVATIVE IN NOVEMBER 2012
***********************************
Conservative? Then visit “INSIGHT on Freedom” at http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/ Find conservative comment on nearly everything at “INSIGHT on Freedom!”

 

WesternFront America

by Ron Paul

Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed.  The 4th amendment has been rendered toothless by the PATRIOT Act.  No more can we truly feel secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects when now there is an exception that fits nearly any excuse for our government to search and seize our property.  Of course, the vast majority of Americans may say “I’m not a terrorist, so I have no reason to worry.” However, innocent people are wrongly accused all the time.  The Bill of Rights is there precisely because the founders wanted to set a very high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty.  To lower that bar is to endanger everyone.  When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.

The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th.  The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning.  It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel.

The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial.  It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.”  How closely associated?  And what constitutes “substantial” support?   What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity?  Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment?  Is that charity now an associated force?

Additionally, this legislation codifies in law for the first time authority to detain Americans that has to this point only been claimed by President Obama. According to subsection (e) of section 1021, “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” This means the president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law.  That should chill all of us to our cores.

The Bill of Rights has no exemptions for “really bad people” or terrorists or even non-citizens.  It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the bill of rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror.  This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.

 

WesternFront America

On November 8, 2011, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued another judicial hallucination regarding ‘Obamacare’ stating “..the centerpiece of the health care law – a mandate for individuals to buy health insurance or pay a fine – was an encroachment on individual liberty, but no more so than requiring businesses to serve all customers regardless of race. ” The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local – or seemingly passive – their individual origins,” wrote Judge Laurence H. Silberman.”

Later that night, the people of Ohio said no:

Ohio Votes to Nullify Insurance Mandates

“On the eve of the 213th anniversary of the passage of Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, laying the intellectual groundwork of nullification, the people of Ohio exercised their power and nullified the insurance mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“Ohio’s passed Issue Three, a constitutional amendment to preserve their right to choose their own health care and health care coverage. Preliminary returns indicated a wide margin of victory, with more than 60 percent approving the amendment. The amendment makes it illegal for any local, state or federal law to require Ohio residents to purchase health insurance, effectively nullifying a key component of the PPACA.

“This signifies that state level resistance to federal power is not just an old idea relegated to history books,” Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said, “It’s something that’s alive and well right now.

“”Ohio became the tenth state to reject the insurance mandates in the PPACA.

“James Madison said that power over objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State would remain with the states. Health care choices clearly fall into that category,” TAC communications director Mike Maharrey said. “Ohio sent a strong message to D.C. tonight. We are not going to just sit back and accept your unconstitutional power grabs.

“”On Nov. 10, 1798, the Kentucky legislature adopted resolutions authored by Thomas Jefferson in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. In these resolutions, Jefferson explained the states’ power to judge the constitutionality of an act, while also asserting that unconstitutional federal acts hold no force.

“He wrote, “That the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress”

“Jefferson continued, “whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force”"

As the federal government continues to grow, states have begun to push back more aggressively. Fifteen states have defied the federal government and legalized medicinal cannabis, and six years after the passage of the Real ID Act, states continue to successfully resist its implementation.

“Nullification is so simple, even a 3-year-old can do it. You just say, ‘No!’” Boldin said. “Washington D.C. will never willingly limit itself. It’s up to the states to put a check on federal power and say, ‘No!’ when Congress passes these unconstitutional acts. Ohio stepped up and did that tonight. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.

“Of course, this is a tremendous win in pushing back against the agenda to impose a totalitarian noose around our necks. As I have written so many times and most recently in my column,Sheriffs, state legislators, OWS and the constitutional militia, you have to put teeth into all these efforts like the sluggish Tenth Amendment movement; it’s called the power of the purse and sword. While nullification is gaining ground, there are still too many socialists, communists and weak-kneed Republicans in the State Houses who refuse to get the job done. The bottom line is it takes putting tremendous heat on your state reps and senators, but unfortunately, too many Americans who are trying to make a difference continue to be distracted with the garbage (beltway politics) tossed out by the thoroughly corrupted dominant media and cable network anchors.

No doubt millions now know about the lawsuits below:

“On 10/25/11 Liberty Legal Foundation filed two simultaneous lawsuits against the Democratic Party. Both lawsuits request injunctions prohibiting the Party from certifying that Obama is Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President in the 2012 election. Without such a certification from the Party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election. (Tennessee TN Complaint) (Federal DNC Complaint).

“While reading the announcement, I happened to spot this on their site:

Nullification Done Right

“A couple weeks ago I shared about why state laws nullifying Obamacare were “toothless”. This message references two nullification laws we are trying to get passed in Tennessee that have “teeth.” They are TN SB620 and TN SB1108/HB0959 – please use these links to go to the web site and download copies of each bill.

“The key point between these bills and nullification bills without teeth is that they have a method of enforcement. These bills actually empower local law enforcement to arrest Federal officials who attempt to enforce nullified laws within the state. We are making good progress on getting these bills the support they need. Already, we have TN Sheriffs affirming that they will support this enforcement should the legislature pass these bills.

“Please consider supporting similar legislation in your state. Rally your state TEA Parties, Liberty and Constitutional groups to make their voices heard that they want nullification with teeth.” (Rest at site)

I went and read those two bills linked in that posting. I was particularly overjoyed to see this language in SB620:

“Further, the power to regulate commerce among the several states as delegated to the Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, as understood at the time of the founding, was meant to empower Congress to regulate the buying and selling of products made by others, associated finance and financial instruments, and navigation and other carriage, across state jurisdictional lines. This power to regulate “commerce” does not include agriculture, manufacturing, mining, major crimes, or land use.

“The language in TN SB1108/HB0959 is very strong, but again, while the sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer in a county, please remember the words of Patrick Henry: “Let Mr. Madison tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle shall interpose, no nation ever did, nor ever can, retain its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse.” I highly recommend you go to this link and read the rest of what Patrick Henry said because the tyrants out in the District of Criminals are not going to relinquish control without a real fight.

When you talk about local law enforcement arresting “Federal” officials, things can get tense. We don’t want violence, which is why I can’t stress enough how important it is to understand the full meaning of the Second Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

While the bickering and ‘business as usual’ continues by the crooks, cowards and criminals in the U.S. Congress, the battle for freedom has to be taken to the state capitols and tell them we mean business: Stand up to tyranny. Print out the bills above and send a copy to your state rep and tell him/her to get off the dime, forget about the next election and stand up for the right of the state to say no to the criminal syndicate out in Washington, DC.

Also recommended reading – Larry Becraft, explains constitutional limitations regarding the states regarding fish and wildlife: Jurisdiction Questioned (2004)

Devvy Kid 2011

http://www.devvy.com.

 

WesternFront America