r3volution! News

Archive for the category “11_November”

States Seceding from the Union : Can We? Should We?

There is a huge debate going on all over the internet regarding States seceding from the United States of America.  There are those, on one side who are completely in favor of this, those who are completely against this, and those who fall in a wide range of in between. Those who are against it, are so against it, they are telling those in favor of it to “Move to Somalia!” Move to Somalia? Really? Have these people seen how Somalia is governed? Have these people ever read our Constitution? How they equate people who want to restore our country to a Constitutional Republic (or declare Sovereignty with a State Constitution) with Somalia, I’ll never understand. But, I’ll leave that for another day and another discussion.

As of this writing, residents from the following states have added their own secession petitions: New Hampshire, Illinois, Idaho, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin, Alaska, Utah, Wyoming, California, Delaware, Nevada, Kansas, Ohio, South Dakota, West Virginia, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, Michigan, New York, Colorado, Oregon, New Jersey, North Dakota, Montana, Indiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama and Texas.

I count 39 States and I find that significant.  Now, before the White House will address a petition, it must first have 25,000 signatures. And to my knowledge, as of now, Texas is the only State that has met that requirement with over 80,000. Will the numbers of signers from other States increase? Probably. Will they each get the required 25,000? Doubtful. But what strikes me is citizens from39 of the 50 States are entertaining the idea of seceding from the Union. Suppose all 50 States end up filing petitions. Seems to me, with or without 25,000 signatures for each petition, that is something the White House must acknowledge. That goes well beyond a few fringe radicals having a temper tantrum.

But enough of me rambling. There are much smarter folks than I discussing this issue, so I will provide some links and maybe a brief commentary, and you decide. Is this something we #1) Realistically can do, and #2) Should do?

Ben Swann discusses Do States Actually Have The Right To Secede?

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government.”

Texas Secession Petition Racks Up More Than 80,000 Signatures, Qualifies For White House Response

A petition for Texas secession has qualified to receive a White House response.

As of Tuesday evening, the petition — which asks for the peaceful withdrawal of the state of Texas from the union — had racked up more than 81,000 signatures. (Only 25,000 are needed to elicit an official response from the Obama administration.)

Continue Reading: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/texas-secession-petition-qualifies-for-white-house-response_n_2125159.html

Residents In More Than 30 States File Secession Petitions

Micah H. (no last name provided) of Arlington, Texas filed a petition that had nearly 60,000 signatures as of Tuesday morning.

It reads:

The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it’s citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.

Continue Reading: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/petition-to-secede-states_n_2120410.html

“Secession an important Constitutional Principle”

“It’s an American tradition to talk about secession”

Dr. Paul on Secession

Video from September 2008, describing Vermont, a very left leaning State, and their desire for secession.

THE STATES WANT TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION – FREE VT!

Following are two videos discussing New Hamphire citizens wanting to seced from 2009.

NH to Secede over Obama NWO Agenda

State of New Hampshire with Bill HCR 6 is just on one of several States who are drawing a line in the sand against the Federal Government. For any one of 6 very specific reasons, they will secede.

I. Declaring Involuntary Martial Law over any of the 50 States

II. Any kind of “domestic Draft” (Obama’s Service Corps)
*Obama’s Plan for The Draft- MANDATORY SERVICE everyone 18-25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtDSwyCPEsQ

III. Any kind of required service of Minors (Youth Brigades)
*”Obama’s Nazi Youth Brigade”pt1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVjcRkeKFsc

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government. (UN Millenium Declaration, which Obama supports.
North American Union/SPP agreement.
UN Carbon Taxes)
*CNN-Lou Dobbs- Obama Backing North American Union Agenda – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgGEv-cdoms
**CNN- Obama and UN “Millenium Declaration”- Carbon Taxes – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PePbtEABzGk

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press. (Fairness Doctrine)

VI. Any attempt to further restrict the the Right to Bear Arms
(Obama preposed a 500% tax on ammunition in his State and supports a nationwide version.
*CNN- Obama To BAN Guns SPREAD THIS FOLKS, PLZ!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vKfL2ETnF8

Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel want to put Gun Owners on a political black list that will strip them of their rights.
*Commie Rahm Emanuel to Disarm America:”#1 Issue”, Gun Owners are Terrorists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vp7f1QKYmg

Obama’s Attorney General lobbied for the Total Gun Ban in DC, and thought it should go Nationwide.)

Heres the Bill:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

Legislators tell feds to back off
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87987

21 States Claiming Sovereignty: AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, TX, & WA
http://www.mrstep.com/politics/az-wa-mo-nh-ok-claiming-sovereignty/

New Hampshire Bill to Secede from the Union

Glenn Beck’s interview with NH representative on NH bill to approve state’s desire to secede from the union

Even my own State, the Commonwealth of Virginia is getting in on this.

Peacefully Grant The COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA to Withdraw from The U.S.of America,and create it’s own Self-Government

Obama Federal Government Corruption,Lies,and Cover-Ups.Including potential Voter Fraud,with The Obama Admin.behind and Fostering the Ruination of Country,Laws,and Constitution,from every aspect of Governing,circumvention of the Law of The Land,and Utilization of Beurocratic means to bypass the Will of THE PEOPLE. 17 States so Far Have Filed for Secession.Must Originate and get 150 for WHITE house to post,and Recognize.Pls Sign:The government allows one month from the day the petition is submitted to obtain 25,000 signatures in order for the Obama administration to consider the request.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-commonwealth-virginia-withdraw-usof-americaand-create-its-own-self-government/R2BzGMPF

UPDATE!

Since starting this document, a lot has changed. It appears that now 7 States have the required 25,000 signatures and ALL 50 States are now on board.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North CarolinaTennessee and Texas residents have accrued at least 25,000 signatures, the number the Obama administration says it will reward with a staff review of onlineproposals.

Things are getting quite interesting friends. I am looking forward to watching this play out. For mor information on the petitions, please refer to We the People web site.

Obama Petition Calls for Stripping Citizenship and Exile for Anyone Who Signs Petition to Seced

A White House petition gathering force calls for citizenship to be stripped and exile for anyone who signs a petition in favor of a state’s secession.

“Mr. President, please sign an executive order such that each American citizen who signed a petition from any state to secede from the USA shall have their citizenship stripped and be peacefully deported,” the full petition reads.

The title of the petition is, “WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO: Strip the Citizenship from Everyone who Signed a Petition to Secede and Exile Them.”

As of this writing, 2,205 have signed the petition; 22,795 more signatures are needed for the issue to be addressed by the White House.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-petition-calls-stripping-citizenship-and-exile-anyone-who-signs-petition-secede_663282.html

Indianapolis blast caused by high velocity explosive

There is little information coming out of Indianapolis, but all of what is coming out indicates that it was a high velocity detonation which occured a few feet off the ground.

There is little concrete foundation remaining at the house the explosion happened at, which totally rules out gas. The lack of high definition photos is

damning, we are getting nothing of the blast epicenter and only the debris in the streets. I managed to find a super high quality photo of the neighborhood that does not focus on the house where it originated, but it is clear enough overall to seem to show that the foundation is gone and there is only dirt. But there is so much rubble that it is really hard to tell what is there without a better photo. I am working on this now, and will update it later.I have received requests to explain the following photo better. When I mention the decompression damage, this is what I am trying to say. If you have a detonation from a military grade explosive, rather than a natural gas explosion, the shock wave that goes out from the blast is supersonic and forms a wall of bunched up compressed air as it moves outward. This creates a vacuum cavity in the heart of the detonation, which can go outward for several hundred feet. Air needs to rush backwards to fill that void after the blast wave has passed, and this creates an enormous suction after the intital blast that can cause significant damage in addition to the initial blast damage. So the arrows are pointing at windows, garage doors, and exterior walls of houses that got sucked off by this negative pressure wave. The fact that the houses I refer to had the external sheathing ripped outward, instead of being blown inward, proves that this was no gas explosion, which is subsonic, it was a detonation of military grade ordinance. Explosions are subsonic, detonations are supersonic, and detonations will cause the reverse pressure wave following the blast. Subsonic explosions will not. This is what I am referring to in the high res photo.

This is the only decent photo which will allow a study of the scene,It can tell us a few things, but not everything. More detail of the epicenter is needed. I hunted for that and cannot find it anywhere.

In the arab world, where the homes are made of solid concrete and have no wood at all, even inside, the negative pressure wave has a negligible effect. But in America, the homes are wood even if they have a brick face, and this will drastically increase the damage potential of the negative pressure wave. When our government decides to make such attacks commonplace, our homes will not offer any protection at all. In fact we are sitting ducks.

This was a much bigger blast than is being stated in the press, with eyewitnesses saying that 8 miles away it sounded like lightning hitting their homes, a recording being made at the time six miles away clearly recorded the blast, and it is not an explosion, it sounds like a detonation. Military veterans are saying it sounded exactly like military ordinance, and people two miles away from the blast say it was so loud they thought a bomb went off within their own yards. The blast effects in the high resolution photo indicate that not only was there a strong compression wave, but there was also a very strong subsequent decompression wave, with homes not badly damaged having their windows sucked out and not blown in, even while facing the direction of the blast. This effect is also visible on several garage doors.

Injuries from the scene exactly match those of battlefield blast wave injuries, which include lung damage, pulmonary damage, ear damage and psychosis/disorientation. This was NOT a gas explosion, meth lab explosion or anything else, it was a detonation of high grade explosives.
Since I do not have a better explanation I am going to tentatively state that the black helicopter and missile plume story could be possible, we all knew this was coming. But I have absolutely no confirmation of this or any other evidence other than blast effects. It appears that it was a smart guided bomb or missile with an ability to detonate after impact, (there are many bombs now that can be set to go off after they have entered a structure to a pre set depth.) This is what we are looking at, they did not want a crater forming ground burst but it appears to have stripped away the foundation. It sure would be nice to get a few REAL photos out of there.

I have also heard now from many writers that Fema and the DHS were on scene within three minutes. If true, this would be proof positive that it was a government hit, and as you know, Obama wrote himself some nice little tyrant powers that allow him to kill anyone he wants. I am not going to take the time to link it, if you don’t already know this, you need to study your way to it. Welcome to the U.S.S.A, and in fact, it has been at least partially this way for a few years now.

I would like to know what the people who owned that house were doing. I would like to know if they had the goods on election fraud. I would like to know if they were in a position to be whistleblowers. I would like to know why on earth they were targeted like this, and I am not going along with a Sorcha explanation. The bottom line is I just don’t have the answers here, the only thing I can affirmitively state is that this was a military hit of some sort.

Huge Explosion In Indianapolis Still A Mystery 18 Hours Later

video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7946724

A huge, deadly explosion overnight left a small Indianapolis neighborhood shaken. CBS 2′s Derrick Blakley reports.

Homes were engulfed in flames, as neighbors ran for their lives, and tried to help others. This happened just after 11 p.m. last night in the Richmond Hill neighborhood on Indianapolis’ south side.

Two people were killed in the blast.

One neighbor described the scene saying, “It’s like a war zone. I got up, ran outside, looked around. There was insulation falling down like snow”.

“It was deafening. It was deafening inside our house. And I looked out the window and saw pieces of roof falling out of the sky. An explosion happened. It came two feet off the bed,” another neighbor said.

100 firefighters responded and it took two hours to get the fire under control. Officials found two homes totally destroyed with further damage to dozens more.

And once the smoke cleared, it was evident just how much widespread damage had been done.

The cause of the explosion is still a mystery, 18 hours later. Authorities said they don’t have an idea of what caused it, but are not ruling anything out.

City officials estimated damage at $3.5 million. A local gas utility said an initial inspection found no gas leaks in the area.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/11/huge-explosion-in-indianapolis-still-a-mystery-18-hours-later/

Are These the End Times?

[Editorial note: Doug French is co-author of this piece today]

Why all the long faces?

The election results seem to have sent many people into fits of depression, hysteria, and rage. Commentators on the right are proclaiming that the last days are here. The hordes of welfare dependents are taking over. The wealthy will be looted. Business will be destroyed. Demographics and demagoguery have at last come together to create the perfect storm for America. Socialism has at last arrived.

Well, let’s all just settle down a bit.

What was the alternative to Obama? The truth is that Romney inspired a very low level of passion among voters. No one knew for sure what he stood for. Not even his tax message was clear. He seemed to call for lower rates, but also promised to “broaden the base,” which sounds like raising taxes through the back door. His foreign policy program of protectionism against China and war with Iran actually made Obama’s stealthy warmongering seem less dangerous by comparison. All the rest was a muddle.

So in retrospect, there should be no great surprise at the outcome. The betting market called Intrade.com featured election markets that had been correct for the entire political season…

There is no more reason to be morose and maudlin about the next four years than the last four years. The last four years featured some of the worst government policy since the 1930s, most of it coming from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. These policies have broken the banking system, entrenched unemployment, and stagnated middle-class incomes. That would have stayed the same regardless of who was elected.

Yet despite these policies, the market forged ahead. These last four years have seen some of the biggest advances in technology in history, including the app economy, the radical democratization of all media, and 3-D printing.

The world is connected by market networks as never before. Food is more prevalent. Housing is cheaper. The much-feared hyperinflation never arrived. Having long experience with dealing with stupid government policies, entrepreneurs and capitalists still somehow managed to keep the engines of progress rolling forward. The markets have shown themselves to be resilient beyond what most people imagined.

People in democracies tend to exaggerate the influence and effect of particular presidents. They have some power to steer policy, but nowhere near what people imagine. Most of their talk about their “visions” for bringing a new future is puffery and nonsense. The bureaucracies that make and implement the rules by which we are forced to live pay very little attention to the comings and goings of the political class. Most of what they do was not discussed in the election at all. And presidents have very little practical, day-to-day influence over their behavior.

The state that is the menace to society is not somehow recreated every four years. It is 100 years old and lives off its own momentum. It is intrusive, debilitating, invasive, and evil, but it is not sent into upheaval upon elections. Its grip grows tighter, but not mainly because of electoral politics. It runs off its own energy and tends to be impervious to political attempts to shift its direction.

That said, sometimes U.S. presidents end up making some degree of difference. But it is by no means a foregone conclusion that a second Obama term is going to be worse than a Romney term might have been. Again, Romney made some very scary noises about shutting down trade with China, raising taxes through deduction repeals, and starting wars with Iran and who knows what other countries. Based on his rhetoric alone, it’s hard to say that Obama is going to be worse.

More significantly, the biggest, for better and worse, political moves of the last half-century were made by presidents who were expected to do something completely different. No one expected, for example, that Nixon would be the man who would go off the gold standard, put in wage and price controls, and establish the EPA.

At the same time, the best thing he did in office, namely make peace with China and open trade, was the last thing anyone expected from this old-line anti-communist. And that is precisely why he was able to get away with it. It is through confounding expectations that political change happens.

We saw this with Jimmy Carter too. Here was a man everyone thought was dedicated to government control of everything. Yet he worked with Ted Kennedy in the Senate to accomplish the great deregulations of the late 1970s that changed life completely and continue to benefit everyone. He deregulated trucking, airlines, and energy. Those were surprising and amazing moves — accomplished entirely by what we now call the political left. These three moves astonished the world.

Moving forward, Reagan ran as the most libertarian-sounding president in a century, but he proceeded to balloon the budget as never before and even raise the payroll tax in a way that broke all records. On the other hand, the best thing he did in his two terms shocked the world. He sat down with the Soviet leader and agreed to the hope of eliminating all nuclear weapons. It didn’t happen, but the friendship between Reagan and Gorbachev led to an astonishing thaw that encouraged dissidents all over the communist bloc. The world that the Cold War kept alive melted with the advent of the most peculiar and implausible friendship in the history of politics.

No one thought Clinton would reform welfare, but he did it. And no one thought he would work to repeal one of the most crippling legacies of the 1970s: the 55 mph speed limit as set by the federal government. Clinton did this with very little attention given to the event. But it was a huge boon to the private sector.

The same was true of George W. Bush. He ran as a peace candidate and gave us horrible war.

The message here is that you rarely get what you expect from politicians. Sometimes — very rarely, but sometimes — they do the right thing despite every expectation to the contrary. So yes, Obama might be a socialist, but he is also a politician, and surprises can happen. And regardless of what happens, protecting your rights and liberties is ultimately up to you.

There are huge looming issues in the second term of Obama. The Keynesian path has not fixed the economy, exactly as Hayek predicted in A Tiger by the Tail. The spending boom has not stimulated anything, exactly as Henry Hazlitt said it would not, confirming the whole theory behind Economics in One Lesson. The monetary stimulus has been an incredible flop, precisely as Ron Paul said it would be in The Case for Gold. The whole claim that the government would save us has turned out to be an aspect of what Hans-Hermann Hoppe calls The Great Fiction.

This is the end of the road for the planners. The American people are extremely resistant to tax increases. Even on health care, some pullback would not be unexpected: the Obama administration does not want to be the trigger that causes more unemployment stemming from higher costs on small and medium-sized businesses.

The other legislative monster of the president’s first term was the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul, which inspired a constant battle cry for repeal from Republicans during the primary season. But while this regulatory dog may end up biting, for now only a third of the act’s required 398 rules have been finalized. The courts have struck down a few of legislation’s new provisions, and more legal challenges will follow.

The Fed is mostly out of options. The central bank can only keep doing the same old QE thing over and over. But while the Fed makes itself bigger, as Steve Hanke pointed out in an LFB interview, the biggest engine of money creation is the commercial banking system, and the banks are not creating money by lending. Dodd-Frank uncertainty and tough bank examiners are making bankers shy to lend. This has grounded, for the moment anyway, Ben Bernanke’s inflation helicopter.

The fiscal crisis cannot be solved through mere reform, but reform would help. War with anyone would break the bank completely, and the military knows this. No one is even talking about gun control anymore, thank goodness. And there is extreme grass-roots pressure for letting up on the war on drugs.

This isn’t the end of the road for the state, but it is getting close. Politicians are usually liars and thieves, but they are not entirely impractical men and women. They will try the wrong thing a thousand times before they finally relent to the obvious. But eventually, they can relent. If the economy double dips in a serious way, that could prompt a complete rethinking of the path of the last for four years of folly.

The bigger point is that the really big changes happening to the world today are taking place outside politics. Russ Roberts puts it best:

“Remember that politics is not where life happens. Policies affect our lives, but we have much to do outside that world. Yesterday, I helped my youngest son learn Python, learned some Talmud, played with my photographs on Lightroom, had dinner with my wife, and went shopping with my oldest son for his first nice blazer. Lots of satisfactions there. Nothing to do with politics.

“Put Tuesday night behind you for a while. Remember what matters. Take a walk. Read to your kids. Go out for dinner with your spouse. Read more Adam Smith and less of the Drudge Report. And smile at your neighbor. That’s always a good idea. But there’s a bonus — it might help your neighbor imagine that someone who believes in leaving things alone when it comes to the coercive power of government might actually be a decent person after all. And then maybe he’ll be a little more open to those crazy ideas you talked about at that dinner party.”

Especially considering the holidays coming up, a time when the beautiful aspects of private life are on display as never before, he is precisely right.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Tucker

http://lfb.org/today/are-these-the-end-times/

Colorado SWAT Team Will Be Met By 1500 Member Organized Militia?

A highly militarized police force arrived at the home of 63 year old Sahara Donahue to evict her from her residence of 24 years. She was petitioning US Bank for an additional 60 days to remain in her home, so she could have some time to find a new place to live, secure her belongings and leave her home with dignity. She came to the Colorado Foreclosure Resistance Coalition and Occupy Denver General Assembly to ask for our help. She knew no one in Occupy Denver prior to reaching out. We immediately started mobilizing to try to get her the assistance she needed and a group went up to her house for the first rumored eviction on Thursday 10/25. When that eviction didn’t happen, we planned an in-town action at US Bank on Monday for Sahara to try to find someone to speak with about her situation, with carpools up to her house later that day as the eviction was said to be scheduled for Tuesday 10/30. Occupiers laid barricades from fallen trees to prevent moving trucks and workers from entering the property and were able to stave off the eviction for a few hours. At 2:45pm ten or more truckloads of police in full combat gear armed with live-ammo AR-15’s, and grenade launchers arrived on the scene & forced occupiers to the ground at gun point. Police then made their way to the house, broke down the front door, threw Sahara to the ground in her own kitchen and pointed their guns at the heads of a mother and son who were in the house with Sahara along with others. They continued to break items in the house as they searched it.

 

Sahara Donahue (Victim) and Darren O’Connel (Occupy Denver) join Pete to tell the story of what really happened when a militarized swat team from Clear Creek County Sheriffs Department swarmed Miss Donahue’s property in an unlawful, unconstitutional raid to remove her from her home.

Pete places a call to the Clear Creek Count Colorado’s Sheriffs Department and speaks to SRGT Spraley properly schooling him on his oath to defend the constitution. The talk Pete has with this Sheriff is not to be missed or taken lightly. It is a very rare look into the minds of local law enforcement and how far they are willing to go to protect the banks. This officer actually admits in this interview that the laws are screwed up and until the people change them he is obligated to enforce them even though they are unconstitutional.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/11/colorado-swat-team-will-be-met-by-1500-member-organized-militia-2495036.html

San Diego Residents Face 6 Years In Prison For Washing Their Car

San Diegans could face 6 years in prison and fines of $100,000 dollars a day for washing their car in the driveway or failing to pick up dog poop under new EPA-mandated environmental regulations related to water quality.

Although residents of the city are forced to drink toxic waste in their water supply in the form of sodium fluoride, measures imposed as a consequence of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act would turn the most mundane of activities into a criminal offense.

“California’s latest experiment in faith-based policymaking is being unleashed today on the San Diego public, as regional water-quality officials begin hearings on new regulations that seem crafted to turn most owners of a car, house or dog into criminals within a decade or so. We wish we were exaggerating,” reports the North County Times.

“Under the draft rules, ordinary homeowners may face six years in prison and fines of $100,000 a day if they are deemed serial offenders of such new crimes as allowing sprinklers to hit the pavement, washing a car in the driveway, or, conceivably, failing to pick up dog poop promptly from their own backyards, let alone the sidewalk.”

The regulations will be enforced with the aid of a 24-hour telephone snitch line which residents of San Diego, south Orange and southwest Riverside counties can use to report on their neighbors for violating the new code.

The new rules could even force firefighters to collect the water they use to douse burning buildings.

The regulations are being passed under the justification of minimizing the bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that runs into rivers and streams.

The editorial board of the North County Times warns that the rules are “preposterous” and will “sap billions of dollars from the local economy.”

“In hundreds of pages, the new regulations set targets that measure bacteria from animal waste during dry periods at local beaches, even as they note that wide variations in bacteria occur naturally in the environment. And we could find no evidence from these officials that severe cuts in stormwater runoff will cause improvements in human or wildlife health. Indeed, nowhere do they bother to say why today’s levels are considered bad for us,” writes the newspaper.

Ironically, while San Diegans could be turned into criminals for failing to uphold dubious water quality standards, they are simultaneously being forced to consume drinking water contaminated with a known toxic waste – sodium fluoride.

Almost 60 years after it was barred from public pumps and pipes, the city utilities department started fluoridating the water supply in San Diego again last year.

As numerous studies and expert testimony affirm, sodium fluoride is a toxic waste from the phosphate industry and has been linked with innumerable debilitating and in some cases terminal health problems such as disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ.

Environmentalists and EPA regulators don’t appear to be too concerned about a product which has on its packaging a skull and crossbones being artificially added to the water supply, but the runoff from a car wash or a piece of dog poop apparently poses a big enough threat to turn residents into criminals for engaging in activity as mundane as cleaning their vehicle.

Stephanie Gaines, land use and environmental planner for the county’s Department of Public Works, pointed out that ”The regulations stem from the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act and are passed down to the state, regional, and local levels.”

Planning group member Chad Anderson said that the regulations appeared to “Overlap with statements from Agenda 21, the comprehensive global plan for sustainable development that was created at a United Nation’s Earth Summit in 1992. It was signed by more than 178 countries, including the United States, and opponents say it targets private property.”

As we have previously highlighted, the UN’s Agenda 21, which is being implemented across the United States in a number of different guises, demands that member nations adopt “sustainable development” policies that are little more than a disguise for the reintroduction of neo-feudalism and only serve to reduce living standards and quality of life.

The regulations about to be foisted upon San Diegans are merely a taste of the kind of big government tyranny and control freak micromanagement we can expect to see unleashed against Americans under the guise of environmentalism when real environmental issues like toxic waste being added to the water supply are completely ignored.

*********************

http://govtslaves.info/san-diego-residents-face-6-years-in-prison-for-washing-their-car/

Homeowner tasered by police as he fought fire spreading from house next door

  • Dan Jensen woke from a nap to find his neighbors’ house on fire
  • He used a garden hose to protect his own property, but police asked him to stop
  • He was tasered by the cops after when he refused to stop
  • His attorney claims the police used ‘excessive force’ and Jensen is considering legal action

A man was tasered by police after he picked up his garden hose and attempted to stop a fire spreading that was threatening to engulf his home.

Dan Jensen, 42, awoke from a nap last Thursday when he hear his wife, Angela, also 42, scream that the house next door at 3420 Beechwood Terrace N in Tampa Bay was ablaze.

When the father of two went outside, the fire had already engulfed his neighbors’ home and a fence in between the two houses and the flames were starting to lick the corners of the Jensens’ home.

Jensen first emptied a fire extinguisher on to the blaze, before grabbing his garden hose.

Police officers arrived on the scene before firefighters and told Jensen to back off. He did, but quickly grew frustrated waiting for the fire department and so decided to pick up the hose again.

As he did, and without warning, Jensen felt electricity run through his body and he collapsed to the ground.

‘It was wrong,’ he told The Tampa Bay Times. ‘There’s no way around it. … I was fighting a fire. I wasn’t fighting police. I thought they were here to help me. Instead, they hurt me.’

Pinellas Park Police say they had to tase Jensen because he was putting not only himself, but also officers in danger because he refused to back down. They claim it only took six minutes for fire fighters to respond and that they could have charged Jensen with obstruction, but decided against it.

An attorney working for Jensen has described the police’s actions as ‘excessive force.’

Heidi Imhof said the police have no right to taser an unarmed person on private property and that they should have considered other options including turning the water off.

Police policy states that officers must issue a warning before using a Taser, ‘except when such warning could provide a tactical advantage to the subject.’

Jensen says he was never warned and is now considering legal action.

Paramedics rushed Jensen to the hospital after he was incident. He suffered smoke inhalation and has some scarring on his back from where he was tasered.

It took firefighters 20 to 30 minutes to extinguish the blaze, which was started by neighbors leaving a frying pan unattended.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232340/Homeowner-tasered-police-fought-spreading-house-door.html#ixzz2C89QlcCb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Will the Arms Trade Treaty Suppress Second Amendment Rights?

The first round of UN Arms Trade Treaty talks may have fallen apart at the month-long conference held in NYC this past July, but as Ted Bromund over at Heritage noted at the time, “Now that the concept of the ATT has been invented, it cannot be uninvented. There are too many countries and too many left-wing nongovernmental organizations that want a treaty.” He was right and as Katie reported last week, it didn’t take very long to initiate another attempt. One question she raised in her post deserves more attention: “Is the argument from the U.N. that it won’t suppress Second Amendment rights an honest one?” And what about the Obama administration’s argument that they “will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms”?

Given our president’s feelings about our right to bear arms and his track record on gun control, the ATT has become an issue deserving very close attention.  Americans shouldn’t find comfort in assuming that for UN treaties to take effect, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is necessary. In a separate article Bromund notes that this understanding of the way treaties work is far too simplistic. I’d recommend reading that article in its entirety but to summarize:

“So, in the context of the ATT, if this conference produces a treaty that is open for signature, President Obama may sign it immediately. The U.S. will then hold itself to be under a legal obligation not to defeat the ATT’s “object and purpose.” The interpretation of this phrase will rest with the State Department’s lawyers, perhaps in a way directed by subsequent legislation, whose decisions cannot be predicted and are not easily subject to legislative oversight.”

Americans also shouldn’t be quick to believe the UN’s claims that the ATT will not infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. A report by the UN Coordinating Action on Small Arms titled “The Impact of Poorly Regulated Arms Transfers on the Work of the UN,” recognizes, on the one hand, that states have a right to “individual or collective self-defense” and that “the ATT does not aim to impede or interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons.” Yet on the other hand it states that because of the problem of diversion, or the transfer of weapons to the illicit market, “the arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would…minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.”

The Obama administration has also echoed claims that the ATT will not pose a threat to domestic gun owners. A Washington Times editorial sees right through it, however:

“It is hard to take the White House response seriously. The treaty instructs countries to“take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty.” The agreement’s language is so broad, vague and poorly defined it could be stretched in a variety of ways that would pose a threat to the Second Amendment.”

In the end, of course, this treaty will do absolutely nothing to stop violence, terrorism and intra-state conflicts as its backers contend. The logistics alone are impossible and the fact that the Obama administration is agreeing to come together as equals with dictatorial regimes like Iran – a country which, by the way, received a top post at the July conference – is unconscionable.

So should we believe the administration (and the UN) when they assure Americans the ATT will not suppress our Second Amendment rights? And moreover, that they will not sign one that does? The administration’s keen interest in the treaty alone is cause for concern, but even more telling is when the adage ‘actions speak louder than words’ is applied to the Obama administration’s record. From Obamacare to Benghazi – honesty and transparency have not been their strong suits. Finally, the soaring gun sales in Obama’s first term and skyrocketing gun stocks since his reelection may tell you everything you really need to know about whether Americans take the administration at their word.

Watch Video: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2012/11/13/will_the_arms_trade_treaty_suppress_second_amendment_rights

Benghazi Massacre Far Graver Matter Than Watergate

The stunning resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus, days before he was to testify on the CIA role in the Benghazi massacre, raises many more questions than his resignation letter answers.

“I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair,” wrote Petraeus. “Such behavior is unacceptable … as the leader of an organization such as ours.”

The problem: Petraeus’ “unacceptable behavior,” adultery with a married mother of two, Paula Broadwell, that exposed the famous general to blackmail, began soon after he became director in 2011.

Was his security detail at the CIA and were his closest associates oblivious to the fact that the director was a ripe target for blackmail, since any revelation of the affair could destroy his career?

People at the CIA had to know they had a security risk at the top of their agency. Did no one at the CIA do anything?

By early summer, however, Jill Kelley, 37, a close friend of the general from his days as head of CentCom at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., had received half a dozen anonymous, jealous, threatening emails.

“Back off.” “Stay away from my guy!” they said.

Kelley went to an FBI friend who ferreted out Broadwell as the sender and Petraeus as the guy she wanted Kelley to stay away from.

Yet, learning that Broadwell was the source of the emails, that Petraeus was having an affair with her, and that the CIA director was thus a target for blackmail and a security risk should have taken three days for the FBI, not three months.

And when Broadwell was identified as the source of the threats, did the Tampa FBI office decide on its own to rummage through her other emails? And when Petraeus’ secret email address popped up, did the local FBI decide to rummage through his emails, as well?

Was the CIA aware that Petraeus’ private emails were being read by the FBI?

Surely, as soon as Petraeus’ affair became known, FBI Director Robert Mueller would have been told and would have alerted Attorney General Eric Holder, who would have alerted the president.

For a matter of such gravity, this is normal procedure. Yet, The New York Times says the FBI and the Justice Department kept the White House in the dark. Is that believable?

Could it be that Obama and the National Security Council were kept ignorant of a grave security risk and a potentially explosive scandal that the Tampa FBI field office knew all about?

By late October, with the FBI, Justice and the White House all in “hear-no-evil” mode, an FBI “whistle-blower” from Florida contacted the Republican leadership in the House and told them of the dynamite the administration was sitting on.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office called Mueller, and the game was up. But the truth was withheld until after Nov. 6.

On Thursday, closed Senate hearings are being held into unanswered questions about the terrorist attack in which Amb. Chris Stevens, two former Navy SEALs and a U.S. diplomat were killed.

There are four basic questions.

Why were repeated warnings from Benghazi about terrorist activity in the area ignored and more security not provided, despite urgent pleas from Stevens and others at the consulate?

Why was the U.S. military unable to come to the rescue of our people begging for help, when the battle in Benghazi lasted on and off for seven hours?

Who, if anyone, gave an order for forces to “stand down” and not go to the rescue of the consulate compound or the safe house? A week before Petraeus’ resignation, the CIA issued a flat denial that any order to stand down ever came from anyone in the agency.

Fourth, when the CIA knew it was a terrorist attack, why did Jay Carney on Sept. 13, David Petraeus to Congress on Sept. 14, UN Amb. Susan Rice on Sept 16 on five TV shows, and Obama before the UN two weeks after 9/11 all keep pushing what the CIA knew was a false and phony story: That it had all come out of a spontaneous protest of an anti-Islamic video made by some clown in California?

There was no protest. Was the video-protest line a cover story to conceal a horrible lapse of security before the attack and a failure to respond during the attack — resulting in the slaughter?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has sent word she will not be testifying. And she will soon be stepping down. Petraeus is a no-show this week. He is gone. Holder is moving on, and so, too, is Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

President Nixon’s Attorneys General John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst and his top aides Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman were all subpoenaed by the Watergate Committee and made to testify under oath about a bungled bugging at the DNC.

The Benghazi massacre is a far graver matter, and the country deserves answers. The country deserves the truth.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/patrick-j-buchanan/benghazi-massacre-far-graver-matter-watergate

What Now ‘Paulbots’?

So, what now?  The “election” is over. Ron Paul will retire.  If President Obama doesn’t declare himself Dictator Obama, we will get another opportunity to “elect” a President in 4 years. FOUR YEARS?!?!  Seems like a lifetime in one sense, and in another, it zips by in a flash.

Ok, where to begin? Well, let’s get the whole “who’s to blame?” thing out of the way. For months now, we have been hearing “You Paulbots are going to be responsible for Obama’s re-election!”  And more recently, “Thanks for re-electing Obama all of you who voted for Johnson!”

Let’s take a look at this. IF the GOP, the RNC,  and the “mainstream” media had not cheated, lied, and stolen through election fraud, and given Ron Paul a FAIR shot at the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney may very well have been President-Elect this morning.

Yep, you read that right. Even if everything during the Primaries up through the Convention, was played fairly, Romney may still have been the nominee. We still might not have had the numbers necessary to secure the nomination. This is purely “Monday morning quarterbacking” on my part. We MIGHT have had the numbers and taken the nomination, but it was always a long shot. At any rate, there are two things I am certain of, if we were given a level playing field.
#1).
IF Ron Paul would have gotten the nomination, he WOULD HAVE beaten President Obama. (A point I will address later)
#2). IF Romney got the nomination (fairly), the Republican Party would have brought many of the Paul supporters into the fold for the sake of unity in defeating President Obama.

Let’s begin with my second point first. The one thing that everyone from the extreme right wing religious Republicans all the way over to the socially liberal Independents, to include the core base of Libertarians agreed on through all of this, was Obama’s policies were wrong and he needed to be defeated. I don’t believe that was ever in dispute. The dispute rested in who to replace Obama with. And up until the Convention, that person SHOULD have been a negotiable point. But it never was. There was no choice. The GOP, RNC, and the media (along with the powers behind the scenes) took all choice away from ALL of us. 

Romney was SELECTED because it provided a win/win situation for Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, the Statists, and yes, the proponents of a New World Order. They ALL wanted 4 more years with Obama, who in his second term is likely to be more aggressive in implementing policies that are beneficial to all of them. But in the event Obama lost, who better to replace him with than a man who, based on his record, would continue those same policies? Romney was perfect!

But back to my point. If Romney, and the Republican Party would have played fair, and STILL won the nomination, I have no doubt, although disappointed, many Paul supporters would have supported Romney in the common goal of defeating Obama. I’m confident of this because, IF it were a fairly won nomination, Ron Paul would have, at the very least, had a platform to address the Convention. He would have been encouraged to help shape the Romney campaign and agenda. His advice would have been sought out in shaping policy for the future of Conservatism and the Republican Party. And as we all know, where Dr. Paul goes, so goes his supporters. Now you can claim this is pure speculation and opinion on my part, and it is. I don’t deny that. But it is pretty logical, as far as speculation goes. So, I’m sticking with it…IF this had been played out in a fair and honest manner, and Romney still secured the nomination, he would have garnered upwards of MILLIONS of additional supporters.

Ok, now on to my first point. IF everything had been done fair and square and Ron Paul would have secured the nomination, he would without doubt be taking the Oath of Office in January. How can I say this obvious opinion with such force and conviction?  How can I present my opinion so matter of factly?

Well, for starters, there is an overwhelming majority of Americans, who KNOW that the policies, both domestic AND abroad of the Obama administration are just not cutting it. This President has added TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, to an already out of control debt he claims to have inherited. He has broken nearly every campaign promise he made to get the job the first time. He has not only continued the war effort of the last President, but has expanded it, and will continue to do so. And speaking of the last administration, President Obama has continued to eliminate personal liberties of Americans through the extension of the Patriot Act, and implementing NDAA.  He has increased spending and manpower, and expanded the jurisdiction of the TSA.  He has exhibited a disdain for the process of our system by circumventing Congress through the use of Executive Orders. He has a Justice Department, under the head of Eric Holder, who at the very least is incompetent, but more realistically, criminal. And on and on and on. So, there are even die hard Liberals and Democrats who recognize this Administration’s policies are simply continuations of the Bush Administration’s policies. And they aren’t exactly thrilled about it.

Did any of you watch the “debates” between President Obama and Governor Romney? Yeah, me neither. After the halfway point of the first one, it was apparent, there was no “debate”. With all of their double talk, blame game, fool hearty attempts to prove how different they are, nobody bought it. The only ones who grudgingly, painfully, subjected themselves to the “show” were the pundits, bloggers, and sadists. It is abundantly clear, those “debates” were merely entertainment. Now, a President Obama vs. Congressman Paul series of debates would have been EPIC!

The President might have actually been put in a position to defend his FAILed policies:

Senator Obama campaigning in 2007….Gonna end the wars!
Congressman Paul 2012 debate….WHEN?

Senator Obama campaigning in 2007….Gonna put Americans back to work!
Congressman Paul 2012 debate…
WHEN?

Senator Obama campaigning in 2007….Gonna turn this economy around!
Congressman Paul 2012 debate…WHEN?

And these are just the easy ones. But specifically, imagine President Obama, while feebly attempting to defend his policies, trying to make valid arguments against Dr. Paul’s proposed policies!

For example, these wars. I think it’s safe to say America is “warred out“. How can President Obama defend his policies on war expansion AND argue against Dr. Paul’s policy of “Just march them home!”? Yes, I have simplified that, but how difficult must it be to make it true? Not one of these wars we are involved in does ANYTHING to make America safer. Even if you believe that there are bad guys who want to kill us, there is no valid justification for these UNDECLARED wars, and immoral occupations. These actions create enemies. So yes, “Just march them home!” while simplistic, seems to work just fine in my mind. But of course, President Obama would no doubt have come back with It’s complicated, and your proposal will leave us weak as a nation. Actually, it wouldn’t. Because Congressman Paul’s proposal of “Just march the home” includes DOUBLING the size of the U.S. Navy AND the U.S. Coast Guard.  Hey, aren’t those the guys and gals that protect OUR borders from a DEFENSIVE standpoint? I think I read that somewhere.

Need another example? How about the Patriot Act?, corporate bailouts?, printing/borrowing/spending?, NDAA?, ObamaCare?, No Child Left Behind?, the Dream Act? My intention here is not to rehash each of their positions on every issue, but to demonstrate that they actually DO differ…on just about every issue imaginable. There is a clear and distinct difference in their policy positions. We would have had a choice. We would have witnessed real debates. We would have seen a true fiscal Conservative, not merely saying Obama’s monetary policies are wrong, but explaining why they are wrong, AND presenting a realistic, workable, alternative. Did you hear Governor/Candidate Romney present such a plan? I sure didn’t. I heard an awful lot of You’re wrong, and I have a plan, but I heard nor saw this plan.

Back to the wars. I heard Governor Romney say a lot of the You did it wrong, and I would have done it differently, but it is clear…he had no intention of scaling back when it comes to war. In fact, that is one area he might have escalated faster than President Obama.

How about those bailouts, NDAA, TSA, and other issues that at best were gleaned over during the debates? Again, I heard nothing to suggest a Romney Presidency would have changed any of that. ObamaCare? Please….he created that monstrosity! No matter how many times he said I will repeal ObamaCare, he could never not follow that up with and replace it. Replace it how? I have always maintained he would replace the name of ObamaCare with its ORIGINAL moniker, RomneyCare.

So, IF the circus we witnessed over the last several months would have been conducted fairly, and IF Dr. Paul would have secured the Republican nomination, I am confident he would have been named President-Elect this morning. All, but the far left Liberals, and the die-hard Statists (NWO) are less than satisfied with one or more of President Obama’s policy implementations thus far, and MOST Americans are less than enthusiastic in him performing any better next term. Take the Democrats who are opposed to the wars. Given a choice of sticking with the current President, who is showing no signs of ending the wars, and a candidate who has said “March them home!”, a great number of those people (who voted for Obama last time for that very reason) are going to chance it with the guy who says he will end the wars.

But given the choice we were given, they chose to stick with the devil they know. The same is true for Independents, who are not necessarily Libertarians, who oppose corporate bailouts and Quantitative Easing. Given this choice we were given, they opted for 4 more years of one tax/print/spend guy, rather than risk 8 years of another borrow/print/spend guy. Had they been offered the choice of tax/borrow/print/spend OR cutting ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in the first year, with an actual plan proving it can be done, they would have chosen the latter.

We said the Republicans could not defeat Obama without us, and that has now been proven to be true. So, we have 4 more years of Obama. Well, put the blame where it belongs. It does NOT lie with the Paulbots, or the Johnsonites, or the Steinians, or with ANY other American who stood proud in their convictions by casting their vote. The blame lies entirely with the people who gave you NO CHOICE.

Believe it or not, there is actually an upside to Obama winning. While it is true, there is no appreciable difference between Obama and Romney, had Romney won, he would get the blame for the inevitable financial meltdown we are approaching. But more importantly than him getting the blame, capitalism and free markets would get the blame. No, Romney is not a true free market capitalist, but the media will mislabel his policies as such. 

I could go on showing that if Americans had a real choice, the outcome would have been much different, but I’d like to move on to the original intent of this article. What are we Paulbots (and other 3rd Party Independents) to do now? First and foremost, we continue to spread the message. It has ALWAYS been more than the man (Ron Paul).  It has, and should remain about the message. The message of individual liberty and personal responsibility. The message of free trade with nations while remaining secure in our defense. The message of retaining the fruits of YOUR labor and investing those fruits to suit YOUR needs.

Some of you have chosen Governor Johnson as your new Liberty Leader. Some of you have latched onto Rand Paul. Some have migrated towards other Parties, such as the Green and Constitution Parties. I admit, I was saddened and disappointed that so many of you chose that route BEFORE the Convention. However, at this point in the game, I am elated at the prospect of promoting ALL 3rd Party/Independent platforms. It is long overdue! Even after all I pointed out in this article of how America is disenfranchised,disappointed, and disgusted by the lack of choice this two-Party system gives them, a lot still see no alternatives. We certainly cannot depend on the media to enlighten them. It is up to us. Become the media.

Next, for those of you who have not had State elections for the Senate, House, and Governorships, get cracking! Start looking into the folks running for those seats. Investigate and vet them all out.  Dr. Paul formally endorsed 11 candidates for the House this cycle and yesterday EIGHT of those 11 won! And that, my friends is how we continue the R3VOLUTION! that IS the message! We get people in the House, Senate, and Governors mansions from all over this country who will continue Ron Paul’s legacy.

1). Justin Amash. Michigan 3rd District.
2.)
Thomas Massie. Kentucky 4th District.
3.)
Kerry Bentivolio. Michigan 11th District.
4.) Steve Stockman. Texas 36th District.
5.)
Randy Weber. Texas 14th District. To replace Congressman Paul. He’s got some big shoes to fill!
6.)
Ted Yoho. Florida 3rd District.
7.)
David Schweikert. Arizona 6th District.
8.) Walter Jones. North Carolina 3rd District.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/13555-the-ron-paul-revolution-moves-to-congress

I personally have high hopes for Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and Walter Jones. While these wins are indeed impressive, we have a lot more work to do. We need many more Rand Paul’s and Mike Lee’s in the Senate. Early predictions for the 2014 cycle lean toward a possible Republican takeover.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_93/Senate_2014_Field_Looks_to_Favor_GOP-212263-1.html

We need to make sure they are Constitutional Republicans, or Libertarian. We’ve lost the Executive Branch for at least the next 4 years, the Judicial Branch offers little to no hope, so we must retake the Legislative Branch.

When researching these potential candidates, be sure they oppose such atrocities as Patriot Act, NDAA, bailouts, socialized health care, etc. But also be sure they favor things like nullificaction and State’s rights.

Six States were successful yesterday in approving initiatives that nullify unconstitutional federal laws! This is paramount to our success in restoring the Constitutional authority granted to the States through the Constitution.

1).  Montana,Referendum 122
2).  Colorado, Amendment 64
3).  Alabama, Amendment 6
4).  Washington State, Initiative 502
5).  Wyoming, Amendment A
6).  Massachusetts, Question 3

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/11/07/nullification-victories/

Another thing we should concentrate on, is electing honest local Sheriffs. They are our last best defense against a tyrannical government. Take a good look at how your local police department personnel are dressed, armed. Check out their vehicles. Read the current Police Beat section of your local newspapers. You may be quite surprised at the overkill tactics used by the ones who are hired to Protect and Serve you. While the staff of the Sheriff, including the deputies are hired personnel, they answer solely to the Sheriff who is normally elected by you and I. Look into your local Sheriff’s Department and see how you can get the right people to defend you against the State. I don’t want to come off as an alarmist in this particular post, but be prepared people.

A dichotomy frequently exists today between a sheriff’s jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of a local police department. A metropolitan area may encompass an entire county or more; police departments and sheriffs will often maintain concurrent jurisdiction in the overlapping area. A sheriff may assume that a local police department will do its duty in enforcing the law, but the primary obligation rests with the sheriff and requires him to act when evidence of neglect of that duty exists.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sheriff

The Importance of One Vote…A Closer Look

Commentary provided by:Josey Wales.

With election day right around the corner, I am still torn between what decision to make. Vote Third Party or stay home? Well, I think I have made it clear what my personal choice will be. I have not swayed at all. Still going to write-in Congressman Ron Paul as well as file the affidavit with Write In Revolution! and I HIGHLY recommend everyone who is writing in OR voting Third Party do the same.

But back to the initial concern that got me to put together this document. I am hearing a lot of people choosing to just opt out completely. They know their vote is meaningless, so their only recourse to further playing their game is to just stay home. I completely understand, but disagree.  I think we all have to show our force at the polls, and show our disdain by voting, but NOT for the establishment.

Anyway, I have run across the following piece on Facebook lately, and wanted to share it with you. I had to do quite a bit of digging to find out  WHO was originally responsible for this piece, but I think I’ve found it. But once I found it, I started researching the validity of the points used to demonstrate the The Importance of One Vote. It turns out, some of these points used are false, if you believe Snopes.com to be reliable. At any rate, I have linked to sources for each of the bullet points used in the article, and as always provided the link to the original article. While some of the examples might not be true, I still found this to be interesting, and I hope you do as well.

THE IMPORTANCE OF ONE VOTE
By Mary W. Morgan, Supervisor of Elections, Collier County, Florida

The most often heard excuse for not voting in an election is “my one little vote won’t make a difference.” Yet history is full of instances proving the enormous power of one single vote. In many cases, the course of nations has been changed because one individual ballot was cast, or not cast, depending upon your point of view. Consider this:

  • In 1645, one vote gave Oliver Cromwell control of England.
    According to snopes.com, this claim is FALSE.
  • In 1649, one vote literally cost King Charles I of England his head. The vote to behead him was 67 against and 68 for—the ax fell thanks to one vote.
    According to snopes.com, this claim is FALSE.
  • In 1714, one vote placed King George I on the throne of England and restored the monarchy.
    I’m not so sure this is accurate either, at least in the case of one vote. I found this site that describes how George I ascended to the throne. It was through  The Act of Settlement, which does not look to me like a vote.
  • In 1776, one vote gave America the English language instead of German (at least according to folk lore.)
    According to snopes.com, this claim is FALSE.
  • In 1800, the Electoral College met in the respective states to cast their two votes for President. At that time, the U.S. Constitution provided the candidate receiving the most electoral votes would become President and the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes would become Vice President. When the results of the Electoral College votes were opened by both houses of Congress, there was a tie vote for President between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. That threw the election of President into the House of Representatives where Thomas Jefferson was elected our third president by a one-vote margin.
    Ok, again, I am not convinced that this was decided by one vote. It is clear that one man, Alexander Hamilton was highly influential in the eventual tie-breaker, but I have not found that his, or anyone’s one vote did it.
    A couple of interesting articles :
    Election of 1800 Was Significant and Controversial
    1800 Presidential Election
  • In 1824, none of the four Presidential candidates received an electoral majority. The election was again thrown into the House of Representatives, where John Quincy Adams defeated front runner Andrew Jackson by one vote to become the nation’s 6th president. Andrew Jackson received the majority of the nation’s popular vote.
    Here, it seems it did come down to one vote. It seems, Andrew Jackson had the most votes in the Electoral College, but not a necessary majority. So once again it came down to House of Representatives vote.  Henry Clay was not only a Presidential Candidate in this race, but was also Speaker of the House. Clay could not fathom the thought of a Jackson Presidency, so he cast his support behind John Quincy Adams. In return Adams named Clay as his secretary of state, a position that had been the stepping-stone to the presidency for the previous four executives. Can you say “corruption”?
    The 1824 Election and the “Corrupt Bargain”
    1824 Presidential Election
  • In 1844 in the backwoods area of Switzerland County, Indiana on election day, a farmer named Freeman Clark lay seriously ill in bed. He begged his sons to carry him to the county seat so he could vote for David Kelso to become a state senator. David Kelso had defended old Freeman Clark on a murder charge and obtained his acquittal. The old farmer Freeman Clark got to vote for Kelso but Clark died on his way back home. Kelso won the election by one vote. Both Freeman Clark and David Kelso were long-time Andrew Jackson supporters.
    I can’t find ANYTHING to substantiate this claim. Sure makes for a nice story though.You can choose to use this site In Indiana One Vote Counts  as a credible source if you want.
  • In 1844 when the new Indiana senate convened, Democrats had a majority of one, counting David Kelso. At that time, state senates had the task of electing the states’ United States Senator. The Indiana Senate Democrats held a caucus where it developed a majority of the party delegation favored a man who would vote against the annexation of Texas if elected to the U.S. Senate. David Kelso refused to vote for the Democratic Party choice, and a deadlock resulted between the Democratic and Whig candidates. This continued for days. Finally, Kelso made his move. He proposed a new candidate: Edward A. Hannigan. In his party caucus, Kelso notified his Democratic associates he would bolt and vote with the Whigs—thus electing a Whig to the Senate—unless the Democrats supported Hannigan. The Democrats felt constrained to accept Hannigan who was then elected as Indiana’s U.S. Senator by one vote—that of David Kelso.
    Same as above. In Indiana One Vote Counts. But, this claim directly relates to the next claim which according to snopes.com, is FALSE.
  • In 1845, Texas was admitted to the union as a state by one vote—that of Edward A. Hannigan from Indiana. The 1844 and 1845 excerpts on the series of single votes leading to Texas statehood are from the book Magnificent Destiny.
    According to snopes.com, this claim is FALSE.
  • In 1846, a one-vote margin in the U.S. Senate approved President Polk’s request for a Declaration of War against Mexico.
    Not according to what I have found. All I can find that is Senate specific is other blogs and opinions restating the claim. However, the legitimate sources I have discovered ALL say that Congress overwhelmingly voted in favor and indeed Declared War against Mexico. So was there a one vote difference in the Senate? Maybe. But did that one vote make a significant difference? Not that I can see.
    Mexican-American War
    Mexican War
    A Guide to the Mexican War
  • In 1850, California was admitted to the union by a margin of one vote.
    Not finding anything proving this to be fact. I have found lots of information surrounding the controversy in admitting California, which had to do with the slavery issue at the time. This seems to be another instance where one man, Henry Clay, introduced a Bill that was instrumental in the outcome of the vote, but nothing to suggest that it was one vote.
    California Admission Day
    Compromise of 1850
    The Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act
  • In 1859, Oregon was admitted to the union by a margin of one vote.
    Looks like another instance of controversy surrounding slavery, but I can’t find anything regarding one vote.
    Slavery Clouds Oregon’s Admission to the Union.
  • The Alaska Purchase of 1867 was ratified by just one vote—paving the way for the eventual annexation of America’s largest state in 1958.
    Still having difficulties finding credible sources to back these claims. On this site, Seward`s Folly, the Purchase of Alaska it is claimed the Senate ratified it by one vote, but that is not backed up by a source for that actual vote. I found another site that appears to be an official government memo, where it states that the Senate did ratify the Purchase of Alaska, but mentions NOTHING about one vote. You’d think that would be a big deal, and people would highlight that fact.
    Purchase of Alaska
  • In 1868, one vote in the U.S. Senate saved President Andrew Johnson from impeachment.
    FINALLY! Something that looks to be somewhat true. It’s not so much that one vote was the outcome one way or another. They were just one vote short of the necessary votes to have the two-thirds needed to impeach. Well, maybe we are getting closer to getting one of these claims to be true.
    The Senate Votes on a Presidential Impeachment
  • In 1875, a one-vote margin changed France from a monarchy to a republic.
    According to snopes.com, this claim is FALSE.
  • In 1875, Florida’s U.S. Senators were still elected by the state Legislature. Democrat Charles W. Jones of Pensacola was elected by the U.S. Senate by a majority of one vote.
    Well, I only found one thing on this guy and it is a Wikipediaarticle. And it doesn’t say anything about him winning this Senate Seat by one vote.
  • In 1876, no presidential contender received a majority of electoral votes so the determination of the country’s president was again thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives. By a one-vote margin, Rutherford B. Hayes became the new U.S. president. When Tilden’s party protested the tabulation and demanded a recount, Congress established a 15-member electoral commission to again count the electoral votes and declare the result. By an eight to seven margin—again, one vote—the commission affirmed the count and gave the election and presidency to Hayes.
    Again, there seems to be a misleading of facts here. From The Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives :
    Democrat Samuel Tilden had emerged from the close election leading Republican Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio, just one vote shy of the 185 needed to win.
  • In 1885, two members of the Florida House of Representatives waged a friendly but close contest for Speaker of the House. Robert W. Davis of Green Cove Springs defeated Gen. Ernest Yonge of Pensacola by one vote.
    I cannot find one single piece of evidence to support this claim from a google search. Could it be true? Sure. But it sure seems like a one vote victory would have been big news, and it wouldn’t be too difficult to find a newspaper clipping.
  • In 1889, by a one-vote margin, Washington was admitted to statehood with the union.
  • In 1890, by a one-vote margin, Idaho became a state.
    Not even going to waste any more time looking up claims like the last two.
  • In 1916, if presidential hopeful Charles E. Hughes had received one additional vote in each of California’s precincts, he would have defeated President Woodrow Wilson’s re-election bid.
    From Wikipedia : The electoral vote was one of the closest in American history – with 266 votes needed to win, Wilson took 30 states for 277 electoral votes, while Hughes won 18 states and 254 electoral votes.
    1916 Presidential Election:

    Woodrow Wilson (I) Democratic 277 9,129,606
     Charles E. Hughes Republican 254 8,538,221

    I’m no mathematician,  but it looks like more than one vote.

  • On November 8, 1923, members of the then recently-formed revolutionary political party met to elect a leader in a Munich, Germany beer hall. By a majority of one vote, they chose an ex-soldier named Adolph Hitler to become the NAZI Party leader.
    According to snopes.com, this claim is FALSE.
  • In 1940, the vote taken by the French parliament to maintain its status as a republic failed by a margin of one vote.
    I once again googled this. I found this site, Poet Patriot.com, which makes this claim: “I believe my ‘one vote’ lists, National, by State, and Other to be the most comprehensive listing on the internet.
    So I scrolled down to 1940, and indeed saw this claim about the french Parliament vote with a link:
    1 vote failed a proposal by the French parliament to maintain its status as a republic.
    404: Page not found
    This error is generated when there was no web page with the name you specified at the web site.
  • In 1941, the Selective Service Act (the draft) was saved by a one-vote margin—just weeks before Pearl Harbor was attacked.
    According to snopes.com, this claim is FALSE.
  • In 1948, a Texas convention voted for Lyndon B. Johnson over ex-Governor Coke Stevens in a contested Senatorial election. Lyndon Johnson because U.S. Senator by a one-vote margin.
    Lyndon Johnson’s 1948 Senate Race states that Johnson won by 87 votes.  This article Lyndon Johnson’s victory in the 1948 Texas Senate race: a reappraisal. seems to back that up.
  • In 1948, if Thomas E. Dewey had gotten one vote more per precinct in Ohio and California, the presidential election would have been thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives where Dewey enjoyed more support than his rival—incumbent Harry Truman. As it was, Dewey was expected to win the general election by a landslide, so most Republicans stayed home. Only 51.5 percent of the electorate voted. Truman defeated Dewey.
    Ok, this was a crazy election. Newspapers were prematurely reporting that Dewey defeated Truman. A large percentage of voters did stay home. I think I will just post some links here, and you all can do some further digging if you want to confirm or debunk the one vote thing.
    1948 Presidential General Election Results
    1948 Presidential Election
    Results of the 1948 Election
  • In a 1955 city election in Huron, Ohio, the mayor was elected to office by one vote.
    This is actually becoming comical. All I can find is more blogs and opinion pieces repeating the this original list as proof of the accuracy of the one vote claim.  Again, I have to say, all these important instances coming down to just one vote, seems like it would be newsworthy. I wouldn’t think it would be so difficult to find sources to back the claims.
  • In a 1959 city election, mayors of both Rose Creek and Odin, Minnesota were elected to their respective offices by one vote.
    Not even going to bother looking.
  • In the 1960 presidential election, an additional one vote per precinct in Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, and Texas may have altered the course of America’s modern history by denying John F. Kennedy the presidency and placing Richard Nixon in the White House eight years earlier.
    There is no doubt, this was won of the most controversial, and closest elections in U.S. Presidential history. But I am having a difficult time believing that one vote in each of these States would have changed it all. There are far too many other factors involved, such as accusations of election fraud. So, I have provided some links to the individual State results of the election, and for those of you who have the patience and aptitude, who want to try to figure it out, please do. I look forward to seeing your pie charts and line graphs.
    Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, Texas
    Wikipedia U.S. Presidential Election 1960
    Was Nixon Robbed?
    Chicago Ties Cast Shadow on 1960 Presidential Win
    Did JFK Steal the 1960 Election?
  • In 1962, the governors of Maine, Rhode Island, and North Dakota were all elected by a margin of one vote per precinct.
  • In 1984, a Monroe County, Florida commissioner was elected by one vote.
  • In 1994, the U.S. House of Representatives enacted a law banning specific classes of assault weapons. The vote was initially tied but one member changed his vote to approve the ban.
    From Wikipedia, In 1994, Swett voted for a bill to ban assault weapons that narrowly passed by two votes in the United States House of Representatives.
  • Bills proposing amendment to the U.S. Constitution require a two-thirds vote of each House in order to be approved. When the balanced budget amendment bill came before the U.S. Senate in March, 1995, the measure failed by one vote—Mark Hatfield, Republican from Oregon, was the sole Republican failing to vote with other members of the Republican Party, which was the majority party of the U.S. Senators. When it became apparent the measure would fail, Senate Republican Whip, Bob Dole, changed his vote to enable him to bring the matter back up under parliamentary rules for a vote in the future.
    Considering a Balanced Budget Amendment: Lessons from HistoryRick Santorum says he called for resignation of a high-ranking Republican over no vote on balanced budget amendment

I realize I am not a historian or a professional researcher, but these claims, should be much easier to substantiate. I started this document with the hopes of demonstrating that our one vote can make a difference. But after trying to verify these claims that would have you believe that to be true, I’m not so sure. I think I have proven though, no matter how good information looks, and no matter how in line it is with our preconceived notions, we should never take it at face value. Research the claims made by others. Perhaps Mary W. Morgan, while producing her document did research all of these points. And perhaps, there are verifiable original sources to back these claims. I could not find such sources, and I would have liked very much if Miss Morgan would have provided these sources. But again, I am speculating. Who’s to say in her original, the sources weren’t provided? But in the original article (I doubt this was the first reproduction) I could find that reproduced Miss Morgan’s findings, and ALL subsequent re-postings of her work, no such sources are listed.


http://www.spiritlifemag.com/?p=2482

The Anatomy of the State

commentary submitted by : Mike Mooney

“If, then, the State is not “us,” if it is not “the human family” getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it?

Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.

While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.”

The Anatomy of the State

by Murray N. Rothbard

Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) was the dean of the Austrian School of economics, the founder of libertarianism, and an exemplar of the Old Right. The author of thousands of articles and 25 books, he was also Lew Rockwell’s great teacher and mentor. LewRockwell.com is dedicated to Murray’s memory, and seeks to follow his fearless example.

What the State Is Not

The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the “private sector” and often winning in this competition of resources. With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

We must, therefore, emphasize that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people.[1] But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that “we are all part of one another,” must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market
by : Murray Rothbard

If, then, the State is not “us,” if it is not “the human family” getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.[3] Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.

What the State Is

Man is born naked into the world, and needing to use his mind to learn how to take the resources given him by nature, and to transform them (for example, by investment in “capital”) into shapes and forms and places where the resources can be used for the satisfaction of his wants and the advancement of his standard of living. The only way by which man can do this is by the use of his mind and energy to transform resources (“production”) and to exchange these products for products created by others. Man has found that, through the process of voluntary, mutual exchange, the productivity and hence the living standards of all participants in exchange may increase enormously. The only “natural” course for man to survive and to attain wealth, therefore, is by using his mind and energy to engage in the production-and-exchange process. He does this, first, by finding natural resources, and then by transforming them (by “mixing his labor” with them, as Locke puts it), to make them his individual property, and then by exchanging this property for the similarly obtained property of others. The social path dictated by the requirements of man’s nature, therefore, is the path of “property rights” and the “free market” of gift or exchange of such rights. Through this path, men have learned how to avoid the “jungle” methods of fighting over scarce resources so that A can only acquire them at the expense of B and, instead, to multiply those resources enormously in peaceful and harmonious production and exchange.

Conceived in Liberty
by: Murray Rothbard

The great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one, the above way of production and exchange, he called the “economic means.” The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizure of another’s goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed “the political means” to wealth. It should be clear that the peaceful use of reason and energy in production is the “natural” path for man: the means for his survival and prosperity on this earth. It should be equally clear that the coercive, exploitative means is contrary to natural law; it is parasitic, for instead of adding to production, it subtracts from it. The “political means” siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer’s incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. In the long run, the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source of his own supply. But not only that; even in the short run, the predator is acting contrary to his own true nature as a man.

We are now in a position to answer more fully the question: what is the State? The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the “organization of the political means”; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.[4] For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society.[5] Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute.[6] One method of the birth of a State may be illustrated as follows: in the hills of southern “Ruritania,” a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory, and finally the bandit chieftain proclaims himself “King of the sovereign and independent government of South Ruritania”; and, if he and his men have the force to maintain this rule for a while, lo and behold! a new State has joined the “family of nations,” and the former bandit leaders have been transformed into the lawful nobility of the realm.

How the State Preserves Itself

Once a State has been established, the problem of the ruling group or “caste” is how to maintain their rule.[7] While force is their modus operandi, their basic and long-run problem is ideological. For in order to continue in office, any government (not simply a “democratic” government) must have the support of the majority of its subjects. This support, it must be noted, need not be active enthusiasm; it may well be passive resignation as if to an inevitable law of nature. But support in the sense of acceptance of some sort it must be; else the minority of State rulers would eventually be outweighed by the active resistance of the majority of the public. Since predation must be supported out of the surplus of production, it is necessarily true that the class constituting the State – the full-time bureaucracy (and nobility) – must be a rather small minority in the land, although it may, of course, purchase allies among important groups in the population. Therefore, the chief task of the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance of the majority of the citizens.[8] [9]

What Has Government Done to Our Money?
by: Murray Rothbard

Of course, one method of securing support is through the creation of vested economic interests. Therefore, the King alone cannot rule; he must have a sizable group of followers who enjoy the prerequisites of rule, for example, the members of the State apparatus, such as the full-time bureaucracy or the established nobility.[10] But this still secures only a minority of eager supporters, and even the essential purchasing of support by subsidies and other grants of privilege still does not obtain the consent of the majority. For this essential acceptance, the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives. Promoting this ideology among the people is the vital social task of the “intellectuals.” For the masses of men do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body of intellectuals. The intellectuals are, therefore, the “opinion-molders” in society. And since it is precisely a molding of opinion that the State most desperately needs, the basis for age-old alliance between the State and the intellectuals becomes clear.

It is evident that the State needs the intellectuals; it is not so evident why intellectuals need the State. Put simply, we may state that the intellectual’s livelihood in the free market is never too secure; for the intellectual must depend on the values and choices of the masses of his fellow men, and it is precisely characteristic of the masses that they are generally uninterested in intellectual matters. The State, on the other hand, is willing to offer the intellectuals a secure and permanent berth in the State apparatus; and thus a secure income and the panoply of prestige. For the intellectuals will be handsomely rewarded for the important function they perform for the State rulers, of which group they now become a part.[11]

The alliance between the State and the intellectuals was symbolized in the eager desire of professors at the University of Berlin in the nineteenth century to form the “intellectual bodyguard of the House of Hohenzollern.” In the present day, let us note the revealing comment of an eminent Marxist scholar concerning Professor Wittfogel’s critical study of ancient Oriental despotism: “The civilization which Professor Wittfogel is so bitterly attacking was one which could make poets and scholars into officials.”[12] Of innumerable examples, we may cite the recent development of the “science” of strategy, in the service of the government’s main violence-wielding arm, the military.[13] A venerable institution, furthermore, is the official or “court” historian, dedicated to purveying the rulers’ views of their own and their predecessors’ actions.[14]

Many and varied have been the arguments by which the State and its intellectuals have induced their subjects to support their rule. Basically, the strands of argument may be summed up as follows: (a) the State rulers are great and wise men (they “rule by divine right,” they are the “aristocracy” of men, they are the “scientific experts”), much greater and wiser than the good but rather simple subjects, and (b) rule by the extent government is inevitable, absolutely necessary, and far better, than the indescribable evils that would ensue upon its downfall. The union of Church and State was one of the oldest and most successful of these ideological devices. The ruler was either anointed by God or, in the case of the absolute rule of many Oriental despotisms, was himself God; hence, any resistance to his rule would be blasphemy. The States’ priestcraft performed the basic intellectual function of obtaining popular support and even worship for the rulers.[15]

Another successful device was to instill fear of any alternative systems of rule or nonrule. The present rulers, it was maintained, supply to the citizens an essential service for which they should be most grateful: protection against sporadic criminals and marauders. For the State, to preserve its own monopoly of predation, did indeed see to it that private and unsystematic crime was kept to a minimum; the State has always been jealous of its own preserve. Especially has the State been successful in recent centuries in instilling fear of other State rulers. Since the land area of the globe has been parceled out among particular States, one of the basic doctrines of the State was to identify itself with the territory it governed. Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State’s advantage. If “Ruritania” was being attacked by “Walldavia,” the first task of the State and its intellectuals was to convince the people of Ruritania that the attack was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste. In this way, a war between rulers was converted into a war between peoples, with each people coming to the defense of its rulers in the erroneous belief that the rulers were defending them. This device of “nationalism” has only been successful, in Western civilization, in recent centuries; it was not too long ago that the mass of subjects regarded wars as irrelevant battles between various sets of nobles.

Many and subtle are the ideological weapons that the State has wielded through the centuries. One excellent weapon has been tradition. The longer that the rule of a State has been able to preserve itself, the more powerful this weapon; for then, the X Dynasty or the Y State has the seeming weight of centuries of tradition behind it.[16] Worship of one’s ancestors, then, becomes a none too subtle means of worship of one’s ancient rulers. The greatest danger to the State is independent intellectual criticism; there is no better way to stifle that criticism than to attack any isolated voice, any raiser of new doubts, as a profane violator of the wisdom of his ancestors. Another potent ideological force is to deprecate the individual and exalt the collectivity of society. For since any given rule implies majority acceptance, any ideological danger to that rule can only start from one or a few independently-thinking individuals. The new idea, much less the new critical idea, must needs begin as a small minority opinion; therefore, the State must nip the view in the bud by ridiculing any view that defies the opinions of the mass. “Listen only to your brothers” or “adjust to society” thus become ideological weapons for crushing individual dissent.[17] By such measures, the masses will never learn of the nonexistence of their Emperor’s clothes.[18] It is also important for the State to make its rule seem inevitable; even if its reign is disliked, it will then be met with passive resignation, as witness the familiar coupling of “death and taxes.” One method is to induce historiographical determinism, as opposed to individual freedom of will. If the X Dynasty rules us, this is because the Inexorable Laws of History (or the Divine Will, or the Absolute, or the Material Productive Forces) have so decreed and nothing any puny individuals may do can change this inevitable decree. It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any “conspiracy theory of history”; for a search for “conspiracies” means a search for motives and an attribution of responsibility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyranny imposed by the State, or venality, or aggressive war, was caused not by the State rulers but by mysterious and arcane “social forces,” or by the imperfect state of the world or, if in some way, everyone was responsible (“We Are All Murderers,” proclaims one slogan), then there is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, an attack on “conspiracy theories” means that the subjects will become more gullible in believing the “general welfare” reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions. A “conspiracy theory” can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the State’s ideological propaganda.

Another tried and true method for bending subjects to the State’s will is inducing guilt. Any increase in private well-being can be attacked as “unconscionable greed,” “materialism,” or “excessive affluence,” profit-making can be attacked as “exploitation” and “usury,” mutually beneficial exchanges denounced as “selfishness,” and somehow with the conclusion always being drawn that more resources should be siphoned from the private to the “public sector.” The induced guilt makes the public more ready to do just that. For while individual persons tend to indulge in “selfish greed,” the failure of the State’s rulers to engage in exchanges is supposed to signify their devotion to higher and nobler causes – parasitic predation being apparently morally and esthetically lofty as compared to peaceful and productive work.

In the present more secular age, the divine right of the State has been supplemented by the invocation of a new god, Science. State rule is now proclaimed as being ultrascientific, as constituting planning by experts. But while “reason” is invoked more than in previous centuries, this is not the true reason of the individual and his exercise of free will; it is still collectivist and determinist, still implying holistic aggregates and coercive manipulation of passive subjects by their rulers.

The increasing use of scientific jargon has permitted the State’s intellectuals to weave obscurantist apologia for State rule that would have only met with derision by the populace of a simpler age. A robber who justified his theft by saying that he really helped his victims, by his spending giving a boost to retail trade, would find few converts; but when this theory is clothed in Keynesian equations and impressive references to the “multiplier effect,” it unfortunately carries more conviction. And so the assault on common sense proceeds, each age performing the task in its own ways.

Thus, ideological support being vital to the State, it must unceasingly try to impress the public with its “legitimacy,” to distinguish its activities from those of mere brigands. The unremitting determination of its assaults on common sense is no accident, for as Mencken vividly maintained: The average man, whatever his errors otherwise, at least sees clearly that government is something lying outside him and outside the generality of his fellow men – that it is a separate, independent, and hostile power, only partly under his control, and capable of doing him great harm. Is it a fact of no significance that robbing the government is everywhere regarded as a crime of less magnitude than robbing an individual, or even a corporation? . . . What lies behind all this, I believe, is a deep sense of the fundamental antagonism between the government and the people it governs. It is apprehended, not as a committee of citizens chosen to carry on the communal business of the whole population, but as a separate and autonomous corporation, mainly devoted to exploiting the population for the benefit of its own members. . . . When a private citizen is robbed, a worthy man is deprived of the fruits of his industry and thrift; when the government is robbed, the worst that happens is that certain rogues and loafers have less money to play with than they had before. The notion that they have earned that money is never entertained; to most sensible men it would seem ludicrous.[19]

How the State Transcends Its Limits

The Case Against the Fed
by: Murray Rothbard

As Bertrand de Jouvenel has sagely pointed out, through the centuries men have formed concepts designed to check and limit the exercise of State rule; and, one after another, the State, using its intellectual allies, has been able to transform these concepts into intellectual rubber stamps of legitimacy and virtue to attach to its decrees and actions. Originally, in Western Europe, the concept of divine sovereignty held that the kings may rule only according to divine law; the kings turned the concept into a rubber stamp of divine approval for any of the kings’ actions. The concept of parliamentary democracy began as a popular check upon absolute monarchical rule; it ended with parliament being the essential part of the State and its every act totally sovereign. As de Jouvenel concludes:

Many writers on theories of sovereignty have worked out one . . . of these restrictive devices. But in the end every single such theory has, sooner or later, lost its original purpose, and come to act merely as a springboard to Power, by providing it with the powerful aid of an invisible sovereign with whom it could in time successfully identify itself.[20]

Similarly with more specific doctrines: the “natural rights” of the individual enshrined in John Locke and the Bill of Rights, became a statist “right to a job”; utilitarianism turned from arguments for liberty to arguments against resisting the State’s invasions of liberty, etc.

Certainly the most ambitious attempt to impose limits on the State has been the Bill of Rights and other restrictive parts of the American Constitution, in which written limits on government became the fundamental law to be interpreted by a judiciary supposedly independent of the other branches of government. All Americans are familiar with the process by which the construction of limits in the Constitution has been inexorably broadened over the last century. But few have been as keen as Professor Charles Black to see that the State has, in the process, largely transformed judicial review itself from a limiting device to yet another instrument for furnishing ideological legitimacy to the government’s actions. For if a judicial decree of “unconstitutional” is a mighty check to government power, an implicit or explicit verdict of “constitutional” is a mighty weapon for fostering public acceptance of ever-greater government power.

Professor Black begins his analysis by pointing out the crucial necessity of “legitimacy” for any government to endure, this legitimation signifying basic majority acceptance of the government and its actions.[21] Acceptance of legitimacy becomes a particular problem in a country such as the United States, where “substantive limitations are built into the theory on which the government rests.” What is needed, adds Black, is a means by which the government can assure the public that its increasing powers are, indeed, “constitutional.” And this, he concludes, has been the major historic function of judicial review.

Let Black illustrate the problem:

The supreme risk [to the government] is that of disaffection and a feeling of outrage widely disseminated throughout the population, and loss of moral authority by the government as such, however long it may be propped up by force or inertia or the lack of an appealing and immediately available alternative. Almost everybody living under a government of limited powers, must sooner or later be subjected to some governmental action which as a matter of private opinion he regards as outside the power of government or positively forbidden to government. A man is drafted, though he finds nothing in the Constitution about being drafted. . . . A farmer is told how much wheat he can raise; he believes, and he discovers that some respectable lawyers believe with him, that the government has no more right to tell him how much wheat he can grow than it has to tell his daughter whom she can marry. A man goes to the federal penitentiary for saying what he wants to, and he paces his cell reciting . . . “Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.”. . . A businessman is told what he can ask, and must ask, for buttermilk.

The danger is real enough that each of these people (and who is not of their number?) will confront the concept of governmental limitation with the reality (as he sees it) of the flagrant overstepping of actual limits, and draw the obvious conclusion as to the status of his government with respect to legitimacy.[22]

This danger is averted by the State’s propounding the doctrine that one agency must have the ultimate decision on constitutionality and that this agency, in the last analysis, must be part of the federal government.[23] For while the seeming independence of the federal judiciary has played a vital part in making its actions virtual Holy Writ for the bulk of the people, it is also and ever true that the judiciary is part and parcel of the government apparatus and appointed by the executive and legislative branches. Black admits that this means that the State has set itself up as a judge in its own cause, thus violating a basic juridical principle for aiming at just decisions. He brusquely denies the possibility of any alternative.[24]

Black adds:

The problem, then, is to devise such governmental means of deciding as will [hopefully] reduce to a tolerable minimum the intensity of the objection that government is judge in its own cause. Having done this, you can only hope that this objection, though theoretically still tenable [italics mine], will practically lose enough of its force that the legitimating work of the deciding institution can win acceptance.[25]

In the last analysis, Black finds the achievement of justice and legitimacy from the State’s perpetual judging of its own cause as “something of a miracle.”[26]

Applying his thesis to the famous conflict between the Supreme Court and the New Deal, Professor Black keenly chides his fellow pro-New Deal colleagues for their shortsightedness in denouncing judicial obstruction:

[t]he standard version of the story of the New Deal and the Court, though accurate in its way, displaces the emphasis. . . . It concentrates on the difficulties; it almost forgets how the whole thing turned out. The upshot of the matter was [and this is what I like to emphasize] that after some twenty-four months of balking . . . the Supreme Court, without a single change in the law of its composition, or, indeed, in its actual manning, placed the affirmative stamp of legitimacy on the New Deal, and on the whole new conception of government in America.[27]

In this way, the Supreme Court was able to put the quietus on the large body of Americans who had had strong constitutional objections to the New Deal:

Of course, not everyone was satisfied. The Bonnie Prince Charlie of constitutionally commanded laissez-faire still stirs the hearts of a few zealots in the Highlands of choleric unreality. But there is no longer any significant or dangerous public doubt as to the constitutional power of Congress to deal as it does with the national economy. . . .

We had no means, other than the Supreme Court, for imparting legitimacy to the New Deal.[28]

The Mystery of Banking
by: Murray Rothbard

As Black recognizes, one major political theorist who recognized – and largely in advance – the glaring loophole in a constitutional limit on government of placing the ultimate interpreting power in the Supreme Court was John C. Calhoun. Calhoun was not content with the “miracle,” but instead proceeded to a profound analysis of the constitutional problem. In his Disquisition, Calhoun demonstrated the inherent tendency of the State to break through the limits of such a constitution:

A written constitution certainly has many and considerable advantages, but it is a great mistake to suppose that the mere insertion of provisions to restrict and limit the power of the government, without investing those for whose protection they are inserted with the means of enforcing their observance [my italics] will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers. Being the party in possession of the government, they will, from the same constitution of man which makes government necessary to protect society, be in favor of the powers granted by the constitution and opposed to the restrictions intended to limit them. . . . The minor or weaker party, on the contrary, would take the opposite direction and regard them [the restrictions] as essential to their protection against the dominant party. . . . But where there are no means by which they could compel the major party to observe the restrictions, the only resort left them would be a strict construction of the constitution. . . . To this the major party would oppose a liberal construction. . . . It would be construction against construction – the one to contract and the other to enlarge the powers of the government to the utmost. But of what possible avail could the strict construction of the minor party be, against the liberal construction of the major, when the one would have all the power of the government to carry its construction into effect and the other be deprived of all means of enforcing its construction? In a contest so unequal, the result would not be doubtful. The party in favor of the restrictions would be overpowered. . . . The end of the contest would be the subversion of the constitution . . . the restrictions would ultimately be annulled and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.[29]

One of the few political scientists who appreciated Calhoun’s analysis of the Constitution was Professor J. Allen Smith. Smith noted that the Constitution was designed with checks and balances to limit any one governmental power and yet had then developed a Supreme Court with the monopoly of ultimate interpreting power. If the Federal Government was created to check invasions of individual liberty by the separate states, who was to check the Federal power? Smith maintained that implicit in the check-and-balance idea of the Constitution was the concomitant view that no one branch of government may be conceded the ultimate power of interpretation: “It was assumed by the people that the new government could not be permitted to determine the limits of its own authority, since this would make it, and not the Constitution, supreme.”[30]

The solution advanced by Calhoun (and seconded, in this century, by such writers as Smith) was, of course, the famous doctrine of the “concurrent majority.” If any substantial minority interest in the country, specifically a state government, believed that the Federal Government was exceeding its powers and encroaching on that minority, the minority would have the right to veto this exercise of power as unconstitutional. Applied to state governments, this theory implied the right of “nullification” of a Federal law or ruling within a state’s jurisdiction.

In theory, the ensuing constitutional system would assure that the Federal Government check any state invasion of individual rights, while the states would check excessive Federal power over the individual. And yet, while limitations would undoubtedly be more effective than at present, there are many difficulties and problems in the Calhoun solution. If, indeed, a subordinate interest should rightfully have a veto over matters concerning it, then why stop with the states? Why not place veto power in counties, cities, wards? Furthermore, interests are not only sectional, they are also occupational, social, etc. What of bakers or taxi drivers or any other occupation? Should they not be permitted a veto power over their own lives? This brings us to the important point that the nullification theory confines its checks to agencies of government itself. Let us not forget that federal and state governments, and their respective branches, are still states, are still guided by their own state interests rather than by the interests of the private citizens. What is to prevent the Calhoun system from working in reverse, with states tyrannizing over their citizens and only vetoing the federal government when it tries to intervene to stop that state tyranny? Or for states to acquiesce in federal tyranny? What is to prevent federal and state governments from forming mutually profitable alliances for the joint exploitation of the citizenry? And even if the private occupational groupings were to be given some form of “functional” representation in government, what is to prevent them from using the State to gain subsidies and other special privileges for themselves or from imposing compulsory cartels on their own members?

Making Economic Sense
by: Murray Rothbard

In short, Calhoun does not push his pathbreaking theory on concurrence far enough: he does not push it down to the individual himself. If the individual, after all, is the one whose rights are to be protected, then a consistent theory of concurrence would imply veto power by every individual; that is, some form of “unanimity principle.” When Calhoun wrote that it should be “impossible to put or to keep it [the government] in action without the concurrent consent of all,” he was, perhaps unwittingly, implying just such a conclusion.[31] But such speculation begins to take us away from our subject, for down this path lie political systems which could hardly be called “States” at all.[32] For one thing, just as the right of nullification for a state logically implies its right of secession, so a right of individual nullification would imply the right of any individual to “secede” from the State under which he lives.[33]

Thus, the State has invariably shown a striking talent for the expansion of its powers beyond any limits that might be imposed upon it. Since the State necessarily lives by the compulsory confiscation of private capital, and since its expansion necessarily involves ever-greater incursions on private individuals and private enterprise, we must assert that the State is profoundly and inherently anticapitalist. In a sense, our position is the reverse of the Marxist dictum that the State is the “executive committee” of the ruling class in the present day, supposedly the capitalists. Instead, the State – the organization of the political means – constitutes, and is the source of, the “ruling class” (rather, ruling caste), and is in permanent opposition to genuinely private capital. We may, therefore, say with de Jouvenel:

Only those who know nothing of any time but their own, who are completely in the dark as to the manner of Power’s behaving through thousands of years, would regard these proceedings [nationalization, the income tax, etc.] as the fruit of a particular set of doctrines. They are in fact the normal manifestations of Power, and differ not at all in their nature from Henry VIII’s confiscation of the monasteries. The same principle is at work; the hunger for authority, the thirst for resources; and in all of these operations the same characteristics are present, including the rapid elevation of the dividers of the spoils. Whether it is Socialist or whether it is not, Power must always be at war with the capitalist authorities and despoil the capitalists of their accumulated wealth; in doing so it obeys the law of its nature.[34]

What the State Fears

What the State fears above all, of course, is any fundamental threat to its own power and its own existence. The death of a State can come about in two major ways: (a) through conquest by another State, or (b) through revolutionary overthrow by its own subjects – in short, by war or revolution. War and revolution, as the two basic threats, invariably arouse in the State rulers their maximum efforts and maximum propaganda among the people. As stated above, any way must always be used to mobilize the people to come to the State’s defense in the belief that they are defending themselves. The fallacy of the idea becomes evident when conscription is wielded against those who refuse to “defend” themselves and are, therefore, forced into joining the State’s military band: needless to add, no “defense” is permitted them against this act of “their own” State.

In war, State power is pushed to its ultimate, and, under the slogans of “defense” and “emergency,” it can impose a tyranny upon the public such as might be openly resisted in time of peace. War thus provides many benefits to a State, and indeed every modern war has brought to the warring peoples a permanent legacy of increased State burdens upon society. War, moreover, provides to a State tempting opportunities for conquest of land areas over which it may exercise its monopoly of force. Randolph Bourne was certainly correct when he wrote that “war is the health of the State,” but to any particular State a war may spell either health or grave injury.[35]

We may test the hypothesis that the State is largely interested in protecting itself rather than its subjects by asking: which category of crimes does the State pursue and punish most intensely – those against private citizens or those against itself? The gravest crimes in the State’s lexicon are almost invariably not invasions of private person or property, but dangers to its own contentment, for example, treason, desertion of a soldier to the enemy, failure to register for the draft, subversion and subversive conspiracy, assassination of rulers and such economic crimes against the State as counterfeiting its money or evasion of its income tax. Or compare the degree of zeal devoted to pursuing the man who assaults a policeman, with the attention that the State pays to the assault of an ordinary citizen. Yet, curiously, the State’s openly assigned priority to its own defense against the public strikes few people as inconsistent with its presumed raison d’être.[36]

How States Relate to One Another

 

The Origins of the Federal Reserve
by: Murray Rothbard

Since the territorial area of the earth is divided among different States, inter-State relations must occupy much of a State’s time and energy. The natural tendency of a State is to expand its power, and externally such expansion takes place by conquest of a territorial area. Unless a territory is stateless or uninhabited, any such expansion involves an inherent conflict of interest between one set of State rulers and another. Only one set of rulers can obtain a monopoly of coercion over any given territorial area at any one time: complete power over a territory by State X can only be obtained by the expulsion of State Y. War, while risky, will be an ever-present tendency of States, punctuated by periods of peace and by shifting alliances and coalitions between States.

We have seen that the “internal” or “domestic” attempt to limit the State, in the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries, reached its most notable form in constitutionalism. Its “external,” or “foreign affairs,” counterpart was the development of “international law,” especially such forms as the “laws of war” and “neutrals’ rights.”[37] Parts of international law were originally purely private, growing out of the need of merchants and traders everywhere to protect their property and adjudicate disputes. Examples are admiralty law and the law merchant. But even the governmental rules emerged voluntarily and were not imposed by any international super-State. The object of the “laws of war” was to limit inter-State destruction to the State apparatus itself, thereby preserving the innocent “civilian” public from the slaughter and devastation of war. The object of the development of neutrals’ rights was to preserve private civilian international commerce, even with “enemy” countries, from seizure by one of the warring parties. The overriding aim, then, was to limit the extent of any war, and, particularly to limit its destructive impact on the private citizens of the neutral and even the warring countries.

The jurist F.J.P. Veale charmingly describes such “civilized warfare” as it briefly flourished in fifteenth-century Italy:

the rich burghers and merchants of medieval Italy were too busy making money and enjoying life to undertake the hardships and dangers of soldiering themselves. So they adopted the practice of hiring mercenaries to do their fighting for them, and, being thrifty, businesslike folk, they dismissed their mercenaries immediately after their services could be dispensed with. Wars were, therefore, fought by armies hired for each campaign. . . . For the first time, soldiering became a reasonable and comparatively harmless profession. The generals of that period maneuvered against each other, often with consummate skill, but when one had won the advantage, his opponent generally either retreated or surrendered. It was a recognized rule that a town could only be sacked if it offered resistance: immunity could always be purchased by paying a ransom. . . . As one natural consequence, no town ever resisted, it being obvious that a government too weak to defend its citizens had forfeited their allegiance. Civilians had little to fear from the dangers of war which were the concern only of professional soldiers.[38]

The well-nigh absolute separation of the private civilian from the State’s wars in eighteenth-century Europe is highlighted by Nef:

Even postal communications were not successfully restricted for long in wartime. Letters circulated without censorship, with a freedom that astonishes the twentieth-century mind. . . . The subjects of two warring nations talked to each other if they met, and when they could not meet, corresponded, not as enemies but as friends. The modern notion hardly existed that . . . subjects of any enemy country are partly accountable for the belligerent acts of their rulers. Nor had the warring rulers any firm disposition to stop communications with subjects of the enemy. The old inquisitorial practices of espionage in connection with religious worship and belief were disappearing, and no comparable inquisition in connection with political or economic communications was even contemplated. Passports were originally created to provide safe conduct in time of war. During most of the eighteenth century it seldom occurred to Europeans to abandon their travels in a foreign country which their own was fighting.[39]

And trade being increasingly recognized as beneficial to both parties; eighteenth-century warfare also counterbalances a considerable amount of “trading with the enemy.”[40]

How far States have transcended rules of civilized warfare in this century needs no elaboration here. In the modern era of total war, combined with the technology of total destruction, the very idea of keeping war limited to the State apparati seems even more quaint and obsolete than the original Constitution of the United States.

When States are not at war, agreements are often necessary to keep frictions at a minimum. One doctrine that has gained curiously wide acceptance is the alleged “sanctity of treaties.” This concept is treated as the counterpart of the “sanctity of contract.” But a treaty and a genuine contract have nothing in common. A contract transfers, in a precise manner, titles to private property. Since a government does not, in any proper sense, “own” its territorial area, any agreements that it concludes do not confer titles to property. If, for example, Mr. Jones sells or gives his land to Mr. Smith, Jones’s heir cannot legitimately descend upon Smith’s heir and claim the land as rightfully his. The property title has already been transferred. Old Jones’s contract is automatically binding upon young Jones, because the former had already transferred the property; young Jones, therefore, has no property claim. Young Jones can only claim that which he has inherited from old Jones, and old Jones can only bequeath property which he still owns. But if, at a certain date, the government of, say, Ruritania is coerced or even bribed by the government of Waldavia into giving up some of its territory, it is absurd to claim that the governments or inhabitants of the two countries are forever barred from a claim to reunification of Ruritania on the grounds of the sanctity of a treaty. Neither the people nor the land of northwest Ruritania are owned by either of the two governments. As a corollary, one government can certainly not bind, by the dead hand of the past, a later government through treaty. A revolutionary government which overthrew the king of Ruritania could, similarly, hardly be called to account for the king’s actions or debts, for a government is not, as is a child, a true “heir” to its predecessor’s property.

History as a Race Between State Power and Social Power

Just as the two basic and mutually exclusive interrelations between men are peaceful cooperation or coercive exploitation, production or predation, so the history of mankind, particularly its economic history, may be considered as a contest between these two principles. On the one hand, there is creative productivity, peaceful exchange and cooperation; on the other, coercive dictation and predation over those social relations. Albert Jay Nock happily termed these contesting forces: “social power” and “State power.”[41] Social power is man’s power over nature, his cooperative transformation of nature’s resources and insight into nature’s laws, for the benefit of all participating individuals. Social power is the power over nature, the living standards achieved by men in mutual exchange. State power, as we have seen, is the coercive and parasitic seizure of this production – a draining of the fruits of society for the benefit of nonproductive (actually antiproductive) rulers. While social power is over nature, State power is power over man. Through history, man’s productive and creative forces have, time and again, carved out new ways of transforming nature for man’s benefit. These have been the times when social power has spurted ahead of State power, and when the degree of State encroachment over society has considerably lessened. But always, after a greater or smaller time lag, the State has moved into these new areas, to cripple and confiscate social power once more.[42] If the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries were, in many countries of the West, times of accelerating social power, and a corollary increase in freedom, peace, and material welfare, the twentieth century has been primarily an age in which State power has been catching up – with a consequent reversion to slavery, war, and destruction.[43]

In this century, the human race faces, once again, the virulent reign of the State – of the State now armed with the fruits of man’s creative powers, confiscated and perverted to its own aims. The last few centuries were times when men tried to place constitutional and other limits on the State, only to find that such limits, as with all other attempts, have failed. Of all the numerous forms that governments have taken over the centuries, of all the concepts and institutions that have been tried, none has succeeded in keeping the State in check. The problem of the State is evidently as far from solution as ever. Perhaps new paths of inquiry must be explored, if the successful, final solution of the State question is ever to be attained.[44]

Reprinted from Mises.org.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, and academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html

Josey Wales Survey Question

Josey Wales Survey Question

Please take a moment to let Josey know what you’d like to see next.

UPDATE!!! Citizens’ Grand Jury Indicts Obama and Biden

Overnight I was given a lot of other information that in one way or another deals with this issue. There are questions surrounding just how feasible this indictment is as far as legalities in convicting a sitting President and such. I have not been able to read all of this information, and certainly haven’t had time to give my own perspective. What I have done, is provide all of the links I received at the bottom of this post. I would really appreciate it if some of you who have the time and interest, to PLEASE leave some detailed comments and sources. I am thinking, since my time right now is being taken up on another subject I’m working on, that I may just make a finalized posting of this as a USER created blog post and host it on my site. I do hope the information I’ve listed here is enough to get some of you interested enough to do some further digging. Thanks for all your help.

I would be very interested in seeing Judge Andrew Napolitano’s take on this if anyone can find that!

Sometimes in my blog, I take creative license in the way I form my posts and link and unlink parts within. I will ALWAYS inform you, my loyal readers when I have done so, and ALWAYS provide the link for the original story. I have altered the original article somewhat here and you will find the link at the bottom.

Citizens’ Grand Jury Indicts Obama and Biden

OCALA, Fla., Oct. 30, 2012– /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ —

Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, founder and chairman of Freedom Watch, today announced that President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden have been criminally indicted for having willfully released classified national security information concerning the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, U.S. and Israeli war plans concerning Iran and their cyber-attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The release of this information, among other harm to U.S. national security, resulted in the killing of members of Seal Team Six by terrorists and the arrest and imprisonment of American covert agents by Pakistan, such as the doctor who aided the CIA with regard to the bin Laden assassination. U.S.-Israeli war plans with Iran have also been compromised.

A true bill of indictment was issued by a Citizens’ Grand Jury in Ocala, Florida, who reviewed evidence and voted unanimously to indict Obama and Biden at 6:02 pm on October 29, 2012.

The authority for a Citizens’ Grand Jury 

can be found at :  www.citizensgrandjury.com.

The criminal defendants, Obama and Biden, will now be given notice of their indictment, arraigned and then tried for their alleged crimes.

Mr. Klayman, the Citizens’ Prosecutor, issued the following statement: “The Citizens’ Grand Jury, after having deliberated, yesterday issued a true bill of indictment.  It did the work that the government should have done, but does not have the integrity to do; that is hold these public officials accountable under the law. For far too long government prosecutors, who are put in place by politicians, have looked the other way as high public officials like Obama and Biden violate the law to further their political agendas. Now, as a result, the people must therefore exercise the rights given to them by the framers of the Constitution, and themselves take legitimate measures to restore the nation to some semblance of legality. This indictment of Obama and Biden is just the first step in a legal revolution to reclaim the nation from establishment politicians, government officials and judges who have represented only their own political and other interests at the expense of ‘We the People.’ Obama and Biden will now be tried in a court of law and I am confident that they will be convicted of these alleged crimes.”

The original Full Story can be read at :
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/30/4948682/citizens-grand-jury-indicts-obama.html

Citizens Grand Jury video evidence

Citizens’ Grand Jury Manual Grand Jury Qualifications and Selection of Grand Jury

http://www.citizensgrandjury.com/pdf/manual.pdf

A collection of videos from Freedom Watch Inc.

http://www.youtube.com/user/FreedomWatchInc?feature=watch

Editors Note:

I plan on adding information relating to this as it comes to me, and would be most grateful to readers of my blog for contacting me with any news concerning this matter.

This was submitted from a long time friend and frequent contributor to my research, Ali Myownbiz III :

Can It All Be Coincidence?

by Don Fredrick,

Don Fredrick

As I noted in the introduction to my book, The Obama Timeline, a jury at a murder trial will often find the accumulated circumstantial evidence so overwhelming that a guilty verdict is obvious—even though there may be no witness to the crime. “The jurors in the Scott Peterson trial believed the collection of evidence more than they believed Scott Peterson. Among other things, the jury thought that being arrested with $15,000 in cash, recently-dyed hair, a newly-grown goatee, four cell phones, camping equipment, a map to a new girlfriend’s house, a gun, and his brother’s driver’s license certainly did not paint a picture of a grieving husband who had nothing to do with his pregnant wife’s disappearance and murder.”

In the four years I have been gathering information about—and evidence against—Barack Hussein Obama, I have encountered hundreds of coincidences that strike me as amazing. None of those coincidences, by themselves, may mean much. But taken as a whole it is almost impossible to believe they were all the result of chance.

continue reading Full Story at :
http://www.themoralliberal.com/2012/10/03/can-it-all-be-coincidence/
 

Citizen grand jury indicts Obama

Groups in 20 more states reviewing eligibility claims

Published: 03/31/2009 at 8:35 PM by Bob Unruh

http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/93481/

In Conservative Circles, Calls for ‘Citizen Grand Juries’ Grow

By Dan Testa, 12-09-09

Earlier this year, protesters hold signs during a Tax Day Tea Party protest on north Main Street in Kalispell. – File photo by Lido Vizzutti/Flathead Beacon

The idea of changing state law, or the state Constitution, to allow citizens to convene grand juries in their counties appears to be gathering steam in some conservative circles of Western Montana. The concept would allow citizens to summon juries comprised of members of the public to investigate alleged crimes – not just judges, as is the case currently.

With a Bitterroot man crafting language for a proposed ballot initiative and a Hungry Horse man forming a group to work on draft legislation, a measure allowing for citizen grand juries, in one form or another, seems poised for broader consideration in the coming year – by either the public or, possibly, lawmakers.
Continue Reading at : http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/in_conservative_circles_calls_for_citizen_grand_juries_grow/14634

Citizens Grand Jury Validity and Legal Authority

CAN CITIZENS FORM THEIR OWN GRAND JURY AND INDICT POLITICIANS FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

By Jim Frazier

An organization called the “American Grand Jury.org” has convened a Grand Jury and indicted President Obama for the crime of treason. Will their indictment be acknowledged in a U.S. District court of law? Are common citizens able to indict an elected official?

“Yes,” says Hal Von Luebbert,” author of “Citizen Power Now.” “The US government has no power to bring anyone to trial. The government can NOT find any person guilty of anything. Both of those powers belong to The People through use of a jury.”

The U.S. Attorney’s office in Colorado does not agree.  “I don’t think any citizen- convened Grand Jury has power to be enforced in a court of law,” said Jeff Dorschnor, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorneys office in Denver.

Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck echoed the same idea. “I’ve never heard of a Grand Jury called by citizens,” he said.

Mike Saccone, the Colorado Department of Law’s spokesperson, said, “There are no provisions for formation of citizen grand juries in Colorado. That is the way the statues stand now.”

Continue Reading at : http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=4498

IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY

by : ROGER ROOTS

I. INTRODUCTION

The doings of American grand juries are notoriously misunderstood and unknown by most sectors of the public.[1] Generally, the grand jury process escapes obscurity only when indictments are made public and when, for whatever reason, grand jury “leaks” are disclosed in the news media.[2] In theory, the grand jury is supposed to act as a check on the government — a people’s watchdog against arbitrary and malevolent prosecutions.[3] By and large, however, federal grand juries rarely challenge federal prosecutors.

Today, critics are nearly unanimous in describing the alleged oversight function of modern grand juries as essentially a tragic sham.[4] The Framers of the Bill of Rights would scarcely recognize a grand jury upon seeing the modern version conduct business in a federal courthouse.[5] In modern federal grand jury proceedings, the government attorney is clearly in charge and government agents may outnumber the witnesses by six-to-one.[6]

A “runaway” grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.[7]

Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors.[8] One recent criminal procedure treatise sums up the inherent inconsistency of the modern grand jury regime:

In theory, the grand jury is a body of independent citizens that can investigate any crime or government misdeed that comes to its attention. In practice, however, the grand jury is dependent upon the prosecutor to bring cases and gather evidence. Except in rare instances of a “runaway” grand jury investigation of issues that a prosecutor does not want investigated, the powers of the grand jury enhance the powers of the prosecutor.[9]

Thus, while the grand jury still exists as an institution — in a sterile, watered-down, and impotent form — its decisions are the mere reflection of the United States Justice Department.[10] In practice, the grand jury’s every move is controlled by the prosecution, whom the grand jury simply does not know it is supposed to be pitted against.[11]

The term “runaway grand jury” did not appear in legal literature until the mid-twentieth century.[12] The reason for this is that the term would have been inapplicable in the context of previous generations: every American grand jury known by the Constitution’s Framers would be considered a runaway grand jury under modern criminal procedure. Constitutional framers knew criminal law to be driven by private prosecution and did not contemplate the omnipresence of government prosecutors.[13] Additionally, early American common law placed far more power and investigative judgment in the hands of grand juries than does the criminal procedure of the twentieth century.

Although in 1946 the drafters of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure looked with horror at the prospect of grand juries that “could act from their own knowledge or observation,”[14] long-standing common law precedent upholds the power of grand juries to act “independently of either the prosecuting attorney or judge.”[15] At common law, a grand jury could freely “investigate merely on [the] suspicion that the law [was] being violated, or even because it want[ed] assurance that it [was] not.”[16] In light of the historic independence of the grand jury, the perfidy of the Federal Rules Advisory Committee in limiting the institution through codification can only be seen as willful subversion of well-settled law.[17] A truly independent grand jury — which pursues a course different from the prosecutor — is today so rare that it is an oddity, and a virtual impossibility at the federal level since Rule 6 was codified in 1946.

The loss of the grand jury in its traditional, authentic, or runaway form, leaves the modern federal government with few natural enemies capable of delivering any sort of damaging blows against it.[18] The importance of this loss of a once powerful check on the “runaway” federal government is a focus that has remained largely untouched in the legal literature.

This article examines the historic decrease in the powers of the American grand jury during the twentieth century. It introduces the subject of the grand jury in the context of the constitutional language which invoked it, and then compares the modern application of the institution at the federal level with its common law model.[19] Tracing the historic evolution of the grand jury as an anti-government institution in the English common law until its “capture” by the government in the mid-twentieth century, this article will demonstrate how the role of the grand jury has changed considerably over time. Finally, this article will argue that the modern loss of “runaway” or independent grand juries is unconstitutional and recommend a restoration of the grand jury’s historic powers.

Continue Reading at : http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm

SCOTUS on the unique power of Grand Jurors

A blog by : Natural Born Citizen

My recent post concerning the 5th Amendment right of we the people to use the “presentment” power to investigate criminal activity on our own volition to review Government activity and bring all criminality to justice was very well received.  It seems to have woken alot of people up to the possibility of reviving the Constitution.  The power of  “presentment” is not some fanciful concept but a very real provision stated unequivocally in the 5th Amendment.   There’s no legal reason why we can’t use it.

That being said, the question of how we can use it must be tackled.  But always keep this in mind when the naysayers start harassing you.  25 people sitting on Grand Juries is the way we do all criminal indictments in the US.  If somebody is facing the death penalty or life in prison, they must first be brought before a Grand Jury and if 13 of the 25 agree that the person should stand trial then that’s what happens.

Continue Reading at : http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/scotus-on-the-unique-power-of-grand-jurors/

LaRouche: Impeach Obama for Complicity in Murder of U.S. Ambassador Stevens

Sept. 15—Lyndon LaRouche today demanded that Congress remain in session to immediately convene impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives against President Barack Obama for his criminal complicity in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other U.S. officials were killed.

LaRouche declared this afternoon:

“President Obama was complicit before the fact in the events that lead to the killing of four valuable American diplomats. There is sufficient evidence to warrant immediate impeachment proceedings. U.S. officials were repeatedly warned, in the weeks preceding the 9/11 Benghazi attacks, that there was a breakdown of security in the city. The State Department issued a travel alert to all Americans, urging them to stay out of Libya. All of the evidence was there to impose strict security measures. Yet, nothing was done. That failure is on the President’s plate.”

Continue Reading at : http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2012/3937impeach_obama_complicity.html

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: