Be prepared for the coming decade

Carolyn Baker, in Vermont Commons, writes that the challenge of entering the new decade will be in dealing with the trauma we all (yes, all) have experienced in years past. How well we come out of the "twenty-tens" will depend upon our ability to emotionally grasp the realities of shrinking resources and economic helplessness.

Ms. Baker writes:

I notice, for example, that it is much easier for activists to "lose themselves" in causes and projects than actually feel the feelings associated with these endeavors. This accounts for the ubiquitous question "What should we do?" that arises as people begin to awaken to the dire issues of Peak Oil (and every other resource), climate change*, global economic catastrophe, species extinction, and population overshoot-to name only a few. If I'm busy "doing" and "solving", then I don't have to feel my feelings about something that may or may not have a solution. If I don't feel my feelings, however, I am likely to misdirect my energy and while being quite task-oriented, fail to be the person I need to be, for myself and for others, as the external situation further deteriorates.

We need to be prepared -- physically, mentally, spiritually, and emotionally -- for hard times ahead. If we don't prepare, we will find ourselves unable to help our fellow Ohioans; and we will fall victim to whatever schemes our handlers would foist upon us; perhaps even to the point of slavery.

* Which is not necessarily an endorsement of "global warming" -- "climate change" can be a call to prepare for severe winters.

Second call for nominations

Two weeks ago, I issued a call for nominations of African-Americans who have actively promoted libertarian or secessionist causes, to be published on Martin Luther King Day, January 18. I could use some more names!

To make a nomination, send me an e-mail with the following information:
- Nominee's name
- Reason for the nomination
- (if possible) Link to nominee's blog, website, or other information corroborating your nomination.

So you think DC really is protecting us?

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd seems to be having some second thoughts about the Obama Administration in light of the attempted airliner bombing December 25:

If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?

One of the most common questions I hear about Ohio independence is, how will we protect ourselves from the terrorists? Surely, an Ohio immigration division would protect us better than this, even with 275 miles of straight-line land boundaries!

Virtual buckeyes to Rebellion and The Other McCain.

Recovery in Ohio expected to be sluggish

... according to a report from the Ohio State University's Swank Program in Rural-Urban Policy, as reported by the Dayton Daily News. The report was completed by three researchers studying the recessions of 1973-75, 1980, 1981-82, 1990-91, 2001 and the one that began in December 2007, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Its major conclusion is that Ohio must stop using loss of manufacturing as an excuse for slow recovery. In particular, declines in the auto sector were insufficient to explain Ohio's economic declines over the last forty years. Recovery from the current recession (all other things being equal) might be less severe because Ohio is less reliant on manufacturing and because our housing bubble was relatively small.

I say "all other things being equal" because it should be clearly evident that no one in this country will escape the depression unscathed as long as we continue to rely on the federal government and its "stimulus" packages to spur economic growth.

Economic growth comes from one, and only one, place -- the private sector. Once we get taxes and regulation down to a reasonable level, and restore honest money, we will be amazed by the economic growth that follows.

Assuming we do that, of course.

A challenge to Gov. Strickland and Mr. Kasich

Support this. This is part of the platform of Republican gubernatorial primary candidate Ray McBerry, called "Georgia First." Mr. McBerry is promising, if elected to aggressively nullify unconstitutional federal statutes.

He also advocates abolition of all income and property taxes, right to life, Second Amendment gun rights, a clampdown on illegal immigration, rein in governmental intrusions on privacy and liberty, restrict eminent domain, ensure secure elections through auditable paper trails, and support for the idea of citizen initiatives.

Conservative Times reports that he is winning straw polls among Georgia Republicans.

Dissident Republicans? Libertarians? Constitutionalists? Here's your opportunity!

Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

Finding the path to freedom

Restoring Freedom to Ohio: Part 2 of 3
(Part 1: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself)

In 2009, the liberty movement experienced spectacular growth. The tea parties in April and during the summer electrified the imaginations of freedom-loving people everywhere. Organizations like the Ohio Freedom Alliance, the Campaign for Liberty, and the 9-12 Project experienced significant membership growth. Events like these are exciting and inspiring, but inevitably a letdown occurs as people wonder, "Where do we go from here?"

All of us in the movement want a return to Constitutional government, but we are deeply divided on the approach. Some want to focus on Congressional action, to audit and eventually abolish the Federal Reserve Bank, for example. Those who focus on the federal level also want to bring an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, withdrawal from the United Nations, and removal of federal funding for abortions. (This list of the legislation introduced by Rep. Ron Paul in the current Congress, which includes most of the issues of interest to the liberty movement).

Others want to focus on reforming the Republican Party for the 2010 state elections, to furnish candidates who will support appropriate legislation; or to support candidates of the Libertarian and Constitution Parties.

Still others want to focus on the state level by building on the popular success of the state sovereignty resolutions, such as SCR 13, to enact nullification of offensive federal laws and build infrastructure for resisting federal excesses, such as a properly organized militia and a state bank. Some activists want to extensively amend the Ohio Constitution to strengthen its guarantees of liberty.

The liberty movement (myself included) is bursting with ideas, and that is a good thing – but we need to remember that political capital is limited. Our best friends in the Congress and in the General Assembly have to manage their time to ensure that the best and most important pieces of legislation are adopted.

The liberty movement is struggling for solutions. United in fundamental principles, we are divided by our approach. Without a common political political agenda, we won't accomplish anything.

I am not confident that using the 2010 elections to elect members of Congress and the U.S. Senate to enact a top-down reform is an effective strategy. We have tried to reform our country in this way for nearly forty years, and every attempt has failed. To think that top-down reform would work in 2010 where it has failed before is insane, especially if you define it the way Albert Einstein did – trying the same approach over and over again, and expecting a different result.

Another top-down proposal, using Article V of the United States Constitution to set up a Constitutional Convention, has been shown to be more dangerous than helpful to the cause of liberty.

Our state sovereignty resolution, SCR 13, has been a great shot across the bow. It has awakened Ohioans and their legislators to the need to take our power back from the federal government. Given Ohio's historical timidity toward the federal government, the fact that it passed the Republican Senate is no small accomplishment! However, it will die in the House State Government Committee, because the majority Democratic leadership deems it a waste of time.

We need now to take firm action that will protect our liberties from further federal encroachment, and begin rolling back the unconstitutional powers that we carelessly gave the feds. We must therefore concentrate our efforts on the Ohio General Assembly, first to seek adoption of useful legislation; and secondly, to hold all State Representatives and Senators accountable for their votes on this legislation.

The liberty movement must also prepare to raise and support candidates for the Ohio General Assembly who will be outspoken in favor of these reforms. This will take work, and it will take money. Control of the Ohio Senate is within the grasp of the Ohio liberty movement, in part because many Republicans (and one or two Democrats) are already sympathetic to our cause. We can simply endorse those who will support our program – their campaigns are in place. Our efforts then must focus on House and Senate districts where the incumbent will be leaving office (open races), and on those where our critics are in vulnerable districts. It would be wonderful if we could put up candidates for all 33 Senate seats, but we only need to elect 17 of them. It would be even more wonderful to elect 50 Representatives, but such a feat is likely to prove to be well beyond our ability to accomplish. We must use our limited resources wisely. It would be very helpful if the Libertarian and Constitution Parties would coordinate their efforts to conserve resources in support of this goal. We should concentrate on the Senate, and if additional resources become available, we can target a few close House races as well.

Our rights come from God, but neither God nor the feds will give them back to us. We must take them back right here in Ohio, in our cities, in our townships – wherever people gather. In the 2010 campaign, we will have to effectively communicate the advantages of freedom – material and spiritual – to our fellow Ohioans. And if thousands of us unite behind these goals, "they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country."* Or our state.

For Part 3, to be published New Year's Day, I will suggest a legislative program for 2010.

* From Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "Live Not By Lies," quoted on Monday.

HB 400 text now available

The text to Rep. John Adams's proposal to gradually repeal the Ohio income tax, has been posted to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission site.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself

Restoring Freedom to Ohio: Part 1 of 3

I am no admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt. His approach to resolving the Great Depression compounded the damage to the Constitution that Abraham Lincoln began, and the events of 1913 worsened. However, as with Abraham Lincoln, President Roosevelt made some valid observations about the conditions in the country in 1933, which apply to us as well. The following is a large excerpt from his first inaugural address:

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers
her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated.

Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.*

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must
be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men. Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.

Unfortunately, the remainder of the speech outlines the approach he would use – further centralization of power – which has come to exacerbate the very problems President Roosevelt was purporting to resolve.

His diagnosis of the problem, however, is spot on. We are afraid. We have been manipulated into fear by those who have built a mighty military and the foundations for a future police state, scaring us with ghosts of their own making. Through materialism, they have made us dependent on that which can never satisfy, and they expand their power by threatening to take our stuff and our savings away from us. The threat is not idle. Within the next year, a hyperinflation is likely to begin that will reduce our life's savings to almost nothing. If you do not now hold any gold or silver, buy some now, even if you have to sell something to get it!

We have lost our sense of thrill in creative effort and in our relationships with our communities. Deep down, most of us are lonely and unhappy, and don't understand why. Part of our unhappiness is the spiritual void I discussed last Thursday, but the roots of our discontent are much broader than that.

We are beginning to realize that, like Esau in the Bible, we have traded our birthright for a bowl of soup.** We have traded our essential liberties for a little temporary safety,*** and now, finally, we see that we've been had. The Nation asks for action, and action now; but Washington is so corrupt that they no longer care what action we want; and the game is so fixed that it doesn't matter whether the winners du jour are Democrats or Republicans.

Our nation has already educated a generation to be compliant slaves to the collectivist handlers, and is refining its techniques to further enslave the following generation, even to the point of burdening college graduates with debts in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, at a time when they are least able to pay them back. In so doing, we have committed adultery: not only in the usual sense of sexually corrupting ourselves and our families; but by accepting adulterated food and debased money. We have replaced education – learning how to think – with indoctrination – teaching what to think. We have even allowed science, once the bedrock of independent inquiry, to become a prostitute to service the favored political classes.

In an earlier day, we could have relied on a free press to expose this corruption and advocate for reform – but today's purveyors of mass media have bought into the corrupt system. Oh, a few brave souls continue to speak out – the Glenn Becks, the Mark Levins, the Lou Dobbs; and on the Internet the Lew Rockwells, but the corrupted easily persuade the compliant that those who speak the truth are rightist wingnuts.

Is there really no way out? Has the circle closed around us? In 1974, Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn asked himself the same question. He diagnosed his problem, and our problem, as a willingness to participate in lies. He reached deeply within himself to discover that those who will take the risks to stand out and expose those lies will eventually destroy them. If you have not read his essay "Live Not by Lies," I urge you to do so! The tone of the essay is gloomy, but the end is inspiring:

A great people of Europe, the Czechoslovaks, whom [the Soviets] betrayed and deceived: Haven't they shown us how a vulnerable breast can stand up even against tanks if there is a worthy heart within it? [Solzhenitsyn is referring to the Soviet invasion ending the "Prague Spring," August 21, 1968.]

You say it will not be easy [to live the truth]? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. No, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.

So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.

If we are too frightened, then we should stop complaining that someone is suffocating us. We ourselves are doing it. Let us then bow down even more, let us wait, and our
brothers the biologists will help to bring nearer the day when they are able to read [that] our thoughts are worthless and hopeless.

And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of [Russian poet Alexander] Pushkin should be directed to us:

"Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom? Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash."

In Part 2 on Wednesday, I shall discuss the challenge facing the liberty movement.

* Proverbs 29:15 – one of my favorite Bible verses.
** Genesis 25:29-34.
*** "Those who would exchange essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Thomas Jefferson.

A proposal to improve legislative performance

According to Dispatch columnist Thomas Suddes, the General Assembly should abolish term limits, require full reporting of lobbyist spending, and reduce the size of the House by one-third. I think Mr. Suddes can get a little flaky sometimes, but I agree with him on the first two goals. As to the third one, I strongly disagree -- in fact, I suggest that the quality of representation would be improved by increasing the size of the House by one-third (to 132, which means that one Representative would represent 85,500 constituents instead of the present 114,000). The Senate would remain at its present size by each Senator representing four House districts instead of three. The cost of the additional representatives can be absorbed by this reform suggested by the Columbus Examiner -- set a limit on the length of the legislative session. Smaller states have legislative sessions limited to 60 or 90 days per year.

Given the output of the General Assembly, at least in this session, a 90 day session seems entirely reasonable. The Governor can always call a special session in an emergency. Otherwise, I suggest that limiting the session to 90 days would concentrate the efforts of legislators on what is really important, reduce the number of trivial bills, and thereby improve the output at less cost to Ohio taxpayers.

Ohio Freedom Alliance video on state sovereignty

Jason Rink interviews Harold Thomas on YouTube about state sovereignty. This is the first of five videos to be released.

The heart of it all

Tomorrow is Christmas Day, the annual observance of the birth of a child whose life and example changed the history of the world. In this post, I would like to share with you some personal thoughts about the faith he exemplified and explained.

I am a Christian; first by upbringing, then by conviction. I do not ordinarily wear my faith on my sleeve; but I am not afraid, and certainly not ashamed, to share my faith with anyone who might be receptive to such a message. However, I don't go around showing it off, either. Nor is my story particularly spectacular. I have never fallen for a serious addiction, nor committed a crime, after which I hit bottom until the truth was revealed to me. There are those who have, and I am thankful for those who share their faith stories.

I believe that the people who are happiest keep three aspects of their life in balance: body, mind, and spirit. Those who neglect the body get sick, those who neglect the mind become ignorant, and those who neglect the spirit will always be restless. Not everyone understands this – I encounter atheists who insist that nothing can exist that is not perceptible to the five senses. It is usually impossible to argue with such people, because they reject the need for a spiritual life. However, the tone of their arguments suggests to me that they are in fact very unhappy people.

On the other hand, there are those who insist that one cannot be faithful without maintaining a regular discipline of prayer and study. Prayer and study are good things: I pray regularly, if informally; and I study as the need arises. I have read practically all of the Bible at one time or another and understand it in its essentials – and would benefit from reading it more than I do. Self discipline is good and is a benefit of faith; but it is not the purpose of faith.

Note that, so far, I have avoided the word religion. Religion is a system designed to encourage people to discover faith and instruct them in the ways to build and maintain it. Those who rebel against religion sometimes have a valid point. The purpose of faith is to achieve a harmony between one's self and the God who created us. This search for faith inevitably points us to principles we call morality, which lead to healthful living and peace with our neighbors. While many people find it helpful to their faith to follow doctrines or rules set by their religion, using religion to enforce rules has proven to be an effective way to pull individuals away from faith, thereby defeating its purpose.

My experience with faith enabled me to recover from severe depression nearly twenty years ago. It sustained me as I wrestled for many years with the purpose of my life following my inability to find employment in the field in which I received my master's degree. My purpose in life began to be realized September 12, 2007, with the first posting on this blog. Faith gives me the courage to say what needs to be said; and as time goes on I find that I am able to say it more boldly, hopefully without sounding boastful. It has kept and strengthened my marriage to the same woman over 31 years, with all the challenges that a marriage between two strong-willed people brings. Faith has brought me some wonderful friends, and it has taught me compassion, courage, patience, and humility. I know that I must continually work to improve my behavior and to strengthen my relationship with God. I do not claim to be perfect; but I rest assured that, through Christ, God will give me the grace to heal the hurts that my mistakes cause.

I invite you to take some time to think about your own faith experience. If you find that your spirit has been neglected, find a church or other place that will instruct and encourage you to find your own faith; for in so doing, you will discover that faith truly gives meaning and purpose to human life. *

May you and your family experience a blessed and joyful Christmas!

* This sentence comes from the Jaycee Creed. I was once a member of the Canton Jaycees.

HB 400 introduced to phase out Ohio income tax

Breaking news from the Dayton Daily News:

State Rep. John Adams (R-Sidney) has introduced HB 400, to phase out the Ohio income tax over a period of ten years. To answer the first question in everyone's mind -- how will it impact the budget, Rep. Adams says, “When the people we chase out of the state decide to stay, they will create jobs. The tax base will expand. That’s the way it works in every scenario,” said Adams."

Climategate: More common sense!

Dec. 23 update: Dr. John P. Costella, who commented on this post, has conducted exhaustive research on and published the Climategate e-mails that were released. For those who wish to go into greater depth on the facts of Climategate, Dr. Costella's page is quite readable, and he offers expert commentary to aid the reader in understanding the posts.

This time from David Crowe, an environmental and Green Party activist from Alberta, who took time to consider whether global warming has any scientific basis. His article was published today in LewRockwell.com. It is organized into 23 "frequently asked questions" about global warming, with his responses.

The answer to his first question introduces his position on global warming and gives the reader an idea of the style he uses to answer the others:

Q1. Is Global Warming Happening?

It is impossible to know if global warming is happening without waiting for hundreds or thousands of years to see if short term trends go up or down. Of course we can't wait that long, so the question is whether catastrophic global warming is imminent. That also is impossible to know. If the changes are small they are also manageable.

It is also impossible to define a global temperature. Even small biases in measurements made in a small number of points over the globe (such as heat island effects due to measurements near growing cities) can create false temperature increases. When extrapolated and fed into a mathematical model that accelerates them, dire predictions can appear on computer screens around the world.

Global warming, as I wrote on Monday, "makes no environmental sense, it makes no economic sense, and it makes no political sense." It is nothing more than a sophisticated means to rob and enslave the American people for the benefit of environmental idealists, third-world dictators, and New York bankers.

Now, I shall try to let a few days pass before I press this topic again...

A solution to Ohio's budget crisis

Gov. Strickland and the Ohio General Assembly have finally patched the $2 billion hole in the State budget by delaying the tax cut promised for next year. Under the circumstances, I agree that this was the most reasonable and politically feasible solution to the problem.

However, we will face an even worse situation when we face the budget again in 2011, because much of the current budget was supported by one-time Federal "stimulus" funding.

One reason Ohio faces these budget crises is that our State government is not in control of its own expenditures, being subject to Federal mandates related to programs for which Federal funds are provided. Ignoring these mandates, however, runs the risk of losing all Federal funds, which of course come from Ohioans' Federal tax payments.

However, there is a way around this deadlock, suggested by John Bowman, in LewRockwell.com. The State of Ohio can regulate how much of its citizens' tax money goes to Washington!

But imagine if a single State asserted its Constitutional rights and followed its own charters and mandates to protect its own citizens who empower it from theft and fraud. Imagine if that single State refused to collect oppressive
taxes from its own people to ship off to DC, which DC in turn dishonorably doles out as largess to the most supplicant. Imagine if that single State called on its own militia or a temporary posse, comprised of volunteers, to expel any federal tax collector from its borders. Every other State in the union would be forced to follow suit, if not by the power of The People directly, then by rapid and unanimous exodus of individuals and businesses eager to relocate to the nearest "free" State. That is a peaceful solution … The fear then is, will it be met by a Machiavellian response, like was the case in 1860? It won't if we have an educated, peaceful society, which is a goal all Americans, I think, can agree.” (Emphasis added)

Here is my recommendation. It requires a lot of political courage, but as far as I can tell, it is Constitutional:

The Ohio General Assembly will pass an act declaring that, effective January 1, 2011, the Internal Revenue Service shall not be permitted to collect any Federal income taxes from individual Ohio residents (The IRS may continue to collect corporate income and excise taxes). Violation of this statute by an IRS agent will be a felony punishable by imprisonment.

That function will be transferred to the Ohio Department of Taxation, which will collect individual Federal taxes at the rates current on January 1, 2011. The State will remit to the Federal Government the amounts reflecting Ohio’s share of the Federal budget for functions funded by the personal income tax, and properly delegated to it under Article I, Sections 8-9, of the United States Constitution. This share will be calculated, based on Ohio’s percentage of tax year 2009 collections, relative to the nation as a whole. The remainder will be kept in escrow, to be released to the Federal Government when additional appropriations are made consistent with Article I, Sections 8-9 of the United States Constitution; and secondarily to the State to maintain “Federally” funded services at the level current for the previous calendar year. Please note that this even complies with the Sixteenth Amendment, which only grants the Congress the power to lay and collect income taxes, but does not specify how they are to be collected.

Determination of Constitutionality will be made by a joint commission of nine members: one each appointed by the majority and minority leaders of the Ohio House, Ohio Senate, U.S. House, and U.S. Senate, with the ninth member being elected by the other eight, and serving as chairman. No determination will be approved that does not have at least one State and one Federal vote (excluding the chairman); unless the Federal Government refuses to participate, in which case the State of Ohio will make the determination on its own. Invitation of Federal participation in this commission should overcome any objections raised based on Marbury v. Madison or Osborn v. Bank of the United States, in which the argument was made that “the power to tax is the power to destroy;” and should allay concerns that we are proposing a "secession lite." Federal participation implies agreement with the principle; Federal refusal implies an unwillingness to resolve the problem, which should incur political consequences at the Federal level. To ensure that a deadlock does not continue indefinitely, the Ohio General Assembly will stipulate that no funds will be released from escrow to the Federal Government for any purpose until a determination has been made for that purpose.

After three years, the State will have sufficient experience to determine how much actually will be remitted to the Federal Government, and be able to adjust the Federal tax rates accordingly. Any excess in escrow will be refunded to the taxpayers (not all at once, since the infusion of so much money at one time might cause an inflation!). The escrow fund will be maintained to hold each year’s collection of Federal taxes, but only at a level of ten percent in excess of the amount expected to be remitted.

The Ohio General Assembly thus gains complete control over the State budget, since it can operate on the assumption that there is no Federal funding other than what it receives from the escrow fund. It will free State agencies from having to observe Federal constraints on the use of those funds. This should lead to very great efficiencies in operation, which will enable a gradual reduction in personal taxation to Ohioans, greatly strengthening Ohio’s economy.

Most importantly, it will remind everyone that the real source of all funding is the taxpayer! However, the Federal Government will continue to receive all taxes due to it consistent with its Constitutional authority; and the Federal Government can participate as an equal to the State in the determination of what that Constitutional authority is.

As far as I know, this is a new idea, which will undoubtedly require refinement; but it is one well worth pursuing.

Speaker Budish, I am laying down the gauntlet. You don't want to waste time with resolutions, but want to deal with the budget. Here's an opportunity for you to do exactly that.

Climategate: Common Sense

... from letters to the editor of the Columbus Dispatch on Sunday:

"The fact is, there is collusion between the liberals and the corrupt climatologists. They desire to redistribute wealth to the rest of the world and gain control over domestic policy in the United States in their march toward socialism."

-- John Belt, Westerville

"I fail to see how stealing money from my wallet through utility bills to let President Barack Obama give money to the current dictator-for-life of some banana republic so he can spend it on Russian military arms is going to give us clean air."

-- Jeff Jantz, Hilliard

Ratification of the Copenhagen Treaty is grounds for secession, because it delegates American sovereignty to an international organization. It makes no environmental sense, it makes no economic sense, and it makes no political sense. It clearly is not in our national interest -- nor in the national interest of those who have traditionally been friendly to us.

Some dark thoughts on the darkest day

Carolyn Baker, at Vermont Commons, is not known to be a cheery optimist; but her reflections on the winter solstice are worth sharing -- because they reflect deep reality and the need for wisdom as we transition from industrial civilization to that which is currently unknown, but still inevitable.

Human life only finds meaning as we embrace that reality and pass on the wisdom we are acquiring from hard experience.

President Obama: Constitution is "charter of negative liberties"

During last year's campaign, WorldNet Daily found a tape of an interview Barack Obama gave to Chicago's public radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001. In the interview, then-State Sen. Obama maintained that the Warren Court's decisions on civil rights in the 1960s failed to go far enough -- that they should also have sought "redistributive justice." His opinion was that the court needed to break from the "essential restraints" of the Constitution:

This is what Mr. Obama said (audio):

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK .

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. (Emphasis added)

Abraham Lincoln, whom President Obama professes to admire, had this to say about "redistributive justice."

It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. (Fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18, 1858).

"Redistributive justice" is nothing more than robbing the working people to pay those whom government favors.

Respect for the Constitution is the only guarantee we have that our rights as citizens and the states will be protected. President Obama, in every political office he has held (including State Senator) swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The President should have been closely questioned on this during the campaign -- and should be even more closely questioned on this now.

Climategate: Russian data do NOT prove global warming

James Delingpole at The Telegraph is at it again (via LewRockwell.com). It seems that British researchers cherry-picked Russian climatological data to "prove" global warming from human causes:

On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

In Mr. Delingpole's original post at The Telegraph, he observed that the whole Copenhagen exercise had nothing, really, to do with "global warming". When Climategate exposed the incomplete and just plain cooked scientific data, the kleptocrats from the Third World and the multinational corporations fled to a continuation of the carbon-credits system established by the Kyoto Protocol. In other words, a massive transfer of funds from our pockets (in taxes and higher energy costs) to the New York speculators and tinhorn dictators like Robert Mugabe (who stands to make sextillions of Zimbabwe dollars) and Hugo Chavez.

Folks, it is up to us to stop this robbery; first by pressuring the U.S. Senate not to ratify the Copenhagen Treaty, and secondly by cutting back the power of the federal government through assertion of state sovereignty, nullification of federal laws harmful to our states -- and, if all else fails, by secession.

Quotation of the Day

"Always remember: with the Federal Government, solutions are never the answer."

-- Mike Tuggle ("Old Rebel" at Rebellion)

As evidence, Mr. Tuggle cites the fact that Republicans had two opportunities to solve real problems on their watch: by capturing Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, and by outlawing abortion while they had both the President and the Congress. The Republican Party did neither.

Why? Because it would have removed the justification for going into Iraq, and the issue that galvanizes the Religious Right for the GOP.

Call for nominations

For my January 18 post, I would like to honor African-Americans who have been instrumental in promoting secessionism or libertarianism. Obvious nominees for this honor include economists Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell; but I would be interested in others -- especially those who have been active in secessionist movements, such as Ian Baldwin in Vermont.

To make a nomination, send me an e-mail with the following information:
- Nominee's name
- Reason for the nomination
- (if possible) Link to nominee's blog, website, or other information corroborating your nomination.

Today's puzzle pic

How do you explain to this child, whose parents can't find jobs, that the U.S. still needs to bring in 125,000 foreign workers each month? Especially when 15,000,000 of us are unemployed, including 618,000 Ohioans. (Click on the image to enlarge).

Virtual buckeye to The Indentured Servant Girl.

There's something rotten in Denmark!

*

It doesn't matter that global warming accelerated climate change is based on scientific assumptions that have been cooked by its proponents and questioned by reputable meteorologists.

It doesn't matter that reputable science has linked global climate changes to sunspot activity (of which there is very little at the moment).

It doesn't matter that human activity may only have a minuscule effect on global climate change.

It doesn't even matter that the proposed treaty will establish a governing mechanism that will override the sovereignty of the United States and other nations.

All that seems to matter is that some greedy bankers want to start trading their "carbon credits" at the expense of the taxpayers of developed nations.

The Copenhagen treaty should be treated like the tobacco of the same name. Chew it up and spit it out!


* I've been itching for a month to use that headline!

War is Peace…

The hypocrisy of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech is breathtaking – even Orwellian. Here is a report of that speech by Russell D. Longcore of dumpDC, in which the President is attempting to justify war against secessionists (emphasis is Mr. Longcore's):

Today, President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in a ceremony in which his speech was like a long commercial message promoting continued war. Obama gestured politely toward advocates of non-violence like Albert Schweitzer, Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi, but clearly stated that his intention for America is to be the policeman for the globe. Here is an excerpt that should enlighten all Americans about what the President is thinking.

“Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

It is not any secessionist movements anywhere on this globe that have trapped civilians in unending chaos. That is entirely the purview of the nation-state. Confiscatory taxation, unending regulation of every facet of human life, and the destruction of our economic system and currency through central planning is the source of unending chaos, both at home and abroad.

And the “Just War theory?” The only just war I know of is the war in which you are defending your own borders against invasion. Invading another country is unjust, and used to be unlawful.

Obama praised pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar, Zimbabweans who voted despite election violence, and pro-democracy protesters in Iran.

“It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own
people more than the power of any nation,” Obama said.

I wonder if Obama and the Mobocracy Looter Minions of Washington will still feel the same way when one of the United States serves him with a Secession Document. President Obama, with his own words, shows the world that he is not familiar with the job description for President clearly stated in the US Constitution. He said:

“I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago – “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.”

What a shameful statement of ignorance. A president is required by the Constitution (Article II, Section 1) to take the following oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

That oath says NOTHING about swearing to “protect and defend my nation.”

Most of the things Obama has done since taking office have been grossly, criminally unconstitutional. Mr. Obama would have a full plate of activities if he would just protect and defend our Constitution. If past presidents had stayed within the strictures of the Constitution, the USA would not have any threats today.

If America ever finds and elects a man or woman who will simply be true to the oath of office they take, America may have a chance of survival. However, no President since before Lincoln has been serious about the Oath. If history is any guide for our future, there is no Oath Keeper on our national horizon.

Portion in blue © Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

As Old Rebel in Rebellion observes, the President is combining Abraham Lincoln's anti-secessionism with Dick Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine." So we secessionists have been warned: Standing up for the Constitutions of the United States and of Ohio will earn us one-way tickets to a FEMA detention camp * near us.

* Reports of such camps have not been reliably verified, but would be authorized if HR645 becomes law.

Lessons from the Soviet breakup

Those who insist that secession will necessarily result in another war between the states should review the history of the Soviet breakup, as Russell D. Longcore has in his dumpDC blog. In it, he describes how the liberalizations promoted by Mikhail Gorbachev accelerated secessionist impulses throughout the Soviet Union, despite the presence of a large and potent Red Army.

Mr. Longcore compares the Soviet experience to the current American situation and finds the parallels remarkable -- right down to fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. And the Red Army was spread out much less thinly than that of the United States is today.

The key to a breakup, however, is the willingness of state officials to stand up to the Feds, something which he finds lacking in most states today. While we in Ohio have a few courageous state representatives (Kyle Jordan and Jarrod Martin come to mind), and at least one state senator (Timothy Grendell), the outlook is not encouraging, considering the current lineup of state officials (starting with House Speaker Armond Budish). A breakup will not occur until nullification measures are taken by a number of states. However, that might just take place. Stay tuned.

Quotation of the day

From Georgie Anne Geyer, on the Swiss constitutional amendment banning the construction of minarets in that country:

[T]hey can hardly be blamed, because they have acted to protect their culture and their principles. There is everything wrong with prejudice and hatred. But there is also something very wrong with not being permitted to defend what you have against those who would not join it but change it.

Let me add a comment. Minarets are not essential to the construction of a mosque. They are a cultural preference. As evidence, I present a photo of the Noor Islamic Cultural Center in Hilliard, near Columbus.

While the building definitely has Middle Eastern influences, it does harmonize with the suburban area around it; which reflects my personal experience with Muslim coworkers.

European-Americans should not be expected to commit cultural suicide any more than anyone else. Unique cultures are built on the harmonization of influences from the people who live within them, which is based on mutual respect -- a concept apparently foreign to Islamic extremists and certain "politically correct" activists.

Ohio Department of Development funds publication promoting Michigan business

Laura Bischoff at the Dayton Daily News discovered a glitch in a publication by the Ohio Business Development Coalition. The publication, funded by a grant from the Ohio Department of Development highlights business development taking place in Ohio ... usually.

The most recent issue discusses businesses in Grand Haven, Saugatuck, East Grand Rapids, and other cities ... in Michigan.

I realize people can make an honest mistake, but I'm waiting with baited breath to hear how this whopper was made.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

December is only four days old. Since Tuesday Dec. 1, I have reported on three scams to rob the American people in favor of government and government's favored interests:

On Tuesday, I forwarded an e-mail I received that reminded us that every major program of the Federal Government has failed to finance itself in a sustainable fashion.

On Wednesday, I exposed Climategate (which finally got on a mainstream media outlet other than Fox News [CBS News, Dec. 2]) as a "licence to fleece, cheat, and rob," in the words of British writer James Delingpole.

Yesterday, I explained the real purpose of the war in Afghanistan, using Gen. Smedley Butler's phrase "war is a racket."

On Wednesday, I also reproduced an analysis of the health care reform act by Texas attorney Michael Connelly, in which he cites the dangers of the proposed legislation, both to the personal liberties of Americans and to their pocketbooks.

Now the Xenia Ohio Citizen Journal has run an article by Marc Kilmer, policy analyst at the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, which clearly explains the costs of the health care bill to Ohioans. The bill (HR 3200) certainly should be defeated; but if it passes, Mr. Kilmer provides some excellent reasons why Ohioans should support Ohio's HJR 3 and SJR 7 to prohibit mandatory participation in the proposed federal health care system.

Mr. Kilmer obeserves that in 2008, there were 272,000 Ohioans who live in families making at least three times the poverty level who were uninsured. "Under the plans moving through Congress, they will be forced to buy a product they presumably do not want or pay high fines. Either way, this legislation will cost them."

In addition, the 76,000 Ohio households that make over $200,000 will be subject to an income surtax. Many of these people are small business owners whose productivity will be further penalized if this bill is enacted.

The health care bill also creates a new unfunded mandate:

This federal legislation will also likely mean state taxes will need to be raised. Both House and Senate bills mandate that the state Medicaid program be expanded, which could mean as many as 519,000 new enrollees in this state. While the federal government would pay much of the cost for this expansion, state taxpayers would be required to fund part of it. One estimate puts that cost at $922 million over five years. With the governor and legislators struggling to find ways to balance the current state budget, it seems likely this new burden will mean even higher state taxes.

While proponents of the bill claim that health care is "deficit-neutral," that assumes that costs stay within projections [unlikely, as I showed on Tuesday], that Congress takes the politically unpalatable step of making the promised future cuts in Medicare.

Mr. Kilmer's conclusion:

Today the [federal] budget deficit stands at $1.4 trillion. Total government debt is 41% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Under President Obama’s budget proposals, it will rise to 82% of GDP by 2019. This type of deficit spending isn’t sustainable; someone, someday, will have to pay for it. If this health care bill adds to the deficit that will mean even more debt for future generations to pay off.

No one is saying that this health care bill won’t help some people. Of course some Ohioans will benefit from it. But to evaluate it fairly, both benefits and costs should be considered. The amount of money this bill will require in new and future taxes is significant. Ohioans simply can’t afford the financial burden of this so-called “reform.”

In other words, it is yet another scam to fleece the American people in favor of government and favored interests. It is blatantly unconstitutional. A better and far less expensive solution to health care would be a state-sponsored program along these lines.

Now THIS is something we can do without!

Amanda Stinzalis at KVUE-TV in Austin, Texas reports that a 40-year-old Kerrville man is under investigation for impersonating an officer.

Kerrville police spotted the man driving around with three magnetic emblems on the side of his truck. The emblems were circular in shape and said, "Sheriff's Dept of Bexar County" on them. Inside the circle, it said, "Republic of Texas."

The Republic of Texas is a group that believes Texas is its own nation. The group elects all of its own leaders, from President down to county officials. It also elects its own county Sheriff, including one for Bexar County.

When Kerrville police questioned the man about the emblems, he responded, "I am a Sheriff's Deputy for the Republic of Texas, and I answer to my own Sheriff."

This reminds me of the incident in 1996 in which a police officer in Frazeysburg shot in the line of duty a "patriot" who claimed to chief justice of "Our One Supreme Court."

There is only one legitimate government in any state -- the one that was elected by the people of that state in accordance with its Constitution and lawful electoral process. The "sheriff's deputy" in Bexar County has no more legitimacy than if he represented a micronation, and he should be arrested for impersonating an officer.

Secession will occur when the electors of a state vote in referendum (or through a convention) to dissolve the union between that state and the United States; or in an emergency situation, by the legislature of that state. There is no other way, and there should be no other way.

The real reason we're in Afghanistan

Stephen Lendman at Vermont Commons hit the nail on the head. I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with stopping the Taliban, finding Osama bin Laden, or stabilizing the Afghan régime. It certainly has nothing to do with American national security.

Each soldier will cost the taxpayers an average of $1,000,000 to equip and maintain in Afghanistan. That's $30 billion. Which goes to military suppliers and contractors, Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.

Back in 1932, Gen. Smedley D. Butler told us that war is a racket. Seventy-six years later, it hasn't changed. A most unpleasant truth, especially to the families of those who gave the service their last full measure of devotion -- but a truth nonetheless.

Why aren't we more outraged over this waste of lives and money?

Climategate: Greenpeace leader admits "exaggeration"

As broadcast on BBC:



Virtual buckeye to Benja Sariwatta.

But wait, there's more!

Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argues in the Wall Street Journal, that confident claims of catastrophe are exaggerated.

And...

James Delingpole, columnist for The Telegraph in London, England, presents several articles further demolishing claims of global warming. Here's an item that is particularly interesting for the content, yes; but also for its veddy British style:

Carbon trading is the Emperor’s New Clothes of international finance. It was invented by none other than Ken Lay, whose Enron would currently be one of the prime beneficiaries in the global alternative energy market, if it hadn’t been shown to be (nearly) as fraudulent as the current AGW [Accelerated Global Warming] scam. It is a licence to fleece, cheat and rob. Still, jolly embarrassing for the Danes to get caught red handed, what with their hosting a conference shortly in which the world’s leaders will try, straight-faced, to persuade us that carbon emissions trading is the only viable way of defeating ManBearPig.

Virtual buckeye to Frank Koch for both items.

What's in the so-called "health care" bill

Chuck White, at the Ohio Freedom Alliance, has a friend in Texas who happens to be an attorney and an expert in Constitutional law. He has actually read the 2000+ page health care bill, and what he reads horrifies him. I am taking the liberty of reproducing the entire piece [Emphasis added].

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE BILL


Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the bill and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The bill does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.


The bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government-run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.


However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead, it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.


The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.


The paragraph below is really frightening.


This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama Administration to all of your personal health care information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is in direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.


If you decide not to have health care insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the "due process" clause of the 5th Amendment. Due process doesn't work because there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without due process of law.


So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out of the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there, though. The 9th Amendment provides, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this proposed bill, neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I were a member of Congress, I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.


For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source.

Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...nscript...html
And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html ;

Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas mrobertc@hotmail.com
www.trafford.com/04-2710

How would the Ohio Republic defend itself?

One of the most frequently asked questions I receive about secession is, how would a republic of 11.5 million defend itself against, say, the rump United States of 200+ million? I do not touch on this topic very often, because I do not want readers to get the idea that I favor secession by force (I have made my position on this very clear in the Basics).


However, every nation must have a means for defending itself. Russell D. Longcore at LewRockwell.com gives an interesting discussion on this subject by explaining the meaning of the first half of the Second Amendment: "A Well-Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Usually, when we discuss the Second Amendment, we focus on the second half.


Mr. Longcore answers my concern about when violence is necessary this way:

There is a fine line between acknowledging that you’ll fight tyranny and picking a fight with a tyrant. The first trick is to know enough not to cross that line. The other trick is to be aware that the bad guys keep moving the line.

Mr. Longcore uses the example of a Republic of Texas being able to raise 1-2 million members for a national militia. Ohio has about half the population of Texas -- a temporary defense force of 500,000 would at least make an aggressor stop to think. Remember that those who defend their homes have an advantage -- we know all the nooks and crannies and secret places that an outsider cannot know.

He urges secessionists in every state to talk about this subject.

Any state that seriously contemplates secession must reconstitute and rebuild its own Militia. This will be one of the most solemn indications of that State’s seriousness about its own liberty and the liberty of its citizens.

Please re-read that last paragraph. If we are not willing to defend ourselves from attack, we are not serious. Period.

Since I have quoted Mr. Longcore on several occasions recently, I invite you to go directly to the source, his DumpDC blog, which I have also added to the secessionist blog list near the bottom of the right panel.

And people wonder why I'm a secessionist #43

Forwarded to me in my e-mail:

To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the [Congress], It is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:

- The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775 You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
- Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
- Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
- War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.
- Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
- Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
- The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?? (Emphasis and epithets in the original)

International Court of Justice to hear separation case

According to the British Broadcasting Corporation, the International Court of Justice is preparing to hear a case as to whether Kosovo's separation from Serbia is legal according to international law. While the decision of the court is not legally binding, it is likely to affect the decisions of nations that have not yet recognized Kosovo as independent.

I am not familiar with the structure of Serbia's government, but suspect that Serbia is a unitary state, in which case Kosovo cannot legally "secede" as we understand secession in federated states. In a strictly legal sense, Kosovo can ask Serbia to grant it autonomy; or the people of Serbia and Kosovo can elect to allow Kosovan independence (which is probably very unrealistic politically), or Kosovo can incite what is correctly known as a "civil war" to gain its independence; but as the law is now understood, it cannot "secede".

Quotation of the Day

Unlike any other nation, here the people rule, and their will is the supreme law. It is sometimes sneeringly said by those who do not like free government, that here we count heads. True, heads are counted, but brains also. And the general sense of 63 millions of free people is better and safer than the sense of a favored few, born to nobility and ruling by inheritance.

-- William McKinley (1891)

And the general sense of free people is better and safer than the sense of a favored few ruling for the benefit of large contributors.

More on Climategate

Stephen Hopkins has compiled in his blog Aude Sapere an impressive listing of mainstream and other media reports about the Climategate scandal, which is the revelation that data were being altered to support claims of global warming.

Somehow

Carol Moore is a passionate secessionist and libertarian. While she can hold some rather unusual positions, her heart is in the right place, especially when it comes to anti-war issues. I thought this piece from Nov. 8 was particularly appropriate:

Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith*, dogma, and nonsense.

Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.

Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.

Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.

Somehow this is tolerated.

Somehow nobody is accountable for this.

* Carol, there is a worldview that reconciles faith and reason within Christianity; but that is a discussion for another day.

Okay, now do you believe me?

It appears that "Climategate" * is going to sink the Copenhagen Treaty, which has to be good news for freedom-loving people everywhere. Of course, references to it are scarce in the mainstream media, perhaps because they're having trouble figuring out how to spin it.

Or maybe they can't spin it. The theft of some 3,000 e-mails from scientists critical of global warming (and who showed that the data were manipulated) is a serious offense; especially when so much pressure was being put on the world to adopt strict carbon-emissions rules.

I have been stating for some time that the scientific data led to considerable doubt that global warming was anything other than a hoax. But then truth is easy to ignore until something like this happens.

The fictional Perry Mason was famously quoted as having said "The truth will out." Unfortunately, those with a totalitarian political agenda don't usually let that get in the way.

* Our link is to Michelle Malkin, but it's all over the blogosphere.

A blessed Thanksgiving to you

This blog expresses much discontent over the state of affairs; but there is much to be thankful for -- enough (and usually too much) food, a solid roof over our heads, and enough (and usually too many) clothes to wear. I hope you will take time this day to thank your Creator for the material blessings, but also for the liberty and opportunity we still have, and for your family and friends.

I would also encourage you to follow this link to send encouragement to the troops in Iraq. While I strongly disapprove of this war, I respect the sacrifices being made by the armed forces as individuals. They are fighting for the ideals we believe in; even though the output of their effort may not support them as well as we would like.

Top ten reasons the Founding Fathers would do it over again today

From Matt Bianco's blog, The Bound Dragon:

Some of the same reasons Thomas Jefferson enumerated in his Declaration of Independence and for which the Founding Fathers who signed it declared independence from Great Britain and King George III’s rule in 1776 apply today to the current United States Government. And for these, the Founding Fathers would again declare independence, they are: [The Declaration of Independence is shown in roman, Matt's comments in italic.]

1. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. The U.S. government has forbidden the States to govern as their citizens demand by withholding Federal funding which was unnecessarily taken from the States to begin with.

2. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. It passes the laws it wants, against the desires of the people and the mandates of the Constitution, and it does so by promising money to specific bodies of people at the expense of the rest.

3. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. It has attempted to manipulate the employment market by preventing Foreigners from migrating hither and competing for jobs; thereby preventing Employers, in the employment of their private property, from freely entering into contract with Employees as they choose. [I partially disagree with Matt here. Society has the right to protect its institutions from cultural change resulting from immigration of persons having contrary values].

4. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. We have a multitude of Offices that are unconstitutional and used to harass our people, including but not limited to the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, NASA, and the Internal Revenue Service.

5. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. Standing Armies are a natural part of our society since World War II, and the result, predicted by the Founding Fathers, is that we have troops stationed in over 150 countries without the Consent of their legislatures in some, and have been involved in numerous wars, conflicts, nation-building projects, and peacekeeping missions since then.

6. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation. We find ourselves subject to the whims of the United Nations, NATO, and a variety of other treaties; not yet among them but coming soon: Copenhagen.

7. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world. American free trade is hampered, not helped, by treaties like GATT and NAFTA; additionally, we find our government furthering harming our trade with protective tariffs against items like sugar and Chinese tires.

8. For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent. Taxes aren’t just imposed on us without our consent, like the up and coming Cap and Trade tax, but hidden from us through inflation and raised without our consent.

9. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury. This is especially true as the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended, and not only foreigners but Americans with them have been held without a trial in the name of national defense.

10. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Americans, upset with the current course of his nation, have petitioned our government through signatures, rallies, protests, telephone communications, e-mails, faxes, and most recently through their own state legislatures with the passage of tenth amendment resolutions only to be answered by repeated injury: acts which define a Tyrant.

Going rogue?

Sarah Palin continues to fascinate and confuse me. On Monday, I watched part of her interview with Bill O'Reilly. I don't understand why she resigned as Governor of Alaska, other than to fend off some frivolous and very personal lawsuits against her (which the Alaska Attorney General is legally barred from defending). I still don't know whether in her heart she is secessionist or unionist. I don't know her current agenda, and I am troubled that she is beginning to spout the accepted dogma on foreign policy, particularly on Afghanistan -- which suggests to me that, far from "going rogue", she is really going Establishment; in which case she should be treated as very dangerous to the future well-being of this Republic.