The Ohio Republic

Political WWJD

2012-01-30T07:43:00.000-05:00

I have often written that my rule is "WWJD?" In spiritual matters, what would Jesus do, and in political what would Jefferson do. Here is an excellent example of an issue where I stand with Thomas Jefferson:

Here is the context:

It should be our endeavour to cultivate the peace and friendship of every nation, even of that which has injured us most, when we shall have carried our point against her. Our interest will be to throw open the doors of commerce, and to knock off all its shackles, giving perfect freedom to all persons for the vent of whatever they may chuse to bring into our ports, and asking the same in theirs. Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject, as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is their interest to go to war. Were the money which it has cost to gain, at the close of a long war, a little town, or a little territory, the right to cut wood here, or to catch fish there, expended in improving what they already possess, in making roads, opening rivers, building ports, improving the arts, and finding employment for their idle poor, it would render them much stronger, much wealthier and happier. This I hope will be our wisdom. --- Notes on the State of Virginia (1784), chapter 22.

Virtual buckeye to Paul Attridge in Facebook, and to Kevin Puffer, his commentor, who supplied the context above.

The anarchists have a point...

2012-01-27T07:00:00.000-05:00

You do not have to be an anarchist to appreciate this critique of socialism:

Disclaimer: I am not an anarchist, and will explain in some detail why in my book Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom, to be published February 29.

(Don't worry, the "buy me" link is under construction!)

Virtual buckeye to Gabe McGranahan.

Ohio for Ohioans Amendment: Good idea, but needs work

2012-01-26T07:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I introduced the proposed "Ohio for Ohioans" Amendment to the Ohio Constitution to provide a means to effectively enforce nullification of federal statutes in violation of the U.S. Constitution and state statutes in violation of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions.

This proposal presents several constitutional and legal problems. Foremost among them is its rather gross violation of the separation of powers principle. The proposed amendment allows the Governor and Attorney General to "collectively" form a Constitutional Review Committee to "compel" the Supreme Court to rule on legislation deemed unconstitutional within 30 days (of what?). It also allows the Governor and Attorney General to "compel" the Ohio General Assembly to invoke impeachment proceedings against public officials who violate their oaths of office. These provisions suggest that their author is not well educated in constitutional law; because one of its most fundamental principles is that the Executive (Governor and statewide elected officials), the General Assembly, and the courts cannot "compel" each other to do anything. The General Assembly initiates impeachment proceedings on its own volition. The Ohio Supreme Court rules on cases that originate in Ohio's trial courts.

Another example of sloppy legal language lies in the statement that

All Ohio Citizens shall have legal standing in all Ohio courts and jurisdictions to challenge the constitutionality of any Ohio law, federal Law, and all government imposed rules, regulations, and mandates that directly affect them on the behalf of all Ohio Citizens.

No. The existing legal procedure is established to maintain an orderly process. This paragraph should omit "in all Ohio courts and jurisdictions." To apply this clause as stated would make mincemeat of the Ohio judicial system. The amendment should enable all Ohio citizens to challenge constitutionality by filing suit in the county Court of Common Pleas or in a special state trial court established for this purpose. Even so, who will be the trial lawyer to defend the federal government? I cannot imagine any federal attorney deigning to follow a state procedure in what the feds are sure to consider a gross violation of the Supremacy Clause.

I would favor a well-written amendment to assert Ohio's sovereignty, and this one comes closer; but it needs the hand of an attorney who is skilled in constitutional law.

State sovereignty amendment introduced

2012-01-25T10:47:00.000-05:00

Steve Kraus is a candidate for Congress in Ohio's 9th District (a district that is, tentatively, a string bean following the Lake Erie shore between Toledo and the eastern edge of Lorain County (between Lorain and Cleveland). In his "Hope for Ohio" website, he endorses the "Ohioans for Ohio" amendment to the Ohio Constitution, the text of which is at the end of this post.

The Ohioans for Ohio amendment is intended to assert Ohio's state sovereignty and right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws; and to hold Ohio's elected officials accountable for enforcing Ohio's sovereignty. It is sure to be controversial, because for many Ohioans (and probably, the U.S. Supreme Court), it will appear to be a challenge to the Supremacy Clause in the U. S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, which reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The legal basis for the Ohioans for Ohio amendment lies in the phrase "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof." A reasonably literal interpretation of that phrase strongly suggests that any laws that are patently unconstitutional (not being made "in Pursuance thereof") are null, void, and no law. This then brings up the central issue of nullification. Do the states have the right, as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison* asserted in 1797, to provide a check on the Supreme Court by nullifying unconstitutional federal laws within state boundaries? The Ohioans for Ohio amendment is careful to state that it does not apply to "any law, rule regulation, or mandate... not in contention with the prescribed authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America."

This proposal is much more concise than the amendment proposed in 2009 by the People's Constitutional Coalition, and actually comes close to the improvements I suggested to that amendment; but it still needs work. Tomorrow, I shall explain why.

Here is the text:

Be it resolved by the people of the state of Ohio,

(A) Declaration of State Sovereignty
The State of Ohio hereby claims its sovereignty, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and shall exercise self-determination and self-rule over its government, commerce, education, environment, and energy resources within its domain and within the interests of Ohio citizens and according to law, unconstrained of all foreign authorities, and not in contention with the prescribed authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America. Any law, rule, regulation, or mandate which is not compliant to the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States of America shall be deemed unconstitutional, null and void and without legal force or effect within Ohio.

(B) Enforcement of Constitutions
The Governor or Attorney General are hereby vested with the power to compel the Supreme Court of Ohio to submit a decision within thirty (30) days regarding the constitutionality of any Ohio law, rule, regulation, or mandate or any federal law, rule, regulation, or mandate, whenever it appears that said law rule, regulation, or mandate may not conform or be in compliance to the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States of America, respectively. The Governor and Attorney General, collectively have the authority to form a Constitutional Review Committee and to vest this committee with the power to compel the Supreme Court of Ohio for said decisions. All Ohio Citizens shall have legal standing in all Ohio courts and jurisdictions to challenge the constitutionality of any Ohio law, federal Law, and all government imposed rules, regulations, and mandates that directly affect them on the behalf of all Ohio Citizens. The Supreme Court of Ohio shall provide a process for such challenges which demonstrate viable Constitutional merit.

(C) Violation of Oath or Oaths
It shall be unlawful for any elected public officeholder to violate their oath or oaths in accordance with Section 7 of Article XV of the Ohio constitution. The Governor and Attorney General, collectively or individually, are hereby vested with the power to compel the Ohio General Assembly to invoke impeachment proceedings against such alleged offenders, in accordance with Section 23 of Article II of the Ohio constitution.

* Keep in mind that James Madison is known to history as the "Father of the Constitution" and one of its most fervent supporters in the ratification debates. He surely would have considered the intent of the Framers when writing it.

Newt Gingrich for smaller government? His record says otherwise

2012-01-24T13:08:00.004-05:00

Newt Gingrich

The Opinion Blog from the Myrtle Beach (SC) Sun-News cites chapter and verse about Newt Gingrich's voting record and activities since leaving the House of Representatives. His social conservative positions are fairly sound, if social conservatives are willing to accept his serial marriages; but he certainly is no libertarian. Among his questionable decisions:

[H]e has partnered with Hillary Clinton to advocate health-care IT legislation, with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan to promote President Barack Obama's education reforms, and with Nancy Pelosi in an ad stressing the importance of taking action on climate change . Gingrich angered Republicans by criticizing Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare.

The writer, Braden Goyette, also notes that Mr. Gingrich pressed President Clinton to balance the budget, but agreed to do so (in part) by increasing tax revenues. He also notes that last year, Mr. Gingrich's consulting firm accepted between $1.6 and $1.8 million for his consulting services to Freddie Mac, in an effort to help the firm more effectively market to political conservatives.

Like most neoconservatives, Mr. Gingrich has supported an aggressive foreign policy, and, if sources like this one are to be believed (and I am not vouching for them), a domestic police state as well. Among Mr. Gingrich's positions cited were a large increase in federal education spending, support for curtailing First and Fourth Amendment rights to fight terrorism, Singapore-style drug testing for Americans, support for the Fairness Doctrine in communications policy, and the USA PATRIOT Act. The same source says that he wants to revise the Geneva Convention to exempt terrorists from its prisoner of war protections. And many more items.

All the loose talk about Mr. Gingrich's marriages obscures one essential fact. He is, at best, an unreliable advocate for liberty in America. He is inconsistent in his positions on fiscal responsibility. He is not the man we need in 2012 to reverse President Obama's policies -- if indeed, he has any desire to do so.

Update 1/24: Here is a concurring opinion from The Daily Caller, which shows why the Tea Party, in particular, should avoid Mr. Gingrich.

State Sovereignty News from Arizona and Ohio

2012-01-23T08:40:00.001-05:00

Two items of interest:

The Washington Times reports that the Arizona House is launching an investigation to determine whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms violated state law by running Operation Fast and Furious. As you may recall that operation consisted of smuggling firearms out of the United States for the purpose of tracing drug dealers. However, the firearms were lost. Some of them were found in the investigation into the killing of border guard Brian Terry at a crossing in Arizona. This is a courageous example of a state exercising its sovereign right to prevent the federal government from harming its people. The investigative committee is scheduled to produce a report by March 30.

Here in Ohio, two State Senators, Larry Obhof (R-Medina) and Keith Faber (R-Celina) have introduced a State Sovereignty Resolution (SCR 24), similar to HCR 11 and SCR 13 in the previous session. These were introduced in early 2010 as part of a widespread movement to let Washington know that the states are sovereign, and to demand that the Constitutional limitations on federal power be observed. HCR 11 died in committee, largely because Democratic Speaker Armond Budish did not want to allow any resolution to challenge the federal government. Its Senate companion, SCR 13, passed the Senate, but also died in House Committee. As longtime readers of this blog know, I strongly supported such resolutions two years ago. I agree with the spirit of the resolution, and have no objections to it passing to add Ohio to the states standing up for itself; but I suggest that the legislature's time would be better spent passing an Honest Money bill and resisting specific federal encroachments on our state's rights.

Copyright law and me ... and you

2012-01-20T07:55:00.003-05:00

As many of you know, I am in the process of publishing my book Governing Ourselves. Respecting the copyrights of others has been one of the most challenging tasks I have faced as part of that process, because I have used several brief quotations from copyrighted sources.

Being a first time author, I am learning what is, and is not reasonable. One author and one publisher have been very gracious, and state that my use falls within "fair use" under the Copyright Act, thus no royalty is due them. On the other hand, I requested permission to use a brief quotation from a 1972 interview with Richard Nixon that was published in a newspaper that has been defunct since the 1980s. Another newspaper owns the copyright and wants a $390 royalty for the first 25,000 copies printed. If I knew that I would sell 25,000 copies of the book, that would seem reasonable, but if I only sell a few hundred...! (I have since removed that quotation and replaced it with a story that was posted in this blog about two years ago -- which turned out to be an improvement in content).

Existing copyright law is intended to protect artists and writers from those who would simply copy the work and sell it for themselves. It relies on what I call "passive regulation" (a concept on which I will elaborate in my book) -- you find that someone is stealing your work, you can sue for damages. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) relies on "active regulation," meaning that a corporation can ask the federal government to shut down sites that use copyrighted material. In other words, certain major content providers (such as New York publishers and Hollywood film companies) want to shut down all competition by taking control of the Internet. To give you an idea just how far-reaching this bill is, it seems that the Congressman who introduced the bill was himself a violator by illegally using a copyright image as background on his site (since removed).

In about a month, I will be adding a commercial element to The Ohio Republic (to sell my book, of course). In so doing, I will have to take much greater care about my use of copyrighted material on my site, because it then will be considered "for profit." I understand that, and am preparing for it. However, under SOPA, The Ohio Republic would be strictly limited to the content I generate myself. I could not even link to a copyrighted source, lest that source put me at risk by infringing on someone else's copyright.

My primary purpose in writing Governing Ourselves is to share with the public insights that I have gained over the last twenty years. I admit that I would also like the book to be profitable enough to substantially increase my retirement fund; and appreciate now, more than ever, the importance of protecting the rights of the author. However, I feel that existing law does that well enough. I have no desire to go against the blogger who quotes a couple of paragraphs of my book, as long as that blogger gives me credit for it (and a link to a site that sells it would be nice, too :) ).

Government has an obligation to protect the people from force and fraud. Reasonable copyright protection is a necessary function of our legal system. However, it should not be used to encourage the greedy to trample on the rights of everyone else.

In yesterday's post, I suggested an easy way to contact your Congressman and Senators in opposition to SOPA. If you have not registered your opposition to SOPA yet, please do so now.

We're back -- but keep up the fight

2012-01-19T07:48:00.000-05:00

If you did not do so yesterday, please let your Congressmen and Senators know that you oppose the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). An easy way to do this, and comment on other legislation, is to join DownsizeDC (www.downsizedc.org), managed by Jim Babka, a resident of Cuyahoga Falls. The site includes an automated e-mail generator that will direct your message to your federal legislators. Membership is free, and with membership, you will receive e-mail alerts of legislation that affects your liberties, on which you can comment. With each alert, DownsizeDC provides some background information, and suggestions on how you can write your own personalized e-mail message tailored to the issue.

War fever is building again

2012-01-17T08:32:00.004-05:00

... judging from last night's Republican candidate debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I am specifically referring to audience reaction to the exchange about war policy, at 10:17 in the New York Times live blog:

The question was familiar -- virtually the same one that was famously asked of Democratic candidates for president in 2008: If there was actionable intelligence about Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader, in Pakistan, would you go in?

Newt Gingrich took a while to get to the answer, but it was unmistakable.

"Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear idea about America's enemies," he said. "Kill them." *

Audience reaction: "USA! USA! USA!"

Mr. Romney had a pretty clear answer as well.
"We go anywhere they are, and we kill 'em," Mr. Romney said.

Same reaction.

That, of course, was not Mr. Paul's answer. His answer prompted loud boos from the audience.

"Maybe we ought to consider a golden rule," Mr. Paul said. "Don't do to other nations what we don't want them to do to us." [Emphasis added.]

Ron Paul later drew a distinction between defense spending and military spending. He argued that spending what we do on defense spending would ensure that our borders and our people are well protected (concurring opinion); but that military spending on "nation building" is, in fact, waste.

Hearing this exchange on the radio frankly made me sick to my stomach. Following my post Dec. 1 drawing parallels between the Reichstag fire and 9-11, the audience reactions to Messrs. Gingrich and Romney, on the one hand, and Dr. Paul, on the other, reminded me of the hysteria the Nazis whipped up among the Germans during the Third Reich, with the help of the party song Horst Wessel Lied, the lyrics to which are:

The banner high! The ranks are tightly closed!

The SA march with calm, firm step.

Comrades shot by the Reds and reactionaries

March in spirit within our ranks.

Clear the streets for the brown battalions,

Clear the streets for the stormtrooper!

Millions are inspired when they see the swastika,

The day of freedom and of bread dawns!

For the last time, the call to arms is sounded!

For the fight, we all stand prepared!

Soon Hitler's banners will fly over all streets.

Our time of bondage is nearly over!

Substitute our troops for the SA, Jihadists and terrorists for Reds and reactionaries, and the U.S. flag for swastika and Hitler's banners, and you get a pretty good picture of the pro-war, any war, mindset; one that apparently has taken over one audience in South Carolina against the teachings of the Christ many of them would so proudly proclaim (Matthew 7:12), and against the warnings of Washington and Eisenhower.

* It should be noted that when Andrew Jackson said that, he was referring to the British invasions of the United States during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Champion of Liberty

2012-01-16T07:00:00.000-05:00

This is the third year that I have awarded the Champion of Liberty designation on Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday to honor African-Americans who have outspokenly supported liberty (2010 winners, 2011 winners). This support tends to run against the grain of those who claim to carry on the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but who in my opinion distort his message. The award is nothing more than recognition in this space. There are no certificates, no medals, no public ceremony. Only the recognition that the black community includes men and women who have intelligently and courageously bucked the notion that individual freedom is somehow "racist."

David Webb

This year, there is only one honoree. I have long admired his courageous commitment to liberty, expressed on his radio talk show Saturdays 10 am-1 pm on Sirius/XM Patriot Channel 125. He knows his Constitution, and he articulately speaks out on behalf of free enterprise. He has a deep admiration for the military, which to me unfortunately seems to cloud his judgment where national security is concerned. He is by far the most civilized talk show host I have ever heard. He eschews namecalling, treats everyone, including his opponents, with respect, and researches his positions carefully. He does not wear his race on his sleeve -- in fact, I have listened to him for over a year, and did not know he was black until I recently visited his site "on the wwwebb."

David Webb is in a class by himself, and therefore stands alone as the 2012 Champion of Liberty.

Now on the front burner: Ohio Workplace Freedom Amendment

2012-01-14T07:00:00.000-05:00

It takes courage -- even chutzpah, in the wake of Issue 2's defeat, to introduce a Right to Work amendment in one of America's most heavily unionized states. But that is exactly what the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and a group being organized as the Ohio Workplace Freedom Amendment. The group is presenting language to the Ohio Attorney General for an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would become Article I, Section 22 (full text here).
As the American Thinker argued in its call for a national Right to Work Act, the right to associate must logically include the right not to associate. Americans have the inherent right to form a union whenever they may deem it necessary -- and the right not to join one. The economic benefits of Right to Work are obvious. The states with growing economies have it. The states with stagnant economies generally do not.

What happens when a state enacts a Right to Work law? Employees of businesses still have the right to form a union, providing that no one is forced to join or compelled to pay dues. Members of the union can still strike, but they cannot prevent other employees from still working. The union can still negotiate contract terms for their own members, but they cannot bind employees who do not belong to the union.

So unions do not vanish in states with Right to Work laws. In Alabama, which has Right to Work, more than 10% of the workforce belongs voluntarily to unions. What Right to Work does do is place unionized labor in the free market, competing with non-unionized labor. Free labor, like free business [or free enterprise], is good in the long run for everyone.

I have written earlier about the convoluted procedure that unions put those of us through who object to paying the political portion of union dues. State employees have no choice, but to pay the collective bargaining portion. Forced unionism benefits one political party and philosophy against the interest of many of its members, and leads to leadership that is not accountable to its members, as I wrote October 20.

In the same post, I answered the usual union objection that without "fair share" fees (which are anything but fair to those who have to pay them), nonmembers would become "freeloaders" benefitting from collective bargaining without sharing its cost. This is bunk. The objection can easily be answered by placing nonmembers outside the protection of the union. This means that non-union employees may end up with the same arrangements as managers, or even contract for work as individuals. In other words, Right to Work enables labor to function as a free market -- just what the labor bosses abhor. Just what we need to empower individuals to achieve all they can without facing artificial barriers erected by socialist ideology.

So why is Workplace Freedom being introduced now? I suggest it is because Ohioans strongly objected to certain provisions of Issue 2 that clearly were designed to strip public employee unions of their legitimate functions to protect their members. However, it is also clear that Ohioans did not buy the entire package that the unions wanted to sell. Since workplace freedom does not interfere with the legitimate functioning of unions with respect to their own members, it should win the support of a majority of Ohioans in this November's election.

Mitt Romney for smaller government? His record says otherwise

2012-01-13T18:08:00.002-05:00

Mitt Romney

Carla Howell is Executive Director of the national Libertarian Party. She also happens to know a thing or two about Mitt Romney, having opposed him for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. In her weekly message to Libertarians, Ms. Howell lays out the case against Mr. Romney:

He ran in 2002 as a "no new taxes" governor; but even during the campaign, he proposed three new taxes (on vehicles, on campaign donations, and on building construction). Ms. Howell's comment: "They didn't get much fanfare in the media and were quickly forgotten."
He raised taxes each of the four years he was Governor by calling them "fees." He also enabled collection of an Internet sales tax, approved legislation to allow local governments to raise business property taxes, and approved a new tax penalty that raised income taxes on both individuals and small businesses.
In 2008, Mr. Romney boasted that he was the first candidate to sign a "taxpayer protection pledge." Ms. Howell's comment:

So he’ll call his taxincreases “government fees” or “closing loopholes” or “penalties” or somethingelse. But if Romney is president, the IRS will collect this money from you,your family, your friends, and millions of Americans just like you.

So, okay, how about spending?

The Massachusettsstate budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003.
When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another$2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took “off budget.” (Romney neverreminds us of this fact.)

As Governor, Mr. Romney claimed that his hands were tied by the Democrat legislature. But each of the four years he served as Governor, he started budget negotiations by proposing a $1 billion increase. Before the legislature had said anything.
Then there is "RomneyCare," said to be the model for Obamacare. Who was the biggest fan of RomneyCare? Ted Kennedy. He and Mitt Romney had an alliance going to get this bill passed. And, participation is mandatory. Those who refuse face stiff fines and income tax penalties.

Carla Howell knows what she is talking about, so when Mitt Romney, supported by a compliant media, tries to pull the wool over your eyes, or those of someone you know, you have some facts. Any other Republican Presidential candidate would be more fiscally conservative than Mitt Romney.

Pre-Constitutional Rights

2012-01-12T15:11:00.000-05:00

Jim Babka is a Cuyahoga Falls resident who runs the DownsizeDC Foundation, which runs DownsizeDC.org, a site which helps individuals generate e-mails to members of the Congress. He has come up with an idea that deserves being spread.

There is no such thing as "Constitutional" rights.

Why? Because our Founding Fathers made it clear that our human rights come from God (or if you prefer, "the state of nature."). The Constitution does not; and as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments make clear, cannot enumerate our rights. It does, however, list all of the powers of the federal government.

If our rights were based on the Constitution, they could be erased by court decisions or by replacement of this Constitution with something else. The same rights, by the way, apply to everyone else who sets foot in this country. Everyone else, including alleged jihadists -- because they are rights applicable to all humanity. It has to be this way, because we do not want to punish innocent people, and the only way we can avoid punishing innocent people is to ensure that all people receive due process of law.

With this in mind, we need to talk about pre-Constitutional, or natural rights. Mr. Babka concludes:

Pre-constitutional rights are necessary to a natural law viewpoint; the philosophy held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution, the ratifiers of the Bill of Rights, AND Downsize DC. We shout it loud and proud -- "Pre-constitutional rights precede and are superior to Constitutional rights."

Obviously, we're still grateful that our pre-Constitutional rights are acknowledged in the Constitution. It's important that the requirement for The State to protect these rights is the law of the land, because those who covet State power constantly seek to harm humanity. But . . .

If we're depending on the whims of the employees of The State to protect us, simply because we're all Americans, then our faith is misplaced. The Constitution cannot protect a people who fail to vigilantly understand from where it is their rights derive. Neither can the protection of those rights be honestly maintained if we're unwilling to acknowledge that everyone else has these rights too, NOT JUST CITIZENS. Remember the Golden Rule!

To deny that human rights are inalienable in any one case, it to deny them in every case, including your own.

If you are not registered with DownsizeDC.org, I encourage you to join.

And I will encourage all of my readers henceforth to act in support of our pre-Constitutional rights!

What Ohio stands for

2012-01-11T08:22:00.005-05:00

I was in the Ohio Statehouse yesterday, when I encountered the following quotation, which to me represents the high political ideals that Ohioans have represented through the ages. We would all do well to remember them as we work to rebuild our state and our society:

Let Ohio speak for human rights, for universal manhood suffrage, for fair and honest elections, for economy and purity in public affairs, for honest money and stable government.

-- George Washington Williams (1849-1891)

Mr. Williams was the first African-American to serve in the Ohio House of Representatives, representing Cincinnati 1880-1881. In his brief life (he died at 41), he was a veteran of the War between the States (having enlisted at 14!), and was a minister, historian, and diplomat. He wrote the first history of African-Americans, and at the end of his life, launched an investigation of the mistreatment of the people of the Congo at the hands of agents of King Leopold II of Belgium. He contracted tuberculosis and pleurisy, and died in England returning from Africa. He is buried in England.

He spoke for human rights, which are enshrined in our Ohio Constitution, adopted in 1851. The Bill of Rights has expanded since then, most recently last year with the adoption of Issue 3, nullifying mandatory health care.

He spoke for universal manhood suffrage, which Ohio, unfortunately, was slow to embrace -- but finally did so with our ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. However, Ohio redeemed itself in 1919 by becoming the sixth state to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment, extending suffrage to women.

He spoke for fair and honest elections. For most of Ohio's history, particularly during the service of Secretary of State Ted W. Brown (in office 1950-1978) and his successor Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr (1979-1983), Ohio has had an exemplary elections process. More recently, it has been tainted by scandals involving a Secretary of State (Ken Blackwell) who actively participated in the 2004 Presidential campaign while in office, and with problems involving voting machines made by Diebold. However, his successors Jennifer Brunner and Jon Husted have gradually restored credibility to the office.

He spoke for economy and purity in public affairs. For most of Ohio's history, the state was run economically. As recently as 1991, Ohio ranked very near the bottom of the 50 states in state tax burden. While the continuing recession has resulted in much higher taxes (to maintain steady revenues), efforts of Gov. Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly are managing the budget without further tax increases. When their efforts bear fruit, Ohio will again be working toward economy in public office. Purity in public affairs, however, is one of those ideals that can never be attained, but must always be striven for.

He spoke for honest money. In our history, Ohio has been a leader for a currency that represents value. In 1819, State Auditor Ralph Osborn attempted to enforce a tax on the Bank of the United States, in part because that bank issued currency without backing. "Sound money" is the issue that propelled Ohio's William McKinley to the Presidency. Today, many in the Ohio freedom movement are pressing for a way to protect Ohioans from a future hyperinflation by facilitating the use of gold and silver in payment of taxes and as a currency.

Finally, he spoke for stable government. To me, stable government should be boring. It consistently, day after day, enforces a small number of easily-understood laws to protect the lives, liberties, and property of Ohioans. All things considered, and particularly in comparison to other industrialized states, Ohio has done this reasonably well; but like purity in public affairs, it is a continuing struggle to maintain.

George Washington Williams's ideals are a statement of the fundamental principles of political life in Ohio, principles which we have generally applied well; but of which we must continually remind ourselves as we move forward.

So Presidents don't need to know the Constitution now?

2012-01-09T12:27:00.003-05:00

I heard this exchange Saturday during the Republican candidate debate in New Hampshire (Los Angeles Times report):

George Stephanopoulos: Governor Romney, so you think that states have the right to ban contraception or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?

Mitt Romney: George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising... states have a right to ban contraception, could it constitutionally be done? We could ask our Constitutionalist here, (motioning over to Ron Paul) uh...

George Stephanopoulos: I'm sure Paul could answer the question, but I'm asking you, do the states have that right or not?

Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Romney went back and forth for several minutes. Mr. Romney eventually made a grudging admission that yes, the states do have that right, but of course, no state is considering it.

So what kind of President do you want? One that is attractive and says what you want to hear (with the risk that he will make a contrary statement that someone else will want to hear), or a President who will obey his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?

Virtual buckeye to Sherry Mann.

Is the Tea Party dead?

2012-01-08T11:07:00.002-05:00

Kevin McCullough at Townhall thinks so. He compares the energy and enthusiasm of the Tea Parties going into the 2010 Congressional elections with the apparent willingness of Tea Partiers (at least the ones he knows) to accept non-conservative Mitt Romney as the Presidential candidate.

We all know that the Tea Party is not a monolithic national movement. It is divided between three major organizations, in which thousands of local Tea Parties enjoy considerable autonomy. It is difficult to get such a diverse movement to coalesce nationally around a single platform or candidate (though it is possible at the state level, as Ohio's Tea Parties, through the Ohio Liberty Council, demonstrated with Issue 3's nullification of mandatory health insurance last November).

Two years ago, I warned the Tea Party movement about getting into bed with the Republican Party. In the first post, I asserted that the Tennessee Tea Party was committing suicide by inviting Sarah Palin to be a keynote speaker. In the second, I quoted Chuck Baldwin, whose warning has proven to be prophetic, right down to the personalities:

You are being infiltrated. You are being compromised. You are being neutered. Stick to your principles. Stick with the Constitution. Keep opposing unconstitutional, preemptive wars. Keep calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Keep fighting for less taxes, reduced federal spending, and states' rights...

Be wary of people such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. You don't need "big name" celebrities to give you credibility. As Samson's strength depended on keeping his hair uncut, your strength lies in keeping your principles intact. And unless you want to wind up like the Republican freshmen in 1994, avoid Newt Gingrich like the plague!

At the time, people worried about Tea Parties being too narrow and ideological. They proclaimed that their basic issue was restoring a federal government that obeyed the Constitution. Constitutional government can allow a wide diversity of opinion on policy issues. But no movement can survive a compromise of principle.

From the beginning the Tea Parties have been divided on the issue of American military involvement abroad. Given the militaristic spirit that pervades our country, it is possible that a strong antiwar position, following the examples of George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower, would greatly marginalize the Tea Parties. However as the Jesus said (long before Abraham Lincoln), "A house divided against itself cannot stand." (Mark 3:25)

It is hypocritical to support limited federal government while calling for military adventures around the world. If the Tea Parties cannot reconcile this conflict, they will not have any impact in this year's elections.

Governing Ourselves is now at the publisher

2011-12-28T07:59:00.000-05:00

Those who have followed my blog know that I have been working on one of my life's major goals -- writing a book. Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Regain Their Freedom. Publication will be completed as soon as I have resolved a few copyright questions, and is expected in February 2012. Right now, I am delving into the business end -- hiring an editor and setting my marketing plan.

When the book hits the street, please be assured that you will be the first to know!

A concurring opinion about secession

2011-12-27T08:08:00.000-05:00

Western Australia has sought independence from Australia since 1933, and has found the doors slammed in its face, in part because the mineral wealth of the West has helped fund government for the rest of the nation. Businessmen there are particularly unsettled by an Australian law imposing a carbon tax, scheduled to take effect this summer. This issue has been brought forward in a piece by Sukrit Subhlok in The National Forum. Like mainstream politicians here in America, the Australian establishment views secessionism as "the work of a lunatic, right-wing fringe in the Liberal Party".

As in America, the constitutionality of secession is debatable; however, Mr. Subhlok makes an important point, echoing my own from Nov. 3:

The legality or otherwise of secession is a moot point. If secession is to occur, it will never happen with the High Court's approval, simply because the court is appointed and funded by the federal government and will therefore tend to rule in favour of Canberra. Hence, in an important sense the legal arguments of Williams and Craven are irrelevant to the issue at hand. The debate over secession must occur primarily in the political rather than the legal arena.

For the sake of argument though, is the legal case against secession really as strong as Williams and Craven say it is? The answer is no. When Australia's colonies agreed to come together as a federation under the Constitution, they did so on the assumption that the federal government would be limited to the powers enumerated in section 51, and that the states would retain their reserved powers. Common-sense, not to mention elementary contractual principles, dictates that if the federal government oversteps its bounds and encroaches into areas of state responsibility then a state is justified in exiting the constitutional compact.

For Americans "section 51" is Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. A literal reading of Article I, Section 8, should make it clear that our federal government has far overstepped its bounds and encroached into areas of state responsibility.

I shall let Mr. Subhok make the closing point:

As more people become aware of the positive effects of secession, let it not be said that it is an idea only supported by the 'loony right'. Secession is an idea whose time has come. Everyone should seriously examine its merits.

Václav Havel, 1936-2011

2011-12-19T08:32:00.001-05:00

CNN reported yesterday afternoon that Václav Havel, former President of Czechoslovakia, and later of the Czech Republic, died at the age of 75. There are very few people on this earth for whom I have as much admiration as I do for this man, who skillfully used the power of the pen to undermine the Communist régime in his country. In that effort, he suffered imprisonment for 4½ years; but emerged victorious in the Velvet Revolution that ended Communism in Czechoslovakia. The last Communist Parliament elected him President of the republic, an office he held until the "Velvet Divorce" that established the independence of Slovakia. Mike Tuggle at Rebellion aptly described Mr. Havel's approach to Slovak independence:

Faced with a secessionist movement by the eastern half of Czechoslovakia, he took the role of the anti-Lincoln, and respected the Slovaks' right to govern themselves. The two nations continue to live in peace.

He later returned to serve as President of the Czech Republic. During his presidencies he displayed moral leadership to an exceptional degree, which has been recorded in his speeches (particularly his first New Year's speech as President of Czechoslovakia) and writings, such as his book The Art of the Impossible. (He wrote several other books, but this one stands out for me).

He was a modern man, in that he was a playwright in the absurdist style and liked rock and roll music. In fact the Charter 77 declaration that established him as a dissident was inspired by the Communist arrest of a Czech rock band.

He was the rare leader that did not allow power to go to his head, but acted as a servant of the people. He continued that role to the end of his life. Last year, he protested the arrest of a Chinese dissident whose movement was modeled on Charter 77.

He will be missed; but more importantly, he provides a model of statesmanship that we would do well to follow.

Blunt truth of the day

2011-12-16T07:37:00.000-05:00

From Jennifer Smith, political director of the Franklin County Libertarian Party, via Facebook:

Just so that everyone knows what our civil-liberties-stomping president just signed: ANYONE who fits a very broad definition of activist (Tea Partiers and Occupiers, for example) can be swept to Guantánamo Bay by the MILITARY. No trial. No due process. No police. No proof of anything. If you know any Obama supporters, share this story with them. If they STILL support him, then you know they're war mongering, anti-civil rights bigots. Because this is it.

The following article, which Jennifer linked, is to a Politico piece about the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 being sent to the White House for signature.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70527.html

The article states that President Obama lifted his veto threat when it became clear that Congress had the votes to override. I am not surprised. Please note (and I am repeating myself): The President's signature to this legislation will provide ample grounds for declaring Ohio's independence (See Trigger #1 on the right sidebar). If we value our freedom at all, we must act to ensure that this provision of law never touch otherwise law-abiding citizens within the State of Ohio. First step: Press our state legislators to NULLIFY Sections 1033 and 1034 of the Defense Appropriations Act of 2012. If this effort fails, then a declaration of independence will be justified.

Update Dec. 16: Another friend of mine on Facebook reports that he struggled for 11 years to obtain U.S. citizenship for his wife, who was born in the Soviet Union. Now he feels that they are no better off than before.

How did the U.S. end up owing so much money?

2011-12-12T10:43:00.000-05:00

This chart makes it very clear:

Click to enlarge.

Sources: Office of Management and Budget, U. S. Treasury, and the Bureau of Economic Affairs.

It's about the OATH, stupid!

2011-12-12T10:02:00.003-05:00

As we all know, journalists like to create controversy in the oddest places. One of the questions that arose in last Saturday's debate was "Is marital fidelity important in a President?" The other candidates took potshots at Newt Gingrich.Here are the highlights of last Saturday's ABC News/Yahoo! Republican debate, which includes his answer to this question.

Ron Paul gave the correct answer, which is that obeying an oath is a sign of character. Dr. Paul said that while marital vows are important, the oath that really matters is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Dr. Paul is the only candidate who has consistently worked to do just that over 30 years. That should speak volumes about his character, and about what he would do as President.

Amen, sister!

2011-12-09T11:16:00.001-05:00

Karen Kwiatkowski, again. This time in her own words, from LewRockwell.com, about Christmas, Christianity, and fascism. The entire article is well worth reading.

Christmas is a Christian celebration, but it is truly something that should be celebrated each day, in peace, in forbearance, in humble joy and gratefulness for God’s love, His generosity and His guidance. I’d like to think that we Christians might someday be able to show that Gandhi was wrong about us – that we do indeed follow the Prince of Peace in our daily lives, in our relationships at home and at work, and through our participation in politics. It is impossible for a true Christian to cheer war, to celebrate death, disease, destruction and poverty, to wish ill on others. It is downright devilish for Christians to claim their faith while exalting human governments that seek war on the basis of lies, that sow fear and loathing in the name of empire or government survival, and governments that would steal the very future from their own children in the name of patriotism. All I want for Christmas is a glimpse of real Christianity, in our lives and in our politics... [Emphasis added]

God knows what we need even before we ask Him, so I’ve been taught. That being the case, maybe I should see to it that I love liberty more passionately. I’ll add a grain of pure courage to my morning coffee, and I will try to think more independently, and step away from the party lines. I’ll see if I can live my Christianity in a more honest way. All that would make for a lovely Christmas, and it would be more than enough.

But Santa, if there is room for one more gift, please give me the opportunity to vote Ron Paul for President in 2012. Merry Christmas, America!

One more good reason she should be Vice President (if not President) of the United States!

Quotation of the day

2011-12-08T07:29:00.001-05:00

Karen Kwiatkowski
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.

-- Barry Goldwater (1960: Conscience of a Conservative), echoed by Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret.), libertarian candidate for the Republican nomination for Congress in the Sixth District of Virginia, and my top choice for Ron Paul's running mate.

We the sheeple of the United States...

2011-12-07T09:21:00.001-05:00

Mike Adams at Natural News reports of a study conducted in the early 1960s, known as the Milgram experiments, which shows that 70% of people will administer painful, even lethal, electrical shocks if told to do so by a researcher. Now this is psychological research, and no one was really harmed. The "shocks" were signals given to an actor to feign pain. The researchers used psychological tricks like warning the subjects that they would ruin the project or do serious harm to the individual if the shocks were not administered as ordered.

The study was replicated in 2008 at the University of California at Santa Clara ... with the same results.

Mr. Adams writes:

For many years, psychologists speculated the original studies must have somehow been flawed. Humans beings couldn't be so cruel and gullible, could they? But now this repeating of the study immediately clobbers any debate on the subject and forces us all to confront the terrible reality: Most human beings of all ages, races, religions, cultural upbringings and professions will actively torture, harm and even kill fellow human beings if ordered to do so. [Emphasis in the original]

Why is this important to understand? Because it explains the sheeple effect that's so dominant in society today. Why do consumers obey apparent authorities so blindly? Why do they do what they're told even when it goes against all common sense and their own ethics?

According to Mr. Adams, we were all raised to be mind slaves:

Think about it: From the very first day you go to kindergarten, you're punished for getting out of line (literally), talking out of place, expressing your own ideas or refusing to follow commands. This psychological brow-beating goes on for thirteen years, and it's enforced by most parents, counselors and other authority figures.

And in most universities, the browbeating continues through the college and graduate school years. Very few of us are really taught to think for ourselves.

He cites a common example of this kind of conditioning, done at Costco and Sam's Club:

[P]eople just wait at the exit for some lame worker to check their receipt and mark it with a pen. People actually line up like cattle even after they paid for their stuff! I just walk out the door with the stuff I paid for, utterly ignoring the silly "receipt checkers" who keep screaming "Sir! Sir! Sir!" What I've learned is that after three or four screams, they just shut up and go back to the line of sheeple. Just slap on a pair of headphones, crank up your iPod and walk right out of the store, folks. Why are you giving up your Constitutional rights and submitting yourself to illegal search and seizure for a cart full of stuff you just paid for? [Emphasis added]

This explains the conundrum faced by libertarians. We want our people to be free, but only 30% of us know that we are not -- and even among that 30%, only about 3% of the population is motivated to do anything about it. Even intelligent people (or myself for that matter) sometimes get caught acting like one of the "sheeple." In everyday situations like the Costco one, it is probably harmless; but we need to heighten our awareness, so that we do not let ourselves be lulled into more harmful invasions of our rights, like the TSA scanners and police ID checks.

The women's liberation movement realized that the first step to success was to raise the consciousness of the population to how women were being discriminated against. Libertarians need to do the same thing with the general population. I hope this post has been a small contribution in that direction.

Virtual buckeye to The Liberty Voice.

Update Dec. 7: Here is a concurring opinion from Bruce E. Levine at AlterNet. He cites eight reasons why young Americans are not fighting the system. I will refer you to the article to read the details, but here is the list:

Fear they cannot repay their student loan debt
Misuse of psychiatry and drugs to quell non-compliant behavior
Schools that educate for compliance and not democracy
"No Child Left Behind," a federal program that bases aid on test scores, which forces teachers to teach to the test, and not helping the child learn how to think for himself
Confusing the difference between education and schooling. Young people are taught that disliking school is the same thing as disliking learning.
Normalization of surveillance -- beginning at home as parents monitor their children's computers and social networking pages.
Television -- for sixty years, the opiate of the people
Fundamentalist religion and "fundamentalist consumerism," which destroy self-reliance and foster self-absorption.

Now the military is infiltrating the police

2011-12-06T10:34:00.001-05:00

This story is nothing new -- we reported on an armored vehicle being used by the Fairfield County Sheriff in July 2009. A commenter on that post called it "the optics of clampdown."

However, it is getting worse. As reported by Benjamin Carlson in The Daily, the Pentagon has a surplus of military equipment which has given to law enforcement agencies nationwide since 1997 under the "1033" program. Through this program the military gave away nearly $500 million in surplus equipment in federal fiscal year 2011, ending Sept. 30. This is more than double what they gave out under the program the previous year. Equipment being provided includes grenade launchers, helicopters, military robots, M-16 assault rifles, and armored vehicles. Data provided to The Daily by the Defense Logistics Agency indicates that requests this fiscal year have increased 400% over last year.

While local law enforcement agencies like the program for its free goodies, it dangerously changes the mentality of police officers. The article tells of a story in which a grandfather in Framingham, Massachusetts not suspected of any wrongdoing was accidentally killed by a SWAT team earlier this year. The mayor of a small Maryland town had his door broken down, his two Labrador retrievers killed, and was interrogated for hours about a drug ring with which he had no connection.

Joseph McNamara, former chief of police in Kansas City and San Jose, California, puts it this way:

“It’s totally contrary to what we think is good policing, which is community policing,” he said. The profile of these military police units invading a neighborhood like the occupation army is contrary to what you want to do as a police department. You want the public to feel comfortable calling you to report crime and supporting you in working against crime and coming forward as witnesses.

“The idea that some police have that by being really super tough and military and carrying military weapons is a way to prevent crime — this is false,” he continued. “We have a lot of evidence on how to prevent crime and the major component is to win support for police, that we’re not this aloof occupation army.

Exactly. Never mind posse comitatus or amendments to the National Defense Appropriations Act for 2012 -- the ruling elite can accomplish the same purpose by militarizing our local police and sheriffs. This should become a political issue in every county sheriff campaign in Ohio next year. The purpose of law enforcement is to protect and to serve, not to dominate and kill. We need to make sure our local police and county sheriffs know that we want law enforcement to be community-friendly, and that acquiring 1033 hardware is not the way to achieve that objective.

Update Dec. 6: Five minutes after posting this, I get a Facebook comment about how Brimfield Township in Portage County got an M113 armored personnel vehicle. Send me news stories of 1033 donations in your area, and I will post them in this space. Another friend had already shared the article.

Virtual buckeyes to Mike Tuggle and Gabe McGranahan

Speedbump on the road to tyranny

2011-12-02T12:17:00.001-05:00

In the interest of accuracy and full disclosure, I need to report that the following amendment to the National Defense Appropriations bill (S. 1867) was approved Dec. 1 by a vote of 99-1:

SA 1456. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Levin and Mr. Durbin) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

On p. 360, between lines 21 and 22 [Section 1032], insert the following:

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

The lone dissenter was Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona). This is good news, but we need to remain vigilant. My post yesterday remains true enough. Still makes me want to rethink going to Canada next summer...

The truth is stranger than fiction

2011-12-02T09:44:00.001-05:00

In my update to yesterday's post, I addressed the conspiracy theory (actually well-grounded in fact) that the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9-11 was not only the attack by commercial jetliners, but a controlled demolition as well. This has led to a Facebook conversation with a skeptic (whose name I am withholding), which I thought deserved a larger audience.

Skeptic: Who set the charges?

HT: As I indicated in my post, we do not know. If it was a false-flag attack (conspiracy theory alert), it would probably have been done by undercover CIA operatives, possibly agents of al-Qaeda on the CIA payroll, as suggested by my link to Michael Chussodovsky [director of the Canadian think tank Global Research, often quoted in this space]. I do not know -- we may never know.

Skeptic: really!? Our own CIA was in on destroying two of the most expensive buildings in the world and killing thousands of people and doing incalcuable harm to the American economy. okay, gotcha.

HT: I know it's hard to believe. I get that. The problem is that our federal government has been manipulated for years (I'm not sure how many) by people intent on using it for their own benefit at the expense of the rest of us. These people have no problem with murdering thousands (even hundreds of thousands, if you include Iraqis and Afghans) and cleaning millions of Americans out of their savings (through bank and currency manipulations) to maintain their wealth acquired through an imperialist American foreign policy. I'm not speculating about Jews, Illuminati, and Freemasons -- I'm talking about New York bankers (and by extension, the Federal Reserve Bank, which prints our money), arms merchants, and people like George Soros, a billionaire who profited heavily from our moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (by buying into a Brazilian oil company that is drilling in the Atlantic and ... the Gulf of Mexico), and is trying to replicate on the dollar his feat of profitably crashing the British pound about a decade ago -- effectively stealing billions in savings from the British people. [To which I should have added a host of very corrupt Congressmen, like inside traders John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi and those who donate heavily to their campaigns.] The endgame is to reduce all but a small elite of the American people to poverty, so they will willingly enslave themselves to the rich that remain in order to survive. It serves their interest to have Americans more interested in football, Lindsay Lohan, and Dancing with the Stars, and in what would be (but for Ron Paul) a meaningless Republican primary, than to understand what is really going on.

A future historian might well entitle their work on the last fifty years, While American Slept: The decline and fall of the United States of America.

Wednesday night, I attended a meeting of an organization of which I have been a member for sixteen years. Before it started (it is a small group), I briefly went over the Defense Appropriation Bill's detainment provisions and their implications (essentially what I wrote Nov. 29), and asked them if this was the kind of government they really wanted to pledge their allegiance to (They know I have not recited the Pledge of Allegiance since I joined them). And again, even with this warning, I remained the only one not to stand up for the pledge. Our people are very confused, and I am beginning to wonder what, if anything, will shake them out of the myth that we still live, and always will live, in a "sweet land of liberty."

My allegiance to the United States government is conditional on its fidelity to the Constitution, which represents the basic principles of our Founding Fathers. My desire for Ohio independence is to replace that government with a smaller one that is faithful to the same principles, as the Ohio Constitution is (in some ways better than the U.S. Constitution). If we see a miracle next year in the election of a President and Congress who are faithful to the Constitution, I will reconsider my position, but I am not confident that such a miracle will happen.

A lesson from history

2011-12-01T07:37:00.001-05:00

Reichstag fire

Compare the following account in Conservapedia with the logic behind Sections 1033 and 1034 of the Defense Appropriations bill, which we discussed Tuesday. I found the comparison rather chilling:

On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag in Berlin was destroyed in a fire that had plainly been deliberately set. Exactly who set the fire remains a question never fully resolved. Most contemporary observers both in and outside of Germany blamed and still blame the Nazis themselves, though [author William] Shirer admits in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that “The whole truth about the Reichstag Fire will probably never be known...”

9-11

Didn't all this hysteria over terrorism start with 9-11? Like the Reichstag fire, the whole truth of how the World Trade Center was destroyed will probably never be known.* In response, Congress passed several acts designed to restrict the freedom of the American people, notably the USA PATRIOT Act, creation of the Department of Homeland Security (which makes it possible for the federal government to create a secret police apparatus), the REAL ID Act, and those Transportation Security Administration gropers and scanners.

The article continues:

A day later a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state” was passed:
“Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searchers, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.” [Does the part in italics sound familiar?]

Thus, the first taste of Nazi state terror was rendered “legal,” as over the next week Brownshirts took into “protective custody” several thousand Communist officials and many Social Democrats and liberals. These prisoners, often snatched from their homes and off the streets, were loaded onto trucks and carried off to SA barracks and hastily set up prisons where many of them were held, tortured and killed without the formality of a hearing or trial. The rationale for these drastic measures, Hitler’s government insisted, was the dire threat posed by the communist menace...

Not to be alarmist, but if the Defense Appropriations bill stands, our soldiers will be able to do exactly the same thing, and not just to suspected al-Qaeda terrorists! And then there are those empty FEMA camps... Continuing in Conservapedia:

“The burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for a bloody insurrection and civil war…it was ascertained that today was to have seen throughout Germany terrorist acts against individual persons, against private property, and against the life and limb of the peaceful population, and also the beginning of general civil war.”

Compare this paragraph with Senator Lindsay Graham's statement about Al-Qaeda on our shores in the Defense Appropriations bill debate (from The Hill):

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) argued that al Qaeda members are enemy combatants and should be held and prosecuted by the military. He and fellow Republicans have been critical of reading terror suspects Miranda rights.

“When they say, ‘I want a lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up,’ ” Graham said. “ ‘You don’t get a lawyer. You’re an enemy combatant, and we’re going to talk to you about why you joined al Qaeda.’ ”

At this point, the democratic Weimar Republic became Adolf Hitler's totalitarian Third Reich. Let me suggest that we may have a point of comparison here with a statement of President Obama's (July 27):

[The President] admitted that “the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting” when it came to dealing with Congress over the debt deal. And while he added the caveat that our democracy doesn’t work like that – the crowd was cheering the possibility of Obama side stepping Congress and doing things his own way.

The Third Reich built a system that enriched Germany's largest industrialists at the expense of everyone else. We call that system Fascism. In one of my early posts (January 2008), I listed ten steps to fascism. This act effectively completes Step 10 (to suspend the rule of law). The only remaining step is Step 9, to assert that dissent is the same as treason, and I expect that shoe to drop very shortly. We are already close to that, as evidenced by this Washington Times interview April 6 (which I reported a month later) and this Homeland Security advisory dated April 7, 2009.

When I was a student at Ohio Northern University, I lived on the west end of a large open space on campus. I could see the sunrise (or a moment or two after, because of buildings and trees in the distance). I once had a horrific dream where I saw the sun rise, on which was emblazoned a black swastika. In the midst of the Red menace when I went there, that would have seemed ridiculous; but it convinced me then that Fascism would be a greater threat to this country than Communism ever was.

This is one dream that I do not want to come true.

(Source of the Reichstag fire account: William Shirer, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, volume II)

* Update 12/2: I have encountered some skepticism about this claim, because it suggests that I am a so-called "Truther". There is considerable evidence gathered by professional architects, engineers, and demolition experts that the World Trade Center could not have fallen the way it did solely from the planes crashing themselves through the buildings. The collapse of each building, in their professional opinion, and from films I have seen of controlled demolitions, suggest that the crash was supplemented by a controlled demolition. See the 911 Architects and Engineers for Truth site for this evidence. Also see my Dec. 2 post.

Next steps

2011-11-30T07:25:00.001-05:00

In yesterday's post, I wrote that enactment of the defense appropriations act (S.1867) without the Udall (or Paul) Amendment would be, in my opinion, grounds for pressing for independence. I am not being rash. I have been thinking about this for several years.

However, that time is not quite yet. To become law, S.1867 has to go through one or two more steps. The first is, to be signed or vetoed by the President. The President has stated that he would veto the bill if the offending sections were not removed. To sign the bill after that statement would be an act of perfidy unrivaled in the history of the Republic, which only eleven years ago would have provided sufficient grounds for impeachment. However, with this President, we cannot rule out that possibility.

The second possibility, which offers a slender thread of hope, is that the President will veto it. To overturn the veto requires a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress. The House of Representatives would easily pass the bill again; but to override the veto, the Senate is six votes short.

Judge Andrew Napolitano asks today, "What if the Constitution no longer applied?" What is to be done?

The prudent course of action would appear to be, continue unless and until the bill is enacted; and if it is, to determine the most effective course of action moving forward. It may be necessary to stop this blog for a time, to ensure that my actions do not defeat my purpose; which is, and always has been, to restore the liberties of our Founding Fathers to the people of Ohio.

In these times, you cannot be a patriot and a coward at the same time.So choose wisely, dear reader. Remember from history the Nazi concentration camps, which housed not only Jews, but many others, including "Aryan" dissidents. Remember the Soviet gulags. Remember the "tiger cages" of Vietnam. Remember how men disappeared and died in Argentina in the days of Juan Perón. We have heard rumors of Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) concentration camps* being erected for those who commit so-called "domestic terrorism." Sen. Rand Paul yesterday noted that people who could be suspected for "domestic terrorism" under existing law include those with missing fingers, those who store guns and ammunition, and those with more than a seven-day food supply in their homes. If the FBI and the military are given free rein to pick up American citizens on the slightest suspicion, those concentration camps (some built by Halliburton, Dick Cheney's company, by the way) will become reality.

Without liberty, there is no true prosperity and no purpose in life. However, as we have often quoted Thomas Jefferson in this space, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Are you prepared to give yours, to ensure the freedom of your children and grandchildren?

* I have no way of knowing whether everything in this link is factual; however, the San Francisco Chronicle editorial in the middle of the link is convincing.

The last straw

2011-11-29T14:36:00.001-05:00

Speaking of Gestapo tactics, now come Sens. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) and John McCain (R-Arizona) to sneak into a defense appropriation bill provisions that potentially would enable the military to enter the home of any American citizen on American soil and detain them indefinitely without any warrant or trial. The bill (S. 1867, specifically sections 1031-1032) is justified on the grounds that it will give the military the flexibility and tools it needs to combat al-Qaeda. Technically, the executive would be given discretion as to whether a specified terrorism suspect should be tried in the civilian courts or a military tribunal.

It has been opposed by (among others) Sens. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Mark Udall (D-Colorado). Sen. Udall has introduced an amendment to remove sections 1031-1032, which would conform the bill to customary American values. President Obama, to his credit, is threatening to veto the bill if the two sections are included.* The White House issued this statement giving the President's objections:

Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.

I would have liked it better if the President could say "Fourth Amendment," but I suppose that is asking too much.

Dr. Andrew Bosworth, writing for the Canadian think tank Global Research, has done an extensive analysis of the bill, which is reproduced in the Infowars.com website. In an article aptly titled "Treason from Within," Dr. Bosworth cites the opinion of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 542 U.S. 507 (2004), in which an attempt was made to detain Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen, as an enemy combatant:

… it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process.

Dr. Bosworth concludes:

The “war on terror” was originally to be waged against foreigners in far-away lands, but Rep. Ron Paul was right, the anti-terror infrastructure is swinging around to be used against American citizens.

This was the design all along.

The intention was always to immobilize the American public with a police-state control grid, now backed by the regular military, so that the process of economic extraction and political subjection could be completed.

The NDAA for 2012 represents a significant step, on the part of the government, towards a “final takedown.”

The bill’s provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens, without charge or trial, represents nothing short of an declaration of war by the federal government on the American people.

Couldn't have said it better myself, though I will add a couple of comments:

If there is danger from terrorism (and there may well be), it is because we have sent our military abroad, who have killed innocent civilians in "collateral damage." As one active-duty soldier put it, "There is no flag large enough to cover... the shame of killing innocent people" (in Pakistan, for example). Further restricting our liberties only erodes the moral standing this country once had with the world -- and for that matter, with its own people.

If this bill is enacted without the Udall Amendment, I will consider it to execute both Triggers 1 and 2 to Ohio independence (see right panel), and will thereupon press for independence in earnest.

Even if a soldier knocks down the door of my home and takes me.

Update 9 pm: The Washington Times reports that the Senate voted 61-37 to approve the bill, including Sections 1031-1032. Senators Rand Paul and Mark Steven Kirk (R-Illinois) were the only Republicans voting against the bill because of the language. Forty-four Republicans, 16 Democrats, and one independent voted in favor. The Constitution is dead. Heaven help us all.

Virtual buckeyes to Charlie Earl and Jason Rink.

* Unless Sen. Levin is right, and the President was conveniently posturing against a position he originally pressed for.

Gestapo tactics

2011-11-28T08:08:00.001-05:00

Henry D'Andrea at the Politicons website cites an Atlanta Business Chronicle article about a Waco, Georgia, crane operator who has put the following sign on his trucks:

When asked why the signs are there, Bill Looman, owner of U. S. Cranes, LLC, said, "Can't afford it." He was interviewed by the FBI following a tip that he was a "threat to national security." It was also referred to the Secret Service. However, the Secret Service's reaction was interesting:

“The Secret Service left here, they were in a good mood and laughing,” said Looman, who added he just spent 10 years in the Marine Corps. “I got the feeling they thought it was kind of ridiculous, and a waste of their time.”

As Mr. D'Andrea wrote, apparently liberal tolerance only flows one way.

The slippery slope toward tyranny is getting icy.

The wall of silence is cracking

2011-11-23T10:38:00.001-05:00

Steve Sack, Minneapolis Star-Tribune

Forbes, a business magazine I have always liked for its independent attitude, has broken the mainstream media's wall of silence against Ron Paul. I saw evidence of that wall of silence this weekend while traveling -- USA Today refused to even mention Ron Paul in its coverage of the foreign policy debates Monday evening. Pollster John Zogby, in an op-ed piece published Nov. 9, thinks that the intensity of support behind Ron Paul makes him a force to be reckoned with:

I don’t expect Paul to drop out, or for very many of his supporters to abandon him when the process comes down to the two-person race many anticipate between Mitt Romney and Herman Cain or Rick Perry. Instead, I could see Paul gaining support, especially if Cain’s candidacy is blown up by sexual harassment charges.

Mr. Zogby likens Rep. Paul's candidacy to those of Ralph Nader, in that both have been strong rejections of the existing two-party (or one-party with two faces*) system. In his view, Rep. Paul's candidacy will pressure the other hopefuls to cater more to the libertarian wing of the party -- but notes that the reward might not be worth the risk to candidates, such as Mitt Romney, who will be facing a President Obama posing himself as a "centrist" against the "extremist" GOP.
Mr. Zogby concludes:

Paul gets labeled a fringe candidate. But in this era of a closely divided electorate, anyone who commands the allegiance that Paul does from an activist libertarian movement must be accounted for in the political calculus.

I personally do not think a Ron Paul nomination is completely implausible. The media have been feeding on Presidential candidates like piranha in the Amazon, destroying the candidacies of one after the other. I would not rule out the possibility that Rep. Paul might be the last candidate standing come June. With a choice as sharply defined as the one a Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama election would provide, we would know for sure just where the American people want to go.
On a personal note, I know my output has been low this month. I am finishing work on my book (really), and expect to get back up to speed next week.

* As evidenced by their Congressional delegations "failing to agree" on a deficit-reduction package. It's not a failure to agree -- in fact it was the reverse. They agreed to continue business as usual indefinitely.

Prophecy of the day

2011-11-18T12:06:00.001-05:00

Jimmy Carter,
President of the U.S., 1977-1981

We are at a... turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure... [Emphasis added].

Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny...

This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them."

-- Jimmy Carter July 15, 1979

It is the responsibility of every nation to secure sufficient energy resources within its borders, to the extent possible (and with creative thinking, it should be possible for every nation, though the means will differ with climate and location).

Say what you will about Jimmy Carter, he nailed the situation we see today -- 32 years ago.

Virtual buckeye to Erin Baker Platt.

Our troops know what is going on

2011-11-12T22:33:00.001-05:00

This photo appeared earlier this week in Facebook. I'm sure some will find it offensive, but it is certainly the truth. If this country is to survive the next few years, we must bring our troops home and reduce some of the taxes used to pay for these wars to let us build up our economy!

The inscription on the flag reads, "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."

Veterans Day

2011-11-11T07:00:00.000-05:00

My meditation today is a paraphrase of Winston Churchill:

Never in the field of human conflict have so many given so much for so little.

Those who serve know it -- and give their campaign money to Ron Paul. No one wants to give their life to an unworthy cause; but thousands of Americans have done so, not because the defense of the United States is unworthy of their sacrifice, but because their sacrifice has had nothing to do with the defense of the United States.

The importance of Issue 3

2011-11-09T13:27:00.001-05:00

Thomas Jefferson, father of nullification

I have a running argument with a friend on Facebook who seesno value to nullification; and I admit, his arguments are impressive and, froma legal standpoint, persuasive. He sent this letter to the Columbus Dispatch, which as far as I know, was not published:

Economically, Constitutionally, andLogically, Issue 3 is a lose-lose:

Regardless of your political leanings and view of the Affordable Care Act(ACA), Issue 3 is a bad proposition for Ohio. The amendment would costtaxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, result in needless litigation, and, inthe end, leave us in the exact same place as now.

Throughout our 200 year history, state-level nullification of a federal law hasbeen attempted on numerous occasions, always with the same results. The SupremeCourt consistently has found that states do not have a right to ignore oroverride a law enacted by the federal government. (e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland,Osborn v. Bank of the United States, Cooper v. Aaron). With 200 years ofprecedent against nullification, what makes us think that this will be anydifferent?

This time, it won't be any different – Ohio will not be allowed to nullify theACA. The state will spend tens of thousands of dollars, and countlessman-hours, defending a losing battle. Instead of being able to 'opt out' of theACA, we will be back where we are now, only with a loss of money and time.Issue 3, in the end, will change nothing.

If Ohioans see Issue 3 as the end of the matter, it will change nothing; because, as myfriend writes, it has no legal standing. Nullification does not repeal afederal law, no matter how unconstitutional that law may be. Whether it canstop an unconstitutional federal law within its own state depends on how thebattle of wills between the people of Ohio and the federal government plays out,as I shall explain presently.

In 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, whichgreatly restricted freedom of speech. Because of the First Amendment, the Actswere grossly unconstitutional; but there was no case to bring before theSupreme Court (before it was generally acknowledged that the Supreme Courtcould rule on the constitutionality of a law). Thomas Jefferson and JamesMadison held, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, that when all else hadfailed, the states had a right to prevent enforcement of an unconstitutionalfederal law within its boundaries. The nullification resolutions started a politicaluproar that led to a new President and Congress in 1800, and the prompt repealof the Alien and Sedition Acts.

In 1832, South Carolina passed a nullification ordinanceagainst the federal tariff. President Jackson threatened force against theState of South Carolina if it attempted to block federal enforcement of thetariff. The resulting battle of wills led to a compromise, in which Congressrepealed the provisions of the tariff that were most harmful to South Carolina,and South Carolina agreed to accept the amended law.

These were two examples in which nullification succeeded, notas a legal act, but because it sent a clear signal to Congress that the actsbeing nullified were intolerable to the people of an entire state. In otherwords, nullification is not a legal act,it is a political one. There are also plenty of examples in whichnullification attempts failed – because the issue being nullified was notcompelling, or because the cost of upholding the nullification was greater thanwhat the people of that state were willing to pay.

Normally, people will uphold the rule of law and use thecourt system when they collectively feel that the system is just and fair. Insuch times, nullification efforts will fail. However, when the people find thatthe law has become merely "an instrument of the tyrant's will" (as Thomas Jeffersonwrote), then they will resort to extraordinary measures.

In American political theory, there are three politicalsteps that can be taken when the people find that the law has turned againstthem:

They can vote the enactors of that law out inthe next election, and elect a Congress that will repeal that law. But whathappens when people perceive that system to be unjust, not just in the last fewyears, but over a generation or more?
They can, as Ohio's voters just did, turn tonullification, to send a strong message to the Congress that the AffordableHealth Care Act of 2010 is infringing on the rights of the people to make theirown health care decisions. Nine other states have made the same statement. Butwhat happens if the federal government is determined to enforce its laws over repeatednullifications, or Congress is simply tone-deaf to the people it purports torepresent?
A state has the right to secede. Secession, likenullification, is not a legal act even though it observes a legal process. OurFounding Fathers declared independence when it found a British Parliament thatwas tone-deaf to the pleas of the colonists. We may be approaching a time when,having tried and failed to repeal offensive legislation or to nullify it withinthe states; that separating ourselves becomes the only recourse that can beinitiated peacefully. We have seen instances in the last twenty years in whichsecession abroad has been carried out in peace; but that does not mean that anysuch act can be done peacefully here.

I assert the right of secession as a natural right. A goodargument can also be made, based on contract law, that the Constitution of theUnited States is a compact between the fifty sovereign (really, sovereign) states to provide for acommon defense and agreed-upon services from a servant federal government. Whenthe federal government rejects the authority of that Constitution, the compactis broken, and the states have the right to repeal their ratification of it.

Failing all three, there is nothing that can be done withinthe legal process. If the federal government is determined to suppresssecession by force, then we face a situation when (again quoting Jefferson) "the treeof liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants." In other words, we would have to resortto the natural right of revolution, just as thirteen Southern states foundthemselves having to do 150 years ago.

The best solution is for Congress to heed the calls of theseveral states to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, Real ID, the USAPatriot Act, and other offensive legislation; and if it fails to do so, for thepeople to enact nullification ordinances all over the place until it does. Butif the federal government is intent upon establishing a tyranny over us, wehave the right to secede, before any of us resort to violence.

"All political power is inherent in the people.Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they havethe right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem itnecessary…" -- Ohio Constitution,Article I, Section 2.

Update Nov. 10: This is 213th anniversary of the adoption of the Kentucky Resolutions, written by Thomas Jefferson, against the Alien & Sedition Acts mentioned above.

The state issues summarized

2011-11-02T09:10:00.000-04:00

I plan to vote Yes on all three issues:

Issue 1. I have come to oppose any laws that restrict the choices of voters (subject to one qualification, coming up), whether it be age limits for judges or term limits. Raising the maximum age to 75 is a step in the right direction, but age limits should be abolished entirely. Even better is merit selection. Most non-lawyers vote on name recognition alone. Those who go to a bit more trouble will check what the Bar Association thinks. Merit selection allows us to vote a judge in, then decide every six years whether the judge is worth keeping. (Here is a concurring opinion favoring Issue 1 from Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor).

Issue 2. If you have read this blog more than a day or two, you know that I passionately support Issue 2, limiting (but not abolishing) the collective bargaining rights of public employees. There are flaws that need to be addressed, but the financial situation in our state and local governments calls for an immediate response.

Issue 3. This is a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the feds from forcing Ohioans to buy health care. No one should be forced by government to buy anything.* Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional, will interfere with patient-doctor relationships, and sets a dangerous precedent for future legislation. Vote Yes on Issue 3.

* Contrary to a popular belief, Ohio's financial responsibility law does not require Ohioans to purchase auto insurance, as long as the driver can prove that he can pay $25,000 in damages as the result of an accident. (Ohio Revised Code §4509.01(K)).

Question for the anti-Issue 2 crowd

2011-11-01T08:39:00.002-04:00

What is so horrible about paying a teacher based on their effectiveness as an educator?

Quotation of the day

2011-11-01T08:35:00.000-04:00

Charlie Earl, again... reacting to a story in the Daily Caller (and elsewhere) about President Obama's announcement that he will "continue to act independently of Congress to benefit the American people."

Of course... it's the divine right of kings.

I think the President is serious about wanting to be a dictator.

Message of the day

2011-10-31T12:57:00.000-04:00

Happy Halloween from Ohioans for Healthcare Freedom (the folks who are supporting Issue 3). Their email message certainly is appropriate to the day:

Government involvement in your healthcare is creepy

A video we have produced pokes fun at the idea of government involvement in your day to day healthcare decisions, and yes, its funny.

It's meant to be funny (and a little creepy), but still make you think about the absurdity of good old Uncle Sam being involved in your day to day healthcare decisions.

See Video of Uncle Sam involved in your healthcare here.

If we couldn't laugh, we'd cry, so let's not lose our sense of humor in the face of the government takeover of healthcare.

Unfortunately, the truly scary part is that in federal or state based mandated healthcare - the government really can define your insurance for you. Bureaucrats start deciding what will and what won't be included in your newly government defined healthcare insurance.

And where previously, you had the option to switch insurers and get away from a plan you don't like, or even skip insurance altogether - now, you will participate in a government defined health plan whether you like it or not.

What does government defined insurance look like?

Well, that's the fun part - no one really knows the answer to that question. It's a moving target. What we do know is that - you don't have a say in the matter.

And that's a huge problem. When government mandates are implemented - your freedom to choose goes out the door.

It's a slippery slope. Let's remind the government, when it comes to healthcare - three's a crowd.

Vote YES on ISSUE 3!

I support Issue 3, and urge you to share your support with others.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

2011-10-31T08:00:00.000-04:00

There is an old game in political circles that asks how a candidate could credibly answer the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" If the candidate answers by denying that he ever beat his wife, he gets accused of a coverup.

There is a philosophical truth that no one can prove a negative; yet, journalists expect candidates to do this all the time. Case in point: the airwaves are all atwitter with allegations that Herman Cain had engaged in some kind of "sexually suggestive behavior" to at least two female employees when he was the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.

Note the vagueness of the accusations, as reported by Fox News:

The report said the women signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them five-figure financial payouts to leave the association and barred them from discussing their departures. Neither woman was identified.

The report was based on anonymous sources and, in one case, what [the Politico website] said was a review of documentation that described the allegations and the resolution.

Queen Victoria (1837-1901),
the model of propriety

He say, she say. We do not even know for sure that there was any "documentation that described the allegation and the resolution." What we read is what the publication said was a review, etc.

And what is "sexually suggestive behavior"? Some people would consider "sexually suggestive" that a man wear a shirt with more than the collar button unbuttoned. Given the current state of sexual harassment law, "sexually suggestive" is what the most prudish woman in the workplace says it is. Maybe Mr. Cain just winked his eye at her.

I have at present no way of knowing whether the allegations against Herman Cain are valid. I know only two things: (1) They were obviously politically motivated, and (2) They are impossible to disprove, even if Mr. Cain was a virgin* at marriage and has been completely faithful to his wife ever since.

* A man can be a virgin in the sense of definition 4.

Recording of my appearance on Global Freedom Network released

2011-10-28T14:48:00.000-04:00

Last Tuesday, I appeared on the Global Freedom Radio Network to discuss The Ohio Republic, sovereignty, and secession with host Brent Johnson.

I was not completely happy with my performance, but it was a good learning experience.

I should add that Mr. Johnson and I disagree about several of the things he promotes, such as common-law solutions to problems with government; however, we have enough in common to justify the appearance.

Lobbyists too powerful because government is too powerful

2011-10-28T14:26:00.000-04:00

As a member of the Libertarian Party, I frequently get e-mails from national party Chairman Mark Hinkle and Executive Director Wes Benedict. I read them and usually delete them. However, today's message from Mr. Hinkle gets right to the root of the problem with big government. I am quoting it in full:

"President Obama is currently caught in a bit of a scandal over his pledgenot to take campaign money from lobbyists.

"According to theNew York Times, 'Despite a pledge not to take money from lobbyists,President Obama has relied on prominent supporters who are active in thelobbying industry to raise millions of dollars for his re-election bid.'

"It's unfortunate that the president has added one more to his pile ofbroken promises. But it's not at all surprising.

"Our government has far too much power and money at its disposal. Theinevitable consequence is that businesses, organizations, and individuals willwork very hard to guide that power and money in their own favor.

"In fact, it often seems like politicians intentionally create incentivesfor people to try to bribe them.

"Businesses especially will fight for more corporate welfare, and also forregulations that stifle potential competitors. What choice do they have? Ifthey don't fight for those special government favors, then someone else will,which will put them at an increasing disadvantage, and might drive them out ofbusiness.

"A recent Economistarticle pointed out that over the last ten years, companies that lobbiedheavily had a much bigger increase in stock value than those that didn't.Executives might conclude that if you're not lobbying, you're ripping off yourshareholders!

"And of course, these entities that stand to benefit from governmentfavors will work hard (and spend hard) to get friendly politicians elected.

"Some people feel that massive campaign finance regulations will stop thisunholy bargaining. It won't. When the dust settles, campaign financerestrictions usually just make life easier for incumbents and harder forchallengers. We Libertarians know that only too well.

"I have to remind myself, lobbying isn't essentially a bad thing. It's anexpression of our right to 'petition the government for a redress ofgrievances.' It provides information to politicians. But when politicians getin the habit of handing out favors, you can bet everyone is going to run up tothe trough.

"The only way to reduce the power of lobbyists is to reduce the power ofgovernment. That choice rests with the voters. If voters keep electingDemocrats and Republicans, then the power of government and lobbyists willcontinue to grow. If voters start electing Libertarians, things willchange."

Besides voting Libertarian, the only long-term solution to lobbyists is to decentralize government so much that lobbying becomes impractical, except by local citizens and businesses.

Is secession legal?

2011-10-27T20:20:00.003-04:00

This issue was posed to opposing teams of British and American lawyers, asking whether America acted legally to use the Declaration of Independence to separate from the British Empire. According to BBC Magazine, the judges found in favor of the Americans, because of the American argument that the reasoning behind the Declaration of Independence already appeared in a British document in 1688: "The English had used their own Declaration of Rights to depose James II and these acts were deemed completely lawful and justified."

I still have to wonder why, if secession was so amply justified in 1776; that the same act, under similar circumstances, has been deemed illegal and reprehensible both in 1861 and today. To me, it seems logically inconsistent.

Secession will take place in the near future, because nothing really unites the country that has taken diversity to an extreme. There are no unifying principles, religion, or language. As Patrick Buchanan wrote recently (article in the Tampa Tribune, but published nationally), we will face a "secession of the heart." We need to think about this now, while it is still possible to do so in an orderly manner.

Remind me why

2011-10-26T08:07:00.000-04:00

From Judge Andrew Napolitano's Facebook page:

The courage and valor of the American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines is admirable -- the purpose of their missions, unfortunately, is not.

"National defense" means protecting the territory of the United States from foreign aggressors, such as Mexican drug lords.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

- John Quincy Adams, Independence Day speech to the U.S. House of Representatives, July 4, 1821

How to approach the Occupy movement

2011-10-20T09:11:00.003-04:00

I know many people consider the League of the South to be a racist organization,* but I think their approach to Occupy Whatever is exactly right. We need to consider the same for Ohio.

From their news release Oct. 17:

The League of the South, the primary Southern nationalist organization, has watched the Occupy Wall Street movement for a month now with some interest. We have even been asked to participate in some of the protests in cities across the South.

However, we have politely declined. And here's why, according to League President Michael Hill: "Though we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Wall Street banksters are crooks, we have no interest in either occupying Wall Street or reforming it. Simply put, we want to leave it behind, along with every other corrupt institution of the American empire, and work to create a free and independent Southern republic. That is our solution. We encourage the Southern people to embrace it."(Emphasis added).

* I report, you judge.

Union bashing

2011-10-20T08:17:00.001-04:00

A very good friend of mine protested on another friend's Facebook page with respect to Issue 2: "I'm so sick of union bashing." The friend who wrote that is a retired teacher, who undoubtedly sees the union as a protection in what has become a very stressful profession.

I firmly believe in the right to organize and to collectively bargain. There are occupations that often need a union to protect its workers from being abused by poor managers. I have cited corrections guards as a strong example within Ohio state government (see third bullet point here).

However, there has to be a balance of power. A union that is too weak is ineffective. A union that is too strong becomes a parasite that slowly kills its host (for example, much of the American auto industry). When wages and benefits negotiated by unions become more costly than the company or taxpayer can bear, they have to be cut back, no matter how much its members dislike the fact. In the government of a free society, the will of the taxpayer must always be paramount.

I understand that the original Republican motivation for SB 5 was to "bust the union," and from a Republican political point of view, it is not hard to understand why. Everyone who seeks power wants to get rid of their strongest adversaries. Democrats do the same thing when they inconsistently try to limit corporate campaign contributions without imposing the same limitations on unions.*

A union should not force workers who do not wish to join the union to pay the "fair share fee." I get that, in a way, this is unfair to the union, because non-union workers benefit from collective bargaining -- though that could be remedied by removing non-union workers from the protection of the union. For example, non-union members could be exposed to the same rules and grievance procedures as their supervisors. The point is, that by creating union shops, the unions develop power structures that are unaccountable to their own members and constituents. If the union had to work to increase its membership, or even keep the membership it has, it will be more attentive to the needs of all its members, and will greatly increase its attractiveness to non-members as a result.

If Republicans really want to bust the public employee unions, they should work for state and local governments that are so well managed that employees will not want to join a union. That strategy has clearly worked in private enterprise, as evidenced by the decline in union membership in the last thirty years. I cannot believe that it could not be applied to government, given enough creative thinking and hard managerial work.

* It is inconsistent because in both cases campaign contributions are being taken out of funds that were acquired with the understanding that they be used for a different purpose -- the unions for collective bargaining, workplace protection, and in some cases benefits; the corporation as capital or revenue from sales. I favor campaign finance laws that prohibit all contributions, except from individuals living within the candidate's district.

Exposing Progressive Capitalism

2011-10-19T08:13:00.001-04:00

... is an interesting new page in Facebook. Its purpose, as well expressed by its logo (left), is to inform the American people how the leftist-sounding rhetoric actually serves a few large corporate interests. Republicans will not like the site, but all of us need to think about whom government is meant to serve.

For myself, I would prefer a Jeffersonian nation of farmers, shopkeepers, and artisans to the society we have now -- it would be much more satisfying physically and spiritually, and require far fewer resources to maintain. This graphic from that page neatly summarizes how corporate cronyism works, at both the federal and state level:

Dreaming of independence

2011-10-19T07:43:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, the Ohio Supreme Court rendered its decision on the Republican redistricting plan, which the Court ruled may be put up for a referendum (News article from the Youngstown Vindicator). The Vindicator recommended that a plan submitted last year by Secretary of State Jon Husted should be considered for creating more reasonably drawn districts.

Former state representative Charlie Earl must have learned this close to bedtime, because he started dreaming of independence, as recorded in his blog littlestuffminoosha.

If for some reason (pick one, any one), the district map fiasco hasn’t been resolved in time for a reasonable petitioning/filing date, reasonable primary date and sufficient time to prepare for a general election or special election, then Ohio could claim a “time out” from participation in the federal government until we get the matter resolved. Actually, we might discover that our little breather or suspension of our federal participation might not be deadly. It might even be an occasion for exercising our rights as citizens without fear of Big Government trampling them just because some bureaucrat decides it can. We in the Buckeye state may conclude that we enjoy freedom, independence, self-reliance and the ability to chart our own course without interference from the Nanny state. Freedom can be exhilarating.

It is possible that our small-minded state politicians who are more concerned with holding and exercising power than with following the national and state constitutions have provided us (unintentionally) with a golden opportunity for reclaiming our liberty. If it works out that we become a “free state,” then our first order of business should be to select legislators and administrators who know what they’re doing, who have the interests of Ohio ahead of their partisan desires, and who are NOT seeking a lifetime job at the government trough. Deep in my heart and veneered onto my brain is the hope that our venal self-serving political class has finally shot themselves in the feet. Their faulty marksmanship can set us free. Just a thought for your consideration. I’m going back to sleep now and attempt to recapture the dream.

Okay, it's an improbable scenario, but it's a start. As Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski wrote (and I quoted in August):

It may well be that the impossible at a given moment can become possible only by being stated at a time when it is impossible.

In the crisis we all know is coming, all kinds of improbable scenarios might come to pass. Remember what the USSR was like in 1989, and what happened to it two years later.

Iran, again

2011-10-19T07:00:00.000-04:00

Several of my Facebook friends have been circulating this map of U.S. bases surrounding Iran, following Iran's threat last week to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States:

No wonder Iran feels threatened!

This map has been verified from various sources (best single source is the Canadian think tank Global Research, but I have checked others). I have verified all of these locations except Georgia and Azerbaijan (upper left on the map).

We are beginning to hear the same aggressive talk toward Iran that I heard a decade ago in the runup to the war in Iraq.

I am unalterably opposed to such a war. As I have repeatedly stated, a war with Iran will be a catastrophe from which the United States will never recover. Not financially. Not politically. Not militarily. Not economically. Not ever. I wrote this four years ago, and I stand by it today. Iran has never attacked us (whether it would like to do so is another story).

I can see only two reasons, both invalid, for even attempting such a thing: (1) To protect Israel (which is perfectly capable of protecting itself), or (2) because the establishment wants to prolong a state of continuous war for economic reasons. The Iranian desire for a nuclear bomb is a natural response to the threat it perceives from us. However, it would be too late for anyone to dissuade the Iranians from continuing, even if the US withdrew all of our troops from the region.

The United States has only one sustainable foreign policy -- to mind our own business. Unfortunately, we find it difficult to communicate that fact to our fellow Ohioans, let alone to Washington. The unsustainable foreign policy, along with the mounting deficit, coming hyperinflation, and accelerating loss of personal freedom, will contribute to the breakup of the United States in the near future, which could prove to be the best thing for all concerned.

State employee still supports Issue 2

2011-10-18T07:00:00.000-04:00

To hear and read the propaganda swirling around this issue,one would think my headline would appear in a newspaper -- because publicemployees appear to be a monolithic bloc standing against the issue to limitcollective bargaining rights. The bill this issue seeks to repeal (SB 5) is notperfect, as I wrote March31 when the General Assembly sent it to Governor Kasich, but I still favorits passage.

Both sides distort the truth. Proponents allegedly useactors and Republican Party operatives to portray public employees in support;but opponents are laying on the emotion very thickly when they argue, "SB5 hurts us all."

Here are some of the Ohio County and State EmployeesAssociation's arguments against Issue 2, as documented in their Public Employee Quarterly for Fall 2011(not online):

· Issue 2 isunfair because "OCSEA members have sacrificed over $350 million in paycuts and health care concessions, while politicians have taken a pass." The article notes that Gov. Kasich ispaid $10,000 more than was Gov. Strickland, but Gov. Kasich could not havereceived that "hefty pay increase" without the approval of the priorlegislature, one house of which was Democratic. The fact that elected officialsand their immediate staffs are not covered by Issue 2 really means that Issue 2does not go far enough.

· State employeesworked 20 days without pay in the last two years, paid more into their healthcare, and had steps and personal leave frozen. Also true. But it isn't as though private enterprise employeeshave had a free pass the last few years.And frankly, our health care is exceptionally good and exceptionallyeconomical. Step increases make no rational sense from a business perspective.We also have much more vacation time than most private-sector employees, so Ido not buy into the personal leave argument. This is a bill to help state andlocal governments balance their budgets. They will not balance as long as theyare forced to pay exorbitant payroll costs, including for a lot of time that isnot worked. It is also unfair to expect Ohio's working taxpayers to foot thebill for employees who are substantiallymore privileged than they are, even though we appear to be comparablypaid.

· Collectivebargaining will be taken away. Partiallytrue. Unions will still be able to negotiate wages and salaries, but notworking conditions. This is a legitimate concern for safety workers, especiallycorrections guards – and is something that needs to be addressed as soon aspossible.

· "Publicemployees deserve democracy and a voice in the workplace. This is exactly whatwe're fighting for overseas and why I am volunteering [in the campaign to opposeIssue 2]." I would like tosee the private corporation (other than the few that are employee-owned) thatgives its employees "democracy in the workplace." The reservist whomade this comment needs a reality check. The best-run companies give theiremployees a voice in the workplace,but not a controlling one.

· "Ifwe do not repeal SB 5 by voting NO on Issue 2, who's to stop state governmentfrom reverting back to the days of cronyism when merit was based on skin color,sex, political affiliation, and everything in between." Or on loyalty to the unions orbribery? To some extent, these concerns are addressed by civil rights laws.Beyond that, the best way to ensure fairness is to build a free and open marketfor labor and to encourage entrepreneurship for minorities and women. If weconsider it human nature for like to employ like, then spreading around theopportunity to create new business will ensure that more of us will have a fairopportunity to get jobs and promotions.

An investigation by the Columbus Dispatch into Issue 2reveals very little about the likely impact the bill will have on stateemployees or the taxpayers. There simply are too many variables.

However, we cannot goon the way we have. State government without reform is not sustainable onthe long run, even if we increase taxes to pay for what we have. There arelegitimate concerns about Issue 2, as I expressed last March, to which I wouldadd one expressed recently that teachers' merit pay would be tied to academictest scores, which would make one of public education's most glaring flaws evenworse. Again, the bill needs amendment.

However, at the end of the day, I continue to support Issue2 for the same reasons that the Cleveland Plain Dealer did when the newspaperendorsed it yesterday:*

.. Ohio desperately needs to control the costs of government at all levels.It needs to send a clear message that the old, familiar ways of doing thepublic's business have to change.

In schools, the emphasis has to be on the progress of children, not thecomfort of adults. In city halls and county offices, the impact on those whopay the bills -- and the sheer magnitude of those bills -- must be paramount…

Imperfect though it may be, Issue 2 will give local governments and schooldistricts more tools to control labor costs and protect taxpayers. It requirespublic employees to make the same kind of contributions toward their health andpension benefits that most private-sector workers do. It ends state-mandatedwage step-ups, requires performance-based pay and permits layoffs based on morethan seniority. Those factors are especially important to school districts suchas Cleveland that need to transform themselves in the face of outmoded staterules that force them to toss aside newer -- and perhaps better -- teacherswhen money is tight…

Polls consistentlyshow that Ohioans like many aspects of Senate Bill 5, but not the nastytone behind it. When this campaign ends, Kasich has a chance to be a healer. Hemust not pass it up.

Nor should Ohio pass up this opportunity to break with an unsustainablestatus quo. Yes, change is scary. But look around: Not changing is evenscarier.

When they mark their ballots, Ohioans cannot worry about what is best forany political party or interest group -- on either side of this debate. Theyneed to consider what's best for the future of their children, theircommunities, their state.

They need to pass Issue 2.

Amen.

Update Oct. 18: The Columbus Dispatch reports on the concessions that public employee unions have made to state government since 2008. In my experience, the facts reported are correct; but reciting them misses the point -- it is still unfair to expect taxpayers, many of whom are un- or underemployed, to support public employees to a greater extent than other working Ohioans are supported by private enterprise.

* The Columbus Dispatch endorsed Issue 2 on Monday.

Now the truth is out

2011-10-17T08:33:00.000-04:00

... for anyone who still had doubt that the Occupiers were preaching Socialism. Note the Ché Guevara graphic...

Capitalism isn't the problem. Corporate cronyism with government is.

I wonder how the young lady will feel if she gets her way -- and then discovers that she will not be allowed to protest the new régime.

Virtual buckeye to Terri Lynn Dewell.

"Leftist intellectual" now an oxymoron

2011-10-14T08:27:00.001-04:00

And I'm tempted to take the "oxy" off of that last word.

Years ago, during the Vietnam protests, the socialist intellectual was a force to be reckoned with. You had to be sharp to come up with good conservative arguments to counter their positions.

Forty years later, having mostly gotten their way, the left has gotten soft in the head, as evidenced by these "Occupiers" of Wall Street, as reported in Rebellion.

Exhibit A:

Inteviewer: "Why should I pay your college tuition?"
Occupier: "I can say what I want!"

Uh, I need a stronger case than that, kid.Obviously you don't have the smarts to get a scholarship...

Exhibit B:

This dude was probably motivated by that childish retort to an insult, "It takes one to know one."

Exhibit C:
I'll have to quote Old Rebel himself on this one:

Gee, who said the Occupy "Fill in the blank" protesters were a little fuzzy about their goals? Oh, yeah, I said that.

Well, this should clear things up. First, this group of Occupiers protests the banks and their influence in the central government.

But this leader of the Occupiers goes ballistic when he sees an "End the Fed" sign and rips it up. (Warning: Language.) Um, the Federal Reserve is the mother of all banks -- it's a privately owned megabank that controls the money supply. Sounds like a whole lotta unaccountable power to me.

To summarize in three words: Dumb and Dumberer.

Earth to Herman Cain: The third "9" in your plan is unconstitutional

2011-10-13T17:53:00.002-04:00

Most of us have heard by now of Herman Cain's infamous 9-9-9 tax plan, where he would favor a 9% federal income tax, 9% federal corporate tax, and a 9% federal sales tax. It's bad enough that he wants to give the feds a new tax source*, but he needs to know that a federal sales tax is unconstitutional!
Here is the evidence:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

That clause was amended by the Sixteenth Amendment (which itself ought to be repealed):

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Note that the power granted to Congress is limited to income taxes. For any other direct tax, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 still applies.

There is another reason that we should oppose the 9-9-9 plan. Can there be anything good for the middle class to have the feds tax money going in and going out.** Herman Cain's plan taxes individuals twice, income and sales tax, and it taxes corporations twice, corporate and sales tax.
I think Michelle Bachmann had the right idea. Turn the numbers upside down and you get 6-6-6 -- the devil is in the details.
* Fox News says that we are still paying taxes based on a bill to finance the Spanish-American War!
** Of course, Ohio has been doing this to us since the income tax was adopted in 1973, but we could still repeal it if we so desired. Getting the feds to repeal a tax is almost impossible.

The mainstream media are doing their part

2011-10-13T08:30:00.000-04:00

Mitt Romney

I have always said that Democratic candidates for President are nominated, but the Republicans are anointed. Clearly, Republican liberal Mitt Romney is the "anointed one," but there is unrest within the ranks. Will the Republicans break the hold of their handlers the way they did in 1980 with Ronald Reagan? We shall see. Those who love freedom can find at least three better alternatives in the field (my opinion: Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, and Herman Cain, in that order).

End the Fed

2011-10-13T08:20:00.000-04:00

We are beginning to understand it, and yes, we are probably going to have a revolution soon...

If you don't understand how the Federal Reserve is robbing us all, read G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island. A good and fairly objective introduction (despite the OccupyWhatever sidebar) appears in Salon.com with the title "Who Actually Owns the Fed and Why That Must End."

Update Oct. 14: If you do not have time to read Creature from Jekyll Island, you can download a one-hour audio version on eBay for 99¢.

Virtual buckeye to Andy Myers.

The United States is NOT the "freest nation on earth"

2011-10-11T18:42:00.003-04:00

In fact, according to the Index of Economic Freedom, published by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, the United States -- barely -- ranks ninth among the 179 countries surveyed. The top six in order are Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Canada -- we sit between Denmark and Bahrain. And we are not "free", we are "mostly free." We have lost our freedoms so gradually, we do not realize just how much has been lost. Chuck Baldwin gives a recap in Vdare.com .

Who's behind the campaign against Issue 2?

2011-10-07T18:15:00.000-04:00

As the Ohio Liberty Council has observed, We Are Ohio (the anti-Issue 2 movement) clearly is not "a bipartisan, grassroots movement speaking for Ohio’s middle class." The truth is reflected in the campaign finance figures submitted to Secretary of State Jon Husted in July, displayed on a graph at the Ohio Liberty Council site that I was unable to reproduce here. Note how the contributions are grouped: $3.7 million from international unions, $2 million from Ohio unions, and less than $40,000 from individual donors. As an objector in a union shop myself, I know that much of that money was forced in union dues from employees who disagree with the leadership's politics. Follow the links at the bottom of the post, then decide for yourself whether We are Ohio is looking out for the public interest.

Choosing our friends

2011-10-03T12:01:00.002-04:00

When I was a child, my mother told me that "you areknown by the friends you keep." That advice has served me well,particularly since I have started publicly stating my political views throughthis blog. I have made many friends, most of them good; a few I have had todefriend or put some distance between myself and them, because I do not want tobe associated with their approach to change.

I bring this up because I found some of my libertarianfriends being seduced by the Occupy WallStreet movement, its sister movement Occupy Together, and the latter'saffiliates in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown (links on the Occupy Together home page).

Since the stated purpose of Occupy Together is to showsolidarity with Occupy Wall Street, it is reasonable to assume that they sharethe same vision. So what is the vision of this movement that has held acontinuous protest in New York City since Sept. 18?

"We are the 99%," says Occupy Wall Street (Oct. 1):

We are unions, students, teachers, veterans, first responders, families, theunemployed and underemployed. We are all races, sexes and creeds. We are themajority. We are the 99 percent. And we will no longer be silent.

As members of the 99 percent, we occupy Wall Street as a symbolic gesture ofour discontent with the current economic and political climate and as anexample of a better world to come.

The previous day, they posted this message:

OccupyWallSt.org stands in solidarity without brothers andsisters in Boston who are marching on Bank of America.

The language and rhetoric is redolent of union activism and leftist protest organizations.

Their symbol is a clenched fist, the historic symbol of thesocialist movement. While they agree with us that the Federal Reserve Bankshould be abolished, there is nothing in their demands, their rhetoric, or theway they operate that suggests that they are libertarian in any way. Rather,they mirror the leftist approach used in the protests against the Vietnam Warand against Wisconsin's collective bargaining bill last winter. Their messageis heavily laced with class envy.

They idolize President Obama, but think he does not go farenough.

Those who are familiar with George Orwell's novel 1984 might suspect that this is a caseof Big Brother setting up his own Emmanuel Goldstein (the straw manrepresenting the opposition, but who believed essentially the same thing).

At first blush, Occupy Wall Street really does appear to representthe "99%," but once you peel off the outer layers, you see that itfosters the same kind of socialism that President Obama wants to foist upon us.

We may soon experience revolution. Some of our people mayeven be desperate enough to want one. But if Occupy Wall Street and its friends arethe vanguard of the revolution to come, we will get a dictatorship of theproletariat, and "dictatorship" is likely to be putting it gently.

We just abolished the rule of law

2011-10-03T09:14:00.001-04:00

Eric Peters at LewRockwell.com demonstrates how, in the execution of Anwar al-Auluqi, an American citizen, we have just allowed our President to execute any of us -- at will.

America has not been a “country of laws, not men” for many years but now it’s official. The state’s fangs have been bared. Within living memory, presidents and congresscretins were at least nominally bound by law. They paid lip service to it and if caught transgressing, there was usually embarrassment if not punishment – and for awhile, the abuse would stop or at least be dialed back a little bit.

No more.

Now, not even a letter d’ cachet is required. All that is required is for the eye of Obama (or that of his successor to the purple) to fall upon you. Improbable, you say? Idiot, sez me.

Idiot, because you – if you believe you’re safe – believe that the laws of human nature do not apply to our Great Leaders, merely to Great Leaders of other countries, who are not spayshull like us. Idiot, because – if you believe you are secure – you believe that precedents don’t set policy. That once established they are always and inevitably expanded upon. That once any individual is subject to arbitrary state terror any of us may be subjected to arbitrary state terror – and the only thing holding it back (for the moment) is that the eye of Obama has not (yet) fallen upon you and yours.

No more is there the restraint of procedure, of the submission of evidence to a jury in open proceedings, to weigh against the charges leveled. Indeed, charges are no longer required – let alone a finding of guilt based upon evidence. Merely:

Ah ahm the decider! And ah have deecided!

Oh, surely, it is now enunciated in a more polished and highbrow manner by the current Don. But it is the same thing, essentially. I decide. From Lincoln to Hitler to Bush II to The Constitutional Scholar: Fuhrerprinzip. Power flows from on high, incarnated in the person of the leader.

I am being hysterical you say?

Yes, I am. Because I see where this is headed and what it will come to mean for all of us, eventually – or for any of us, that is, who might find ourselves described as “domestic extremists” for disbelieving in the principles of IngSoc and expressing criticism of the same.

In one of my early posts (January 2008), I listed ten steps to fascism. This act has completed Step 7 (Target key individuals). The Establishment already controls the press (Step 8), which leaves only Steps 9 and 10: to assert that dissent is the same as treason, and to suspend the rule of law.

Mr. Peters and I then quote the dissident German pastor Martin Niemöller's famous comment about how Germans allowed the Third Reich to be established. It is worth reproducing here:

First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Perhaps the more contemporary version will be:

First they came for the Arabs, and I did not speak out because I was not an Arab.
Then they came for the gun owners, and I did not speak out because I did not own a gun..
Then they came for the Tea Partiers, and I did not speak out because I was not a Tea Partier.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Let me make one final comment that will surely offend some people, but I am sure it is the truth: Anyone who thinks that we will change course by electing anyone other than Ron Paul as President or by electing a Republican Congress is a fool. And I am not totally convinced that electing Ron Paul will do anything except slow it down a bit, since he would still have to contend with that Congress.

There is no hope, if we do not take responsibility ourselves. We must build up our state government to resist the tyranny to come, first by passing measures like Issue 3 against forced health care; then honest money, and if necessary, secession.

Virtual buckeye to Charles Earl.

Update 10/3: Paul Craig Roberts gives a concurring opinion at LewRockwell.com: In his article, "The Day America Died," he shows how the federal government and the military have been brutalized, with the support of many "patriotic" Americans who fear terrorism so much that they are willing to trash the very document that protects them. His conclusion:

Readers ask me what they can do. Americans not only feel powerless, they are powerless. They cannot do anything. The highly concentrated, corporate-owned, government-subservient print and TV media are useless and no longer capable of performing the historic role of protecting our rights and holding government accountable. Even many antiwar Internet sites shield the government from 9/11 skepticism, and most defend the government’s "righteous intent" in its war on terror. Acceptable criticism has to be couched in words such as "it doesn’t serve our interests."

Voting has no effect. President "Change" is worse than Bush/Cheney. As Jonathan Turley suggests, Obama is "the most disastrous president in our history." Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who stands up for the Constitution, but the majority of Americans are too unconcerned with the Constitution to appreciate him.

To expect salvation from an election is delusional. All you can do, if you are young enough, is to leave the country. The only future for Americans is a nightmare.

As I expressed above, I remain a bit more hopeful than he is that the situation can be changed. But not much. I could leave -- Canada is not that far away -- but emigration does nothing to weaken the tyrant.

Federal judge rules Patriot Act unconstitutional

2011-10-01T13:28:00.000-04:00

MS-NBC, not usually noted for being a "wingnut right-wing" news source, reports that a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act has been ruled unconstitutional by District Court Judge Ann Aiken. The Foreign Surveillance Act allowed searches without warrant in cases where the FBI was gathering intelligence on foreign citizens. The USA PATRIOT Act extended the FBI's ability to conduct secret searches in terrorism investigations on U.S. citizens.

In this case, Portland, Oregon, attorney Brandon Mayfield's fingerprints were found on an object in a blown up subway car in the 2004 Madrid bombing. The evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause, but prosecution was permitted under the provisions of the act.

It goes without saying that the federal government will appeal, but this, at least is another small victory for the Constitution at a time when it appears to be under siege.

Virtual buckeye to Bill Yarbrough.

Judge Napolitano strikes again!

2011-09-30T08:44:00.000-04:00

Judge Andrew Napolitano and Harold Thomas,
March 2010

Is freedom in America a myth or a reality? Judge Andrew Napolitano asks a series of questions, which seem to answer themselves as he goes on. The style of the article does not lend itself to quoting it here, but I encourage you to read it in LewRockwell.com

Virtual buckeye to Andy Myers.

The burning issue

2011-09-29T15:13:00.002-04:00

We face many issues in national politics today. Building oureconomic base to employ our people, resolving our foreign wars, maintainingvalue in our currency, ensuring access to health care, and ensuring the stabilityof Social Security and Medicare, are just a few of them. We hear debatesbetween candidates that offer many approaches to these and other issues.

However, all of these discussions boil down to one burningissue. Its resolution will determine how, and how well, the others will beaddressed. It is this: Do we have theconfidence to govern ourselves?

Those who have that confidence favor local solutions,personal responsibility, defense at home, and entrepreneurship. They shareThomas Jefferson's vision of a nation of farmers and artisans, living perhapsmore modestly, but in harmonious and spiritually satisfying relationships withGod and their neighbors. They want to enjoy the wealth that they have created throughtheir own efforts. They want charity to come from the heart as they cheerfullygive of their bounty. Jeffersonians seek impartial justice. They seek thehighest expression of human creativity and service. They are willing to accept the risks offinancial insecurity in exchange for the blessings of liberty.

Those who lack that confidence favor top-down solutions,collectivism, empire-building and corporate investment. They share AlexanderHamilton's vision of a wealthy and powerful nation that builds on thesacrifices of its people. They find thatreligion and tradition hinder progress. Their notion of charity is doling outmoney from the government as it confiscates the work of others. Hamiltoniansseek a perversion of justice that favors their friends. They seek productivityand a strong bottom line above everything else, and condition the people toaccept the loss of liberty in the name of personal security.

This burning issue has been with us since 1787. In the earlyyears of the Republic, the clash between the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonianvisions provided a creative tension that helped build the nation. When AndrewJackson shut down the Bank of the United States, the Jeffersonians prevailed,but only for a generation. Abraham Lincoln's crusade to "save the Union"supposedly resolved the issue for all time, as the Hamiltonians gained, andcontinue to hold, the upper hand.

Today, we see where Hamiltonian corporatism has taken us. Thefederal government has nearly destroyed the initiative of the people and thestates to solve their own problems. It has confiscated the wealth of its peoplein taxes and destroyed the desire to create new business opportunities. Americanmanufacturing has become a faint memory of the past, as its jobs and money havebeen exported to other lands. The Hamiltonians have built a "nannystate" that has even turned many of our adults into spoiled childrenliving as its dependents; instead of the productive, contributing people Godmeant us to be. It has brought us to economic ruin. The near future is likelyto bring poverty for the majority, hyperinflation, slavery to the state, mass frustration,and revolution.

The differences between Democrat and Republican,"conservative" and "liberal" are no longer relevant. BothRepublicans and Democrats are Hamiltonians. The Jeffersonians have beenrelegated to minor parties, Tea Parties, media obscurity; and being informed bytheir self-appointed betters that they and their Presidential candidate, RonPaul, are "wingnuts" unworthy of being reported in the media, letalone enjoying a place at the table.

The Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian visions are utterlyincompatible. Those who would harmonize the two positions might as well try to makea compromise between good and evil. The only people who benefit from a powerfulnational government are bankers, the military-industrial and medical-insurancecomplexes, and the politicians they can buy in Washington. The rest of us notonly suffer financially, we suffer from the wasteful loss of lives in wars thathave nothing to do with defense, and everything to do with greed.

Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the samething over and over, and expecting a different result. Every election in thelast sixty years has replayed the same struggle. Yet, regardless of which partyhas been in power, the result has been the same: more power and more money toWashington, less freedom and less opportunity for us. We keep hoping againsthope that things will be better after the next election. We should have learnedby now that elections alone cannot fix a corrupt system.

Can we cure our own insanity? Right now, we can work withour state legislators to defend our interest through nullification andsecession, but this opportunity will not last long. We can assert the self-confidenceto rule ourselves and to cultivate the virtues we need to maintain a freesociety. Or we can settle for the tyrant who promises security, even after hebegins to jail and murder us by the tens of thousands. Do not say it cannothappen here. We are human. We have known for thousands of years that ouractions will eventually bring predictable consequences. The laws of humanbehavior do not respect "American exceptionalism."

This is the burning issue: do we have the confidence to ruleourselves? Its resolution will determine how, and how well, the others will beaddressed.

Ford muzzled under White House pressure

2011-09-29T08:54:00.002-04:00

The New York Post reports that White House pressure caused Ford to withdraw a television ad in which the owner of an F-150 pickup truck showed that he was not about to become the party to any bailout:

“I wasn’t gonna buy another car that was bailed out by our government,” says the Ford owner. “I was gonna buy from a manufacturer that’s standing on [its] own -- win, lose, or draw. That’s what America is about, is taking the chance to succeed and understanding when you fail that you gotta pick yourself up and go back to work. Ford is that company for me.”

At least as long as the White House does not complain about the competition to "Government Motors."

I'M not laughing...

2011-09-29T08:12:00.003-04:00

From the Raleigh News-Observer, via BigGovernment.com:* North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue suggests that Congress suspend the 2012 elections to fix the economy. Her staffers later tried to dismiss it as a "joke" or sarcasm, but as Publius at BigGovernment.com wrote, "If that was a 'joke' then Gov. Perdue may have the worst sense of comic tone and timing in history."

I have heard on occasion that the President has ambitions of becoming a dictator. In a speech July 27 to the Latin-American group La Raza**, President Obama

admitted that “the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting” when it came to dealing with Congress over the debt deal. And while he added the caveat that our democracy doesn’t work like that – the crowd was cheering the possibility of Obama side stepping Congress and doing things his own way. The whole scenario reminded Glenn [Beck] and Pat of (nerd alert) the scene in the Star Wars prequel where Palpatine grants himself emergency powers – effectively making him The Emperor – as the Senate cheers on. Pat even played audio from the scene where Natalie Portman’s character says, “This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.”

Gov. Perdue's remark, then, might actually be a trial balloon for suggesting a suspension on a national level.

I'm not sure whether this makes it scarier or more comforting -- we've heard this before in rumors prior to 2008 that Homeland Security (during the Republican Bush Administration) might suspend that election in the event of a terrorist attack (see article by Michel Chossudovsky in the Canadian Global Research site for details)

This is close enough to my Trigger #1 to justify Ohio independence. Once a suspension is put into place, there is no assurance that it will ever be lifted.

* And many other places. This is one video that has "gone viral" on the Internet.

** German translation: Das Volk. Choice of language intentional.

Cartoon of the day

2011-09-29T07:23:00.000-04:00

Virtual buckeye to Teri Cain Owens.

Quotation of the day

2011-09-28T12:05:00.000-04:00

Dwight D. Eisenhower
President of the United States 1953-1961

By one of the most underrated Presidents in U.S. history, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. ... Is there no other way the world may live?

Virtual buckeye to William Golden.

What a concept!

2011-09-28T07:43:00.003-04:00

From Farmer's Pal via Robert Owens:

Eating locally-grown produce, even if not (strictly speaking) organic, would be a vast improvement over the white tomatoes that get shipped in from California. Home canning preserves food through the winter with most of its original flavor, and none of the chemicals that preserve what we get from Argentina and Chile. Some think this is a step backward. I beg to differ.

Update on the IHOP raids

2011-09-28T07:37:00.000-04:00

I posted a report from the Toledo Blade Sept. 20 of a raid by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security on several International House of Pancakes restaurants in northwestern Ohio and Indiana, in which many boxes of records were seized.

The franchisees owning the restaurants are Jordanian-Americans. While the FBI has refused to provide any information, there appears to be some suspicion of terrorist activity within subsequent stories published by the Blade. Here is the latest, from Sept. 22.

Outsider take on Ohio's "Heartbeat bill"

2011-09-26T21:14:00.000-04:00

Russell Longcore, of DumpDC, who is often quoted in this space, gave an interesting take on Ohio's HB125, a bill to outlaw abortion once a heartbeat is detected in the fetus:

Politics meet religion in Ohio – The Ohio legislature [House] recently passed the so-called “Heartbeat Bill,” named because it outlaws abortion at the first detectable heartbeat of a human fetus. Now the bill must be passed by the Ohio Senate before it can be signed into law. It will be the most restrictive abortion law in the nation if passed. Remember folks…this is not about reproductive rights. You have all the reproductive rights you deserve…right up to the instant you get pregnant. Then your rights properly morph into responsibility…which is what REAL rights always do anyway. This is about whether or not it’s OK to kill another human being because its existence is inconvenient. Natural law bestows the right to life and NONE of us get here without some help. Good luck, Ohio. Godspeed. About 50 million lives have been snuffed out since Roe v. Wade in 1973. The oldest of them would be nearly 40 years old now…paying into Social Security and Medicare. OOOPS. Unintended consequences suck, don’t they?

The Constitution leaves decisions on these matters up to the states. They are not federal responsibilities. If Ohio wants to outlaw abortion entirely, and another state wants to allow it up to birth; that is up to the people and legislatures of the respective states; and is no one else's business.

Down on government? You are not alone

2011-09-26T15:36:00.000-04:00

The Gallup Poll has released a series of measures of public confidence in the federal government. Nearly all of them are at or near record lows, including 81% dissatisfied with the way the nation is governed, 15% approval of the way Congress is doing its job, and 49% who now feel that the federal government poses "an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens."

Gallup's bottom line:

Americans' various ratings of political leadership in Washington add up to a profoundly negative review of government -- something that would seem unhealthy for the country to endure for an extended period. Nevertheless, with another budget showdown looking inevitable and a contentious presidential election year getting underway, it appears the ratings reviewed here could get worse before they improve.

So it appears that I am not the only "gloom and doomer" around here...

... and I am NOT a "conservative" ... or am I?

2011-09-26T08:33:00.000-04:00

My Nolan Chart

According to the Nolan Chart (based on the "World's Smallest Political Quiz"), I definitely am not "conservative" in the sense that I generally favor social restrictions with my economic liberty. In fact, I appear to be just a bit left of center, a fact that never ceases to amaze me.

However, in 2007, Harrison Bergeron gave a rigorous definition of conservatism in Conservative Heritage Times that also appeals to me, even down to the defense of marriage (though we probably disagree as to whether government should bolster that defense).

In Mr. Bergeron's view, conservatism essentially takes three political positions: to favor limited, decentralized government, preservation of traditional culture, and a rejection of intervention "at home and abroad." What he means by the last is that conservatives are opposed to social re-engineering projects, taking of property to effect equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity; and of course, military adventures abroad.

By contrast, neoconservatives favor big centralized government, universalism ("local culture at home and abroad are impediments to their globalist agenda"), and global interventionism.

Leon Trotsky

Mr. Bergeron then goes on to show how neoconservatives have even admitted that their philosophy is based on that of Soviet Communist Leon Trotsky. Here are two examples:

President George Bush follows the Neocon/Trotskyite agenda of global liberation in his second inaugural address:

Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

And here is a confession from Stephen Schwartz in 2003 published in National Review, long thought to be a "conservative" publication:

“And the fact is that many of the original generation of neoconservatives had a background of association with Trotskyism in its Shachtmanite iteration; that is, they belonged to or sympathized with a trend in radical leftism that followed the principle of opposition to the Soviet betrayal of the revolution to its logical end. The Shachtmanites, in the 1960s, joined the AFL-CIO in its best Cold War period, and many became staunch Reaganites.
This path had been pioneered much earlier by two Trotskyists: James Burnham, who became a founder of National Review, and Irving Kristol, who worked on Encounter magazine.”
And how does that author feel about Trotsky today?
“To my last breath I will defend the Trotsky who alone, and pursued from country to country, and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot little house in Mexico City.”

Click to enlarge
Trotsky appropriately depicted at lower left

Both liberals and neocons have this agenda, as observed by the Chicago Tribune April 21, 1934 (cartoon at left -- the link explains the roles of the men riding the donkey and the cart).

In other words, neoconservatives are liberals in sheep's clothing. Keep this in mind the next time that Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or even David Webb try to confuse you or your friends into thinking that neocons are "conservative." And for my part, I will consider the possibility that I am.

Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

Rick Perry is NOT a secessionist

2011-09-25T16:52:00.000-04:00

Let's get the record straight. Rick Perry is not a secessionist. That he is even associated with Texas secessionism is more the result of careless speaking, bad reporting, and the desire of the neoconservatives to see him out of the Presidential race.

What really happened (supported by news reports at the time) was that he was speaking to a Tea Party in Austin April 15, 2009, when someone in the crowd yelled "Secede!" He answered the remark this way, as reported at the time by the Houston Chronicle:

Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that,” Perry said. “My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that.”

He suggested, in a thickly veiled way, that he could imagine a situation in which secession might become necessary, but he never supported the notion.

To one who does support secession from his state, Gov. Perry's remark sounded like an attempt to laugh the idea off.

Anyway, it is self-contradictory and politically suicidal for a U.S. Presidential candidate to favor the right of secession.

When states begin exiting from the Union, Washington will do everything it can to resist; but it may not have the support and the resources Lincoln had to quash it.

My impression of Gov. Perry is that he is trying to walk a tightrope between the paleoconservative and neoconservative wings of the Republican Party. If I were a betting man, I would wager that he is going to fall off.

Update Sept. 26: Brent Budowsky at The Hill submits a concurring opinion, observing that the race for the Republican Presidential nomination is not, and never has been, a "two man race." Rather, it is like "the Wild West."

Why healthcare is too important to be left to the state

2011-09-24T12:34:00.001-04:00

Doug Stewart at LibertarianChristians.com shows wonder at all the marvelous machinery and devices that occupy the rooms and halls of the modern hospital -- especially considering the risks taken by those who developed them that they might not succeed in the marketplace.
He warns that those who favor state-managed health care might kill off the desire to build new solutions to medical problems:

Despite the marvels of the marketplace advancement in health industry, there are two morally attractive but wholly dubious arguments regarding health care that we ought to guard against. The first is that health care is too important to be left up to the free market. Seriously? Take a stroll down the hallways of a local hospital and try to convince yourself that all this stuff can be produced through central planning, even if only for a single industry. If universal health care were indeed possible, its advocates take for granted that the marketplace itself provided the myriad luxuries provided in the medical industry. Universal health care is a direct result of the wealth created by the entrepreneurial spirit in the medical industry. Nobody was crying for “universal health care” 500 years ago.

A second but related complaint is that some people shouldn’t get rich off of other people’s ailments. Never mind the obviousness that whatever wealth is acquired it is in the solving of those ailments! What troubles the anti-market health care enthusiast can be sufficiently blamed on the word “care” in “health care.” The additional word introduces concepts such as intentionality or purposefulness or planning. The patient (who is a type of consumer, by definition, regardless of our sentimental objections to the term) must be cared for by her doctors and nurses. Yet if we consider the economics of the doctor-patient relationship, we realize that the success of the doctor depends on the quality of care they provide, both medically and emotionally. It’s an enormous asset to have a genuinely caring physician. What’s more important is competence and honesty, something a market is equipped to facilitate?

Free markets in health care and health care insiurance (which would require the government to bug out -- including Medicare and Medicaid) will hold costs down and will facilitate a higher quality of care for everyone. I found it to be true years ago, and I have no doubt that it would be true now -- if we will just let the free market system work.

Triggers to Ohio independence

2011-09-24T07:00:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, I suggested that the likely result of an Article V Constitutional Convention should be a trigger to Ohio independence. Here is a more complete list:

Replacement of the U.S. Constitution, or any amendment thereto that reduces the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights).
Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within any state without the consent of the legislature of that state;
Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a military draft, for anyone of any age, except in punishment of crime (13th Amendment).
Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to a corporation or a foreign government.
Federal Reserve Bank policy that induces a hyperinflation (a depreciation of the U.S. dollar at an annual rate of 20% or more).

This list is based on a state sovereignty resolution introduced in South Carolina in March 2009.

Update Sept. 24: Russell Longcore at DumpDC offers a concurring opinion. He believes that it will take a trigger like the ones listed above to enable a state to secede successfully. The one he considers most likely is #5.

School choice bill passes Ohio House

2011-09-23T12:48:00.001-04:00

From Weapons of Mass Discussion, via Brian Duffy:

The Ohio House Education Committee has passed (Thursday) legislation that reforms and expands school choice within the state of Ohio. When enacted, House Bill 136 will add private schools as an option for some families, along with open enrollment, charter/community schools, special education scholarships and joint-vocational schools.

The bill creates the Parental Choice and Taxpayer Savings (PACT) scholarships, which gives scholarships to middle-income families based on need, similar to the federal Pell grant...

State Representative Matt Huffman (R-Lima), sponsored the bill...

The PACT scholarship is $4,600 at its maximum and will be paid from state funding, not local tax dollars. This amount represents at least 20 percent less than the amount paid for charter schools, open enrollment and other school choice programs. Recipients will be counted in the local district’s average daily count, which will bring additional state dollars to the district.

“This program will result in substantial savings to the taxpayer, while giving parents another option for their child,” said Huffman.

House Bill 136 received eight hearings in the House Education Committee and now awaits a vote by the full House.

This will be a giant step toward allowing parents to provide children with the kind of education they (not the state) find appropriate.

The Pledge of Allegiance, translated

2011-09-23T10:19:00.003-04:00

This video was brought to my attention by two of Ohio's most outspoken secessionists. To those who think we owe allegiance to the flag, it will be very offensive --- but I thought it was hilarious and spoke the truth.

Secession is preferable to the Con-Con con

2011-09-23T10:19:00.002-04:00

Suggested Ohio independence flag (no stars)

American Thinker reports that there is a nationwide effort to set up an Article V Constitutional Convention to create a "National Debt Relief Amendment." Accordingly, State Sen. Coley (R-Lebanon) introduced SJR2 Sept. 1 for this very purpose.

This subject has been extensively discussed in this space, and nothing I have heard to date has persuaded me that a Constitutional Convention would not be extremely dangerous to liberty in America. I would therefore urge readers to contact their state senators to oppose this resolution.

In fact, I suggest that the likely result of such a convention should trigger Ohio independence. The events of the last year, particularly the inflation of the U.S. dollar, have radicalized me more in favor of secession than I have previously stated (not that I have been completely quiet on the subject, as these links will attest:)
Video primer on secession
Draft Ohio Declaration of Independence (July 2009)
The case for Ohio independence (Jan. 2008)

Tomorrow, I shall present the other triggers that should prompt Ohioans to seek independence from the United States.

Sound familiar?

2011-09-22T13:29:00.000-04:00

From the British blog Autonomous Mind, entitled "Revolution Time"

If you take a couple of minutes to read this op-ed in the Irish Independent by Eamon Keane, one can quickly identify a number of parallels with our own Westminster Parliament and self serving politicians.

Some of the sentiments that stand out include: ‘Power no longer rests with our impotent national parliament’… ‘Truth be told, it’s been finished for a long time, made redundant by the actions of our politicians’… and ”Our Dail* is also doomed because it is based on a political system where getting re-elected takes precedence over the national interest’. Keane may be writing about Ireland, but it all has a very familiar ring to it.

But the greatest resonance can be found in the most thought provoking part of the piece:
We are in the worst crisis in our history and our parliament is impotent.
Is there any hope for democracy? Yes. While the Dail may be dead a new parliament is emerging. It is to be found in ordinary people, community and support groups who come together to discuss a way forward. A second wave is already there though social networks.
Bullseye.

One commenter to the post suggested that the most effective uprising would be through organizations similar to the Tea Parties.

* Gaelic name for the Irish Parliament

Quotation of the day

2011-09-22T07:30:00.005-04:00

Common sense, actually (via Robert Owens, restating what I said Sept. 15):

Something for Issue 2 opponents to think about

2011-09-21T08:31:00.001-04:00

I am a public employee who supports Issue 2 (SB5). Some of my colleagues think I am out of my mind; but my purpose in doing so is to ensure that state and local governments can remain on a sound financial basis -- a goal that is by its nature opposed to those of collective bargaining. In support of my position, I cite none other than that union hero, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service, August 16, 1937:

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

Public employees are comparably paid (to the extent jobs are comparable) to those in the private sector, and in many instances are better paid when medical benefits and pensions are taken into account. While we have had long periods of stagnant wages, we are not suffering compared to the population at large.

Keep in mind also, that Issue 2 limits the scope of collective bargaining, principally to wages. It does not abolish it. With a few exceptions, it has nothing to do with public pensions. Its purpose is simply to ensure that state government has the freedom to keep the budget in balance with respect to employee wages and benefits. An overview of Issue 2 appears in Ballotopedia.

A Yes vote on Issue 2 upholds the limitations on collective bargaining provided in SB5, a No vote repeals them.

The Pledge of Allegiance ... again

2011-09-20T15:31:00.001-04:00

I've been around this bend several times before, but controversy about the Pledge of Allegiance seems to be a gift that keeps on giving. Here, NPR reports that Martin Rosenthal, in Brookline, Massachusetts, wants to get the pledge out of the public schools, in the belief that it creates social pressure to recite a loyalty oath against their conscience. Not surprisingly, he has attracted hate calls and hate mail for taking this stand.

Here is the simplest way I can put it: In a free republic no one owes allegiance to the government. Government earns its allegiance from the people by preserving their liberty.

Breaking news: Federal agents raid pancake restaurants

2011-09-20T13:48:00.002-04:00

The Toledo Blade reports today (it is a developing story) that the FBI, the Customs Enforcement agency, and local police have raided six International House of Pancakes restaurants in Ohio for suspected terrorist activity. Agents closed each restaurant to the public and loaded white boxes into unmarked vans for investigation. I will report more as it becomes apparent unless it prominently appears in the mainstream media.

Virtual buckeyes to Gabe McGranahan and the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law.

O-H-... N-O!!!

2011-09-20T08:42:00.000-04:00

Brutus Buckeye after the scandal

Normally, I defer to people who are more knowledgeable about sports than I am; but there are a few things that need to be said about Ohio State football that have broader implications.

I live in Columbus. It is a clean, cosmopolitan, and remarkably nice city to live in. Living anywhere comes at a price -- and the price for living in Columbus is three to four months of living with "Buckeye Fever," including the mandatory Hate Michigan Week in November. Fanatical support for Ohio State is considered a civic duty at this time of year, even if you have no connection to the university.

Being a life-long Ohioan, I do wear scarlet and gray with appropriate symbolism on occasion, and want Ohio State to have a successful season. However, this season begins with a pall over it in the wake of the ~~firing~~ resignation of coach Jim Tressel, and the suspensions of several of the players for accepting gifts and selling items. There is considerable doubt that Ohio State will even mount a winning season this year, having a new coach and barely defeating the University of Toledo Sept. 10.

The problem with college football is not Jim Tressel or Terrelle Pryor, or any of the players. The problem is that the system itself is fundamentally hypocritical and corrupt. On the one hand, the National Collegiate Athletic Association trumpets that it stands for the "amateurism" of the college athlete (supported by television ads showing the academic prowess of those who play sports other than football). On the other, there is no question that there is a great deal of money involved in TV contracts, gate receipts, and product placement.

Taylor Branch, at The Atlantic, likens this system to colonialism:

But after an inquiry that took me into locker rooms and ivory towers across the country, I have come to believe that sentiment blinds us to what’s before our eyes. Big-time college sports are fully commercialized. Billions of dollars flow through them each year. The NCAA makes money, and enables universities and corporations to make money, from the unpaid labor of young athletes.

Slavery analogies should be used carefully. College athletes are not slaves. Yet to survey the scene—corporations and universities enriching themselves on the backs of uncompensated young men, whose status as “student-athletes” deprives them of the right to due process guaranteed by the Constitution—is to catch an unmistakable whiff of the plantation. Perhaps a more apt metaphor is colonialism: college sports, as overseen by the NCAA, is a system imposed by well-meaning paternalists and rationalized with hoary sentiments about caring for the well-being of the colonized. But it is, nonetheless, unjust. The NCAA, in its zealous defense of bogus principles, sometimes destroys the dreams of innocent young athletes.

Money is unquestionably a corrupting influence in college athletics; but I am not sure that the problem is best solved simply by giving the players a stipend. If handled in the same way as payments made to graduate students for serving as teaching assistants, I have no real objection to giving a stipend to college athletes; but the problem really runs much deeper than that.

We (and yes, I mean we, the spectators, alumni, and taxpayers) have allowed the athletic* tail to wag the education dog. The purpose of colleges and universities is to provide an advanced education. When athletics distracts from that mission (as it clearly has at Ohio State and many other Division I schools), it is the duty of the faculty and trustees to reassert control, as the faculty did in a rather bizarre way in 1961, when they refused permission for the Buckeyes to play in the January 1, 1962, Rose Bowl:

Within faculty circles, the question of whether Ohio State should participate in the Rose Bowl had been festering for several years. Faculty members questioned the commercial aspects of big-time football. They were concerned that OSU football overshadowed the university’s reputation as a center of learning. To many, the Rose Bowl contributed to an overemphasis in athletics. Ohio State utilized the quarter system, making it difficult for Rose Bowl-bound students to attend classes by January 2. ...

Those opposed to the trip to California were uneasy about the public image OSU portrayed as an “athletic factory”; academic disruptions were prominent in the 1958 Rose Bowl excursion; there was concern that Buckeye boosters were really in control of athletic policy; and favoritism toward football players would occur.**

Fifty years later, the faculty's concerns are still valid; though their remedy in this instance caused more trouble than it was worth.

The solution is to impose strict academic standards on college athletes; at minimum, the same standards that apply to other students, including minimum course loads and grade point averages. Professors enforcing those standards on players in their classes should receive the complete support of the faculty, administration, and trustees. Students who can stand up academically can play. They can receive scholarships, and maybe a stipend; but academics will be first and foremost.

Do not tell me it cannot be done. Division III schools (including my alma mater, #9 Ohio Northern) have done this successfully for years -- and the football is just as exciting without the glitz.***

* In many schools, basketball is just as culpable.

** James E. Odenkirk, "The Eighth Wonder of the World: Ohio State's Rejection of a Rose Bowl Bid in 1961," Journal of Sport History 34 (Fall 2007), 389-395.

*** And just to rub salt into the wound, I can go to Ohio Northern and pay the same price for a football ticket as I did when I was a student 40 years ago ... $4.00.

Quotation of the day

2011-09-15T08:09:00.002-04:00

Andy Myers shares a quote that expresses the libertarian view of charity:

We are obliged to love God and love our neighbors. How we satisfy that commandment is up to us. It is not the place of anyone else or any organization to do our loving for us; coerced charity is not charity. Nor does the end of alleviating poverty, desirable though that end may be, justify another in confiscating my resources from me for that end, even if those resources would in fact be devoted to that cause and not, as is often the case, simply wasted.
-Gerard Casey

A governmental "redistribution of wealth" is nothing but legalized theft.

Decentralism: even in Russia?

2011-09-14T08:39:00.001-04:00

Arutz Sheva, an Israeli network, reports that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev may oppose the powerful Vladimir Putin for the Presidency. It appears that Mr. Medvedev is positioning himself as one who supports the inviolability of private property:

"We tried to create a society without the rich in the past. That experiment led to stagnation, poverty and disintegration of the country," he said.

Not only does he oppose the top down approach so endemic in Russian politics and government, he actually favors decentralism:

"A sophisticated society with many groups and centers of influence requires further decentralization on our part, transferring certain governance functions to social organizations and responsibilities at the highest level to the regional and municipal levels."

The Russians may be proving that decentralism is indeed our zeitgeist (spirit of the age).

Republican Presidential candidates talk about "dismantling Washington".

2011-09-14T08:26:00.004-04:00

CNN had its Republican Presidential debate, and according to the Huffington Post, that grande dame of leftist bloggery, the contest was between Texas Gov. Rick Perry and "the field." As Howard Fineman reports it:

The man who made the federal government's role the center of the campaign is also the man who was the center of attention in the debate: Rick Perry.

He has his story about the 10th Amendment and he is sticking to it. An all-but-forgotten part of the Bill of Rights until recently, it has become the organizing principle of the GOP race this year. When Perry mentioned the federal government during the debate, he used the word "they." It was "they" -- the feds -- who were disregarding their duty to protect the border with Mexico.

Think about it: the federal government is "they."

Is that the way most Americans regard it?

Well, yes, as a matter of fact. Unless of course you are part of the establishment that considers the federal government as "we".

It will be up to President Obama not only to make the case for his own re-election, but for the role of the federal government itself.

It has been a long time -- since the 1920s -- that anyone has really had to do that. Perry threw down the challenge.

And while you're at it, Mr. Fineman, you might take a look at the economic success of the 1920s, and its relationship to a small federal government in that period. And don't throw at me the crash of 1929 until you have examined the role of fiscal and monetary policy at the time.

And, one more thing. Why did you completely ignore Ron Paul -- the candidate who is the most serious about reducing the role of the federal government? Fear, perhaps, or are you falling for the groupthink that he is a wacko fringe candidate? Just asking...

Quotation of the Day

2011-09-12T09:06:00.002-04:00

From Charlie Earl (again!):

The most predictable behavioral aspect of American voters, self-identified conservatives and progressive-leftists alike, is their predictability. They continually select lesser candidates in order to avoid losing to a worse candidate while sacrificing principles for short-term political gain. Clearly, our elitist statist leadership is exactly what we deserve because we appear steadfastly committed to handing them the reins of power. We are engaged in a march toward national suicide because we continue to promote and elect career politicians whose lack of political courage places their fingers on the trigger of our demise.

As we have both said, the lesser of two evils is still evil! We must get the backbone to vote our convictions, without making the calculations about whether or not the candidate is "winnable."

The truth will make us free

2011-09-12T08:39:00.000-04:00

... but facing it can be extremely painful. After World War II, many Germans realized that they could not move on until they accepted responsibility for having made possible the Nazi regime. They made a special effort to educate themselves on the truth of what happened, and became a strong nation again -- this time a positive force for freedom in Europe. This is not a common accomplishment. The Japanese continue to struggle with the same war; and Americans remain in denial about atrocities committed by our own troops in any war.

One of the truths about the War between the States that is particularly painful for me as an Ohioan is the character of Gen. William Tecumsah Sherman, a native of Lancaster who, by embracing the concept of "total war" made himself a mass murderer -- not only of Southerners, but also of Plains Indians after the war. He was ably aided in this effort by another Ohio-born general, Philip Sheridan (from Somerset in Perry County), who wrought vast destruction in the Shendandoah Valley of Virginia, and in the West. To justify these acts as "military necessity" is to say that the end justifies the means, a position that is never morally defensible.


"These are My Jewels," The lady on top is Cornelia, representing Ohio

Evidence that we are in denial? Statues of both men appear in the monument "These Are My Jewels" in the Ohio Statehouse lawn, along with that of Edwin Stanton (from Steubenville), who acted as a virtual dictator of the United States with Congressional support. President Andrew Johnson was little more than a figurehead. [The other four figures on the statue are Gens. Ulysses S. Grant (from Point Pleasant and Georgetown), Rutherford B. Hayes (native of Delaware, Ohio, later of Fremont) and James A. Garfield (from Mentor), all later to become President of the United States; and Ohio Governor, Secretary of the Treasury, and later Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, a resident of Cincinnati prior to entering Lincoln's cabinet.]

Detail. Left to right: Gens. William T. Sherman, Ulysses S. Grant, and Philip Sheridan

No one wants to face the shameful acts of one's own people; but until we do, we will not embrace truth. As long as we choose to live in lies, we will find ourselves enslaved by them.

9-12

2011-09-12T07:00:00.000-04:00

Today is the fourth anniversary of The Ohio Republic. In my first post (of 1,130 so far), I stated the purpose of this blog:

The purpose of this blog is to advocate the peaceful, legal independence of Ohio from the United States of America. This will be done by discussing the philosophy that will underlie the new political system; the emotional, legal, and practical issues involved in achieving independence; and highlighting news of differences between the State of Ohio and the United States Government.

This, I trust I have done, even though at times I have been circumspect in promoting independence. I do believe that ultimately (and soon), independence will be necessary to preserve our freedoms; but I am willing to entertain the idea that nullification might prove sufficient, and to ensure that all lesser measures to prevent tyranny have failed before pressing secession in earnest.

On January 1 of this year, I summarized at greater length the platform of The Ohio Republic. The essential points of that platform are commitments to individual freedom, decentralist government, using practical approaches to problem-solving. rejection of anarchism, pressing the Ohio General Assembly to resist the federal government when necessary by preventing the enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws (nullification), advocating preparations for independence and declaration of same when all else has failed, and placing our faith in our Judaeo-Christian heritage.

While my all-time hit count (a little over 83,000 last week) won't knock anybody's socks off, I have found loyal readers who respect my writing and occasionally have quoted my posts elsewhere. I appreciate all of my readers, and thank you for passing on whatever you have found worthy. In addition to this site, The Ohio Republic appears on my Facebook page, in the Libertarian section of Before It's News, and was recently added to Ohio's Top Blogs.

We have clearly lost a great deal of freedom just in the last four years, so the work clearly needs to continue.

Please feel free to comment or e-mail me your feedback on what you like about The Ohio Republic, and your suggestions for improvement.

And for my part, I promise, God willing and the Internet able, to be here when the time comes to celebrate The Ohio Republic's fifth anniversary.

9-11

2011-09-11T07:00:00.000-04:00

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

There is only so much one can say on 9-11, so this will probably be my last post on the subject, unless something new emerges that calls for comment.

The most appropriate way to observe 9-11 is to make it a day:

To remember the 3,100 people who died in the attacks.
To thank the first responders in New York and Washington for risking their lives to save so many others, and to bring closure to the families of those who perished.
To remind ourselves of the threat of terrorism, at least as long as we maintain a military presence in the far reaches of the globe. Many people scoff at the idea of "Fortress America" -- keeping our troops entirely (or almost entirely) within our own borders; but no military presence abroad can really respect the sovereignty of other nations. Those who doubt this should consider how we would react if foreign troops were stationed on our soil. Justifying our presence abroad in the face of the Golden Rule (for example, by justifying it as "American exceptionalism") is nothing more than pure arrogance on our part. Our presence abroad provides terrorists with the motivation to attack us. We have no moral obligation to protect any country except our own. Europe is (or should be) perfectly capable of defending Europe. Israel and South Korea can likewise defend themselves against any likely attackers. The simplest and most effective antidote to terrorism is to remove their motivation to attack us.
To mourn for the lost liberty that we allowed to occur, in the false belief that it was necessary to preserve our national security. Americans need to remember that the Fourth Amendment (against unreasonable searches and seizures), the rest of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitutional protections of habeas corpus*, and against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws** are absolutes. The best security for Americans is to jealously guard our liberties from our own governments, which by their nature will attack personal liberties for their convenience, or to protect favored interests.

As in past years, I refuse to be drawn into the "truther" arguments. I am not saying that the truthers are wrong -- I am saying that evidence to prove the truth either does not exist, or will remain hidden until this country experiences a revoluton, or years after most of us are dead.

Two of our Founding Fathers have given us the admonitions we most need to heed whenever we remember 9-11:

"Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty"

-- Thomas Jefferson

"The man who would exchange essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Americans lost their liberty because the people were not vigilant; and the experience of the last ten years should show us why we are today neither free nor safe.

* Habeas corpus is the legal principle that one should not be detained by the state, except according to law -- specifically, pursuant to a court order.

** Definitions and examples of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws (scroll down just past the sentence in bold).

Images of Ohio

2011-09-08T16:13:00.000-04:00

Looking for interesting photographs of our state? Try Visual Ohio. It is a small site, but the photography is stunning, and it deserves our encouragement. It has also been added to the Links page.

Virtual buckeye to Ron Wilinski

Forbes says it all

2011-09-08T09:40:00.000-04:00

Forbes is a business magazine that delivers its news and opinion with style and wit. A good example is today's opinion piece by Joel Kotkin. The title should invite you to read the article: "Obama's Economic Trifecta: How the President Helped Kill, Progressivism, Capitalism, and Moderation."

Which wouldn't be so bad, except that the GOP is so inept that their contribution may well be to re-elect the President, so he can, in Mr. Kotkin's words, "screw up even worse."

Memo to the General Assembly: Get it right this time

2011-09-08T09:25:00.002-04:00

For the third time in five years, the Libertarian Party of Ohio has won a lawsuit to gain ballot access.

Judge Algernon Marbley granted the Libertarian Party of Ohio’s request for a preliminary injunction in Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted that protects ballot access for the party through 2012, including for Libertarian candidates already on the November 2011 ballot in Akron and Troy. (The previous cases are Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell [2006] and Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Brunner [2008, case merged with Moore v. Brunner]).

The opinion states that Ohio's ballot access laws (Ohio Revised Code sections 3501.01 and 3517.01) cannot be justified on constitutional grounds, but rather operate to protect the Democrats and Republicans from competing ideas and candidates. In particular, Judge Marbley states that requiring a minor party filing deadline 90 days before the primary, coupled with a signature requirement of 1% of the voters in the last gubernatorial or presidential election forces minor parties to recruit candidates and circulate petitions at a time when people are not interested in politics. The opinion is 12 pages long and very easy to read. It gives an interesting history of ballot access in Ohio, with a few references to the same struggle in other states. In Judge Marbley's view, Ohio has a long history of suppressing minor party ballot access, and among the larger states, has the least diversity in political party options.

The injunction was specifically addressed to the Libertarian Party of Ohio. It is not clear how much it will help the Constitution, Green, and Socialist Parties. (Click on the Alternative Parties tab under the masthead for additional information on all four parties).

To her credit, former Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner got the message, and granted ballot access to six parties in 2010; but the Republicans in the General Assembly tried earlier this year to trim it back with HB 194. (Applicable text is incorporated in the Ohio Revised Code references above).

The Libertarian Party is 40 years old and appears on the ballot in 31 states. While it currently has only 7,000 voters in Ohio, that number is growing. There are several local officials elected as Libertarians, and voters will elect more this year. We are not going away. Get over it, and get it right.

Virtual buckeye to Bill Yarbrough

New look, same great blog!

2011-09-06T13:07:00.000-04:00

As my eyes get older, I find that the white on blue is getting harder to read. Thinking this might also be true for some of my readers, I decided to increase the type size and contrast for easier reading. I hope you will like the change.

My dream ticket

2011-09-06T09:23:00.002-04:00

I still believe that trying to elect a President and Congress that will reverse the trend toward bigger government is an exercise in futility; but at the same time, it is unchristian to completely lose hope. So with that attitude, I propose the dream ticket for the Republican and Libertarian Parties:

Ron Paul and Karen Kwiatkowski

Rep. Ron Paul

Ron Paul does not need much introduction. He is the gadfly Congressman who opposes the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya; is a stickler for the feds obeying the Constitution, and wants the Federal Reserve Bank to be audited. No better man can be found for reversing the destructive trend we are facing in America.

But you may be thinking, Karen who? Karen U. Kwiatkowski (SourceWatch biography, Wikipedia biography*) is a retired lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force. She is very knowledgeable about military matters and understands strategic issues. With this background and experience, she can reassure fearful Americans that demilitarization will not leave us as vulnerable to the terrorists and Chinese as they might think. Her knowledge is not limited to military matters. She can speak articulately to the needs of families and education (and why they are not the business of the federal government!). She is a regular contributor to the libertarian website LewRockwell.com, and has appeared twice in The Ohio Republic (via LewRockwell, of course). At the same time, she is relatively young (50), energetic, and provides a nice counterpoint to Ron Paul's sometimes dry, academic style. And I have no doubt that, if it became necessary, that she would make an effective President in her own right. She is also a registered Libertarian and a candidate for Congress in Virginia's Sixth District.

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret.)

I do not propose Ms. Kwiatkowski because she is a woman, but let's face it, we need a woman as President or Vice President. We need someone to counteract the excessive hubris that pervades the District of Coercion. Those who are impressed with Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin need to think about their weaknesses, as well as their strengths.

Pairing the wise, grandfatherly Ron Paul with the vigorous Karen Kwiatkowski is a winning strategy for regaining our freedom in 2012.

* Minor correction to the biographies. The article that got her started politically was in the Akron Beacon Journal.

Communists endorse President Obama for re-election

2011-09-02T13:10:00.002-04:00

If I had just made this statement, true as it is, I would have opened myself up to charges of McCarthyism. But here it is, from the Sam Webb at the Communist Party USA's People's World itself:

Neither party is anti-capitalist, but they aren't identical either. Differences exist at the levels of policy and social composition. And despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election of Barack Obama was historic and gave space to struggle for a people's agenda.

If, on the other hand, the Republicans had been victorious in 2008 the character of class and democratic struggles would have unfolded very differently. Our movement would have been on the defensive from Day One, the Democrats would be running for cover, and the Republicans would have an unfettered hand in their efforts to liquidate the welfare state, roll back the rights revolution of the 1930s and 1960s, and crush the people's movement - labor in the first place.

As for the wisdom of a third party, we have always advocated the formation of an independent people's party at the core of which are the working class and labor, racially and nationally oppressed people, women, youth, immigrants, seniors, gay and straight, etc. It is essential for any deep-going social change. But its realization depends on more than our desire, more than our political-ideological attitude. Millions who have to be at the core of this party still operate under the umbrella of the Democratic Party, albeit increasingly in an independent fashion.

Moreover, to separate ourselves at this moment from these forces would be contrary to our strategic policy of building maximum unity against right-wing extremism now and in next year's elections.

Remember this when the President changes tactics and tries to look like a moderate.

Waters over the damn

2011-09-02T12:18:00.004-04:00

Mohandas Gandhi, one of the wisest men of the last century, once said, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

Evidently threatened by President Obama's plummeting approval ratings, and utterly unwilling to read the 6" high printing on the wall, the Congressional Black Caucus leadership has decided to start the attack phase against Tea Parties and other libertarian Americans.

Being one of those allegedly "racist" crackers myself, there isn't much I can say that would help, so I will defer to Congressional Black Caucus member Rep. Allen West (R-Florida), as reported in The Hill:

Rep. West

"When you start using words such as lynching ... that's a reprehensible word and I think we should we should move away from that language." West said on "Fox & Friends."

"One of the things I'm starting to think about is reconsidering my membership in the Congressional Black Caucus, because I don't think they are moving in the right manner toward solving the problems in not just the black community, but all of America."

After making his comments, West sent a letter to Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Missouri), chairman of the CBC, demanding that he denounce comments by Carson and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California), At a town-hall meeting earlier this month, Waters said the Tea Party "can go straight to hell."

"I believe it is incumbent on you to both condemn these types of hate-filled ocmments, and to disassociate the Congressional Black Caucus from these types of remarks," West wrote. "Otherwise, I will have to seriously reconsider my membership within the organization."

West went on to argue that Carson's charges against the Tea Party were "racist."
"Congressman Carson's desire to generally criticize a large grassroots group as racist is baseless and desperate," West wrote. "When individuals believe they are defeated in a political disagreement, they normally resort to race-baiting, which in my opinion is itself racist."

Since Rep. Waters represents a district in Southern California, she might want to think about this.

Not to mention the contempt they are heaping on the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whom they profess to idolize.

I can only imagine what the late Elizabeth Wright would have said about all this...

Elizabeth Wright: A tribute

2011-08-26T08:54:00.004-04:00

It is with sadness that I report the death of 2011 Champion of Liberty Elizabeth D. Wright, which became publicly known August 19. A resident of Brooklyn, New York, Mrs. Wright was an outspoken opponent of political correctness in racial issues. She expressed those opinions through a newsletter known as Issues and Views. She began the newsletter in 1985 and converted it to a blog about ten years ago.

She particularly opposed the view that African-Americans were a victim of their race. Instead, Mrs. Wright stressed the importance of personal responsibility and entrepreneurship as ways of creating economic opportunity; having been rooted in the political and economic philosophy of Booker T. Washington. She also saw that "political correctness" was hindering legitimate academic inquiries into the problems that affect the African-American community.

Mrs. Wright was a private person, almost to the point of being mysterious. The exact date of her death is currently unknown, and no one knows whether she had a family. I was under the impression that in age she was in her mid-seventies. She wrote a touching farewell post in Issues and Views June 20 that indicated that she was going into hospice for cancer.

While her contrarian views on racial issues were reflected in the work of 2010 Champions of Liberty Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell, she also became, unfortunately, a darling to white supremacists (very mild example). This may be in part because of statements like her piece "Racism is not sin." I only learned of her death because The Ohio Republic enjoyed a record hit count from one such organization accessing my 2011 Champions of Liberty citation. Perhaps this should not matter, but at a time when liberals are fond of charging people with "racism by association" (even when they are using your work, and not the other way around), it is disconcerting and a bit embarrassing to me. It is also an injustice to a woman who respected the truth so much that she was willing to be ostracized by others in her community.

This is how Elizabeth D. Wright should be remembered. She respected the truth more than anything else, and had the courage to proclaim it. May she rest in a well-deserved peace.

Update Sept. 7: Here is a longer obituary by Samuel Newhouse in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. It should go without saying that I take very strong exception to the remark by One People's Project founder Daryle Lamont Jenkins that “The only blogs that are paying tributes to her ... are all white supremacists,” but then judging from this blog post, One People's Project appears to be the Southern Poverty Law Center in wolf's clothing...