Legendary Determination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUS691La4gA

Duty. Honor. Courage.

Feared by Big Government. Hated by Big Media. Maligned by power-hungry partisans. That's what happens when organized Constitutionalists create an informed electorate that holds public servants accountable.

“These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” - Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Political action is necessary, but it is insufficient. With political action you win some battles and lose others, but every victory motivates the opposition to fight twice as hard next time. Political action alone is frustrating and causes many activists to get discouraged and give up because it never fixes the root of the problem: an ill-informed electorate.

If you think about it, an informed electorate is more powerful than political parties, Big Media, or special interest money. A sufficiently informed electorate is the reason America has preserved as much freedom as we have, and an insufficiently informed electorate is the reason we've lost as much freedom as we have.

“Education is our total strategy and truth is our only weapon,” said Robert Welch, who pioneered the modern Constitutionalist movement and designed a program that creates an informed electorate in any congressional district. To inform others, you must first inform yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUS691La4gA

Duty. Honor. Courage.

We The People have stewardship of our own freedom. What will we do with it? Preserve individual rights and national independence? Restore the Constitution? If Congress simply voted Constitutionally, the federal government would be 20% its size and 20% its cost. How's that for an economic stimulus package?

Good Money is Coined Freedom

Old Swiss Proverb

By Tom Dillin, Published in the Sandpoint Reader, January 20, 2011 and the Capitalist Papers, March 4, 2011

We shall be governed either by ourselves, under a Constitution, or else we shall be governed by the new kind of master invented in our day, the bureaucrat, and by the impenetrable web of rules that he fabricates and enforces. Let us stand together against the rule of bureaucracy, and for liberty and the Constitution. - Larry P. Arnn, President of Hillsdale College Imprimis, November 2010

The role of money is mostly portrayed as the instrument of greed, instead of its more prominent role as a daily instrument of freedom. When a worker spends his money, the purchase is a vote of support for another worker’s product or service. The transaction is an exchange of value given freely and received with confidence and good faith. Every day 1.5 million Idahoans vote with their dollar bills for the success or failure of products, services, churches, charities, investments, and political causes. This is a remarkable social achievement and a loving way to build a community; it is coined freedom in action.

Bad Money is Paper Serfdom
However, if any part of this voluntary interaction between individuals is interfered with, including the value of money, then freedom itself is threatened. The value of money is reduced by printing too much. When this happens, it follows that the worker’s earnings and life savings have also been devalued and dishonored. This bad money is fiat paper serfdom for it steals the blood, sweat, and tears of labor, intellect, and frugality for future happiness. Increasing the supply of fiat paper is similar to “clipping” coins by the Greek and Roman governments, a little here and there won’t be missed. Both result in money being worth less.

Today, in plain sight, our coined freedom is being “clipped” by the Federal Reserve System (Fed). Since the beginning of the Fed, in 1913, the U.S. Dollar (USD) has steadily lost buying power. Idahoans must ask, why have we allowed the Fed to confiscate 95% of the value of our good money? Is serfdom so hard to visualize? We cannot build a safe, prosperous, and free community on a fraudulent foundation of bad money.

A Little History
The story behind the move from good to bad money is very simple. The Fed abandoned gold and silver for fiat paper. The long history (since 700 B.C.) of gold and silver is proof that this bimetal approach is the most honest and successful monetary system ever created.

History also tells us that fiat paper is the most dishonest and unsuccessful system. Fiat systems eventually collapse. The collapse may come after a long period of increasingly volatile booms, busts, high interest rates, and double digit price increases. It has happened in Germany, Chile, Argentina, Peru, Yugoslavia, and Zimbabwe in modern times.

Plenty of Excuses for Bad Money
The proponents tell us not to worry; some countries have managed to get along just fine with 10-40% inflation rates for many years; this is what perpetual deficit spending does to a country.

The Fed blames Congress for the “budgetary” problem. “Follow PAYGO,” the 1990 pay-as-you-go federal law, Alan Greenspan testified repeatedly. He failed to point out that fiat paper money enables perpetual deficits.

Congress blames the business cycle, greedy businessmen, wage-cost push, and the Fed for not printing enough bad money to solve the bad money problem.

Deficit spending would automatically be curtailed and bad money would disappear, if we returned to gold and silver. To spend more than you make is a basic human weakness; gold and silver money has always kept that weakness in check.

Why Bad Money?
Governments are ensnared into bad money policy because they finance a myriad of government programs demanded by special interest groups. They know the cost is beyond the country’s means, but politicians love to “help” people, be liked, and get reelected. The consequences are overlooked, especially those that pertain to budgeting and sound economics.

The globalists also make demands for bad money in order to finance their wars, foreign corporate adventures, and the military-industrial complex. Politicians go along because they are afraid that they will appear unpatriotic, if they oppose America’s wars. Or they will be considered selfish, if they oppose “helping” poor countries.

Bankers favor bad money because they are in control and put themselves at the front of the line for new money. The first to spend bad money into a good money market has tremendous advantages because he can take advantage of the lower prices. They also earn interest on loans created out of nothing but the cost of paper and ink.

And finally, John Maynard Keynes gave us the most sinister reason for bad money, “"There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." (The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919)

The Idaho Sound Money Task Force
The Idaho Sound Money Task Force is a group of citizens and state legislators, who are concerned about the failure of the Fed and the fallout of inflationist policy on every citizen of Idaho. A solution must be found before our current monetary crisis becomes unmanageable. If we wait, it will lead to panic decision making during a period of social and economic unrest.

Prognosis
The task force does not know exactly how our current predicament will unfold, but we think Idaho will experience double-digit inflation rates, much higher interest rates, higher taxes, a return to the wage and price controls of the 1960s and 1970s, and greater government intrusion into the daily lives of our citizens.

Proposed Solution
To solve this systemic problem we need to understand the problem and, most important, have a sense of how a good system should work. The statists are already at work to replace the current failed system with another just as bad, or worse.

The task force has reached a reasoned proposal that does not violate the principles of freedom and sound economics. Our sound money bill for 2011, The Idaho Constitutional Tender Act, is sponsored by Representative Lenore Barrett (R-Challis). Please ask your state representative to support Representative Barrett in this bipartisan effort.

The Central Problem
The Fed practices a fiat, fractional reserve monetary system. Fiat money has no intrinsic value, no gold or silver backing, and the supply can be increased or decreased by decree. Fractional reserve policy authorizes member banks to loan more money than they have on deposit. Both of these failed concepts inflate or deflate our currency depending upon the ease or tightness of policy in place at the time. These decisions are made in secret by a few appointed decision makers, with neither adequate nor independent audits.

Political and business pressures on such an artificial system lean toward the less frightening inflationary alternative, a policy most evident today with Quantitative Easing (QE1 and 2). The Fed pressured (in some cases panicked) our congressmen into this highly inflationist policy by telling them the alternative, an economic depression, was unthinkable.

“Quantitative Easing” is a politically correct way of saying printing money, inflating money, creating money, issuing money, debasing money, debauching money, reducing the value of money, or just more bad money. This nice sounding phrase is meant to sugar coat irresponsible inflationary actions by the Fed. The massive size of QE1 and 2, accompanied by lack of accountability, has created a confused and fearful citizenry, and for good reason.

In Human Action, page 428-429, Ludwig von Mises says there are three points policy makers must consider with an inflationist policy:

1. It results in overconsumption and malinvestment; it squanders capital and impairs the marketplace.
2. It does not remove the necessity of adjusting production and locating resources based on market realities rather than artificial government edicts. It merely postpones painful adjustments and makes them more difficult to resolve.
3. Inflation cannot be employed as a permanent policy because it will result in a breakdown of the monetary system.

American Prosperity
Underlying America’s prosperity has been a stable money supply brought about by the U.S. Constitution and the gold and silver policies of classical economics (now called the Austrian school of economics). Starting in 1913, we gradually moved away from classical hard money economics. The move from gold and silver to fiat paper money was gradual at first, accelerated under President Franklin Roosevelt, and then completely converted in 1971 by President Richard Nixon, who with no pretense proclaimed, “We are all Keynesians now.”

John Maynard Keynes and the Dark Side
President Nixon’s historic speech didn’t tell us about the dark side of Keynesian economics. Today, with no more natural checks and balances, decision-making is centralized in one all-powerful Fed. Chairman Ben Bernanke has used this power to increase the adjusted monetary base to unprecedented levels. Would Keynes approve or would he say we have reached a destructive level of monetary growth? QE1 and 2 are highly inflationary. We are approaching a critical socially disruptive stage with massive amounts of money unsparingly rained upon favored corporations and special interests.

The explosion of paper currency has reached an exponential level of growth (see chart). This largess is mercantilist, unchecked by common sense or fair play, and portends hyperinflation, instability, more bailouts, and price disequilibrium.

1971 Nixon closes the gold window, supply accelerates

2008 QE1 the Fed more than doubles the monetary base

2011 QE2 the Fed to add $600 billion (off the chart)

The Fed is a Mercantilist Banking System
Mercantilism is the use of the state to fulfill personal or corporate objectives. The use of public policy to improperly comingle private self-interests with public tax dollars and politically inspired legal loopholes, allows the individual or corporation to obtain influence that would otherwise not be feasible. Wherever there have been seats of power, there has been mercantilism, which eventually corrodes the process of the state and reduces individual freedom, especially, the right to property. As Thomas Jefferson said in a prescient letter to John W. Eppes in 1813, “It is a question; whether the circulation of paper, rather than of specie (gold and silver coin), is a good or an evil…I believe it to be one of those cases where mercantile clamor will bear down reason, until it is corrected by ruin.” In a letter to John Taylor in 1816, Jefferson continued, “I sincerely believe…that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

Confiscation of Property
The current system, under the Fed, exposes Idaho and her citizens and businesses to the chronic depreciation of the USD. This loss of purchasing power amounts to the incremental confiscation of their property without just compensation, in violation of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Gold and Silver Guarantee Price Stability
As long as the USD was tied to gold and silver the Fed could not increase the money supply without increasing the supply of gold and silver. This is very important because new mine production and the growth rate of goods and services each average about the same increase over time, a highly useful natural balance. Money created in excess of the gross national product is bad money.

Too much money chasing too few goods and services are the cause of rising prices. Greatly inflating the money supply is the cause of hyperinflation.

Price increases are not the actions of greedy corporations. Once the public stops misplacing blame on the private business sector and realizes that excess fiat money is the real cause of price inflation, we will have made a great leap forward to solve our monetary problem.

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Why doesn’t the Fed follow Milton Friedman’s recommendation that they simple adopt a constant (slow) growth rate for a monetary aggregate and be done with it? This would certainly reduce the volatility of money supply and solve the wide swings between inflation and deflation (economic bubbles and busts). To answer this question, we have to look at human nature and the arrogance of power.

James Madison wrote in the Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part...”

Congress has mistakenly empowered the Fed to issue unlimited amounts of legal tender out of thin air to fine tune the economy. Angels do not make up the Federal Reserve Board; humans make mistakes. Economics is not an exact science. Trying to outsmart the invisible hand of the marketplace is like trying to second guess the daily financial decisions of 308 million Americans; notwithstanding the difficulty of being the world’s reserve currency. This is an impossible task. To give a few men this kind of power is unthinkable and dangerous. Lord Acton, who said “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” must be looking down upon us in horror.

This systemic problem of misplaced power violates the spirit of our forefathers. Where are the checks and balances? Where is the Congressional oversight? Who will guarantee Friedman’s well intentioned “constant growth” solution? The only way to reign in this power is to restore the natural limitations to monetary growth imposed by gold and silver (check) and restore the power to issue money to 308 million Americans (balance).

The Constitutional Tender Act will help stop the corrupting influence of an all powerful Fed by restoring gold and silver money and return the power to issue money to the people.

The Power to Issue Money Belongs to the People
The U.S. Constitution specifies that Congress holds the power to coin money in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5, but this does not mean Congress can create or issue money. Thomas Jefferson explained that this power is held by the people. The only power held by Congress is to weigh, measure, value, and mint gold and silver given to them by the people and then the mint should give it back to the people from whence it came and to whom it properly belongs.

Constitutional Answers
The U.S. Constitution does not authorize fiat money issued by a central bank, according to Thomas Jefferson one of the most influential of our founding fathers. “The incorporation of a bank and the powers assumed (by legislation doing so) have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They are not among the powers specially enumerated.” (Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on Bank, 1791)

It is imperative for the State Legislature to guarantee to and provide for constitutional gold and silver tender by exercising:

1. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution that “No state shall …make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."
2. The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the sovereignty and independence of this State and her citizens, inhabitants, and businesses. The absence of gold and silver coin abridges, infringes on, and interferes with the people’s rights, powers, privileges, immunities, and prerogatives as a political community.
3. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Idaho that “…the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”

Emergency Preparedness Legislation
The purpose of The Idaho Constitutional Tender Act for 2011 is to prepare our citizens, businesses, and all levels of state and local government for a monetary crisis by restoring constitutional gold and silver in Idaho, as a voluntary alternative to Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs).

The Fed and its member banks would continue to operate in Idaho as a parallel system. The circulation of FRNs, commonly called USDs or legal tender, would not be inhibited; and, the IRS code, which places a capital gains tax on gold and silver coin, would not be infringed for Idaho citizens and businesses, who do not participate in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

The task force recognizes that it is the responsibility of the U.S. Congress to abolish the Fed and restore constitutional gold and silver to the people. However, the Idaho State Legislature, the Governor, and the State Attorney General must obey the U.S. Constitution, when federal laws contradict Idaho’s constitutional mandate.

Free-Market Banking
The Idaho Constitutional Tender Act is a call for action by the Governor and the State Attorney General to coordinate and defend a private, free-market, constitutional gold and silver monetary system, created by the people, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. The State Attorney General shall mount a constitutional defense of this Act to protect the state and its citizens against conflicting federal and state banking laws, legal tender laws, and punitive tax codes.

Once the legal barriers are removed, free-market forces would be encouraged to build a working infrastructure, not the government. Entrepreneurs are more experienced and knowledgeable in this field than government officials; they have the expertise to solve and implement the legislative intent of this Act.

Supply of Gold and Silver Not a Problem
There is an adequate supply of gold and silver coins in circulation, in addition to the ongoing production by the U.S. mint to meet the needs of the Idaho Constitutional Tender Act. There is no need for state coinage. State coinage would violate Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

A Boom for the Idaho Economy, Liberty, and the Rule of Law
Under this Act, companies will be attracted to Idaho to participate in the safety, stability, state legal protections, and tax benefits of a good money State. As a shining beacon of economic and individual freedom, Idaho will prosper under the Act.


Tom Dillin was the former chairman of the Idaho Sound Money Task Force and the current chairman of the Legislative District 1 Republican Central Committee.

Jefferson 's Solution to Today's Runaway Government...

Educate the People and Restore Original Principles

Many students of American History stand in awe at the careful wording of the Declaration of Independence which incorporates eight magnificent principles necessary for freedom to exist in America . What some do not fully understand is that Jefferson spent the rest of his life, exactly fifty years to the day, trying to defend those principles and holding the line against an increasingly powerful federal government which seemed to want to break out from the cherished confines and principles of the Declaration.

During the difficult years of the nation's second president, John Adams, the federal authorities assumed powers that alarmed many of the Founders who thought they had gone well beyond Constitutional limits, especially with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Act. This led Jefferson to help draft the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 which were formal protests against such federal acts and declared the states' rights to not obey such unjust laws ...

http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/current_nl.php

State Legislators Warn Against a Constitutional Convention

In this video Oklahoma State Representatives Charles Key and Dr. Mike Ritze, and State Senator Randy Brogdon warn their fellow state legislators in all 50 states against passing resolutions calling for an Article V amendments convention, commonly referred to as a constitutional convention (Con-Con). They also discuss how We the People can effectively influence public policy and address the problems we see in government today by creating an informed electorate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLADEFhJstU



Contact Your State Legislators to OPPOSE Con-Con Calls

A History of Union Murder and Sabotage

The raging union-led protests in Wisconsin have resulted in many Americans taking a closer, more critical look at labor unions and their political clout and influence in shaping policy. With the ubiquitous announcement from AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka that he is granted an audience at the White House “nearly every day,” the American people have become more skeptical of unions and the role that they play in the political process.

Spawning this renewed attention to organized labor are reports that Democratic politicians have been endorsing violence as a legitimate means of protest and political expression. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) has gone as far as telling a crowd of protesters at a union rally that they should be unafraid to “get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” and several other protesters took Capuano’s advice to heart, as former Tea Party Republican congressional candidate Marty Lamb, who ran against Democrat Rep. Jim McGovern in the 2010 elections, was reportedly brutally pummeled to the ground by union operatives at the same rally where Capuano issued his charge to violence.

However, the events that are unfolding now across the country must be placed within the context of organized labor’s broader history of violence and its historical embrace of brutal physical force as a means of legitimate political expression (which crosses the line into what is commonly defined as terrorism). The violence surrounding the various labor uprisings across America is part of a broader culture of bloodlust and savage turbulence within organized labor that has marred the movement since its inception in the late 19th century. It has clear roots in violent, anarcho-communist ideology that lacks any regard for natural rights of life, liberty, and private property — and it threatens the very foundations of our constitutional republic...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/6487-labor-unions-a-history-of-murder-and-sabotage

Senators Confused About Constitution

Senators Davis, Hill, Lodge, McGee, Malepeai (Sagness), and Stennett all voted in 2008 “to direct the Idaho Transportation Board and the Idaho Transportation Department not to implement the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005.” Senator McKenzie was MIA for that vote.

But last week these same Senators all voted in the State Affairs Committee to kill HO117, which would have prevented the implementation of ObamaCare in Idaho.

Same principle. Now they're claiming that interposition by state government to protect the liberty of the people violates the Constitution. Has the Constitution been amended since 2008? No. The proper role of government is still the protection of liberty.

So did they violate their oath of office in 2008 or in 2011? Their constituents should be informed about this dishonerable misrepresentation so they can judge.

Why do state legislators swear to uphold not only the state, but also the U.S. Constitution? Because state legislators have a role in enforcing the U.S. Constitution, just as everyone does who takes that oath. All unconstitutional power grabs are inherently null and void, unless nobody calls their bluff.

The History Lesson Washington D.C. Doesn't Want You to Know

Enemies of freedom have always used racial and religious differences to divide people while they take more power for themselves. It's no different today.

The Greatest Story Never Told: Another black history month is nearly gone, and it's another year where the government-schools and the pundits fail to teach Americans an important history lesson...the one that goes like this - "OK, for all these years, we've been telling you that states' rights and nullification was evil and all about racism. It's not and we're sorry for lying. In reality, for over a decade before the civil war, states' rights and nullification were used to resist federal slave laws and protect the rights of African Americans in those difficult times."

The Underground Railroad and the Coming of War
It was about states' rights, Northern States Rights: Students accustomed to equating states’ rights with South Carolina may be stunned to learn that it was the Wisconsin Supreme Court asserting the nullification doctrine in the mid-1850s!

The Untold History of Nullification
Resisting Slavery: Few Americans have ever heard the heroic story of how the people of Wisconson and several other states stood up to the federal government’s tyrannical, unconstitutional slave laws with the help of their elected state officials. It happened so much that South Carolina decried northern nullification when they announced their secession.

Video of Senator Pearce asking you to be at the nullificat​ion hearing!

Elizabeth Allen Hodge of Legislative Watch interviews Senator Monty Pearce. This video is about H0117, Idaho's ObamaCare nullification legislation that will be heard in Senate Committee on Friday, the 25th at 8 AM at the State Capitol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hh2jHAawM4



Senator Pearce is one of our courageous state legislators who is unafraid of taking on the federal government in order to protect Idaho's citizens. But he can't do it himself - he is asking YOU to be there on Friday to support this bill. Please put other plans on hold and take the time to attend the hearing - even if you don't testify, your presence there will make a huge difference. For those of you who do want to have your voice heard - you can testify in person at the hearing, or you can leave a written testimony with the clerk. Be sure your contact info is included with it.

This is it, people! This is our chance to draw the line in the sand that we have been waiting for!

We may not get another chance to fight this horrendous bill - so PLEASE MAKE THE TIME FOR THIS HEARING AND BE THERE FRIDAY MORNING, Feb, 25TH - 8 AM - STATE CAPITOL, basement, senate auditorium.

PLEASE PASS THIS FAR AND WIDE - we need to contact as many Idahoans as possible.

Violent Media Hypocrisy

If conservatives are responsible for the tragic shooting of a Congresswoman in Arizona over a month ago, then liberals are responsible for the recent outbreaks of violence directed towards certain Idaho public servants. Following this line of reasoning, it's the liberal media, teacher's union and their demonizing rhetoric that have escalated the situation to violence.

The media conveniently ignored the Arizona Shooter's Leftist Connections To Ayers, Obama during their non-stop coverage, Politicizing Ariz. Mass Shooting to Demonize Guns, Conservatives instead.

Where's their righteous indignation and universal condemnation of violence now? The more recent hostile confrontation and destruction of property in Idaho triggered little more than a news blip that was inexcusably dismissive of numerous related threats of thug tactics against Idaho public servants.

The Idaho Education Association said, “We cannot and will not let stories like this distract us... remain focused on the goal of defeating legislation that is bad for Idaho children and teachers.” And their media lapdogs obeyed.

Move along people. There's nothing to see here.

Idaho's ObamaCare Nullification Bill Is Constitutional

This excellent article quotes from the Constitution and the Federalist Papers to rebut the opinion of Idaho's AG that Idaho's healthcare nullification bill is unconstitutional.

The last election demonstrated that the American people do not want nationalized health care. One of the first things the new Congress did was repeal it. Idaho's two congressmen voted for repeal.

On Monday another federal district court judge agreed with 26 state-government plaintiffs, including Idaho, and ruled that the new national health care law is unconstitutional, and that the entire law must be voided.

The lawsuits and the fight to repeal this in Congress will likely last for years. Many have concluded that the best strategy is nullification on a state-by-state basis. With so much of our freedom and prosperity at stake it is highly advisable to pursue all three strategies.

Nullification refers to the process by which a state passes a law declaring certain federal laws to be null and void within that state based on the absence of constitutional authority for the federal government to pass such laws. Historian Thomas Woods has written an excellent history of state nullification of federal laws in his book, "Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century."

In recent years dozens of states, including Idaho, have introduced various nullification-type bills to stop Real ID, to affirm the Tenth Amendment, to reject federal firearms laws for guns manufactured, sold, and used intrastate (known as Firearms Freedom Acts), and to reject the federal mandate to buy healthcare insurance. With a couple dozen states taking a stand against various aspects of the Real ID Act, this federal program has been effectively stopped.

At least twelve states, including Idaho, have introduced bills this year to nullify the entire new health care law!

These twelve bills would nullify the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010” because they were not authorized by the Constitution of the United States. Nearly all of these state bills have a provision for criminal penalties for federal and state agents who would try to enforce the federal mandate within that state.

Idaho estimates that nullification will save state taxpayers initially more than $228,000,000!

It's appalling that some would waste our time and taxpayer dollars implementing this unconstitutional federal mandate, another bureaucracy like those that have never worked and cannot succeed and will only further destroy our freedom and prosperity.

While it appears that we are on the way to having nullification bills introduced in 20 or more states within the next year, it is necessary to get as many as possible of the already-introduced bills passed. It's hard to predict the course of events in this situation, but it would be a healthy first step toward restoration of federalism, where states are asserting their Tenth Amendment powers as parties to the compact that created the federal government in the first place.

The states should rein in our out-of-control federal government by enforcing the Constitution through nullification of unconstitutional federal mandates!

Click here to send an email message in support of nullification of the entire ObamaCare law to your state representative, state senator, governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general. We must stop ObamaCare before it destroys our healthcare system!

Nullifying good journalism



by Michael Maharrey

AP reporter John Miller provides a textbook example of sloppy, agenda driven “journalism” in a piece headlined GOP invokes 1700s doctrine in health care fight published on Jan. 26.

Miller cobbles together a report clearly reflecting his personal opinion on the subject, and while he would surely argue that the story holds completely to the facts, he links those facts together in a way that leads the reader to his forgone conclusion.

Perhaps Miller doesn’t know any better, but he also omits vital information, leaving the reader with an incomplete understanding of nullification. He can either plead ignorance, making him a lazy reporter, or he left those bits of information out on purpose, making him an agenda driven hack.

Either way, he earns low marks as a professional journalist.

Let’s look at some specifics.

Miller sets up his assumption in the language of his lede graph.

“Republican lawmakers in nearly a dozen states are reaching into the dusty annals of American history to fight President Obama’s health care overhaul.”

Note the wording – dusty annals of American history. In other words, nullification isn’t really something to take seriously. It’s old. (He re-emphasizes that point when he mentions Jefferson “philosophical guidance” 211 years ago.) Old means irrelevant and arcane. And if it’s old, irrelevant and arcane, you need not pay attention to it.

Miller frames the story with the loaded language in his opening graph and proceeds to hang it nicely inside.

He goes on to declare the notion of nullification unconstitutional. His source? “Most legal scholars…”

Presumably, Miller interviewed or at least read the opinions of most legal scholars in this country.

Or not.

Nowhere does he bother to cite any cogent opposing viewpoint. And it does exist. In fact, the logic is quite simple. He should be able to grasp it, even with all of the time spent talking to “most legal experts”. Quite simply, if Congress passes legislation reaching outside of its constitutionally prescribed delegated powers, it is not law at all, but an unconstitutional act – by definition illegal. The Constitution stands as the supreme law of the land, not the court. And unconstitutional acts cannot hold a place of supremacy over a state law.

Miller spends the next several graphs describing other radical “conservative” activities. They don’t have anything to do with nullification, but they fit the frame, so he throws them in.

I love some of the loaded language. “Anti-government angst running high.” “Tea Party crowd.” “Secession.” Miller clearly intends to paint nullification the color of extremism – right wing extremism to boot. He doesn’t come out and say it, of course. That would be non-objective. He lets the language serve as his brush.

Finally, he gets into the origins of nullification, lazily hanging the entire concept on the writing of Thomas Jefferson. I have to give him credit for basically explaining the Kentucky Resolutions correctly, all in one sentence. Well, except for the incorrect date. But why quibble? Anyway, after his cursory explanation of the principle’s origin, Miller simply sweeps the third president’s idea aside in one sentence.

“And his beliefs on nullification were nothing more than his opinions…”

I suppose I could say the same about “most legal scholars”. Or supreme court justices for that matter.

But I digress.

At this point, Miller takes the opportunity to create a little “gotcha” moment. He quotes Idaho Republican Sen. Monty Pearce saying Jefferson was at the constitutional convention.

Miller writes:

“Actually, Jefferson was far away, in France, as the framers met in 1787 in Philadelphia to replace the Articles of Confederation.”

Good one John!

But perhaps Miller should have included the fact that James Madison, considered the father of the Constitution, wrote the Virginia Resolution the same year, mirroring Jefferson’s reasoning. And that Madison laid out the fundamental principle of state resistance to overreaching federal power in Federalist 46.

But then again, who cares? That was just Madison’s opinion.

Miller moves on to assert, “Nullification has been invoked several times over the years — to no avail.”

He mentions the tariff act that South Carolina fought in the 1830s. He points out that it “nearly provoked armed conflict.”

Nearly, but it didn’t.

In fact, the feds backed down, and in a compromise, agreed to roll back the tariff over time. Sounds like at least a partial win for South Carolina. But that doesn’t fit the template.

And Miller fails to mention to modern cases of successful nullification. Numerous states refused to implement the Real ID act of 2005, rendering the act functionally void, and 15 states have defied federal law and implemented medicinal marijuana programs, without tanks rolling through the streets.

Finally, near the end of the story, Miller gets around to citing an intellectual source on nullification. But not before a little character assassination. Thomas Woods earned his undergrad degree in history from Harvard. He holds a masters and Ph.D. from Columbia University. But Miller doesn’t mention these credentials. He does mention that “as a college student in 1994, Woods helped found the League of the South, an Alabama group the Southern Poverty Law Center says has become a ‘neo-Confederate group’ seeking a second Southern secession.”

In other words, Woods is a racist and what he has to say isn’t relevant, but here it is anyway. Never mind that the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t exactly count as an unbiased source of information. And never mind that Woods no longer has any association with the League of the South. (Yes, Miller did mention this fact as an afterthought. But really, why mention the association at all? What does it have to do with the story? Oops. Sorry. Asking too many questions.)

Interestingly, Miller fails to tell us anything about the organizational memberships, paper subjects or college hi-jinks of “most legal scholars”, Idaho Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane, or David Gray Adler – all sources asserting nullification is an unconstitutional, archaic concept.

But I’m sure Miller thoroughly checked all of their backgrounds to make sure there was no ties to any progressive advocacy groups and no skeletons in their closets. No dirty laundry there for sure.

Miller makes a mockery of journalism with this story. Agree or disagree with the concept or wisdom of nullification, it has its roots in the founding philosophy of the nation and in the original understanding of the Constitution. It was invoked frequently in the first century of the Republic’s existence, by members of every political party, in the north and in the south. It stands on solid philosophical ground and has been successfully utilized in the last decade.

But Miller doesn’t bother to get into any of those complex nuances. Miller doesn’t bother to provide a balanced story explaining nullification. Miller doesn’t even bother to fact-check his work to make sure he gets something as basic as the date of the Kentucky Resolutions correct.

In short, he fails to do the basic job of a fair objective journalist.

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here.

Nullification, the Media, and Idaho: Message from Tom Woods

Tom Woods discusses media coverage of nullification and urges supporters in Idaho and around the country not to be cowed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_KuIL7icUc



http://statenullification.com/

Nullifying Federal Nullification: Time for States to Stand Tall

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/selwyn-duke/6073-nullifying-federal-nullification-time-for-states-to-stand-tall

Question: Are rules meant for only one side? Are civil laws meant for citizens but not the police? Are moral laws meant for laymen but not clergy?

Okay, one more: Are constitutional limitations meant for states but not the feds?

Our federal government has long violated the Constitution. But blatantly unconstitutional ObamaCare may finally be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, as lawmakers in nearly a dozen states have been talking about “nullification” — the Thomas Jefferson doctrine that recognizes states’ right to reject unconstitutional federal law.

And now it’s more than just talk. Republicans in the Idaho House introduced a nullification measure on Wednesday, and legislators in Alabama, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas, and Wyoming may follow suit.

Not surprisingly, the statists among us meet this proposal with disdain. The Associated Press is running the headline, “GOP invokes 1700s doctrine in health care fight” (funny, the Left loves 1700s Jeffersonian ideas when they happen to be cynicism about the clergy). And Idaho’s Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane criticized the effort, saying, “There is no right to pick and choose which federal laws a state will follow.”

Really? Question: Does this hold true when the federal government is picking and choosing which constitutional restrictions it will follow?

Statists like to cite the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) as stating that federal laws are “the supreme law of the land” — the AP article makes this claim. But this is untrue, the result of a selective reading. Here is the passage with the necessary context:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land…[emphasis added].”

“In pursuance thereof” is pretty important. The clause makes clear that only laws that follow the Constitution enjoy co-status with the document as supreme.

At this point the statists will say, “Okay, so we’ll go to the Supreme Court; its job is to determine what’s constitutional.” This is the judicial supremacy that enables federal supremacy. But did you ever wonder where the idea of Supreme Court as ultimate arbiter, with the right to overrule the legislative and executive branches (judicial review), comes from?

Answer: The Supreme Court itself.

(And this opinion was rendered, the Associated Press et al. should note, in what was basically a 1700s-era decision.)

In the famous (infamous?) Marbury v. Madison case in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Wow, imagine that, an entity decides it wants more power and claims that power for itself. I bet that’s never before happened in history … except with virtually every monarch, dictator, and tyrant who has ever lived.

Now, with monarchs, dictators, and tyrants people often take the claim seriously (or at least posture to that effect) because not doing so often means some kind of unpleasant death. But note that the courts have no power to enforce their whims or, as some would say, their rulings — all they can do essentially is talk. That power belongs to the executive branch. Yet its role is to enforce the law — not the rule of lawyers. So why do we take the Court’s power grab seriously?

I suppose the answer is that people want some entity that can mediate disputes, and since judges are called “judges,” people naturally look to them for judging. Yet since getting a law degree and donning a black robe don’t magically bestow one with infallible discernment, why would we show unfailing obeisance to these lawyers-cum-oligarchs? And if we are to suddenly lend an entity’s will to power credence, what about the ambitions of other small groups or individuals? Why look down on Hugo Chavez? He’s just assuming power he tells us he deserves.

Oh, if you would dispute me on this, know that I am the ultimate arbiter of reality. How can you know?

I just told you so.

Of course, you don’t have to believe me. Thomas Jefferson, who was president when the Marbury v. Madison decision came down, later warned that if the judiciary is to be considered the last word on constitutional matters, “then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se.”

This means an act of suicide.

Jefferson continued:

For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation…. The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

And he subsequently stated quite bluntly, “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy [emphasis added].”

And this is precisely what we now have.

In all fairness to Chief Justice John Marshall, he would likely be appalled at how today’s Court plays fast and loose with the Constitution. After all, he wrote in his decision, “To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?”

Yet today’s government passes these limits at will. We have politicians who scoff at the Constitution, such as when Nancy Pelosi dismissed a constitutional question with, “Are you serious?! Are you serious?!” And we have justices who rubber-stamp such constitutional trespass with living-document rationalizations, such as when Ruth Bader-Ginsburg said that our Constitution mustn’t be “stuck in time.” But it isn’t; it’s stuck in law, supreme law that can only lawfully be changed through the Amendment Process.

The federal government has a nice racket going: It legislates more and more power for itself and has its own likeminded judiciary approve it with a wink and a nod. It has given us a living document and a dying republic.

But we don’t have to commit suicide by judge. If the feds can nullify the Constitution, the states can and must nullify their nullification. And when the Court “steps in,” we should tell it to step off, as we paraphrase President Andrew Jackson and say, “The justices have made their decision. Now let them enforce it.”

Idaho Among States Moving to Nullify ObamaCare

The Idaho legislature is expected to take up legislation on Wednesday, January 26, aimed at nullifying Obamacare within the Gem State. The draft bill by state Senator Monty Pearce declares the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (which, combined, comprise what is commonly called "Obamacare") to be "not authorized by the Constitution of the United States," and therefore, "are null, void and of no effect regarding any Idaho citizen residing within the borders of the state of Idaho."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6037-states-move-to-nullify-obamacare

6 states now on board

Joining Texas - Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon and Wyoming - to consider Health Care Nullification. This state-law would nullify not just mandates, but the entire national health care bill - every word of it.

Read about it here.

Welcome to Chidaho

The Chinese Communist Party governs the People’s Republic of China and owns the People’s Liberation Army. Their national companies enjoy a huge and profitable export business.

With the Federal Reserve inflating the dollar like never before, the Chinese and others are abandoning the dollar. How do you get rid of loads of increasingly worthless cash? Buy hard assets.

A concept popular in China today is government-owned companies buying up assets in more than 130 countries. After Gov. Otter went groveling before Chinese Communists last year, they are working on developing industry, retail centers and homes in Idaho.

Bringing Chinese dollars into Idaho will cause further price inflation at home, making dollars more worthless and leaving the Chinese Communist Party in possession of Idaho hard assets. But don't feel too bad, they're also eying Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

In light of China’s Gambit for World Dominance, how do you feel about all of this?