Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 20, 2018, 01:31:40 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
106701 Posts in 2400 Topics by 1095 Members
Latest Member: dannysamuel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11
151  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Science on: August 07, 2010, 07:22:00 AM
Nice find P.C.  .....thanks
152  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Science on: August 06, 2010, 02:41:41 PM
Wish I knew more about it.  I was the only one in my circles to pick up on this when it happened. It was just a blip on the news for about one day.  It was washed away in the ebb and flow of meaningless news.   I thought then and still do think it smacks of treason, aid and comfort to our enemies.   When I read your posting about the accuracy of the Chinese missiles I flashed back to this story.  A little googling and came up with this old article.  If anyone else can flesh this out I for one would be appreciative.
153  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Science on: August 06, 2010, 11:43:50 AM
Remember this story?

Clinton and Chinese Missiles
Charles R. Smith
Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2003
Chinese Army Gets U.S. Missile Technology for Money

A newly released document from the U.S. State Department reveals that the most successful Chinese espionage operation in recent history occurred during the Clinton administration.

The document accuses Hughes Space and Communications Company of violating U.S. national security 123 times by knowingly sending detailed missile and space technology directly to the Chinese army.

According to the State Department, the most serious violations occurred when Hughes gave the Chinese army information that supported its analyses of the investigation of the January 1995 failure of the launch of a China Long March 2E (LM-2E) rocket carrying the Hughes-manufactured ASTAR II commercial communications satellite.

On Jan. 26, 1995, approximately 52 seconds into flight, a Chinese LM-2E carrying the Hughes APSTAR II communications satellite failed. This was the LM-2E's second failure. The first failure of the LM-2E in December 1992 involved an attempted launch of the Hughes OPTUS B-2 commercial communications satellite.

"Respondents decided to form and direct a launch failure investigation beginning in January 1995 and continuing throughout much of that year. The investigation involved the formation of several groups of leading technical experts from China and the U.S., which throughout the investigation engaged in an extensive exchange of technical data and analysis, producing a wide range of unauthorized technology transfers," noted the State Department charge document.

"At no time did the Respondents seek or receive a license or other written approval concerning the conduct of their APSTAR II failure investigation with PRC authorities," states the charge document.

According to the State Department, "this strategy was further influenced by Respondents' business interests in securing future contracts with the PRC and with Asian satellite companies in which PRC influence figured prominently, and concern that U.S. Government policy constraints on technology transfer as administered by ODTC were an impediment to achieving these interests."

Chinese Rocket Failure Blamed on U.S.

According to a 1998 Defense Department investigation, the reason for Hughes passing the technical information to China was because the Chinese army blamed Hughes for the rocket failure.

"Following the APSTAR II failure, there was disagreement between Hughes and the Chinese about whether the principal cause of the failure was the launch vehicle or the satellite. The subsequent joint Hughes-Chinese failure investigation was apparently intended, at least in part, to resolve this dispute," states the 1998 Defense Department report.

"According to the Hughes/Apstar materials, the disagreement between Hughes and the Chinese focused on two views of the cause of the launch failure: (1) the Chinese claim that the satellite was defective as evidenced by satellite fuel igniting; and (2) Hughes' claim that the satellite was a contributing factor only after the launch vehicle fairing had failed which exposed the satellite to catastrophic conditions."

"DoD believes that the scope and content of the launch failure investigation conducted by Hughes with the Chinese following the January 1995 APSTAR II failure raises national security concerns both with regard to violating those standards and to potentially contributing to China's missile capabilities," states the Defense Department report.

PLA General Shen Rongjun

Chinese General Shen Rongjun led the penetration of U.S. missile and space technology during the Clinton administration. The 2002 State Department letter makes it clear that they believe Gen. Shen led the successful penetration of the Clinton administration and Hughes.

In 1994, Gen. Shen was second in command of a Chinese army unit known as COSTIND, or the Commission On Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense. Shen, and his COSTIND operatives in front companies, secured a wide range of advanced missile and space technology from Hughes after a 1994 meeting with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

Commerce documents obtained using the Freedom of Information Act show that Brown met with Gen. Shen in 1994 during a trade trip to Beijing. President Clinton personally authorized the meeting between the Chinese general and Brown.

Before moving to Commerce, Brown headed the Democratic National Committee. The Federal Election Commission fined the DNC in 2002 for "knowingly and willingly" accepting donations from Chinese army sources.

Gen. Shen did obtain help from the White House by pressuring Hughes with satellite contracts. Hughes CEO Michael Armstrong wrote President Clinton in 1993 threatening to pull support for Clinton if he did not allow the space technology transfers to China. In 1994, Clinton approved a waiver for Hughes to transfer advanced satellite encryption systems to China.

According to a Sept. 20, 1995, memorandum, Hughes regarded Gen. Shen Rongjun as "the most important Chinese space official."

The Chinese army penetration of Hughes was so successful that Gen. Shen managed to get his son, Shen Jun, a job at Hughes as the lead software engineer for all Chinese satellites. According to Hughes, Shen Jun had access to "proprietary" satellite source code.

"On July 9, 1996, Respondents submitted a munitions export license application to ODTC seeking authorization for one of its employees, Shen Jun, described as a dual Canadian Chinese national, in order to provide Chinese-English language translation and interpretation support for the preliminary design phase of the APMT satellite project," states the 2002 charge letter.

"In no place in that submission nor otherwise did HUGHES SPACE AND COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY inform ODTC that this individual was, in fact, the son of PLA General and COSTIND Deputy Director Shen Rongjun, which fact was material to the U.S. Government's consideration of whether the license application should be approved or denied."

"The record indicates that Shen Jun's role for Respondents went well beyond that of an interpreter/translator and more closely resembled that of an intermediary with his father, General Shen, and other PRC space authorities, in order to cultivate their support in various matters of interest to Hughes, including the handling of the APSTAR II launch failure investigation and the APMT contract," noted the State Department 2002 charge letter.

According to the State Department, Hughes contends that it followed the law with regard to hiring Gen. Shen's son.

"Respondents have maintained as of December 3, 2002, that this information was not material and that its omission was proper because there is no place in the munitions license application for them to disclose father-son relationships between General officers at the People's Liberation Army who are overseeing a project they are working on and their foreign national employees working in U.S. facilities on the same project."

Clinton Overrules Secretary of State

The alleged improper export by Hughes of satellite technology was cited as a key reason when Clinton's secretary of state, Warren Christopher, rejected a plan to give the Commerce Department full authority to control satellite exports.

According to a Sept. 22, 1995, memorandum, Christopher rejected plans to give Commerce the authority to approve satellite exports after an interagency study noted that "significant" military and intelligence capabilities could be lost.

The memorandum stated the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies strongly opposed the policy change because Hughes exported two satellites with sensitive cryptographic technology without first getting a State Department munitions license. Cryptographic technology is used to scramble communications sent to satellites to prevent unauthorized access.

President Clinton, who transferred the power to regulate sensitive satellites to Commerce, under Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, ultimately overruled Christopher.

Clinton's transfer allowed the Chinese army to acquire advanced U.S. technology for military purposes. Hughes satellites currently provide the Chinese army with secure communications that are invulnerable to earth combat and highly accurate all-weather navigation for strike bombers and missiles.

Hughes satellites purchased by Shen also provide direct TV and cable TV broadcasts to most of Asia. Thus, cable and pay-per-view services help pay for the Chinese army satellite communications. The brilliant planning and logistics mean that Chinese military communications pay for themselves.

Clinton Legacy – A New Arms Race

The satellite and missile technology obtained from Hughes by the Chinese army is critical for the design and manufacture of missile nose cones and electronic missile control systems. The technology clearly helped the Chinese army field a new generation of ICBMS, including the Dong Feng 31 missile, which can drop three nuclear warheads on any city in the U.S.

The success of Shen is a story of missiles, politics and greed. Gen. Shen succeeded in using Hughes and President Clinton as valuable tools to obtain weapons that are now pointed at the United States.

China won and the U.S. lost what may very well be the first round of World War III. Gen. Shen led that victory and he did it with a checkbook. The Clinton legacy for the 21st century is a new arms race.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Clinton Scandals
Missile Defense

Editor's note:
Chinese Military Manual Calls for "Unrestricted" War Against America
154  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Music on: August 05, 2010, 05:32:19 PM
Semper Fi!!

Dog Brothers here are some Devil Dogs
155  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: August 05, 2010, 04:55:28 PM
"In the next place, the state governments are, by the very theory of the constitution, essential constituent parts of the general government. They can exist without the latter, but the latter cannot exist without them." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

"Another not unimportant consideration is, that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse, and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
156  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: August 04, 2010, 07:15:20 AM
"So that the executive and legislative branches of the national government depend upon, and emanate from the states. Every where the state sovereignties are represented; and the national sovereignty, as such, has no representation." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

"The state governments have a full superintendence and control over the immense mass of local interests of their respective states, which connect themselves with the feelings, the affections, the municipal institutions, and the internal arrangements of the whole population. They possess, too, the immediate administration of justice in all cases, civil and criminal, which concern the property, personal rights, and peaceful pursuits of their own citizens." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
157  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: August 02, 2010, 06:48:05 AM
"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." --James Madison, Federalist No. 39
158  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / The Impossible is now Possible on: August 01, 2010, 08:47:36 PM

by Derek Sheriff

James Ostrowski, author of Direct Citizen Action: How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot recently wrote, “In the realm of politics, the best chance the liberty movement has is not winning elections but convincing states and localities to stop cooperating with the federal government. I believe the Tenth Amendment Movement, as it is known, has great potential.”

An important revolutionary principle that American colonists learned from reading “Cato’s Letters” in the mid-18th century was this: Unjust laws must be resisted immediately, or they will set the stage for additional encroachments. One of “Cato’s Letters” explains:

“A nation has but two sorts of usurpation to fear, one from their neighbors and another from their own magistrates. Nor is a foreign usurpation more formidable than a domestic, which is the most dangerous of the two, by being hardest to remove and generally stealing upon the people by degrees, is fixed before is scarce felt or apprehended.”

Thomas Jefferson had a personal copy of “Cato’s Letters” in his home library and he put this principle into action when the so called federalists began arresting their political opponents and throwing them in jail. While still serving as vice president, he secretly urged immediate resistance by drafting what have come to be known as the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

The reason he drafted those resolutions was to convince state legislators that nullification was the most appropriate form of immediate resistance . The reason I wrote this essay, is to convince American libertarians today of the same thing. I won’t go into detail explaining what nullification is. There are plenty of other articles widely available which already do that – not to mention Tom Woods’ latest, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.

The Problem of Power

In an oration in 1772, John Adams declared that, “Liberty, under every conceivable form of government is always in danger.”

26 years later, he personified that very danger when he signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made criticizing the president and others in the federal government a crime. Adams showed us that government is the greatest threat to liberty because it always tends toward the destruction of the individual’s natural rights.

Because government is such a dangerous concentration of power, American revolutionaries recognized the absolute necessity of limiting government power and dividing it into as many competing jurisdictions as possible. The hope was that under such an arrangement, the federal government would be held in check and people would have the option to move freely between more powerful, but competing states. Competition would keep their multiple jurisdictions from becoming intolerably oppressive.

This decentralized condition, which is called federalism, should be very desirable to libertarians. Why? Because if they are forced to live under a government at all, this condition at least makes it much easier for them to move to a state with more freedom or chip away at their own state government, to the point that it barely escapes being no government at all. So why is this not our condition today? At least one very important reason is because we have not insisted that our state governments use nullification.

For the first time since the 1850s, such a condition is a real possibility in America. Political, technological and economic conditions are coinciding to create what could be a perfect storm. In military terminology, conditions such as weather can be used as force multipliers, which make a given force more effective than that same force would be without it. In addition to making the most of economic and technological force multipliers, what is needed next is greater acceptance and approval by the majority of Americans for the widespread use of state nullification. Successfully gaining that acceptance and approval at a time when the federal government is perceived as being bankrupt, both financially and morally, could bring about radical decentralization sooner than most libertarians could have imagined just two decades ago. In his 1975 research article entitled, The American Revolution and the Minority Myth, William F. Marina wrote:

“What I am suggesting is that the question of legitimacy is really at the heart of the whole process of revolution. A revolution is impossible unless a majority withdraws its allegiance from the old regime and begins to place it elsewhere. Often that process is masked to the point that when the old regime collapses, the fall appears more ‘sudden’ than was actually the case.”

Considering what lies ahead of us economically, it seems not only plausible, but probable, that people will soon begin to rapidly transfer legitimacy from Washington, DC to their state capital, partly from disgust and partly out of sheer necessity.

Nullification: Revolutionary or Reformist?

This scenario has nothing to do with overturning the constitutional order. In fact, it is precisely how the constitutional order was supposed to work in the first place. The use of nullification by states to neutralize acts of federal usurpation is both constitutional and revolutionary at the core. William J. Watkins explains it like this in his book, Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy:

“The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, written over two decades after the colonies declared independence from Great Britain, represent a reaffirmation of the spirit of 1776. At the core, the Resolutions are intrepid statements in favor of self-government and limited central authority. A product of the political and constitutional battlegrounds of the 1790′s, the resolutions serve to link the federal union created by the Constitution with the aspirations of the patriots of the American Revolution. Indeed the touch of the author of the Declaration of Independence is unmistakable when one reads the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.”

Unlike the reformist strategy which seeks to mobilize power within Washington, DC in order to reform and redirect that power, nullification seeks to diminish and redistribute that power through relentless, decentralized, but ideally coordinated, acts of state level, constitutional resistance.

Over the past few years, state legislators across the country have created a heavy wave of nullification legislation. We libertarians need to grab our surfboards!

Revolutionizing the Tea Party

As libertarians, we must play a leading role by carrying out the labor-intensive but very fruitful task of selling nullification to non-libertarians who are already mobilized. These Americans are extremely upset and have become very active in grassroots organizations. Unfortunately, they are transfixed by national politics and attribute too much importance to wining in federal elections. What they have not yet realized is that their almost exclusive reliance on electoral means to oppose federal tyranny will only get them more of the same. Libertarians should, therefore, act alongside them in ways that do not compromise our principles, while simultaneously wining their support for nullification legislation and directing their attention to state level solutions that involve more radical means of resistance. Those running for, or already elected to state office need to be sold on the constitutionality, morality and effectiveness of nullification. The good
news is that unlike beltway insiders, most of these people actually live and work in your community.

Libertarian intellectuals, leaders and grassroots organizations have been busy manufacturing the tools and preparing the soil for us. Tom Woods, for example, has just written what some have called a handbook on nullification. One well known talk show host has called it, “a battle plan” and “the answer to our prayers.” The Tenth Amendment Center has been tracking recent nullification legislation, writing new and improved bills, and working with state legislators to get them introduced and passed.

On top of all that, a host of organizations like Downsize DC, Campaign For Liberty, Daily Paul, and others have joined the Tenth Amendment Center and libertarian activist Trevor Lyman in sponsoring the Nullify Now! tour, something that advocates of this essential principle may have thought impossible just a few years ago. The tour will feature speakers almost all libertarians know and respect – Tom Woods, Jim Babka, Tom Mullen, Michael Boldin, Jack Hunter and others. These speakers will give grassroots activists and people in state government a logical, moral, and constitutionally sound case for nullification.

The ground has been prepared and conditions are favorable for radical decentralization . Whether a critical mass of libertarians will get involved in this new movement and make use of the tools available to them before this decisive point in history has passed us by remains to be seen. You can be sure that there are plenty of politicians in Washington, DC who live in fear of the day that states, guided by liberty activists, stand together and once again make use of that powerful weapon called nullification. That’s why they want it to remain taboo to even discuss it. And it’s why we libertarians must do everything we can to advertise it.

Derek J. Sheriff [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center. His blog and podcast “Principles of ‘98″ can be found at www.PrinciplesOfNinetyEight.Com

Copyright © 2010 by Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given
159  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: July 30, 2010, 07:14:39 AM
"The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45
160  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Madison on: July 28, 2010, 07:25:35 AM
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45
161  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Hamilton on: July 27, 2010, 07:43:54 AM
2nd post

"This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will  both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them." --Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 1788
162  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Samuel Adams on: July 27, 2010, 07:42:28 AM
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
-= The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772 =-

Samuel Adams
(1722 - 1803)
Samuel Adams (September 27 [O.S. September 16] 1722 – October 2, 1803) was a statesman, political philosopher, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. As a politician in colonial Massachusetts, Adams was a leader of the movement that became the American Revolution, and was one of the architects of the principles of American republicanism that shaped the political culture of the United States.
163  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: July 26, 2010, 08:01:53 AM
Interesting overview

164  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: July 26, 2010, 07:35:59 AM
"It becomes all therefore who are friends of a Government based on free principles to reflect, that by denying the possibility of a system partly federal and partly consolidated, and who would convert ours into one either wholly federal or wholly consolidated, in neither of which forms have individual rights, public order, and external safety, been all duly maintained, they aim a deadly blow at the last hope of true liberty on the face of the Earth." --James Madison, Notes on Nullification
165  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Rare 8mm Footage of Subingsubing Kali Demo in hawaii on: July 25, 2010, 08:41:11 AM
Found this on youtube thought people here might like to see it.

166  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: July 25, 2010, 07:47:28 AM
nice PC

"Excessive taxation ... will carry reason and reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election." --Thomas Jefferson
167  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: July 23, 2010, 08:37:56 AM
"While the constitution continues to be read, and its principles known, the states, must, by every rational man, be considered as essential component parts of the union; and therefore the idea of sacrificing the former to the latter is totally inadmissible." --Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 1788
168  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / James Madison on: July 22, 2010, 08:06:09 AM
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison
(1751 - 1836)
James Madison (March 16, 1751 - June 28, 1836) was an American politician and political philosopher who served as the fourth President of the United States (1809-1817), and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Considered to be the "Father of the Constitution", he was the principal author of the document. In 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, still the most influential commentary on the Constitution. The first President to have served in the United States Congress, he was a leader in the 1st United States Congress, drafted many basic laws and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution (said to be based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights), and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights". As a political theorist, Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.
169  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Judicial Supremacy or State Nullification? on: July 21, 2010, 09:42:19 AM
Judicial Supremacy or State Nullification?

by Marty Babitz, New Jersey Tenth Amendment Center

There was a time, in the early days of our Constitutional Republic, that the forces of monarchy and tyranny ran deeper than perhaps even today. In 1798, our would-be King John Adams and his Federalist henchmen in Congress trumped up war fever, a tyrant’s best friend, to pass a Sedition Law that made criticism of the President and Congress, interestingly the very ones who enacted this law, a jailable offense.

Vice President Thomas Jefferson, an opponent of the Federalists, who was inconveniently omitted from the protection of this law, jumped into action, but secretly for fear of the Federalists and prison where many of his colleagues in government and the press had been sent under this nefarious law.

Jefferson and James Madison drafted Resolutions that were passed by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures respectively, whose principles can be summarized by this statement from Jefferson’s pen appearing in the Kentucky version:

“The principle and construction contended for that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction, and that a NULLIFICATION by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”

Many would assert the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause against the above, which provides that the Constitution and federal laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. But that clause instead unequivocally proves the validity of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions: if a federal law is not made pursuant to the Constitution, but is rather an invalid unconstitutional law, then it is not the supreme law of the land; it is not a law at all, and is therefore null and void.

What happened in the last 212 years that has kept these Principles of ’98 out of our consciousness? One of the key answers to this question contains the means by which to make the nullification movement far more effective going forward.

Over the past decades, every attorney and judge learns “Constitutional law” in our Law Schools, the bastions of nationalists and judicial supremacists. When we show up for our first day of class, we are not given the Constitution, even though it consists of about 7,500 words and we are otherwise expected to read tens of thousands of words nightly. Instead, we receive a very thick textbook, loaded with Opinions issued by the United States Supreme Court. We are told by our Professor that the Constitution is a living document, one that the Supreme Court breathes life into by interpreting, constructing and discerning the true meaning through consulting whatever they deem appropriate in their discretion, including changing societal trends, studies by Sociologists, international law and the like.

And to prove that this is the correct, valid, procedure for “making” Constitutional law, the very first case assigned is the one termed the most important in our history, the landmark 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. Many Americans have heard of this celebrated case. Why?
Because in that case, Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the Supreme Court was duty bound, under the oath each Justice takes to support the Constitution, to treat unconstitutional laws of Congress as void, and of no force or effect.

Of course, Marshall’s ruling is an exact repeat of the very same principle found in those principles of ’98. Every judge, every Congressperson, every President, Governor and state legislator, in both levels of government, take that oath to support the Constitution.

The Marbury v. Madison ruling confirmed the same principle as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions: any federal or state government official is duty-bound under his or her oath, required by Article VI of the Constitution, to uphold the Constitution, and therefore must treat any unconstitutional law, action, or ruling of another branch of either level of government as void, and of no force or effect.

In other words, the very bedrock of the Supreme Court’s assertion of the power to nullify federal or state laws is identical to the one found in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

So how did the legal and judicial profession, and correspondingly most Americans, become conditioned to believe that his duty of nullification was exclusively reserved to the Supreme Court alone? Because the same essential principle, contained in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, was lambasted by Federalists, desiring absolute national supremacy, as dangerous and wrong in the hands of the state legislatures as representatives of the sovereign people. But the same assertion was magically labeled “judicial review” when announced by the Chief Justice Marshall just five years later, implying a special supreme exclusive power carved out solely for those un-elected, life-tenured, completely unaccountable oracles on the Supreme Court.

Soon after Marbury v. Madison, the concept of judicial review was applied to the review of state laws, with the result that over the past two hundred years a small handful of federal laws have been invalidated by the Supreme Court while scores of state laws and rulings have been overturned.

Of course, when lawyers and judges complete law school without even reading the Constitution, instead learning from the vaunted faculty that the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the exclusive arbiter of that document, you are conditioned to believe it. And if lawyers and judges are so conditioned, then so will everyone, taking their cue from the respected legal and judicial profession allegedly charged with guarding our sacred Constitution. Of course, beyond the conditioning, there is a tremendous incentive for those in the legal field, particularly aspiring judges and Constitutional lawyers, to accept this alleged principle because it transfers power from the Constitution and sovereign people of the United States to them!

In fact, however, there is nothing in Marbury v. Madison to warrant such a supremacy, merely a statement that the Supreme Court, like any other branch of federal or state government, has the authority and duty of Constitutional review in determining whether another branch of its level, or the other level, of government has acted beyond the scope of its powers and infringed on the powers of the other.

In fact, it was not until 1958 that the Supreme Court finally found the audacity to boldly assert that it was, in fact, the sole, exclusive authority on the Constitution. In Cooper v. Aaron, the Court stated that Marbury v. Madison “declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution” and claimed that this alleged principle of judicial supremacy “has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.” And like sheep, we all believed this fraud – one that had been implicitly building for decades. But now, with this so-called “principle” clearly and authoritatively stated by the Court, a wave of even more overreaching violations of our sovereign right of republican self-government came down from on high.

Judicial supremacy has also created the toxic notion of judicial infallibility. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court refused to overturn its precedent regarding the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade on the basis that doing so would damage the rule of law and correspondingly undermine the Court’s legitimacy. The Court also cited the fact that people had come to rely on Roe. Thus, in the Court’s view, the correctness of Roe was not as important as the source, the Court itself, and the people’s reliance on the Court as if it were the Constitution itself. Only a supreme authority such as a monarch or British parliament, rejected by the American Revolution and Declaration of Independence, would assert that its credibility and unquestioned supremacy is paramount to the correctness of its edicts.

Meanwhile, and of equal importance, the Supreme Court, in its alleged role of neutral supreme arbiter of the Constitution, while striking down countless state laws, has rubber stamped the other two branches of its own federal government, the President and Congress, giving them carte blanche to do whatever they please, as we have so clearly witnessed increasingly over our own lifetimes.

So much activity to restore liberty and restrain the federal government has been misallocated toward obtaining the right Justices on the Supreme Court, and petitioning the Court to make the right decisions. We are playing the wrong game with the wrong chips, based on the erroneous concept that the Supreme Court, a branch of the federal government, is the exclusive arbiter of the Constitution and the scope of the powers it delegates to the federal government on the one hand, and reserves to the states and their people on the other.

We must topple this fiction, so deeply ingrained in the legal profession, our history books, and the collective mind of We the People, that Marbury v. Madison vested supremacy over the Constitution in the Supreme Court, when in reality it merely repeated the same principle declared five years earlier in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: an unconstitutional law, action or ruling of the federal government is null and void, and the duty of every state governor, legislature, and court, under the oath they have taken to support the Constitution, is to so nullify it.

Marty Babitz is on the chapter leadership team for the New Jersey Tenth Amendment Center. He is the author of The Illusion of Freedom: How to Restore the True Constitution and Reclaim Liberty Now.

Copyright © 2010 by Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given
170  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Jefferson on: July 21, 2010, 09:36:43 AM
“The principle and construction contended for that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction, and that a NULLIFICATION by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”  Thomas Jefferson
171  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: July 21, 2010, 07:38:56 AM
"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." --Thomas Jefferson, autobiography, 1821
172  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: July 20, 2010, 08:11:46 AM
"In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." --James Madison, Federalist No. 14, 1787
173  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Hamilton on: July 19, 2010, 07:53:57 AM
"The great leading objects of the federal government, in which revenue is concerned, are to maintain domestic peace, and provide for the common defense. In these are comprehended the regulation of commerce that is, the whole system of foreign intercourse; the support of armies and navies, and of the civil administration." --Alexander Hamilton, remarks to the New York Ratifying Convention, 1788
174  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Richard Henry Lee on: July 17, 2010, 07:44:17 AM
When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

Richard Henry Lee
(1732 - 1794)
Richard Henry Lee (January 20, 1732 – June 19, 1794) was an American statesman from Virginia best known for the motion in the Second Continental Congress calling for the colonies' independence from Great Britain. His famous resolution of June 1776 led to the United States Declaration of Independence, which Lee signed. He also served a one-year term as the President of the Continental Congress, and was a U.S. Senator from Virginia from 1789 to 1792, serving during part of that time as one of the first Presidents pro tempore.
175  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Thomas Paine, Common Sense 1776 on: July 16, 2010, 07:14:33 AM
"As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we should take our children in our hand, and fix our station a few years farther into life; that eminence will present a prospect, which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from our sight." --Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
176  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Hamilton on: July 15, 2010, 07:46:02 AM
"...there is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principle; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men, acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

Alexander Hamilton  Federalist #78
177  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces on: July 14, 2010, 12:04:24 PM
When you have to pay rent to the government (property taxes) to keep your property, Liberty is at stake!!!!

178  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Thomas Jefferson on: July 14, 2010, 07:36:20 AM
When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."  Thomas Jefferson

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."  Thomas Jefferson
179  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Economics on: July 13, 2010, 08:40:23 AM
Inflation: How Purchasing Power is Destroyed

180  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: July 13, 2010, 08:12:53 AM
"It is the duty of parents to maintain their children decently, and according to their circumstances; to protect them according to the dictates of prudence; and to educate them according to the suggestions of a judicious and zealous regard for their usefulness, their respectability and happiness." --James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791
181  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: July 12, 2010, 07:38:17 AM
Thomas Jefferson said: “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”

John Adams advised, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

 Benjamin Franklin warned, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
182  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: July 12, 2010, 07:18:00 AM
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison

"What is it that affectionate parents require of their Children; for all their care, anxiety, and toil on their accounts? Only that they would be wise and virtuous, Benevolent and kind." --Abigail Adams, letter to John Quincy Adams, 1783
183  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Patrick Henry on: July 11, 2010, 07:44:19 AM
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
Patrick Henry
184  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: July 09, 2010, 04:20:40 PM
I will grant there are bad sheriffs, but sheriffs are elected.  If they are mis behaving then the citizens would kick them out.  Overall with the Fed overstepping their constitutional bounds we have to draw a line in the sand.  The most promising place to take a stand is with the powerful position of the sheriff.  This combined with state nullification will go a long way to restore the checks and balances that are out of kilter.
185  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: July 09, 2010, 10:42:32 AM
2nd post

Written by: Michael Boldin

Sheriff Supremacy
Richard I. Mack
On June 2, 1993, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) federal agents along with two Big Horn County, Wyoming deputies raided the home of Ramon and Elvia Castaneda.

The deputies were there only to assist INS agents and basically got caught in the “crossfire” of federal in competency and arrogance. The Castaneda v USA case does something for all Americans that has never been done before; it answers the question; who is the ultimate law enforcement authority in this country?

Big Horn County and its officers were sued in this case because they trusted INS agents to be acting within proper parameters of the law. However, INS agents failed to do their homework and did not even have a warrant.

So the INS asked for assistance from the Big Horn County Sheriff’s office to raid the home (late at night) of the Castaneda family to capture some illegal aliens. The Sheriff’s office cooperated with the INS and in doing so got them in trouble. However, there was one other problem with the federal agents’ homework. The Castanedas were American citizens.

A minor dispute still remains unsettled as to how the armed officers entered the Castaneda home. The Castanedas claimed the agents simply barged in without knocking or appropriately announcing their intentions. The government claims their courteous announcements and knocks were ignored so they entered the home anyway. Regardless, the Castanedas claimed to be asleep at the time of the raid, which would seem to be reasonable thing to be doing late at night.

The Castanedas filed a lawsuit with a host of defendants including Big Horn County and Federal officials. The case was cut and dry. The feds were wrong and their actions were untenable, The Castanedas could have sat back and waited greedily for their attorneys to fill in the amount of their checks, but they wanted to do something else. As part of the settlement the Castanedas wanted some insurance that this type of governmental abuse would not recur or ever happen to others.

To their everlasting credit, the Castanedas took a rather nominal amount of cash in exchange for a policy, which seemed to them, the best “check and balance” systems that would essentially stop the federal government from anymore potential abuses.

Amazingly and quite simply, the Castanedas demanded, as part of their federal lawsuit settlement, that the Big Horn County Sheriff’s office devise a policy that required all federal agencies to check with the Sheriff before they could take any action in Big Horn County.

Coincidentally, this policy fell on the lap of Sheriff Dave Mattis who was not even Sheriff at the time of the raid. However, Sheriff Mattis agreed with the policy and helped develop this most novel and unique agreement that the lawyers of the United States Justice Department also signed. However, the Justice Department took steps to keep this agreement secret and undisclosed. Imagine a small town sheriff in a county of only 12,000 people being the overseer of federal agencies within his county!

Is this policy an unusual novelty or a procedure whose time has finally come as an essential and vital part of protecting and serving our citizens? Why would this policy only be beneficial in Big Horn County and not in every in our nations?

Ironically, U.S. Congressman Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) considered proposing legislation that would have established a similar policy for the entire nation at just about the same exact time this settlement was being reached. The Justice Department, FBI and other federal agencies fought and lobbied tooth and nail to stop Chenoweth’s proposal.

Specifically, the policy to be enforced requires all “federal law enforcement personnel to notify the Sheriff’s Office in advance of any federal law enforcement operation in Big Horn County, Wyoming.” Several other guidelines must be followed in regards to showing proper paperwork and the establishments of probable cause to be justify federal law enforcement presence.

What would it hurt (and who would it benefit) if the FBI, IRS, BATF, etc. were doing this in every county? Why would the federal government oppose such common sense practices that they should already be doing anyways? The end result is added safety and protection to the citizens. The only thing preventing this policy from bring realized nationwide is the Sheriff himself failing to take a strong stand and the arrogance and pride of federal agencies.

Two and a half years ago congress conducted hearings regarding the abuse of the IRS. Citizens and IRS employees alike testified about IRS criminality. After any Sheriff has been made aware of the abusive history of the IRS, the crimes committed by the AFT and FBI at WACO and Ruby Ridge, how could he comply with protecting and serving his constituents if he allowed these federal agencies unbridled authority in his county?

The United States Constitution (Article 1 Section  grants 4 law enforcement categories to the federal government: felonies committed on the high seas, counterfeiting, postal issues and treason. Protecting our nation’s borders would also be an appropriate constitutional federal obligation. But many of these federal agencies have become powers unto themselves and are the tails wagging the dog.

Many of these federal agencies have lost sight of their true missions and have gotten for whom they work and who they are suppose to serve and protect. Now we are coming to the point of being forced to turn to our Sheriffs and local authorities to protect and serve us from federal “protectors”.

In fact, what does a Sheriff who knows and understands the significance of the Second Amendment and his oath of office do when agents come in his jurisdiction to confiscate guns of law abiding citizens? Castaneda v USA proves the Sheriff is the answer, Sheriff Mattis has proven it works and common sense proves all Sheriffs should be doing it.

Why is the Sheriff the ultimate and leading law enforcement authority in America? Because he is elected by the ultimate power source, the people, and the answers directly to them. He is not an appointed bureaucrat and lives in the community he serves. He is in all matters, the people’s defender.

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center and resides in Los Angeles.
186  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: July 09, 2010, 10:23:32 AM
County Sheriff Can Bust Big Brother: Wyoming Sheriffs Put Feds in Their Place


The duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county. He has law enforcement powers that exceed that of any other state or federal official.

This is settled law that most people are not aware of.

County sheriffs in Wyoming have scored a big one for the 10th Amendment and states rights. The sheriffs slapped a federal intrusion upside the head and are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activity in a Wyoming County with the Sheriff’s Office. Deja vu for those who remember big Richard Mack in Arizona.

Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ......

"If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody."

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official." Go back and re-read this quote.

The court confirms and asserts that "the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official." And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried — not in Wyoming, not yet.

But it gets even better. Since the judge stated that the sheriff "has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official," the Wyoming sheriffs are flexing their muscles. They are demanding access to all BATF files. Why? So as to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibits the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. This would be wrong.

The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in Wyoming state courts.

Gosh, it makes one wish that the sheriffs of the counties relative to Waco, Texas and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma regarding their jurisdictions were drinking the same water these Wyoming sheriffs are.

Sheriff Mattis said, "I am reacting in response to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law." [Amen].

However, the sad reality is that sheriffs are elected, and that means they are required to be both law enforcement officials and politicians as well. Unfortunately, Wyoming sheriffs are the exception rather than the rule . . . but they shouldn’t be. Sheriffs have enormous power, if or when they choose to use it. I share the hope of Sheriff Mattis that "more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens."

If Wyoming Sheriffs can follow in the steps of former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and recognize both their power and authority, they could become champions for the memory of Thomas Jefferson who died thinking that he had won those "states’ rights" debates with Alexander Hamilton.

This case is not just some amusing mountain melodrama. This is a BIG deal. This case is yet further evidence that the 10th Amendment is not yet totally dead, or in a complete decay in the United States. It is also significant in that it can, may, and hopefully will be interpreted to mean that "political subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to the States."

Winston Churchill observed, "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fights with all the odds against you with only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is not hope of victory at all, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
187  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: July 09, 2010, 07:32:36 AM
The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought.
Samuel Adams  Essay in the Boston Gazette, October 14, 1771

"Religion in a Family is at once its brightest Ornament & its best Security." --Samuel Adams, letter to Thomas Wells, 1780
188  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: July 09, 2010, 07:31:02 AM
I am in Rarick's camp on this one.
189  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: July 08, 2010, 01:43:38 PM

Why do you feel that way?  What is the advantage of the system now vs local control?
190  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Resist DC: Step by Step Plan for Freedom 2 on: July 08, 2010, 07:48:54 AM
part 2  There are links that did not come through.  Many are on the list of points made.  If you want more info go to the original link here:

by State Rep. Matthew Shea (WA-4th)

I, like many people, believe that the Constitution is not a living document.  The corollary to this principle is that if it is not living then it cannot die. However, the question of whether the Constitution is followed and enforced depends on you and me.  We introduced the legislation outlined in Part I of the plan and predictably many Obama defenders in our state House began calling us racist and secessionist. In fact, the quote from our Speaker Pro Tem Jeff Morris (D – Mount Vernon) was “We want to lead the state out of recession. They want to lead the state out of the country.”  Obviously, this is absurd.  The intent of the state sovereignty Bills are to erect barriers against an ever-encroaching federal bureaucracy, while keeping the nation unified. That said, Washington D. C. is on a course that will destroy our Constitutional Republic. Nationalized Health Care and a national Cap and Trade program will not lead us out of a recession but
rather will further crush our economy.  If the federal government would get out of the way, we would be free as individual states to fix our own problems as the founders intended.

To that end, recently some Attorneys General across the country are questioning the constitutionality of Nationalized Health Care.  In fact, at least 18 states are now suing the federal government claiming the $2.5 trillion healthcare system reform violates state sovereignty as protected in the U.S. Constitution and will force massive new spending on hard-pressed state governments.  Interestingly, some of the state Attorneys General claim that only the judicial branch may decide what is or is not constitutional but not state elected representatives or county sheriffs. [ii] This flies in the face of the requirement set forth in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution (Oath to support the Constitution binding both federal and state representatives).  To hold such a position renders that Oath of Office meaningless, and brings back the very scary proposition “befehl ist befehl” (an order is an order) used as a defense by Nazi officers at Nuremburg.  It is
important to know where your State Attorney General stands on this issue because Part II of the plan deals with state and local enforcement of unconstitutional laws.

What follows is Part II of the plan.
Step 3:  Restore Sound and Honest Money
The control over the issuance of money is at the heart of sovereignty.  Our current fiat paper currency is losing value by the minute and you and I are paying for it by the day.  Most readers of this article know that since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 in order to “provide a safer, more flexible banking and monetary system” and ensure “stability in the purchasing power of the dollar.” Since that time the US dollar has lost 97% of its value.  So what can we do at the state level?  In order to restore a system of sound money two immediate pieces of legislation can be introduced:

Sound Money Resolution
Legal Tender Act
The more pressure states put on Congress to audit the Federal Reserve System, the greater the chance is that it will be exposed as a private group of bankers profiteering at public expense and then be phased out.  Like the state sovereignty resolutions, the Sound Money Resolution would put the government on notice to return to the original monetary system envisioned by our founders. [iii] This means an end to the fractional reserve banking as we know it and a return to currency that is backed by gold and silver and perhaps even commodities.

Dr. Edwin Viera Jr., a constitutional attorney and an expert in monetary theory who has litigated cases involving money issues, has said that the entire present monetary system is unconstitutional.  He proposes a precious-metals-based monetary system in which the state government collects part of its tax revenue from corporations in gold.  New Hampshire and Indiana, currently have that kind of legislation before them.  I would add that the next step should be to establish a private currency exchange in conjunction with a new monetary system.  This will be the subject of a future article.

Next, states can require the federal government to tender all payments in gold and silver.  The U.S. Constitution in Article 1 section 10 clearly states “No State shall…coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…”[iv] The practical result of returning to this constitutional requirement will likely be the federal government ceasing to send any money to the states.  What an excellent day that would be! This would force states to budget and fix problems themselves without relying on federal handouts.  Another benefit will be ensuring state solvency even if the federal government goes bankrupt.  Lastly, it calls the bluff of the federal government.  You will recall in Part I of the plan the creation of a Federal Tax Escrow Account, which would offset this loss of money.  It will become immediately apparent which states send the federal government more money than they receive.

Step 4:  If State Legislatures Fail, Introduce the Laws through the Initiative Process

The people are the final check and balance because power is inherent in the people.  Many state legislatures will refuse to even hear the above ten bills when freedom-minded legislators introduce them.  Such was the case in my own state of Washington.  No matter.  In many states, the people have reserved for themselves the final power of legislation through the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Process.

Twenty-four states currently have an Initiative process. Check here for the process in your state. Since the legislation is already written, it only needs to be slightly modified to include the words “Be it enacted by the people of [your state].”  Grassroots activists should be mindful that the ballot title and summary for an Initiative is going to require an attorney.  Identify them now (yes Constitutional freedom-minded Attorneys exist like Stephen Pidgeon of Everett, Washington).

Next, activists should contact all freedom groups and bring them together into one network on the Internet.  Remember that the Internet is to the state sovereignty movement what the printing press was to the Bible.  This is not centralized control but merely a way to quickly transmit to, and share information with, thousands of like-minded people.  For example, in Washington such a network called the “Liberty Groups” has started a state sovereignty initiative drive and website, Freedom Initiatives, and continues to share information and coordinate on many issues.  This is not about who leads what. Such squabbles must quickly give way to the overarching mission of restoring our Constitutional Republic. This is also not a Republican, Libertarian, Tea Party, or Democrat “thing” but a “we the people” reclaiming our country “thing.”

Before I move on, I want to address a couple of arguments that are typically raised by people who oppose the use of the Initiative process.  The arguments usually fall along three lines and I will answer each in turn:

1)      Direct Democracy is a dangerous thing and usually comes back around to bite you in the tail. This ignores the people as the final check and balance in our system. Furthermore, I believe we must exhaust all possible remedies at our disposal due to the urgency of the current situation.

2)      If the Initiative fails, practically speaking, it is impossible to bring the issue up again even decades later. This assumes we have decades.  The many experts I have read and talked to give our Constitutional Republic 6-10 years in a best-case scenario[v] and 6 months to 2 years worst case scenario.[vi] Now is the time to draw a line in the sand…our backs are against the wall.

3)      It wastes precious time and resources. This assumes an initiative will fail and also ignores the benefit of being able to educate voters through the Initiative process while simultaneously galvanizing a core grass roots team.  It also allows you to hold elected officials accountable by asking them point-blank “do you support the Initiative to nullify Nationalized Health Care?”

Step 5:  Contact all County Sheriffs and get them to commit to keep their oaths.

As described in Part I the whole principle of a Sheriff’s First bill is that no one is above the law…including federal agents.[vii] Federal agents will claim they “have the authority, period.” This begs a great question.  How will a law passed at the federal level be enforced locally?  The answer in almost every scenario involves the county Sheriff.  This is the Achilles Heel of almost all current federal schemes to socialize our economy. That is also why in most states ‘Task Forces” have been established to coordinate federal, state, and local law enforcement.  If all politics is local…it can fairly be said that so is all enforcement of criminal and civil penalties.

Consequently, the laws we have are only as good as those officers that enforce them at the local level.  Thus, the rise of tyranny must first come through both the United States Military and the County Sheriff.  And this can only happen if those same people violate their oaths to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and their own State’s Constitution.  As discussed in Part I, the county Sheriff is the primary (chief) law enforcement officer in the United States.   Therefore, if you are an interested activist, you should make a personal visit to your County Sheriff.  Here are some ideas for your visit:

Ask if your Sheriff will become an Oath Keeper.  Oath Keepers is a nonprofit organization started by Stewart Rhodes (attorney and Army veteran) which advocates that its members (current and former military and law enforcement) uphold the Constitution of the United States should they be ordered to violate it.
Invite your Sheriff to publicly reaffirm his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and your respective state.
Give your Sheriff a copy of former Sheriff Richard Mack’s book The County Sheriff, America’s Last Hope.
Ask your Sheriff if he has a local “Safety Committee” or similar group, which is the modern day version of a posse and what the requirements are to join.[viii] Become engaged with the local Sheriff’s office, it will help them with critical manpower needs and, it will give you an opportunity to try and influence this critical link in our governmental chain.

5 Steps

Reclaim State Sovereignty through key Nullification Legislation
Erect an Impenetrable Barrier around the 2nd Amendment and the County Sheriff
Restore Sound and Honest Money
Introduce 10th Amendment Initiatives
Help your Sheriff become an Oath Keeper
10 Bills

State Sovereignty Resolution
Health Care Freedom Act
Energy Freedom Act
Right to Constitutional Government Act
Federal Tax Escrow Account
Fire Arms Freedom Act
Right to Protection Act
Sheriff First Act
Sound Money Resolution
Legal Tender Act
There are many other ideas out there but we believed these would be quickest way to restore our Constitutional Republic.  This is not to say that securing our borders, state enforcement of immigration laws, repealing the 17th Amendment, eliminating 501(c)(3) for churches, reforming the elections process, restraining the courts, or restoring grand jury presentments are not important and worthy goals.  But the legislation as outlined above is the immediate priority.  To be clear, Legislation alone is not the answer nor do we need to change the face of our national government to change the direction of our country.     Ultimately the survival of our Constitutional Republic depends on the people.  It depends on the courage and boldness of each one of us.  It depends on each one of us answering “everything” to the question “what am I willing to sacrifice for freedom?” The fight for freedom is ultimately a matter of the heart before it is a county or
state movement.  And so I pray you will help restore our Constitutional Republic so that our children and grandchildren may inherit, as we did, the blessings of liberty and freedom.

Matthew Shea [send him email] is a State Representative in Washington’s 4th District. He’s the author of HJM4009 for State Sovereignty.  Visit his website.

Copyright © 2010 by Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” Publius (James Madison) Federalist No. 39. 1788.
[ii] In a letter dated February 10, 2010, Idaho’s Attorney General Lawrence G. Wasden wrote: “It is simply not within the Idaho Attorney General’s or the Idaho Legislature’s authority to declare federal laws null and void; that authority lies exclusively with the Supreme Court of the United States and the federal courts created by Congress.”  Notably, Mr. Wasden cites no authority for this proposition.

[iii] The Federal Monetary System was established in 1792 with the creation of the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia. The first American coins were struck in 1793. The U.S. Coinage Act of 1792, consistent with the Constitution, provided for a U.S. Mint, which stamped silver and gold coins. The importance of this Act cannot be stressed enough.  The Act invoked the death penalty for anyone found to be debasing money.  President George Washington also mentions the importance of the national currency backed by gold and silver throughout his initial term of office and he contributed his own silver for the initial coins minted. The purchase of The US Mint in Philadelphia was the first money appropriated by Congress for a building to be used for a public purpose. It was purchased for a total of $4,266.67 on July 18, 1792.

A dollar was originally defined as 371.25 grains (troy) of fine silver.  Our entire monetary system was based proportionally off this measurement.  This has been changed since.

[v] Business Week posts an optimistic report in “Housing: The Roof Won’t Collapse On The U.S. Economy”

Art Laffer in the WSJ predicts 2011, “Tax hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse” and Peter Schiff paints an equally gloomy picture in “The Phantom Recovery”

[vii] Some have claimed that a Sheriff First law prevents federal agents from arresting terrorists and/or would hamper their ability to do so.  This is absurd for many reasons not the least of which is the Task Force example given.  Federal agents are already working with county Sheriffs and getting permission would not “stall” an operation.  However, a clause clarifying this should be added to any Sheriff First bill so that the issue is crystal clear.   Also, tying this legislation to the enforcement of a specific bill like Nationalized Health Care would remove this objection.

[viii] Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, is a leader in the country on the formation of a modern day “posse.”
191  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Resist DC: Step by Step Plan for Freedom on: July 08, 2010, 07:48:17 AM
There are links that did not come through.  Many are on the list of points made.  If you want more info go to the original link here:

Resist DC: Step by Step Plan for Freedom

by State Rep. Matthew Shea (WA-4th)

This summer, legislators from several states met to discuss the steps needed to restore our Constitutional Republic. The federal government has ignored the many state sovereignty resolutions from 2009 notifying it to cease and desist its current and continued overreach. The group decided it was time to actively counter the tyranny emanating from Washington D.C.

From those discussions it became clear three things needed to happen.

State Legislatures need to pass 10 key pieces of legislation “with teeth” to put the federal government back in its place.
The people must pass the legislation through the Initiative process if any piece of the legislative agenda fails.
County Sheriffs must reaffirm and uphold their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
With the advent of the Tea Party Movement, many people have been asking how exactly we can make the above reality. What follows is Part I of the outline of that plan regarding state legislation, the action steps any concerned citizen can take to see this legislation to fruition, and the brief history and justifications behind each.

Step 1:     Reclaim State Sovereignty through Key Nullification Legislation

Our Constitutional Republic is founded on a system of checks and balances known as the “separation of powers.” Rarely, however, are the states considered part of this essential principle.

Enter the “doctrine of nullification.”

Nullification is based on the simple principle that the federal government cannot be the final arbiter of the extent and boundaries of its own power. This includes all branches of the federal government. In the law this is known as a “conflict of interest.”

Additionally, since the states created the federal government the federal government was an agent of the states; not the other way around. Thus, Thomas Jefferson believed that, by extension, the states had a natural right to nullify (render as of no effect) any laws they believed were unconstitutional.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 he wrote,

“co-States, recurring to their natural right…will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.”1

Alexander Hamilton echoed this sentiment in Federalist #85 “We may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” 2

It is clear then that State Legislatures can stop the unconstitutional overreach of the Obama administration through nullification. Here is a list of proposed nullification legislation to introduce in all 50 States.

Nullification of Socialized Health Care [current efforts] [example legislation]
Nullification of National Cap and Trade [example legislation]
Federal Enumerated Powers Requirement (Blanket Nullification) [details]
Establishment of a Federal Tax Escrow Account [example legislation]
If imposed, socialized health care and cap and trade will crush our economy. These programs are both unconstitutional, creating government powers beyond those enumerated by the Constitution. If those programs are nullified, it will give the individual states a fighting chance to detach from a federal budget in freefall and save the economies of the individual states.

Next, blanket nullification.

The Federal Government, particularly the House of Representatives, needs to abide by its own rules. In particular, House Rule XIII 3(d) specifically states that:

“Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or resolution.” 3

Needless to say, this rule is generally ignored. The idea behind blanket nullification is that if the Congress does not specify the enumerated power it is using according to its own rules, or the power specified is not one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the United States Constitution, then the “law” is automatically null and void.

Lastly, the federal government cannot survive without money. I know that seems obvious but many states are missing the opportunity to use money as an incentive for the federal government to return to its proper role. Most visibly, states help collect the federal portion of the gasoline tax. That money should be put into an escrow account at the state level and held there. The Escrow Account legislation includes a provision that all consumer, excise, and income taxes payable to the federal government would go through this account first. This would do two things. First, it would give states the ability to collect interest on that money to help offset revenue shortfalls. Second, it would allow states to hold that money as long as needed as an incentive for the federal government to return within the enumerated boundaries of its power.

Step 2:   Erect an impenetrable wall around the County Sheriff and the 2nd Amendment.

As recently stated in the famous Heller opinion by the United States Supreme Court, the right to bear arms “is an individual right protecting against both public and private violence” and “when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized they are better able to resist tyranny.” 4

Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment not only protects the right to self-defense but that right extends to defending oneself against tyranny. As with any historical attempt to establish a dictatorship weapons must be seized or severely regulated. 5

Here is a list of legislation to prevent this from happening, some of which has already been introduced in states around the country:

Sheriff First [model legislation]
Extension of the Castle Doctrine (right to protection) [sample legislation]
Prohibition of Gun and Ammunition Tracking [see above]
Firearms Freedom Act [current efforts] [model legislation]
The county Sheriff is the senior law enforcement officer both in terms of rank and legal authority in a county. This comes from a tradition of over 1000 years of Anglo-Saxon common law. Anglo-Saxon communities were typically organized into “shires” consisting of approximately 1000 people. 6

The chief law enforcement officer of the shire was the “reeve” or “reef.” Hence, the modern combination of the two words, as we know them today, “shire reef” or “Sheriff.” 7

Consequently, the Sheriff’s pre-eminent legal authority is well established. This was confirmed in Printz v. United States. 7    Justice Scalia quotes James Madison who wrote in Federalist 39:

“In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.”9

Sheriff 1st legislation would formally declare that all federal agents and officers must give notice of, and seek permission before, any arrest, search, or seizure occurs. Thus, federal agents and officers seeking to enforce unconstitutional laws must go through the county Sheriff first.

Extending the castle doctrine to one’s person would go a long way toward eliminating the arbitrary “no carry” areas. Like Virginia Tech, it is these areas where guns for self-defense are most needed.

Many gun and ammunition tracking schemes have been, and are still being, attempted. The intended purpose of “reducing gun related” crime is never realized. Instead, law-abiding citizens are punished with regulatory burdens and fees. Quite simply we need transparency in government not in the people.

Montana started the firearms freedom act to rein in the federal government’s use of the Commerce Clause to regulate everything within the stream of commerce. The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to regulate commerce between states not within states as Professor Rob Natelson points out in his 2007 Montana Law Review article.10

The Montana FFA simply returns to that original understanding regarding firearms made, sold, and kept within a state’s borders.

This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it does contain some immediate steps that can be taken toward freedom and restoring our God honoring Constitutional Republic. Hitler’s laws of January 30 and February 14, 1934, should serve as a stark reminder of what happens when state sovereignty is abolished.

In the coming few weeks I will publish the next part of the plan.

Matthew Shea [send him email] is a State Representative in Washington’s 4th District. He’s the author of HJM4009 for State Sovereignty.  Visit his website.

Copyright © 2009 by Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

192  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: July 08, 2010, 07:26:51 AM
"The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. ... How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?" --John Adams, Diary, 1778
193  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / William Ellery on: July 07, 2010, 07:29:21 AM
To live content with small means, to seek elegance rather than luxury, and refinement rather than fashion, to be worthy, not respectable, and wealthy, not rich, to study hard, think quietly, talk gently, act frankly, to listen to stars and birds, to babes and sages, with open heart, to bear all cheerfully, do all bravely, await occasions, hurry never, in a word to let the spiritual, unbidden and unconscious, grow up through the common, this is to be my symphony.
William Ellery (signer of Declaration)
194  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: July 06, 2010, 09:45:30 AM
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." --Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
195  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Adams on: July 04, 2010, 12:40:17 PM
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress
196  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: July 01, 2010, 06:38:40 AM
"Our unalterable resolution would be to be free. They have attempted to subdue us by force, but God be praised! in vain. Their arts may be more dangerous then their arms. Let us then renounce all treaty with them upon any score but that of total separation, and under God trust our cause to our swords." --Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, 1776
197  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: June 29, 2010, 08:04:23 AM
"I rejoice in a belief that intellectual light will spring up in the dark corners of the earth; that freedom of enquiry will produce liberality of conduct; that mankind will reverse the absurd position that the many were, made for the few; and that they will not continue slaves in one part of the globe, when they can become freemen in another." --George Washington, draft of First Inaugural Address, 1789
198  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Your Ticket to Freedom on: June 28, 2010, 10:19:21 AM
Your Ticket to Freedom

by Michael Boldin

Tom Woods’ new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, is not just another reading assignment on the evils and failures of the current administration (like so many political books have been in recent years and decades). Instead, it’s the centerpiece of a mass movement – a new strategy to deal with those evils and failures of federal administrations – past, present, and future.

Prominent founders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government were ever to become the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers, those powers would always grow, regardless of separations of power, protests, lawsuits, elections, or any other vaunted part of the American system.

Put another way, this would be like having your ex’s mother as the final judge on the structure of your divorce settlement. (Thanks to Andrew Nappi for this perspective)

But, sadly enough, this is just what Americans have been doing for a long, long time. When the federal government violates the Constitutional limits on its power (which it has been doing in big ways for nearly a century), we the people have been going to the federal government to fix problems created by the federal government.

We the People march on D.C. to protest in the hope that federal politicians will change their minds and limit their own power. We the People go to federal courts with lawsuits in the hope that federal judges will limit the power of the federal government. We the People “vote the bums out” nearly every election cycle in the hope that new federal politicians will reject federal powers handed to them on a silver platter.

Seriously, folks, does this sound like an effective solution?

Clearly not, because no matter how many emails or calls we make, and no matter how many marches we hold in DC, federal power continues to grow. No matter how many lawsuits are filed, and no matter how many bums are voted out, federal power continues to grow – and it doesn’t matter what political party is in power, what black-robed deity is nominated to the Supreme Court, or what personality occupies the White House.

Woods makes the case that there actually is another option – one that the powers that be (and their government-run schools) don’t want you to know about. Nullification – the act of rendering unconstitutional laws null and void, or inoperative, on a state level – is, as Thomas Jefferson put it, the “rightful remedy” in response to acts of undelegated power by the federal government, and Woods lays it all out in brilliant fashion.

In Nullification, Woods not only goes through the historical and Constitutional case for nullification, but also many of the modern day applications of the principle. He shows us how this isn’t just a good idea, it’s already a movement – and it’s ready to hit the mainstream.

For example, in the past 2 years, multiple states have passed laws making national health care mandates illegal, eight others have passed laws nullifying some federal gun laws and regulations, and others are working to ban federal cap-and-trade regulations. And this is just the beginning. Dozens of states across the country are considering laws to ban a myriad of unconstitutional federal “laws” (which aren’t really laws at all) and people are starting to catch on that the states can stop D.C.!

Over the last 10+ years, 14 states have actively defied unconstitutional federal laws on marijuana. And, starting in 2007, more than 2 dozen states started passing laws and resolutions banning the Real ID act. Today, while that law still sits on the books and has never been challenged in court, it’s virtually null and void in most of the country. There haven’t been any tanks rolling into states like California to shut down marijuana dispensaries, and funding hasn’t been taken away from states like Missouri for refusing to comply with the Real ID Act. So whatever your point of view on these particular issues may be, there’s an important lesson to be learned…

Nullification works.

Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century is not just another great book from a great author – it’s one for the generations and should become the guidebook for the future of liberty in this country.

In conjunction with the release of the book, the Tenth Amendment Center and have set up a multi-state speaking tour, NullifyNow. Tom Woods will be the keynote speaker at a number of locations and other top thinkers and activists will be on hand as well.

Already signed on to support this tour on a national level are prominent groups and organizations such as Campaign for Liberty,, The New American and Young Americans for Liberty. The goal? To educate and activate people in support of this essential principle of nullification.

The bottom line is pretty straightforward – if we continue doing the same things we’ve been doing all along, we know what’s going to happen. The march to tyranny isn’t stopping. Woods’ Nullification gives us the blueprint, and NullifyNow brings us together to make it happen.

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2010 by Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
199  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Washington on: June 28, 2010, 09:45:59 AM
"[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man.... It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous." --George Washington
200  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces on: June 25, 2010, 08:41:41 PM
I was torn between path. science or rants, I chose rants for the nanny state aspect.  It is now in path. science.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!