Occupation Army News Item 2
dateline: February 25, 2009, Atlanta
Elderly Woman Murdered
Copsters Contrite

Abuse Machine

South Carolina H.3509: A Free, Sovereign, and Independent State,

On February 12 2009, bill H.3509 was introduced during the118th Session of the South Carolina General Assembly. The Concurrent Resolution's freedom-fighter sponsors are Repsentatives Michael Pitts, Jeff Duncan, Michael Thompson, Don Bowen, Mac Toole, Tommy Stringer, Dan Hamilton, Gene Pinson, Eric Bedingfield, Garry Smith, Dan Cooper, Kris Crawford, Deborah Long, Philip Lowe, Wendy Nanney, Phil Owens, Ted Pitts, Rex Rice, Thad Viers, Brian White, Nikki Haley and Alan Clemmons.

The Bill:

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

TO AFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF ALL STATES INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Whereas, the South Carolina General Assembly declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not expressly delegated by them to the United States of America in the congress assembled; and

Whereas, some states when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, "that it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several states to be by them exercised"; and

Whereas, these recommended changes were incorporated as the Ninth Amendment, where the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and as the Tenth Amendment, where the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and

Whereas, the several states of the Untied States of America, through the Constitution and the amendments thereto, constituted a general government for special purposes and delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary right to their own self government. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the General Assembly of South Carolina, based on the above principles and provisions, hereby declares by this resolution, that any act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States, or Judicial Order by the federal courts which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution and which serves to diminish the liberty of any of the several states or their citizens shall abridge the Constitution. The General Assembly further declares that acts which would cause such an abridgment include, but are not limited to:

(1) establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the states comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that state;

(2) requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law;

(3) requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of eighteen other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law;

(4) surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government;

(5) any act regarding religion, further limitations on freedom of political speech, or further limitations on freedom of the press; and

(6) further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and each member of the South Carolina Congressional Delegation.

------------------------

These are fine words, indeed. If this bill passes and by any means the feds attempt to further abridge the right to keep and bear arms, for instance, South Carolina, will consider that this act "shall abridge the Constitution."

This House version enumerates several areas further infringement upon which will not be tolerated. As with the Constitution, however, this enumeration can and will be used a double edged sword. What about other areas? And what about follow up when the inevitable happens?

This is all happening very fast. I hope it is not too late as it was for South Carolina in 1860.

The Senate version of the bill S.424 contains this bolder resolve:

"Be it further resolved that all governmental agencies, quasi-governmental agencies, and their agents and employees operating within the geographic boundaries of the State of South Carolina, or all governmental agencies and their agents and employees, whose actions have effect on the inhabitants or lands or waters of the State of South Carolina, shall operate within the confines of the original intent of the Constitution of the United States or be subject to penalty of law as provided for now or in the future, within the Constitution of South Carolina, the South Carolina statutes, or the common law as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

---------------

Either operate "within the original intent of the Constitution," or face the music. Dare we hope this wording wikk be retained in the final version?

---------------

Who are the representatives talking to? Where are they leading? Are they leading or are they game playing? Do they know the difference?

Are they are merely trying to muddle through a dimly glimpsed political (certainly not historical) change? Most of them have been convinced, no doubt, that since so many similar resolutions are being introduced across the empire, that they can get away with making a seemingly principled statement that will preserve South Carolina's standing in the club of "conservative" States, and perhaps get them a few pats on the back at home, without an serious expectation that anything radical (unpatriotic) was ever intended. Is it merely a rhetorical flourish intended to appease the occasional twinge of pride in the slavish mind?

How many of these individuals are actually aware that the end game has begun?

By the 1980s it had become obvious to many that the internal contradictions of the Soviet system were beyond any conceivable remedy available within the system itself. So it is now with the United States, and for many of the same reasons.

Could this bill be evidence of willful and perverse denial and misrepresentation of facts on the scale of the late Soviet Union? For the legislators of South Carolina to demand that the Federal Government of the United States reform itself and begin to operate "within the confines of the original intent of the Constitution" communicates, above all, that those who have affixed their names to the document are willing to publicly proclaim nonsense. Are they utterly unaware or utterly unprincipled?

Who can study the Constitution and conclude other than that the original intent of the document was to create a confederation of sovereign States. At what point does an educated individual become so detached from a common sense interpretation of words that he begins to speak of a further breach of the spirit of that document as the significant one - suddenly more significant than all the preceding ones?

It is only as formulaic public political speech manufactured for limited non-substantive (not to be taken literally) purposes, intended for consumption within a political system in which such statements are seen to represent no more than insignificant conjurers of vague feelings, devoid of concrete referents, that such a apparent steadfast defense for the Constitution's original intent by any intelligent, educated and generally truthful individual who, despite those words ,continues to support his State's participation in the union headquartered in Washington D.C., makes any sense at all.

Can anyone believe that within this bold utterance there resides a resolve to act upon its principles and promises? Such a resolve would necessarily rest upon a shared understanding of fixed definitions of ideas and things capable of inspiring a radically new response to the accustomed, reoccurring and anticipated insults it addresses. Does such a shared resolve currently exist within these groups of cosponsors?

Imagine the spectacle of a firing squad conducted by a revolving committee. The initial committee musters the firing squad but demands that it not shoot at the former leader bound and gagged before it. A second committee forms to demand that a single shot be fired at the prisoner. As the afternoon passes, subsequent committees dictate various numbers of shots. Now, at day's end, our present committee forms. Seeing its duty in following initial precedent, the committee orders the exhausted firing squad to desist, not in overdue recognition of the obvious moribund condition of the bloody heap before it, but in the absurd expectation that the former living being reanimate itself, stand up and live again.

There is something deeply disturbing about in all this. An almost sanguine embrace of unreality. Are these men and women aware that the former U.S. President called the Constitution a g**d***** piece of paper? How did they then respond as their sacrosanct document was reviled? When he suspended habius corpus and posse comitatus where were the resolutions?

Does anyone seriously expect that serious sanctions will fall upon federal agents when thy inevitably ignore this "law?" And who will feel embarrassment or shame when this happens? Will any of them feel a single pang of any recognizable human emotion? Serious consequences to these fine words? My word, no!

If I have written substantially in criticism while I should have praised this work and its promoters to the rooftops, I offer this in defense: my mind simply refused to be carried along by the fairly intoxicating elixir of the beautiful sentiments embodied in these noble documents. They are so powerfully moving that I must resist their embrace in order simply to retain equilibrium.

It must not have been easy for some of them! We have entered uncharted waters and none of us can know just what to do. Those who placed their signature on bills H.3509 are not donothings. Some of them would wish to be even bolder, some less, but all are worthy of our respect.

My thanks to those whose names appear above.

If you want more of the same than click on the links provided and thank and encourage these men and women.

Great news out of DC

President Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress are considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said California Senator Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing."

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S employer of Persons of Inability.

Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the Inept include retail sales(72%), the airline industry(68%), and home improvement 'warehouse' stores (65%). At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring
Persons of Inability (63%).

Under The Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million middle man" positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses
that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, 'Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?'

'As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who ave something going for them,' said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan, due to her inability to remember 'rightey tightey, lefty loosey.'

'This new law should be real good for people like me,' Gertz added. With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), "As a Senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary
for doing so."

When the State Becoms God by Lee Penn

During World War I, American activist Randolph Bourne had warned, "War is the health of the State."1 His prophecy has proven accurate; the post-1914 years have been an era of total war and the total state. It had seemed that with the fall of the Soviet Union, the state of permanent war, permanent mobilization, and permanent emergency would end. This hope has not been realized. Instead, the US and the world are now laying the groundwork for high-tech totalitarianism; liberty is in retreat, just as occurred almost everywhere between 1914 and 1945.

Precedents from the 1790s through World War II

Federal power grabs have been a bi-partisan policy, long before the War on Terror. All of these acts have created precedents for what is being done ­ or proposed ­ now.

In 1798, the Federal Government passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, in response to the threat of war with France.2 "The Sedition Act made it a criminal offense to print or publish false, malicious, or scandalous statements directed against the U.S. government, the president, or Congress; to foster opposition to the lawful acts of Congress; or to aid a foreign power in plotting against the United States."3 About 25 people were arrested under the law, and 10 were imprisoned. The Sedition Act had an 1801 expiration date, and appeared to be designed to impede opposition party political activity and journalism in the 1800 Presidential election. These laws were unpopular, and the reaction to them helped win the 1800 election for Thomas Jefferson.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus for the duration of the war. Thousands were arrested by the military, including anti-war newspaper editors and politicians, and one Chicago man who was briefly jailed for calling Lincoln a "damned fool."4 After the end of the war, government lawyers defended these actions before the Supreme Court, saying that wartime presidential powers "must be without limit," and that the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution ­ almost half of the Bill of Rights ­ were "peace provisions" that should be suspended in wartime.5 The Supreme Court scorned this apology for despotism, holding in the ex parte Milligan decision of 1866 that "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances."6

READ THE REST

Robert Reich: Skilled White Men Need Not Apply

When government controls capitol, it ceases to flow where it can earn the best return. Capitol controlled by politicians ceases to reward good judgment with increase and soon begins to evaporate. Thereafter, the increasing well being of the people that is produced by rising incomes begins to diminish. All boats will sink now, but some will sink faster than others.

The Govsters have nationalized the banking sector. They control the money now, and they will use this power to settle old scores and change the balance of power forever if they can.When a government goes socialist the Govsters quickly reward their cronies, lackeys and partisans while penalizing their enemies-as poverty grows.

White Men are to be the Underclass of the NewAmerica.

Another great video from NakedEmperorNews.

The ever quotable, Robert Reich, minces no words as he necks up to the Rulers forum in his best freedom-loathing style.

"I am concerned," he says, "as I am sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to highly skilled people who are already professionals, or to white male construction workers...Criteria can be set, so that the money does go to others, the long term unemployed, minorities, women..."

Criminal Govster Charlie Rangle waxes candid as well,

"...and one thing that you can depend on, you don't have to be worried about what the middle class is going to do. Things are so bad. They have to put food on the table, and clothes for their kids, and get them in school..."

Rangle then asks Reich how to cut State governments out of the decision making process so the money can go directly to the people the Ruling Cabal wants to favor:

"Don't you think that we can get rid of some of the fears that you express by mandating the the criterias and the formulas."

Reich replies:

"Mr chairman, absolutely, I think the formulas and criteria ought to be mandated. Governors should be given a choice of either signing on the bottom line or not. They should be held accountable. This should not be held up in state legislatures..."

It is interesting to live in the last days of a way of life.

Govster Criminal Class (Meltdown Artists) at Work

This Video from NakedEmporerNews is priceless.

Hundreds of millions of persons around the world are suffering from what a handfull of political criminals in the United States did to the financial institutions the world depended on. Countless hard working individuals around the world have seen their modest livelihoods go up in smoke; many are going hungry, doing without medicine and dieing because of the actions of this Criminal Class. In this video some of these Criminals display their skills.

• Hear Govster Criminal Barney Frank say:

"I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN YOUR REPORT THAT RAISES SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS PROBLEMS"

• Hear Govster Criminal Maxine Waters say:
  

"WE DO NOT HAVE A CRICIS...EVERYTHING...HAS WORKED JUST FINE..."

• Hear Govster Lacy Clay call the scrutiny of Fannie Mae's CEO, Frank Raines who "cooked the books at Fannie to increase his compensation (more than $50 million)":
  

"A POLITICAL LYNCHING"

• Hear Govster Criminal Gregory Meeks attack regulator:
  

"...as well as of the fact that I'm just pissed off because if it wasn't for you I don't think we'ld be here in the first place... there's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong with you know un Fannie Mae"

• Hear Govster Criminal Arthur Davis accusing regulator of crossing
  

"SOME KIND OF INVISIBLE LINE"

• Hear Book-Cooker Bankster Frank Raines say that Fannie Mae's assets are

"SO RISKLESS THAT THEIR 'RESERVE' CAPITOL FOR HOLDING THEM SHOULD BE UNDER 2%"

These Criminals continue to rule. This must end.

The Owner is the Owner

The owner is the owner, not you, Nanny. We are all growed up. Lexington County Council, we didn't elect you to tell us what is good for us. We didn't elect you for CHANGE. Leave us alone. For goodness sakes get Government OFF our BACKS, not into our homes and businesses. Who - just who do you think you are, God? Public health issue my backside, you are busybodies and that's all you are, sticking your noses into other people's business. If we don't want to smoke we can go to the Flight Deck or a hundred other places. Some of us want to smoke and a whole lot of non smokers don't give a rip if we do. JUST GET OFF OUR BACK!

Go back to California, New York or Massachusetts where people just can't get enough Nanny telling them how to live their lives. South Carolina is grown up and doesn't need YOU, so grow up yourself and get down off your high moral horse, no one elected you to RULE OVER US!

Go to Make it Your Lexington to read a proper essay about who is pushing this smokeless tyranny down our throats!

New York Thugs Police the Subs

Occupation Army News Item 2
dateline: February 19, 2009, NYC
Assault Camera taken into Custody
No Crime Committed

Abuse Machine.

South Carolina Sovereign: Cant or Can?

It has been 149 years and 52 days since South Carolina declared her sovereignty in the face of federal overreach. Apparently, South Carolina is still not entirely satisfied with the way her declaration was ultimately decided.

On February 12 2009, bill S. 424 was introduced during the118th Session of the South Carolina General Assembly, by freedom-fighter Senators Lee Bright, Shane Martin, Thomas Alexander, Paul Campbell, Michael Fair, Jake Knotts, Ronnie Cromer, "Mick" Mulvaney, Danny Verdin, Larry Martin, Phillip Shoopman, Michael Rose, Glenn McConnell, David Thomas, Raymond Cleary, John Courson, Creighton Coleman, Tom Davis, Glenn Reese, Kevin Bryant and "Chip" Campsen.

The bill concerns the power of the U.S. Government relative to that of the State of South Carolina. Its text is explicit and succinct. It begins thus:

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

TO AFFIRM SOUTH CAROLINA'S SOVEREIGNTY UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OVER ALL POWERS NOT ENUMERATED AND GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Unlike the recent New Hampshire bill, the South Carolina bill doesn't spell out the manner of response contemplated by the South Carolina Legislators upon the inevitable continuation of the breach of its enumerated powers, that will inevitably place the U.S. Government in non compliance with the law, shortly after, if not immediately upon, this bill's enactment.

And how could they? Unless they have arranged for a patron with mighty deep pockets to step into the breach when U.S. Funds for government services stop flowing in in response to any substantive resistance to its power, the Federal Government won't even need for the CIA to implement its covert contingency plan. South Carolina's own citizens would themselves disadvise the errant lawmakers of their hubris. Until a substitute for the Federal dole is devised no escape will be possible.

The sponsors' bill is obviously meant as a palliative to impotence, by men who are railing merely as theater now that the opposition party has tossed theirs out at the federal level. Their bold words are for consumption only, not a rallying cry.

Do any of these men contemplate any true positive non compliance option, secession or even nullification being, for them, zero options? If so, what is it? Do they believe that the Federal Juggernaut will be slowed down by their words? Obviously not.

Obviously not - some among these men may even have ambitions to move on to Washington, D.C. Should fate smile their way, they would cheerfully become part of the problem. The proof of the emptiness of this bill lies in the fact that they know that their signature upon it would hinder such ambitions none at all.

Contrast this with what views of their potential futures at a federal level New Hampshire freedom fighters, Daniel C. Itse, Paul C. Ingbretson, Tim Comerford, and William P. Denley must have held as they presented their bill to the New Hampshire Legislature. Theirs, though it has no chance of passage, certainly stands each of these men out as a Patriot for New Hampshiremen's rights! And certifiably non federal material!

Never the less, it is good to see South Carolina join the howl.

Though the wording of South Carolina's bill is mild compared to both New Hampshire's and Montana's, both of which could portend real conflict, what makes South Carolina's resolution different is the number of Senators who introduced it.

New Hampshire's bill had 4 sponsors out of 400 Representatives and 24 Senators while the South Carolina bill is merely the Senate version; the House version was introduced later. South Carolina's bill is co-sponsored by 20 Senators, including the Chairman Pro Tem, Glenn McConnell, out of a total of 46 Senators. About 1% of New Hampshire's legislators sponsored their bill, while 43% of South Carolina's Senators sponsored hers. It is comparing apples with oranges, of course, but at least this resolution will pass in the Senate of South Carolina.

Of course, the legislators don't mean a word of it. It is a complete sham. Not a one of them would put anything on the line in defense of the notion of South Carolina's sovereignty.

And yet, it is there:

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:

That the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, claims for the State of South Carolina sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution.

----------------------------------

A similar bill was introduced in the South Carolina legislature in January, 1995 - S 0206 by freedom fighters: Wilson, Courson, Giese, Hayes, Lander, Leatherman, Martin, McConnell, O'Dell, Passailaigue, M.T. Rose, Russell, Ryberg, Thomas and Waldrep

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

CLAIMING SOVEREIGNTY UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OVER ALL POWERS NOT OTHERWISE ENUMERATED AND GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; PROVIDING THAT ALL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, AND THEIR AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES OPERATING WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, OR ALL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND THEIR AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES, WHOSE ACTIONS HAVE EFFECT ON THE INHABITANTS OR LANDS OR WATERS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, SHALL OPERATE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY OF LAW AS PROVIDED FOR NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTES, OR THE COMMON LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; AND SERVING NOTICE AND DEMAND ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS SOUTH CAROLINA'S AGENT TO CEASE AND DESIST IMMEDIATELY ALL MANDATES THAT ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S CONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATED POWERS.

I am unaware of the fate of this former bill but its spirit has been ignored. The growth of Illegal Federal Government power has blossomed in the intervening years.

The overreaching is now at a fever pitch. The greed and ineptitude of the central cabal has reached proportions not dreamed of in 1995. And, with the internet, far, far more people are aware of it. The clock appears, at last, to be clicking down.

I emailed each of the cosponsors of the new bill congratulating them. You can do that too, if you wish, by clicking on the names of the freedom fighters above.

Read more at SC LOBBYMAN

Montana equals Freedom?

Bill HB 246, (follow it here) recently introduced by freedom fighter Joel Boniek in the Montana House, would exempt firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured in Montana from regulations under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States.

The bill and the justification for its exemption from the notorious Commerce Clause follows:

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that theauthority for [sections 1 through 7] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889.The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

The United States Congress is bought and sold, as is the Presidency, while the appointed Judiciary is selected for its willingness to enable these two enemies of limited government. Therefore, the only legislative possibility for the reestablishment of the limited powers of government that the Constitution sought to establish and upon which human freedom stands its only faint chance in this Empire, is the States themselves. The best hope among these is the smaller States where money can have less impact on elections.

If there yet exists a legislative means to reassert individual rights against tyranny than it resides here, in these small States' legislatures. If it can not be reestablished by individual acts of defiance in these bodies than no other peaceful means will emerge.

Let us pray for for the success of Bill HB246.

Secession is Coming

There comes a time when the old must die. This is not so much bad or good as necessary for life to go on.

The government of the United States of America is played out. Its time to pass from making history to being history is fast approaching. With its every new mega project it hastens its exit.

One by one legislators in the several States that make up the moribund empire are waking up. They are realizing that no longer (if it ever was) is the Empire a net benefit to them, and they realize that the voters in their districts are, one by one, shifting their loyalty from their rulers in Washington to their home States.

The latest blast is the resolution pending in the New Hampshire legislature introduced by freedom fighters, Daniel C. Itse, Paul C. Ingbretson, Tim Comerford, and William P. Denley which begins:

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and

Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhodie Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, --

and concludes:

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

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

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.

The Constitution was not an expansive document but a restrictive one, denying the federal government legitimate activity in any but a very limited number of endeavors. Thus its legitimate mandate as agreed upon by the several States was narrow. The only legitimate means of altering these limitations was also spelled out, and the fact that entry and exit from the union was voluntary was manifest, as well, in that their intention to jealously retain their sovereign rights was codified in the ratification documents of several of the States and elsewhere specified.

Radical change is going mainstream. Legislators in New Hampshire now have an opportunity to make 2009 a very good year for liberty.

Worse in Government Hands

The “Century of Self,” a 2002 BBC documentary by film maker Adam Curtis accurately and entertainingly presents the Twentieth Century as characterized by manipulation of the mass psyche. Successful new psychological ideas and technologies allowed marketers to influence potential customers in ways never before possible. One premise of the series, which consists of four hour long segments,is that marketing has elevated the consumer to the status of king but taken away his free mind. It makes much of Sigmund Freud's notion of the unconscious and his nephew Edward Bernays' techniques of marketing to unconscious desires.

Adam Curtis deplores this wildly successful method of persuasion. He is a statist, disgusted that businesses fill people's heads with nonsensical desires and then takes advantage of those desires. The shows are anti business, of course, and anti consumer. They take for granted that people thus influenced are diminished, those in control as undeserving, and Bernays, himself, among others, as offensively arrogant.

But in the last of the four presentations the show focuses on what Curtis considers the very worst culprit, politicians, whose adoption of these same strategies to win elections has allowed unscrupulous campaigners (Bill Clinton and John Major) to win elections based entirely on their willingness to spout whatever focus groups have demonstrated that voters what to hear, with no intention of actually trying to deliver on their promises.

While the motives of business advertising are essentially straightforward (all they want is to sell a product) when politicians use the same techniques, they do so to lie. Politicians pander to the voter and then, once elected, act much differently than they promised.

Curtis believes that government should be above the callous machinations that compel grubby business. But when he shows that what works for business (finding out what people want and giving it to them) can not work for government, statist that he is, he leaves out the important fact that government power rests upon coercion while competition restrains business. When businesses use focus groups to find out what consumers subconsciously desire, they plan to use the information to actually design and market products that consumers will willingly pay for.

And despite his assumption that business is the heavy and that if only government could escape its pernicious influence and govern in a truly “democratic” style all would be well, the malevolence of political operators fairly pops out at the viewer.

The summation statement at the end of the series, delivered by the well known statist Robert Reich unintentionally sums up the argument of freedom lovers everywhere. Reich gets too close to the enemy he was trying to stare down. By contrasting the relative success of business in satisfying individuals, with government's hopeless defect, Reich inadvertently frames a more important debate that the program hadn't considered at all: whether or not government is even necessary.

Fundamentally, here we have two different views of human nature and of democracy. You have the view that people are irrational that they are bundles of unconsciousness emotion That comes directly out of Freud. And business are very able to respond to that. That's what they have honed their skills doing. That is what marketing is really about. What are the symbols, the music, the images that will appeal to these unconscious feelings. Politics must be more than that. Politics and leadership are about engaging the public in a rational discussion, a deliberation about what is best, and treating people with respect in terms of their natural abilities to debate what is best. If it is not that, if it is Freudian, if it is basically a matter of appealing to the same basic unconscious feelings that business responds to, why not let business do it? Business, after all is in the business of responding to those feelings.

To governing elites, successful business advertising seems an easy target. What people in really do want is seldom what the elite consider best for them. After all the Soviet Union produced exquisite Ballet for the masses. Whether they preferred it or not, who knows; without a free market government decides.

And that's the point. Someone gets to decide. In the Soviet Union, the governing elite, wielding power through theft and coercion, decided what entertainment would be available.

Governing elites are like that: what else could they be like? Business elites, living and dieing by voluntary interaction, must pander to their markets.

Which is more benign?

Socialists are in power everywhere, but lucky for freedom, their most articulate spokesmen are intellectual midgets.

Government Corrupts

Earned power, the kind you get by figuring out what others want and giving it to them, all through voluntary interaction, tends toward virtue. Earned power is a pleasure all around. When people are benefited without stealing from or coercing anyone, the sum total of good in the world increases. People actually want to reward those who make them feel good, so we're talking about a virtuous cycle here .

And yet, earning power virtuously this way can be a lot of work, and in a world where unearned power is everywhere on display it can seem a fools game. Why should you be content to work when, not only is someone you know living off a government check, but TV images portray the wielders of unearned power as better than the rest.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that almost all politicians and many business owners and managers have been working hand in glove for so long that the line between earned and unearned power has vanished for the bigger players whose favored, manipulative relationship with government places their gains squarely in the unearned-reward category.

No one knows anymore how to get business and government out of the same bed. Almost no one can imagine a world without this vice. Worse yet, most of those who think that something is wrong with the way businesses benefit from their relationship with politicians simply want government to regulate businesses into submission.

Few understand that this business/government partnership is a symptom, not of corruption, but of government itself, and that it will develop under any system of government. It can't be solved as long as government exists.

Successful businesses are dynamic, opportunistic, nimble and single minded while all government can do is coerce, steal and redistribute the loot. Government is a complacent occupation force, jealous at all times and brutal when confronted, whose preferred condition is inertia, while successful businesses thrive on challenge. Fundamentally wedded to force and fraud, government will always be at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis business, which must seek to influence it.

Regulation that is not managed by the business it regulates is too dangerous for them to ignore. Therefore, where government and business mix it is inevitable that the regulated will seek to become the regulator.

For business, standing aside only encourages others to determine their future without them even being at the bargaining table. Therefore, when government regulations or contracts choose winners and losers, every business with the reasourses to do so will be sucked into the game of influence buying. The key to success becomes getting one of the 435 Congressmen or 100 Senators to favor you. No other course is rational.

Wal Mart is an example of a large business that attempted to operate legally with minimal lobbying. Finding that its competitors and other enemies were not of the same mind, Wal Mart was ultimately forced to engage lobbyists and fund politicians as a counter measure. Government simply sucks businesses into its orbit, whether or not they want to go there.

Government is the problem - not this government or that one, but government itself.