It’s Warm Tonight

I’m lying on a turned-inside-out sleeping bag (the slick outer side feels better in hot weather) on an old couch cushion on the floor in my 1961 Spartan-Imperial-Mansion travel trailer.  The box fan is blowing and I don’t have clothes on so it is not uncomfortable.

It’s midnight on what is statistically likely to be one of the hottest days of the year.

Today the usual family gang got together for Amy’s birthday.

However, some things were strange about this particular get together that made it oddly superior to many of those which have preceded it.

When I arrived, all the others were eating chips and drinking cold drinks, however, not inside in air-conditioning as one would expect, but outside in the heat. The temperature was in the mid nineties and faces were glistening and yet no one was complaining. 

Everyone seemed so content that I didn’t think to mention the oddness of their sitting outside on a hot day in July. Ceiling fans were rotating and there were steady breezes, sometimes tossing napkins about. Could it be that after fifty years of ac people are beginning to readjust to the heat?

There was too-loud music playing so I had it turned off, but that didn’t turn off the traffic noise from Interstate 20 which was clearly visible in the near distance.

Someone informed me that there had not been space for us inside.

I joked about the ambience, pretending that it compared favorably with an outdoor meal some of us could remember when we had celebrated  my 25th birthday overlooking Lake Constance in Switzerland over three decades past.

In contrast to the quiet elegance of that long ago meal when, as we were eating, a ship had passed nearby from which we could hear the strains of a band playing waltzes, these surroundings were more like some dystopian industrial or post apocalypse experience. Today we were paying to eat in the heat while being entertained by traffic noise.

It was a success.

We ate and talked and then regrouped and talked and talked until, finally, our food having settled somewhat, we felt the need, like some African tribe, to arise and make our separate ways back to our individual huts where our digestions would continue.

Southern National Congress

There’s a Southern National Congress coming up.

The idea is to create a political forum to speak for the South as a potentially politically distinct entity, separate from the US.

I attended one in Georgia a couple of years ago.

Constitution Class

 

About 45 people attended the Constitution class at Trinity Baptist Church on Saturday. It lasted all day.

The attendees were 9/12ers and C4Lers.

I wonder what it means that 45 people would spend $20 and eight hours studying that document.

 

 

 

 

 

 

c

Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell Hates the Light

Nikki Haley did not authorize this blog entry. Perhaps she would be appalled to see such an indecorous exposition involving her. Be that as it may, and with regrets that the analysis must roundly criticize the Republican Speaker of the House of South Carolina, Bobby Harrell, such is fate.

Nothing written here is personal in intent. While it is a pleasure to criticize the bad that is being done to the good people of South Carolina behind their back, it is the law itself, under which secret voting by the Legislature has been allowed to flourish, that is the true culprit more than the individuals who simply inherited it.

The ability to spend great sums of other peoples’ money in secrecy invokes the ancient story of the ring Gyges. Given its obvious potency, it is unsurprising that the power of invisibility, once obtained, might neither, in the hands of average human beings, be used for good, nor readily parted with. Despite the evil potential inherent in such power one who had risen by its mastery might be expected to oppose its extinction.

So I fail neither to appreciate nor to sympathize with the old hands who are fighting tooth and nail to retain that power. Their political careers have been built upon it.

I simply know that they must fail if we the Citizens are to win. And in this case, in so far as Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell has pulled out all the stops to protect the bad old ways, I am justified in taking aim at him in the following manner.

A Tyrant has to work in darkness. A Tyrant fears exposure of his machinations. Bobby Harrell isn’t skillful enough, though. Everybody knows what he did.

House Speaker Bobby Harrell doesn’t care about mere Citizens’ rights to be informed about his doings up there in Cloud Tyrant Land.

This is how one Citizen expressed his disgust with one act from King Bobby’s Trick Bag:

“Nikki, The cheap shot by House Speaker Bobby Harrell to remove you from an important House committee was an obvious and despicable abuse of power by someone who should be above that kind of shameful behavior. Everyone in the state should be made aware of how you were punished by the “good ol’ boys” for pushing them to be accountable for how they vote on fiscal matters. It’s shameful how they all hide behind the dirty skirts of the Speaker of the House, insulting the intelligence and abusing the trust of the citizens who voted them into office, and who they took an oath to represent in a fair and honest manner.”

Nikki Haley’s words in the video above begin:

“The boiling point came late in last session when we took up the cost of living increase, a bill that is debated every year. I was greatly disappointed when a legislative pay raise was slipped in, but I was literally sick to my stomach when the bill dealing with state retirees and police officers that have served our state, passed with a legislative pay raise on a voice vote.

“Not one vote was on the record. Not one. No one will ever know who voted themselves a pay raise and who didn’t. I was embarrassed to be part of a group that I was so honored to have been elected to. That day we reached an all-time low. It was a low in respect for the people of this state. And it was a high in arrogance. And it was a very sad day for South Carolina. My embarrassment turned to anger and my anger turned to the belief, “Don’t complain about it. Do something about it! And the very next day I filed the 2008 Spending Accountability Act…”

Talbert Black arranged this opportunity for Nikki Haley to speak about better government. Talbert is with Campaign for Liberty. If you want to be part of the solution look into them.

King Bobby hates Nikki Haley because she wants good government. He hates Governor Sanord because he, too, champions fiscal accountability. King Bobby hates everybody that wants transparent government. He hates the S.C. Policy Council as well as the S.C. Club for Growth and South Carolinians for Responsible Government.

Now, those of you who believe that BGGG (Big Government has Gotta Go) know why the Bobby Harrells of the world hate so many good people.

Secrecy allows individuals to choose a career in government for what government can do for them – not just by conferring status upon them but through tangible rewards as well. Only if they can keep the light of day off of their game can the fruits of their efforts end up in their own and their friends’ bank accounts. It’s as simple as that. Pay offs don’t have to be immediate. Payoffs can even thwart the light as with those involving “the revolving door.” The opportunities are as rich as the human imagination. But shining the light of day upon votes is fundamental. Perhaps we won’t even have to vote some of the bums out of office. Make shunting other peoples money towards themselves and their friends hard enough and the whole political enterprise might loose its luster.

What a pleasant thought.

Thoughts on Limited Liability

I ran across this today and it made me recall something that drifts into my consciousness from time: the fact that government grants of limited liability are a thoroughly bad thing.

In the legal sense corporations are people. That concept has to go. Humanness must be imbued with the sacred. Sufficient regard for individuals will only return when humans can no longer increase their material wealth by hiding behind a government provided shield of immunity for the harm done by their hirelings.

There are plenty of pictures of the victims of the Bhopal tragedy. Nothing will ever focus the minds of owners of stock on the risks the managers of their companies take until those owners, themselves, are exposed to more than just the potential loss of money when “mistakes” are made. And don’t say that big things will cease to be done under such conditions. Capitol holders will invest. Money will be made.

No person or body of persons possesses the right to confer upon any other a shield against liability for the harm he or it might do to others. The notion that I can provide the money (the material cause of a thing) and then be held guiltless for any potential harm its mature form (its final cause) might do is ludicrous.

The thing would not exist without my money. The entrepreneur, the manager and the workers could not cause any good or ill without having got the fuel, as it were, from me. Certainly, as long as I own a part of it I am partially responsible for it: I provide part of the fuel.

I know the argument that limited liability is necessary in order to attract capitol for large projects, that living standards would be far lower otherwise. I don’t think so. I think that limited liability creates recklessness and a less thoughtful investor class.

I do not know how to delve deeply into this subject. But the author, Vinay Gupta, is thinking along similar lines.

The time has come for this.

Thoughts on Limited Liability

One of the persistent threads running through environmentalism is the notion of "Corporate Responsibility." I've been thinking through some of the issues involving how corporations are formed and how the nature of the corporation affects how the economy assesses and handles risk and I'd like to present an idea for comment and examination.

The seed of the idea is that the limited liability corporation is a government subsidy to risky investments and as such may be partly what drives the reckless attitude of corporations towards the environment. Read on for more details.

So, please follow my chain of thought and see where it leads:

Read more at World Changing

Abrham Lincoln: Tyrant

Lord Acton famously bemoaned the defeat that occurred at Appomattox. The statesman understood what had happened and foresaw the great loss for all of mankind that was Lincoln's defeat of the Confederacy.



The fantastic harm that Lincoln did, we can never erase. We can never recreate the world that could have been, a world immeasurably better than a fake "democracy" that masks a ruthless tyranny.

But the least we can do is be aware that what we have today is the fruits of the death of the Constitution. The united states ended when Lincoln called up troops in order to attack South Carolina.

The dream of the Founding Fathers died when Lincoln's War began. No amount of doublespeak can alter that fact.

That dream can be restored in one way and in one way only: by the death of the regime that "won" Lincoln's War. The ruthless, life-blighting regime that occupies Washington D.C. will die, is dieing and is threatening all human life as it goes down. Take cover now and be of good cheer. The future belongs to those who remember.

Colorado owns the Rainwater…and Sold it!

People are waking up. Only when they grasp the fact that government is simply a gang of thieves writ large will people ever possess a philosophy sufficient to break down the walls that separate the rulers from the ruled.

It is not useful to look at this bizarre law as simply odd. It is only empowering when you see it as a good example of what every law is: unjust taking. Every law that governments, as they are now constituted, pass and enforce amounts to the same kind of absurdity exampled here.

We have accepted this system because we know no other. But it is time to fight our way out of it because it is inherently stifling. There is a better way.

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

“Reporting from Denver -- Every time it rains here, Kris Holstrom knowingly breaks the law. Holstrom's violation is the fancifully painted 55-gallon buckets underneath the gutters of her farmhouse on a mesa 15 miles from the resort town of Telluride. The barrels catch rain and snowmelt, which Holstrom uses to irrigate the small vegetable garden she and her husband maintain.

In the state of Colorado, the rain that falls on Holstrom's property is not hers to keep. It should be allowed to fall to the ground and flow unimpeded into surrounding creeks and streams, the law states, to become the property of farmers, ranchers, developers and water agencies that have bought the rights to those waterways.
What Holstrom does is called rainwater harvesting. It's a practice that dates back to the dawn of civilization, and is increasingly in vogue among environmentalists and others who pursue sustainable lifestyles. They collect varying amounts of water, depending on the rainfall and the vessels they collect it in. The only risk involved is losing it to evaporation. Or running afoul of Western states' water laws. “

Read more at The L A Times

Welfare State + Illegal Immigration = Cultural Suicide

What can South Carolina do to preserve its way of life? Nothing until the citizens make politics their primary interest. If they ever do than Illegal immigration will be simple to stop and simple to reverse.

All people deserve respect but that doesn't mean that we should stop telling ethnic jokes. And, although this is no laughing matter, we should laugh at the absurdity of what we have let the U.S. government do to us just because Big Business wanted it.

I visit US, get treated regal,

So I stay, who care I illegal?

I cross ocean, poor and broke,

Take bus, see employment folk.

Nice man treat me good in there,

Say I need to see welfare.

Welfare say, "You come no more,

We send cash right to your door."

Welfare checks, they make you wealthy,

Medicaid, it keep you healthy!

I go to college, for me it's free,

And now I have a Ph.D.

By and by, I got plenty money,

Thanks to you, American dummy.

Write to friends in motherland,

Tell them come as fast as you can.

They come in turbans and Ford trucks,

I buy big house with welfare bucks.

They come here, we live together,

More welfare checks, it gets better!

Fourteen families they moving in,

But neighbor's patience wearing thin.

Finally, white guy moves away,

Now I buy his house, and then I say,

"Find more aliens for house to rent."

And in the yard I put a tent.

Send for family (they just trash),

But they, too, draw the welfare cash!

Everything here is very good,

And soon we own the neighborhood.

We have hobby-- it's called breeding,

Welfare pay for baby feeding.

Kids need dentist? Wife needs pills?

We get free! We got no bills!

American crazy! He pay all year,

To keep welfare running here.

We think America darn good place!

Too darn good for the white man race.

If they no like us, they can scram,

Got lots of room in Pakistan.

From Domestic Decay

A report on the SC Senate Judiciary Committee hearing of S.424 the State Sovereignty Resolution

This summery was written by Talbert Black (left) and can be seen on the Campaign for Liberty site. I asked him if I could post it here and he said, “Sure!”

Summary: On Tuesday, 10 March, 2009, the committee voted to give a favorable report to the full Senate on S.424. The vote was 16-6, one Senator absent, two not voting. Senator Hutto, from Orangeburg, attached a minority report.

A minority report greatly reduces the chances of a date being scheduled in the Senate for a debate on the bill. This often means the bill dies, even though it receives a favorable report, because it is never heard by the full Senate. Be sure and call or write Senator Hutto, especially if you are in Orangeburg, and let him know how much you appreciate his minority report.

Action Items: Please write the Senators on the Judiciary Committee and let them know how you feel, especially if you live in their county or their district. Also, please read the end of the report regarding comments made by Senator Knotts about roll call votes. Write or call him and let him know how you feel about that as well.

Details: Our team of activists, along with other activists from across the state, were there to witness the debate and record how the Senators voted. Several of the younger senators requested a roll call vote. The roll call vote allowed me to verify the accuracy of our recorded vote. We did very well, with only one vote recorded inaccurately, according to the official roll call of the committee. There was also one card that was not returned to me. The officially recorded results are:

The Senators who voted for a favorable report are:

Shoopman, District 5, Greenville

Knotts, District 23, Lexington

Massey, District 25, Edgefield

Campbell, District 44, Berkley

Campsen, District 43, Charleston

S. Martin, District 13, Spartanburg

Mulvaney, District 16, Lancaster

Rose, District 38, Dorchester

Davis, District 46, Beaufort

McConnell, District 41, Charleston

L. Martin, District 2, Pickens

Bright, District 12, Spartanburg

Rankin, District 33, Horry

Cleary, District 34, Georgetown

Senators present and not voting (counted as a yes) are:

Ford, District 42, Charleston

Coleman, District 17, Fairfield

Senators who voted against a favorable report (and against the 10^th amendment of the US Constitution) are:

Nicholson, District 10, Greenwood

Scott, District 19, Richland

Lourie, District 22, Richland

Williams, District 30, Marion

Mallloy, District 29, Darlington

Hutto, District 40, Orangeburg

Senator not present:

Sheheen, District 27, Kershaw

I made notes on some of the comments that were made by the Senators during the debate. This is not an exhaustive list of all who spoke, merely those who caught my attention and who my pen was fast enough to catch.

Lourie: "Why do we need this?" then he tried desperately to set up a straw man argument saying that this bill was only introduced to make a statement against the "stimulus bill". This argument was carried on by most who spoke against the bill.

Bright: "This resolution should stand on it own!" The federal government is overstepping its bounds. SC needs to assert it's rights.

L. Martin: Indicated how the commerce clause has been stretched passed its limits by the FedGov and used as an excuse to extend their power and authority into places it doesn't belong. When asked by Senator Ford for examples of acts by the FedGov that the resolution would be directed against, indicating that it was only directed against the "stimulus package", Martin began a long list of items, going on for a couple of minutes. Several times Senator Ford tried to stop him, saying "enough", but Martin wasn't to be stopped. Finally, he paused and asked, "is that enough", to which Ford indicated it was. Martin replied, "I can keep going if you want me too." To the mirth of the audience, and many of the senators.

Ford: Asked why the Republicans did not stand up against the FedGov when the seat belt law was passed, nor when the drinking age was mandated to be 21 rather than 18. Many of the younger senators supported Ford's statement indicating that the legislative body needed to be consistent regardless of the party in power in Washington.

Ford said that he had no hope of the FedGov paying any attention to the resolution. Since 1860, the FedGov has paid no attention to states rights, he continued. If they had known and respected the meaning of the 9^th and 10^th amendments then, the 700 thousand Americans who lost their lives from 1861 to 1865 wouldn't have died. Many of us who heard him say that were asking each other, "Did he just say that?" We were pleased to discover that some of our legislators understand that!

Ford told Bright that if Bright would pledge to be consistently against the FedGov's unconstitutional authority, and not just oppose it when it suited Bright's agenda, and if Bright would author a resolution to denounce the "stimulus package", then Ford would support both the "stimulus denouncement" and the Sovereignty Resolution. Bright responded that he would pledge to be consistent, and that he would author a "stimulus denouncement" resolution.

Massey: Massey perhaps most succinctly and passionately stated the case. "Its not just a Democrat or just a Republican problem. Both are at fault. Both are screwing it up!" He brought cheers from the gallery, to the raised eyebrows of the chairman.

Several times there were cheers and applause from the gallery throughout the debate. I was surprised that Chairman McConnell did not ask the guards to clear or at least quiet the gallery. He exercised much reserve. Perhaps, he was enjoying it. For future reference to those who attended, cheers and applause are not allowed from the gallery. The chairman may choose to clear us out in the future.

A final remark about Senator Knotts' comments after the vote:

After the roll call vote was taken, Senator Knotts (who voted favorably) looked down at the freshman senators who had requested the roll call vote and said, "I just want to say something to you young senators who requested the roll call vote. I used to be where you are and feel like you do, that we need to put our votes on the record. I just want to warn you, that's a bumpy road to go down. Think hard before doing that again." Knott's emphasis is shown by my italics. Friendly advise, or a threat? Ask Representatives Haley and Ballentine, who were kicked off their powerful committees because they refused to drop their push for a law that would require roll call votes on essentially every bill.

Mom Allowed Child to Walk 1/3 Mile is Threatened with Child Endangerment

We have a war going on between the level headed intelligent people and the TV addled morons who are quaking in their boots and demanding protection from everything. Intelligence will win in the end, it has to, (the Soviet Union fell after 70 years of Hell) but right now it is hard to imagine how we will overcome or how long this crap will continue to grow.

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

“My 10-year-old son wanted the chance to walk from our house to soccer practice behind an elementary school about 1/3 mile from our house. He had walked in our neighborhood a number of times with the family and we have driven the route to practice who knows how many times. It was broad daylight - 5:00 pm. I had to be at the field myself 15 minutes after practice started, so I gave him my cell phone and told him I would be there to check that he made it and sent him off. He got 3 blocks and a police car intercepted him. The police came to my house — after I had left — and spoke with my younger children (who were home with Grandma). They then found me at the soccer field and proceeded to tell me how I could be charged with child endangerment. They said they had gotten “hundreds” of calls to 911 about him walking.”

Read more at Free Range Kids

 

I got this story at Boing Boing

The Real Stimulus Package: A $100 House

The whole U.S. would recover fast if government would get out of the way. In an economic correction prices fall until they find buyers. The new owners have new ways of thinking and are ready to use the assets that were underproducing under old management.

Government parasites get into the mix at every level, though, with regulation, inspection, licensing and taxation. And when government gets its hands on a printing press, watch out!

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

“RECENTLY, at a dinner party, a friend mentioned that he’d never seen so many outsiders moving into town. This struck me as a highly suspect statement. After all, we were talking about Detroit, home of corrupt former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, beleaguered General Motors and the 0-16 Lions. Compared with other cities’ buzzing, glittering skylines, ours sits largely abandoned, like some hulking beehive devastated by colony collapse. Who on earth would move here?

Then again, I myself had moved to Detroit, from Brooklyn. For $100,000, I bought a town house that sits downtown in the largest and arguably the most beautiful Mies van der Rohe development ever built, an island of perfect modernism forgotten by the rest of the world.

Two other guests that night, a couple in from Chicago, had also just invested in some Detroit real estate. That weekend Jon and Sara Brumit bought a house for $100.”

 

Read on at The New York Times

 

I found this story at Boing Boing

Radical Fascist Rosa De Lauro’s Total Control of Food: H.S. 875

From Wikipedia:

“United States Representative Rosa DeLauro (born March 2, 1943), American politician, has been a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 1991, representing Connecticut's 3rd congressional district. The district is based in New Haven, and includes most of that city's suburbs.”

DeLauro and the voters who reelect her are our enemy.

People with the will to centralize everything at the highest possible level are our enemy.

Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn. -3), chairwoman of the Agriculture – Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Subcommittee is wants to register your tomato patch.

She said this:

“By creating the Food Safety Working Group, the President is demonstrating his commitment to taking the necessary steps toward reforming our food safety system. It is imperative that the Administration ensures that the working group is not merely a cosmetic bureaucratic endeavor. The working group must produce definitive recommendations that result in the modernization of our food safety regulatory structure and an integration of our food safety functions.”

The plan is to combine the USDA and FDC. The plan is to control food from start to finish. The plan is to make producers pay for their own monitoring. The plan is to sign up every food producer. The plan is paperwork. The plan is licensing. The plan is control. The plan is snooping. The plan is getting permission. The plan is somebody telling you what you can and can’t do. The plan is to control everything – that means you, sucker. So shut up while they ram Total-Control down your throat…for your own good to justify their miserable existences! Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given any authority to snoop into our lives with a “food-safety system.”

The plan is actually to protect the big food producers from the small ones. That is always the way regulation gets done. The big producers know that they can absorb any new regulatory requirements, so they push for them (for the good of society, of course). The regulations then put the smaller and marginal producers out of business and make entry into the field tougher, just what the big producers wanted.

And that’s all there is to it. It never has a thing to do with the good of society. It is just a way for the big to get bigger.

The incompetent voter is always fooled. But we can’t stop trying to change this. There is a way to stop the giants from ruling the world. This blog entry is a tiny attempt. The ability to tell this sordid story is a marvelous and new ability.

Many people want to be free from government tyranny and some of those are willing to work for that goal.

You can read about it Rosa’s latest effort to enslave us with, HB 875 here, here, here and here.

And here is the post that proves that the left and the right are not always natural enemies. It’s government and especially the government/business system we have that threatens us at every moment. The Daily Kos had this to say about HB 875.

Here is a list of the legislation Rosa DeLauro has sponsored.

Of the $1,098,930 Rosa DeLauro spent on her last campaign, a great deal of the money came from outside of Connecticut. Her major donors can be found here.

The way she and others survive is by putting together coalitions of special interest businesses. In DeLauro’s case the money comes from:

Labor	$213,500	21.0 %
Agribusiness	$184,250	18.1 %
Health	$161,246	15.8 %
Lawyers & Lobbyists	$130,700	12.8 %
Finance/Insur/RealEst	$83,950	8.2 %

Rosa DeLauro is married to pollster Stan Greenburg, famous for his continuing argument that Democrats must actively work to present themselves as populists advocating the expansion of opportunity for the middle class. As the pollster for Clinton in 1992, Greenberg was a major figure in the famed campaign "war room" (and hence the documentary film of the same name). (italics added)

The above is from Wikipedia’s entry on Greenburg. Notice how it’s phrased, “present themselves as.” This is the strategy of making yourself appear that which you are not in order to get elected so that you can do what you planned to do all along afterward. This strategy was illuminated in Adam Curtis’s great documentary, The Century of Self. Greenburg uses the idea of treating voters like irrational consumers to sell them a “product." And this emphatically does not imply giving them what they want.

You can bet that Rosa DeLauro is careful not to speak publically about the full measure of her radical agenda. But the fact that her husband has Monsanto as a client is reported in Wikipedia here. Can you imagine anything more sleazy? Monsanto pays Rosa’s husband for her work in the U.S.House of Representatives that will enslave us all. Rosa DeLauro is a PfH if there ever was one.

Rosa DeLauro is a Politician from Hell and must be stopped! Outside the borders of South Carolina, she and her kind must be stopped completely, and their philosophy of total control by Biz/Gov buried forever!

The purpose of this blog post is simply to expose a Politician from Hell. It is not my intention to foment hatred for Rosa DeLauro personally. She is, no doubt, ideologically quite perverse, however, while she must be stopped from limiting the freedom of those of us who do not want her brand of “protection,” it is the system that allows ideas like H.R.875 to threaten us that must be jettisoned.

It is pitiful that the citizens of a place called New Haven and the 3rd district of a place called Connecticut, could want to be represented by Rosa DeLauro (and she was returned to the House for her 10th term by 76% of the vote) but if they want the kind of things she proposes than they should have them for themselves.

People who think as differently as the majority of South Carolinians do about these things should not have to be subjected to the continuous threats to their happiness that Rosa DeLauro poses to them.

The States of the united states should be free to run their own affairs. This is their legal right and it is a better idea than the one we have now under which the Rosa DeLauro’s of the world are continuously churning out grandiose schemes each more outrageous than the last. Huge numbers of jaws drop with incredulity when one of these schemes is trotted out and that doesn’t bother the Rosa DeLauro’s of the federal government. They will force a one-size-fits-all program on us all if we do not stop them.

So we must use harsh language. Rosa DeLauro is simply dead wrong for South Carolina and she must be stopped. But more important, the system that enables powerful financial interests to buy elections for Rosa DeLauro and others like her is the greater problem.

The power of the federal government must be curbed.

Senator Brad Hutto of Orangeburg Votes Against South Carolina!

During the Judiciary subcommittee meeting on 3/3/2009 the room was filled with supporters of the legislation.

Several spoke in behalf of s.424 and 4 of the 5 committee members seemed to approve. Chairman Larry Martin was most encouraging. He leaned forward from time to time, obviously encouraging the citizen speakers to feel comfortable as they presented their viewpoints.

One Senator, however, was decidedly uncongenial. Senator Brad Hutto of Orangeburg made his annoyance obvious. More than once he asked why anyone would think that this meaningless resolution could change anything.

“The question is short and sweet, what is the practical effect of this bill?” Hutto asked. "I completely support the Constitution. We have a system that determines the Constitution. That’s what the federal courts are for.”

Noting that a similar Sovereignty Resolution was passed in 1996 to no apparent effect, Senator Brad Hutto used colorful language to mock our naive sincerity, “Why, Senator Hutto asked, “do we want to waste a $.42 stamp sending a meaningless resolution to D.C?”

Discussion then ended with Senator Larry Bright’s answer, “Then we didn’t have 26 other states standing together.”

Again on 3/10/2009 Senator Hutto was the spoiler. Only he and Senator Laurie, of the 24 Senators present during the Judiciary session, spoke against the bill. Senator Hutto said the same things against the bill that he had said on the 3rd.

It went something like this: I believe in the 10th. The answer is, if you don’t like it, take it to court. Nobody is going to read this or change anything. If you don’t like it take it to court. The Constitution is decided by the Supreme Court. Joe Wilson wrote a bill just like this one and he got to Washington before it did. Just a way to get Democrats. I’m going to write a Minority Report.

What Senator Hutto doesn’t know is that History has not ended.

You can let Senator Hutto, District 40, Orangeburg, know how you feel here.

Government Cheese

Rainmakers Song

Give a man a free house and he'll bust out the windows

Put his family on food stamps, now he's a big spender
no food on the table and the bills ain't paid
'Cause he spent it on cigarettes and P.G.A.
They'll turn us all into beggars 'cause they're easier to please
They're feeding our people that Government Cheese

Give a man free food and he'll figure out a way
To steal more than he can eat 'cause he doesn't have to pay
Give a woman free kids and you'll find them in the dirt
Learning how to carry on the family line of work
It's the man in the White House, the man under the steeple
Passing out drugs to the American people
I don't believe in anything, nothing is free
They're feeding our people the Government Cheese

Decline and fall, fall down baby
Decline and fall, said fall way down now
Decline and fall, fall down little mama
Decline and fall, decline and fall

Give a man a free ticket on a dead end ride
And he'll climb in the back even though nobody's driving
Too ******* lazy to crawl out of the wreck
And he'll rot there while he waits for the welfare check
Going to hell in a handbag, can't you see
I ain't gonna eat no Government Cheese

The Constitution was Deliberately Murdered

When State Senators such as Brad Hutto say that the Constitution can take care of itself, or that the Supreme Court will take care of it, they are saying that they don't care what the Constitution says. If it doesn't allow what they want to do than they just want it to go away. And people like him have made it go away.

Thomas Woods' new book, Who Killed the Constitution," points out the obvious, as he writes here, "United States government today is restrained not by the Constitution but simply by a sense of what it can get away with.

But ours is not the standard right-wing lament about the emasculation of the Constitution at the hands of liberal judges, though such judges receive in our pages none of the superstitious reverence Americans are taught to have for the judiciary. (Mencken once described a judge as merely a law student who graded his own examination papers.) To the contrary, we suggest that all three branches of the federal government, either separately or in collusion, have been responsible for turning the Constitution into just a museum piece, and that conservatives and liberals alike have much to answer for as well."

Here is another essay, this one by Kevin R. C. Gutzman:

"It is simple: the Constitution, as ratified, has no actual influence on them. It is just a totem toward which they bow, an arrow in the quiver of partisan argumentation, a trope for their use in crafting an intricate political argument. As an actual frame of government, in the hands of conservative pundits such as Mona Charen, the Constitution is dead. Conservatives’ favorite politicians and judges, as well as those of liberals, are among those who killed it. That is the verdict of Who Killed the Constitution? The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush"

Below is a segment copied from Sarah Palin and SCOTUS posted by Bill Anderson at October 20, 2008 11:53 AM at the Lew Rockwell Blog.

The Constitution was not killed out of ignorance or because people truly misunderstood what it said. No, it was killed deliberately by people who did understand what it means. G. Rexford Tugwell, one of the main architects of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, wrote:

The Constitution was a negative document, meant mostly to protect citizens from their government.... Above all, men were to be free to do as they liked, and since the government was likely to intervene and because prosperity was to be found in the free management of their affairs, a constitution was needed to prevent such intervention.... The laws would maintain order, but would not touch the individual who behaved reasonably.

To the extent that these new social virtues developed [in the New Deal], they were tortured interpretations of a document intended to prevent them. The government did accept responsibility for individuals’ well-being, and it did interfere to make secure. But it really had to be admitted that it was done irregularly and according to doctrines the framers would have rejected. Organization for these purposes was very inefficient because they were not acknowledged intentions. Much of the lagging and reluctance was owed to constantly reiterated intention that what was being done was in pursuit of the aims embodied in the Constitution of 1787, when obviously it was done in contravention of them.

South Carolina Senate Moving on Sovereignty Bill

S424 received a vote up by the subcommittee on 3/3/2009

The room was filled with citizens representing themselves, as well as a number of individuals from The League of the South, The Palmetto Heritage Coalition and The Campaign for Liberty. Four citizens spoke before the subcommittee: Robert Slimp, Matt Kneece, Jim Hanks, and Steve Isom.

Matt Kneece spoke forcefully about the need to follow the will of the people. He pointed out that the federal government pursues wars that 70% of Americans oppose.

As Kneece rose to leave Hutto asked, ”Do you think we should have government by polls?

Matt Kneece answered, “No, but we should take them to count and elect new officials.”

Other speakers pointed out that this was a historic moment. One said that the federal government was trying to ram the “stimulus” package through to the groups in the states that they favored without allowing the Governors or Legislatures any say in how the money is to be spent, and that if states wished to retain any autonomy at all they had to stand up to this.

After the speakers finished Hutto said, “The question is short and sweet, what is the practical effect of this bill? I completely support the Constitution. We have a system that determines the Constitution. That’s what the federal courts are for.

Martin said: The stimulus package passed 4-2 (South Carolina U.S. congress members’ vote count). We can’t pick and choose which laws to follow. That would lead to anarchy. But we should pass it.

Rankin said that Joe Wilson used to make quite a few resolutions similar to this one. It became something of a joke.

Martin agreed, “You are right. We did it in 1996. It didn’t make a difference.”

Bright said: “Then we didn’t have 26 other states standing together.”

The vote was:

Larry Martin, 2, Pickens county: Up

Lee Bright, 12, Spartanburg county: Up

Tom Davis, 46, Beaufort county: Up

Luke Rankin, 33, Horry county: Up

Bradley Hutto, 40, Orangeburg, Allendale, Bamburg, Barnwell counties: Down

The members of the Judiciary Committee appear below. Contact them to support this bill.

Judiciary:

McConnell, Glenn F. , Chm. cosponsor
Martin, Larry A. cosponsor
Knotts, John M. "Jake" , Jr. cosponsor
Campsen, George E. "Chip" III cosponsor
Cleary, Raymond E. III cosponsor
Campbell, Paul G. , Jr. cosponsor
Bright, Lee cosponsor
Coleman, Creighton B. cosponsor
Davis, Thomas C. "Tom" cosponsor
Martin, Shane R. cosponsor
Mulvaney, J. Michael "Mick" cosponsor
Rose, Michael T. cosponsor
Shoopman, Phillip W. cosponsor

Ford, Robert
Rankin, Luke A.
Hutto, C. Bradley
Malloy, Gerald
Sheheen, Vincent A.
Lourie, Joel
Williams, Kent M.
Massey, A. Shane
Nicholson, Floyd
Scott, John L. , Jr.

Oklahoma Passes Sovereignty Resolution 1003

The Oklahoma House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 1003 on Feb. 18, 2009 by 83 to 13. The sponsor of the resolution, state Rep. Charles Key, said that he considers it to be a “'big step toward addressing the biggest problem we have in this country – the federal government violating the supreme law of the land."

Charles Key

This was the work of a very small number of individuals who represent another relatively small group: just the citizens of Oklahoma. Who are they to demand any special dispensation by that other small group of people whom they were reacting against: the Congress of the United States?

The U.S. Congress has 535 members (435 Representatives and 100 Senators), while the Oklahoma Legislature has 149 members (101 Representatives and 48 Senators)

Oklahoma has about 3.6 M inhabitants. That’s 36,000/Representative and 75,000/Senator.

The United States, with a population of 301 M, has 600,000/Representative and as many as 37 M/Senator (California).

By what principle can the 535 legislators in Washington be said to represent the people of Oklahoma better than their own 148 legislators? How does one U.S. Legislator represent 600,000 or more people in any meaningful sense without acting contrary to the desires of many thousands of them? The only possible way to consider that these representatives are representing anything worthwhile, is to consider that they are representing the “best interests” of the people. And who says that this is so? How can they know anything more than what they, their friends and family (and a few wealthy interests who can finance their huge reelection campaigns) believe and want? How can minority views be represented at all?

That a system this remote from people could be good for them is a silly and harmful belief. The Constitution of the U.S. did not create it. Ignoring the Constitution did.

This is not only not the best we can do, it is probably much closer to the worst.

Surely each legislator in Oklahoma, representing far fewer people and paid much less and living much nearer to those he represents is truly representing his people. Washington is not.

Oklahoma, and Charles Key have fired a shot that is being heard around the world. Read about this historic event at WorldNetDaily

To thank Charles Key and the other members of the Oklahoma Legislature click here.

South Carolina House of Representatives Passes Sovereignty Bill H.3509

It didn't take long for the South Carolina House of Representatives to pass the Sovereignty bill. Introduced on February 12 2009, bill S. 424 passed the118th Session of the South Carolina General Assembly on February 27, 2009 by unanimous acclamation. A map of South Carolina showing the brave House sponsors of this historic bill can be seen at

South Carolina Lobby Man

South Carolina S.424 Sovereignty Bill

Sovereignty bills are working their way through the legislators of a number of States. It is about time. After all, why do these individuals go to all the trouble of running for office if everything is going to be decided in Washington? Perhaps they are waking up to the fact that their States are actually designed to be fully functioning Countries without the overlay of an insatiable super government.

Those legislators who are finally standing up for this principle deserve all of our support.

Map of South Carolina Senator Patriots at:

South Carolina Lobbyman.

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