An Open Letter to Rick Perry

Honorable Governor,

I have written to you before on diverse subjects, though all linked by one theme: Liberty.  Thus it is not particularly surprising that I find myself writing again on the same subject.  Thomas Jefferson once said that "the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."  I hope that he was mistaken.  I hope that the Tree of Liberty, once firmly rooted in good soil, will thrive without such a watering.

But even if I am correct, and Mr. Jefferson wrong, it requires good soil.

Governor, the soil around the Tree of Liberty is dying.  I, and those like me, have no power to correct this.  You, and those like you, do.  When people like me decide to revive Liberty's tree, we have only one option.  My mind shudders from that idea so violently that I dare not even name it.  Politicians however, especially Governors, have much more power.  With greater power comes greater finesse with which it can be wielded.

You may be wondering at this preamble.  Why would I take such a serious, even desperate tone?  It is to impart upon you the weight of my feeling.  And not just mine.  Uncounted, and perhaps uncountable, numbers of Texans see what is going on in the United States, and we want it stopped. 

You and the other governors have the ability to stand against this rogue regime which calls itself the Barack Obama administration and protect the American people.  Perhaps you even have the power to refresh the Tree of Liberty without blood. 

The offenses of this administration against Liberty are almost innumerable.  They began almost from the day Mr. Obama was sworn in in 2009, starting with the GM Bailout which subverted established law and stole rightful remuneration from secured bond holders, while giving power over a private US company to the union which destroyed it, and to the federal government.

The so-called "stimulus" bill was simply a way to steal money from taxpayers and funnel it to the President's allies and pet causes.  The Orwellian named "Affordable Care Act" threatens our very lives, placing them in the hands of unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats.  The IRS and EPA leak sensitive data on disfavored parties.  The government suppresses speech it does not like- holding up applications for 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 status- making it harder for groups to raise funds.  If that is not enough, they then also target the President's enemies for audits and other harassment.  Anecdotal evidence suggests all federal agencies are in on this as well, from the FBI to HHS to OSHA.

Now, we learn that the federal government has retrieved, by warrant, the phone records of every domestic phone call on the big carriers.  It is true that the Patriot Act allows for some domestic spying under very strict circumstances and very specific cases.  That is fine for true national security needs.  However, the NSA spying via PRISM and the Telecom warrants would be massive violations of all Americans' rights, even if the warrants did not make all the data so gleaned admissible in criminal trials.

I am sure I do not need to tell you, but as this is an open letter, I feel the need to inform others who may read this.  A warrant is a legal document which, in essence, proclaims that the government believes a particular person to be guilty of a particular crime.  That is why, as the 4th Amendment to our US Constitution declares, "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This should make it clear that the warrants for all calls made on the Verizon, or AT&T, or Sprint networks are nothing less than the most massive fishing expedition in US jurisprudence history.  Whatever judge signed such warrant should be immediately impeached- though that is an issue for our US Representatives and Senators.

Combined with the above abuses, how can anyone call the current administration legitimate?  It is a tyrannical regime which seeks to silence opposition while raining favors on its cronies.  It is no longer a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Governor, I beseech you- you, and your fellow governors who love liberty, protect us from this tyrant, this despot.

It is within the power of the State of Texas to provide legal safety for her People.  It is within her power to reject those laws and decrees from the federal government which are not in line with the constitution.  It is within her power shelter our Liberty.

There are 30 States with Republican Governors.  There are 33 States which are refusing to implement the Exchanges required by The Affordable Care Act.  I beg you meet with the governors of those states, along with our own Senators and Representatives to the US Congress- Re-assert the powers of the States.  Re-assert the powers of the People.  Destroy this tyrant state which has been built since the days of Franklin Roosevelt.  Burn it down.  Scatter its stones.  Salt the earth where it stood.

May God bless you, Governor.  May He bless you, the People of this State and this nation, and may God bless Texas.

 

In humble sincerity,

Allen Goodner

Arlington, TX

Federalism FTW!

Ace links this Meade piece about the Republicans new "Red State Model" strategy.  The idea seems to be that Red States should (hold on to your seats, you won't believe the radicalness of this idea)- act like Red States.

If Conservatives in Red States really believe that lower taxes, lower regulations, and less government interference are good for the economy, they should try it and see.  I believe we call that "Federalism," and I believe it was the idea behind having a Federation of States, rather than a single National Government. 

Commenter Toby928 over at the HQ has this to say:

I want something even more radical, let Texas or some other red state go full 10th Amendment and refuse both Federal largess and Federal mandates. Secede in place, as it were.

I agree there, too.  Push actual Federalism.  Refuse Federal funds along with the strings they have attached.

Yes, it would suck.  It would suck because that money is going to DC anyway, and it's going to be spent anyway.  It would suck because we'd see more DC Politicians getting rich off our money.  It would suck because more of our money would be diverted to other states (someone explain, again, why a man in Texas is responsible for the health care of someone in New York?).  It would suck because people here would scream when some of their free stuff got taken away.

Nevertheless it would be right.  And if Texas led the way, other states may well follow.  And if enough States followed, we might see some actual change at the Federal Level, and a shift back to the Federalist System the Founders prescribed.

Sometimes I'm Just Not Cynical Enough

Just two days ago, I said this:

     4.  Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

You know, someone more cynical than me might point out that the AG would now have the power, at least arguably, to put any member of one of the groups designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as being a "dangerous person."  So, congratulations, military vets, religious conservatives, and members of gun clubs.  You may no longer be able to purchase firearms.

Yesterday (I just found it today), the Washington Times had this:

The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.

But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

So there you have it.  Now, simply believing in the Federalist (I love how they have Newspeak-ized the term "anti-Federalist" to mean "anti-Nationalist") system, and that the Federal Government might maybe be overstepping its bounds a little bit makes you a dangerous and violent criminal.

Yay us.

Now, I could go on and on about how there have been no- repeat that: no- violence from "far right groups" in America that I can recall in my life time.  In fact, all of the politically motivated violence I can recall has been from the Left side of the aisle.  Jared Laughner, anyone?  How about that Marx quoting maniac who flew his plane into a building in Austin?

I could, but I won't, because it doesn't matter.  What does matter is that a branch of the US Department of Defense just called everyone who believes in the Federalist system, individual liberty, and self-governance a potential terrorist.  In light of the SCOAMT's Imperial Proclamation above, that seems pretty scary to this "anti-Federalist."

(And, no, the irony of Tenthers being called "anti-Federalist" is not lost on me).

Let it Burn.

Could This Really Happen?

So, the Texas Secession Petition more than reached its goal of 25,000 signatures yesterday.  I haven't even checked to see what it's up to, now, since the White House rules (assuming they follow them) require the President to address the petition if it meets that goal- any additional signatures are just gravy.  So, in theory, the President must "respond to" this petition.  Other States' petitions are also picking up steam.

So, could Secession really happen?  Is it possible that we could, once again, be the Republic of Texas?

As I see it, there are three major, practical, aspects to this question.  Is there the will?  Is the Texas Economy strong enough to support a separate sovereign nation?  Can Texas defend itself?  On top of these, there are two political aspects to this question.  Is it politically viable within the United States?  Is it politically viable with foreign powers?

I'll take these in reverse order.

Is it politically viable for Foreign Powers to acknowledge Texas as a sovereign nation?  You would think this would be a simple question.  In theory, no one else has a dog in this particular hunt, so why should they care?  If they don't care, then they should have no problem acknowledging Texas as a sovereign nation, presuming Texas were to secede successfully in the first place.  What makes it more difficult, however, is the Gulf of Mexico.  How would control of that body of water break down?  Then there are our oil resources, and the fact that countries would have to renegotiate a number of contracts, and so on and so forth.  Ultimately I believe it is feasible, but it's not as clear cut as one might think.

Is it politically viable for the US Federal Government to acknowledge Texas as a separate sovereign nation?  This really depends on how many States want to secede.  If it's just Texas, I think the answer is a qualified "yes."  With Texas's energy resources, including oil and natural gas, as well as our access to the Gulf, there would be a variety of agreements so that US Companies could continue operating in Texas and so forth.  The US Military Bases in Texas would have to be dealt with- would the US Forces withdraw completely?  How would that work?

On the other hand, if more than one State moves to secede, then there is no way that the Federal Government can allow the secession unopposed.  Taking the most likely choices, the first three to secede would be Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.  Among those three are the vast majority of the oil refining capabilities in the United States.  If those three leave, the US is in a world of hurt, energy wise.  That doesn't include the control that would be exerted over the Gulf, especially the mouth of the Mississippi river.  If more than one State asks to secede, then all will be denied.  That would mean either secession fails, or a shooting war.

That takes us to the next question: Can Texas defend itself?  This is even more tricky a question than the first.  Certainly Texas has many military bases, but they're all US Military bases.  Texas has the Texas Guard, it's own militia used mostly to supplement the border patrol and the National Guard (normally during disaster relief).  Certainly Texas has the means to produce what it needs to defend itself.  So the answer to this question comes down to the resolution of previous question.  If the US allows Texas to secede peacefully, then I see no reason Texas could not quickly arm itself to defend its own borders.  If Texas is not allowed to secede peacefully, something would have to be done about the US Military resources already in the State.

Is the Texas Economy strong enough to support a separate, sovereign nation?  I think the answer to this question is an unqualified "yes."  The Texas Economy is stronger than the average in the United States, and is larger than many other countries.  With our energy and technical resources, as well as access to the Gulf Coast, the Texas Economy could certainly support itself- perhaps better, once unfettered from the US Economy as a whole.

Finally, is there the will?  This I believe, at least currently, is a qualified "no."  Certainly people in some quarters really want to secede.  Some of them have even done a more in-depth analysis of what it would take than I have here.  They have counted the cost, and determined it is worth paying.  I think, however, the majority of the population has not seriously considered secession.  I believe most of them have not counted the cost.  I believe that, once they do, many of them would not support secession under any circumstances, and most of the rest would only support a peaceable secession.

In the end, this is the deciding factor.  I simply do not believe that Texas is currently fed up enough to secede.  I do think, however, that we are approaching that level.  Give it a few more years of Texas propping up California, Illinois, and New York, and you might see minds begin to change.  Give ObamaCare a couple of years of full operation, and you might see minds begin to change.

Union No More: 20 States Petition for Secession

Currently private citizens in 20 States have filed with the US Government to allow their States to Secede.  You can go here to see them.

Now, I don't think any of these petitions will be granted.  Among other things, I would think such requests would have to come from the Governments in those States.  On the other hand, I think it is very important to sign the petition for your State if there is one, and create one if there is not.

Here's why.

Our Nation has ceased operating within the bounds of its own Constitution.  This began with the Civil War when States were denied the right to secede (a right they had been assumed to have from the beginning of the Nation).  Now, I'm not going to re-fight the Civil War, here, and I think it was (generally) a good thing that it went as it did, but we cannot deny that the Civil War was the first body-blow against the Republic.  It continued from there with great leaps forward during the Great Depression and FDR's New Deal, and again under Jimmy Carter and the "Great Society."  Today, the Union little resembles that Republic of Sovereign States designed in Philadelphia in the late 1700s.  When ObamaCare goes fully into effect, it won't matter what our nation claims it is, it will actually be a tyrannical oligarchy wherein the Political Class rules over the rest of us.  In many ways it is already there, but once the Government is allowed to make direct decisions regarding your health and life, you are no longer a citizen, but a subject.

As such, it is of vital importance to let both Washington, DC, and our own States know how we feel about this.  The politicians must be made to see how deeply we believe in our Liberty, and the lengths we are willing to go to preserve it.  If we are to repair our Republic, we must start by shaking the politicians' belief that we'll just go along with whatever they decide.  We must also make it real in our own minds what we are asking, and what price we are willing to pay for it.

Why Federalism?

Yesterday, I posted a fairly academic piece about Federalism and Taxation.  I think it's important to understand exactly why I did that, and why I think that what Conservatives need to be fighting for is a return to Federalism.

Federalism is the single most important defense the framers of the Constitution put in to protect individual citizens from the tyranny of a monolithic national government.  Because of Federalism, they believed that giving the Federal government an unlimited power to tax would be checked.  One of the primary reasons they never specifically wrote the idea of Judicial Review (as it is currently practiced, at any rate) into the Constitution is that they believed that Federalism would prevent Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.

To understand why the believed this, we have to examine what Federalism really is.  The simple answer, taught to school children, is that Federalism is a hierarchical government.  That there's the Federal Government on top, and the States below that, and local communities below that.  That is not, however, what Federalism is.  If that were Federalism, then the USSR would have been a Federalist system.  If that were Federalism, then the League of Nations would have worked.

No, Federalism is the concept of shared government.  Yes, the Federal Government is the "supreme" government.  When it speaks, you must listen.  However, part of Federalism is the very fact that lower levels of government have a "seat at the table."  It is important to realize that the only nationally elected office has no seat at the legislative table.  The President can recommend laws.  He can provide his assent to, or veto laws.  But when it comes to actually writing them, he has no say beyond his "bully pulpit" and communicating with the American People.  The only true "Federal" offices- that of the President and the Supreme Court- did not have any say in how laws were written.  This is because a Federal Government, as opposed to a National Government, is built very firmly on the "consent of the governed."

We use that phrase a lot: "Consent of the governed."  People assume it means that we merely consent to *be* governed.  That is, as long as the people don't revolt, that consent is assumed.  That is also not quite right.  Consent of the governed means that those who are governed have some say in their government.

With that in mind, realize that the arm of government which is supposed to write the laws is not a Federal arm of government.  Even in today's broken system, I do not vote for the Senators from New Hampshire.  I vote for my own Senators.  In the original system, the People had a voice in what laws were made through their Representatives- who were elected every 2 years.  The States *also* had a voice in what laws were made through the Senate- who were appointed by their State Legislatures.

Now, it was that balance of power- that the Federal Government itself had no say in laws, that the States' interests were looked after by the Senate, and that the People's interests were looked after by the House- that was supposed to protect the people from all kinds of Tyranny.  Now that balance of power is broken.  The States have no say.  Worse, while Senators run on the same populist sentiment that Representatives run on, they maintain the elevated powers of being a Senator.  How many Senators voted for ObamaCare who would not have if they'd had to face re-election in 2010?  The very fact that some retired rather than facing re-election then, or this year, should be enough proof that many only voted for it because they felt their 4 or 6 years left before re-election would be enough to distract "the mob."

Federalism is the battle of the future.  I'm not sure how we win that battle, frankly.  I'm not sure that we can win that battle.  But if that battle is not won, it doesn't matter how many we do win; we'll lose the war.

On Federalism and Taxation

I haven't posted much "Tenther" stuff in a while.  Rather than swelling on last night's debacle or the coming DOOM, maybe it's time to start talking Conservative Philosophy again.

Today's installment: Federalism and Taxation.

When United States Constitution was being written, this was a highly contested issue.  Three of the Federalist Papers (30, 31, and 32) are devoted precisely to this subject: specifically why that power must be granted to the Federal Government.

Cast through this lens, it behooves us to ask what Federalism says about taxation.  Specifically, where should that power lie, and to way extent?

The argument of the Federalists was that the scope of a power must be equal to the scope of the object of that power, and that if the object of a power was unlimited in scope, then the power must be unlimited (but not infinite- I'll come back to this).  Put more concretely, the "object" in this case is the functioning of the government in times of war as well as times of peace.  Since there can be no knowable limit on the scope of a war, then the power to Tax must also be unlimited.

Now, this does not mean, as I said, that the power should infinite.  The limit to which they were primarily referring was the idea that the Federal Government would not be able to  issue taxes at all, or would only be able to tax foreign trade (imports and exports).  Their argument was that the Federal Government must be able to levy taxes within the Union itself.

The Papers list a variety of reasons for this, but ultimately they come down to a question of trust and practicality.  If a war were to occur, loans would be necessary to pay for it.  However, the nation would probably already be in debt.  If the Federal Government could not levy taxes, then it would be dependent upon the States for that tax revenue.  Now, ask any banker, but I'm pretty sure giving a loan to someone who says, "Oh, yeah, and that other guy will pay you back" is not going to happen.

That's an ultra-simplified version of the problem, but it should suffice.

On the other end, though, were those who were afraid that the Federal Government would so tax the people that the opposite would be true- instead of the Federal Government being dependent upon the States for funds to operate, the States would depend on the Federal Government.

The Federalists' answer to that objection was to point to the separation of powers- specifically that the State Governments were supposed to be sovereign in their own territories, and that the Senate would exist specifically as the States' voice in the Federal Government.  They believed, as do modern Tenthers, that the States would act in their own best (even selfish) interests and thus limit the taxation levied by the Federal Government.

What they did not foresee were the 16th and 17th Amendments.  The 16th basically voids part of the original constitution by allowing the Congress to lay a direct tax (in this case, on income) without regards to any apportionment or census (that is, it expressly gave Congress the ability to rob Peter to pay Paul).

That would be bad enough, but might have been limited if the States had been allowed to keep their seat at the negotiating table.  Instead, the 17th Amendment robbed them of that place.  The 17th Amendment turned Senators from representatives of the States into additional representatives of the People.  But the People already had a seat at the negotiating table- the House of Representatives.

If you want to think of them this way, the 16th and 17th Amendments are diametrically opposed to the 9th and 10th Amendments.  Where the 9th and 10th Amendments are the Federalism Amendments, the 16th and 17th are the Tyranny Amendments.

If Taxation must lie with the Federal Government, then it cannot be a direct tax.  If taxation must be a direct tax, then it cannot lie with the Federal Government.  To have a direct tax that is administered by the Federal Government is a poison pill which will eventually destroy the Federalist nature of the Union.

It already is.  Maybe it already has.

(Battle)Field of DREAMs

Governor Rick Perry is telling President Barack Obama to "Come and Take It" over the illegal immigrants now referred to as DREAMers.

As you may recall, President Obama issued an unconstitutional order instituting the already-defeated-in-congress Federal DREAM Act by executive fiat.  In response, Governor Perry has issued an order to State agencies: Do not comply.  He has ordered that State agencies continue to verify eligibility for State and Local benefits.

Liberals and Big Government types (BIRM) are all agog over this.  Ignoring the fact that ICE and CBP have said they have been specifically forbidden from verifying claims of putative DREAMers, they harp on the fact that Obama "said" he wasn't changing the law, just priorities.  Of course, Obama also "said" he was against an individual mandate, and he "said" that he would Close Guantanamo Bay.  We see how those worked out.

And the fact remains that this is a Federalism question.  Certainly ICE can choose not to deport anyone they desire, for whatever reason they decide.  The Governor's order doesn't change that one bit.  What his order does is to prevent illegal aliens from receiving more social benefits than they already do (and that's a big amount), and it makes it just a little bit harder for them to vote. 

Before anyone attempts to dismiss that, I'll direct them to look at Florida, who have been sued by the Department of Justice for attempting to purge their voter rolls of illegal aliens.

So the real question here is this: does the Federal Government have the right to instruct States to render State benefits to illegal aliens?  Nothing in the Constitution suggests it does.  If ICE wants to let illegal aliens stay in country, and grant them de facto amnesty, that's up to the Federal Government.  That doesn't mean Texas has to help, or to provide any benefits or services we wouldn't provide to illegals in the first place.

5th Circuit to EPA: You Don't Get to do That

It's hardly a secret that Democrats, who largely staff the EPA, think that energy made from fossil fuels is somehow bad.  Despite no solid evidence for it, and, indeed, a fair amount of evidence against it, they believe that burning fossil fuels can cause global warming.  Wait, now it's called climate change.  Wait, no, now they're calling it climate disruption.

Almost need a scorecard, don't you?

When Congress passed the Clean Air Act several years ago, it surprised precisely no one that the first thing the EPA did was to issue crippling regulations against electricity producers, especially against coal-fired power plants.  These new regulations would have forced electricity producers, and therefore you, to pay millions (if not billions) of dollars to address a problem that hasn't even been proven to exist.  It would have cost thousands of jobs, and reduced the reliability of the electric grid.  Ask New York and California about the importance of a reliable electric grid.

In response to those regulations, Texas instituted a "flexible permitting program."  While I am unfamiliar with all the details, I do have a layman's understanding.  At its most basic, Texas said that existing plants could be retro-fit with carbon scrubbers (much cheaper than what the EPA was suggesting), and that, as long as their emissions were within set standards, they would be allowed to continue to operate. 

Let's be clear, here: at no point did this policy challenge the emissions standards, only the EPA's regulations regarding how those standards were to be met.

The EPA, in full Big Government Mode, sued Texas to force us to adopt their much more expensive and job-killing process.  It seems that it's not simply the emissions they care about, but that the energy itself must somehow be tainted.

Recently, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled and overturned the EPA.  They went further than that, stating that the EPA had actively overstepped its bounds under the Clean Air Act.

This is a significant victory for Federalists and opponents of the Growing Police State.  Beyond the economic implications, which are huge, there is also the Federalist issue.  Does the Federal Government have any right to dictate business operations standards to the States?  Does it even have the right to dictate environmental standards to the States?  Well, the latter question is still open; the Federal Government, including the Courts, says yes, but the States largely say no.  The answer to the former question, however, it appears is "no."

And this has a direct impact on Texas.  In recent years, we've heard a lot about new records for energy consumption during the summer.  So far, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) has stayed ahead of demand, but it's getting harder.  Mostly this is due to new residents and new businesses- which means it's actually a good problem to have.  Partially, though, this is due to how hard it is to open a new power plant. 

If Texas wants to be able to power ourselves through the future, wind and solar farms simply are not the answer.  We must re-embrace fossil fuel power plants, and we'd better start building them now.

Federalism FTW!

Big Wins for Federalism (specifically in my own Texas) this week.  These make a Dedicated Tenther happy.

First was the ruling by the 5th Circuit that the EPA had overstepped its bounds (color me stunned) in rejecting Texas's flexible permitting program, which is designed to help reduce the costs of compliance with the Clean Air Act.  The EPA rejected Texas's plan, Texas sued, and is winning in court.

Second was the ruling (also by the 5th Circuit) lifting a temporary injunction against Texas to prevent us from cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood, and other abortion providers, under women's health funding.  Planned Parenthood, which does not actually provide cancer services (they provide referrals, but no actual care), was receiving funding earmarked for cancer care.  Texas, accepting a penalty in Federal Funding, decided to withdraw those State funds from PP.  When the threat of reduced Federal Funding did not dissuade Texas, Planned Parenthood sued.  A Judge issued an injunction to prevent the withdrawal of funding.  Standing up for Federalism again, the 5th Circuit removed the injunction, pending the actual trial.

And third is Rick Perry joining other Governors in opposing Barack Obama's unconstitutional usurpation of Congressional Authority by having enacted the DREAM Act by decree.  He has instructed State agencies to comply with actual Federal Law, and not issue IDs to illegal aliens.

More on each of these later, but it's just nice to be able to see a few wins for Federalism.

Obama's DREAM: See Also: Fantasy, Lies

First it was so-called DREAMers.  They were supposed to be illegal immigrants who had "come here as children" and who "had or were working to a High School Diploma, or a College Degree."  Then we found out that ICE and CPB weren't even allowed to demand proof that someone claiming to fall under the DREAM doctrine would actually qualify.  And now this.

It turns out that Obama's DREAM by fiat is not actually the DREAM act that has received Democrat and even some Republican (primarily among the already pro-amnesty crowd) support.  No, this one includes middle school drop outs.  Yes, you read that correctly.  People who never bothered to finish middle school, let alone high school or attempting to get a college degree, are eligible under Barack Obama's unconstitutional power-grab, which went into effect yesterday.

Now, I could complain that we were lied to, but so what?  It's Barack Obama, if he told me the sky was blue I'd go outside to verify it.  If he told me water was wet, or ice was cold, I'd touch them just to make sure he wasn't lying.  I fully expect him to lie.  Lies are all he has.  No, I place the blame for this squarely on Congress and on the States.

Congress has the constitutional authority to set immigration policy, and the constitutional duty to keep the executive in check.  Thus it was Congress's job to slap down the President when he issued his illegal executive order in the first place.  That Congress did not is a gross dereliction of duty.

The States, on the other hand, bear no direct culpability for the executive order or the failure to block it.  They do, however, bear the blame of not stepping up when the Federal Government failed, and enforcing already existing Federal Law.  Yes, even over the Federal Government's objections.  One State, that I know of, has stood up to this act of lawlessness.  I wish I could say that state were my native Texas (are you listening, Governor Perry?), but it's not.

That one State is Arizona.  Their excellent Governor Jan Brewer issued her own executive order yesterday.  She re-affirmed the spirit of their Immigration Enforcement law, and instructed state agencies not to provide any state benefits to illegals, even those who had applied for Barack Obama's illegal amnesty.  Considering Arizona has already been sued by the Federal Government over their desire to police the illegal immigrant community, this is a gutsy move.  The coming weeks and months will show us how it all ends up, but this was a courageous move which should be emulated by other Governors.

When the Federal Government fails to protect legal citizens, then the States must do the job.  The Federal Government divests itself of more legitimacy every day.  I hope the States will not follow suit.

The Lawless Administration Strikes Again

No.  Not that "Lawless."  This "lawless:"

"Prosecutorial discretion for dreamers is solely based on the individual's claims. Our orders are if an alien says they went to high school, then let them go," he said at a press conference with GOP senators. "Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything. ... At this point we don't even know why DHS has criteria at all, as there is no requirement or burden to prove anything on the part of the alien.

"We believe that significant numbers of people who are not dreamers are taking advantage of this practice to avoid arrest," he said.

That's a quote from Chris Crane, the President of the Union which represents the officers with the Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  He made the statement yesterday.

You may remember when the SCOAMT enacted the DREAM Act by Executive Fiat.  We were told, by the left, that this was just for good kids.  It was just for people who had come over as children, and who had never harmed anyone.  Well, it turns out that isn't necessarily the case.

"Crane cited one case in which, he said, an immigrant facing criminal charges was let go under the policy. Further, he complained that officers are "under threat of losing their jobs" if they defy the policy."

Whoops.  It looks like maybe, just maybe, Conservatives were right after all- this will be abused by illegals to stay in the country.  As I've said before, those who break the law, don't care about the law.  They're already here illegally.  If they cared about the law, they wouldn't have broken that one.  If they don't care about laws protecting US Sovereignty, why would we think they would care about laws protecting US Sovereignty?  Or, for that matter, personal safety or personal property?  They're already criminals, what's one more crime?

And, once again, I have to turn to the States.  The Federal Government, under both Republican and Democrat leadership, has turned its back on this issue.  Worse, they seem to greet illegals with open arms.  The States must assert their authority to be Sovereign within their own borders.  If Washington, DC won't let the States deport illegals, then we can bus them all to DC.  One way or another, this has to be stopped.

The Growing Police State: Who's Watching You? Edition

On Thursday, in testimony to Congress, it was revealed that over 100 "Federal, State, and Local" government "entities" have had authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct unmanned surveillance of the Domestic US Population.  According to House Homeland Security Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Michael McCaul, there are around 200 active Authorizations covering over 100 entities.  His quote: "We are now on the edge of a new horizon: using unmanned aerial systems within the homeland."

I've covered before why this should be so troublesome.  Now it looks like, by the time we were even informed that government was looking into the possibility, they'd already been doing it for some time.  This should terrify any free people.  The Government has neither the right, nor the power, to spy on its own citizens without a warrant which specifically details the subjects and objects of the investigation.  Simply flying a drone to see what can be seen is a gross violation of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.  It is the move of a dictatorial regime more interested in keeping the domestic populace in line than in serving them and governing wisely.

Once again, I find myself compelled to appeal to the States.  The Federal Government obviously acknowledges no limits to its own authority.  If any limits are to exist, the States must set them and enforce them.  The States must say, "Not in my State, you don't.  Not over my residents."

The Growing Police State: Someone Fighting Back Edition

The State of Utah has had it.  They've had it, and they're not going to take it anymore.

According to Utah Governor Gary Herbert, the Federal Government was ceded land in Utah when the State entered the Union.  At that time, according to the Governor, the agreement was that the Federal Government would then sell back the land. 

To date, they still have not done so.

So the State of Utah is doing something about it.  First they will be passing some form of a bill that says the land must be sold to the State, or the State will sue.  Then, the Federal Government being the Federal Government, they will sue.  Along those lines, Utah just won a court battle with the Federal Government over land-use decisions.  The Bureau of Land Management has been denying land use permits in Utah without giving any reason why.  In all probability, they are using a law which has already been struck down in court, which would make these decisions illegal.  The courts have just ruled that the Federal Government must provide the documentation showing why they decided not to issue the permits.

Now I don't know anything about the land deal made when Utah became a state, or whether the Federal Government has lived up to whatever agreement was made.  That's not really the point, it's simply an illustration.

The point is this: the States can stand up to the Federal Government.  By reasserting their sovereignty within their own borders, the States can stop the rampant growth of the Federal Government.  If more states would do so, the Federal Government would reverse course quite quickly. 

What we often forget is that the Federal Government relies upon, indeed, requires for its very functioning, voluntary compliance.  From tax law, to land use, to even criminal law, there are simply too many people in the country for the Federal Government to cope with them if they simply refuse to comply.  If everyone simply refused to pay their taxes, for instance, the Government simply has no way to collect from everyone; they don't have the resources.

Now, for an individual to do that is scary.  Just one person is not enough to give the Government any pause whatsoever.  A single individual is easy to force into compliance.  It would require a mass uprising of a kind that is unlikely to arise in the face of any but the most blatant and cruel forms of tyranny.

States, on the other hand, have more power.  Short of sending in armed troops to force compliance, the Federal Government really has no recourse to force a State to comply with their demands.  Where a single individual is easy to coerce, a State- where they willing to make a few sacrifices- could stand for a long, long time against the Federal Government.

And I believe they should.  The Federal Government has grown too powerful, its reach too long.  That the Federal Government even owns land in Utah should be abhorrent to freedom loving people.  The Federal Government has usurped powers it was never granted, and never meant to have.  If we are to have true Liberty again, it is the States who must lead the way.

This Just In: Painting is Racist

What else can I conclude from this story?  Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, speaking about the Justice Department again stopping South Carolina's Voter ID Law is quoted as saying "I remain unable to conclude that the State of South Carolina has carried its burden of showing that the submitted change in Section 5 of Act R54 neither has a discriminatory purpose nor will have a discriminatory effect.”

The law, which would require picture identification to be eligible to vote, has been blocked twice by Eric Holder's Justice Department.  Ostensibly, this is because Voter ID is discriminatory.  But I must ask, "How, exactly?"  The law already provides that the State will inform anyone they can find without a state-issued ID of the law, and will provide free ID to those who "can't afford one."

So how is this discriminatory?  Based on this logic, the following things are all discriminatory:
* Driving
* Painting
* Hunting/Fishing
* Traveling outside the country
* Watching an 'R' Rated Film.
* Purchasing/Drinking Alcohol
* Purchasing/Using Tobacco Products

Yet no one claims these things are discriminatory.  Last I checked, no one asked you if you had photo ID prior to you trying to buy paint, or going to the movie theater.  If you show up, and you don't have ID, you're just out of luck.  And if you "can't afford" an ID?  Well, too bad, you're still out of luck.  That seems much more restrictive than this Voter ID law.

The fact is that the only reason to oppose Voter ID is to make it more difficult to make sure only eligible voters are voting.  Without Voter ID it is easier for people to vote using ballots that are not theirs.  It is also easier for illegal aliens to vote.

This is not about racism or discrimination, it's about vote fraud and stopping the States from protecting the votes of legal citizens.

No, Seriously?

The Senate Minority Leader would like you to know that it would have been better if the Republicans had been willing to get their hands a little bit dirty, politically speaking, in 2009 than counting on them to repeal Obamacare.

With all due respect (I'm sure you're due some) Senator McConnell, no duh.

This is not news, this is not a statement that needed to be made to the base: of course we knew it already.  Which means precisely one thing: Senator Mitch McConnell is laying the ground work for not repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  The Republicans are already signaling that they will not have the spine to stand up against the smears and the lies, that they will capitulate against the tide of Statism because it's easier than fighting.

So listen up, Congressional Republicans, and we'll go through this again.

We hired you to do a job.  That job was to stop the constant expansion of the Federal behemoth and start restoring sanity to our government.  The first specific task you were given was to stop Obamacare; you failed.  You have now been tasked with repealing it, and you're signalling that you won't even try.

So explain to me why I should vote Republican in November.  Explain to me why you doing nothing is any better for me?  At least if I actually join the Democrats, the beast might eat me last- you're not even promising me that.

I don't care if it's going to be hard.  I don't care if it's going to be "partisan," or if you're going to be called mean names.  I don't care about any of that.  This law must be repealed in its entirety.

In fact, repealing the law should actually be easier than passing it was.  We already have CBO estimates saying that ACA will cause the budget to explode, so anything repealing ACA is, by definition, a budget cutting measure which is subject to Reconciliation- needing only 51 votes, not 60.  A single line bill is all it would take: "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is Hereby Repealed in Full."

Wow, hard, huh?

Even assuming you want to keep parts of the law, which I've already explained is a terrible idea, you can re-implement those fairly easily.  So simply repeal the whole thing.

But that's not what you want.  You like the power this gives the Federal Government; the reason it will be hard to repeal is not that it would be hard to write a repeal bill that wouldn't cause problems.  No, the reason it will be hard to repeal is that the Congressional Republicans, just as the Congressional Democrats, are addicted to the power.  You can't stand the idea of letting that massive power out of your hands.

Protecting our Liberties: I Said Not SCOTUS

For those unaware, the card game Munchkin, is designed to parody old D&D games.  Almost every table-top gamer at some point goes through a phase that we call "Kill the monster, takes it's treasure, search for secret doors."  Munchkin gets straight to the point though with it's motto, "Kill the monsters, steal the treasure, stab your buddy."

Well, Chief Justice Roberts did not kill the monster.  I sincerely doubt he took it's treasure.  But he certainly stabbed his buddies.

Much ink has been spent, and many pixels used, trying to figure out why the Chief Justice acted as he did.  There are reports that he "voted for repeal before he voted against it."  I don't know if those are true, or sour grapes, or the opposition sowing dissent.  The fact is his motives don't matter.

When faced with the opportunity to limit the Government once and for all, and begin re-establishing the balance between the Federal Government and the States, the Chief Justice stood with the Federal Government.  This is only surprising because Conservatives were fairly certain he was "one of us."  Certainly he had voted conservatively in prior cases, so what's different about this one?

And, again, it doesn't matter.  He did what he did.  The Chief Justice has cast his lot with the Statists.  In a previous post, I was worried about Justice Kennedy on this issue; it turns out that worry was misplaced.  The heart of that post remains the same, however.  Our liberty should not be in the hands of seven (or five, or nine, or nineteen) men and women selected, vetted, and confirmed by Washington Elites.

The States must stand up against this tyrannical overreach.  Even those Liberal States which support Government-Run Health Care must step back and see the damage this will do to them, too.  As of now they do not have any but the most tenuous authority over health care in their own borders.  As of now, they are mere regents or proxies for a all-powerful Federal Government.

I've used the slave reference more than once in this space.  I use it because its apt, as well as because I believe that it is fundamentally True.  Well, if the Federal Government is the slave owner, and the American People are the slaves, that makes the States the overseers.  By not standing up to the Federal Government, by not asserting their Constitutionally guaranteed authority, the States are enabling the slavery of their residents.

The Senate? No. Try the States

In the wake of the terrible Supreme Court decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare, ACA), many politicians have been telling us "We must retake the senate!"  In fact, you could probably add some more exclamation marks and an "eleventy" or two in, just to get the feeling.  The Senate, we are told, is the key to overturning Obamacare.

With all due respect, I call bull.  The last time I can find that a law was just repealed was in the 1920s.  Prohibition was repealed in the '30s, which did require the senate, but it had the force of the American people so far behind it that they were able to pass a Constitutional Amendment to repeal a previous Constitutional Amendment.  I don't think we have that level of outrage; there are just too many people who don't mind being slaves to the State, as long as the State "takes care of" them.

The problem with anyone running for national office is that they want to hold national office.  They want the power that august office brings, and they want to wield it.  The possibility that the Senate would repeal the entirety of Obamacare is remote at best.  Even House Republicans keep talking about "Repeal and Replace," when the only Conservative option is "Repeal and Remand(to the states)."

If we truly want to stop the ever growing behemoth that is the Federal Government, we must use the Federalist System put in place by the Founders of the Constitution.  The States must wrest their authority back from the Federal Government.  And "wrest" is the correct word; it will be a fight of epic, perhaps cataclysmic proportions.

Three essential steps that the States must take to begin taking their authority back:

1) Declare that any resident of the state is exempt from the requirements of ACA.  This will require the refusal of any state resources (money or personnel) for enforcement, as well as refusal to allow Federal Officials to enforce the law.

2) Begin weaning themselves off the governmental cocaine that is "Federal Matching Funds."  From Medicaid to Highway funds, the Federal Government exerts too much influence because of these funds.  Texas has already begun leading the way here, with our refusal to provide State Funds to Planned Parenthood, and finding a way to continue to fund women's services without Federal funds.

3) Repeat steps 1 & 2 with all Federal Laws which overreach Federal Authority.  From "Environmental Laws" to Abortion law, and, in fact, almost every facet of life, the Federal Government is reaching where it has no authority, whatever the Supreme Court has said.  The States must decide to take that authority back.

Bear this in mind: the cost must be counted.  The term "Constitutional Crisis" is not an exaggeration.  Of course, I would argue we're already in one.  This would be a violent upheaval, at least in the political sense.  It might cause a violent upheaval in the physical violence sense

While it is, indeed, vital that we retake the Senate, far more important are your State and Local races.  It is your States which must stand up to the Federal Government, and it is your cities which must then stand up to your State.  The Senate will not, cannot, save us from Federal Expansion.  As part of the Federal Government, it is an intrinsic part of the problem.  The Founders of our Nation were wise enough to see this, and so they instituted a Federalist system of government.  We need to return to that system.

 Two hundred and 26 years ago, on Wednesday, our Forefathers swore to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to defeat tyranny.  I don't think it's too much to ask that we swear our convenience, our baubles, and our luxuries to do the same.

In Defense of Liberty

The Honorable Rick Perry

Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

Dear Governor,

As you are no doubt aware, the United States Supreme Court just upheld one of the most egregious usurpations of State and Individual Liberty in American History.  By declaring the Individual Mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Act) a tax, they did not merely uphold this tyrannical statute, they did so while directly contradicting themselves (if it were really a tax, rules state they cannot rule on the law until the tax has gone into effect) as well as the law itself (the word “tax” never occurs regarding the Mandate).

By upholding the Act, the Supreme Court has effectively decided that it is within the purview of the Federal Government to levy a tax on breathing.  The individual mandate, as you know, is not a tax on voluntary economic activity.  Rather it is a tax on voluntary economic inactivity.  Simply being alive and choosing not to carry an insurance policy is enough to force you to pay the tax.  This is not true of any other tax.  Income taxes are not owed if you make no income; they tax economic activity, not economic inactivity.  Sales taxes are not owed if you do not purchase anything; they tax economic activity, not economic inactivity.  Cigarette taxes and gasoline taxes are similar examples; to avoid the taxes, do not engage in the proscribed economic activity.

This is a perversion of everything our forefathers fought to achieve.  It is tyrannical and unjust.  The Act is blatantly unconstitutional, and the Court has ignored the constitution in deference to its precious “precedent.”

Mr. Governor, we, the people of Texas, have nowhere else to turn.  Our congressional leaders have failed us.  The Courts of the United States have failed us.  I humbly beseech that the State of Texas defend us from this tyrannical overreach.

To that end, I would ask that the State of Texas act in the following ways:

1)      That no State resources be used to enforce this act of tyranny.

2)      That the State would officially affirm, via legislation, the same.

3)      That the State act to shield those persons who refuse to comply with this tyranny from the Federal Authority.

Mr. Governor, I understand what I’m asking.  I understand that this would be a huge and possibly irreversible step.  I understand that it is a gamble and, to some extent, “asking for trouble.”  Nevertheless, I believe it to be the right course.  I believe that the Natural Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are not outmoded ideas.  I believe the rights upheld in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not antiquated notions.  And I believe that they must be vigorously defended.

With Sincere Respect,

He Has Refused His Assent

With the provision in the Arizona Illegal Immigration law that allowed for checks of immigration status being upheld this morning, Barack Obama has, once again, allowed his mask to slip to show the tyrant beneath.

From the Washington Times (H/T: Ace of Spades) comes this article detailing Obama's decision to suspend existing agreements with AZ police over immigration enforcement.  He has issued a policy which will result in either continuous detention of possible illegals (if ICE officials simply do not answer or respond to requests), or will allow illegal immigrants to avoid the just consequences of their crime.  First the EO granting amnesty to illegal aliens who came as minors, and now this.

Indeed, these are far from the only examples of love of tyranny.  From ignoring Congress (on multiple occasions) to berating or threatening (however obliquely) the Supreme court, to- today- defying the Supreme court, in spirit if not in letter.

Barack Obama is a tyrant.  He is a would-be dictator who believes that you live to serve him.  He wants you as a subject, not a citizen.

The time has come for our elected representatives to protect us from his tyranny.

If the US Congress will not intervene, then the States must.  It must stop, or the country willed to us by our forefathers, that was entrusted to us for our posterity, will die.