ThoughtRogue- Well, these videos certainly are igniting the fire within me.  How broken and out-of-control can our “government” get?  Apparently, the elite have forgotten (or more likely, have never known) about the meaning of the First Amendment to our Constitution, where it clearly states:

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Hellloooo??!  Watch, and get fired up.  If you have not contacted your Congress-persons for a while, NOW IS THE TIME for them TO HEAR YOUR VOICE in Washington, DC.  If this socialized medicine [excrement sandwich] is, in the end, crammed down the Peoples’ throat, have no regrets that you exercised your Constitutional Rights to stop this abomination!

ThoughtRogue:  There seems to be some great confusion about the term “Natural Born” Citizen.  Most people and politicians, who also happen to be Constitutionally illiterate, confuse this with “Native Born” – which means one is born on U.S. soil – sorry, but not good enough alone to be eligible for the Presidency. 

Wake Up, America! WAKE UP!

To be “Natural Born” one must be born by U.S. Citizen PARENTS, and be born on U.S. Soil – as was John McCain – and every previous President (apart from a few Founders who are covered by their own clause).  To be a “Naturalized” citizen, is yet something else; it is where people who are not U.S. citizens go through a legalization, or “naturalization”, process to become a Citizen.

A Constitutional requirement to serve as a U.S. Senator is to be a U.S. Citizen – naturalized or otherwise.  The U.S. Presidency, however, as outlined in Article II, Section 1., contains a higher standard – the pre-requisite of being a Natural Born Citizen.  Can an illegal alien invade the U.S., give birth to an illegal “native born” baby, and that child later be eligible for the U.S. Presidency?  No.  That child’s NOT a natural born citizen – even if they legally become a citizen later.

Barack Hussein Obama II, by his own auto-hagiographical admission, cannot possibly be eligible to legally serve as President of the U.S. because his father was a Kenyan National and British colonial subject – no matter where he happened to be born (a birthplace which has NEVER been publicly confirmed).  Thus, BHOII is an illegal Usurper of the office of the President of the United States (POTUS).

Thank GOD our Forefathers had the wisdom to have our U.S. Military Officers swear allegiance, NOT to the POTUS, but to our U.S. CONSTITUTION and to protect it against all enemies – both foreign and Domestic.

Have you asked yourself yet, or asked your family and neighbors, just why the Usurper of the United States, BHOII, has hugged and bowed before every vicious dictator, king, and tyrant on the planet?  Or why he has back-handed every one of our traditional allies – such as berating the State of Israel even while ordering her what to do upon their OWN LAND?!

How can BHOII recite Islamic phrases in Arabic with a near-perfect accent? – a feat according to Islamists.  Just why did BHOII skip out on the National Day of Prayer in which all modern Presidents have participated?  BHOII stated emphatically recently that, not only was our nation NOT a Judeo-Christian nation, but he announced to the world that the U.S. is one of the “largest Islamic nation’s” on earth!  Note:  Barack Hussein Obama II, inherited his name from his Islamic Kenyan father, and went to Muslim primary school in the Muslim nation of Indonesia where he lived with his Muslim step-father while growing up.

After his sudden disassociation from “Rev.” Wright’s radical, racist, “Black Liberation Theology” “church”, the Obama family has curiously and completely run out of luck in finding a “Christian” church anywhere within the District of Columbia which suits their “faith”.

Then, as do all Marxist radicals, BHOII has been hell-bent on cutting the legs out from under our great military.  He has cut the cutting edge F-22 air-superiority fighter program where they produced only a fraction of the originally requested number.  Not to worry they say, the much cheaper JSF will act as a better replacement.  Uh, only one small problem, though – the JSF fighters are not even being produced in numbers in their final form yet!

BHOII ordered the Pentagon to ratchet back our national ballistic missile shield immediately in the wake of North Korea test-firing several missiles in celebration of our Fourth of July festivities last summer.  Now he has scrapped the ballistic missile shield that had been promised to Poland and our Eastern European allies – leaving them to twist in the wind before a resurgent Russian threat.  Is it sheer coincidence that BHOII announced his betrayal of Europe on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland?  Who was that message for?

The list goes on, and on, even as BHOII admits he knew LAST YEAR of Iran’s second secret underground nuclear facility (which he somehow failed to mention in his recent feckless U.N. speech), he continues to try to back Israel into the corner of nuclear Armageddon – an apocalyptic set-up of our former ally which couldn’t be more “transparent”.

Folks, it is high time to ask yourself regarding this “President” of the U.S.:  WHAT IN GOD’S NAME IS GOING ON HERE?!

Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’

By John L. Perry, Newsmax

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

• Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
• Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
• They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
• They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
• They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
• They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
• They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
• They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

"Yes You Can, Iran. It's All Set Up."

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent withtheir oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

TR:  Never before has our White House been occupied by this level of radical Leftist revolutionaries.  Will we survive with the American Dream intact? – or should we be contemplating the formation of a new confederation, The Free Republics of America, neighboring but independent of this burgeoning Progressive hegemony (mostly, the East and Left coasts along with the NE and Great Lake states)?

Obama and ‘Redistributive Change’

Forget the recession and the “uninsured.” Obama has bigger fish to fry.

By Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

Vision becoming Krystal Clear.

The first seven months of the Obama administration seemingly make no sense. Why squander public approval by running up astronomical deficits in a time of pre-existing staggering national debt?

Why polarize opponents after promising bipartisan transcendence?

Why create vast new programs when the efficacy of big government is already seen as dubious?

But that is exactly the wrong way to look at these first seven months of Obamunist policy-making.

Take increased federal spending and the growing government absorption of GDP. Given the resiliency of the U.S. economy, it would have been easy to ride out the recession. In that case we would still have had to deal with a burgeoning and unsustainable annual federal deficit that would have approached $1 trillion.

Instead, Obama may nearly double that amount of annual indebtedness with more federal stimuli and bailouts, newly envisioned cap-and-trade legislation, and a variety of fresh entitlements. Was that fiscally irresponsible? Yes, of course.

But I think the key was not so much the spending excess or new entitlements. The point instead was the consequence of the resulting deficits, which will require radically new taxation for generations. If on April 15 the federal and state governments, local entities, the Social Security system, and the new health-care programs can claim 70 percent of the income of the top 5 percent of taxpayers, then that is considered a public good — every bit as valuable as funding new programs, and one worth risking insolvency.

Individual compensation is now seen as arbitrary and, by extension, inherently unfair. A high income is now rationalized as having less to do with market-driven needs, acquired skills, a higher level of education, innate intelligence, inheritance, hard work, or accepting risk. Rather income is seen more as luck-driven, cruelly capricious, unfair — even immoral, in that some are rewarded arbitrarily on the basis of race, class, and gender advantages, others for their overweening greed and ambition, and still more for their quasi-criminality.

“Patriotic” federal healers must then step in to “spread the wealth.” Through redistributive tax rates, they can “treat” the illness that the private sector has caused. After all, there is no intrinsic reason why an auto fabricator makes $60 in hourly wages and benefits, while a young investment banker finagles $500.

Or, in the president’s own language, the government must equalize the circumstances of the “waitress” with those of the “lucky.” It is thus a fitting and proper role of the new federal government to rectify imbalances of compensation — at least for those outside the anointed Guardian class. In a 2001 interview Obama in fact outlined the desirable political circumstances that would lead government to enforce equality of results when he elaborated on what he called an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Still, why would intelligent politicians try to ram through, in mere weeks, a thousand pages of health-care gibberish — its details outsourced to far-left elements in the Congress (and their staffers) — that few in the cabinet had ever read or even knew much about?

Once again, I don’t think health care per se was ever really the issue. When pressed, no one in the administration seemed to know whether illegal aliens were covered. Few cared why young people do not divert some of their entertainment expenditures to a modest investment in private catastrophic coverage.

Warnings that Canadians already have their health care rationed, wait in long lines, and are denied timely and critical procedures also did not seem to matter. And no attention was paid to statistics suggesting that, if we exclude homicides and auto accidents, Americans live as long on average as anyone in the industrial world, and have better chances of surviving longer with heart disease and cancer. That the average American did not wish to radically alter his existing plan, and that he understood that the uninsured really did have access to health care, albeit in a wasteful manner at the emergency room, was likewise of no concern.

The issue again was larger, and involved a vast reinterpretation of how America receives health care. Whether more or fewer Americans would get better or worse access and cheaper or more expensive care, or whether the government can or cannot afford such new entitlements, oddly seemed largely secondary to the crux of the debate.

Instead, the notion that the state will assume control, in Canada-like fashion, and level the health-care playing field was the real concern. “They” (the few) will now have the same care as “we” (the many). Whether the result is worse or better for everyone involved is extraneous, since sameness is the overarching principle.

We can discern this same mandated egalitarianism beneath many of the administration’s recent policy initiatives. Obama is not a pragmatist, as he insisted, nor even a liberal, as charged.

Rather, he is a statist. The president believes that a select group of affluent, highly educated technocrats — cosmopolitan, noble-minded, and properly progressive — supported by a phalanx of whiz-kids fresh out of blue-chip universities with little or no experience in the marketplace, can direct our lives far better than we can ourselves. By “better” I do not mean in a fashion that, measured by disinterested criteria, makes us necessarily wealthier, happier, more productive, or freer.

Instead, “better” means “fairer,” or more “equal.” We may “make” different amounts of money, but we will end up with more or less similar net incomes. We may know friendly doctors, be aware of the latest procedures, and have the capital to buy blue-chip health insurance, but no matter. Now we will all alike queue up with our government-issued insurance cards to wait our turn at the ubiquitous corner clinic.

None of this equality-of-results thinking is new.

Read the rest of this entry »

ThoughtRogue:  This Marine is perfectly on target when he points out that the U.S. Constitution is a political COMPACT, a voluntary agreement among the States (and their Peoples) – which is utterly being VIOLATED daily in Washington.  As we know from natural law, when one party regularly abuses another party, breaking the contract (or compact, which is even less binding) it is the abused party’s absolute RIGHT, or obligation to negate that contract, declare it null and void and to walk away in peace (and/or to seek redress as they see fit).

It is beyond me why certain States, Texas in particular, have not exercised their natural Right to secede from their voluntary adherence to the now-shredded remains of the U.S. Constitution, and exercise their innate, inalienable State sovereignty to form a new government, perhaps a confederation among other States who share her great values – a government to which their Peoples give their new Consent.  Just as our Founding Fathers declared and conferred to us our sacred rights after their bloody procurement of our freedoms and liberty from a despotic tyranny – before we surrender ourselves fully to the out-of-control masters of tyranny now exploding in Washington, D.C. – WE MUST NOW DO THE SAME for OUR Posterity.

Fellow Citizens, Patriots, RECLAIM your liberties before they are lost forever.  Texans, demand that your State government recall your delegation from the ultra-corrupt federal center of tyranny.  Assert your God-given sovereignty to govern yourselves as the People wish.  We, the People, are the ONLY ones who will throw OFF this massive tyranny!

ThoughtRogue:   Welcome to the era of  HypenChains!!   Get it?   Well, you’re sure gonna…

Folks, wake up your friends and relatives before it’s too late.

The Following is Pre-Election:

The following is Post-Election!

More Info at Trends Research

Elliott Wave has been predicting a Depression and Trends Research is confirming that!  You can listen to an interview I had with a rep from the Elliott Wave.  Click on the Microphone in the sidebar!

Jefferson Paine:  We “Birther” fringers just want a simple answer to a simple question.  We want the Truth:  Where’s Barack Hussein Obama II’s proof that he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution? – namely, that he is a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States.  Still waiting…   Just when will we get the truth?

The burden of proof has always been, and remains, upon the current Usurper, BHO II.  It is absurd to ask someone to prove that he isn’t a Natural Born Citizen since proving a negative is always an impossibility.  This is not rocket science – so why does BHO II continue to employ an army of lawyers to hide and seal any and all documentation as to who this occupant of our White House actually IS??  Ask yourself, WHY this is?

In order for Mr. Obama to be Constitutionally eligible to serve as our President, he must prove that he is (a) currently a Citizen of the U.S., and (b) was born on U.S. soil to parents who were both U.S. Citizens.  Pursuant to requisite (a), he claims he was born in Hawaii, although NO ONE can verify it.  If he wasn’t born in HI, then Game Over.  IF he ever proves HI as his birthplace, then he’s not close to being done here.  When he became an Indonesian citizen, did he ever re-naturalize in the U.S. upon or after his return?  No One knows.  Secondly, he must also pass requisite (b) his mother was presumably a U.S. Citizen upon BHO II’s birth, although because of her age and shotgun wedding, it is unclear whether she could confer full citizenship to her son because there is no documentation to prove one way or the other on any of this.  And, lastly, Obama’s father BHO I, was a Kenyan national who also retained British colonial citizenship – which, for purposes of BHOII being a “Natural Born Citizen” – it’s GAME OVER.  Sorry folks – he’s an Usurper of the Presidency of the U.S.  Unless he can prove otherwise.. (but it will require him renouncing his own father’s identity per The One’s audacious autobiography..)

Where’s The Evidence?

by Joseph Farah, Worldnetdaily Exclusive Commentary

The Distinct Scent of Secession is in the Air.

The cacophony is growing.

There is a din of media outrage being expressed.

Pundits and talking heads are losing their heads – not to mention their cool.

Over what?

It’s not health care.

It’s not cap and trade.

It’s not even whether Barack Obama thinks black people are always right and cops are always wrong.

It’s whether the man sitting in the White House for the last six months is constitutionally eligible.

About three months ago, some of you will remember, I set out to make this happen. I launched a billboard campaign with just this goal in mind – raising the visibility of the story, which had been all but forgotten because of the bailouts, the stimulus packages and the government grab for power under the new regime.

Read the rest of this entry »

TR:  And this gives the Demonrats their long-awaited 60th, filibuster-proof vote in the U.S. Senate.  Wonderful.  The manner in which Franken ‘won’ his seat, not by the actual voters but by inventive lawyers, is very familiar to us here in the Soviet of Washington where (R) Governor-elect Rossi’s victory was literally stolen from him by a phalanx of Demonrat lawyers convincing leftist judges to bless their fabrications long after the actual vote.

The ‘Absentee’ Senator

Franken wins by changing the rules.

By The Wall Street Journal, Opinion

Obamunism - Drive a stake through It!

The Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of last year’s disputed Senate race, and Republican incumbent Norm Coleman’s gracious concession at least spares the state any further legal combat. The unfortunate lesson is that you don’t need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact.

Mr. Franken trailed Mr. Coleman by 725 votes after the initial count on election night, and 215 after the first canvass. The Democrat’s strategy from the start was to manipulate the recount in a way that would discover votes that could add to his total. The Franken legal team swarmed the recount, aggressively demanding that votes that had been disqualified be added to his count, while others be denied for Mr. Coleman.

But the team’s real goldmine were absentee ballots, thousands of which the Franken team claimed had been mistakenly rejected. While Mr. Coleman’s lawyers demanded a uniform standard for how counties should re-evaluate these rejected ballots, the Franken team ginned up an additional 1,350 absentees from Franken-leaning counties. By the time this treasure hunt ended, Mr. Franken was 312 votes up, and Mr. Coleman was left to file legal briefs.

What Mr. Franken understood was that courts would later be loathe to overrule decisions made by the canvassing board, however arbitrary those decisions were. He was right. The three-judge panel overseeing the Coleman legal challenge, and the Supreme Court that reviewed the panel’s findings, in essence found that Mr. Coleman hadn’t demonstrated a willful or malicious attempt on behalf of officials to deny him the election. And so they refused to reopen what had become a forbidding tangle of irregularities. Mr. Coleman didn’t lose the election. He lost the fight to stop the state canvassing board from changing the vote-counting rules after the fact.

This is now the second time Republicans have been beaten in this kind of legal street fight. In 2004, Dino Rossi was ahead in the election-night count for Washington Governor against Democrat Christine Gregoire. Ms. Gregoire’s team demanded the right to rifle through a list of provisional votes that hadn’t been counted, setting off a hunt for “new” Gregoire votes. By the third recount, she’d discovered enough to win. This was the model for the Franken team.

Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election. If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don’t end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them.

“Never before have so few stolen so much from so many for so little.”  -Jefferson Paine

Exclusive to NoCompromiseMedia by Jefferson Paine

Open Letter to:

Mr. David Reichert

Republican Representative

Washington State Delegation

June 30^th, 2009

 

Dear Mr. Reichert,

Please, resign your seat in the U.S. House of Representatives because of your “Yes” vote in favor of the abominable “Cap and Trade” or “Climate Change” bill – and without having even read the final bill in its entirety before voting on it.  Your egregious voting record does not represent me, or of any Republican that I know.

 

Since your debut in Congress, I have been watching your sorry voting rating, from the American Conservative Union (ACU), steadily decline from a score of 64 (out of 100) in 2005, to a low, thus far, of 48 in 2007 – you have voted consistently with the fringe Left of the Republican party in the House – even more so the last two years under Speaker Pelosi.  Sir, you are a RINO’s RINO if there ever was one.

 

I knew something was drastically broken with your moral compass when, right out of the gate in 2005, on that Palm Sunday, when you voted against allowing a federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo state murder, where you helped deny her loving family from merely giving their daughter some comforting water, while she was slowly, and painfully starved to death.  Her cruel death at the hands of the State, would never, ever have been allowed to take place in such a manner if ending the life of the most monstrous inmate on death row.  Please, resign your seat, now.

 

Which segues us to your buddy, Gary Ridgeway – one of the most prolific serial killers of all time – who you have ridden to fame and power by single-handedly “apprehending” him!  How’s Mr. Ridgeway faring these days – continuing to fantasize until he dies of old age about his 50, 60, 70(?) horrific strangulations of beautiful, innocent girls?  Oh, and the necrophilia!  In your coming retirement, perhaps Gary can join you, on furloughs you have arranged, to mind the gift shop part-time at your Green River Killer Catcher museum?  Or, rather, how about giving Gary a little of the treatment you gave Terri?

 

I’ve observed your many, many votes in favor of prolific federal spending, especially for out-of-control social programs galore, your votes against curbs on pork and spending limits, your votes to continue a moratorium on domestic oil and gas drilling and exploration, in favor of Orwellian “hate-crime” laws, skyrocketing the federal minimum wage, expanding the laws for union bosses to continue their thuggery in the labor markets, and expansion of embryonic stem cell research.  Which planks of the Republican Platform do you actually believe in besides supporting our military personnel?  You even voted on a gigantic pork-filled bailout bill recently which you didn’t even read!  Please, resign, now.

 

On the eve of voting on the ridiculous “Cap and Trade” monster energy-tax bill, based on the most dubious “science” ever, I called your office in Washington, D.C.  I asked the girl who answered what your position was on the bill.  She said that you didn’t have one.  Really?  Just a few hours before the big vote?  I didn’t ask her how your were going to vote – just what your current position was.  I then asked her if you took an Oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution when you assumed your office.  She said she didn’t really know.  I asked if you, or she, knew anything about our Constitution, such as what the Amendment X actually means.  Again, she really couldn’t tell me anything.  Question:  Does your call answerer play with her Silky Pony and Barbie dolls when she’s not answering calls for you in the Big Office?  Funny, but I’m willing to bet anything, based on all of my observations, that you and she probably have the same depth of understanding of our Constitution – which now lies in tatters – precisely because power-hungry clowns such as yourself continue to violate it daily.

 

Case in point: You don’t even read the legislation in its final form, in its entirety before voting on it – such as was the case again with the “Cap and Trade” bill.  We can prove this in this case because at least three hundred pages of revisions were submitted at 3:00am last Friday morning, mere hours before the vote.  Making the final copy of the bill well over 1,200 pages – it was a physical impossibility for ANYONE in the House to have read a final copy of the bill, in its entirety, before voting on it.  And I watched the circus unfold on C-SPAN, and what I witnessed was not due process and proper deliberation – but an abomination.  But you, Sir, voted “Yes” on it anyway – screw the American People and the Citizens of the 8^th District of Washington and their ‘representation’ in Congress.

 

Mr. Reichert, resign your seat in Congress.  You now epitomize what is wrong with our system and why it is broken.  To paraphrase an American hero, Ronald Reagan, “You, Sir, are not a part of the solution – you are the problem.”  I am told I am to refer to you as “The Honorable” congressman, but your actions do not warrant it.  I will, continue to use ‘Sir’, as I would like to express just enough respect to encourage you to resign honorably.

 

Better yet, assuming you and your ilk want desperately to retain your power and perks, please consider defecting to the Demonrat party.  I’d be willing to bet they’d make a very cushy position for you in a heartbeat.  Turn in your tarnished star, empty holster, and empty suit to your nearest Republican office, and start walking toward enemy lines to be welcomed.  You are no longer welcome here.  We’ve had enough of you.  GO!!

 

Sincerely,

-Jefferson Paine, Constituent, 8^th-District, WA

Exclusive to NoCompromiseMedia

The Truth about Secession

By ~Jefferson Paine~

Secession is a Peaceful Act

What is this concept, secession, we’re beginning to hear trumpeted more frequently?  “Secession” means a separation from a community of a part of that community – Black’s Law Dictionary.  Simply put, secession is one party’s voluntary withdrawal, or disassociation from another party – it necessitates no attack, no usurpation, no threats, no takeover, no violence – secession is a peaceful act.

Violence need only enter the picture because of a despotic tyrant, an egomaniacal dictator, a despised king, or an abusive spouse who simply can’t stand the idea of their captive, their subject, or their victim, rightfully choosing for themselves to escape his grasp – to leave his control.  In fact, coercion and, frequently, armed force are the favorite instruments of these perpetrators to halt a secession from their corrupt empire.

Perhaps the most remarkable gift of all, bequeathed to us by our Founders, came about from their careful study of the secular philosophy of the Western Enlightenment, and the 18^th century emergence of the “Age of Reason”, made so vividly accessible to the common man by Thomas Paine, and the realization that each individual person was sovereign – literally, “his own king” – never to be ruled over by another.  And yet, our Founders knew these philosophical advances must be forged harmonious with the Laws of Nature, those given to us by our Creator (not by any man).  Natural Laws, be it those of physics, economics, or our inherent human rights, must not only be discovered and understood by man, in order to harness their maximum usefulness, but at the same time it must be recognized they are timeless and immutable, God-given, and therefore, are “unalienable” – in other words, our natural rights can never be diminished, altered, or abolished by man, because they were never created by him!

Not only did our Founding Fathers recognize these miraculous discoveries, but they infused our founding documents with them, laying down in indelible ink for future generations a new form of government, forged from these natural laws, and of their best ideals – to greatly advance civilization for us, their posterity.  And, to this day, we are the heirs of the greatest civilization yet devised - if we can keep it from self-destruction.  And at the very heart of our founding principles and ideals are the natural rights to “self-determination”, leading to the sacred rights of “life”, “property”, and “free association” among others – generally referred to as one’s Freedom, and Liberty.

Not long after a famous Tea Party took place in Boston harbor, and much other ‘rabble-rousing’, our Founding Father’s campaign of secession, from the grips of British tyranny, began in earnest upon our formal Declaration of Independence from the British Empire in July of 1776.  Our core justification, as stated in the Declaration, was that no government was legitimate but for the permission of its People.  We declared our self-determination to the world:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;…”

As one can clearly see, three of the most critical principles justifying our existence as an American civilization, by successfully gaining our independence from European oligarchs are:

• 1) The individual Citizen, of We the People, is sovereign.
• 2) The People will decide, and legitimize, how they will be governed.
• 3) American Self-Determination, the maximization of the individual’s Freedom – via free exercise of their sacred natural rights: among others, of Life, Liberty, and Free Association.

Once gaining our rightful independence, our Founders set about forging a new document, our Supreme Law, which would hopefully strengthen the union among the independent States by prescribing a structure for a new, highly limited federal government, a delineation of separated powers, and the enumeration of some essential Citizen’s rights, highlighted explicitly in the Bill of Rights.  This document, our government’s blueprint was, of course, our new U.S. Constitution.

From a structural standpoint, the most remarkable aspect of this new document was its separation of powers in general, and the concept of “federalism” in particular.  This made it most unique in history, and probably was its greatest contribution to the world regarding political science.  What is it?  Federalism is the concept of multiple, or ‘divided sovereignty’, where some power was defined at the federal level while all the rest was the domain of the individual States.  As it turns out, because the individual, free and independent States granted a small and limited amount of authority to the federal government to provide for certain common needs, as the States’ agent, the remainder and the vast majority of power (sovereignty) remained with each individual State (as it states clearly in Amendment X.)

Alexis de Tocqueville, in his world-renown report on our unique form of government Democracy in America, revealed, “The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people.  If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right.”

Why is federalism so remarkable?  Because the political power was divided amongst State and Federal, and thus “total power” was shared between them, one side provided a check on political hegemony over the other!  This had never been done before in history.  In other words, the true structure of Federalism not only provided a division of power, but one entity could “check” (file suit, protest, ignore, partially comply, etc.) the other if one were becoming abusive.  It also means, via the many independent States and their respective governments, with their own unique laws and local customs, that a person has a choice of where to live which best suits their individual desires.  The People, having this choice of governments is perhaps the greatest check of all - for governments then have a large incentive to behave themselves by being attentive to the wishes of its own Citizens. (You may recognize this principle in economics – this incredible, essential benefit is called “competition”)  When Lincoln brainwashed the public into believing that States’ Rights did not exist, and therefore the only “choice” we really have is a singular leviathan Federal Government – it leads us straight to the exploding federal tyranny we are witnessing today.

Read the rest of this entry »

TR:  And you might have thought the term “State-run Media” was just some hyperbole.  Folks, you just can’t make this stuff up…  The All Barack Channel (ABC) will be pimping the administration’s ObamaCare scheme from their cushy new quarters within our White House!  Can you imagine if FoxNews had begun broadcasting Bush propaganda from their new HQ in the Lincoln Bedroom?  Think about what’s going on here… with this State-run Media.[!]

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE

By The DrudgeReport

All Barack Channel "News"

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

MORE

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained ‘false premises’:

“ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers — of all political persuasions — even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

“ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.”

Developing…