Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 11:38 — 10.7MB)
Bully. (bul-ly) Noun. A person who uses strength or power to harm, intimidate or manipulate those who are weaker.
In society, people run across all kinds of bullies. There’s the traditional bully in grade school who pushes around the smaller kids. There’s the punk in high school who picks on other people to get his way. There’s the neighborhood thug or gang member who wants to control the local territory. There’s the company creep who lies and cheats his way up the company ladder, and the big corporation that intimidates others for its own gain. And then there’s the government bully.
To me, the government bullies are the worst.
Under the threat of violence, they tell you what kind of light bulb you can buy, what size your toilet can be, what kind of plant you can grow and consume, and what kind of tax penalty you’ll have to pay for doing absolutely nothing. They read your emails, monitor your bank accounts, fly drones everywhere imaginable, drop bombs on people around the world and claim the power to indefinitely detain you without due process.
Even the worst bullies in all the other categories can’t get away with these kinds of things on such a grand scale.
These politicians are nothing more than the mafia – with tax revenue to pay their expenses – which actually makes them worse.
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has written a pretty good book about this kind of power. It’s appropriately named “Government bullies.” Here’s a bit from the description:
Government regulations are out of control. They dictate how much water goes into your commode, and how much water comes out of your showerhead. They determine how hot the water needs to be in your washing machine, and how many miles to the gallon your car must achieve. Since the Patriot Act, your banking records, your gun registration, and your phone bill are easily accessible by government snoops. Mothers are arrested for buying raw milk. Families are fined for selling bunny rabbits without a license. Home and property owners are strapped with obscene fines, entangled in costly legal messes, and sent to federal prison, all for moving dirt from one end of their land to another. Unelected bureaucrats, armed with arbitrary rules and no need to back them up, stonewall and attack American citizens at every turn. The damage can be overwhelmingly taxing—financially, emotionally and even physically.
These stories are of everyday Americans badgered and harassed by their own government—the very institution that is supposed to serve us all. This gross breach of our constitution is as frightening as it is real, and GOVERNMENT BULLIES is a call to action against it.
Paul is certainly on the money with these examples. He shares with us stories of the negative results of unrestrained power – and how limits to that power are absolutely necessary.
That’s why the word “hypocrite” came to mind when I was reading some press releases from the Senator recently. Here’s what’s going on…
Rand Paul has been making a bit of a PR splash of late by calling for an end to foreign aid to countries like Pakistan, Egypt and Libya. I absolutely concur with this view. And not only because I consider such “aid” to be an unconstitutional expansion of federal power, but because the so-called “help” that’s been given to foreign countries over the years always seems to have strings attached. Or, it comes with a bigger price tag, blowback.
Think about all the “foreign aid” that was once given to Saddam Hussein. Billions of dollars of money from US taxpayers went to his coffers. He received weapons, training, and even biological research materials that were used for Iraq’s chemical weapons program.
That didn’t work out too well, did it. But then again, all those people who are getting rich and powerful off the $1-2 trillion dollars of direct and indirect Iraq war costs are probably cheering this insanity on.
Anyway, back to Rand Paul.
So he’s been pushing hard to supposedly eliminate foreign aid to these countries. On its face, it sure sounds like a good plan to me. But, all you need to do is read through his press releases and statements – and not just the subject lines.
Here’s one, for example – from a letter he sent to members of the House:
“I urge you to take immediate action to pass a much-needed bill demanding cooperation and accountability from the countries involved in the recent violence directed at our embassies and consulates. The bill should send a strong clear message to these entities: You do not get foreign aid unless you are an unwavering ally of the United States.”
hmmmm. Interesting. There’s more:
“If Pakistan wants to be our ally—and receive foreign aid for being one—then they should act like it, and they must start by releasing Dr. Afridi.”
Dr. Afridi is the guy who provided intel to the CIA which helped find Bin Laden. He was arrested, tortured, and treated horribly by the Pakistani government. I think it’s awful how he’s being treated.
If an American citizen provided another country with intel which resulted in a raid on George Bush’s home, that American would likely get the same treatment – arrest, torture, and a very long imprisonment.
I think it’s the height of hypocrisy for a country that claims the power to torture people, to indefinitely detain people, and to spy on people – to lambast another country for doing the same.
In this equation, the governments of both Pakistan and the United States are enemies to liberty.
And that’s my problem with Rand Paul and his phony opposition to foreign aid. He’s not opposing it on principle. Rand Paul isn’t calling for an end to foreign aid. He just wants other countries to act the way he wants them to act in order to continue receiving your money. He’s using billions of dollars to pressure weaker countries into acting the way he thinks they should.
To me, that’s the definition of a government bully.
Become a member and support the TAC!
In fact, that’s exactly what the Federal government has been doing to state governments for a long time. They take money from you and use that money as a carrot – and a stick – to pressure state governments into doing all kinds of things. The result? An almost-complete destruction of the Constitution.
So, what should be done in this foreign-aid situation? End foreign aid to Pakistan, Egypt and Libya – no matter what they do. It also needs to be ended to Russia, Israel, Colombia, Kenya, and everywhere else in the world
Like the unconstitutional power to force you to buy a health insurance product, this forced buying of foreign friends needs to end – completely.
If you want to send your money to help other people or causes that fit your personal beliefs and goals – whether in the US or around the world – that should be your decision. Not Rand Paul’s – and not any politician’s. Your choice, and yours alone.
@libertyideals New GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow tumors, 70% of females die early http://t.co/qraqRnf0
@RonPaul_2012 Fat Cat MOOCHERS! http://t.co/6xNzFlV8
@RonPaul_2012 Mr. Paul, please come out on full support of Mitt Romney. We need you and your support!!
What you are saying is intellectually consistent. But, if the Tenth Amendment Center is so ideologically pure that Rand Paul is an enemy, then the 10th Amendment is gone for sure. Rand Paul is one of the few men in DC that I respect and admire, so I can’t donate money to you.
@Babblefish wow. You like person A. We point out how that person has done and said good things – and also done something very wrong.
So instead of being upset and telling person A that you will consider lessening your support for them, you are upset at the messenger.
If that’s serious, it’s really sad.
@Michael Boldin @Babblefish This concerns me as well. I understand both points of view – but without people like Rand Paul in Washington, what chance do we have at ever restoring the 10th Amendment (or the rest of our Constitution, for that matter)? We’re still too early in this movement to be attacking one another – we need to support our own and find better ways to pass messages along to our mouthpieces.
@ChrisBlec We will never turn a blind eye to violations of the constitution. we are an educational organization on the constitution – not a political party. We’ll provide the information and you decide what you want to do with it.
deal?
@ChrisBlec one other point – the fate of the 10th Amendment has nothing, whatsoever, to do with who is in Washington DC. that’s a pit of death. The fate of the 10th mostly has to do with you – then your community, your town, your county, and your state.
@Michael Boldin I agree with your points, I understand your position, and I have utmost respect for everything that you do. Notwithstanding, in this specific case, you have gone out of your way to demonize one of the leading (and most listened to) champions of Constitutional liberties in Washington. With all due respect to you and your efforts, perhaps there was a better way that your point could have been made.
@ChrisBlec
I’m sorry to hear that a tenth amendment supporter would like me personally, and the TAC in general, to turn a blind eye to constitutional violations because they come from Rand Paul.
Turning a blind eye – year in and year out – is what got us all into this mess.
Question – saying that Rand Paul did something wrong is “demonizing” him? Maybe we should all look inward and ask ourselves why individuals – and not principles – are such sacred cows?
@Michael Boldin Definitely not asking you to turn a blind eye. That would defeat the whole purpose of the TAC. I think that raising this issue was the right thing to do. My issue is that, with the accusatory writing style that you used (calling him a hypocrite, bully, etc) – you didn’t just call Sen. Paul out on this issue – you walked up to him, grabbed him by the hair, shook him violently, threw him against he wall, and stormed off (not literally of course, but hopefully you get my point – even if you don’t agree with it).
@ChrisBlec yes, exactly. I get your point. But that’s what we do – and what almost no other organization has the courage to do!
As far as Rand, for a guy who writes a book called “government bullies” to turn around and act like what he’s railing against – is a serious problem….
@ChrisBlec @Michael Boldin @Babblefish I wonder if Rand is really “one of our own”. He actions have been so good in some areas but then he seems to negate what he did with other very odious actions. I’ve wondered about him for some time now.
@Michael Boldin @ChrisBlec I was just going back through the comments here and this this one stuck out to me. It reminded me of something I read a long time ago.
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
Frederic Bastiat- The Law
@Patrick Henry @Michael Boldin @ChrisBlec I totally agree, Patrick. However, if you actually want to see change occur, then you have to stop playing checkers and start playing chess.
@ChrisBlec @Michael Boldin Well it’s been so long since I’ve played either, I’m probably not any good at both of them. But I’m all in anyway. I started a Re-Founding Fathers society, I’m not getting very much participation at all. It’s kind of depressing actually. Freedom and Liberty take eternal vigilance. It’s hard work and although it sounds good to most people. Most of them are too busy doing other things. I’ve been guilty of it myself so I haven’t much room to gripe. But you’re right, if lovers of liberty don’t start getting engaged and getting some blood on their hands so to speak, we’re done!
Michael, great article! More people need to tell the frith and be constitutionally pure even in the face of a popular figure like Paul.
Keep up the great work!
@Jaked thank you.
No more foreign aid for these abusive and non loyal countrys,we dont need them and we better show them they are not going to get away with the abuse that they have been getting away with for way too long.Any politician who wants to risk prison time and impeachment for violating our wishes then he must pay!
@PatriotOne How about no more foreign aid for any country? Then you can give your money to whomever you want – not who the politicians and their corporate buddies want.
Thank you for pointing out this completely unconstitutional behavior. It is as if Rand wants to go in “stages” but that too is unconstitutional. Just end it.
@findingthetruth Thank you for your feedback!
Sadly, I’m not convinced that Rand even wants to “go in stages” – because he’s not saying that. He’s just saying that foreign aid goes to those countries who act a certain way. I’m personally not good with that.
If that’s his long-term goal – I wouldn’t support the stages choice, but understand that some people are afraid to push back head on.
I find it amazing that so many Ron Paul supporters love the man for being “Doctor No.” But then they start following his son who is sometimes a Doctor No, but lately he’s been a bit of a Doctor Yes. And people like Sally, Chris and another here are ok with this to the point of being upset that Michael called him out on it. Kinda blows my mind.
There is NO benefit in funding other nations’ governments, especially with money WE are borrowing to give them! We are deep enough in the hole, and can’t afford it; even if we WERE getting our money’s worth! But we’re NOT! When we aided the nations of western Europe after WWII we did gain something in trade partners and allies, and with Japan also. But many of the nations receiving our aid are using it ti arm themselves AGAINST us and killing our citizens; hardly fair value for our money! We need to just STOP it, all of it!
@NavyJR Absolutely!
@NavyJR We funded much of the Soviet Union’s involvement in WWII, a war which we were led into by FDR’s economic blockades of Japan, and his not releasing a known warning of the invasion when it was imminent. God bless those who fought, but we did not belong in that war, or any of the undeclared wars since. We must not keep funding both sides of civil wars around the world. Remember the phrase “… entangling alliances with none”.
@hawkeye1937 I’m very aware of that; and that the blockade of Japan was over THEIR invasion of China and southeast Asia, but it was more an embargo, than an actual blockade; had it been a true blockade the fleet couldn’t have slipped past it! I also know he didn’t warn of the imminent attack; but used it as the means to drag us fully into that war, AND the lib claims that “he didn’t know” about the imminence of that attack. {I purely HATE revisionists!} And I do recall the phrase ” entangling alliances with none” which was a great plan, but possibly somewhat unrealistic; in that it would enable, rather than hindering, playing both sides of any and every conflict, which makes enemies of both in the long run. On the other side, the failure to have Congress holding the designated powers, in BALANCE against the executive has caused all manner of havoc, and with SCOTUS on their side as well now, we’re in deep trouble!
@NavyJR @hawkeye1937 I fail to see why not funding either side, but minding our own business of defending this nation and preparing a solid defense against any doubtful attack, would make for 2 enemies. I am not an isolationist, but a non-interventionist favoring economic trade with all friendly and willing nations. I do NOT want to fund both sides of wars that are of no danger to America merely to keep our military/industrial/congressional complex wading in taxpayer dollars which could be used for much better purposes. One step, albeit a small one, would be to repeal the XVII Amendment, allowing the State Legislatures to again select our senators which go to Washington; we can better select and elect (or reject) state legislators who will do a better job, because they’re closer to the people of the State than the corporations that get involved when trying to convince and buy the votes of the ignorant. At least, the States will retain some of their power that has been usurped due to all of Congress being selected through popular (democratic/mob) voting. After all, it was the States that originally formed the national government, and ratified the Constitution (after the Bill of Rights was added).
@hawkeye1937 I agree with your sentiment about staying out of the middle, and about repealing the 17th Amendment too; that was a LIB move too! Sadly, I also see what was happening in the ’30s before WWII, when munitions and other manufacturers were selling to both sides to make a buck; until they got clamped down upon, late in the game, but it was too late, in fact; the damage was already done. The reality is that would, indeed has, happened again with foreign conflicts, even when we didn’t get involved miitarily, otherwise. In this instance, it’s one of the “down” sides of free enterprise.
@NavyJR I do not think that it was the downside of free enterprise, but a downside of the criminals’ use of the term to disguise their illegal actions that were actually treasonous! Like having ”…given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof [the United States].” Crimes are not valid in a lawful “free enterprise system”, and should be dealt with in the harshest way possible IMHO.
@hawkeye1937 The thing is, it’s NOT criminal, unless they sell to nations or groups declared hostile to America. That’s why I called it a “down side” to free enterprise… As happened in the ’30s, nations our munitions’ manufacturers had sold to for years suddenly got declared our enemies, where they hadn’t been before {Japan}, although Germany was supposed to not have been between the wars because of the Treaty of Versailles {1918}, and that was criminal. But later sales have been to places that aren’t listed as our enemies either, and therefore aren’t illegal, for all they have been found to be unwise, such as Afghanistan in the ’80s.
Not only cease foreign aid, but get us out of the UN and get the UN out of America.
Our Founding Forefathers did their best to give us a living, meaningful set of laws and rules to live by: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, one of which you use in your name! What you seem to want is for us to go back to a strict Constitutional version of the Federal Government, and I do concur. However, you forget that what it is, is NOT a true democracy, but a REPUBLIC, where we elect Presidents, Vice Presidents, Senators, and Representatives. These are supposed to act as our agents, our servants, performing day-to-day decisions and actions of which, WE, THE PEOPLE, be required to vote on EVERY one, would founder our government!
SO, you want to attack one of these elected people SPECIFICALLY for making those decisions……….his job. And, you call him a ‘government bully’, as well! Oh,,NICE! This is the problem we face today, fellow Americans. We have installed people in governmental positions who have NOT performed as we would wish. In American business practices, hired people who do not perform as expected are usually: fired, let go, canned, pink-slipped, cashiered, booted out, discontinued the association…….!
The same situation exists throughout our government: the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives! People we have installed there have NOT performed as expected, and need to be fired, let go, canned………you get the idea!
It seems there are a GREAT number of these poorly performing electees, as well as petty bureaucrats, now in government, yet, we seem loath to give them the boot! First, partly because they provide some of us with carrots, if we re-elect them, like performing ‘sheeple’! Partly, there are those who have a soft, gooey center, and go wishy-washy when presented with “politically-correct”-labeled issues, like voting for the SECOND black President! (Remember, CLINTON was declared the FIRST!) AND partly, some of us are so self-involved in our own lives, or so comfy-couch-bound, we could care less WHO is elected! The last group seldom even votes, although the first certainly does!
FINALLY, we have the ‘swing voters’. Our real problem is to convince THESE PEOPLE they do NOT need more: laws, rules, regulations, services, coddling, funds given to other countries in hopes these will ‘like’ us….. all of which require more TAXES! These are the people we need convince!
@mogul264 Much that I’d agree with you there on….
I thought Rand Paul was like his father RON but he is not – he’s now a “Team Player” he’s sold out to the establishment !
@WereAllScrewed Rand Paul is a Republican constitutionalist. Ron Paul is a Libertarian anarchist. I mean anarchist in the good sense of the word referring to those who believe people are basically good and can govern themselves without the need for government except perhaps at the local level.
By the way, I find it hard to excuse Ron Paul’s support of racist comments in his old newsletters.
I noticed quite a few comments from a new person here, Sally Oh, were deleted. Not sure why she decided to pull them all down, but thought I’d mention it.
You may be right. They call it politics and that is why there is so much “grey” in these areas. While the constitution is so CLEAR. And they ALL took an oath to defend and uphold it. If they are not going to do what they said they were going to do, why take the oath? And I think that point should be emphasized more often than it is. Just do what you said you were going to do when you took the oath.
@findingthetruth have you checked out our friends over at Oath Keepers?
@Michael Boldin
lol. i just did. And they ARE saying the same thing. I do my best to keep it simple. If it is complex it is smelly to me.
@findingthetruth But pettifoggers, oops, lawyers are paid by the hour and it would seem by the word. Do you want to deprive them of a living?
@Roberto Benitez @findingthetruth Most of them, “YES!” They are members of the BAR, and were given titles of nobility (Esquire) for a reason. Research the BAR, and I believe you will find its roots in the British monarchy, and even traced back to the Vatican. I prefer to place my trust in counselors should I need assistance in a valid People’s Court of Law.
@Roberto Benitez @findingthetruth Also, see this link for more detail, and do more “digging” as well. It makes for interesting reading:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris/hiding_behind_bar.html
@hawkeye1937 It’s something I’ve heard before and is useless except to those who want to lose their property or go to prison. The so-called people’s courts of law can’t enforce anything and should they try it would only get people killed.
The concept is right up there with those who don’t believe we should pay federal income taxes or that we went to the moon.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t change our laws to reflect your view, which I like, but until we do your only recourse if your refuse is to the gun.
@Roberto Benitez @findingthetruth You bet! Let them find gainful employment that doesn’t exploit others in a field more productive to life in general!
The Federal regime is the ultimate big shot billionaire criminal bully who spread their fiat cash, aka equivalent of a credit card, and extort money from people to pay off the interest on their credit card debt so their banker buddies will keep loaning them money to live their big shot lifestyle. There just aren’t enough people to extort in order to fund their insane spending habits so they used their connections down at the private Federal Reserve bank, also run by a criminal cartel. In exchange for currency they must utilize their enforcers to invade other nations on behalf of the banking cartel who wish to extort the entire world for money, and resources. It’s the greatest global criminal cartel ever seen!
While I still like Rand Paul, I think Michael is right here. As much as I liked his father, there are some things that he’s done that I disagree with. I’ve been following politics for a long time, so I’ve given up on finding my political soulmate. At the end of the day, these guys are still politicians running a scam on all of us. We’ve gotten way out of scale in this country. I think it’s time that we start rethinking this whole American union thing.
@Patrick Henry What we need to get back to is federal rather than Federal: abolish the CORPORATION that is Washington, DC, and restore the original Constitution, including the ORIGINAL and properly ratified 13th Amendment, which is NOT the one that most people think it is! Back to what our Founding Fathers so clearly set out for us; and politicians and other fools or greedy bullies have twisted so far out of shape that I know all those men would be LIVID if they showed up here today!
@NavyJR Absolutely, I say this all the time to people. They think I’m a libertarian. I say not really, I’m a little [r]epublican, most of those these days are big [R]epublicans. !’m a Jeffersonian, Mason or Patrick Henry style republican. We need to get back to original intent, but it’ll never happen with the current structure. It’s gotten too big and completely out of scale!
@Patrick Henry @NavyJR I agree with both of you, NavyJR & Patrick Henry; the “nobility” amendment should be returned to its rightful place, and the second 13th round filed; we already know that all men are created equal, and the issue should be considered resolved and immaterial now – although it continues to be a thorn in the side of freedom unfortunately.
@hawkeye1937 @NavyJR Maybe someone can refresh my memory. I remember in some of my studies about the 13th being improperly ratified but I can’t remember what the exact story behind it was.
@Patrick Henry @NavyJR This might help, it is the verification of the ratification of the first 13th Amendment, regarding nobility: http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/am13-pen.htm
@hawkeye1937 @NavyJR Thank you, I guess you learn something new every day. I always thought that the alien and sedition acts were a result of opposition to John Adams. And that resulted in the KY/VA resolutions.
@Patrick Henry Alas, I know, but I’d SURE like to TRY anyway! Wouldn’t you?
@hawkeye1937 @Patrick Henry That, and we need to go back to the stated intent of the 14th Amendment , which was to insure the children of slaves brought here against their wills were named and viewed as citizens; meaning it became essentially MOOT somewhere close around 1890! By then all the children being born WERE American Citizens
@Patrick Henry @hawkeye1937 That was the LIE that got the altered one that most know onto the slate and removed the real one which had been ratified before or about 1820, while the lie was added in 1870.
@Patrick Henry @hawkeye1937 KY/VA resolutions was what brought about the 10th Amendment!
@NavyJR Yes I would, but just think about it for a minute. It’s been so long since we’ve actually seen or heard a truly free man. We, ( at least I) don’t know what one looks or sounds like anymore. People don’t know what self governance actually is about. We’re told what kind of light bulbs we can have, what kind of toilets, etc…. Does that sound like freedom and liberty to anyone? I think not!
@NavyJR @Patrick Are you sure about that? The 10th Amendment was ratified on 12-15-1791, the KY/VA resolutions didn’t come about until 1798 and 1799.
@Patrick Henry @NavyJR I “cheat”. Patriot Post puts out a daily quote from one of the many men known as our Founding Fathers, and I read those. THEY were free men, so I have some notion… In any case, I’d SURE like to give it a whirl!
@Patrick Henry Not absolutely; but there is SOME connection between them. It’s been too long since I went over that part in particular.
@NavyJR There is a book out that discusses this called Rethinking The American Union by Professor Donald Livingston. I’m dying to get it and start reading. Do you have it by any chance?
@Patrick Henry No, hadn’t even heard of it, which is odd, since I subscribe to a number of sites that sell such books.
@NavyJR http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-American-Union-Twenty-First-Century/dp/1589809572/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=1APAN2J1657RL&coliid=I3N6JFN8YBT7AO
If you get it before me, give me a good synopsis on it, but don’t give it all away. This is supposed to be a masterpiece! Marshall De Rosa, Thomas Di Lorenzo contributed. I also heard that Dr. Kevin Gutzman wrote the foreward. These are some of the guys that I really admire within the REAL founders history movement.
@NavyJR @Patrick Henry For those who don’t know what the original 13th Amendment was, it stated, “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
The current 13th Amendment abolishing slavery would then have been the 14th Amendment. It reads, ”Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
End all foreign aid – and corporate subsidies while we are at it! Maybe the elections would not be bought for candidates nobody should support.
I think I’ve been misunderstood…sniff. I can’t find anyplace in the Constitution which authorizes the
politicians to give our tax dollars to other countries as bribes. Like most of you, I would like to see an end to foreign aid, entirely. The point isn’t that I “like” Rand Paul, so I will ignore tyranny. My point is this; if you lined up all the senators according to their adherence to the 10th Am., I’m pretty sure Harry Reed would be at one end and Rand Paul would be at the other. There is nothing wrong with voicing disagreement with him on any particular issue, but it should be a friendly disagreement among allies. If your tent is so small that there isn’t room for a Rand Paul, then you are just bloviating with zero chance of affectiveness.
On a side note, I just finished reading Ameritopia and I recommend it to lovers of Liberty, although I’m quite sure the author (Mark Stein) will not meet you exacting standards, Mr. Boldin. Kidding. I’m a kidder, I kid. ;0)
@Babblefish Not trying to nitpick here, but I believe that Ameritopia was written by Mark Levin not Mark Stein.
Doh! Patrick Henry is quite right! The author is Mark Levin, NOT Mark Stein. My bad! I just had a mind fart. Ameritopia is a brilliant introduction to the writings of John Locke and Montesquieu and the influence they had on the founders. The 9th and 10th Amendments are prominently featured.
So,Patrick, have you read it yet?
@Babblefish No, I have read Liberty and Tyranny, but not Ameritopia. I still listen to Levin, but I got a little upset with him during the primaries. I really didn’t like the way he disparaged Ron Paul. I didn’t agree with all of Congressman Paul’s positions, but I think he was about as close as you can get to a modern day T. Jefferson. He’s probably the last of a what I consider a true statesman that was left in the federal leviathan.
Michael Boldin, I agree that we should stop most foreign aid. However, a lot of foreign aid is the result of treaties. Please recall Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. That’s why treaties can be so dangerous. It can allow what’s not allowed in Article 1 Section 8 or in the Bill of Rights.
For example, consider the UN Treaty on Small Arms. If we were to sign and ratify it it would supersede the Second Amendment. Do you believe for a moment that Pbama and Sec. Clinton don’t know this?
Also, the Treaty of the Sea and the Kyoto Accords could be disastrous for the US if we adopt them. I’m sure you could bring up other dangerous proposed treaties.
By the way, how do you explain Jefferson’s and Madison’s use of foreign aid?
@Roberto Benitez I believe that “Treaties” repulsive to the Constitution are void ab initio, and those in Congress who ratify them, and any President who signs them should be brought to justice ASAP. We cannot abide by international “laws” or “treaties” that are opposed to our Supreme Law, Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding! The People created all 3 branches of our national government through the State Legislatures, and are therefore the final arbiters of constitutionality. I refuse to submit to UN “treaties” written by totalitarian dictators whose objective is to defeat us in any way possible. We need to rescind our involvement with, our membership in, and funding of the UN now.
@hawkeye1937 I wish you were right but I believe the CONSTITUTION is quite clear on the matter. We conservatives castigate the Left for taking an eisegesist view of the CONSTITUTION, yet we seem ready to do it ourselves at times.
Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the CONSTITUTION states unequivocally, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and ALL TREATIES made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the SUPREME LAW of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, ANY THING in the CONSTITUTION or laws of any State TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING.” (emphasis mine) If you believe in an exegetical interpretation of the CONSTITUTION, I can see no other meaning that if we sign a treaty that invalidates some portion of the CONSTITUTION then that portion becomes null and void as if it were an Amendment, but without the States approval, amending the CONSTITUTION.
So, even if the SCOTUS were to state a treaty was unconstitutional, such wouldn’t overrule the signature of a president with the ratification of the Senate. The people and the States have no say over treaties other than protesting to their senators or taking up arms.
Thus a number of States and constitutionalists are concerned enough that proposals have been made for an Amendment that would void any treaty that violated any part of the Constitution. I might add, it’s not just a problem with the UN. We could sign a treaty with other organizations or a single country that could be dangerous. So I believe such an Amendment has merit.
By the way, why do you think progressives during the time of Pres. Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson passed the 17th Amendment electing Senators by popular vote? It was another nail in the coffin of States Rights. It enabled the Federal government to appeal to the masses of a state and go over the head of State legislatures.
@Roberto Benitez @hawkeye1937 I agree fully with your last paragraph, and admit you have a valid point regarding Treaties. I believe, however, that the United States cannot make a Treaty that will submit the People to such a Treaty, or Treaties, that wound provide the States with anything but a “…Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;….” (Article IV, Section 4) – which incidentally precedes Article VI. To make any Treaty negating, or running counter to Article IV would, and I believe MUST, be considered an act of TREASON, and any elected officials who have done, or will do, so has to be arrested, tried, and if convicted be sentenced to the maximum sentence possible. See Article III, Section 3.
@hawkeye1937 The supremacy clause is absolute. There’s no wiggle room. Just because another section precedes it doesn’t invalidate it.
Should a treaty be signed and ratified stating that all signature countries must have a parliamentary democracy then that part providing for republican (small r) form of government would be negated.
The only recourse for the people then would be to revert to the Declaration of Independence, and that’s what it might well come to, particularly if Mr. Obama is reelected..
Also, please go back to Article 3 Section 3. It states, “TREASON against the United States, shall consist ONLY in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” (Again, emphasis mine) It’s very definitive. A treaty requiring the federal government to confiscate guns, which is what the UN Small Arms Treaty could do, would not fall under the definition, unfortunately.
Hence, we need an Amendment that would prevent a craven president and senate from committing such an atrocity against the people.
By the way, Jefferson wrote about nullification by States. It’s another concept for an Amendment we should consider.
@Roberto Benitez With all due respect, Roberto, an act (treaty, or otherwise) repugnant to the Preamble (reasons for creating the Constitution), other Articles thereof, a republican form of government, our God-given unalienable, inherent rights, are acts of treason against the people of America (the united States), because it is “adhering to their Enemies” to do so. Enemies can be defined as “a person desirous of doing injury to another.” See Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856) – Enemy definition 4. I consider any person who attempts to destroy our nation, any portion or Article of our Constitution, our unalienable, inherent rights, and/or our republican form of government such an enemy.
@Roberto Benitez @hawkeye1937 This is crrect, if not right; and one of the reasons we do need to go back and abolish several of the later Amendments , reverting to the original Constitution. It was written to protect us from ourselves, and human nature at it’s least wholesome!
@Roberto Benitez @hawkeye1937 That one already exists: it’s the !0th Amendment; AZ has been exercising FREELY the past few years, out of necessity, in view of the Suer-in-Chief… but so are a LOT of other states. Look at the top of this page, and go to their home page. fInd out what’s going on in your state and the nation. Cuccinelli’s Compass is another good site to see such activity, although it’s mostly related to VA.
@hawkeye1937 I agree with your sentiment, but that’s all it is, a sentiment with no basis in constitutional law. Either you take the constitution at its word or you don’t.
Not one of the Founders, particularly Jefferson or Madison, would agree with you. The nature of the Constitution can be changed thru the Amendment process so your statement, “I consider any person who attempts to destroy our nation, any portion or Article of our Constitution, our unalienable, inherent rights, and/or our republican form of government such an enemy,” is nothing more than your personal opinion. We’ve already seen the damage that can be done thru the 16th, 17th (which does injure the concept of a republican form or government), and 18th Amendments and perhaps the 26th. Just kidding about the last one.
Please go back and read your constitutional history. How did the Constitution come about? We already had one called the Articles of Confederation which allowed for constitutional conventions so the States did so to modify it. There was no intention to discard it. Nevertheless the States believed it was so flawed they threw it out and came up with the current Constitution, and even that has AMENDMENTS which have drastically changed Articles of the Constitution. Consider Amendments 20, 22, 23, and 25. All are good but they changed Articles significantly. So are you saying all Amendments after the first Ten Amendments were a matter of treason?
As I said, i agree with your sentiments and I’m being a little harsh so I apologize for the latter. What I’m trying to say is that treaties can be so dangerous to the very nature of our Constitution that we need an Amendment to prevent any treaty from overriding the provisions of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights.
For example, Muslim nations are pushing a treaty to outlaw criticism by citizens of nations from criticizing Islam. That’d negate much of the 1st Amendment if we signed AND ratified it. Personally I’d call for the impeachment of any president who would sign such a treaty or any Secretary of State who recommended it.
Why do you think Mr. Obama studied the Constitution? Do you think it was to faithfully execute it? My friend, Mr. Obama is a Fabian socialist who is trying to work around, obfuscate, and override the Constitution according to the Saul Alinsky and Cloward-Piven plans. We mustn’t allow him and the Socialist Democrats extinguish what’s left of a democratic Republic under the rule of constitutional law.
@NavyJR I dare say that none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are intact save the Third Amendment — so far.
Go to Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 4 and tell me why if says “Congress shall have the Power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization and Immigration…” Or does it?
Does naturalization and immigration mean the same thing? A previous SCOTUS thought so. I don’t and I don’t think you do either.
@Roberto Benitez I did not say it could not be changed by the amendment process, only that
“an act (treaty, or otherwise) repugnant to the Preamble (reasons for creating the Constitution), other Articles thereof, a republican form of government, our God-given unalienable, inherent rights, are acts of treason….” – and, “ I consider any person who attempts to destroy our nation, any portion or Article of our Constitution, our unalienable, inherent rights, and/or our republican form of government such an enemy.” Altering an Article to improve it, is not “destroying it” if properly done. I think we are in agreement here, but there may be some confusion as to how I/we have described our position(s). If I was too oblique, I apologize.
@Roberto Benitez Also, amendments to the Constitution can be dangerous, as can the “people who take the oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” it – which now seems to be the customary practice, not the exception – in all 3 branches of our government.
I agree that treaties can be dangerous, but if they attempt to do what I mentioned previously, then those who agree to them must be held accountable because they are consorting with the enemy. I still do not think an amendment is necessary. When they fail to follow the existing Constitution (with amendments), what would indicate that things would change by approving (ratifying) another? Just my “funny way of thinking”.
I agree with your last paragraph completely.
@Roberto Benitez Says “naturalization” only , nothing about immigration, and goes on to laws for bankruptcies.
As to immigration that’s the process of moving to a different nation, in accordance with the laws of the nation you’re leaving as well as the one you’re entering. Naturalization, on the other hand is the process by which you becomes a citizen of the nation to which you have immigrated, in accordance with whatever laws that nation has set for that process.
Our Constitution says that about naturalization because our Founding Fathers intended them to control that process with appropriate laws concerning how it was to be accomplished. I may be wrong but I believe the immigration laws came along a bit later, when the numbers of immigrants couldn’t be absorbed readily, by the extant population, and assimilated into the American culture. TR spoke on this issue about a century ago, saying that immigrants MUST assimilate, and so did our Founders before him, but in the earlier centuries the people coming were more self-sufficient, and able to be absorbed and assimilated much more easily than was possible as our nation became more settled and urbanized/industrialized.
@hawkeye1937 Like I said, i agree with your sentiments. The problem is, how doe we make them effective? That’s what I’ve been trying to get at.
Why have I gone about in the manner I did? My Bachelor’s Degree was in mathematics with a minor in history and economics. My graduate work is in political science.
Because of that I’ve studied the Constitution and the history that led to it. As I’m sure you know the Founders couldn’t anticipate all eventualities. However, Franklin wrote of his fear that what we’re seeing today, a people ignorant of the Constitution and its principles, corrupt and craven politicians, and people more concerned with security than liberty, would come. He was quite prophetic. The answer is eternal vigilance.
Believe it or not, and I’m sure you do, the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was a pretty raucous affair. Many issues remained unsettled. Perhaps the biggest was slavery and that led to the Civil War. Also debated but not settled was what is the definition of a Natural Born Citizen. Hence the crisis over Obama’s eligibility. Another one was what could the Sovereign States do if the Federal government ran roughshod over the Constitution and them. Jefferson favored nullification, and in an extreme case, secession. But the former was never codified in the Constitution and the Civil War answered the latter.
That’s why I see a great deal of danger in treaties, as important as they are, and why we need a mechanism to prevent the Constitution from being negated by one. The Preamble gives the raison d’être for the Constitution, but doesn’t act as an enforcement tool. That’s why liberals are wrong in trying to use the Establishment Clause, along with the Commerce, Necessary and proper, and Supremacy Clauses to push just about anything they want to for the “public good.”
You seem to see the principles in the Preamble as self evident. I agree with you. but all too many don’t and I simply don’t trust them. So we have to make sure they can’t resort to mischief.
In other words, the Constitution says what it means and means what it says and we should nail that down.
By the way, I do appreciate the discussion.
Thanks, Bob
@NavyJR You’re quite correct. I’m glad someone see the implication.
Naturalization only refers to the process in which an immigrant becomes a citizen. The Constitution gives the Federal government absolute authority in defining who qualifies to become a citizen and how they can go about it.
Nothing is said about immigration, the process where foreigners move into our country to live. People forget that in our early Republic that was the province of the States.
So why is it now considered exclusively a federal matter by the Federal government, other than as a matter of power? In 1976 the SCOTUS ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration in the case of Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88. They stated that just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.
Personally I believe that the 10th Amendment gives the power to the States as both Jefferson and Madison said the Federal government was limited to the ENUMERATED POWERS.
CONSIDER:
Thomas Jefferson - ”It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It [the Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”
James Madison – “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents… If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one… The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. … There are more
instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
Supreme Court – Abelman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1858), at 519 - The sovereignty to be created was to be limited in its powers of legislation, and if it passed a law not authorized by its enumerated powers, it was not to be regarded as the supreme law of the land, nor were the State judges bound to carry it into execution.
@Roberto Benitez I’m not precisely sure when they began controlling immigration; I know there were already quotas when I was a kid growing up just outside NYC in the late ’40s and early ’50s, and Ellis Island was there, {not operating any longer} but that was the entry point in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I also know Ike was the last of 4 Presidents to send millions of Illegals back where they came from in the early ’50s. I saw your credentials listed in an earlier post ; but you have the same fire and passion I’ve seen in 1st generation or MAYBE 2nd generation kids of immigrants from many other nations, something not so often seen in later generations’ kids, and I love to see that. Thanks for being a proud American!
Agreed. I almost didn’t buy the book because he had annoyed me so many times on his radio show, and I voted for Ron Paul when he ran as a Libertarian candidate for President (1986?)., so I have admired his ideas and his integrity for a long time. I think Rand Paul shares his views, but sees politics as “the art of the possible.” If we get a majority in the new Senate, Rand Paul will be even more of a force.
check this out. Very succinct.
http://www.thedailybell.com/4330/VIDEO-Anthony-Wile-on-RT-News-Arab-Winter
NAVY JR We have to get back to Principlle. Just doing what you took a OATH to do—–else just don’t take the oath to get a job. Character has to come back into “vogue”. In the end and beginning it is ALL that one has.
@findingthetruth Character…. wow! I didn’t know anyone else even remembered that word with respect to human behaviors! You’re right; we DO need character; morals and ethics, in a HUGE way; and sound belief in the oaths so many of us took!
@NavyJR @findingthetruth I thought the Democrats with Clinton said that character was unimportant. It seems with Obama it’s that past unsavory associations don’t matter.
Our founders understood from a Biblical point of view that men were corrupted, so they developed a system of checks and balances. That’s what we need to return to.
As Jefferson wrote, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
He also wrote “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
How do we do this? If need be, dust off the Declaration of Independence and take it to heart with a vengeance.
Remember, Justice Joseph Story, who was appointed to the SCOTUS by the Constitution’s principal author, James Madison, wrote, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
@Roberto Benitez @findingthetruth Well said, and correct. Of course character counts! Trouble is, it’s SADLY lacking in our modern society!
furthermore, do people not know that we are now “pre Magna Carta” in the US with detained detention and no due process as our constitution demands? PRE MAGNA CARTA” let that sink in.
@SallyOh Weird. Rand himself is actually talking about continuing the foreign aid, as I mentioned above. It’s his words, not mine. And yes, it’s my job to be pure. If you’re ok with rand not being pure that’s fine. But please don’t ignore facts.
@SallyOh no, I’m far from always right. that’s not the point! now if you think that constitutionally speaking it’s ok to bribe other countries with foreign aid dollars – your money – then make that argument.
You haven’t been. You’ve been complaining that Rand’s error shouldn’t be pointed out….
@Michael Boldin @SallyOh Good call Michael. People are just upset that you’re pointing out the hypocrisy of their favorite politicians. Obama supporters do that about his wars, and Romney supporters do it about, well, everything!
@SallyOh That’s the impression I got. My apologies if I misinterpreted. But when you say things like this, it comes across as – “don’t point out bad things Rand does!”
–”Like alienating Rand Paul is going to be good for your cause.”
In actuality, if calling Rand out for doing something wrong would alienate him from our work here it would have zero effect. The results we work for have nothing to do with federal politicians. We work with individuals like you – who want to stand up for liberty – whether the feds want us to or not.
@SallyOh So the question remains – when Rand does something wrong, are you thinking it should be ignored? Or, are you just not aware of the fact that of thousands of articles published on this website, this is the first one (that I’m aware of) that even discussed something about Rand?
Is 1 out of 5000+ too many? come on, you can’t be serious. That’s just silly.
@SallyOh or, are you just upset because you think his plan is “brilliant” and I think it’s a sham?
We don’t need to agree, but you’ve been little better than rude…
@Michael Boldin @SallyOh I think you’re on to something there, Michael. She’s irritated that you’re wasting time on this. Rather than respecting that it might be something important to you. That’s sounds pretty collectivist mindset to me!
@Michael Boldin @SallyOh corection. SHE thinks you’re wasting time. SHE thinks you shouldn’t be doing this. SHE likes what Rand is doing and seems mad that you don’t and wishes you wouldn’t spend time on it at all.
@SallyOh For someone who runs their own blogs, you come off as pretty much a jerk. You think that it’s nice to have that kind of attitude? I’m sick of people and their love of these political gods. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM LADY!
I happen to love what the TAC does and think Michael is a champion of our cause. Sometimes I think he comes off pretty agressive, and I don’t agree with his style. Other times, I think he works wonders where no one else wants to tread. This is one of those times.
Thanks Michael!
@LadyJane5 @SallyOh You think Michael is aggressive, LadyJane5? Just look at what the Founding Fathers did.