An important decision faces We the People.

Will we continue to stand as a nation built on principle? Or will we float aimlessly in a sea of pragmatism?

The founders of this great Republic built it upon specific principles, with individual liberty as the bedrock. From their experience, they understood and feared concentrated government power.

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

So, they formed the Republic built on principles designed to protect individual liberty and private property – a system intended to strictly limit federal power. Thus, the Constitution separates powers, seeking to ensure no one person or branch holds too much sway. And it enumerates the specific powers of the federal government, leaving all other power to the states and the people. The Tenth Amendment reaffirms the intent of the framers.

But many today are more than willing to abandon these bedrock principles for the allure of pragmatism.

A conversation on recent comments by Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Louisville) regarding the scope of federal power allowed by the commerce clause reveals the temptation to abandon principles in search of easy solutions to daunting problems.

Initially, the individual I was talking to defended the government’s constitutional authority to mandate citizens buy insurance. But as I explained the framer’s intent and pointed him to clear proof articulated in their writings, he quickly realized he was losing ground on that line of argument. So he fell back to his default position, which went something like this: our health care system is a mess and we must fix it, therefore we should be willing to stretch the Constitution to accommodate these important fixes for the good of the people.

Pragmatism over principle.

I can’t argue that the U.S. health care system doesn’t have problems. But I will argue to my grave that the federal government is not the place to address those problems. It’s a matter rightly left for each individual state to address as it sees fit.

Progressives like Yarmuth and my friend see only the possible good in expansive federal government. They see solutions to problems. They see the U.S. becoming a better place. They see people getting help they need. But they fail to anticipate the great danger inherent in allowing federal power to expand beyond its intended scope.

“Because people will be required to carry minimal health insurance, the government is going to do all kinds of horrible things? I don’t agree and I don’t see it that way,” my friend said.

But those who framed the Constitution DID see it that way, and they created a system to keep government’s tendency toward tyranny in check. Gerald Ford eloquently articulated the danger nearly 200 years later.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Once we allow government expanded powers, reasoning that we do it for the common good, how do we stop it when someone decides to use that power for nefarious purposes? Because when we leave the barn door open for the horses, the pigs will surely follow.

How can we argue that the elasticity of the Constitution allows for an expanded understanding of the commerce clause, giving the feds virtually unlimited power, but then stand on the Constitution to protect an absolute right, such as free speech, the freedom to worship or the right to marry whomever we choose?

In short, we cannot.

For a Constitution that doesn’t mean what it says means nothing at all.

Why have I decided to invite a state Senator from New Jersey to debate with New York Times best selling author, Thomas E.Woods Jr. on my blogtalkradio show?

Recently I wrote an article which defended states that want to legalize medical marijuana in defiance of unconstitutional federal drug laws. I pointed out the inconsistency of those (mostly Republicans), who denounce what has come to be called “Obamacare” on constitutional grounds, but who also defend the equally unconstitutional “War on Drugs” being carried out by our central government.

When Assemblywoman Alison Littell-McHose along with state Senator Doherty asserted that New Jersey has the authority to nullify “Obamacare” within its borders recently, state Senator Jim Whelan promptly demonstrated that neither of the two major parties has a monopoly on hypocrisy! In a recent statement, Sen. Doherty wrote, “This amendment, if ratified by the voters of this state, will nullify any law that mandates health coverage within New Jersey’s borders…”

Tom Wood's New Book! "Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century"

What did Sen. Whelan have to say about the use of the word “nullify”?  He said, ”While we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own history…”. Senator Whelan then took it upon himself to give Assemblywoman Alison Littell-McHose a lecture about how federal law always trumps state law and how nullification is a dead issue that has already been decided. Andrew Jackson was the “decider” in that conflict, just in case you were wondering. Sen. Whelan used an extremely condescending tone, I might add. You can hear it yourself at about the 3:04:50 mark here.

What we should all find more than a little ironic is the fact that Senator Whelan sponsored New Jersey senate bill-119, entitled the “New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act”. This act militates against the very doctrine of federal judicial supremacy that Sen. Whelan invoked to supposedly refute Sen. Doherty and Asw. Littell-McHose!

Of course, Sen. Whelan claimed that he is perfectly consistent because the Obama administration has assured us that they won’t enforce the federal laws when it comes to medical marijuana. I guess Sen. Whelan still hasn’t heard the news: the DEA didn’t get the memo. Jeffrey Sweetin, the special agent in charge of the DEA’s Denver office, declared: “It’s still a violation of federal law. It’s not medicine. We’re still going to continue to investigate and arrest people.”

Even if Obama’s promise had not gone up in smoke, however, I fail to see how it would make Sen. Whelan’s pet medical marijuana law conform to what he is pleased to call federal law, which he claims always trumps state law. In fact, coming from a guy who said, “The state doesn’t get to pick and choose which federal laws they’ll follow.”, frankly I’m shocked! I guess he just figures that if Obama unilaterally says it’s not going to be enforced, it’s not a federal law anymore.

I’m not saying that the federal drug laws in question are legitimate, since the Constitution doesn’t grant Congress the authority to pass laws concerning  production, distribution and use of plants or other substances that takes place completely within a state’s borders. I’m just trying to decipher Sen. Whelan’s logic.

The only way I can think to explain Sen. Whelan’s seemingly contradictory positions on medical marijuana and “Obamacare”, is to assume that he is putting either his party or his preferences, or both, above principle. If he would like to come on my internet radio show as a quest and explain it himself, however, I would be grateful.  If he were to accept my invitation, it would also be helpful if he could explain how Thomas Jefferson came back from the dead and led the nullification movement in the 1830’s against John Adams. I urge you to read the statement he issued below, as well as the response that was given by NJ Republicans. Sen. Whelan wrote:

Assemblywoman Alison Littell-McHose along with Sen. Doherty are attempting to “nullify” the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” citing the actions of Virginia and Kentucky, led by Jefferson and Madison, in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Act in the 1830s.

Now, while we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own history. The historical fact is that the Alien and Sedition Act was a blight on our history and on President John Adam’s otherwise stellar record of contributions to our country. In part, because of the bad law, Adams was a one term president and the Alien and Sedition Act was repealed by the Federal Congress, not nullified by individual states. You see, then as now, we have elections; that’s how we decide things.

Further, the nullification crises of the 1830s was resolved when President Andrew Jackson threatened to send troops into South Carolina. When South Carolina relented, the principle that the Federal law was supreme was even more firmly established.

Of course, the greatest crisis of whether we are a nation of the people, as our Constitution’s preamble states (“We the people”) or a collection of individual free states was the Civil War. The secessionists, state’s rights nullifiers lost. The United States of America won. We are one nation, indivisible, governed by the laws our Congress and President enact.

Here’s the Republican response:

Memo to Senator Whelan:
Earlier today nullification movement leader (at least when it comes to pot smoking) Senator James Whelan sent out an email attempting to again attack Senator Mike Doherty and Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose by using a distorted reading of history.
In his memo, Whelan claims that Thomas Jefferson “led” the nullification movement in the 1830’s against John Adams. That would have been a neat trick. In fact, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both died on July 4, 1826.
And once again, Senator Whelan attempts to link the nullification movement with the Confederacy. Even a casual reading of the history of the 19th century would reveal that his party, the Democrat Party, was the political face of the institution of slavery. On the other hand, the anti-slavery Republican Party was formed in response to laws like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and their earnest attempt to nullify federal law that mandated that slaves who escaped to freedom be returned to their captors.
Instead of lecturing the party of Lincoln, Senator Whelan should focus on cleansing his own party’s use of slave-holding Democrat Presidents in their party fundraisers. In April, the Democrat State Committee held a Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in honor of those two slave-owning Democrat Presidents. When one considers how those men treated their captives, particularly the women they held against their will, we would hope that Senator Whelan would reconsider the use of their names in the future.
Unless he wants to nullify history as well. Seems the Democrat party in NJ isn’t good at much, but they are terrific on revisionist history.
ALSO: Assemblyman Mick Carroll of Morris County pointed out to me that Whelan also got the role of nullification in the Cival War era backwards in that rant. “It was the North, not the South, which was interested in nullification just before the war, specifically with regard to the fugitive slave law,” said Carroll.
Quite right. It was the federal government that insisted free states had to return escaped slaves to their owners. Northern states fought against this law, apparently without Whelan’s approval. If you take him at his word, the feds had every right to force slaves to return to their owners.
I’m sure he didn’t mean that. But the fact is the Civil War did not put an end to nullification, as he argues. It put an end to the federal government’s endorsement of it.

The Original Constitution

I have come to realize lately that the Republican party was, in truth, forged by many who favored nullification and states’ rights. This is not how nullification is usually characterized, however. We are often reminded by people like Sen. Whelan about the supposed failure of nullification when employed by slave states in the 1830′s, but we hear almost nothing about the success of nullification when used by northern abolitionists and Republicans in the years leading up to the War Between the States. This is something all Republicans should be aware of.

However, since Sen. Whelan is a  member of the other major party and apparently claims that the federal government  is the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, I urge him to listen to the father of his party and respect his words. As Carl Schurz (who later became a US Senator), said in a speech he gave in 1859:

The Legislature of Kentucky, on the 10th of November, 1799, adopted resolutions equally strong, clear and unmistakable. They were written by the same hand that wrote the Declaration of Independence, and I request all those who call Thomas Jefferson the father of their party, to respect his words. In those resolutions, the Legislature of Kentucky declares: “That the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress.” — Thus spoke Thomas Jefferson.

I think I’ll side with Thomas Jefferson and Sen. Carl Schurz, rather than Sen. Whelan, on this one.

Let’s hope that both Sen. Whelan and Tom Woods will agree to be guests on my show for an informal debate sometime in the near future. I promise to be completely civil and to give them equal time to make their points, which is more than you can expect from most mainstream media radio programs these days!

You heard it right. It’s bad enough Congress is chock-full of RINO’s. We now have to be on guard against the new Stealth RINO’s

Like many reading this article, I have been through degrees of political stages in my life. While our experiences may vary as to specifics, I’ll lay my cards on the table. I went from straight-ticket Republican in the 1980’s, to a doubter of the GOP (but still mostly faithful) in the 1990’s, to disillusioned about 4-5 years ago, to reluctantly thinking of giving some, but not all, of them a 2nd chance in the 2008 election, to coming to conclude, as of now, “They all suck so bad, I don’t know why I even bother to care about politics and government anymore.”

We voters have been suckers for too long. Federal politicians of today are, for the most part, intelligent, but disingenuous. They are great at dishing out rhetoric and spin, and they are most acutely skilled at avoiding substance as much as possible. It is marketing over substance.

Doesn’t this sound like what RINO’s do? Yep! That’s how the acronym was devised. But beware, you Republicans out there. And for you who try to publicly proclaim your new “Independence” but know damn-well you’ll be voting Republican all the way, beware to you, as well.

There is a new breed of RINO called the “Stealth RINO” (I coined that phrase). These squirrely Republicans who have mutilated the Constitution, wrecked the government, wrecked the middle-class and who have run up deficits are pulling a new marketing trick out of their bags. It’s a little, dark vial just to the “right” of their snake oil. Get a load of this….

These clowns are calling other Republicans “RINO’s” just to garner points. It’s a great gimmick. After all, anyone who is a Republican and calls out another Republican as a traitor has to be the “real McCoy” – or so they want us to believe.

After reviewing a recent article by Gary Wood, I saw this and realized it for the first time. I knew these “real” conservatives were full of hot air, but I finally got my proof.

The article quoted a Wall Street Journal article and was about Senator Jim DeMint and the rift he is supposedly creating in the Republican Party. This is from the article:

Sen. DeMint is not endearing himself to the leadership of the RNC. What is he doing while Cornyn is trying to get more gang members to help with the rumbles planned in 2011? “I’m at the point where it doesn’t matter if we win if we don’t believe in anything,” he told The Wall Street Journal. “There’s no need to nursemaid somebody to the general election if they’re just going to come up here and vote like the Democrats do.”
….

DeMint is apparently attempting to revive an old position of statesmanship, people who believe in something like our Constitution, an Oath of Office, federalism, and people

After reading Gary’s article, I decided I’d test DeMint against this claimed position. What I found is that DeMint fails.

Before I show why, I want to expressly make it clear that this is not intended to be a slam on Gary Wood. He has devoted much effort to our Tenther Movement, and much gratitude is owed for that. What I am suggesting is that, in this case, DeMint was mischaracterized because it is easy to let pass spin and rhetoric. Quite honestly, if I wasn’t piddling around and hadn’t decided to check, the odds would have been 10-1 that this would have gotten past me, too. I really knew very little about DeMint and still do know very little, except what’s below.

In any event, we all know, as Tenthers, that the federal government has no business entangling itself in issues over abortion, drug laws, education, employment, etc. ad nauseum. The TAC slogan I hear so often is that we expect our politicians, state and federal, to vote “in favor of the Constitution of the United States. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.”

So, let’s test DeMint on his conduct and positions as one of our federal Senators.

On abortion/reproduction:

• Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
• Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
• Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
• Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
• Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
• Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
• Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

Source

On education:

• Voted YES on 03/11/1999 Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999
• Voted YES on 07/20/1999 Teacher Empowerment Act
• Voted YES on 10/21/1999 Academic Achievement for All Act
• Voted YES on 12/13/2001 No Child Left Behind Act
• Voted YES on 07/27/2002 Andean Trade Preference Act Extension [yes, there is education money in there.]
• Voted YES on 04/30/2003 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
• and many others.

Source

On drug policies:
His responses to Project VoteSmart’s survey on the issue:

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding drugs.

X a) Support mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs.
b) Expand federally sponsored drug education and drug treatment programs.
c) Decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
d) Allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients for medicinal purposes.
X e) Increase border security to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.
f) Eliminate federal funding for programs associated with the “war on drugs.”
g) Other or expanded principles

Source

• Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
• Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)

Source

On employment:

• Voted YES on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on limiting farm subsidies to people earning under $750,000. (Dec 2007)
• Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)

Source

So, there’s a glimpse into a self-proclaimed, self-promoting “real” conservative. If DeMint is a true conservative, then true conservatives don’t much care to operate the federal government within its Constitutional confines.

Ok. Alright. DeMint’s been exposed. So, now that he’s a man’s man among conservatives, we have to ask ourselves who we are. Are we Tenthers? Or are we Tenthers in Name Only (TINO’s)?

The moral here is that there are hazards everywhere out there. If you want to be a Tenther, you have to start taking it seriously. Don’t get caught up in spin and labels. Do the research. If you want to go by party labels, rhetoric and spin, don’t call yourself a Tenther. Join CPAC, or something else, instead. If you have time to read this blog, you have time to do simple Google searches to look up candidates and find their histories. It’s the only way to win this war. It’s either that, or continue to get suckered again, again and again.

Look. There are lots of us in this Tenther Movement who align with Republicans, whether they like to admit it or not. “Republican” has become a dirty word to some, and so they now tend to say they are “Conservative,” but rest assured, you who call yourselves “Conservative” are not going to be voting Democrat. Right?

What we need to do is watch each other’s backs as members of the Tenther Movement. Realistically, very few will vote Democrat, so, the real gain is not in exposing Democrats, but exposing Republicans who are thought to take the Constitution seriously, but who do not. All of us need to expose these people, rather than be quick to endorse them because they give a good speech and fill it with “tough guy, conservative” rhetoric.

As to DeMint’s big talk and posturing as a true conservative, rhetoric doesn’t cut it. He can talk the talk by calling out some of his comrades as RINO’s, but he doesn’t walk the walk. As we say in Texas, he is all hat and no cattle. People like DeMint are so “all over the place,” the only conclusion which a person can reach about his positions/record is he doesn’t even let the Constitution factor into his agenda.

Nice try, DeMint. But we Tenthers aren’t suckers, and we’ve got each other’s backs. You might spout off a fantastic rhetoric about fiscal conservatism, and you might even be a fair amount more fiscally-conservative than some of the others, but you are FAR, FAR away from our standards.

You might want to learn more about us, because, the way things are going at the national level, it will be our way, or you and your ilk are going to be hitting the highway.

Jeff Matthews [send him email] is a practicing attorney in Houston. He graduated from the University of Texas, School of Law in 1993 and was licensed that year.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit to the author and this website is given.

Absolute governments (though the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.
–Thomas Paine, “Common Sense,” 1776

Think about each of the observations Paine makes in the quote above. They could not describe our current state of socio-political existence any better. We have come full-swing and have arrived back to the days preceding our point of origin. Which way forward?

It is time to stop thinking about politics and start thinking about society. Scholars, such as Paine, did not have Fox, CNN and MSNBC in their days. They bickered just the same, but many actually studied and contemplated society and its interaction vis-à-vis politics. Their thoughts ran deep; they were not distracted by mainstream quarrels of the day. Let’s take Paine’s statement above and break it down.

“Absolute governments (though the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs….”

Here, Paine is saying that if a society is ruled by a dictator, people would have the benefit of being able to immediately know the source from which their oppression emanates.

“….know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures.”

Confronted by a dictator and knowing the source of their suffering, there is but one remedy – to overthrow the dictator.

“But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies….”

This statement recognizes a pitfall when authority is dispersed among many, and despite such “balance” of power, the people feel oppressed. It slows the pursuit of social justice. People lose track of where to place blame, and losing their senses of direction, argue among one-another as to how to set the stage for a more general sense of common prosperity and tranquility.

“…. some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.”

Witness the Republicans vs. the Democrats; the liberals vs. the conservatives; FOX vs. MSNBC; and the independents who are lost in the melee.

The state of politics in America is little different than that which the early Americans experienced in their time. The system is so ill-defined, chaotic and confusing. The smell of corruption is behind almost every politician’s door.

We argue and squabble and blame. Politics is in its prime. Democrats and Republicans, conservatives, liberals and independents…. We’re all missing the boat. There is a big picture here. We are all the same. We are not the elites; we are the working class. We have, in essence, the same needs. Why do we argue with one another?

It’s time to return to the pursuit of Enlightenment. We need to make amends, cross political lines, and begin having a meaningful discourse on a socio-political solution. Political labels are destructive.

Are we really “conservatives” or “liberals?” It is time to think about what these words actually mean and not what Hannity and Olbermann tell us they mean.

One thing is for sure. We are the working class; corruption abounds, and we (the middle class) are not doing the corrupting. We are on the same side. We just need to recognize it and find ways to unite. We might find that none of us need to cross to the other side of the line. There might not be a line at all.

Stay tuned….

Jeff Matthews [send him email] is an attorney living in Houston, Texas. His current projects include the website SovereignStates, and the forthcoming organization, The National Taxpayer Takeover.

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit to the author and this website is given.

Many of us are in consensus, even if we fly the different flags of Tea Parties, Tenthers, GOOOH, and so on. And by the looks of things, many Democrats have also just about “had it” after getting a war-mongering, lobbyist-filled, corporatist, secretive, and spying administration after not even the first full year of office. We need to reverse course to avoid an iceberg that will sink us all.

Secession? Not in the near horizon. Revolution? Nope. These are remedies that are always available to mankind. As much as the legal scholars and elites want to craft “rules” to retain the status quo, natural law dictates that the order of mankind transcends fascism, tyranny and corruption. It always has, and it always will. But these remedies will not be exercised in the next coming months.

Instead, we need to look to the 2010 elections. Within months, we will be in the thick of the political process once again. We are all-too-familiar with what we do not like in the system, and as we all know, the rhetoric will be spattered and bandied about as usual. Does anyone need a crystal ball to predict what will be said? “No lobbyists will influence me. I am for the people. I am for small government. I will vote to eliminate the debt.” Really?

Has any politician ever stood up and said, “I am beholden to corporations and lobbyists. I like power and want to expand my control. I need your money to do it, and if you will not give it to me, I’ll support Ben Bernanke and the Fed’s cranking up the printing press and running your kids and grandkids further into debt.” Of course, not. But that’s what they invariably do, despite what they say.

So, we need to be mindful and exercise a sharp, collective wit about us. We need to spot shallow rhetoric as soon as our candidates spew it, and when they do, we need to call them out for it. Who knows? Maybe a new website is in order: 2010rhetoric.com.

I think (and I hope you do, too) that we should DEMAND our candidates to tell us where they stand. They should tell us, in no uncertain terms, the answer to the following questions:

Name, in order, the top 10 federal programs that you believe are beyond federal authority under the Constitution; whether you would vote to dissolve them; the fiscal impact dissolution would have on the federal budget; and how long, in your opinion, should it take to dissolve them.

Should the federal budget be reduced, and if so, by what percentage do you propose? In terms of percentages (e.g. -5%, +10%), what is the highest change in the federal budget you would accept before committing, by your answer here, to vote against said budget?

If these candidates cannot or will not identify specific institutions and commit to answer the budget question, then, we know they are not for us, pure and simple. If they answer, then, we have a way to track promises and progress. If the candidate is elected, did he/she vote to fund the program, and if so, how much? Did the candidate make any effort to dissolve the program? Did the candidate match his/her actions with his/her budgetary constraint views and commitment?

As this movement continues, I realize this article’s specific suggestion will have since been forgotten. Reality dictates the process will not be carried out they way “Jeff” wants it. That’s okay, though, because that is not the purpose of this article.

The purpose of this article is to heighten awareness that we are setting the stage to be played and suckered with spineless rhetoric, once again. We need to be ready for that. We need to call candidates on the floor for it, and we need to let them know those days are over. A new discourse needs to occur.

This time, we need to set the stage right, and we need to demand specific answers to specific questions. “I’m not a lawyer,” “Let me get back to you,” and changing the subject will not cut it this time around.

Let’s make this the overall tone, and let’s make the message loud and clear. We must refuse to vote for “personalities,” parties and rhetoric. If we do not and we go back to old ways of voting, we will accomplish nothing and will have wasted immeasurable amounts of our precious time, energy, and the constructive end to our collective frustration.

Commit and stand firm to your principles and your demands.

Jeff Matthews [send him email] is an attorney living in Houston, Texas. His current projects include the website SovereignStates, and the forthcoming organization, The National Taxpayer Takeover.

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit to the author and this website is given.

Human nature and history teach us that political labels are used to influence society to accomplish a certain political end. Many times, words used to describe original principles are somehow conquered or hijacked and then proclaimed to be a part of those original principles, but are realistically far from them. As I was growing up, I remember thinking this: “‘liberal’ equals bad and ‘conservative’ equals good.” “Conservative” was proposed to be a word purely describing the principles believed and proclaimed by America’s founding fathers. “Liberal” was proposed to describe those whose only goal was to bring Americans under the control and dominion of the federal government. As it turns out, these words and descriptions were not only misleading and narrow-minded in their application, but they were also incorrect in their origin. Today, neither “conservative” nor “liberal” accurately describe the philosophy and principles they purport to advocate. Consequently, freedom suffers because of America’s ignorance of and infatuation with these labels, contrary to George Washington’s warning of this very tragedy.

The United States were born and raised on the principles of a constitutionally limited government, (state) powers checking (federal) powers, federalism, natural rights, natural laws of God, individual liberty, self-government, consent of the governed, state and individual sovereignty, and meaningful checks and balances, just to name a few. With these ideas, America threw off the enslaving chains of Great Britain’s national and centralized government control in the individual, familial, commercial and religious affairs of the people, to the point that most of our constitution’s framers and ratifiers believed that the government which governs least, governs best. So, were these principles advocated by conservatives or liberals from 1776 to 1787? Perhaps those who call themselves conservatives today should understand the original application of that word before being proud of it. Same goes for liberals.

Conservatives in the 1700 and 1800’s preferred government controls, privileges, monopolies, cartels and subsidies in the areas in which the revolutionary Americans believed government had no business whatsoever. Conservatives were those who wanted America to be the “British system without Great Britain.” (Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty: Libertarian Manifesto, 2nd Ed. [Auburn, AL, Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2006], 8. These conservatives unsuccessfully attempted to interject their ideas for a centralized/national and monarchical government at the Constitutional Convention debates in 1787. These conservatives attempted to annihilate the existence, sovereignty and power of the states in the union. (Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Ed. Henry Cabot Lodge, vol. 1, [New York, NY, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904], 397-398, 400: “We must establish a general and national government, completely sovereign, and annihilate the State distinctions and State operations; and, unless we do this, no good purpose can be answered…I believe the British government forms the best model.”) These conservatives possessed Old World ideas completely contrary to the foundations of American Revolution during the 1700 and early 1800s. For this, the Federalist Party died (another example of a deceptive use of a word: in this case, “Federalist”). However, their kind, agenda and philosophy did not die, but still thrives today under different labels, even under the label, “conservative”.

Conversely, liberals of the 1700 and 1800s were those who believed that government was to leave individuals, families, commerce and religion alone; that the freedom of the people to produce and prosper was more important than government sustainability and energy; and that the natural rights of man were to be protected, preferred and secured at the cost of government power and control. It was this freedom movement that led us from victory during the American Revolution in the 1700s to the Industrial revolution in the 1800s. Classic liberal leaders like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and John Randolph fought vigorously to keep Old World conservatives like John Adams, Henry Clay, and Alexander Hamilton from creating in America through subversive constitutional (de)construction what they could not accomplish through transparent constitutional debates and ratification in 1787. From Jefferson’s Presidential election in 1801 to James Buchanan’s election in 1857, classic liberal concepts, such as laissez-faire, individual and natural rights, state sovereignty and limited and divided government, prevailed in public opinion, believing that “the ideal government…is one which barely escapes being no government at all.” (Henry Louis Mencken, Prejudices: Third Series, [New York, NY, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1922], 292.)

Over time, the labels, “conservative” and “liberal”, changed meaning and application. You hear the word “liberal” today, and every notion contrary to classic liberalism comes to mind. Liberalism’s ideals of freedom were distorted, through the government-controlled education systems, into socialistic and fascist forms and masquerades, where “individual rights” are obtained through government force, control and regulation. Through duplicity and deceit, classic liberalism was replaced with social liberalism, whereby the “[government] must regulate industry for the public good; substitute organized cooperation for the dog-eat-dog of the free and competitive marketplace; and above all, substitute for the nation-destroying liberal tenets of peace and free trade the nation-glorifying measures of war, protectionism, empire and military prowess.” Rothbard, For A New Liberty, 12.

Admittedly, conservatives today attempt to present themselves in a form similar with classic liberals of the 1700 and 1800s, but their substance is far removed from those ideals. Consider this: since Abraham Lincoln, more supposed conservative presidents have been elected than any other political or philosophical category; and yet, since Lincoln, the power of the federal government has become exponentially more centralized and powerful. Like social liberals, these conservatives claim to advocate freedom for society (and even the world!), only this freedom comes by government centralization, control, war and force. Consider the following few historical illustrations.

Abraham Lincoln engaged in what became America’s most horrific war–against our own people, no less! And for what purpose? Most Americans have been taught Lincoln “had to, to save the union”? The truth is, Lincoln destroyed the union, by destroying the principles that formed the union. In Lincoln’s own words, the Civil War was to reform (replace) the original nature and character of the union from a federation of states to a nation of people, despite our original formation under the constitution. Lincoln says, “[T]he awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of national reformation as a whole People[.]” (Abraham Lincoln, The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union, [Washington D.C., Government Printing Office, 1899], 106). Lincoln knew that for the ratified federal union to become a national system (which was rejected by the people and founders), the nature and character of the union must be reformed. For this cause, Lincoln waged war against the Confederate States of America, creating substantially the same national system of government that the colonies seceded from in 1776 and the states rejected in 1787. This is “saving the union”!? This is “American”!? This is “freedom”!?

Shortly after the Lincoln administration, President William McKinley led a war against Spain in 1898, eventually giving the United States empirical control of former Spanish colonies, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. What was the driving force behind this “conservative” President?–well, in his own words, to commercialize and imperialize the Spanish territory. McKinley says, “I don’t know how it was, but it came [to me]: (1) that we could not give them [the islands] back to Spain…(2) that we could not turn over to France or Germany – our commercial rivals in the Orient – that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves – they were unfit for self-government – and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them…I told [the War Department] to put the Philippines on the map of the United States…and there they are and there they will stay while I am President!” If there is anything contrary to the American ideal of justice, it is empire-building, colonizing, foreign entanglements, and unjust wars. Yet, many conservative presidents have towed that line.

Even modern conservatives’ model president, Ronald Reagan, adopted the imperialistic approach to the United States’ involvement in foreign affairs–a notion completely contrary to the laws of nations as expressed by our founders. Reagan describes the United States role as peace-giver to the world! He says,

“Our dream, our challenge, and yes, our mission, is to make the golden age of peace, prosperity, and brotherhood a living reality in all countries of the Middle East. Let us remember that whether we be Christians or Jew or Moslem, we are all children of Abraham, we are all children of the same God… If you take away the belief in a greater future, you cannot explain America – that we’re a people who believed we were chosen by God to create a greater world.” (John W. Robbins, Freedom and Capitalism, [Unicoi, TN, The Trinity Foundation, 2006], 123).

To these past conservative presidents, America has to force others to accept (their version of) peace, way of life and government. To do this, of course, America must entangle itself in the affairs of foreign sovereign nations and force the states in the union to participate in unconstitutional acts. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington despised and warned us about these very dangers: empire-building, military-industrial union, corporate statism, and foreign entanglement. Yet, somehow, many conservatives and liberals in America erroneously believe this philosophy to be what our forefathers accepted in principle.

The immeasurable expansion, size and control of the federal government includes both foreign affairs and domestic society–at the hands of both conservative and liberal. Of course, we know that politicians can advocate for good causes, but these causes have been the distraction to the more important and fundamental matters of freedom. What good is it for those on a train heading over a cliff to enjoy the ride before falling? Do you want someone advocating that you have tastier food, more comfortable seats, and a better view on the train or do you want someone trying to stop and reverse the train before falling? Evidently, conservatives and liberals in America have not protected, preserved and defended the American ideals adopted by the people of the states from 1776 to 1787. How do we know? Well, they have had a DU-nopoly in America for the past 150 years. Yet , here we are!

A country does not go from good to bad over night. It takes decades. A country does not go from libertarian to fascist, communist or socialist in a matter of months. It takes generations. You think Obama has caused all of our problems? How ludicrous! By chance, to those who now criticize Obama’s enormous federal spending, did you criticize G.W. Bush for his 4 Trillion dollar debt increase, setting a federal spending record at that time? Wake up! Slavery is accomplished by the gradual sink method, not by the mere election of a democrat or republican president. And if these presidents in fact make this determination, then we no longer live in a confederate republic, but a despotic monarchy; and this whole system is just a matrix of lies and deceit to make the people think they have anything whatsoever to do with the outcome of political, social and individual freedom.

Could I agree with certain ideas advocated by conservatives and liberals? Certainly. Even a blind squirrel will find a nut every so often, and talk is cheap. You cannot dump every American into the red-blue, republican-democrat, conservative-liberal pigeon holes–despite the politicians’ and media’s attempt to do so (because it gives them monopolistic control over all public debate and perception).

However, conservatism and liberalism today are missing the ultimate goal for which our forefathers fought and died, and serve only to place those in power who perpetuate the very form and substance of government that continues to deny us our contractual and natural rights derived from God and secured by our Constitution. If that is what being a conservative and liberal is, I do not classify myself as either. Rather, call me a Freedomist! If you agree, join me!

Tim Baldwin is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America’s foremost defenders of State sovereignty. See his website.

Copyright ©Timothy Baldwin 2009

From a speech before the US House of Representatives  September 7, 2006

Politicians throughout history have tried to solve every problem conceivable to man, always failing to recognize that many of the problems we face result from previous so-called political solutions. Government cannot be the answer to every human ill. Continuing to view more government as the solution to problems will only make matters worse.

Not too long ago, I spoke on this floor about why I believe Americans are so angry in spite of rosy government economic reports. The majority of Americans are angry, disgusted, and frustrated that so little is being done in Congress to solve their problems. The fact is a majority of American citizens expect the federal government to provide for every need, without considering whether government causes many economic problems in the first place. This certainly is an incentive for politicians to embrace the role of omnipotent problem solvers, since nobody asks first whether they, the politicians themselves, are at fault.

At home I’m frequently asked about my frustration with Congress, since so many reform proposals go unheeded. I jokingly reply, “No, I’m never frustrated, because I have such low expectations.” But the American people have higher expectations, and without forthcoming solutions, are beyond frustrated with their government.

If solutions to America’s problems won’t be found in the frequent clamor for more government, it’s still up to Congress to explain how our problems develop – and how solutions can be found in an atmosphere of liberty, private property, and a free market order. It’s up to us to demand radical change from our failed policy of foreign military interventionism. Robotic responses to the clichés of big government intervention in our lives are unbecoming to members who were elected to offer ideas and solutions. We must challenge the status quo of our economic and political system.

Many things have contributed to the mess we’re in. Bureaucratic management can never compete with the free market in solving problems. Central economic planning doesn’t work. Just look at the failed systems of the 20th century. Welfarism is an example of central economic planning. Paper money, money created out of thin air to accommodate welfarism and government deficits, is not only silly, it’s unconstitutional. No matter how hard the big spenders try to convince us otherwise, deficits do matter. But lowering the deficit through higher taxes won’t solve anything.

Nothing will change in Washington until it’s recognized that the ultimate driving force behind most politicians is obtaining and holding power. And money from special interests drives the political process. Money and power are important only because the government wields power not granted by the Constitution. A limited, constitutional government would not tempt special interests to buy the politicians who wield power. The whole process feeds on itself. Everyone is rewarded by ignoring constitutional restraints, while expanding and complicating the entire bureaucratic state.

Even when it’s recognized that we’re traveling down the wrong path, the lack of political courage and the desire for reelection results in ongoing support for the pork-barrel system that serves special interests. A safe middle ground, a don’t-rock-the-boat attitude, too often is rewarded in Washington, while meaningful solutions tend to offend those who are in charge of the gigantic PAC/lobbyist empire that calls the shots in Washington. Most members are rewarded by reelection for accommodating and knowing how to work the system.

Though there’s little difference between the two parties, the partisan fights are real. Instead of debates about philosophy, the partisan battles are about who will wield the gavels. True policy debates are rare; power struggles are real and ruthless. And yet we all know that power corrupts.

Both parties agree on monetary, fiscal, foreign and entitlement policies. Unfortunately, neither party has much concern for civil liberties. Both parties are split over trade, with mixed debates between outright protectionists and those who endorse government-managed trade agreements that masquerade as “free trade.” It’s virtually impossible to find anyone who supports hands-off free trade, defended by the moral right of all citizens to spend their money as they see fit, without being subject any special interest.

The big government nanny-state is based on the assumption that free markets can’t provide the maximum good for the largest number of people. It assumes people are not smart or responsible enough to take care of themselves, and thus their needs must be filled through the government’s forcible redistribution of wealth. Our system of intervention assumes that politicians and bureaucrats have superior knowledge, and are endowed with certain talents that produce efficiency. These assumptions don’t seem to hold much water, of course, when we look at agencies like FEMA. Still, we expect the government to manage monetary and economic policy, the medical system, and the educational system, and then wonder why we have problems with the cost and efficiency of all these programs.

On top of this, the daily operation of Congress reflects the power of special interests, not the will of the people – regardless of which party is in power.

Critically important legislation comes up for votes late in the evening, leaving members little chance to read or study the bills. Key changes are buried in conference reports, often containing new legislation not even mentioned in either the House or Senate versions.

Conferences were meant to compromise two different positions in the House and Senate bills – not to slip in new material that had not been mentioned in either bill.

Congress spends hundreds of billions of dollars in “emergency” supplemental bills to avoid the budgetary rules meant to hold down the deficit. Wartime spending money is appropriated and attached to emergency relief funds, making it difficult for politicians to resist.

The principle of the pork barrel is alive and well, and it shows how huge appropriations are passed easily with supporters of the system getting their share for their district.

Huge omnibus spending bills, introduced at the end of the legislative year, are passed without scrutiny. No one individual knows exactly what is in the bill.

In the process, legitimate needs and constitutional responsibilities are frequently ignored. Respect for private property rights is ignored. Confidence in the free market is lost or misunderstood. Our tradition of self-reliance is mocked as archaic.

Lack of real choice in economic and personal decisions is commonplace. It seems that too often the only choice we’re given is between prohibitions or subsidies. Never is it said, “Let the people decide on things like stem cell research or alternative medical treatments.”

Nearly everyone endorses exorbitant taxation; the only debate is about who should pay—either tax the producers and the rich or tax the workers and the poor through inflation and outsourcing jobs.

Both politicians and the media place blame on everything except bad policy authored by Congress. Scapegoats are needed, since there’s so much blame to go around and so little understanding as to why we’re in such a mess.

In 1920s and 1930s Europe, as the financial system collapsed and inflation raged, it was commonplace to blame the Jews. Today in America the blame is spread out: Illegal immigrants, Muslims, big business (whether they get special deals from the government or not), price-gouging oil companies (regardless of the circumstances), and labor unions. Ignorance of economics and denial of the political power system that prevails in D.C. make it possible for Congress to shift blame.

Since we’re not on the verge of mending our ways, the problems will worsen and the blame games will get much more vicious. Shortchanging a large segment of our society surely will breed conflict that could get out of control. This is a good reason for us to cast aside politics as usual and start finding some reliable answers to our problems.

Politics as usual is aided by the complicity of the media. Economic ignorance, bleeding heart emotionalism, and populist passion pervade our major networks and cable channels. This is especially noticeable when the establishment seeks to unify the people behind an illegal, unwise war. The propaganda is well-coordinated by the media/government/military/industrial complex. This collusion is worse than when state – owned media do the same thing. In countries where everyone knows the media produces government propaganda, people remain wary of what they hear. In the United States the media are considered free and independent, thus the propaganda is accepted with less questioning.

One of the major reasons we’ve drifted from the Founders’ vision of liberty in the Constitution was the division of the concept of freedom into two parts. Instead of freedom being applied equally to social and economic transactions, it has come to be thought of as two different concepts. Some in Congress now protect economic liberty and market choices, but ignore personal liberty and private choices. Others defend personal liberty, but concede the realm of property and economic transactions to government control.

There should be no distinction between commercial speech and political speech. With no consistent moral defense of true liberty, the continued erosion of personal and property rights is inevitable. This careless disregard for liberty, our traditions, and the Constitution have brought us disaster, with a foreign policy of military interventionism supported by the leadership of both parties. Hopefully, some day this will be radically changed.

Before this week, I had never heard Senator Charles Grassley speak – on anything. In the last few days, though, I’ve been sent a number of emails about him being a “strong 10th Amendment supporter.” Skeptical of any Senator in DC actually supporting the Constitution in a meaningful way, I browsed around YouTube and found what must’ve incited the onslaught of emails about him. It was a clip called “Sen. Grassley: Health Overhaul Violates 10th Amendment.”

Title: Good.

Before the 1:30 mark, he had this to say:

“This is the first time in the 222 year history of our country that we have forced you as a constituent – any of our constituents – to buy a product…..And if you don’t buy it, IRS is gonna tax a family $1500.”

Interesting comment. Ok, I’m listening.

He’s then asked a question: “Is this Constitutional – forcing them to buy it and punishing them through the IRS if they don’t?”

His response

“Uh…I’m not a lawyer …”

Alert: Politician Code Word.

Whenever you hear a politician talk about the Constitutionality of something by saying “I’m not a lawyer,” what they’re really saying is “I’m weak and won’t take a stand on this.”

That’s pretty much what the rest of his response was – “blah blah blah, some lawyers have said it might be unconstitutional, blah blah blah”

So, I started to wonder a bit – what out there, does Chuck Grassley think is a “violation of the 10th Amendment.”

He sure doesn’t think that the largest-ever expansions of government-run health care since Medicare and Medicaid was a violation – in 2003 he and his republican buddies voted for both SCHIP and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. The latter is now projected to cost Americans over a trillion dollars.

I guess he likes government health care when a Republican is in charge.

And just a day later, he comes out and tells us that we need “national” laws for medical marijuana.

Where in the Constitution is that authority, Chuck?

He also voted in favor of the Patriot Act – and its renewal in 2006. In favor of No Child Left Behind and Real ID.

If I have to explain the problem with those, you’re on the wrong website.

The moral of the story? Almost no one in DC has any real respect for the 10th Amendment or the Constitution as a whole. If they say something about it that appears to be right – be wary – they’re probably just paying it lip service.

Grassley is no 10th Amendment supporter – he’s little more than a thug in a suit.

During last year’s election season, I went down to my local mall to buy a book entitled, Who Killed The Constitution. After purchasing my book, I sat down on a bench and waited for my wife and son to finish looking around the rest of the mall.

As I was sitting there I noticed a table set up by the entrance to Sears. There was a large crowd surrounding it talking and looking at literature. I paid no attention to it, as there is always some sort of table set up signing people up for one thing or another.

Eventually my wife came up to me and asked me to come with her, as there was a blouse she wanted me to look at in Sears. As we walked past that table I looked down and they had all kinds of Obama paraphernalia and one of them was saying, “Once he gets elected we still have a lot of work to do.”

I guess by the way my stride had slowed my wife could tell I was going to stop and say something, she gently grabbed my arm as if to say, ‘Keep on walking Neal’. I really wanted to stop and ask them a couple questions, but I guess my wife didn’t want me to start a fuss and embarrass her.

When I got home I began to think about why people support a politician like Barack Obama, or any of the others for that matter. I know I have said it a thousand times, but I will keep saying it until peoples actions allow me to stop saying it, it just seems that people today have no clue as to what powers the Constitution grants those whom we elect to represent us.

I began thinking that people in this country have been enslaved to the arbitrary assumptions of power, by the very people they elect to serve them, that they no longer understand the true meaning of liberty, and where we derive it.

Thomas Jefferson said that, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

That answers what liberty is, but where does it come from? To answer that I again turn to the words of Thomas Jefferson, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God?”

Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines liberty as,

1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice.

With all the laws our government has passed that restrict our actions, which if you bothered to look, they weren’t authorized to pass, how can anyone honestly say that they are truly free?

James Madison once said, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

And abusing power is something our government has gotten very good at. The whole time we sit back and believe that we are free, that we still maintain our liberty.

People are under the assumption that government is there to watch over them, to aid them when run into times of difficulty. I defy anyone to find a single clause in the Constitution that grants the government the power to take money from one person, or a group of people, and give it to others who are less fortunate.

James Madison, who just happens to be considered as the primary author of the Constitution, once said, “With respect to the words, “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution…[that] was not contemplated by the creators.”

Is that clear enough? If not, maybe Thomas Jefferson said it in simpler terms, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

If people really want to know what their government is authorized to do, I recommend they find a copy of the Constitution and read Article 1, Section 8. There they will find the specifically enumerated powers that Jefferson spoke of.

If people took the time to educate themselves concerning the powers we have given to our government they would realize that they have been abusing the trust we have placed in them for quite a long time. Those whom we elect to represent us do not measure up to the quality of character of George Washington, who said, “The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon.”

When people continue to be fooled by the promises of those seeking office, when they continue to allow those whom they elect to ignore the constraints the Constitution has put upon them, the people will be in constant danger of losing that which our government was created to protect, their liberty.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

Ben Franklin once told us that “The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” It is not the job of the government to provide you with all these benefits those seeking office promise you. Along with each benefit comes a price, and the price may be something you aren’t willing to pay when the bill comes due. At that time it may be wise to remember what Jefferson said about protecting your liberties, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

I would think that the American people would much prefer to hold their elected officials accountable to their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution, than to face the alternative of having to once again fight for their liberties.

From the article:

One of the more morally reprehensible notes from the supporters of death I receive is the one that goes something like this: “I am for peace, too, but not at the expense of my family.” These people are saying that it is okay to ruin my family and thousands of other families in the U.S. who have been torn apart like the bodies of our loved ones to keep other families “safe.” I have news for these people, as bad as the sacrifices have been for some families in America, the people of Iraq have suffered far more for the deceptions and greed of BushCo…

…What makes Mrs. Safety think the Iraqi babies are less precious than her babies? Does the geographic accident of her baby’s births give them more right to be safe than the Iraqi babies? Maybe Mrs. Safety thinks her babies deserve more protection because they are white and Christian? Or just maybe because they are hers?

She’s absolutely right. Long ago, people realized that the “divine right of kings” was morally repugnant; that it’s absurd to accept the idea that, by some accident of birth, certain people have more rights than others. Sadly, this way of thinking is still pervasive in the halls of government, and we see its results in Iraq every day.

Bush and his criminal cohorts in the Republican and Democratic parties seem to think that as long as they can create what we believe to be a “secure” America, that it’s within their rights to violate the most basic rights of men, women and children in other countries. This becomes more and more obvious every day – politicians from both sides overwhelmingly supported the war in Iraq, and much of the recent opposition to it has risen only in response to “failure” or “mismanagement.”

But, this war would be a moral abomination whether it ended in victory or defeat. The problem doesn’t lie in how the war is waged, but in the idea that killing people to achieve political goals is acceptable.

The solution to this madness is not simply a change of course in Iraq (or Afghanistan), but rather a complete change in our point of view. No person has any right, whatsoever, to use aggression to take the life of another.

It is morally acceptable to go after criminals, but it is a crime to kill their families, their friends, their neighbors, or anyone else not criminally complicit. Murder is murder whether it’s committed by a person or a king.

Every person has a right to do what they want with their person or property as long as by doing so they don’t infringe on other people’s rights to do the same. We, as a society, need to start living by that principle – and realize that criminals are criminals whether they’re robbing banks or getting elected.