Archive

Archive for January 4, 2011

Ron Paul Talks 2012 Presidential Run: “I am Involved In A Revolution”

January 4, 2011 Leave a comment

Ron Paul Talks 2012 Presidential Run: “I am Involved In A Revolution”

“I would consider everyone of them a pretty big challenge because I am involved in a revolution, I want revolutionary ideas, I want to return our country to the original roots of individual liberty.”

Read more…

USPS Censors Netstamps…

January 4, 2011 Leave a comment
Free Republic
Browse · Search
Pings · Mail Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

USPS Censors Netstamps
Vanity | 1/4/11

Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2011 3:40:28 PM by pabianice

I use Netstamps because it is more efficient if you do a lot of mailing. Netstamps lets you select an image to be put on the stamp blanks. However, I’ve now learned that they censor non-PC images.

Read more…

The Republican Party Had Better Be the Party of No! AS IN “NO MORE”!

January 4, 2011 Leave a comment

The Republican Party Had Better Be the Party of No!

Share 0diggsdigg

AS IN “NO MORE”!

by Kathleen Gotto

Republicans need to take a long and hard look at what they have allowed the Democrats get away with for years. They’ve filled our Congress and courts with judges who refuse to adjudicate according to our Constitution. They put an unvetted man in the presidency who is not a natural-born Citizen as mandated under our Constitution at Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5  and aided and abetted the deception with the complicit cooperation of the major media giving them cover.

Read more…

Gunny G: Even B4 Lincoln, Our Constitution Was Undermined By The Enemy Within…

January 4, 2011 2 comments

Doomed from the Start: The Myth of Limited Constitutional Government in America

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: An Open Letter to Glenn Beck

After spending a lifetime in politics John C. Calhoun (U.S. Senator, Vice President of the United States, Secretary of War) wrote his brilliant treatise, A Disquisition on Government, which was published posthumously shortly after his death in 1850. In it Calhoun warned that it is an error to believe that a written constitution alone is “sufficient, of itself, without the aid of any organism except such as is necessary to separate its several departments, and render them independent of each other to counteract the tendency of the numerical majority to oppression and abuse of power” (p. 26). The separation of powers is fine as far as it goes, in other words, but it would never be a sufficient defense against governmental tyranny, said Calhoun.

Moreover, it is a “great mistake,” Calhoun wrote, to suppose that “the mere insertion of provisions to restrict and limit the powers of the government, without investing those for whose protection they are inserted, with the means of enforcing their observance, will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers” (emphasis added). The party “in possession of the government” will always be opposed to any and all restrictions on its powers. They “will have no need of these restrictions” and “would come, in time, to regard these limitations as unnecessary and improper restraints and endeavor to elude them . . .”

The “part in favor of the restrictions” (i.e., strict constructionists) would inevitably be overpowered. It is sheer folly, Calhoun argued, to suppose that “the party in possession of the ballot box and the physical force of the country, could be successfully resisted by an appeal to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the constitution” (emphasis added). He predicted that “the restrictions [of government power in the Constitution] would ultimately be annulled, and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.” He was right, of course.

This is a classic statement of the Jeffersonian states’ rights position. The people of the free, independent and sovereign states must be empowered with the rights of nullification and secession, and a concurrent majority with veto power over unconstitutional federal laws, if their constitutional liberties are to have any chance of protection, Calhoun believed. The federal government itself can never, ever be trusted to limit its own powers.

How did Calhoun come to such conclusions? One answer to this question is that he was a serious student of politics, history, and political philosophy for his entire life, and understood the nature of government as much as anyone else alive during his time. He also witnessed first hand or quickly learned about the machinations of the sworn enemies of limited constitutional government in America: men such as Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall, Joseph Story and Daniel Webster.

The Founding Fathers of Constitutional Subversion

America’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, did a much better job of limiting the tyrannical proclivities of government than the U.S. Constitution ever did, and it did so while permitting enough governmental power to field an army that defeated the British Empire. The limits on government that the Articles contained outraged the advocates of unlimited governmental powers, such as Alexander Hamilton, which is why the “Perpetual Union” that was created by the Articles was abolished as all the states peacefully seceded from that union

The constitutional convention was Hamilton’s idea as much as anyone’s. Upon arriving at the convention Hamilton laid out the plan of his fellow nationalists: a permanent president or king, who would appoint all governors, who would have veto power over all state legislation. This monopoly government would then impose on the entire nation a British-style mercantilist empire without Great Britain, complete with massive corporate welfare subsidies, a large public debt, protectionist tariffs, and a central bank modeled after the Bank of England that would inflate the currency to finance the empire.

Hamilton did not get his way, of course, thanks to the Jeffersonians. When the Constitution was finally ratified, creating a federal instead of a national or monopolistic, monarchical government, Hamilton denounced the document as “a frail and worthless fabric.” He and his Federalist/nationalist colleagues immediately went to work destroying the limits on government contained in the Constitution. He invented the notion of “implied powers” of the Constitution, which allowed him and his political heirs to argue that the Constitution is not a set of limitations on governmental powers, as Jefferson believed it was, but rather a potential stamp of approval on anything the government ever wanted to do as long as it is “properly” interpreted by clever, statist lawyers like Alexander Hamilton or John Marshall. Hamilton “set out to remold the Constitution into an instrument of national supremacy,” wrote Clinton Rossiter in Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution.

One of the first subversive things Hamilton did was to rewrite the history of the American founding by saying in a public speech on June 29 1787, that the states were merely “artificial beings” and were never sovereign. The “nation,” not the states, was sovereign, he said. And he said this while the constitutional convention was busy crafting Article 7 of the Constitution, which holds that the Constitution would become the law of the land only when nine of the thirteen free and independent states ratified it. The states were to ratify the Constitution because, as everyone knew, they were sovereign and were delegating a few express powers to the central government for their mutual benefit.

Read more…

NEW GOVERNMENT ICON ADDED TO AMERICAN LANDSCAPE !

January 4, 2011 2 comments

NEW GOVERNMENT ICON ADDED TO AMERICAN LANDSCAPE !

Read more…

The Madness Of A Lost Society 2: Final Warnings

January 4, 2011 Leave a comment

Feature Stories

The Madness Of A Lost Society 2: Final Warnings

 

We didn’t stand up for truth, we didn’t stand up for the Constitution, we didn’t stand up for the rule of law. And now the day of reckoning is upon us. Please, prepare.

Read more…

Is Obama Intentionally Damaging Our Economy? “No one seems to know. “

January 4, 2011 Leave a comment
Free Republic
Browse · Search
Pings · Mail Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Obama Intentionally Damaging Our Economy?
Powerline ^ | 1-3-11 | powerline

Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2011 8:06:00 AM by radioone

That is the provocative question asked by Peter Schweizer at Big Peace. I think the answer is No, but let’s let Peter explain why the question arises at all:

That may seem like an absurd question, but it’s hard to come to any other conclusion when you consider what is happening to our energy industry on the Gulf Coast. As the Wall Street Journal reports today, the Obama Administration may have lifted its ban on drilling in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, but there are still long delays in getting other permits approved to drill for oil. Why?

No one seems to know.

Read more…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,247 other followers