Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

Yes Montgomery Advertiser, we know how to read and think for ourselves that's why we can know what little you think as well as why it is so obviously wrong.   You want a civics lesson why don't you start by reading the 11 page Constitution you claim we are ignoring?


There are 7 absolutely indispensable qualifying words in the supremacy clause that preserve the meaning & propose  of the Federal Constitution:  "which shall be made in pursuance thereof;"


If theses words are ignored as they most effectively are by Washington & its employees then the federal Constitution is itself a dead-letter.  That is if we and our states ignore our oath to uphold it.


As many determined patriots in this country have said time and time again for decades, If Washington wants our guns they will have to rip them from our cold dead hands for they shall not get them peacefully.  That is the last straw that we can afford to allow to break.



1 year, 10 months ago on A Basic Civics Lesson for Pseudo-Historians


The word is postbellum(after war) not  post-antebellum.


Your right the war no more settled the issue of nullification than Al-Gore invented the internet.  Indeed it could and perhaps should be argued the war had little to nothing to do with nullification for the north was fighting about secession, while at the same time practicing nullification.


So of course it’s absurd to suggest that the "Civil War" would settle as illegitimate a practice carried out most vigorously by the conquering States.  What we have here is a conspiracy of historical ignorance and political corruption to teach people to believe in the unworkable lie, that a prisoner can be trusted to guard himself.


So we find people defending the absolute power of Washington even as it is used to destroy the very real and tangible rights to self-government they claim to cherish.  Of course they claim that the other 2 branches would check this court ignoring the fact that it was the other two branches that not only share the centralized power interest of that ‘court’ but had in fact handpicked that ‘court’ in the first place.


Sometimes I find myself wondering if there is a way that we could simply let theses fools laugh themselves into slavery.  But of course to do that would mean that we would either have to be drag along with them or find a way to convince them to leave us alone.   Unfortunately that is the egg for our chicken.


1 year, 10 months ago on Absolute Federal Supremacy: A Crackpot Post-Antebellum Theory


I think we all know what need to happen next.  There needs to be a confrontation and the Feds need to come off looking bad.

1 year, 10 months ago on Rasmussen Poll: Nullification Goes Mainstream


"“Let’s be clear,” he continued, “law enforcement officers take an oath of office to uphold federal law and they are going to continue to pursue drug traffickers and drug dealers.”"


If they want to get paid and keep their job they will not do what their State & people tell them not to do.  The Feds need never be told what happened.

1 year, 11 months ago on Obama Drug Czar Says States Can’t Nullify Federal Drug Laws – Tenth Amendment Center


 @RossWilliams I've lost comment's as well I think there is something quirky with the software that sometimes drops comment's.    Just re-post yours.

1 year, 11 months ago on The Constitutional Issues In Same-Sex Marriage



The laws of nature show that self-destructive errors arise in every generation of every species..   People like me and jeanJacquesBurlamaqui don't traditionally refer to theses self-distributive errors as natural.   Instead we reconize them for what they are, errors that ultimately kill the poor individual either directly or by inhibiting thier reproduction.


Indeed we call them unnatural because we feel it is morally obligatory to attempt to rectify said errors if we can to save the individual.


historic attitudes shrouding homosexuality & the practice of sodomy are all natural outgrowths of a cultures need to help compensate and prohibit the expression of these errors among its members.



We think it’s sad and cruel that you choose to embrace theses crippling errors in these poor souls rather than attempt to help them correct it.  This is really no different than to encourage a man’s heavy drinking habit.  Sure he might enjoy it it might even give him great pleasure but in reality it’s also destroying his life.   This is what you’re doing to people who suffer from the diseases of homosexuality.  It’s a cruel practice, to encourage someone as they slowly kill themselves(biologically) but you may have noticed that neither of us are getting on your case about it.


That perhaps is our sin.


1 year, 11 months ago on The Constitutional Issues In Same-Sex Marriage



"In the course of political human events ... in this country ... there is no political requirement, anywhere, for reproduction.  So you can put that gibberish toobox of yours away and deal with the issue."



If the issue is marriage than the subject is reproduction, this is in fact the propose of the institution of Marriage.   As for a "requirement” you might find it interesting that historically one of the soul reasons a man could divorce his wife was if she was infertile.




"Only is "one" were an idiot who has not read the Constitution and does not understand the political foundations of our nation."


I have read the Federal constitution and found no mention of the institution of marriage, I have  many State constitutions some of them have marriage others have it not.


I know however on the other-hand that marriage in on this continent among the English states was a religious institution with common-law recondition.


Technically no state has to recognize any marriage whatsoever.  Technically the benefits given to a persons spouse could not be given at all, or if they must be given , they could be given to anyone the person designates.


The logical reason for giving it to the spouse was back when women were still spending their time actual producing and raising families such as a real marriage is about.   Extending said benefits to the wife was essence to the value of said benefits.


From the employers point of view just giving the benefits out to anyone might make little sense as they would not be providing services to a family to which the man is permently attached.  Therefore extending said services does not so much add to employee loyalty by creating dependence.



"So what?  We were formed, politically, to do away with the other forms of political non-freedom, and create a government of limited power with a population free to do what was left."


The implication was that that marriage is, as i believe it, part of the natural powers of the earth which we have no legitimate power to alter.




"They will absolutley NOT be "submitted as accepted". "


As far as i can tell the only said fact you reject is the notion that many if not most state Government lack the power to redefine marriage.  Not that marriage predates the union nor that Washington lacks the power to redefine it.


Even rejecting that premise nonetheless carry's into my proceeding statement about the problem of redefining terms.




"The Constitution does not apply to dogs other than as a piece of protperty that a man - as a US citizen - has a property right to.  Do you have a problem sticking to the subject?"


Here we agree on our terms, although i think you will find in maybe 30 years certainty ideologies in this federation will think otherwise.  For the same reason the same ideologies no longer hold a meaningful understanding of the concept of marriage.


Such is an invariable concupiscence of refusing to draw a line on function and instead yielding to ill-rational ideas of equality among functionally different types rather than instances of types.



It is for these reasons that I can still see marriage as a specific type of union for a specific propose rather than an ultimately pointless & expensive expression of affection to which the institution is entirely inappropriate.




"The only thing you've explained with any clarity is that you're a ratinalizing, grasping bigot of an idiot who can't seem to get through his rock skull that we are a nation of FREE PEOPLE who must all be treated equally by the government at every turn."


I can see the anger between your lines, as you try and grasp for a way to rationalize & justify what is essencaly nonsensical and non-functional position.  Where I in your position I would be frustrated as well.  There is no way to make this box work just as there is no way people of the same sex can conserve a child.


Nature provides us with rules and we haven’t the capacity to violate those rules, although as with everything else we can bury our heads in the sand trying to reject them, like a boy who calls a blue wall red.



I agree wholeheartedly that people should be treated equally but I also recognize that not everything under the sun is of the same type.  That a dog is infact not the same as a man and therefore cannot be said to be equal in all ways to a man, they are quite simply different animals.


The same is true of the union of marriage and the ‘union’ of love.   They are different kinds of unions created legitimately entirely different proposes.    Just because you and many other people seem to have forgotten what their key differences are does not make them any less different, nor does it entitle you to redefine and/or alter them for the rest of us.


Yet this is what you propose to do, in refashioning our ‘hammer’ into the ‘screwdriver’ you need, simply because you happen to like the trappings of our ‘hammer’.


This is not fair to us and it is wrong that you can do this.  What makes your need for a screwdriver and desire for the trappings of our ‘hammer’  so superior to our needs for our own ‘hammer’ as to allow you to do this?


You are infact declaring yourself more ‘equal’ than not only us who need that ‘hammer’ but everyone else who should desire the same trappings but want yet another entirely different tool.


Why can’t you simply make your own trappings, or simply accept the equal trappings of ‘civil union’ given to you?  Why must you take our name?



Why must you rob us of our tool instead of simply fashioning your own?


1 year, 11 months ago on The Constitutional Issues In Same-Sex Marriage



"For whom?"


If you wish to uses a screwdriver as a hammer that is your business, but never forget as you have in the case of "Same-sex-marriage" that it is in fact a hammer, not a screwdriver.   A hammer cannot do what a screwdriver can do; a Hammer is simply not designed to do what you wish it to do.


Our "hammer"(marriage) is designed to to hold families together to better ride the rapids of life's shifting emotions, not make a simple social statement about current feelings. 




And since the power to define "proper" family structure is not a power given to the government ... the government does not have that power.  We do.  The states can address it, but they cannot obliterate it.



I agree Washington does not have the legitimate power to redefine marriage. Indeed one might argue that most State government lack legitimate power on this issue as well.  Marriage predates every States just as it predates the union of theses united States, and all other political unions currently known.


All of these facts may be submitted as accepted, but what you propose to say is that a man is not a man, that he is in fact a dog or vice versa.


You may think the distinction between Dog and a man is far more clear cut than that of a union about love and a union about raising families.  But I don’t for each have very different functions & goals upon this Earth, and must accordingly operate under very different rules, privileges, and distinct names.


I actually explained this difference in the case of marriage vs a union about expressing an emotional sentiment to the world.   That a marriage being based upon family must be held together for the sake of said children regardless of emotional feelings among the parents.  That a union centered upon the present feelings among the parent has no legitimate need to exist or be recognized outside of that group at all.   Nor is it reasonable to expect such a union to last longer than the emotional bond of its members about which it is based.


These are very different animals just as Men are very different animals than Dogs.



"Do you not realize where you live?  This isn't Iran, or Sudan, or any of the newly "democratized" "Arab Spring" nations which have imposed tyranny by popular assent.  This is the United States.  We are supposed to have freedom here, and on this [one] issue we seem to be [finally] living up to our ideal.  Don't backslide."



If you want the "Freedom" to sleep around and divorce easy don't get married. Your children may suffer from that choice(With a broken single parent family). It is nonetheless your individual choice to make.  Make it and live with it.




1 year, 11 months ago on The Constitutional Issues In Same-Sex Marriage




Marriage is and continues to fall apart in America because as it is currently defined it is increasingly hollow and pointless.


The reason most people's attempts to defend & preserve real marriage (Man & woman pair) fail is because they have defined it on the foundation of the emotional attachment of the parents(Love).  This emotional attachment of course precludes he necessity of the institution (state or religious) just as it entirely misses the whole practical point of marriage.


After all if you love someone you should not need (or want) the state (legally) or religion (morally) bind you to them.  This of course was the whole point of the institution.  All legal and social benefits were just add-ons to better facilitate the interaction of the same external groups with the resulting family.


Nonetheless as people have come to see their marriages as entirely about love divorce rates have correspondingly skyrocket to reflect the very real reality that people do in fact fall in and out of the emotional state of love.   This is insolently the same reality for which the institution of marriage was necessary to help deal with in respect to children.



But today people don't associate marriage as first and foremost about procreation & family.  Today marriage is defined as being first and foremost about the emotion of love and thus when love ends people tend to end their marriage, children & families be dammed.  (As many of them are now,)


Until marriage starts being first and foremost about children & family’s again(IE no divorce except in extraordinary circumstances, regardless of how you feel) , practically it really is not marriage, and the historic trappings of marriage don’t really suit it, hence their progressive abandonment.


1 year, 11 months ago on The Constitutional Issues In Same-Sex Marriage


Good idea, we should suggest this movie to all the States.

1 year, 11 months ago on Ohio, Missouri Introduce the Health Freedom Act 2.0


Any state government Official that goes along with Obamacare should be held accountable to their people, they can stop this monstrosities assault upon their people if only they would raise a finger in defense of their people.


We need to make a list of names for the transmission to the primaries contest in both party's.  If we wan't theses people to be accountable we must be sure that their voters are made aware of what they did, and what they failed to do.


I think we should ask our allies in the State legislators to help us make such a list and be sure that their "friends" and "enemy's" know about that list.

2 years ago on How States Can Stop the Obama Health Care Law


More people need to know theses thing, this should be taught in school!


Under-what moral justification can a man who has no children be made to pay for the education of other men's children if not to see to that those children know theses things so as not to become a threat to him or each-other when given the power of the vote.



People worry about gun safety  education but what about voter safety, after all voting is simply the act by which one weld a far more numerous and consequential set of guns(force).

2 years ago on The Virginia Plan and the General Welfare Clause – Tenth Amendment Center



I think it was 9 because they didn't want to start a new union with less, nothing more nothing less..  

2 years ago on Why the Framers Could Suggest Ratification by Only Nine States – Tenth Amendment Center


I read article 7 as simply this:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."


I don't see the one people in there, nor do I see any indication of union outside of the so ratifying States.

2 years ago on Why the Framers Could Suggest Ratification by Only Nine States – Tenth Amendment Center


Perhaps someone should suggest to David we will primary and General him if he don't step aside. 

Surely David's district host more than a few Real conservatives to challenge and defeat him if not simply prevent him from winning.


David is of course well aware of the fact that we need mealy to get rid of him to replace him.

2 years ago on LIVE now, tune in here: http:...


Well theses governors Need to be notified that they are now dead to us.  If they will not stand-up for our rights why should we stand up for them?


Still we must remember to be encouraged by those governors and legislators that have demonstrated themselves to be true patriots, and continued the fight for our rights.


it is in theses men & women in which our future should rise.

2 years ago on GOP Governors Continue Caving In to ObamaCare Mandates – Tenth Amendment Center



Do not shy away wigs, you should have been expecting them.  Washington has had 150+ years of indoctrination, and systematic consolation to weaken our States into an effective vassal status.  All of this was largely accomplished long before almost anyone alive today was even born.


Our effort to defeat, undercut, and reverse what was build by Washington in an effort to formulate and consolidate an empire around itself but be seen in that light.


I will admit to there being a problem with this article but only in how it is presented as if to protray a crushing defeat when infact this sort of betrial has happened quite a lot over the proceeding 150 years, and was indeed expected this time around as well.


What is important here to the success of our movement however is not the Governers that betrayed our constitution, our faith, and our rights, But the Governors & states that did not, and will not.


It is in them that we have found success both in systematic organization and in personality, and it is with them that we have a blueprint, and symbol with which to move forward.  This is of course very important to our movement, so do not be depressed about that which most of us knew would come to past, instead be optimistic about what we have achieved.


We have learned more about our enemy, and on this day ourselves(as a group).  we now know better who can be trusted and who must simply be used & discarded but never unguarded.


As Sun Tzu said: Know your enemy and know yourself and you shall not know defeat.


We on this forum and in this movement in general are still in the process of learning that enemy and ourselves.  We know a great deal, hence victory's, but we also still have much to learn, hence our defeats.  


I don't regard these defections however as defeats in that they were both expected and necessary.  There are much harder days ahead to try men's souls.  The So called "Associated Press" is simply trying to uses these people to crush our spirits in hopes of also crushing our movement.


But the spirt of liberty cannot be crushed, nor can anyone who understands our movement for what it is be so discouraged by what we have seen.  We have indeed seen victory in many states & many places.


2 years ago on GOP Governors Continue Caving In to ObamaCare Mandates – Tenth Amendment Center


This is nothing new or unexpected in the Constitutionlist movement.  Indeed traitors like theses Governors have proved themselves to be are exactly what we have been expecting.  We just were not necessarily sure which of our governors & state leaders would prove to be Washington's men in the end.


Indeed even among the lot that survives we still don't know how many of them will prove to be the true patriots that we require.  But it is among that lot that survive that we should put our hopes and see our success.  For it is in that lot that that we have demonstrated success & patriotism.


As for the traitors,  theses Governors actions on Obamacare is without a doubt the ultimate betrayer on their part.


We can only do one thing about this: See to it that this betrayal sinks them, as an example to all other Benedict Arnold that might arise among our ranks.  No political quarter  will be afforded to traitors.


Let us uses this albatrosses  to sink them, and convince our fellow patriot voters that a vote for them is no better, nay worse than a vote for a democrat.  If theses traitors wish to reverse themselves they have until the election to do so successfully. 


2 years ago on GOP Governors Continue Caving In to ObamaCare Mandates – Tenth Amendment Center


I would on the matter of school books hold a serises of General votes of the leglsator to express the opinion of the State on such matters of grave importance, and that such opinion should be transmuted to our posterity in the State schools.


Such an act might not only help to clearly define the nature of American Government to our children(something that is obviously in great need).   But might also help to clearly define the nature of the PUBLIC school system to our people(by method of the ensuring controversy).

2 years, 1 month ago on Who Decides Constitutionality?


At the end of the day we both offer words, theirs are backed by the force of Washington, ours by the reasons of great political minds and the logic of self-government.


If the leglsator should decide that it is better that we turn our backs upon the concept of the Federal Constitutions being a limit upon the federal Government then they should embrace the Federal Government's self-empowering definition of its own power.


If on the other-hand the they regard themselves as either party to a Constitutional compact or Constitutional officers bound to uphold that law then they must by necessity appose the notion of that power being held exclusively in the hands of the very party the document was designed to restrain.


2 years, 1 month ago on Who Decides Constitutionality?


I'm "an extremist" too because like you I think we should have a written constitution that actually means something more than the mere discretion of those who that Constitution is suppose to restrain.


But I guess too many of us have got thou school and Media this extremely dangerous notion that we are a democracy rather than a Federal Constitutional republic.  Because it is theses same people who seem to have their heads in the clouds about the nature of power.


Sadly we all be dammed because of the apathy of many and the willful deception of a few, but that is democracy and how it murders itself and its people.

2 years, 1 month ago on Yeah, I’m OK With That – Tenth Amendment Center


Being a Strong and devoted Bush Supporter of the past, it saddens me to recognize that Bush has indeed done a number of things that have greatly compromised the position of liberty in this country.


Although I dare say you could find at least a few of his acts were helpful, but in truth the same could be said of Obama acts.


I believe in my heart, that even the most noble of men are almost invariably corrupted by the enormous power of that office.  I do not pretend to claim that Bush was such a Noble man before assuming office.


I simply mean to state that in my heart I feel it is ill-relevant whom ever we should manage to send to Washington to hold that office.


Even if we could find & elect a man somehow able to resist the corruption of that power, what possible could he flip that would not just as easily be flipped back by his successor?


As all of us have learned by an simple examination of history & logic, limits upon power do not exist when imposed at the discretion(choice) of the one wielding that power.


In that respect the real bounds of Presidential and/or Federal power is really only that which they get away with, as in not successfully stopped by others.


So logically if we are to accomplish our one goal of limiting the power of government than logically  our only option will be to uses the tools in opposition to that which we wish to limit.  Whether it be Washington as a whole, against which we have only our States & people.  or particular departments of Washington against which we have both the aforementioned and the other departments of Washington.


In other-words If it is the presidency that has too much power than the solution is NOT the presidency.  If it is Washington as a whole, then the solution is not Washington.


Thus in both cases which I feel to be true, I find no need for the man in the white house.

2 years, 1 month ago on The Lingering Curse of “Bush Freedom” – Tenth Amendment Center




It is of course ill-rational to not attempt to reclaim every dollar and more from Washington we can.  The only caveat to that printable is when we cannot at the end of the day sell(sacrifice) our rights nor essencal means of self-defense in that reclamation..


What we can and perhaps should do is instruct our state leaders to cheat and lie to Washington.  To take advantage of the bumbling bureaucracy in taking as much as we can to leave as little as possible for those that support this madness.


If we should desire freedom, then we must make slavery unplesent & unprofitable for those who support it.  If we should desire Independence, then we must make union unpalatable and undesirable to those who now cling to it.


We need only change our own behavioral to violate their presumptions, while never forgetting to teach to our children the proper resentment for this evil, as being the soul reason for our actions.   Never let our enemy forget that they are attempting to govern a population that will never cease to bleed & take advantage of them.  


They would be better off letting us go, than continuing to expend endless amounts of their own resources to control us.


2 years, 1 month ago on State Supremacy vs the Supremacy Clause



We can't aford to get that ugly, not yet.  We are simply not positioned to defend ourselfs that competely.


Neverforget after the last war the Federal Government spent the proceeding 150 years disarming our states & people both of the means and spirit of self-defense, while also arming itself with the means and spirit of concentrated power.


As it is right now, we are not prepared or able to openly fight them, even if we had to.  


The Federal army is too large and centeraly controled, our cuture is too ignorant of the nature of our rights, and Washington's systems of power are too vigorously designed to suppress such a rebellion.   


I will not bore you with a laundry list various things that have been put into place to squash just that kind of rebellion to imperial power.  


Instead I will simply suggest something that we can do, to change and undercut all of Washington's Best laid plans, and perhaps over the long run defeat them.  


What we can do is hide from, evade, and morally  undercut & assault their 'authority'.   Building upon an already degenerating couture and our particular position with in that couture as conservatives  who are among the last remaining law respecting bit.


We have in that position the power to bring down the system by simply bending our ideological 'knees'.


The real question that must be answered on an individual level is how to best utilize that power as to insure that the chips fall where we need them to build a new system secure in liberty & constitutional restraint.



You may find it is an easy thing to fell a tree not so easy is it to control exactly where it lands.  Yet that is precisely what we must do in feling this tree, and we must do it soon.  For this tree is coming down with or without our aid.

2 years, 1 month ago on State Supremacy vs the Supremacy Clause


"Those of us who have the privilege of serving our fellow citizens are duty bound to preserve, protect and defend the fundamental rights of those who elected us. The bill I have proposed is simply a reminder and a warning that Utah will neither violate nor ignore fundamental constitutional principles because of either a perceived or real crisis. In fact, it is in such times of crisis that “the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court (1992)."


Very well put!

2 years, 1 month ago on State Supremacy vs the Supremacy Clause




I think vesting that kind of power in any one branch of Government is foolish as it robs the people of the effect of those limits which apply to all braches.


It is the core printable of divided & checked power that no man or group of men should be trusted to limit themselves.  It is the printable of American power that ultimately all legitimate power derives directly from the consent of the individual people, as was practically expressed thou their more local organizational units.


Following that model I do not believe Federal legislator could ever have the right to define for itself its own Constitutional limits any more than the Federal employees in black robes.  These limits must be defined by the other branches and where they fail in conspiracy amongst themselves (As was obviously the case over the last 200 years) the final responsibility to correct this evil falls to the States & their people.


This is why the emphases must be on level of government with the lower & closer to the people being the higher due not only to the aforementioned attributes but due to the most critical check of all, our ability to vote with our feet.


I nonetheless salute your efforts as noble and brave, every little step towards liberty helps us find our way back there.


2 years, 1 month ago on Indiana State Senator: “I Will Decide What’s Constitutional, Not You”


"“In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. ‘Do it’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’ ‘Do it’ says the priest, ‘for I command you in the names of the gods.’ ‘Do it’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’ So tell me—who lives and who dies?”"


When someone poses this question i can't help but think of the 3 choices in their most extreme form:


In trusting the king you have a simple authoritarian dictatorship.

In trusting the priest you have something like a religious dictatorship.

In trusting the wealthy man you have something like a meritocratic.


In which would you prefer your children to grow up?  In which do they have greater opportunity to define themselves?  In any-case it is a simple almost pointless question as it seems to ignores the very real fact that in each of theses three men is the likelihood of them taking on the current status of the others by means of their new found power.


I suppose at-least with the welithy man you might known that your ruler has the prove skills to build & run productive systems.  But it is of course by all means preferable that nether of them obtain that kind of power.




2 years, 1 month ago on The Supreme Court’s Game of Thrones


As long as we have men like Indiana Sen. Phil Boots, willing to fight for the preservation(reservation) of our rights freedom might still have a chance in this federation.

2 years, 1 month ago on Indiana State Senator: “I Will Decide What’s Constitutional, Not You”


Jeff Barnard obsession with race & bad history are signs of his more general attitude towards reporting being based in the political agenda of his ideological heroes rather than truth, justice, liberty and written constitutional law.


Folks should at least point out his short comings in emails and comments relentlessly.  If he wishes to ignore the consequences of his irresponsible reporting for political gain let us not make it easy for him or his readers.

2 years, 2 months ago on Will Missouri Nullify NDAA?



To put it more plainly nullification is not a law written it is the recognition and resistance to a law or act unauthorized in the written Constitution of said body.


In this I of course recognize that you are 100% correct.   But I was attempting to frame the argument from the point of view of he who sees the mere power to refuse as an affirmative power of abuses. (Something that is argued for by the leaders of the left as a matter of faith).


I would not however call nullification itself as a product of natural law but rather it’s clearly an obligation of Constitutional law.  


The natural law equivalent of nullification is an entirely different obligation in which men are bound by their higher constitutions before God to resist and refuse an unauthorizedable  written Constitution of man.  


2 years, 2 months ago on Nullification and Racism


The assertion is as ridiculous as it is common.  Washington is just as capable of doing evil as any state legislator.  The only difference is when Washington does evil to any minority, that same minority cannot liberate themselves by way of a simple vote with their feet.


Nullification is a tool like most any other it can be used for good or bad.  The only difference between it and the tool of imperial power is that the tool of nullification is limited in its geographical scope.   This limitation provides an abused minority an opportunity to free themselves that they could not have were the abuses the subject of an imperial power that is Washington’s.


To take the acts of one small handful of states as evidence of untrustworthiness is no different than to take the acts of a one small handful of thieves as evidence of the unworthlyness of all men to be free.  There are bad apples everywhere and they are as common in Washington as they are in each individual state legislator.   You are simply 50 times more likely to find an examples of their expression in the legislators because there are 50 times more legislators to begin with.


To extend that practice upwards instead of downwards you should expand your search for examples of bad apples to all the governments of the world, where you will find more than a few quite horrific ones.  Should the United States lose its ability to govern itself on the account of these bad government’s?


2 years, 2 months ago on Nullification and Racism


Even if  the Feds kick their unlawful agents into their own handpick courts, we can still have them in a jail cell for the days it takes the Federal court to find out and process their criminals.


God bless Texas and let us pray she has the balls to carry this out. If not we have other 49 States to pave the way.

2 years, 2 months ago on Tenther News 01-07-13: Nullification bills introdu...


I think James Madison laid it our quite nicely in the quote you provided.  


Maybe we should start suggesting that a dictionary (or the equivalent) be attached for each session of the legislature against which all acts passed therein shall be read by future judges?


Perhaps down the line to enforce this amendment to the State and Federal Constitutions might even be passed to spell out James Madison's point for future generations in a context they cannot ignore?


Perhaps an added benefit would be that with less ambiguity regarding the meaning of their word, our legislators would be less easily fooled into voting away our rights…

2 years, 2 months ago on American Tories: Attacking the Founders and the Co...


A contract that lives & breaths is a dictator not an agreement on the extent of consent to be governed.


The mere failure to grasp or accept this most basic of concept underlines the security & surivablity of any Republican government.


You cannot form a contract with someone professing to believe in a living constitution, for such a person does not either accept or understand the unchanging nature of such terms.  Literally this is a case of a someone refusing to abide by the terms of the original contract because they feel they had the right to have them changed without the consent of the other party.   That is what a "living" Constitution is to them. and it is for all practical proposes no Constitution at all.


Most all of us know this, the question is how do we convince  those that don't know or accept this simple fact of the truth?  Obvious that unless we are able to do so no Constitutional union is possible with theses people...


Perhaps we should find a way to force them to engage in a little mental experiment?  To find out how their"living constitution" really is no Constitution at all?

2 years, 2 months ago on American Tories: Attacking the Founders and the Co...


A more appropriate response to the:  “originalism”  vs “living constitutionalism” debate is simply to point out that originalism produces consistent answers written in the stone of history where as “living constitutionalism” amounts to nothing more than the changing arbitrary will of the living "magistrate".


To prove this fact someone merely needs to practice “living constitutionalism” from a different ideological prospective and there are thousands to choose from...


Indeed Seidman might be very surprised at just how many conflicting "interperations" we can come up with under his “living constitutionalism” theory.  Many of these other "interperations" I agree would be a far more favorable & perhaps effective limitation on Government  than even the one written & consented to in the stone of history(orginalism).



2 years, 2 months ago on Happy New Year! Are you with us for a big push th...



Their renaming of themselves is designed to help inhibit people from learning from the historic examples of their actions.


It is essentially just a blatant attempt at repackaging an old & destructive ideology so that it may be sold as something new and untested.  

Unfortunately a large share of our voting population cannot be troubled to look beyond a label in identifying or evaluating a product. Therefore their dirty little scheme works more often than not. 


Such is one of many inherit pitfalls of democracy(as apposed to Constitutional republicanism), pitfalls which invariably contributes to the destitution of the people and ultimately the downfall of the system.

2 years, 2 months ago on Today, a bunch of liars and crooks took an oath to...


I like how we are treating their expected instance upon the long ignored and absurdly arrogant claim that nullification is unlawful as a milestone.


Indeed it is, the next mile stone will be the setup in which we politically cursify them who attempt to uses force against the natural rights of the people.  The Boston massacre moment is what I speak of, although it is by no means a massacre in lives but in jessgure.   The point where Washington resorts to guns to rule without the consent of the governed.


The real trick for us and those like us will be making a scandal out of that, and ultimately using that insolent to further build the case against that government in the minds of free people.


In setting up this trap we must not lose site of the issue over-which we are fighting, we must have the sympathies of the people on that matter, or our plan will be very much harder to finalize.

2 years, 2 months ago on 2013: The Tenther Movement Hits its Stride


 @Quisno sonofthe republic 

Perhaps we should redefine our understanding of politics, for example in the election of sheifts we should be open about how a sheriff choose to enforce laws including which laws he or she choose to enforce and which he or she found unauthorized.


We should tell the people that we do not elect dumb servants.  We expect the folk earning our vote to act as intelligent agents under the power of the law, not someone else's broader understanding of the same, but rather only the most narrow understanding possible.


To nullify is to refuses to act  unlawfully upon the demands("laws"/ "orders") of others.

2 years, 2 months ago on 2013: The Tenther Movement Hits its Stride


Just to make this clear  Obama's statements were true in that to prevent such an act we have to change ourselves.  Unfortunately this was a bit of a misleading half truth given that his implication ran contrary to his presumption.


Obama presumed correctly that if we wish to deal with evil we must change ourselves, however he implied attempting to change thou law not ourselves but the evil that has already demonstrated itself unwilling to follow and able to avoid the same law.


So instead of enabling & preparing ourselves to deal with that threat such as arming the Teachers and Principal to defend the children from such evil.  He proposes to again try to govern that which is already by nature ungovernable, while suppressing our only means to practical Defense & enforcement.


This Contradiction would be funny if only it did not come at such a tragic price.

2 years, 3 months ago on The Constitution: For Times Such as These


In the reality that Our Federal Constitution is all but dead and that the mob that currently governs Washington is ruled as much by emotion as its leaders greed for power.  


Our best defense is to try and sway that emotion towards liberty, or at least divide it.  Admittedly this cannot be done without the microphone our enemy's so skillfully work to dominate.  But for the sake of our Liberty and our posterity we must try our best.


So by all means speak theses words to those that will  listens, but to those that will not tell them the only action possible to mitigate such massacres is to allow the teachers and principal to provide armed protection.    This is something currently prohibited by Washington's lawless acts, and such is the reason so many of our defenselessness children were left to the mercy of a nutcase with a decisive advantage.


One does not try to change the world to defend oneself, one only changes one self.  In this way President Obama was correct, although I doubt he fathom the true meaning of even his own words.


2 years, 3 months ago on The Constitution: For Times Such as These


 @West Texan  @LeighSkinner 


Very nice observation West Texans.  It is indeed interesting how so much seems to come from California.


Perhaps the next Republican president will be an Actor,  its only logical among a population of lawless fools.   that an actor might be able to convince them he both cares about them and promote the concept of fairness.



The Real trick is finding one that can do that while promoting Constitutionalism, individualism, and thus liberty.    One way or the other from reading the results of the last election it is clear we require something with the carrasma of an actor..

2 years, 4 months ago on A Tenther's Guide to the Elections


I quite agree.  Upon review of the history of Government there is no reason to ever expect Washington to willingly give back what it has usurped from us.


Our options are quite simple:

1: We will find a way to take the power from Washington.


2: Our posterity will simply have wait until our(their) civilization collapses under the enormous weight of such a lawless monstrosity of a government as the Romans did.


There are no other realistic outcomes with respect to human history and human nature.


We may fail in our task the first dozen times but we must learn from each failure and try again, and again.   There is always away to evade their detection, lure them into a political trap, or eventually simply overpower them.


Like the phoenix we must rise and rise again to the challenge & never give up.   The fate of our children & their children depend upon it.


What do we have to lose in this great gambit for liberty but that which we have already lost to the effectively lawless Washington Government.


2 years, 4 months ago on Monopoly Government



It is not strange at all onetenther.  It is indeed quite natural, we as Americans over the last 200 years have often confabulated the ideas of liberty, free-markets and limited government with that of America.   That is America to us, that is the idea that America was built to be.


The trouble is the Federal Government has also taken on this banner as perhaps it should have in the past in rallying people to defend it from foreign threats.  But theses ideas that are America are not necessarily connected to any government at all.   Indeed thou-out most of Human history this idea which we call "America" has always been diametrically apposed by governments.


That we should wish to separate from the present Government in the name of what we call America is by no means a surprising thing.  It is indeed the very essence of the ideas & values we have imbued into the concepts we have labeled America that resist the athoirty that is a lawless Government. 


Washington nearly needs to cross that line before the American thing to do is to rid ourselves of it.  We of course know in our hearts that it has crossed that line.  Thus from all that we have learned about American ideas & tradition Washington is no more an American Government, than it is a Constitutionally limited Government.


Your Reaction is as such as logical as it is predictable for an American.

2 years, 4 months ago on Carts, Horses, and Secession


In the grand scheme of things I see little harm in asking for permission to part as friends. (Except perhaps to tip a hand that should be no secret.)

While I agree with the author in excusing all other options, such a path to independence will leave us broken & weak.  We would have little choice but to make great bargains with foreigners (like china, Russia, & Europe) for support in what would at that point be a very desperate bid in war.

Your right force is the State’s strength, and trying to fight that strength seems foolish.  But is a question violent force?  Sure the answer is all but certainty, but is not having that answer established in modern record a critical element in setting the stage for future resistance to tyranny?  Is this not a possible step towards fully unmasking the true nature of their pretenses?


2 years, 4 months ago on Carts, Horses, and Secession


 @StephenSmith1  @Patrick Henry 


It is an opportunity to make a splash and bring forth the conversation. Let us hope that the ideas we submit are ready to sway yet even more minds to the cause of liberty, and perhaps if nessaray Independence.


The fact that we made it this far is a remarkable achievement seeing how much of this would be unthinkable just 5 years ago..


In any event it would be most helpful to hear mister Obama make a statement on the matter, whether that statement is in sympathy or in opposition.  Factually correct or factually erroneous.    The simple statement would be the foundation for many of our future efforts.


I mean that as a sonch supporter of the 10th amendment and less eager on the cause of Independence which i see as only a last resort.   When the mater of our union becomes a question of abuse or disagreement our importunity to  advocate & push for REAL federalism is greatest.

2 years, 4 months ago on Nullification Victories!


It is worth noting that an interesting thing about the referendum and amendment process is that it very frequently can cross party lines.  A line of Text on a ballot knows little in the way of faction on its own.


I suspect State level immigration enforcement acts would enjoy great success by this means.

2 years, 4 months ago on Nullification Victories!


 @West Texan   That makes two of us West Texan, I agree with the fate of the usa.   But we must remember if we can break down The Federal power, Then the thieving attitude of the majority of the people in most states can be mitigated and allowed to self-destruct in a contained manner.


Even the Generational educational problem can be fixed if the States fix their public education system to ban theses leftist ideas.  We can't save all of the united States but maybe just maybe we can save Texas.


2 years, 4 months ago on Nullification Victories!


 @westcoast Technically the Pot can't cross state lines(that includes international bounties) for  Washington's law to be applicable.   BC should not be exporting pot to Washington or any other united State.   The only legitimate pot in Washington is grown in Washington.

2 years, 4 months ago on Nullification Victories!


 @KrisJackson  @MarkBHopp 

If a 2nd "civil war" starts it will likely go nuclear and many of the cities will be annihilated.  Remind me Kris as its been like a day sense I looked at an electoral map.  Who lives in the citys?     


Count your blessings, and thank-god for Nullification.  Regardless of what the Federal employees in black robes say it is a legitimate exersize  of Constitutional authority by the people who created the Constitution in the capaisty in which they created the Constitution.  


No federal employee has the right to deicate what powers they and thier own masters have.


PS: only about 1/3rd of the Colonial population supported the American revolution and 1/3rd supported the (Brittish) government.  Civil war is very much viable if you want to go that rout.  For the sake of your life we very much prefer it did not come to that.  


Let us settle for Nullification which BOTH sides are using simultaneously..    Nether side really likes Washington out here in the States.  Lets not fight each other over what Washington does to us both, and just resist the encroachments.

2 years, 4 months ago on Nullification Victories!