I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)

Six-term Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar went down in defeat Tuesday night by staggering numbers – 60% to 40% according to early reports. And as evidenced by his post-primary election speech the reason he went down to defeat is that he just doesn’t get it.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, far too many elected Republicans just don’t understand the sea-change in American politics that occurred in 2009 with the birth of the tea party movement and the fact the Democrat Party is no longer populated by honorable men and women with the best interest of America at heart.

Read what Senator Lugar said after his defeat as reported by cnsnews.com:

“We are experiencing deep political divisions in our society right now. These divisions have stalemated progress in critical areas,” Lugar, a Capitol Hill diplomat and a deal-maker, said after an election that marked an end to a nearly four-decade career in the Senate.

Now I’m particularly interested in that one sentence, “These divisions have stalemated progress in critical areas.” As well they should, dear Senator, as well they should.

The things Senator Lugar doesn’t understand about modern American politics could fill a book comparable in size to “War and Peace.”

Apolitical and politically apathetic Americans sat back over the past 50 years believing their politicians had their best interests, as well as the best interests of our nation, at heart. However, according to their own writings and speeches, radical groups in America organized and began an effort to co-opt and take over the Democrat Party for “social change.”

As the Democrat Party became increasingly radical, the Republican establishment sought to placate a complicit media by acting in a bipartisan manner with the new radicalized Democrat Party and endeavored only to chip away at the margins of Democrat ideas, policies and programs while never exposing and fighting the actual heart and soul of those radical socialist ideas.

Republicans such as George W. Bush and his father even proposed and implemented Democrat-like programs such as No Child Left Behind, SCHIP and Medicare Part D – Prescription Drug Bill – in order to “garner good will” and be seen as fair and compassionate.

In short, Senator Lugar doesn’t understand it is exactly that which he seeks that has caused America’s problems since the 1960’s – bipartisanship. It is exactly because he has been the “Capitol Hill diplomat and a deal-maker” as characterized in the CNS News story that America is having the problems we are and have lost so much of our individual Liberty.

What Senator Lugar didn’t get is that an increasing number of Americans understand that it is just time to stop Washington’s encroachments on individual liberty and State sovereignty, no matter how seemingly innocuous, as opposed to negotiating in order to “fix” things. It is time to stop all federal actions except those that tear down previous federal actions, laws and regulations.

What Senator Lugar didn’t understand is that the American people have awoken from their 50-year nightmare and have now set about righting the ship of state – the silent majority is silent no more.

What Senator Lugar did not understand is that Conservative Americans now seek to fix America the way Mayor Giuliani fixed New York City – by paying attention to everything – even the smallest offense by the federal government against individual liberty and State sovereignty.

The time for political compromise in America has passed. The time for bipartisanship is no more. In defense of Liberty there can be no retreat – no compromise – no negotiation.

This election is most certainly not just about the economy, stupid. The choice in the 2012 elections is very clear; freedom versus tyranny. It is just as simple as that.

Democrats have mandated your healthcare. They have mandated your vehicle mileage. They are closing down coal powered electricity production plants. They are closing down the coal industry. Democrat EPA regulations are closing down oil refineries on the East Coast.

Democrats will increase their control over how you raise your children including what they eat, how they dress and how they speak. They will control how you exercise your religion as in the case of mandating free contraception provided by your Church or church affiliated group in violation of your conscience.

Democrats have defined “fairness” and when and where it applies. They define who makes how much and why as well as who has “enough” or more than they need. They define what is or is not fair in the workplace, the home and the society.

Democrats do not want to “fix” anything but to change everything and after over three years we know what that change involves; the change from a fidelity to the law to the hubris of man. The Democrat “change” is from fact, logic and reason to emotion – from a nation of adults into a community of children.

Democrats will – and have – divide parent from child, men from women, black from white, rich from poor and all from freedom.

President Obama’s change is from a nation governed by statesmen to a motherland ruled by tyrants – from a republic into a collective.

The ostensible nobility of the goal matters not when the means are tyrannical.
Compassionate tyranny is tyranny nonetheless. Freedom, on the other hand, can be a dangerous proposition but there simply is no alternative.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Federal individual health insurance mandates; States unable to protect their citizens from drug cartels and illegal immigrants; banned light bulbs; attacks against Religion and morality; attacks against free speech through political correctness; attacks against the traditional nuclear family; attacks against individual Americans by the president; contrived crises to promote federal actions; oil refineries and coal-fired power plants closing due to tyrannical EPA mandates; the president overriding and going around the voice of the People – Congress; industries closed down due to threatened and “endangered species;” Occupy mobs with the support of the president closing businesses to demand the fruits of another man’s labor be redistributed; the Constitution pilloried and ridiculed – ignored.

There’s more, of course, but when is enough – enough?

The below story comes to us from the Tenth Amendment Center and involved the city of Tombstone, AZ falling under the thumb of federal tyranny and oppression. In short, due to rulings from the National Forrest Service the city of Tombstone is unable to fix their damaged city water system due to the Spotted Owl and other endangered species in the area unless they are willing to use 19th Century technology.

Here is the link to the story:

Tombstone, Water, and the Bureaucrat Standing In Between

Many people rightfully point out the 10th Amendment and the federal government’s many violations thereof, but forget, or neglect, other constitutional philosophies.

Remember, the Constitution doesn’t have to say the federal cannot do something. It has to say the federal government can do something. So in addition to the 10th Amendment what might also come into play in a situation such as the one in Tombstone? How about the lack of exclusive federal jurisdiction and supremacy that has little or nothing to do with the 10th Amendment?

If the federal government was intended to have “supremacy” over local and state laws in all matters as progressives maintain then why does the so-called “supremacy clause” exist and why does it restrict federal supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution? Does that not at least imply the federal government is only supreme when acting strictly within the limits of our Constitution?

Of course it does.

Why does Article 1, Section 8 outline exclusive federal jurisdiction for an area to be the seat of national government – Washington, D.C. and forts, magazines, etc that the federal government may “purchase.” Why that strict limitation on exclusive jurisdiction if the federal government was not intended to be limited?

Why did our Founder give us the 9th Amendment?

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There is a war against America and Americans and it isn’t coming from the Middle East or al-Qaeda. The enemy is within and called progressives. The enemy within is our own federal government just as our Founders faced an internal enemy in King George and Parliament.

It is impossible for the federal government to be “supreme” and unrestricted when it is the People who hold all power and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

I like Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona and Sheriff Joe Arpio but I think they have another mission to add to their illegal alien efforts. I believe Governor Brewer should deploy her National Guard, State Police and other resources to surround Tombstone and protect the city from the federal government while the free citizens thereof fix their water supply system.

Tombstone, with State assistance, should tell the Forrest Service to piss off while they fix the water.

Why stand we here idle?

The Wall Street Journal has broken a story about President Obama’s enemies list calling out Mitt Romney donors by name and attacking their reputations even to the point of accusing them of crimes without evidence, investigation or anything else common in American jurisprudence.

I blame the a-political, politically apathetic and the so-called moderate Americans for the sad state of America today, American politics and a tin-horn, 3rd world despot occupying our White House as the ostensible head of our government and the gradual but constant loss of freedom and opportunity – our unalienable rights.

If you have ever said that elections don’t matter then I blame you. If you have ever said the Constitution is an old document or anything of the sort then I blame you. If you have ever voted out of emotion rather than pursuant to fact, logic and reason then I blame you. If you have ever fumed about the state of American politics and not done something about your anger then I blame you. If you fail to vote then I blame you.

If you stayed home for the 2008 elections instead of voting for John McCain in order to teach the evil Republican establishment a lesson because McCain was too moderate or liberal – the lesser of two evils – then I blame you.

Like many Americans I have recently reconnected with old friends from high school, the military, etc via Facebook and I have received some comments from them such as, “Man – you’re really-really conservative.” My return question to them is to ask why they are not.

I also have many friends and family members who believe I’m way too far to the political right and things really aren’t as dangerous and out of whack in America as I regularly proclaim. Many of my relatives have never voted and feel like it just doesn’t matter – politics does not affect them – and so on.

Well, my message to all of you is – you did this to America. You did this to my family and me.

You are responsible for these people being placed on a presidential enemies list and you are responsible for the occupy mobs demanding the fruits of other men’s labor. You are responsible for the riots. You are responsible for the bad schools and the bad economy.

You are responsible for our states no longer being sovereign as intended – the deficit – the national debt – the break-up of the traditional nuclear family structure – the unwed pregnancy rates – the divorce rate – abortion – the increasing crime rates – illegal immigration – everything.

If you are politically apathetic, a-political or a so-called moderate who succumbs to populist politicians then you are responsible for all that is bad in America today and I will never forgive you.

Why does a man fix the gutters on his house when they’re only leaking just a little? He does it because that gradual leak will undermine the foundations of his house.

Why do you regularly change the oil in your car? Because using weak oil over time will degrade the car’s engine.

The little things matter. In fact I have often heard it said that if you concern yourself with the little problems there will be few, if any, large problems.

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.” – President James Madison

An honorable man in federal government with a concern for our constitutional system of government and freedom – a statesman versus a populist politician – would never float the idea that recently escaped the lips of Ray LaHood, our Secretary of Transportation.

It seems like such a small thing hardly worth noticing, but it is the perfect example of how our American freedoms conceived in liberty and birthed by fire have been lost over the past several generations.

It is exactly how we went from the small and limited federal government of days gone by to Obamacare.

What is it? It is a simple idea recently floated by the Secretary of Transportation for a national law banning all drivers from talking on their cell phone while driving. On the surface and considered in a vacuum it is simply a “good man” ostensibly trying to save lives, but taken in the context of 20th Century American history it is the weapon of a despot.

Here is the story from Reuters:

U.S. ban sought on cell phone use while driving
* Drivers of any vehicle would be covered
* 3,000 U.S. fatalities from distracted driving last year
* Approach to compliance akin to anti-drunk driving campaign
By Jim Forsyth

SAN ANTONIO, April 26 (Reuters) – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called on Thursday for a federal law to ban talking on a cell phone or texting while driving any type of vehicle on any road in the country.

Tough federal legislation is the only way to deal with what he called a “national epidemic,” he said at a distracted-driving summit in San Antonio, Texas, that drew doctors, advocates and government officials.

LaHood said it is important for the police to have “the opportunity to write tickets when people are foolishly thinking they can drive safely or use a cell phone and text and drive.”

The only reason many Americans will think this is a good idea, an appropriate idea or just no problem at all – a small and insignificant matter – is the gradual and silent encroachments of those in power during the 20th Century that Madison spoke about in my opening quote.

The fact that will be lost on so many Americans is that each State has the ability to accomplish the same end, if that is their desire, without bestowing additional powers on the federal government or in any way injuring our federal system.

As I wrote yesterday, from America’s Constitutional founding in 1787 through about 1930 federal spending as a percent of our national gross domestic product (GDP) averaged 5% or less with only two exceptions, the Civil War and WW I. However, since the gradual and silent encroachments of FDR and every president and congress since federal spending as a percent of GDP has averaged 18% to 19% and soared over 25% in 2009.

Our 50 States are no longer sovereign and not a single America can perform even the slightest daily activity even in their own home without some level of federal intervention, influence, control or tax and it is entirely due to “ideas” and policies like the one floated by Secretary LaHood.

The small appliances in your home are made in accordance with federal regulations. Every single thing you have purchased before or will purchase today has been subjected to federal taxes. Your telephone, electric bill, cable television and the gas in your car today are all subjected to federal regulations and taxes.

You cannot exercise your unalienable human right to hunt and gather today – to feed yourself – without knowing and following applicable federal laws before you even get to the time and place to worry about local and state laws, and most of your local and state laws are in response to some federal law.

Some of our States are finally protecting their citizens by fighting back against federal usurpations such as challenging Obamacare, the incandescent light bulb ban and even illegal immigration but I fear it may be too little – too late because as John Adams said,

Hey folks – here is a partial surf report – web sites – I’ve visited and stories I’ve read today.

“Americans United” Doesn’t Think Catholic Bishop Should Have Free Speech.

EPA Official’s ‘Philosophy’ On Oil Companies: ‘Crucify Them’ – Just As Romans Crucified Conquered Citizens

Salazar: ‘No one knows’ if US headed to $9/gal gas

Young People May Not Bother to Vote for Obama: Poll

Obama Caught Misquoting House Member He Criticized — And Beck Has the Evidence

Some snake oil that progressives are trying to sell the more naive Americans among us is that if the federal government doesn’t do it or fund it – whatever “it” is – then “it” just cannot or will not be done. That’s hogwash and flies in the face of American history.

Liberals intentionally dismiss the time period in which America became great and what it was that made America great and allege longtime federal subsidies for things such as the railroads, canals, dockyards, science, art and everything else that allowed America to become the greatest, freest, richest and strongest nation in the history of the world.

Sit down for a moment and briefly consider what, or who, you believe made America great. Ask yourself another question, when did America become great?

Here are some landmark times: The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776; the Constitution of the United States was written in 1787; America defeated the French Navy, Barbary Pirates, international slave traders and the British between 1798 and 1825; the Communist Manifesto was written in 1848; we defeated Mexico in 1848; we survived a major civil war in the 1860’s and built a transcontinental railroad across the Continental Divide; we won the Spanish-American war in 1899; the American income tax was ratified in February 1913.

How great was America not just up until the Communist Manifesto introduced the world to socialism in 1848, but before the various forms of socialism were actually introduced and used anywhere?

During the entire period I described above – a period that included America’s 100th birthday – federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product only exceeded 5% during the period of the Civil War and never again reached 5% of GDP until late in, or just after, WW I, about 50 to 60 years later. Those 50 or 60 years, by the way, included part of reconstruction, settling the Western United States and the many “Indian Wars.”

In fact, federal spending as a percent of GDP stayed around 2 and 3% until the War of 1812 and was at or below 3% from about 1825 until the Civil War.

I contend America became great prior to WW I and even prior to FDR in the 1930’s and 40’s and the beginning of our demise as a strong and free nation can be tracked directly to FDR and progressive policies.

Federal spending as a percent of GDP has not fallen below 15% since FDR and Truman and has averaged around 19% or so since the late 1950′s. It reached over 25% in 2009. That’s a far-far cry from that 5% or less that made America great.

Progressives claim America is far more complex in modern times, as is the rest of the world, and that requires a more robust federal government consuming ever increasing amounts of GDP. However, most of the complexities progressives claim are either problems they caused or complexities that allow for a more independent and free society by allowing people more opportunities to work and earn a living by starting on-line businesses, easier and more accessible transportation and communication, an easier and freer flow of information and education and the like.

America became great, rich, free and strong before progressive education, before the progressive income tax, before robust local, state and federal government and while Americans were acting in their own self interest depending on family, friends, neighbors, community organizations and churches for charity in the hard times.

The progressive argument for more government is literally an argument for less government! Now how about we who know and understand the truth help our friends, neighbors, relatives and coworkers understand it.

I believe federal tax receipts obtained through a progressive income tax system for the purposes of redistributing wealth using social welfare programs constitutes involuntary servitude in violation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and also violates the central premise of equality under the law.

First of all, the 16th Amendment allows Congress to tax income from whatever source derived but it does not allow for a progressive tax system and other prescriptions and proscriptions in our Constitution establish equal justice under the law and equality before the law. All Americans are to be treated equally by our government.

Now, taxes are intended to pay for the legitimate functions of government and not for social engineering, and the legitimate functions of our federal government are defined and limited in and by our Constitution.

Under the American system of governance established in our Constitution, in conjunction with the philosophies in our Declaration of Independence, there are no powers or opportunities for the federal government to confiscate money from some to give to others – none – including the general welfare clause.

And when you are forced against your will to give money to the federal or state government for the sole purpose of supporting other citizens with direct welfare payments, food stamps, healthcare, rent subsidies, utility subsidies and even free cellular telephones you are working for and supporting those people.

The 13th Amendment states,

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

So, what exactly is involuntary servitude? According to Wikipedia:

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person’s will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker’s financial needs. While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

Some people tell me that it is not involuntary servitude because people have a choice not to be rich. Really, that’s the explanation you want to go with?

People have a natural human right – some might even say an unalienable right – to work hard, make good decisions, live a thrifty life and succeed and prosper without regard to being pressed into involuntary servitude once achieving that success.

Let’s say that as a free man exercising your unalienable right to pursue happiness you decide that you would like to live on $5 million per year but in order to do that you actually need to earn 35% more due to a progressive tax system and the preponderance of your tax money confiscated by the government is used to support other Americans through social welfare programs. While earning that 35% more you are actually working for those people against your will just to fulfill your unalienable rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

When our Founding Fathers wrote and spoke about the unalienable right to pursue happiness they did not cap it or make it progressive and they did not provide for other people determining if you had enough happiness, more than you needed or too much. That was Karl Marx who did that.

Your rights have been eroded from unalienable to pay as you go and your servitude is involuntary and it is long past time Americans began giving serious consideration to freedom, our American ideals and exactly what our government is doing to injure our liberty.

Most people have never looked at proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution that failed ratification, but it can be very interesting and brings up two questions; in light of the powers now claimed by the federal government and the “living document” philosophy, why have we ever amended the constitution? And, how can the federal government exercise powers that were specifically denied it when the States and the People refused to ratify certain proposed amendments?

I find it interesting that as late in American history as 1926 politicians and courts believed it necessary to amend our Constitution versus ignoring or reinterpreting it through the courts whereas now in America it is no holds barred with respect to federal powers.

I find it oddly ironic and dangerous that just since the 1920’s our federal government now exercises powers that were denied it by the States and the People through failed constitutional amendments.

Here are some examples of hypocrisy in American law and constitutional jurisprudence:

The child labor amendment was proposed, according to Wikipedia and Usconstitution.net in 1924 but never ratified:

Child Labor Amendment

The Child Labor Amendment is a proposed and still-pending amendment to the United States Constitution offered by Republican Ohio Congressman Israel Moore Foster on April 26, 1924, during the 68th Congress, in the form of House Joint Resolution No. 184.

Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.

Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress.

And in spite of that amendment failing we now have a story of the federal government considering a rule that would prohibit children from doing chores on the family farm.

According to the Daily Caller, the Obama administration is considering rules that would prevent children from doing farm chores. Now from where in the hell did the federal government get that power if American politicians, courts, people, academics, et al apparently at least used to believe we needed a constitutional amendment to give the federal government that power and even went so far as to propose and pass one through the Congress?

How in the hell did the federal government miraculously find the power to control “child labor” in the absence of additional delegated authority “by the Constitution” as the 10th Amendment states?

Did one of you misplace your bag of fairy dust and magic wand or have it stolen by the fed’s?

If the federal government can force you to buy health insurance, a car company to increase fuel standards or a farmer not to produce a certain amount of wheat under the “interstate commerce clause,” wave a magic wand making marijuana illegal and so many other things then why did we need a constitutional amendment for Prohibition?

You and I both know that we cannot and should not discriminate against women in the workplace because of course they have equal rights. But why then was the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) proposed in 1972 and since it has not been ratified what is the basis for federal law concerning hiring, firing and paying women in the workplace?

Notice this is a nonpartisan rant on my part and not targeted against Democrats, liberals or progressives. Republicans are every bit as guilty of this abuse of power as are the more socialist among us.

The fact is that the United States government is routinely exercising powers that the Founders did not delegate to them in the first place as well as powers actually denied to them in more modern times by the States and the People in an affirmative act of refusing to ratify certain specific proposed amendments.

Those amendments proposed by the two houses of Congress were requests from the federal government to the States and the People to enlarge federal power and authority in the areas addressed by the amendments and “We, the People,” said no and yet they exercise those powers regardless.

That’s criminal.

The Supreme Court of the United States has heard oral arguments in Arizona v. The United States over Arizona’s law, SB-1070, regarding enforcement of immigration law and it does not seem to have gone very well, according to comments and questions by the justices, for the United States.

But, that isn’t what bothers me. What bothers me is the lack of understand of, and fidelity to, the Constitution.

The basic philosophy in our Constitution is that it has to say the federal government can do something or that the States cannot do something – that’s it, it’s just that simple. So, how does that play into immigration and Arizona’s case before the Supreme Court against the United States?

The United States government claims exclusive jurisdiction to make and enforce all laws having anything and everything to do with immigration but that isn’t true or constitutional.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states, in part, [sic] “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…” and that’s it, that’s all it says. The word immigration, or any formation thereof, is never mentioned until discussing slavery and the slave trade.

So now ask yourselves this question; what is naturalization? It is simply the manner by which a foreign citizen becomes a United States citizen and actually has nothing to do with immigration itself as in who can and cannot come to the United States, how, when, where or why.

Now Congress does have the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,” but key there is that there has to be a foregoing power!

In Section 9 of Article 1 there is a list of things the States are prohibited from doing but none of those proscriptions involve immigration, immigration enforcement or even dovetailing their state laws to augment, align with or support federal laws.

In fact, the only expression of “exclusive jurisdiction” for the federal government in the Constitution is with regard to the nation’s capitol in Washington, D.C. and “like jurisdiction in places purchased by the Consent of the Legislatures of the States in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings.”

That is the only expression of federal exclusive jurisdiction in our Constitution and again, there is nothing at all in the Constitution that prevents States from enforcing any federal law.

If the federal government enjoyed exclusive jurisdiction in powers given them by our Founders through our Constitution there would have been no need to spell out its exclusive jurisdiction in those other areas mentioned.

Don’t get me wrong; I am not arguing that the United States government should not have the power to pass immigration laws. I am simply arguing that the power to do so is only implicit at best under the section covering naturalization and there are no implicit or explicit powers of exclusive jurisdiction to enforce those laws.

And even all of that is moot because Arizona did not pass any immigration laws. Arizona did not pass a law that says who can enter the United States, how to enter the United States, when or for how long, or anything of the sort.

Arizona simply passed a law, SB 1070, that promotes the enforcement of federal immigration law and there is no constitutional proscription violated by the Arizona law.

I believe the reason America has become so tyrannical and oppressive, as well as indebted, is that we have lost our way and stopped following our own Supreme Law of the Land – the Constitution. We have become a nation of men versus a nation of law and that never turns out well because we become susceptible to the whims, wishes, desires, hubris and greed of man and have no anchor – no foundation.