Monday, January 2, 2012

Soft Secession



by Hugh Farnham

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

Our relationship with the States' created agent, the Federal Government, is much like a marriage gone sour as Walter E. Williams points out. What was once a beneficial relationship has turned to one of spousal abuse, a nightly beat-down by the one in a wife-beater. As domestic victims, we have a choice: quietly leave, endure, or take drastic and violent measures.

President Lincoln tyrannically shut down the option of States outright divorcing the Federal Government. So what about a peaceful separation? If a spouse can't live in the same house without receiving abuse and scars, why not live apart? Separate beds, separate houses, but the same last name. Not a double espresso of Neo-Federalism, but a cup of Federal decaf, thanks.

Recently, Congress suspended Habeas Corpus and undermined the entire Bill of Rights - on the exact 220th anniversary of the adoption of the same Rights! Time would fail me to describe the myriad ways the Federal Government has overstepped its bounds and violated the 9th and 10th Amendments. Because of this train of abuses, America at this point is being described as "pre-revolutionary".

The idea of a Soft Secession has been building for some time. No wonder, the very foundation of this movement is enshrined in the Constitution itself. The idea of checks and balances, State's Rights, and limits to authority are all described in the Constitution.

Over 40 states have either passed or are in the process of passing state sovereignty resolutions and legislation.

So how could a State keep the Federales at arm's length? Vast swaths of the Federal Code unenforceable within freedom-loving States?

Isolate the Feds:

- Constitutional Sheriffs: Sheriff Mack has done great work in this area with his Constitutional Sheriff initiative. Is your Sheriff a Constitutional Sheriff?
- Fully Informed Juries: What if the jury members refused to convict because federal law is unjust and unconstitutional?
- States need to pass 10th Amendment Resolutions - with bite: Violations of State's Rights need to have mandatory jail time. Wyoming has this.
- Concealed Carry Rights: No permit needed concealed carry.
- States Rights Model Legislation: A poor man's Amendment process. If a plurality of states pass counter-federal legislation it is practically an amendment to the Constitution.

Cut Off The Coercive Financial Arm:

- State Banks: similar to North Dakota's State Bank
- Gold and Silver currency laws: Utah has just passed one
- A return of the concept of Allodial Property
- Federal taxes collected by, and potentially withheld by, the States themselves


Organization:

- Broadcast a common vision of what a Soft Secession would look like, and the benefits thereof to the citizens of that State
- An independent press that are not apologists for the police state
- County by county activists who would share this vision and stir up the people to make this a reality

I would encourage you to read two pieces by Walter E. Williams on this: Time for an Amicable Separation and Parting Company. If we don't act our future will closely resemble the fall of Rome - Martin Armstrong provides an excellent financial / historical analysis of this. They say history doesn't really repeat, but it does rhyme.

"All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force." -- George Orwell.

We are entering into a new phase with our abusive Federal spouse. The lies that once held us together are being exposed; all that is left now is naked force.

41 comments:

Always On Watch said...

For states to be successful in these endeavors, those states must have federalist-minded attorneys general.

A lot of people don't seem to care about gubernatorial and state-officers election. **sigh**

Sun Cracked Soul said...

I love the picture in this post. LMAO, great job.

Jersey McJones said...

I don't see how this resolves any of our problems today. It's just another demonization of the federal government, blaming all our problems on them and ignoring the rampant corruption at the state and local levels, and how much easier it is to corrupt lower levels of government.

The problem is not our constitutional government itself - it is the corruption of our government allowed by morons who see money as speech, corporations as human beings, and war as a constant state of existence.

This anti-bellum throw back is just rhetorical slop for the angry white men snorting and wheezing at the trough. Meanwhile, the corporatocracy licks their lips at the thought of weak, feudal, dissociated states.

Just plain stupid.

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

Stupid is as stupid does, Jersey.

From Walter E. Williams (someone who actually researches before speaking):

Let’s look at just some of the magnitude of the violations.

Article I, Section 8, of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is authority for Congress to tax and spend for: prescription drugs, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget.

Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush.

The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do anything upon which they can muster a majority vote.

So much for Madison's "few and defined" powers delegated to the federal government.

bunkerville said...

Great post. I wonder how many people even know what the 10th Amendment even is or rather was.

Silverfiddle said...

Thanks Bunker. Evidently, Jersey doesn't.

Anonymous said...

Very few know the content of the amendments when you mention numbers. I know I don't.

It's frustrating when authors refer to this amendment or that by number as though, OF COURSE, the reader MUST know the contents by heart.

It gives the reader who doesn't know the feeling he is being regarded as an ignoramus.

I guess most of us know the First Amendment and the Second, but frankly after that it all becomes a little hazy.

So, wouldn't it be a good idea to briefly outline the content in actual words when referring to a portion of the Constitution?

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

It's a list that still denies the need for cooperation and community.

Somehow with everyone pursuing their interests we are going to build a prosperous AND stable community.

Hayek was troubled by this question and never answered it.

You seem to want to drift into the Dark Ages with von Mises and Rand. Don't be surprised that your following is limited.

Ducky's here said...

And the fact that you picture Obama and take a cheap shot at his wife pretty much indicates that you have absolutely no sense of the continuum that has led to what we agree is a bad situation.

Okay, we have a first lady whose sense of culture is deciding whether to listen to Beyonce or Rihanna on her iPod. No Jackie Kennedy for sure.
He's pretty much a product of popular culture and innumerable cliches but he didn't create them, we did.

I'll say it again. Until we demand more from our media and popular culture we are toast. I'm not sure I want to join Freethinker and take an exclusive trip back to Baroque Europe but the tone in America is pretty stifling.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: I didn't write that, my long-time friend Hugh Farnham did.

I agree with you that we need cooperation and community. This issue is to what degree do we need the federal government to do this. Obviously we need it, but to this extent? That's the argument.

I don't think Hayek was troubled by what you mention so much as merely taking it as a given. There is a broad golden mean, but human nature guarantees we will occasionally careen off of it one way or the other.

FreeThinke: Please see my link to the US Constitution at the top the blog, just below the banner.

Anonymous said...

I'll go WAY out on a limb this morning and say straight out:

The Founders sowed the seeds of the destruction of their marvelous achievement when they failed to deal with the issue of slavery right off the bat.

It has been the problem of dealing with "The Negro Presence" -- surely a tragic anomaly in the context of Western Civilization and its great traditions -- that gave impetus -- and credence -- to the tyranny with which we are throttled today.

The USA -- as envisioned by the Founders -- ENDED with the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. We don't want even to think that much less acknowledge it, but it's the truth pure and simple.

Once Lincoln was able to get away with kicking the Constitution in the teeth, and casting it aside -- in order to serve a "higher" purpose -- The Land of the Free was over and done with.

We've been dealing with its agonized death throes ever since.

There was a tragic -- even fatal -- flaw in our founding: We left the Negroes out, and treated them as though they were not fellow human beings.

It was the first instance of "kicking the can down the road" and it started a chain reaction that spelled our Doom right from the start.

"... God is not mocked. For whatsoever a man soweth that also shall he reap."

Lincoln is famous for saying "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

He missed the main point. What he should have said in my never humble opinion would have read

"A house built on a cracked and broken foundation cannot be expected to last."

Lincoln mortally wounded us. Earl Warren finished us off in 1954.

Maybe we deserved it, and maybe we didn't. Either way it doesn't change the fact of our status as a Zombie nation.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: I have a pretty good understanding of how we got here (thanks in part to reading Democracy in America. The man was prescient). It didn't start with Barack Obama.

Also, as I've said before, I'm no anarcho-capitalist, and I'm not a Randian. Hayek is more my style.

And I think taking "an exclusive trip back to Baroque Europe" with you and FreeThinke would be an intellectual blast!

Silverfiddle said...

FreeThinke: Interesting observation, but it appears clear from history that ending slavery at the founding of our nation was not possible.

If you look back on it and put it in context, our revolution, our survival through the pre-constitutional interregnum, and then the ratification of the constitution were all miracles.

Z said...

Gad, my leftwingers all came and called me racist for using that image six months ago. I never saw it because I don't see things in black and white like they do; I just see it as a man who's screwing up and wants another chance. Too bad this particular man doesn't realize how badly he's screwing up. All he needs to do his read his Tshirt (and the news).
Let's hope he doesn't get that chance.

Our Fed has become too top heavy and seems to be positively taken with that power...and we are catching on. I guess that force Orwell talked about could be said to be represented in the new bill that says Obama can arrest and detain (or assassinate?) Americans without trial. Pretty forceful, I'd say.

SF, if we do go into revolution, how do you see it happen?

Silverfiddle said...

Z: Hugh wrote this post, not me.

I don't think there will be a revolution in the classical sense. If any of this is to be resolved, it will be by states nullifying laws, refusing to enforce them, and suing the federal government in court.

Silverfiddle said...

The more likely scenario is that we finally become one big federal state, with traditional states and their boundaries merely quaint vestiges of a simpler and freer past. That is the direction we are heading.

Ducky's here said...

This issue is to what degree do we need the federal government to do this.

-----
Bingo, once again we get back to it.

We agree that the function of government has become so perverted that it satisfies very few.

As for one big state. We are there and we aren't getting our cut.

I think a lot of cliches have to be destroyed before we make any progress which is one reason I harp on the function of our military. This meme about freedom and democracy has to go. We need to make the national discussion more concrete. Even to the point that we focus on the many areas we are in agreement.

Hell, the left and they right know less about each other every day.

Me, I'm just a leftist wimp who hates guns and wants to force your kids to marry a queer. That's about what it degenerates to.

Silverfiddle said...

Ya know, Ducky, it is funny how much of what you say I agree with.

I think you'd enjoy Fabius Maximus

Hugh Farnham said...

If anything, this article is a commentary on consolidated power.

Ducky: We even have the First Lady getting in on the act, telling us not to ingest salt and to eat our vegetables like children!

I'm sorry, but when the First Lady injects herself into national affairs I call that casus belli and snide comments will follow. If you don't like the heat, stay in the kitchen.

Jersey: Ok, we can agree on a few things. It is about corruption of the government and a distortion of original intent.

I was thinking the other day, all the times I've been harassed by authorities, how many times has it been by Federal or local goons? Most of the time it has been by local yokes. So yes, we do have a problem with local corruption - but they are within arm's reach.

I believe if we were to turn the clock back to 1910 from a Federal perspective (without the racism and keeping the Internet of course) our economy, society, and technology would burst forth amazingly.

Hugh Farnham said...

Ducky:

You brought up good points, and in the interest of appearing intellectually honest I will comment:

We agree that the function of government has become so perverted that it satisfies very few. As for one big state. We are there and we aren't getting our cut.

When we all line up like piglets to suckle from Big Brother's ample teats, we will never feel like we are getting our cut. Never. The grass will always be greener, the Joneses in the next State will be getting a better deal... and so on.

The issue is coveting someone else's belongings and being willing to accept stolen money taken from someone else - via the government. Until people deal with those age-old sins we won't have progress. Sunday school did have some societal advantages.

I think a lot of cliches have to be destroyed before we make any progress which is one reason I harp on the function of our military. This meme about freedom and democracy has to go...

As a military officer, I am beginning to see your argument. There's evidence that our miss-adventure in Iraq was lobbied for long before we went in. All that was needed was some excuse - "Saddam was involved in 9/11! Don't forget the WMDs! The Axis of Evil Bastards"!

I have yet to see any evidence of either of those reasons for war. I've asked intel officers - and even they couldn't produce any proof of WMDs (besides what Rumsfeld sold them in the 1980's).

Yes, we need to follow the Constitution and only go to war when Congress declares war. Then we can carry the mantle of fighting for Freedom and defending the Republic. Those of you who are offended: Read about General Smedly Butler - and his insight that war was a racket.

Hell, the left and they right know less about each other every day.

Yeah, ghosts of the 1860's could have said the same.

Always On Watch said...

FreeThinke has made an important point:

The Founders sowed the seeds of the destruction of their marvelous achievement when they failed to deal with the issue of slavery right off the bat.

It has been the problem of dealing with "The Negro Presence" -- surely a tragic anomaly in the context of Western Civilization and its great traditions -- that gave impetus -- and credence -- to the tyranny with which we are throttled today.


Of course, our Founders, like others throughout history, are the product of their times -- no matter how much our Founders were forward thinkers.

Matters related to race -- over and over again. Can we never get past that?

Why is it that Muslims today are not excoriated for what the Muslim slave traders of Africa did all those centuries ago as those Muslim slave traders "contributed" to the institution of slavery?

Why is it that we don't excoriate the New Englanders of today for their slave-ships trade?

Fact: A present generation cannot undo injustices perpetrated upon past generations, whether those injustices be related to race or not. Yet, we keep operating on the premise that we owe somebody something.

Fact: Tyranny is usually promoted as something necessary "for the greater good." In my view, operating on the basis of serving the greater good has brought no end of tragedies, travesties, hard feelings, injustices, etc.

As we look back at history, it seems that human beings never really learn much. **sigh**

Ducky's here said...

@Hugh Farnham - Yes, we need to follow the Constitution and only go to war when Congress declares war. Then we can carry the mantle of fighting for Freedom and defending the Republic. Those of you who are offended: Read about General Smedly Butler - and his insight that war was a racket.

----

That would indeed help. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was an utter disaster. The oligarchs had a virtual free hand to play the grand game afterwards and I think that puts the military in a bind.

As for war being a racket, well if only we complained as loudly when we send billions in aircraft to the Saudis as we do when solar energy production is subsidized.
Maybe it's just me but alternative energy research seems a bigger payoff than playing Idiot's Delight in the mid east despite the Solyndra fiasco.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: There is a difference between the Saudi jet deal and Solyndra.

A private company is selling that stuff to the Saudis. The US government role is simply to approve the sale. It doesn't cost you or I a dime.

Solyndra was a political payoff using taxpayer money. Barely disguised thievery.

beamish said...

I have to disagree with those who lay blame for our present over-reaching federal government at the feet of Abraham Lincoln.

Eyeball Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution and count the number of ways states seceding from the Union violated the Constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


No sir, the South's insurrection enjoys no Constitutional defense whatsoever.

To those who claim the slavery issue should have been settled "right off the bat," just look at what was compromised instead -

- after January 1, 1801, it was illegal to import slaves into a US federal territory.

- a $10 tax on each slave (back then that was a half-ounce of gold) had to be paid each time a slave was moved across a state line, in addition to whatever local taxes might have been imposed.

- States with enslaved populations cound not count more that 60% of their slaves towards apportioning representatives in Congress where tax laws are made.

This had the effect, or at least the intent of making slavery incrementally both economically and politically unviable. Taxes could be raised on slaveowners, and slaveowners couldn't do anything about it.

If you're looking for a person to put the blame on, it's not Lincoln, but rather the early 20th Century Progressives that gave us the 17th Amendment. When state legislatures no longer could appoint US Senators, states lost every check and balance on the power of the federal government that the Founding Fathers gave them.

Ducky's here said...

An ostensibly private company, Silver. But they disappear without Defense dept. funding.

One of my favorites as an example of how these guys operate was the Crusader howitzer. Remember that one?

I wish I remember the company name but it was a prime contractor through General Dynamics. You could watch the stock climb just after the appropriation bill and watch it fall after Rumsfeld cancelled the program.
Who owned the stock? The Carlyle Group (you know, daddy Bush, John Majors et.al.) Classic pump and dump and they left the suckers holding a really big couple hundred million dollar bag.

Junior made sure they paid minimal taxes on the scam, also.

Now just what do all those shenanigans cost the general economy?

Silverfiddle said...

The defense department is not funding this, the Saudis are.

Legitimate MIC criticisms aside, defense contractors a producing a product for a constitutionally-mandated function of the federal government.

Of course I'm not going to support any alleged insider action or cronyism. As far as what it cost the economy? You could ask that about anything, including every time a butterfly flaps its wings.

Solyndra was bald-faced political cronyism with taxpayer money.

Country Thinker said...

I believe Madison had it right when he said that a breach of the Constitutional compact is sufficient to justify secession. This is a voluntary association after all. One way to llok at Lincoln's actions was that the Southern states simply presented insufficient evidence of a substantive breach of the compact to warrant secession. That's not necessarily what he believed, but it's one way of looking at it.

The bottom line is that the case is far mor compelluing today than in the past. Whether it would be wise or solve anything is a different matter entirely.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, AOW. You drew the primary inference I was hoping to elicit.

Just received this quotation in an email. I think it's worth sharing here.

"All truth passes through three stages:

First it is ridiculed;

Second it is violently opposed;

Third, it is accepted as self evident.”


~ Schopenhauer

Have a good evening.

~ FreeThinke

Jersey McJones said...

Silver,

"Article I, Section 8, of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is authority for Congress to tax and spend for: prescription drugs, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget."

Okay. I'm going to try to be a grown-up here... Look man, what the fuck do you think the Constitution is? It's not the entirety of American law. It is the foundation. It both enumerates powers, and allows for current cultural interpretation.

Article 1 Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Silver, please show me where the Constitution forbids today's particular taxing and spending that you don't like.

If anything, we today do not nearly enforce Article 1 Section 8! This is not a laizzez faire Constitution! You guys are the ones misinterpreting it!

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

Thank you Jersey. You are always willing to step in and play the part of Exhibit A:

It both enumerates powers, and allows for current cultural interpretation.

Wrong! It does not allow for cultural interpretation. Where the hell did you get that? Daily Kook?

Thank you for giving us a scary glimpse into the mind of a progressive. If the constitution doesn't say it, the government can't do it! Period! End of story! You'd be a freakin moron to believe otherswise! (how's that? I gave it to you in Jersey speak.)

Hugh Farnham said...

Jersey:

I believe the issue with you is that you have yet to be a victim of the government. Nothing like having an agent of the government depriving you of liberty or property to bring about healthy distrust.

And that is what the Constitution is. Written healthy distrust of those in power. A document that limits the actions of those in power. A document that can restrain even a government populated by devils.

Please bear in mind governments have been the largest killer of healthy people in the last two centuries. Governments can be deadly, especially to those who blindly trust in them. Divine the spirits of Dachau and they will proclaim the same with ghostly tears.

Hugh Farnham said...

Z:

Sorry to hear that you got excoriated for the great Obama graphic. Perhaps I lead a charmed life...

SF, if we do go into revolution, how do you see it happen?

Short answer, yes, there will be a revolution of some kind. It may not be what you expect. We have had many revolutions since our nation's founding. Some good, some bad.

The situation is very fluid and dynamic. Without getting into details, I would suggest you delve into Sun Tsu a bit. Line up the forces, their strengths and weaknesses. Then you will see what I see. Many battles are won or lost long before the armies meet.

I can only hope the hand of Providence, which was with our first Revolution, will be with us again; that magic has not left this nation. If so, no force, bureaucracy, or strongman can defeat us. Grace will always be sufficient if we will only believe freedom is the will of our Creator and not bondage.

Anonymous said...

The following on the RIght of Secession is hardly definitive, but as far as it goes it seems reliable:


U.S. Constitution "The Right To Secede" March 4, 1789

The first union of the original 13 colonies was effected by the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. The articles established a confederation of sovereign states in a permanent union.


The "permanence" lasted only until 1788, when 11 states withdrew from the confederation and ratified the new Constitution, which became effective on March 4, 1789.


The founding fathers recognized the defects in the Articles of Confederation, learned from these defects, and scrapped the articles in favor of the "more perfect union" found in the Constitution.


Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States.


Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia.



In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw."


A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."


Well into the 19th century, the United States was still viewed by many as an experimental confederation from which states could secede just as they had earlier acceded to it.


It took a bloody war to prove them wrong.


Fascinating Fact: It is significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason. A trial would have brought a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession. Federal prosecutors were satisfied with the verdict that had been decided in battle.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080327102404AAPueHx


Since it took the slaughter of 635,000 men, the maiming and mental illness of countless tens thousands more, the destruction of countless properties, the impoverishment of countless families to settle the question "definitively" according to modern scholars, we can only conclude that, regrettable though it be apparently ONLY MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

The loudest voices, the most ammunition, the strongest will and greatest determination WILL conquer always. Decency has nothing to do with it. In fact decency only WEAKENS combatants.

Reason is the slave of Passion. We are little better than beasts.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

An annoying question for SilverFiddle:

The Constitution does not specifically provide for the establishment of an Air Force, does it? ODes that mean the US Air Force is, perforce, unconstitutional?

Z said...

Man, I couldn't disagree much with of Ducky's comment, the one with "bingo" in it....
it's a dark, dark day for Z. :-) :-)

Hugh! you say "I can only hope the hand of Providence, which was with our first Revolution, will be with us again; that magic has not left this nation. If so, no force, bureaucracy, or strongman can defeat us. Grace will always be sufficient if we will only believe freedom is the will of our Creator and not bondage."

That actually got me emotional. I truly believe Providence is what started this country and made it great and why, since we've been forgetting that Providence, things have begun to slide... if only more people put the Creator first again.
and yes, you got a compliment for the image...the left hated it when I used it! Ah, well....seems to me it's a GUY, not what my leftists said was "RACIST, DEPICTING A BLACK MAN NEGATIVELY"! HOLY COW! He's a MAN, get over the color!!! PLEEEEEEEEEASE??

Always On Watch said...

FreeThinke,
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States.

True.

In fact, those states were adamant about their right to secede.

Since the time of Lincoln, secession has become an act of treason.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Anon: The Constitution does not specifically provide for the establishment of an Air Force, does it? ODes that mean the US Air Force is, perforce, unconstitutional?

Dumb question, but I'll answer it anyway.

Article 1, Section 8 mentions Armies, a Navy and Militias. The Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard fit underneath those.

That was easy!

dmarks said...

I'm not sure I agree with much of this, but it is certainly more well informed and has better intention than the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.

That movement is basically constructed of the greedy and lazy yelling "gimme gimme gimme" to those who actually do something productive and are successful from it.

These ideas, in contrast, really do represent the 99% and have a proper concern about the less than 1% who really do rule over us and are causing major problems.

dmarks said...

Jersey said: "It's just another demonization of the federal government, blaming all our problems on them and ignoring the rampant corruption at the state and local levels"

Thankfully, we have governors like Mark Walker and John Kasich battling the corruption and waste problems at the state level.

The situation where state workers are commonly forced to give campaign contributions to a political party is rather outrageous and corrupt.

Silverfiddle said...

@Dmarks: The situation where state workers are commonly forced to give campaign contributions to a political party is rather outrageous and corrupt.

Precisely! Statists like Jersey are blind to such misuses of government power, so long as it benefits them.

dmarks said...

Jerset said: "it is the corruption of our government allowed by morons who see money as speech, corporations as human beings, and war as a constant state of existence."

I hate to break it to you, but it is the campaign finance reformers who see money as speech. They seek to cut off money as a means to silence speech they do not like.

As for the second, it is bad to see ocrporations as human beings. However, there have been no bad policies arising from this. You can't name one.

"war as a constant state of existence."

As for the third, that is more a liberal view, especially in regards to the Middle East. The leftists in this country looked at Saddam Hussein's constant war against Iraq and its neighbors, killing hundreds of thousands. But George W. bush did not like constant war. He took effective steps to respond to the aggression from Saddam Hussein and the other terrorists. Now Iraq is a peaceful place. Sure, there are violent deaths there, but it is comparable to what goes on in Los Angeles County.

You need to realize that the so-called pacifist or anti-war side is actually pro-war. Any person who pushes to keep the Saddam Husseins and other aggressors in place unhindered are also pushing for their wars.