A day of reckoning is coming

by Don Hank

A recent article by Bob Unruh in WND shows how states are fighting back against federal encroachment – in the case in question, by declaring themselves unwilling to comply with federal detention orders under NDAA. This quiet revolution is merely an extension of other local and state muscle flexing, such as the pushback in Arizona by the state legislature and by Sheriff Arpaio, and the tough anti-invasion law in Alabama.

But I think this could be just the beginning.

The federal government has created a network of vested interests to keep the states in line, all long after the writing of the Federalist Papers and the Constitution, designed to prevent federal abuses. The biggest club they have created is grants to states. Every state gets millions of your and my money, duly shrunken after passing through the sticky fingers of Congress. This money is nothing more than a bribe, a cheap trick to make states grovel and behave like good little slaves. It has worked well thus far. And the money club is not the only weapon in the federal arsenal in its war on the states and the citizens. Obama has shown that states who fail to fall in line behind the dictator in chief don’t get needed non-monetary aid either. Texas, always a renegade stand-alone state, recently watched as its forests were reduced to cinders for lack of much-needed federal help, which eventually arrived after it was rather late.

Arizona saw a lawsuit filed against it by the lawyer in chief, who even went crying to the UN to help subdue the big bad Brewer. And some of the lower southern states found that, after they had sullied Big Daddy Washington, the illegal alien criminals and hit-and-run perps it turned in to ICE were no longer being dealt with. Some came back and killed and raped. That was the states’ payback for not liking the jackboot.

But what if:

What if the states turned the tables on the feds?

I mean, where did this federal money and power come from in the first place?

Why the people of the various and sundry states who pay taxes.

Now, what if the good people of the abused states got together and made a law that prohibited state citizens from paying the entire amount of the federal taxes in those instances when the feds were playing these dirty games? What if they were enjoined to withhold a certain percentage or a set amount corresponding to an estimate of the losses incurred?

What if the states calculated the amount of money it would take to incarcerate lawbreakers who were allowed by the feds to sneak into their state and cause trouble? And what if the states explicitly deducted this amount from the amount their state citizens were bound to pay to the feds?

What if they made it illegal for citizens of that state to pay the federal tax amount that, according to the calculations of the state comptroller generals, was owed them by the feds for dereliction of duty?

Suppose they calculated that X number of illegal aliens had entered their state as a direct result of the federal government’s failure to station an adequate number of border guards and provide them with the necessary equipment and training, and further, as a partial result of their hamstringing them with unreasonable rules of engagement and jailing those who failed to comply with said unreasonable rules.

Suppose they calculated the amount of damage to the state of improperly providing federal aid to people who repeatedly built their homes in areas repeatedly stricken by natural disasters — and then billed the feds for this?

Suppose they calculated the probable number of Mexicans fleeing their homes and entering their state due to AG Holder’s dirty game of Fast and Furious and the amount of money and human life this probably cost in that state?

Suppose they collected this money by the same method, forbidding their citizens to pay this amount to the fed and funneling it to state coffers instead.

And suppose some of the non-border states used a percentage of this money saved to help border states beef up their border security and pay for the detention and return of illegal alien criminals.

And suppose they blew off any unconstitutional and arbitrary federal laws in their state affairs that “prohibited” them from returning illegal aliens on their own? Without the intermediary of ICE, for example. A series of contiguous states could set up a kind of reverse “Underground Railroad” to return criminal aliens to Mexico.

Now, certainly some will say this is carrying things a bit too far.

Oh really?

Did you know what Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says? Read it for yourself:

 … and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence

The extent of the invasion of Mexican cartels is a well kept secret.

But there are numerous credible reports by people living in the border area showing that some areas are no longer safe for Americans to enter or live.

The Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona has areas that are closed off because the cartel has completely taken them over.

These situations fit anyone’s definition of an invasion. And the damage done by Latin gangs and drug dealers everywhere is certainly domestic violence, all traceable to a porous southern border, thanks to a negligent central government itching for a come-uppance.

The US Constitution is a contract between the States and Washington. In all of contract law, there is give and take. (Contracts with only “take” are deemed unlawful, as in the case of prenups). Each of the parties to the contract is both beneficiary and provider of rights. Whenever one party reneges on part of the contract, the counterparty who is hurt by this has a right to deny a corresponding part of its contribution to the bargain.

The states have not reneged in any way. They are a compliant partner. The US government, on the other hand, has completely reneged on parts of its contract — particularly its duty to protect the States against invasion but also with regard to undeclared — and hence unlawful — wars against countries that are not an enemy in any traditionally accepted respect, or the NDAA, which permits the federal government to detain Americans without charges or evidence. It must expect consequences, and if it won’t hold up its part of the agreement, then at least part of the agreement intended to benefit it is null and void by law.

There are 2 main things keeping the States as a counterparty from declaring part of the bargain null and void despite flagrant federal breach of contract:

1—Lack of knowledge of the law and how it applies to the parties.

2—Lack of will.

It is only a matter of time before all the states affected by the Federal government’s failure to perform its duty will understand that they are on the right side of the law and the fed is clearly in non-performance of its contract.

And in our economic crisis, as states find themselves increasingly strapped for cash, laying off employees, halting public works and closing down offices, they will eventually reach a point of desperation when a strategy such as I have outlined above will appear, if not attractive, then at least inevitable.

Outing Ron Paul

Outing Ron Paul

 

by Sapient

 

Is Ron Paul, “Mr. Constitution,” uniquely channeling the spirit of the Founders of our nation and their thinking as clearly embodied in our founding documents, the Federalist Papers, etc — so much so that his seeming eccentricities are due to OUR having forgotten our own true national principles, perhaps because we naively cling to a party loyalty, are deceived by the media, etc?

Is it true that that there is NO good reason for a Constitutional Conservative to question Ron Paul, let alone reject him?   

This, Ron Paul and his followers would have us believe.  Always sounded a bit elitist even cultish to me, but no matter for now.

May I suggest that you should heed your gut instinct and explore Ron Paul a bit — to come to peace with that sense you have that Ron Paul just might be out of bounds in some way, maybe WAY out of bounds.  Explore the possibility that Ron Paul is even something totally foreign to his persona, that he is actually espousing principles foreign to and even antithetical to those of our Founders, and is cloaking those foreign principles in the authority of the Constitution and Founders — carefully tossing in a majority agreeable issue or two or naming the Constitution to promote acceptance.

Could such a thing be possible?  Could Ron Paul be so out of line with our nation that the idea sin qua non of a government by the people, i.e. “We the people…” upon which our nation rests is antithetical to his vision?  Would that concern you?  Is he perpetuating fraud and deception to gain acceptance?

FWIW: 

An atheist once argued that “Christian / Jew–you say you believe the Bible?  Well, the Bibles explicitly says in Psalm 14:1 ‘there is no God.’  Do you believe the Bible or not?”

One slight problem–the atheist omitted the portion that “The FOOL HAS SAID IN HIS HEART ‘there is no God,'”  and from beginning to end the Bible assumes and confirms the existence of God.  The words the atheist quoted were there, but hardly the truth of it.  We want the consistent truth of it — right?

Context and the consistent whole make all the difference.  Same with Ron Paul and the Constitution and Founders.  A word or two here or there is NOT proof of anything.  A “wolf in sheep’s clothing” is the word for a person who claims to be one thing with a very contrary end in mind.  

As noted previously, Ron Paul embraces the philosophy of voluntaryism, a form of anarchism.  I report that without apology.

That has several flavors of voluntaryism of course, but they are cut from the same bolt of cloth. Make no mistake — Ron Paul admits his embrace of this philosophy in no uncertain terms.  His writings and speeches are consistent with that philosophy,.

Follow the links I am providing and you will get to hear it from his own lips, and read his own words, and written by his own supporters.  

Now, it is our responsibility to understand the significance of that philosophy as someone running for POTUS embraces it and is asking us to entrust him with the power of office, OVER US.  If we have never caught that Paul embraces voluntaryism before, we should do so now.  Decision time approaches.  If we were ignorant of either our Constitution and Founding principles, or ignorant of Voluntaryism, and how they compare,  we should become educated.  Again, this view is asking for power over us:

“If a nation, in a state of civilization, expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. ”  –Thomas Jefferson

So, take a look at what we are dealing with in this Voluntaryism.

First, a video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92ybf2L4Guw

Listen to Ron Paul’s words, and take a moment to peruse the comments section for some real flavor of the people who support it.  It seems they thought no one else would read what they are saying.  Compare what Paul said to the “philosophy” link above.  Is this what you believe?  Is this what you believe the Founders believed?  It IS what Ron Paul believes.

Now, from the Mises Institute:  http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/25612.aspx ,  founded and once chaired by Lew Rockwell, former chief of staff to  Ron Paul, and other close associations with him.  So far, I found nothing to prohibit this reproduction.

The purpose of this video at that link is stated:   to illustrate Ron Paul’s voluntaryism, in no uncertain terms, with the caption:

In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.

Notice that Ron Paul has a long term strategy:  to adopt limited government positions and appeals to the Constitution, before the American people, for purpose of implementing  Voluntaryism. Does this concern you?  Remember, this written by people who support him, not his enemies.

Now, watch the video, and then read the comments there on this same page.and note things like whether the readers think promoting this video outside this circle is a good idea and why they have that opinion.

Why, one even compared it to a “coming out of the closet” for Ron Paul. 

  • Right, this might be well for us here [readers of Mises], but I don’t think we should be outwardly promoting that as his [Ron Paul’s] position.  His “anarchism” might not appeal to the voters we need to elect him.

 Read it again, and again until it sinks in what was said there.

That is clear intent to deceive, to twist, to cloak, what Ron Paul is — and they are FINE WITH IT.  It’s their strategy.

Note how elitist it is:  

We [the elite] need the support of the unsuspecting / deceived [voter–non elite] so that we [the elite] can gain power in our Republic-so we {the elite] can do what is actually best for us, and that the voters” [non elite] would never put us [the elite] in office if they knew the truth about us or our intentions–it’s just too far above them…so, we lie.

Pretty bold huh? 

Friends.same old problem, and same basic decision.  I give you Thomas Jefferson:

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”  —Thomas Jefferson

See Jefferson’s choices…self governing, or elite governing.  Where is Ron Paul and his followers in that choice?

Historically, for the elite, honesty is optional–but justified.  Truth is optional but justified by the glorious ends in view.  They see themselves as great souls, self anointed, on a mission the rest of us just cannot understand and appreciate…but we will, they say.  Their intentions are good.

The Founders spoke of such:

Daniel Webster  – “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power . it is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”


Now, we can see what Jefferson meant:  

“Where the principle of difference [between political parties] is as substantial and as strongly pronounced as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317

Same issue.  Same basic choices:  honest, rogue, or the immoral who can’t tell the difference, believing someone a win-win compromise can be reached between the honest and the rogue.  Wanna hazard a guess at just which of those an elitist falls into–those who recognize no law above themselves?  I don’t have to say it, do I?

Where does Ron Paul and his followers fall in that grouping?

Let’s continue as these Ron Paul / voluntaryists discuss whether Ron Paul should admit who and what he is…a voluntaryist and anarcho-capitalist-anarchist rather than the Constitutionalist he claims to be:

  • Graham asks:  What do other people think of this ?  Is there a chance that widespread promotion of this video could undermine what Ron Paul is trying to do?
  • To Graham: I think it’s highly likely that it would damage his campaign temporarily.  But in all reality, he’s got to “come out of the closet” sometime, or else all he’s done is spawned a bunch of “We the People!” types, which is still antithetical to Paul’s ideal society.  I have said in the past before that if he did come out as an an-cap [anarcho capitalist] that it would isolate a good portion of his fan base.  But at the same time, if hangs onto it all the way to the grave, we’d probably wind up with fewer an-caps in total. In addition to these clips, he was also at a debate in 2007 at FreedomFest with Doug Casey and said in the following speech after Casey said he was an anarchist that he would love to give Casey the VP nomination if nominated.

Read it carefully:  Among other things, there is a danger for Ron Paul staying in the voluntaryist closet too long.  It might spawn the wrong kind of following–“We the people types.”

Before we go past that, note the first and most sacred words in our Constitution. “We the people….”

These people are on a MUCH different page already.”We the people” types are FAR from what they desire to have around.

“We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The Constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 1824

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. —John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

These Ron Paul / Voluntaryist folks disagree at a basic level.  “We the people types, which is still ANTITHETICAL TO PAUL’S IDEAL SOCIETY” — read it again.  You are a “We the people” type?  YOU do not belong for YOU are against what they seek!

Still think Ron Paul is a “We the people…” Constitutionalist as he claims?  Still think he is channeling the spirit of the Founders?   The Founders held that “We the people” were key while Ron Paul and his ilk say “we the people are antithetical.”  It’s “we the people” or an elitist.  Those are the choices.

They say they believe in the individual, and the amassed wisdom.  Do they really?  If they did, they would be honest, and allow real choice.  Deception that is characteristic of the elitist.  Watch now as they ask and answer a great question:  What should Paul do if confronted in front of the American people. How should he answer if asked if he is an anarchist? That is, should he be honest about who and what he is and where he would take us if entrusted with power:

  • Question:  If Ron Paul is asked if he is an anarchist — yes or no — during a televised debate, how do you think he will answer?  How do you hope he will answer?  I agree that it would damage his campaign short-term if he said yes, but I think it could well also do long-term damage to the voluntaryist movement.  He is currently acting as a filter: he turns liberals / conservatives into constitutionalists, and some of them (the ones that follow his leads to LRC [Lew Rockwell dot com] and LvMI) [Ludwig von Mises Institute] become voluntaryists by resolving their cognitive dissonance.  If he “came out” he would be less effective at converting socialists to constitutionalists, and by extension, less effective at leading people to voluntaryism.
  • Answer:  It is a different question, but it’s kind of the same thing.  If us anarchists spread the video around, it would functionally be the same thing as “outing” Ron Paul.  So they are similar in that fashion.  If he’s asked in a televised debate whether or not he is an anarchist, my guess is that he’d answer no and say he thinks the society with the least amount of coercion would be the best society, but that he believes a Constitutional government would the best means to achieve those ends.

Obviously I would hope he’d answer in the positive, but that would turn him into a laughingstock. If the people asking questions at these debates like Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, Chris Matthews, or Anderson Cooper did 5 seconds of research, they would discover that Ron Paul a) has all of these clips floating around on the Internet, b) is affiliated with the majority anarcho-capitalist Mises Institute, and c) alludes to a load of anarchist literature in Liberty Defined (such as the LvMI publication “Let’s Abolish Government,” a collection of essays by Spooner).

I agree that Ron Paul’s role is as an educator.  He gets people interested in libertarianism and then turns people onto the Mises Institute.  If you took a poll here on this message board, I’d bet that 50+% of the people first heard of this place through Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign.  Changing somebody into a voluntaryist is a gradual thing and it’s something that’s probably easier to glide into rather than jump into.  So I think you’re right.  But there comes a point where you reach critical mass and Ron Paul has appealed to all of the people who are serious thinkers and at that point he can drop the anarchist bomb on his fans.

Seen enough?  Are you frightened as to what might happen if this man gets into office?

Can you imagine entrusting  the highest authority in our nation of United States, and our Federal State to someone who believes that the whole idea of a state is immoral and should not exist — and is more than willing to lie and deceive to gain power with the intent to dissolve the very state he was elected to preserve, protect, and defend?

He lied about who he was in order to get elected?  What is his oath worth?

I ask you to read carefully about this “eccentric uncle” in the GOP before you even consider supporting him.  Hopefully having some key words will help:  Voluntaryism, anarcho capitalism, Lew Rockwell.com. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, anarchy, statelessness, stateless communism, etc.

While it may be hard to decide who to support, it should not hard to decide who to oppose, and do so.  FWIW:  Many of these groups embrace the philosophy, not of the American Revolution, but the FRENCH REVOLUTION — that spawned the Reign of Terror.  So, make sure and take a look.

I know you will conclude that Ron Paul is hardly in tune  with the Founders after all.  In fact HE is what they warned us about:

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 15– “Why has Government been instituted at all?  Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.” 

Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.  —Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 1, October 27, 1787

Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.  –John Adams, An Essay on Man’s Lust for Power, August 29, 1763

 

Note this:

 

Ron Paul and his people believe so strongly in the sanctify of non-compelled choice, that they are more than willing to perpetuate fraud and deception on you and me and the rest of the American electorate, in order to get their way and to impose THEIR WILL on us — for our own good of course.  So are a lot of tyrants.

Being defrauded is hardly voluntary choice.  It negates free choice, and is its very antithesis, just as is coercion, etc. 

They violate their own standards to gain power.

Heads up.

Further reading:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=379089