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.

Administration’s inaction criminal and impeachable

Constitution: Obama guilty of treason, must be impeached

By Don Hank

I recently published a column on the gradual seizure of ranches in Arizona

by Mexican cartels with the tacit consent of the current administration.

I need to clarify that any person in a position such that he/she can be reasonably expected to be protecting US assets (US president, Homeland Security Chief, Border Patrol chief, etc) and who refuses to protect said assets is on a par with — but in fact is more culpable than — the actual perpetrators (in this case, the cartels, Mexican criminals and other invaders) of the harm to the assets.

This means that these people are liable and must be brought to justice as soon as possible.

Obama and his administration have made it clear that they not only will not meaningfully defend our borders and perform a modicum of their duties to protect American lives and assets (see the definition of security in the above-linked column). They have in fact clearly sided with the criminals, aiding and abetting them in harming a state and its citizens. Suing the state of AZ for protecting borders that can be expected to be protected by the federal government and is their duty to protect under the Constitution, is nothing short of treachery.

Here are the parts of the Constitution that are being directly violated – first an Article that applies indirectly, then an Article that applies directly:

 “Art. IV, Section 3: ….The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the US; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any claims of the US or of any particular State.”

The Obama administration has “construed” the Constitution “so as to prejudice the claims of” a “particular State” (AZ). That is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.

Further, and more directly:

The administration has violated Section 4 of Art. IV, which clearly states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against Invasion….”

There is no wiggle room here for the Executive. Obama and the agencies subordinate to him, must protect the states against invasion and they are failing to do so, in flagrant violation of Constitutional Article IV. In fact, they are illegally suing AZ under color of law in an attempt to cover their tracks.

This passive refusal to protect a state and the pro-active frivolous and malicious lawsuit against AZ for attempting to defend itself amount to one of the grounds for impeachment explicitly enumerated under Article II, Section 4, because the inaction on the one hand and the active step on the other hand are quite simply treason. There can be no other word for it.

It does not matter what the Supreme Court says. Each state has the right to decide whether the government has denied them aid.

Regardless of this, it is time for the states to defend themselves against all blatant violations of their Constitutional rights, whether these violations be perpetrated by the Executive or a higher court, including the SC.

When a higher court violates the Constitution, it is up to the people (on the state level first) to assert their rights and just say no — as Sheriff Joe Arpaio has done, BTW, in refusing to provide documents improperly requested by the feds.

Arpaio is in his right under the 10th Amendment, which states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Constitution does not grant to the federal government the right to interfere with law enforcement activities on the State level.

Nor did AZ, according to this same Amendment, have to accept the intervention of the higher court to hamstring their immigration law. They chose to do so. It needs to be recognized, in this regard, that Jan Brewer is willing to defend AZ only in part, but not in whole. She is behaving first as a politician and, as a distant second, as a defender of her State and its Constitutional rights.

Her endorsement of John McCain is evidence that she is only willing to half-heartedly defend her people.

The fact that the people chose McCain in the primary election is evidence that they are willing to allow the tail to wag the dog.

They have not fully grasped the Tea Party principles and the significance of the Constitution.

And there is one salient reason for this: Neither Brewer nor the people have actually read the Constitution she is sworn to uphold.

The government is not about to protect us from invasion without a significant change, and that change starts with education on the grassroots level. No significant steps toward securing our nation will be taken until the Articles mentioned above are read and understood by a majority of the people.