What the hell is happening here? Government is just running amok.
The Los Angeles PD is once again being sued because they simply will not follow a court order - dating back to the 1990's - that requires them to have CCW forms and instructions in every one of their stations. The shocker (not)? Their practices are duplicated in most counties in California.
The Indiana Supreme Court has decided that a person has NO RIGHT to defend themselves if an illegal intruder that breaks into their house happens to be a police officer (yeah, you're an illegal intruder if you don't have a search warrant).
Then, a federal judge in California tells us that we don't have a Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.
What part of, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," Or, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." do they find ambiguous?
Really, they are very easily understood. Those grotesque, unabashed assaults on specific Constitutional affronts aren't even the worst part.
It's the things the government does that skirt the Tenth Amendment. Ya know, the one that basically says that, unless the Fed was granted specific powers, they don't get to do it.
This kind of stuff just fries my rice -
How dare the federal government tell me what I can put into my body, be it heroin or raw milk?
How dare they tell me on whom I can spend my money for services rendered, be it a dentist or a prostitute?
How dare they tell me how many spouses I may have, the type of weapon I may choose to defend myself, and how much of my hard-earned money I can take with me out of the country?
On the federal level, as long as my actions do not infringe on your ability to live as you see fit, I supposedly can do as I please.
What's most maddening in all of this is that the Tenth Amendment actually prohibits the feds from doing all of these things. Yet they do them at will.
Our country has morphed from being a Constitutional Republic into a Democratic Republic. The difference? A Constitutional Republic is a representative form of government where the powers of the representatives are constrained by a Constitution. A Democratic Republic is a representative form of government where the laws can be changed by a simple majority of the representatives agreeing to the change.
In the Constitutional Republic, the judiciary is supposed to ensure the Legislative and Executive branches adhere to the Constitution.
How's that workin' out?
---
Anyways, these are some of the things I'm pissed off about. The key question is, what to do about it?
Like my suggestions for personal finances, is the answer to do what you can to minimize the impact? Is that even possible, since so much of the federal power grab has been to make previously lawful acts illegal?
Look at our drug laws. If I want to sit in my house and smoke a pipe full of meth, I'm breaking a whole litany of laws. Drug possession and drug paraphernalia possession as a start. If I've got some bureaucrat-determined "weight", I get popped as a distributor as well.
I'm harming no one other than myself, just as I can do with a cigarette or a bottle of Jack Daniels if I use either to excess.
Unless the drug was sold to me by a company in another state or country - triggering the "commerce clause" - the federal government has absolutely no Constitutional power to control this behavior. Yet this type of action has been illegal since at least 1914 (Harrison Narcotic Tax Act).
A majority of representatives at the time voted the Executive branch powers outside of the Constitution, and the Judiciary gave them the green light.
BAM! It's the law of the land.
Maybe things have changed. Certainly, I could get some meth and a pipe, sit in my living room, call the feds and inform them of my actions, be arrested and fight the case on Constitutional grounds.
How ya think that would end?
Accept The Challenge
With so many freedoms and rights having been trampled, what do we do? What are our options?
The status quo would be to continue to allow the federal government to grow unchallenged. It would certainly be the easiest to do, and would likely have the most support amongst most Americans. Most folks can't conceive of standing up to a DMV clerk or police officer, much less a federal bureaucracy. They believe the government has their best interests at heart, and just go with the flow.
The other end of the scale is an armed insurrection. Unless regular military units or national guard units were to participate, it is unlikely this would succeed. Sadly, I think most police officers would side with the government, so that makes the odds even longer.
What falls somewhere in the middle? Something between capitulation and civil war?
If you were to follow a, "looking out for Number One" strategy as many (including myself) are doing financially, I think it eventually bites you in the butt. That means that the rest of society is following the status quo, and the government is growing more powerful. Eventually, that ends up with everything being owned or controlled by The State, and any masterful plans of "riding it out" evaporate.
Is there any realistic way to get things slowed and eventually turned around via the ballot box? I think the best hope is via the states nullifying federal orders. There have to be enough states to push back to make it work. This could then bring the national guard units into play should armed conflict result.
Perhaps something like the Free State project in New Hampshire is the right idea. Get enough liberty-thinking people in enough states to control the state legislatures and executive offices, and draw a big fat line in the sand.
It's a great idea in theory, but a bit more difficult in practice. The Free State Project has been trying to get 20,000 people to move to NH, and they've yet to meet their goal. In 9 years, they've gotten a bit under 11,000 to commit to moving to NH, but only around 1,000 have done it.
Maybe it would work better in a larger state with more gravitas. Texas, Florida and a few southern states come to mind.
An exodus of sorts has been happening from some states, such as California. Working, "Native Sons" are leaving, and largely being replaced by immigrants from other countries - legal and otherwise. The main state of choice for most liberty-loving Californians has been Texas.
Nullification seems like our last, best hope. Any other ideas?
Eh. Maybe I'm getting too bent out of shape, considering the world is coming to an end tomorrow.... ;-)
---
Copyright 2011 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com
12 comments:
It's gonna take gun fire. Nothng less.
Do you have an opinion on leaving the US and becoming an expat?
Just to add fuel...
http://bobmccarty.com/2011/05/19/family-facing-4-million-in-fines-for-selling-bunnies/
Not saying this is what I would do, but... What would happen if someone, in defense of the Constitution started targeting socialist politicians and their supporters with "kinetic" guerrilla operations? These types of actions are extremely difficult to defend against, and might get some to reconsider their destruction of our Freedom.
Unfortunately expecting any state to "draw a big fat line in the sand" is a pipe dream. You're a big boy so I know you won't jump to emotion before hearing me out.
I have worked as an consultant in a variety of industries but lately have been doing quite a bit of work in one area at the State level. People have no idea that a HUGE amount of money flows from the fed.gov to the states (think on the scale of tens of millions per year and you're starting to get the picture). In my opinion any state that gets testy will just start seeing their funding reduced. The way some of the reimbursement/grant rules are written by the feds they can easily reject those applications for funds and be within their 'rights'. Just today in a meeting a state lead was discussing how they are attempting to apply for grants and the line of states has grown with this specific federal agency because of the states being 'squeezed for money.' Any semblance of rebellion by a state will be for show only to give voters a feeling that they're being heard.
It is surreal to hear some of the conversations gov employees have and I can't wait to finish my contract in this sector and get out.
Joseph
Guns, I genuinely fear you're right. I just don't know how that plays out.
Mama, my wife and I had discussed this 3 or 4 years ago. Costa Rica or Mexico. I went through a bunch of scenarios and soul searching, and I don't think it will be the answer, at least no for us.
Sue, holy crap, you must be kidding me. Actually, the only thing that doesn't surprise me is that they didn't send it armed officers like what happened to the guys in LA with their raw milk raid.
David, it's a real possibility. There are a lot of really pissed off people in our country right now, and a lot of them are pretty proficient with rifles. Honestly, I would not be surprised to see this happen.
Joseph, your first comment about jumping to emotion ... what!?
Many states are already pushing back from the pork table. NJ, FL, OH and WI all rejected recent high-speed rail money. A symbolic gesture? Perhaps. I seem to remember sometime in the past where states pushed back on something, and the fedgov threatened to withhold highway funding, and everyone folded like a house of cards. Money clearly talks.
I've just got to hope this is how it turns out. The only realistic alternatives are capitulation or armed rebellion.
I've just got to hope this is how it turns out.
You're talking to someone who has always tried to be an optimist. Unfortunately history and my exposure to the 'average' J6P does not provide much hope.
It is the same as those who moan about the growth of the government and taxes but when you have more than light conversation are never ready to sacrifice the benefits they receive. Out here in rural American start talking to farmers about giving up their government subsidies or the older rural folks about taking Social Sec. or Medicare cuts and quickly the conversation goes downhill.
Joseph
This is my plan in a nut shell.
I’m starting with my sons. They’re being raised to think straight and shoot straight. I challenge you to do the same. Just remember OPSEC.
Meanwhile, I’m also challenging myself every day to be the type of man I want my sons to grow up being. Again I challenge you to do the same. By the way .... this is the hard part.
More fuel...
http://rightwingnews.com/constitution/obama-boasts-he-is-destroying-second-amendment-under-the-radar/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rightwingnews%2FhGmL+%28Right+Wing+News%29
Anon, I hear ya. My oldest son, in particular, has a libertarian bent, and most of his friends have a similar outlook.
The second part of your challenge is the most interesting and challenging for me.
I was brought up to respect and heed authority. I followed this dogma most of my life. I've had a number of mini-epiphanies over the past 9 years that have seriously altered how I look at law and government. I've come to realize there is a huge difference between laws and justice. Without discussing any specifics, I disregard many, many unjust laws with a clear conscience.
My challenge has been to convey this to my boys. Civilized society has laws which must be respected, but many laws which are enacted in conflict with the Constitution are illegal and not followed.
Sue, doesn't surprise me at all. An armed populous is a dangerous populous to the statists.
I agree with you 99%. I disagree with your statement that the feds are telling you you cannot drink raw milk. They are not. What they have said is you cannot sell raw milk into the market. it is a dangerous commodity and it's sale is controlled. Drink it if you want to but do not introduce it into the food chain.
Anon, please save the hair-splitting for someone else. By making it illegal to sell raw milk, they've taken away my ability to drink raw milk.
Dangerous or not, the feds have ZERO Constitutional authority to regulate commerce that happens inside of a state. None, zero, zip.
Yet somehow, we have armed USDA officers performing "tactical maneuvers" inside California dairies and Pennsylvania Amish co-ops.
And calling milk, "dangerous" is laughable. I wish I could be shooting raw milk out of my nose right now because I'm laughing so hard. This is the stance of the same government (EPA) that has classified milk as a hazardous material because if it's spilled, the milk fats will constitute an oil slick.
Post a Comment