Tenth Amendment Center: Constitutional Conversation

In September 1796, George Washington shared some words of wisdom that ring true today…

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.” — George Washington, September 19, 1796

The political convention season puts partisan politics on a pedestal for all to see. The Democrats and Republicans both host extravagantly choreographed shows designed to convince America that the other guy is the grossest person in the world, even though the two candidates differ less than 10 percent when it comes to actual policies.

And it works. The majority of Americans define their political ideologies in terms of their party. Republicans swear electing Mitt Romney will “save America,” and Democrats run around claiming that unless Obama gets four more years, America will find itself thrown back into the “failed policies of last century.”

It’s all a load of crap.

No matter which one of these men manages to garner enough votes to enable him to call 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home for the next four years, the federal government will continue to expand, will continue to grow more intrusive and will spiral deeper into debt.

Yet millions of Americans cling tenaciously to the myths spun by their respective parties.

Take this brilliant comment by Terry.

“People have this bad assumption about big government. I want big government if that big government is supporting and defending our founding constitution and supporting those principles that are the core of our country. Republicans have a tendency to lean toward our founding principles. Big government becomes burdensome and dangerous when in the hands of liberals who seem to consider the constitution only when it serves them to do so.”

Never mind that big government is the antithesis of America’s founding principles. And never mind Terry baselessly assuming Republicans actually consider the Constitution any time other than when it serves them to do so. The very notion that “big government” serves a great purpose as long as “our guy” controls it should send shudders down any thinking American’s spine.

Get the New Documentary Today!

Of course, Republicans don’t hold a monopoly on blind partisan loyalty. I saw an Obama 2012 sticker on the back of some care with a peace symbol the other day. Yes – nothing says “peace” like blowing up your neighbor with a well-executed drone strike.

This was the kind of mentality George Washington warned about. When we buy into the “our guy’s a saint; their guy’s a devil” thinking, we become willing to place a mantel of power on our guy so he can “get things done.”

Terry and many other people get it wrong on so many levels. But their willingness to place big government power levers in the hands of his preferred party guys poses the greatest danger.

Big government is dangerous and burdensome. Period. And your guy is not a saint. They are all devils.

That’s why we must restrain all of them with the chains of the Consitution – Democrat and Republican alike.

The post Politicians? None of them are Saints! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

For many Ron Paul supporters, the first major shock this year was Rand’s endorsement of Mitt Romney. Others felt the blow from Jesse Benton and John Tate. Still, others looked at the Campaign for Liberty’s obvious shift from liberty only to a republican advocacy group as reason for dismay.

And just this last weekend at the Paul Festival, many supporters were freaked out by what people considered a Romney endorsement from Sheriff Richard Mack.

One prominent activist that I hold a great deal of respect for put it this way:

“Well… I guess i needed this weekend to know that i dont belong or fit in anywhere in politics, including the liberty crowd…. Final straw, finding a new way to change the world…”

From charges of the good Doctor getting squeezed out of debate time, to shenanigans in the caucuses, to surprising endorsements of the opposition, to rejecting convention delegates and proposed rule changes that would have made the Republican party an even more centralized power structure than it already is – the frustration level of many of the most dedicated Ron Paul supporters is at a fevered pitch.

I do agree that there’s plenty to be frustrated with, even if the concern of some might be blown out of proportion in some cases.

I was moderately active in the Ron Paul meetup group #1 back in 2007, and felt that – wow, here’s a guy that even if I disagreed with him on something, he’d start and end all of his actions with the Constitution. The same couldn’t be said for a single politician – in my entire lifetime. That – in and of itself – was something worthy of support.

But my dismay started early on – with the direction of “the revolution” as many were already calling it.

I remember watching a short CPAC introduction speech by Jeff Frazee, head of Young Americans for Liberty – a group whose existence was tied to Ron Paul as his message. Jeff got up on stage and proudly proclaimed that “YAL was the country’s top organization of young conservatives.”

Hmmmm. Wow. My gut reaction? Did this dude just change the name of the organization to Young Americans for Conservatism? To me, that’s really all I needed to hear. While I have a great deal of respect for Jeff and the work over at YAL – I don’t particularly want to be part of a movement to expand conservatism, just as much as I don’t want to be a part of a movement to expand progressivism.

I just want liberty.

You see, liberty isn’t about politicians, or political parties, or political ideologies either. Liberty transcends all of it.

But, I digress.

Ron Paul has, all along, considered himself nothing more than a messenger.

“I’m an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect,” is one of his famous quotes.

But long ago I had to accept the fact that this message – of the Constitution and your liberty – is unwelcome in Washington DC. And I’ve even grown beyond that understanding too. It’s not just unwelcome, there’s unbridled hostility towards it. Just ask a Ron Paul delegate to the Republican convention what it’s like to be blocked, buried and cheated at virtually every turn. That’s not a “you’re not welcome here” message – it’s a “we hate you and never want to see you again” message.

So what’s a good person to do? Ron Paul has certainly stuck to his principles – through attack, ridicule, success and failure. That’s obviously one of the big reasons for Ron Paul’s dedicated support. “He’s the only one with principles,” is something I often hear.

Guess again. Washington DC is overflowing with people who stick to their principles. It’s just that these people have a different set of principles. They are megalomaniacs. They’re thieves. They’re liars. They’re thugs. They’re killers. And they’ve been sticking to their principles for generations.

I would argue that a person of principles – someone who wants to advance the cause of liberty..or any cause for that matter…would do a far greater service to their goals to stay as far away from Washington DC and the national political machine as possible.

That’s why I’ve worked so hard for years now to be a part of a different kind of solution. A new way to change the world.

As the famous philosophical question goes, If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?

I like to apply that to other issues too. If the president starts another executive war and no one shows up, will there be any fighting? If Congress passes a law and no one cares or obeys, is it still a law? And if these people keep holding their imperial conventions and we all turn our backs on them – will they really even matter?

Just think about that for a minute. If all the time and effort put into lawsuits over Obamacare was instead put into efforts to nullify it no matter what the federal government people had to say, that so-called law would be dead and gone already. Twenty six states wouldn’t be figuring out the next lawsuit. They’d be resisting.

If all the antiwar activists during the Bush administration had spent time nullifying instead of voting for a peace candidate that bombed Libya (and others), there’d be far less war too. If advocates of gun rights, due process, industrial hemp, free markets, civil liberties, better education – and an endless list of other issues – spent their time, money and energy close to home – with the courage to nullify DC instead of hoping to fix it – we’d all be far better off.

I know Ron Paul revolutionaries have heard about nullification. Ron himself has spoken in support of it a number of times. Tom Woods wrote a book about it and speaks on the subject quite often. The Mises Institute held a course on it. A number of Lew Rockwell columnists have written about it. And my columns have appeared there and on the Campaign for Liberty website too – before they made their big shift.

Liberty isn’t going to come by trying to take over Washington DC, or the republican party, or the democratic party, or your state caucus or a national convention. There is no “lesser of two evils.” They’re all evil.

Become a member and support the TAC!

Liberty will only advance by rejecting these people and the entire criminal system they’ve foisted upon us.

I want the government people to get the hell out of my life, and the only way that’s going to happen is if we work together to nullify all of them into oblivion. The next step for Ron Paul revolutionaries? If you want liberty – it’s not another political campaign. It’s right here.

Please come home. We’ve been waiting for you!

“I would rather be beaten and be a man than to be elected and be a little puppy dog. I have always supported measures and principles and not men.”

The post A Message to The Revolution appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Is the US Government the worst rights violator on earth?

Well they sure don’t think so!

According to mainstream media reports, one of Barack Obama’s White House spokesmen said this in response to the recent “free speech” trial in Russia:

“While we understand that the group’s behavior was offensive to some, we have serious concerns about the way these young women have been treated by the Russian judicial system.”

Ok, so let me get this straight.

The leadership of the country with the most people in prison -anywhere on Earth other than North Korea – is lecturing another country about their judicial system?

Barack Obama, who last winter signed the 2012 NDAA authorizing nothing less than government-sanctioned kidnapping, is in favor of fair trials?  Maybe so, when he even allows his enemies to get a trial.  In the United States, if someone did what the Russian protest musicians did, they could have been declared “terrorists,” and thrown in prison forever, without charge, without representation, without trial.

So who the hell is he to lecture anyone about how a judicial system treats human beings?

The Russian leadership is filled with criminals, and their judicial system is extremely corrupt.  Defense lawyers were barred from calling most of the witnesses they wanted, including experts and some eyewitnesses, even as prosecutors were allowed to call witnesses who had seen the Pussy Riot performance only on video.

But here in the “land of the free,” things are even worse.

Barack Obama’s attorneys, in a recent court hearing on the NDAA, once again refused to assure the court that indefinite detention powers have not been used by the US government – even after Judge Forrest’s injunction against it.

Is a show trial worse than no trial at all?  Absolutely not. At least a show trial allows the world to see the corruption.  In Barack Obama’s America the government people are so corrupt they prefer secrecy.  They claim the power to take you off the street without anyone ever knowing it.  Have things gotten that bad?  With this recent court refusal, you’ll never know for sure.

What we do know for sure is that they have no problem arresting people without trial – at all.  Even though he’ll eventually get one, Bradley Manning has been incarcerated for over two years without trial.  And just this week, Brandon Raub was arrested for facebook posts – and forcibly sent to a psychiatric hospital without due process or even an attorney.

With tens of thousands of drones set to start monitoring Americans’ every move, the TSA violating the 4th amendment on nearly 2 million people every single day, mass ammunition purchases by even the Social Security Administration – and much more – the American government is the height of criminality.

For Obama’s spokesman to lecture the Russian government is sad, sick joke.  That would be like John Gotti complaining about the crimes of Al Capone.

Look, I don’t trust these people.  Any of them.  They’re all criminals, in my opinion.  But, you know what?  It’s the American government which which might be the most dangerous in the world.

Join Us!

I don’t want them telling me what size my toilet should be or what kind of lightbulbs I can buy.  I don’t want them controlling my health care, my education, my retirement, or anything else.  I don’t want their taxes, or their inflation, or their funny money either.  I don’t want them to try to fix the environment or car companies so incompetent that they should be out of business.  I don’t want them sending guns to cartels across the border or to their so-called allies overseas either.  I don’t want them invading my neighborhood and shutting down businesses for selling a plant they don’t approve of or a type of milk they don’t like.   I don’t want them invading anyone at all.

Instead of violating rights at home and interfering with the lives and liberty of people around the rest of the world, the American government would serve a much better purpose to follow the Constitution – and butt the hell out.

Will it happen?  Without a completely different way of dealing with them – never.

The post Land of the Free? Absolutely Not. appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Some people seem to have the crazy idea that violations of the Constitution started just recently. And that things were pretty hunky dory up until January 2009.

Charles in Texas had this to say:

“If Barack Obama is elected for another term, the 10th Amendment will be obliterated.”

We recently posed this question to a number of supporters – “On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate Mitt Romney on adherence to the Constitution”

Janice in Georgia responded with this:

“And the point is? We r getting close to nov election & must fire Obama! Get it? You better!”

And finally, Mathis in South Carolina didn’t even beat around the bush, for lack of a better term, when he responded with this:

“Bring Back George Bush!”

Mathis, you either hate the Constitution or have no idea what it says. Until we got the current criminal in chief, Bush was quite possibly the Constitution’s greatest presidential enemy in history.

Charles…are you, what…five years old? Or maybe you just woke up from some kind of time-traveling coma. I don’t know. But, to think that Washington DC has respected any limits on its power in recent years, is pure blindness. The 10th has been obliterated for decades.

Janice, I don’t even know where to start with you. If Constitutional adherence is of no point to you, then Barack Obama should be just fine and dandy.

And to all of you – and everyone else of this kind of viewpoint – things didn’t get bad when Obama got elected. Obama got elected because things already were bad.

ALREADY THERE

For decades – and decades – people in this country have turned a blind eye to violations of the Constitution. They’ve allowed politicians of their favorite political team get away with things so the other team wouldn’t win. Or, they’ve allowed new program after new program to begin – in order to fend off some great, scary emergency.

The result of this has not been good. Why? Because politicians should never be trusted.

When you allow politicians to break the rules given to them, or even allow them to simply bend those rules, and you allow them to do it for years without punishment – eventually you’ll end up with politicians who feel that the rules don’t apply at all.

So, let me break it to you. We’ve been there for quite some time already.

Look, I’m not going to get into reciting a list of Constitutional violations by every modern president – that list would be far too long for any human to read. Instead, I’m going to share with you a personal thought – who’s fault is all this?

THE POLITICAL TEAMS

Amongst presidential voters in this country, there are two main teams.

There’s the people who claim to believe that government does a good job at improving society. This team scares people into believing that if the federal government doesn’t run your life, your world could collapse. These folks rarely spend time talking about Constitutional limits on power. Obviously. We’ll call this the Blue Team.

Then there’s the people who claim to believe that massive federal power is a bad thing. This team often talks about limitations on federal power. They praise politicians who talk about the Constitution, and regularly cite the principles of the founders to back their views up. We’ll call this the Red Team.

These days, the Blue Team votes for Barack Obama. Even though many people on that team are in favor of ending wars, opposed to the Patriot Act and indefinite detention, and find the escalating war on marijuana to be reprehensible – they’ll still vote for Obama. He’s on their team after all.

And, the Red Team these days votes for Mitt Romney. This is the guy that’s supposed to be leading the team that’s in favor of the Constitution. But, maybe that’s not really the case. The word “constitution” barely appears on Romney’s campaign website. The only issue where he makes any reference to it is in regards to the Courts. And there, he makes this statement:

“The job of the judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government and, where the Constitution does not speak, to leave the governance of the nation to elected representatives.”

Skipping over powers reserved to “the states, respectively or to the people”- it sounds to me like Romney has rewritten the 10th Amendment to read something like this:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or spoken of in the Constitution, are reserved to Congress.”

Both teams have grown the federal government far beyond anything authorized by the Constitution. It doesn’t matter if it was due to a defensive strategy, or actually cheering things on, or just complete and utter ignorance about what the Constitutional limitations are. The end result is the same. The Constitution – and the 10th Amendment – have been obliterated for decades.

But I digress.

OUR DISEASE

People like Obama, and Romney – and Bush and Clinton. They’re all extremely bad. But they’re not the disease. And merely voting one out for the other has not been our cure either. These people are merely symptoms of our disease.

Think of it this way. You open a business that makes and sells cookies. In your hiring process, you probably won’t get too many lawyers or engineers applying for a job to bake the cookies. Instead, you’ll mostly get people who love to cook.

Get the New Documentary Today!

For decades, the People of this country have allowed federal power to grow unabated – and many have even asked for it too. So what kind of people do you think would apply for a job leading Murder, Incorporated?

You got it – people who love power – and not your humble, friendly neighbor. Or even the jerk who lives a few doors down. Those are normal people. Only megalomaniacs want to steer the ship of the most powerful government in history.

If you want to know how we got into this mess. Look in a mirror. Until people change their line in the sand, things will never change. Today, people everywhere have a line in the sand – but on one side there’s a red team and on the other is a blue team. Like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney’s campaign websites, the Constitution is rarely – or ever – even mentioned.

What is needed a new line in the sand. On one side of that line is the Constitution, and on the other side – the type of government this country has had for a long time.

For me, there’s no team. And there never will be. There’s only one thing that matters – the Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

The post Curing the American Disease appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

On August 2nd, Robert Gray, the executive director of the American Open Currency Standard – that’s the company that mints our official Tenth Amendment Center 1 ounce silver medallions – gave testimony before Ron Paul’s Congressional Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy. We thought he made some extremely powerful statements – and wanted to share it with you here. The audio above was the live testimony, as shared on a recent episode of Tenther Radio – and the text version below is the full (not time-constrained) testimony prepared by Rob for the hearing.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, My name is Rob Gray and I was asked to testify today on the theory of competing currencies, and the practical challenges that make such a theory difficult or impossible to implement.

For nearly 5 years now, I’ve successfully directed the American Open Currency Standard – the standard for private voluntary and complementary currencies that compete against each other, not against the US dollar.

Allow me to clarify: we do not consider AOCS Approved medallions produced and traded in our private barter marketplace ‘competition’ to the US Federal Reserve Note. Because “fair competition”, as one would find in the “free market”, assumes the existence of a level playing field, the existence of a standard set of rules. Those players who wish to compete honestly do so by relying simply on the merit of the value they bring to the market.

No fair challenge can be made between honest men and thieves. Let me be clear that when I say thieves: I refer to the current private central bank and the men in government who allow it to exist.

This brings us to a critical point: according to your Employee Handbook, Article 1, Section 8 says: “The Congress shall have the Power …To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof…”. For anyone who has been a manager or business owner, it is not uncommon to find that you may have an employee who may choose to not do the work that is delegated to them, or even that they simply do it very badly. When such a time comes it is necessary for the manager or owner to step in and do the work themselves.

I would argue that since 1913, Congress has failed to do the job with which it had been tasked. We the people are now bypassing you and are no longer waiting for you to make it right. It is far better to simply walk away from the system. We are walking away from toxic thoughts, relationships, investments and careers. We are taking the hard intellectual journey to rid ourselves of the indoctrination that keeps us in this system. We are realizing the power we have in ourselves and the everyday choices that we make to either empower some soulless collective or our own families. We are realizing that we simply need to withdraw our time, energy, and money from banks, politicians and corporations that do not serve our interests.

In the time since our inception, the American Open Currency Standard has enjoyed nearly five years of growth and success in our mission of issuing a means that allows valuable exchanges among men who produce. In the next five years, we expect to expand our offerings and to increase our ability to keep up with the demand for our private currency. We are doing the job Congress would not.

The use of community currencies here in the US became popular back in the early 1930’s. You see, at the time, the theory was that a group of the world’s most powerful men, many of them international bankers, were intentionally and systematically removing currency from circulation, creating an artificial scarcity of money across America. Small cities and towns felt it worse than anyone. But life did go on.

Then, during the greatest economic depression this country had ever seen, individuals across this country developed their own mediums of exchange. They still needed things – food, clothing, daily essentials – they still needed to live, and they didn’t have time to wait for the government to fix the problem, and they certainly weren’t going to rely on the same bankers that caused the crash to offer solutions. And so, according to historical records, thousands of community currencies were created, circulated and traded in places where the scarcity of dollars was interfering with the human desire to live, and the market’s desire to trade. And since their elected employees were not doing the job for which they were hired, these individuals took it upon themselves to secure the means to their own survival and potential prosperity.

More recently, community currencies have sprung up across Europe as the Euro and national fiat currencies become increasingly unavailable and undependable. Today, communities all across the Eurozone trade their own money instead of the Euro.

Community currencies are not simply a good idea in theory; they are necessary, alive, and true examples of the free market’s unwillingness to be artificially manipulated. Right now alternative and complementary currencies circulate widely across this country and in many different forms: Ithaca, New York uses a local fiat currency based loosely on the value of time; Berkshire, Massachusetts uses a fiat-backed fiat system, while many more communities circulate gold, silver and copper AOCS Approved barter tokens as a medium of exchange. How they are issued, accepted, accounted for and reported varies widely, as the participants and procedures are as different as the markets they serve.

As for practical issues to overcome in the issuance and circulation of complementary currencies, there are plenty. In a voluntary system, those that participate in the trading of private currencies must deal with the possibility of counterfeiting, fraud, scarcity, acceptance, accounting, storage and other issues, all without the luxury of big brother holding a gun to anyone’s head to ensure their success.

Even with all the risks, the market moves on. As in any free market, good ideas circulate with success, and bad ones eventually fade away. Participants voluntarily choose to accept and circulate the highest quality and most valuable currencies in exchange for their best production. Merchants accept complementary currencies based on the premise that someone else is willing to do the same later. Issues arise and are worked out by the market with only one light to guide them: the mutual exchange of value. No guns, no laws, no force: just the willingness to think outside the box and act on principle.

Complementary currencies are not new, in theory or in practice. Further, private currencies circulated long before governments erected themselves to interfere. What’s new, however, is the public’s apathy towards you and your policies. You’ve managed for the last hundred years somehow to convince the citizenry that you’re relevant. Now, just recently, we’re beginning to see the tides change on this. And once it catches on, you’ll be rendered completely obsolete.

The greatest hurdle you will face over the next few years is trying to convince “we, the people” that you are still necessary in spite of your failures to get the job done. Sure, some will continue to rely on you for hand-outs; it’s what they’ve known their entire lives and they will be slaves right up and to the point of their own destruction. They don’t know any better and I don’t blame them for their ignorance.

But as you continue to squeeze the life out of the middle class, watch out for their greatest weapon: apathy. They may not be ready to admit it, but soon they’ll turn their backs on you and never believe another lie – the lie that you are willing and able to do the job for which you were hired. In the future you will not have to worry about million man marches or citizen journalists trying to catch you on camera. What you need to fear is no one paying attention to you.

The next American revolution will not be fought with bullets and bombs; it will be won with the opposite consciousness.

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

To that end, I’m here today to propose a solution. My understanding of this subcommittee is that you desire to be part of the solution. You want to believe you’re doing something good for the country. Today, the greatest gift you can offer to the people you clearly represent is to introduce, not to the legislature but directly to the public, what I call IR 1207 – Individual Resolution 1207 – commonly referred to as ‘Ignore the Fed’.

Store your wealth in silver. Bank with a non-fractional bank that pays real money on deposits. Use the card services network to satisfy dollar obligations. Do not try to compete with the federal reserve system: ignore them. This country has succeeded in doing away with two central banks already over the course of its history – it is learning to do the same again.

Congressman Paul: on July 13, 2011, you asked Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, a question: ‘Is gold money?’ I ask that same question of you here today: is gold money? Is silver money? They most certainly are not. At least not by the current definition as handed down by Congress’ money-issuing surrogate, the Federal Reserve. And that’s just fine.

I respectfully petition you, sir, to seriously reconsider your position on this matter. The government has perverted the word money. My wife is a nutritionist, and she tells people, ‘If your grandparents wouldn’t recognize it as food, don’t eat it.’ I suggest to you that if your great-grandparents wouldn’t recognize it as money, don’t accept or spend it.

A great philosopher once said “When destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, ….” Today, conventional wisdom tells us that money is a worthless pile of paper. And for the last 100 years Congress has for a third time (again) shunned its responsibility when it comes to issuing money. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve and Congress’ abdication of their responsibility, the dollar has lost 98% of its value. I don’t suspect anyone would call that stellar job performance. I must be blunt and say that, as employees, Congress, you have not been successful in your charge to “…coin money and regulate the value thereof…” and therefore your services in this area are no longer needed. It is sad that even the men and women in this chamber either do not understand the system they serve or are so dependent upon the system’s favors that they dare not speak in opposition to it.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

I ask you to leave the Fed their money and leave the people our silver, gold and copper. Do not push to redefine whatever representations we choose for our wealth as ‘money’. Let the Fed do what it wants with their ‘money’, so long as they leave us alone. I warn you: ‘honest money legislation’ is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The record of Congress over time has proven that it will make a miserable failure of this aspect of human survival as it has so many others.

The greatest thing this Congress can do is exactly what you’ve done so far: nothing.

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

I will not facilitate this government to “help” understand, control and ultimately destroy alternative currencies. All I ask is that you stay out of our way. The people in our world are happy to go right along saving you from your own destruction by producing value against all the odds, regulations, codes, and challenges thrown our way. But leave our money alone. It doesn’t belong to you, and it never will.

If you really want to help, I would recommend that instead of trying to DO something, you could start by undoing some things. But that list is far too long for me to get into here today and as a responsible employer, I’ll allow you some room for creativity.

One last thing I would like to leave you all to ponder…

How is it possible for every single person in the world to be in debt with credit card debt, student debt, consumer debt, auto debt, and mortgages?

How is it possible that every small business and corporation in the world is also in debt?

Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion!

And finally how is it possible that every single local, county, province, state and nation on earth is also in debt?

Who owns the other side of that debt?

When you understand that, maybe just maybe, something positive will come out of this chamber.

The bottom line is simple: humanity is not going to wait for permission to survive. Things that cannot go on forever… won’t. The market will move on – with or without you. And, based on your rate of success to date, our preference is without you.

I thank you for your attention to this matter of life and death.

“There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”

The post Dear Congress: Get out of the Way! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Get the New Documentary Today!

Today, Paul Krugman decided to give us his wisdom on the subject of nullification – by saying almost nothing at all. In a short blog post, linking to a “report” by ThinkProgress, he notes – laughingly – that a Senate Candidate in Texas supports the idea of states nullifying acts of Congress. He doesn’t say a thing about nullification, but he’s obviously brushing it off as idiotic. As Tom Woods wrote on his blog today, “Paul Krugman thinks the idea of state nullification of unconstitutional laws is so self-evidently stupid that he doesn’t even need to offer an argument against it.”

Digging a little deeper – just a little, mind you – you’ll see that the ThinkProgress article he linked to was referring to Ted Cruz, who had a proposal where two or more states could work together to refuse compliance with the Affordable Care Act. Not outright nullification, but we certainly know that non-compliance in large numbers can in fact nullify a federal law.

ThinkProgress, the well-funded liberal blog which was vehemently anti-war while Bush was in office (now they don’t seem to think foreign policy is worth much of their time), has an interesting relationship with such nullification actions taken by the states. They turn a blind eye to them when Republicans rule in Washington. They sometimes give the image of cheering such efforts when politically popular. They attack and denigrate them when Democrats rule in Washington or when they oppose favored policies. And when they see nullification efforts getting popular among their own supporters, they simply freak out. All in all, these people, led by the crackpot pseudo-expert Ian Millhiser, are promoting an extremely dangerous view of how this country should be run.

Millhiser tells us that the Supremacy Clause provides that “Acts of Congress “shall be the supreme law of the land,” and thus cannot be nullified by rogue state lawmakers.” In other words, Congress passes a law, the President signs it, and it’s a done deal. Anything and everything is somehow authorized by the Constitution. But that begs the question. If the federal government can do anything it wants, why even write a Constitution at all? Here, Millhiser makes an argument that is so silly that it’s not worth my time. On top of it, his view of the supremacy clause is totally wrong. He knows it. He’s just counting on his readers not reading the clause, like Brion Mclanahan did.

STATE NONCOMPLIANCE

In 2005, the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration gave us the privacy-invading, state-commandeering, constitution-violating Real ID Act. In much of the country today, while the law is still on the books in congress and has never been challenged in court – it remains null and void. Why? Because of mass state noncompliance with the act which has led to its de facto nullification.

Did ThinkProgress have anything negative to say about such efforts? If they did, it sure wasn’t as prominent as their attacks on those who seek to nullify the federal health insurance mandate, or federal light bulb standards. Millhiser said that the embrace of nullification in those areas “threatens the very union itself.”

Isn’t it odd, then, that we didn’t hear a peep from TP about “threats to the union” when they reported on a Democratic governor nullifying the Real ID act in 2007? Here’s all they had to say,

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) said “no, nope, no way, hell no” Tuesday to helping create the first national identifcation cards, signing into law a bill that blocks the state from complying with the REAL ID Act.

The articles linked in that brief report were to those supporting the nullification effort. The first was to an article from the editors of the Daily Kos, praising the Democrat for refusing to comply with the federal law. And the other to the ACLU’s Real ID website highlighting state resistance – and encouraging more widespread non-compliance.

If ThinkProgress were intellectually honest, they would’ve followed that up by saying things like – “The Governor of Montana just took the wildly dangerous and unconstitutional view that his state can somehow pick and choose what federal laws they want to obey.”

But they aren’t and they didn’t.

Even after Barack Obama got into office, TP continued to report on state nullification of the Real ID act – without a single negative word about it. In September 2009 Andrea Nill Sanchez reported that “at least 15 states have passed legislation blocking the implementation of REAL ID.” She somehow “forgot” to mention how dangerous state nullification was that time too.

In June of this year, Think Progress posted a report on how seven more states may legalize medical marijuana In 2012. With 17 states already directly defying federal marijuana law, you’d think that this article would’ve been an urgent alert informing readers how such state defiance on federal drug policies was akin to South Carolinians who supported slavery in 1865.

But of course, it wasn’t. It was supportive of the state nullification proposals – on weed.

I also didn’t notice any scathing attacks from ThinkProgress when Krugman’s own New York Times editorial board championed a medical marijuana law in New York last summer. And no, Krugman didn’t put out a short blog post talking about how his employers at the Times had lost all touch with reality by supporting a measure that violates federal law.

And just yesterday, Tara Culp-Ressler reported that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will continue to implement her state’s medical marijuana law regardless of its split with federal policy. But did Tara attack Brewer on marijuana policy like Ian did when Idaho Governor Butch Otter signed an executive order to refuse compliance with the medicaid provisions of the affordable care act? Of course not.

With that act of defiance Ian told us that the Idaho governor “has endangered the health of over more than 200,000 Idahoans and forced financial ruin upon his state.

OBEY. JUST OBEY!

The message from ThinkProgress? Obey. Or people will die. And the economy will crumble. These people sound like George Bush – let me spy on you and wage war around the world, or your safety is in danger.

I’m amazed that people still fall for this nonsense.

So what’s the practical result of what Krugman, Millhiser and the rest of the ThinkProgress team are telling us today? If you take it to it’s logical conclusion – which isn’t too far-fetched with Obama’s new NDAA “indefinite detention” law – the nearly 1 million who currently purchase marijuana under state law and in defiance of federal law, should be rounded up.

Such a move doesn’t appear to be that far off. Millhiser is now taking the position that there is “simply no question” that federal marijuana laws are constitutional. And, that citizens in states with marijuana laws are still required to follow them.

The only question that remains for Ian – how do you plan on fulfilling this requirement? Don’t be surprised when ThinkProgress starts pushing for federal agents to raid the homes of cancer patients – because they are, after all, helping nullify federal law.

A BETTER PATH

In 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave a us better idea. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” – while denouncing the Alabama Governor for wrongly using nullification to continue the horrible practice of racial segregation – he taught us that tyranny is tyranny even when it’s “law” – and that such “laws” need to be defied. He wrote:

One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

But according to our friends at ThinkProgress, all federal laws are supreme, and we can’t pick and choose which ones we want to follow. It’s up to our corporate-backed political overlords in Washington DC to do that for us.

Millhiser, Krugman, and the rest – they represent a wildly dangerous view of the constitution, and of society in general. They disagree with Dr. King that people can decide on their own what is “law” and what is tyranny. And they agree wholeheartedly with killers like Mao and Stalin – and modern ones like Bush and Obama – that there should be a “decider” ruling over us.

With these views in mind, I guess Millhiser would’ve arrested Rosa Parks too.

The post Krugman, ThinkProgress. As Dangerous as it Gets appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Since its inception, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies have led to a decline of over 95% in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. As a result, there have been several attempts to reduce or even eliminate the Federal Reserve’s powers.

Louis T. McFadden led efforts in the 1930s. Wright Patman pressed again in the 1970s. Henry Gonzalez got things moving in the 1990s. And, Ron Paul has led the charge for more than twenty years now. In nearly eighty years, though, none of these efforts have succeeded.

And, even with House passage of Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill earlier today, it’s highly unlikely that the imperial Senate would ever allow light to be shed on the actions of its financial backer. Resistance to these efforts is seriously entrenched.

But yet, a large number of people across the political spectrum want to know what goes on behind the Fed’s curtain. And with calls to audit the federal reserve reaching a fevered pitch, it’s a good time to ask the basic question – is this even a worthy effort?

Not to say that you should want a secret national bank, but rather – is this kind of activism the best place for you to put your energy…and hope? Will lobbying the Senate get Harry Reid to allow a vote? Will calling Mitch McConnell change anything? Will Barack Obama or Mitt Romney allow such a bill to pass without their veto?

I believe the answer to all these questions is a big, fat NO.

PULLING THE RUG OUT

On the other hand, in contrast to attempts to put a stop to the Fed at the national level, a paper that William Greene presented at the Mises Institute’s “Austrian Scholars Conference” proposes an alternative approach to ending the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money. The “Constitutional Tender Act” is a bill template that can be introduced in every State legislature in the nation. Passage would return each of them to the Constitution’s “legal tender” provisions of Article I, Section 10:

“No State Shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”

Such a tactic would achieve the desired goal of abolishing the Federal Reserve system by attacking it from the bottom up – pulling the rug out from under it by working to make its functions irrelevant at the State and local level.

Under the Constitutional Tender Act, the State would be required to use only gold and silver coins – or their equivalents, such as checks or electronic transfers – for payments of any debt owed by or to the State. This includes things like taxes, fees, contract payments, and the like.

All such payments would be required to be denominated in legal tender gold and silver U.S. coins, including Gold Eagles, Silver Eagles, and pre-1965 90% silver coins. The market would then require that all State-chartered banks – as well as any other bank acting as a depository for State funds – offer accounts denominated in those types of gold and silver coins, and to keep such accounts segregated from other types of accounts such as Federal Reserve Notes.

But that’s not all! Not only would the use of Federal Reserve Notes by the State be made illegal; the use of legal tender U.S. gold and silver coins would be encouraged amongst the general population too – by eliminating sanctions against its use.

HOW IT PLAYS OUT

Passage of the Constitutional Tender Act would introduce currency competition with Federal Reserve Notes by outlawing their use in transactions with the State. Ordinary people, being required to pay their State taxes in gold and silver coins, would find it necessary to conduct some transactions with metal – including the use of checks and debit cards based on bank accounts denominated in such coins

All businesses operating within the State, being required to pay their State sales taxes and license fees in gold and silver coins, would need to do the same. Most importantly, though, in order for businesses to acquire the amount of gold and silver needed, they find it necessary to offer their goods and services in “dual currency” denominations, where customers could choose to pay in Federal Reserve Notes or gold and silver coins.

This kind of “bottom up” approach to ending the Fed will have a greater likelihood of success than the “top-down” approaches we’ve seen over the years for two major reasons:

1. The top-down approach has been an utter failure. While it has succeeded greatly in an educational role, it has simply not worked tactically.

2. It’s decentralized. Political opposition won’t be as strong or well-funded on a state level. Strategies and tactics can be adapted much quicker. And, most importantly, success in one state can be a far greater educational tool – and a source of courage – for people of a neighboring state, than endless calls to a Congress which almost never does what’s right.

Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion!

BYE BYE

Greene tells us that use of sound money would drive further use. He writes:

“Over time, as residents of the State use both Federal Reserve Notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve Notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve Notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the State’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the State – as people in other States carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve Notes for any transactions.”

Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people. Nullifying the Fed on a state by state level is what will get us there.

Without a single act of Congress, the Federal Reserve system can be brought to its knees.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Get the model legislation, the Constitutional Tender Act, HERE. Read William Green’s full Scholar’s Conference paper HERE.

The post End the Fed! Whether Congress Wants us to or Not! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

During a recent radio appearance, a caller challenged my assertion that state legislatures should nullify the federal health care act, along with a slew of other unconstitutional measures.

His reasoning?

The federal government might be mean to us.

He came up with a litany of actions the feds might take. They could yank all of the state’s funding. That would mean no more roads or schools! They could stop paying benefits to people living in the state and create a rebellion of dependent people. They could virtually quarantine and isolate the state until it complies. Heck, they could even roll tanks into the streets!

OK, he didn’t include the tanks, but I honestly think that was in the back of his mind. The caller was clearly in awe and scared to death of the federal government. He wasn’t about to risk its wrath for something as trivial as stopping them from cramming a one-size-fits-all health care system down 300 million American throats.

At the time, I tried to convince the caller that the feds wouldn’t dare retaliate in that manner. It would prove politically suicidal.  I argued the feds would likely back down, especially if a bunch of states nullified. That was, after all, Madison’s viewpoint.

Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

But when I thought about it later, I had to concede the caller had a point. The feds might well retaliate. They could certainly yank funding. They could conceivably tell the “rebellious” states they weren’t providing any more federal assistance. Heck, if things got really crazy, the feds could even roll in federal agents, arrest state legislators and declare martial law.

Would they?

Probably not.

Could they?

Certainly.

On paper, the federal government could crush any state, or even a number of states united in opposition. It is big, powerful and overbearing.

So was England in 1776.

In fact, England arguably stood as the most powerful nation on the planet at the time. It was said “the sun never sets on the British Empire.” Her navy ruled the seas. Her army could turn vast fields into a sea of red. She wielded enormous economic power. And she held the colonies tightly under her thumb.

But that didn’t stop the Americans from looking the British square in the eye and declaring, “We will live as free and independent people!”

The colonists valued liberty more than security, especially a false security under a despotic and tyrannical ruler who refused to respect any limits on his own power. I’m certain more than one hand trembled as it gripped a quill pen and inked a name on the Declaration of Independence. Those men must have felt the icy fingers of fear as they boldly pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

And this guy is afraid the feds might yank some funding.

Wow.

At some point, you must face down a bully. You can only let him take your lunch money for so long. If you continue to allow him to dominate you, he will take more and more and more. At some point, you’ve got to punch him in the nose.

Yeah, he might punch you back.

You know what? Then it’s on.

Get the New Documentary Today!

The U.S. federal government thinks its power unlimited. The feds believe they can control any and every aspect of your life. If they can’t directly control it, they will tax you into submission. The general government has no respect for its constitutional boundaries and mocks the states that created it – the states it was meant to serve, not lord over. The Supreme Court decision legitimizing the insurance mandate… I mean penalty – err, tax – should prove to everybody once and for all that the feds will never limit the power of the feds. Washington D.C. won’t fix the problem that is Washington D.C.

The states must stand up and do their duty. They must interpose to halt the progress of evil. Nullification IS the rightful remedy. Not a rebellion, but a legitimate check on federal power.

We simply cannot live in fear. If we do, we will live in chains.

On Aug. 1, 1776, Samuel Adams delivered a speech at the State House in Philadelphia. He offered a message for those who would shrink in fear.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

The post Dealing with the Federal Bully appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Harry Browne, Originally written July 2003

Unfortunately, July 4th has become a day of deceit.

On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress formally declared its independence from Great Britain. Thirteen years later, after a difficult war to secure that independence, the new country was open for business.

It was truly unique – the first nation in all of history in which the individual was considered more important than the government, and the government was tied down by a written Constitution.

It was the one nation where you could live your life secure in the knowledge that no one would ask for your papers, where you weren’t identified by a number, and where the government wouldn’t extort a percentage of your income as the price of holding a job.

And so each year July 4th has been a commemoration of the freest country in history.

False Celebration

But the America that’s celebrated no longer exists.

The holiday oratory deceitfully describes America as though it were the unique land of liberty that once was. Politicians thank the Almighty for conferring the blessings of liberty on a country that no longer enjoys those blessings. The original freedom and security have disappeared, even though the oratory lingers on.

What made America unique is now gone, and we are much the same as Germany, France, England, or Spain, with:

Yes, there are some freedoms left, but nothing like the America that was and nothing that you can’t find in a few dozen other countries.

The Empire

Gone, too, is the sense of peace and security that once reigned throughout the land. America, bound by two huge oceans and two friendly neighbors – was subject to none of the never-ending wars and destruction that plagued Europe and Asia.

Now, however, everyone’s business is America’s business. Our Presidents consider themselves the rulers of the world – deciding who may govern any country on earth and sending Americans to die enforcing those decisions.

Whereas America was once an inspiration to the entire world – its very existence was proof that peace and liberty really were possible – Americans now live in fear of the rest of the world and the rest of the world lives in fear of America.

The Future

Because the education of our children was turned over to government in the 19th century, generations of Americans have been taught that freedom means taxes, regulations, civic duty, and responsibility for the whole world. They have no conception of the better life that could exist in a society in which government doesn’t manage health care, education, welfare, and business – and in which individuals are free to plot their own destinies.

Human beings are born with the desire to make their own decisions and control their own lives. But in most countries government and social pressures work to teach people to expect very little autonomy.

Fortunately, in America a remnant has kept alive the ideas of liberty, peace, and self-respect – passing the concepts on from generation to generation. And so today millions of Americans know that the present system isn’t the right system – that human beings aren’t born to serve the state and police the world.

Millions more would be receptive upon being shown that it’s possible to have better lives than what they’re living now.

Both groups need encouragement to quit supporting those who are taking freedom away from them.

Become a member and support the TAC!

You and I may not have the money and influence to change America by ourselves, but we can keep spreading the word – describing a better society in which individuals are truly free and government is in chains (instead of the opposite).

And someday we may reach the people who do have the money and influence to persuade tens of millions of Americans to change our country for the better.

I don’t know that it’s going to happen, but I do know it’s possible. I know that the urge to live one’s own life is as basic in human beings as the will to live and the desire to procreate. If we keep plugging away, we may eventually tap into that urge and rally the forces necessary to restore the real America.

And then the 4th of July will be worth celebrating again.

Harry Browne (RIP 1933-2006), the author of Why Government Doesn’t Work and many other books, was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, a co-founder of DownsizeDC, and the Director of Public Policy for the American Liberty Foundation.  See his website.

The post Uncelebrating the Fourth of July appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

I see an interesting trend.

This week, two state laws were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court – Montana and Arizona – while the Affordable Care Act ruling due tomorrow could do the same.

Or, maybe it won’t.

But does it really matter in the long run?

We’ll get back to that question in a bit.

THE SUPREMES LOVE THE FEDS

But first, the so-called states’ rights supreme court.  One of the rallying cries we’ve heard in recent years has gone something like this:

“The Supreme Court is getting filled with people who believe in old Constitutionalism – that most of the “progress” since the new deal violates constitutional limits, and must be overturned.”

But, if there’s one thing we actually learned from this week’s Supreme Court decisions so far, it’s that the court takes the opposite view – that the maintenance of federal power over the states is the primary goal.  Keeping the status quo – where federal law is always considered supreme – takes precedence over Constitutional originalism, and possibly even personal political views.

In the campaign finance case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Citizens United decision trumped state laws – like Montana’s – putting restrictions on corporate money in political races. It decided that individual states don’t have the ability to craft their own campaign-finance laws that contradict Citizens United, even – it appears – if those laws are for state and not federal races

In the ruling on the Arizona immigration case — which struck down three parts of that state law, but kind of upheld the “show me your papers” provision – the court maintained that states couldn’t make their own decisions on federal policy – even when simply attempting to enforce established federal law.

“The national government has significant power to regulate immigration,” Justice Kennedy said for the majority. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

The view of the court?  States better not “undermine federal law.”  Whatever that means.

And that’s not all.  On top of these two rulings, yesterday a federal appeals court ruled against Michigan, Texas and twelve other states – who sued to block new EPA rules which they felt infringed on their own retained powers under the Constitution.

The result?  Guess what.  The challenging states lost.  And, the decision virtually ensures that new emissions regulations will happen, even if Congress does nothing.   According to the federal court system, even unconstitutional agencies that shouldn’t exist have power over the states.

PARTISAN HACKERY?

In the Montana case, the liberal court members were in favor of states’ rights – and dissented on the idea that a state was prohibited from enacting its own campaign finance laws, a liberal centerpiece.

The conservative court members – well, they seem to love the idea of states rights when it comes to immigration policy, but not on campaign finance.  They voted against Montana – in unison.

Over the years, liberal judges have been huge advocates for applying the First Amendment to the individual states, even though its wording specifically applies only to “Congress.”   Now, they seem to want it the other way around – because such precedent doesn’t fit their political views.

Conservatives, until a little more recently, opposed this view.  But have aggressively adopted it in recent years when politically advantageous.  This partisan-based ruling style will certainly come back to bite them in the future, too.

In Arizona, it was pretty much the opposite.  Even Scalia, who wrote a scathing dissent – made his support of federal supremacy clear.  He wrote – “Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty – not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.”

For Scalia and Kennedy – and the rest – as long as you stay in “complete compliance” and don’t do anything to “undermine” federal law – you’re OK.  But, with thousands of federal laws, and laws that are hundreds of pages, such a view puts us all in an untenable and dangerous place.

CAUSING CENTRALIZED POWER

By once again rejecting the idea that the people can and should make their own decisions on most matters on a state-by-state basis, the Court continues to set the stage for more and more centralized power.  And more conflict and disappointment for everyone.

By their rulings, they’re teaching individual activists to spend all their time on a federal level.

The message to conservatives in the Arizona case?  Immigration reform should start and end at the federal level. While it might not preclude states from trying to pass some immigration laws that aren’t explicitly proscribed – it certainly encourages them to focus most their energy trying to force their view on the entire country.

The message to liberals in the Montana case is pretty much the same.  Campaign finance restrictions should start and end at the federal level.  And even worse, the states are little more than federal counties, because state laws that affect nothing but the state can be under federal control too.

The best example of how this will all play out is in a statement released by Public Citizen in response to the Montana case:

“The court leaves us no choice but to continue to fight for stronger campaign finance laws to prevent corruption. We will do this at the congressional level, at administrative agencies, and the states, as well as work to overturn Citizens United by amending the U.S. Constitution.”

John Yoo over at the American Enterprise Institute published a near-replica in response to the Arizona ruling:

“opponents of President Obama’s immigration unilateralism should place their hopes in Congress and the political process. Congress could pass legislation overriding the Obama plan and enacting the beginnings of its own immigration reform.”

ONE SIZE FITS ALL

Look, I don’t like campaign finance laws, and I think Montana’s is bad for the people of that state.  And I think Arizona’s immigration law is awful too.  But if the people of those states want to make bad choices, I have no plans to try to force my supposedly better choices on them.

Get the Documentary Today!

So by ruling, once again, that uniform policies must reign over a nation of 50 states and 300 million people, the Supreme Court has continued its attack on the last vestiges of what’s supposed to make this country great.

Instead of being a massive country with a wide range of political, economic and social policies in our various states, the Court reaffirmed its view that we’re all supposed to act the same – or else.

And even if the Court rules in favor of the states on the Affordable Care Act tomorrow, the overall trend is overwhelmingly in favor of centralized power.

The message from the Court’s rulings is already being repeated by the far left through Public Citizen, and the far right through Yoo and AEI.

What’s that, you ask?

All roads lead to Rome.

We certainly know what happened in that story.  And it’s sad to see history repeating itself.

The post Rome, Revisited appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.