Yes, Martha, There Really is a Deep State

In recent times we’ve heard much about something called the “Deep State.”  But if it truly exists, where is it?  Who lives there?  Who created it?  And who are its citizens?  In my lifetime I’ve visited forty-six of the fifty U.S. states and at least sixteen foreign countries and I have never found a sign welcoming me to the Deep State.  So, call me a “Deep State doubter” if you will… until now, that is.

In the Trump-Clinton political era it is clear that an entity known as the Deep State does exist.  Without it, much of the political intrigues of recent decades would not have been possible.  It has caused me to reflect on my own 55-year career in the political arena and has forced me to conclude that I have been a repeat victim of the Deep State.  I have finally become a believer.

For example, in 1968 I was contacted by the Nixon for President Committee, asking me to serve as regional field director for a five-state Midwest region. And although my immediate superiors approved, saying that, while several months away from my responsibilities as senior project engineer for a major oil company could only improve my resume and advance my career development, it would be wise to run the idea past the head of our Washington office… a former confidential assistant to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and a White House congressional liaison in the Eisenhower administration.

We followed that advice and within a week I found that I was deemed far too valuable to ongoing engineering projects to be away from my desk for any period of time.  Somewhere, somehow, my opportunity to move up in the political world had been deftly scuttled.

Four years later I served as a regional campaign manager for the Committee to Reelect the President in southeastern Pennsylvania.  In 1972, Richard Nixon not only wanted to win reelection, he wanted to defeat Senator George McGovern (D-SD) in an electoral landslide.  To accomplish that ambitious goal key regions were identified throughout the country, with each target region assigned a specific vote quota.

With a campaign organization of more than 600 (salaried and volunteers combined), the campaign in my region was a huge success.  When the votes were counted in November we found that we’d exceeded our 60% vote quota by nearly 10%, producing 70% of the vote for President Nixon.

No sooner was the election over than the stampede to re-staff the White House got under way.  The chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee, with the enthusiastic support of both Pennsylvania senators, Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott and Richard Schweiker, recommended me for appointment to the White House staff.  After, undergoing two intensive interviews at the White House, one of which took place in the president’s hideaway office in the Old Executive Office Building, I was ultimately offered a position as a principal U.S. Department of the Interior representative to the Governor of American Samoa in the South Pacific.  It was not something I’d ever sought for myself and it occurred to me that some very powerful person might be trying to get me out of the way… but who?  I respectfully declined the offer.

In 1981, as Jimmy Carter moved out of the White House and Ronald Reagan moved in, my employer, the Sun Oil Company, was asked to loan two executive-level employees to the Reagan Administration for a period of two years.  As Director of State Relations and principal in-house political guru, I was one of the two chosen, along with the then-Director of Corporate Planning.  He was named a deputy director in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), while I was slated to serve as a deputy to White House Counsel Ed Meese.

My Sun Oil associate moved to Washington and provided valuable service to the White House OMB staff for two years.  However, in spite of Ed Meese’s enthusiasm over the quality of my resume, my appointment was “misdirected” before I could arrive in Washington.

Finally, in January 1985, as Ronald Reagan re-staffed for his second term in the White House, I was recruited to serve as Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs by two senior members of the President’s Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs.

Following two very successful interviews at the White House I was informed by the White House Political Director and the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs that I was the “only candidate on a list of one.”  However, in spite of those assurances, I knew what it meant to pursue a position as an assistant or special assistant to the president of the United States.  It is a game of power politics – nothing more, nothing less – and whoever comes to the table with the biggest guns, at just the right moment, gets the job.  I was advised that, while I was the only candidate for the position, I would be well advised to recruit a top-level support team.

During the following weeks I concentrated on nothing else but recruiting my support team.  Having been through the presidential appointment wringer before, I didn’t want to take any chances, so my plan was to assemble the most influential support group that I could possibly attract.  By late March 1985, my support group included: Governor Dick Thornburgh (R-PA), a member of the President’s Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs; Drew Lewis, former secretary of transportation and the president’s principal political advisor; Robert G. Dunlop, chairman emeritus, Sun Oil Company, fellow trustee of the University of Pennsylvania with White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan; Frank Fahrenkopf, chairman of the Republican National Committee; Senator H. John Heinz, chairman of the National  Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee; Senator Phil Gramm (D-TX), President Reagan’s favorite Democrat; Congressman Dick Schulze (R-PA), member of the House Ways & Means Committee; as well as the presidents and/or executive directors of three of Washington’s top conservative think tanks, two of whom were also members of the President’s Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs.

It was a large support network.  It was also the most influential network I could possibly assemble.  Unfortunately, in the days following a phone call from the Director of the Office of White House Personnel, informing me that my appointment was finally being made, I received a terse letter from the White House.  White House Chief of Staff Don Regan had traded away my appointment to a member of Congress whose vote he needed that day.  Just one word from just the right person, at just the right time, was sufficient to wipe out an entire year of tireless effort.

By early December 1980, I was finally made aware of who it was who had taken it upon himself to “mismanage” my career development for so many years.  He was generally recognized as the “dean” of Washington oil lobbyists and a leading member of what we now know as the Deep State.

What has changed in recent times is that Deep State swamp creatures no longer lurk in the shadows of official Washington.  Instead, they now ply their trade out in the open, for all to see.

For example, in January 2017, the outgoing Director of National Intelligence, Gen. James Clapper, announced that it was the unanimous assessment of some 17 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin had personally ordered the hacking of Democratic National Committee computers and the emails of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta.

That was to be the official storyline disseminated as fact by Democrats and by their allies in the mainstream media.  However, it flew in the face of a December 12, 2016 finding by a group of longtime intelligence professionals called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), led by scientists William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US; Ed Loomis, former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing; Raymond McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst; and Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA.  The VIPS experts asserted that “we make our technical judgments based on given facts and do not speculate without a factual basis…”  They wished to know which “handpicked” analysts from the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA found that the Russians hacked into the DNC but provided no hard evidence.

According to the VIPS, “We have gone through the various claims about hacking.  For us, it is child’s play to dismiss them.”  What they found was that the email disclosures in question were the result of a leak to Wikileaks, not a foreign or domestic hack.  They found that, on the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC server.  The download took just 87 seconds, yielding a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

According to the VIPS analysis, no Internet service provider available in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at that speed.  To the contrary, VIPS analysts Folden and Loomis reported that a survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively, leading to one indisputable conclusion: since transfer rates in the neighborhood of 22-23 mbps were unattainable by a hacker anywhere on Earth, the theft of data from the DNC and Podesta computers was an inside job, downloaded to a USB-2 flash device, known as a “thumb drive.”

Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his band of Democrat hatchet-men continue the fiction that whatever steps the Russians took to damage Hillary Clinton’s electoral chances were taken as a means of electing Donald Trump.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It is entirely possible that the Russian efforts were undertaken for the sole purpose of defeating Hillary Clinton, while Donald Trump was merely the unwitting beneficiary of their anti-Clinton animus.

Yes, Martha, there really is a Deep State, but there is also a very dangerous Shallow State, led by the likes of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, DNC Chairman Tom Perez, and party spokeswoman Maxine Waters.  They are enemies of the state and must sooner or later be dealt with as such.

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

 

 

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

American is not a Democracy ..

America is not a democracy … it is a republic.  This is not an accident.  The Founders of our country, those who wrote the Constitution, intended it to be that way.

Most of us were poorly served when we were instructed in civics.  Our teachers themselves had been taught by professors who were imbued with a century of Progressive propaganda aimed at distorting the meaning the Constitution and the clouding of the reasoning behind the tenants of that August document.  We are constantly told that America is a “democracy” … that we should venerate the idea that democracy is absolute equality, that “one man, one vote” is the utopian goal.  We are told by the purveyors of Progressive and Socialistic thought that elements of the Constitution are “anachronistic” (out of step with time); we are told that the electoral college that elects the President is a confusing dinosaur of the past that has no present usefulness; we are told that the Constitution is a “living” document; we are told that the “interstate commerce clause” was intended to allow the Federal government to regulate all business in all the States no matter where or how it is conducted; that the “supremacy clause” means that any State law can be overturned merely by passing a contrary Federal law; that the “general welfare clause” or “necessary and proper clause” empowers the Federal government to spend any amount of the people’s treasure to help the “disadvantaged.”  Are these and other intrusive actions in which the Federal government engages what the Founders of the Republic had in mind?

Consider the men who wrote the Constitution.  They were not exposed to the propaganda of massive newspapers and magazines.  There was no radio or TV blaring their incessant commercial yammering.  What they had, for this was the Age of Enlightenment, was the history of the travails of antiquity and the reality of their own times.  They knew about the governments of men, not only in their present, but of the triumphs and failures of the past.  There had never before been individual freedom anywhere on Earth and they were determined to save that freedom  for themselves and their posterity now that they had gained it.  These men had all been subject to the will of an autocrat.  Either they, their father or not too distant grandfather had fled from serfdom or deep tyranny, mostly from Europe, to this new place of hope.  They were all traitors to their beginnings … they were all revolutionaries, but most importantly they were all individuals that respected the individuality of their peers.

Their revolution had been overseen by a mostly anemic organization, the Continental Congress, but the war had been fought by volunteer militia from 13 separate Sovereign States.  After the war, these sovereign states continued on their separate ways, but because of shared common interests, they attempted a common national front before the rest of the world under the Articles of Confederation.  Under the Articles many of the problems among the states could be and were solved, take for instance the “Northwest Ordinances which allowed for the westward expansion of the country.  But there were many shortcomings among which were … the inability to finance the government; the inability to act in a timely fashion on issues of commerce and navigation; and the inability to provide for the common defense.  After a failed meeting in Annapolis, Maryland in 1786, leaders, including Madison, Hamilton and Washington, decided to meet in Philadelphia in May of 1787 to address the problems and suggest solutions.  Very soon after the meeting convened, the delegates mutually consented to attempt a radical overhaul.  Thus began the epic meeting that lasted, overcoming many contentious debates, from May 14 to September 17, 1787.

What were the issues?  Of course the main consideration was to protect individual freedom.  Secondarily, they had to devise a national government to promote harmony among the States and with foreign governments and to protect their common interests from outside influences and dangers.

Because the members had a “classical education,” they had become experts in comparative government, and because they knew what had happened in the past, they, to a man, distrusted mass democracy.  They opted instead for a Republic of limited governmental powers.  A national Republic of State Republics wherein the individual voter democratically elected from among those he knew or could know, his peers, those of known integrity to represent him at the state level and through those legislators or electors, the Senate of the national government.

There hadn’t been many democracies in the past, but those that had existed had all devolved into chaos, the most notable being the example held up to us by our teachers as being a beacon of freedom, Athens.  Perhaps the Founders distrusted democracy because many of them had studied the Greek language and knew that the word, democracy, could be translated as “mob rule.”

So if you believe in the individual and distrust the crowd, will democracy work anywhere and if so where?  The answer is that democracy works and is fair where there is reasonable discourse.  It works in small groups where all can participate, like the town hall meeting, the coffee klatch, the school board and the commissioner’s meeting or small bodies like the Houses of the Legislature.  It works in those places where people are willing to give and take and are willing to cede some of their individual interests to the majority will of their immediate community for their own security.  But consider the fairness of a majority vote in a large stadium full of people where the issue is contrary to your own personal interests.  Chances are that you will have no personal input in this scenario, or if you do, your voice and interests are lost in a sea of other people’s voices and interests, generally in issues in which you may have no cause.  Since you do not well know the motivations or needs of the others, isn’t it likely that you will follow the lead of some “expert?”  In ancient Athens there were those experts, the demagogues.  This word translates to “mob teacher.”  Now, common sense will tell you that the demagogues will plead to the crowd in their own self interest in order to gain power or fame.  Always have and always will.  Common sense also suggests that the unscrupulous teacher might lie, stretch the truth, omit, slander, obfuscate or otherwise distort to gain his point.  This was the experience in Athens.  As the story goes, the assembly would require you to drink poison hemlock one day and then build a statue to you the next, all depending upon the message of the last speaker.   And so it goes today … “I will close Guantanamo my first day in office;” “if you make less than $250,000, I will not raise your taxes one dollar;” “you can keep your present health care policy;” “unemployment will never go over 8%.”  And on and on.  Our Constitutional Founders knew the scenario well and feared it … you can read about it in the Federalist papers and in the histories of the Convention.

James Madison and his fellow Virginians opened the Convention by proposing a three branched Federal government where the executive, legislative and judiciary were all elected popularly.  If you think about it, under this arrangement, it was only necessary for Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Charleston to vote, because that is where the majority of the population resided.  (By the same token, the entire western United States could be democratically represented today by the votes of San Diego, LA, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and Denver)  The suggestion was not well received by the Convention.  Why would or maybe how could the “small states” participate in such a scheme?  Where was the protection for the interests of the States?  An answer soon came from the small states, New Hampshire, Delaware, New Jersey and Connecticut.  The President would be elected by the popular vote in each state, state by state; the Congress would have two houses, the Senate to represent the interests of the States and the House of Representatives would represent the interests of the people.  The Senate would have two members from each state regardless of the size of the state; the House would have members in proportion to each state’s proportion of the total population with the caveat that each state would have at least one member, so that no state was precluded from representation in that body.  The Senate was to be elected by the state legislatures.  Since Senators were, in essence, ambassadors from the state to the national government and since, in addition to their legislative duties, they were to supplement the executive by ratifying both treaties and the appointment of members of the judiciary, it was thought that they needed longer terms of office that would span several Congresses and the term of the President.  This was done in order to enable them to be free of momentary exigencies in their deliberations.  Since the legislatures that elected them, in most states, changed every two years, the terms of the Senators were staggered so that those in office more accurately reflected the views of the Legislature.

It has often been said that the Constitution is a document of genius.  The genius is in the division of powers.  Each of the three arms of government has Constitutional controls of some nature over each of the others.  This is also manifested in more subtle “checks and balances.”  The Congress is constrained by the necessity of legislation having to be passed by both bodies; the Senate by the fact that any appropriations must originate in the House; the executive and judiciary by the fact that the legislative must pay them; the President has his veto, but the Congress can override him. And if any or all of the branches of the Federal government should take on powers not delegated to them, after the adoption of the 10th Amendment, the States can reject their actions. Any study of the Constitution informs us of the aforementioned, but we must look more deeply to discover why our system has been so successful.

Looking deeper into the problem, we were never informed as to the political benefits of this system.  How did it enfranchise the individual?  It is without question that the persons selected by this process to the United States Senate would always be among the most ardent advocates for their particular state.  That is because they would be selected for that high office by the most honored members of the state’s local communities, the legislators.  The individual legislators, in turn, had been democratically elected from communities where they were not only known, but were leaders.  The individual voter knew or could easily know the local legislator, because the legislator was, like himself, a visible participant in local affairs.  The avenue for the individual to make his vote count for something was to be an active participant in local political and civic institutions.  By doing this, the individual could know and communicate with his local representative … the local representative would then know the individual and could use that person’s expertise and experience as a resource. Symbiosis!  If candidates for the United States Senate were to campaign locally, it is probable that the interested local individual would come to know their stances on issues, but not likely that he would ever know the candidate’s true character … but his friend, the legislator would.  Through this truly republican mechanism, now gone up in the smoke of the 17th Amendment, the individual had a direct personal link from himself to the floor of the United States Senate.  As the system stands now with “one man, one vote” the individual’s vote disappears into a black morass of yeas or nays with no one responsible for the veracity of his efforts.  The 17th Amendment coupled with court mandated re-apportionment has destroyed the once vibrant institution of local and state politics.

It has been claimed that the 17th Amendment was instituted, among other reasons, because sometimes the state legislature was unable to come to an agreement as to who should serve.  As a result some seats were vacant for a considerable period of time.  This indeed did happen.  The fact is that if the legislature of the state could not agree, it may well have been better to not send an ambassador to the Senate at all.  Of course, the legislature apprehending this problem could have easily provided a method by which that fault could have been cured if they had wanted.  But it was not a disaster … why send someone with whom you do not agree?  And as always happens when dealing with the Federal government, the beast was its self the cause of the problem; in 1866 the Congress had passed a law that forbade the seating of a Senator who had not received a majority vote of the Legislature.  Leaving this law un-enacted would have guaranteed that a plurality could have elected Senators and the issue of vacancy would have never arisen.   Interestingly, another manifestation of this check to the system follows thusly: if the political content of the legislature changed between the elections of the Senators so, presumably, would the philosophy of the new Senator.  In this case, the votes between the two would have cancelled … giving the same political result that would accrue if the state had no Senator at all.

It also has been scurrilously alleged that the 17th Amendment was adopted to end the practice of the bosses, the rich and the influence peddlers who were allegedly bribing state legislators for their votes in Senatorial elections.  This allegation is an unconscionable attack on the integrity of not only state legislators, but upon the Legislatures themselves.  At the time of the debates on adoption of the 17th Amendment, US Senator Weldon Heyburn, from the State of Idaho, commented, “I should like to see some Senator rise in his seat and say that the legislature of his state which elected him was not competent, was not fit, was not honest enough to be trusted.  Then I should be interested to see him go back and say ‘I am a candidate for re-election.’ ”

It is a matter of provable record that bribery or corruption was alleged in only 15 senatorial contests from 1789 until 1913 with only 7 Senators being denied their seats.  In that time 1180 men were elected Senator.

So what do we have now?  The United States Congress has two popularly elected bodies.  In the name of democracy there is no longer a check on “popular sovereignty;” the Senate no longer represents the interests of the State; the Legislature no longer has any viable ambassador to check the actions of the Federal government; the popular actions of the House are no longer balanced by a Senate composed of members with a different agenda; … Congress is essentially a unicameral body.

And is the process better?  What could be more corrupt than the lobbyists that the Senator meets each day, in his comings and goings from the chambers of the Senate, being his biggest campaign contributors?  Today, the least expensive Senatorial campaign is a multi-million dollar affair.  Carpet bagging is rampant … how does an Arkansas lawyer become a Senator from New York State? … Or for that matter a rich politician from the home of the “Red Socks” serve New York?  In States where the elections are less expensive, the exceedingly wealthy suddenly appear to rescue the “uninformed.”  And if the candidate is not articulate enough to be a demagogue, the media, the newspapers, radio, TV and now the internet do it for him.  Elections that should take only a small part of one legislative day and cost very little are now contested for a year or more and cost millions of dollars of in-state and more ominously out-of-state money.  Ask yourself which system lends itself to more corruption?

The democratic republic envisioned by our Founding Fathers has been attacked and severely wounded.  The political process in this nation is disintegrating into the “mob rule” so feared by our forefathers.  The Founders created “a more perfect union” of very limited, albeit important, powers to protect the essence of the American Revolution … the States and their People.  Let us repeal the 17th Amendment as the first and most important step in restoring our Republic.  This can be done by forming a truly representative Legislature, one where every political subdivision, the Counties, has a voice.  The answer is to have a state legislature where each County has a Senator and at least one Representative  … where the diversity of problems of the land and the People is represented.

Posted in 1 Senator, 1 Representative | Leave a comment

Your Duties as a Legislator ..

This post was a proposed floor speech written to apprise a legislative assembly of the obligations of the members to their oath of office.

———————————————————-

When an individual enters the Legislature of a state, that person takes an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America and of  (my state).”  It is as solemn and sacred a pledge as a human being can give and is a covenant binding that person with all those who have gone before, beginning with colonial America.

Those who served in the legislatures of the British colonies are the people who were responsible for leading our forefathers out of tyranny into our Republic.  Our republic is a miracle system that venerates, and for the first time in history protects, individual freedom.  Those early legislators were the ones that cried out for our “inalienable God given rights.”  It was in the Virginia Legislature, the House of Burgesses, that Patrick Henry immortally said, “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”

Our “Bill of Rights” in a large part came from that same Virginia Assembly, which in its wisdom sent a brilliant young legislator as a delegate to the 2nd Continental Congress.  That delegate, Thomas Jefferson, using as his guide the recently enacted “Virginia Rights of Man” wrote one of the greatest documents of all history, the American Declaration of Independence.

It was the Legislatures of the Colonies that sent their very best emissaries to the Continental Congress to conduct the affairs of the war that won us our independence.  Those Legislatures, after we gained our independence, again sent their very best to Philadelphia to write the Constitution of the United States of America.  And when it was written, it was the Legislatures that provided for its adoption.

Many, if not most, who have taken the oath, have not reflected deeply upon what its obligations are.  But you can be assured that there is no obligation to “protect and defend” laws unauthorized by the Constitution.  Constitutionally unauthorized laws are no law at all.

Most of us are not aware that many of the most prominent Revolutionary leaders were very fearful of the new Constitution when it was being considered for ratification.  They felt that the document did not overtly protect those “inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator” nor did it give due deference to its creator, the States.  Great Revolutionary patriots like Patrick Henry, George Clinton, Melancton Smith, George Mason, James Monroe and Henry Lee openly and stridently opposed the writers of the “Federalist Papers,” James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay because they were proposing (although they, for the most part denied it) a superior government that could and probably would present a tyranny over the States and ultimately the People not unlike that that the Revolution had so recently overthrown.

The vote on the adoption of the Constitution by the States was a narrowly run thing, it being adopted by miniscule majorities in many states … and only then after the Federalists promised their opposition, the writers of the “Anti-Federalist Papers,” that the first order of business of the new government would be to adopt a “Bill of Rights” that guaranteed the status of the States and the inalienable rights of the people that already existed in the Constitutions of many of the States.  With those assurances, the Constitution was adopted.  The Federal government  was established to promote peace and harmony between the States and to present a  unified United States of America presence to the Nations of the Earth.  The States were to make the laws that particularly represented the needs, cares and wishes of their citizenry.

The “Bill of Rights” consists of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.  We are all familiar with the rights of free speech, assembly, press and religion and the right to bear arms.  We, for the most part, have never given any thought to quartering troops in our houses and we are all aware of the freedoms of the individual when standing before the law and courts that are guaranteed in the 4th through the 8th Amendments.  The unarticulated rights of man protected by the 9th Amendment have never been truly tested or vetted.  And the Federal government has never attempted to enforce the 10th Amendment.  Nevertheless our government under the Constitution of the United States of America would be, I believe, unthinkable, without the “Bill of Rights” that the “Anti-Federalist” patriots fought so hard for.  And don’t forget that the Founders held that all the ten amendments in the “Bill of Rights” to be fundamental to the protection of our Freedoms.

Most of us who have made a limited study of the application of the US government can cite many of the advantages given our great Republic by the “Bill”, but in my experience and acquaintance with state government there is a continual complaint … why does the Federal government ignore the 10th  Amendment?

Consider why!  None of the three branches of the Federal government has any interest in policing laws that favor the States … any consideration of the States opposes the powers of one, two or all three of the branches of the Federal government.  The prima-facie truth is that the 10th Amendment provides the Constitutional vehicle for the States to oppose and refuse un-Constitutional actions by the Federal government.  It provides that any law (or court decision interpreting a law) that is not specifically authorized in the Constitution is no law at all.  The States have full Constitutional power and sanction to ignore and refuse to enforce such epistles from the President, Congress or the Supreme Court.  State Legislatures are fully authorized by the Constitution to not only to disregard such illegal attempts, but to provide penalties for doing so.

Much devilment of the States has been provided by Supreme Court decisions that find “hidden intent” in the plain language of the Constitution.  Where in the Constitution is there a clause that says that the Federal Courts can determine the make-up and apportionment of state legislatures when the plain wording in the Constitution guarantees the States a Republican form of government?  How does the Federal government gain the right to pass any law whatsoever that it wishes because the Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn found that a pig eaten by a farmer, grown by the farmer, fed wheat grown by the farmer, none of which ever left his farm was in interstate commerce?  These decisions and the States sycophantic adherence to them were the precursors to the fulminating federal tyranny now descending upon us.

There are precedents as to how to proceed.  One being that when the Statists of the early Republic attempted to impose the tyranny of the “Alien and Sedition Laws” upon the populace and the States and the Supreme Court upheld them.  Great champions of freedom, no less than Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, proposed “nullification” of those Federal laws by the States.  Their efforts resulted in the laws being repealed.

Yes, as a legislator your duty is to represent, protect and advance the views of your constituents to the state gathering, the Legislature, for the benefit of all.  But you have a higher duty and that is to protect the people of your state from tyranny … from whatever quarter it comes.  The 10th Amendment of the precious “Bill of Rights” demands that you stand up to the statists in the Federal government.

Where in the Constitution does it say that this state is inferior to the EPA; or the Fish and Wildlife Service; or the Department of Labor; or the Department of Education or any other bureau?  The answer is that it does not … none of the rules, edicts, mandates, coercions, regulations or other demands, or for that matter, the Federal bureaus themselves, are legally authorized in the Constitution.

If we, in the legislature do not stand against this descending tyranny, then tyranny we will have…

OUR REPUBLIC WILL CEASE TO EXIST!!!

The Legislature is duty bound, for the protection of our freedoms, to inspect and then reject all actions from the Federal government that do not conform to the 17 actions authorized to the Federal government under the Constitution.  The 10th Amendment protects us from Federal tyranny and demands our protective vigilance.  There would have been no Constitution without the 10th Amendment, for if the States had not had the final say, they would not have ratified it.

The only powers specifically given to Congress appear in Article I Section 8, and are the following:

  • To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
  • To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
  • To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
  • To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
  • To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
  • To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
  • To establish post offices and post roads;
  • To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
  • To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
  • To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
  • To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
  • To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
  • To provide and maintain a navy;
  • To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
  • To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
  • To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
  • To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles (16 km) square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.

Only these powers were given under the original Constitution and the only subsequent powers are those necessary to enforce several amendments.

Remember, the 10th Amendment constrains the Federal government to only make laws that are specifically authorized … all other laws not specifically denied to the States are reserved to the States or the People.

 

Posted in 1 Senator, 1 Representative | Leave a comment