Category Archives: Federalism

Updated: Missouri Police State: Beware Of People Like … Me

Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Liberty, Natural Law, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Republicans, Ron Paul, Taxation, Terrorism, The State

The following is an excerpt from my new WND.com column, “Missouri Police State: Beware Of People Like … Me”:

“A secret Missouri State police report, entitled ‘The Modern Militia Movement,’ and dated February 20, 2009, is warning about subversives like … me. Apparently, this scribe has all the attributes of a militia member, and then some.

One of the incriminating telltale signs the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) is on the look out for are Ron Paul stickers.

I have one on my car. It reads: ‘Don’t blame me, I supported Ron Paul.’

The MIAC has cultivated an ensnaring network of snitches and spies, ‘consisting of local, state and federal agencies, as well as the public sector and private entities.’ Its malign manifesto alerts to other ‘paraphernalia’ associated with the patriot movement: Flags.

Guilty again. …

Dare to inveigh against the malignant and metastasizing Federal Frankenstein, or about states’ and individual rights, and, you’re militia material.

Again; that’s my motto, week-in and week-out on WND.com. If the Constitution and the natural law mean anything at all, then, almost everything the Federal government busies itself with is either unconstitutional, immoral, violative, or all three. I say that a lot. And I leave a pixelated trail behind. …”

Read the complete column, “Missouri Police State: Beware Of People Like … Me,” now on WND.com

Update (March 27): Thanks, Judge Robert. That’s what I needed to hear; that I’ll have a (pro bono) defense. (Grin) One problem: You are probably also on the Missouri Police State’s Most Wanted list.

Unrelated: IlanaMercer.com’s front-page feed is down. Our trusted website developer is working on the problem.

Missouri State: Beware Of People Like … Mercer

Constitution, Federal Reserve Bank, Federalism, Founding Fathers, History, Ilana Mercer, libertarianism, Liberty

According to a “secret Missouri State police report,” I could be a militia mama. The potentially incriminating signs:

• I have A Ron Paul sticker on my car.

• The “Don’t Tread On Me” Flag snakes all across the front page of my website (in an original, copyrighted configuration), where my “subversive” work is archived. It makes an appearance on every other page.

• The late Aaron Russo of blessed memory, director of “America: Freedom to Fascism,” endorsed my book (scroll down.) “AARON RUSSO: A CHOICE NOT AN ECHO” doesn’t leave much to the Missouri State police’s imagination.

• I oppose “confiscatory taxation” (“Sixteen The Number Of The Beast”).

• Ditto the increasing expansion of the Federal Frankenstein.

There are other telltale signs I exhibit, but you get the gist.

Thanks to a “a concerned Missouri state policeman, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host was alerted” to this outrage, writes Chuck Baldwin, for VDARE.Com. The officer realized it described … him.

When [our heroic officer] Neal read the report, he couldn’t help but think it described him. A military veteran and a delegate to the 2008 Missouri Republican state convention, he didn’t appreciate being lumped in with groups like the Neo-Nazis.

I was going down the list and thinking, “Check, that’s me,”‘ he said. ‘I’m a Ron Paul supporter, check. I talk about the North American union, check. I’ve got the “America: Freedom to Fascism” video loaned out to somebody right now. So that means I’m a domestic terrorist? Because I’ve got a video about the Federal Reserve?

I have news for all of the Missouri State Mother F … s coming after us patriots:

Adjusted for age and era, the description fits the Founding Fathers. Read “Vox Populi,” and see for yourselves.

Update II: Mr. Constitution?

Conservatism, Constitution, Federalism, libertarianism, Republicans, Ron Paul

At 13 percent, Ron Paul and Sarah Palin were tied in a presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. A point made in “Sensational Sarah” obtains: “Would that Rep. Ron Paul, the only politician who adheres to America’s founding philosophy, was Palin’s running mate, wisely steering her boundless energy and excellent instincts in excising the cancer from the body politic.”

As for the other straw “winners”; they’re real losers. Mitt Romney came first (“best 2012 GOP presidential candidate”). Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was the runner-up.

My colleague Vox Day sums it up:

“These results tend to indicate that a little more than one-quarter of the ‘conservatives’ at CPAC have a functional brain. Romney is a liberal technocrat. Jindal is a little goblin who just blew his first moment on the national stage.”

An award for upholding the Constitution belonged to Congressman Paul but went to Rush Limbaugh.

On the merits of that award collected by Rush, I once angered ditto heads for pointing out, in “It’s About Federalism, Stupid!”, Rush’s ruthless and unconstitutional case against actor Michael Fox on the matter of stem cell research and the fetus fetish:

“The pompous talk-show host’s sneering assault on a deformed Michael J. Fox was utterly depraved. Aping Fox’s Parkinson’s-induced spasms, Limbaugh told listeners: “He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act.” Rather than lampoon an-obviously afflicted human being, someone with a head and a heart would have stuck to the issue.

And the issue is this: The founders bequeathed a central government of delegated and enumerated powers. Intellectual property laws are the only constitutional means at Congress’s disposal with which to “promote the Progress of Science.” (About their merit Thomas Jefferson, himself an inventor, was unconvinced.) The Constitution gives Congress only 18 specific legislative powers. Research and development spending is nowhere among them.

Neither are Social Security, civil rights (predicated as they are on grotesque violations of property rights), Medicare, Medicaid, and the elaborate public works sprung from the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clauses—you name it, it’s likely unconstitutional. There is simply no warrant in the Constitution for most of what the Federal Frankenstein does.”

Update I (March 2): About the welfare clause, “and Congress will have the power…to provide for the general welfare”: Article I, Section 8 our overlords have taken to mean that government can pick The People’s pocketbooks for any possible project, even though the general clause is followed by a detailed enumeration of the limited powers so delegated.

Asks historian Thomas E. Woods Jr.: “What point would there be in specifically listing the federal government’s powers if the general welfare clause had already provided the government with an essentially boundless authority to enact whatever it thought would contribute to people’s well-being?” Woods evokes no less an authority than the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison: “Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”

The complete column is “The Hillary, Hussein, McCain Axis of Evil.”

Update II: With respect to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Barbara makes a good point. Having spoken openly about decentralization and devolution of power to the states, Jindal is considerably more conservative than most of the Republican governors. Not being as pale as Palin—he is of Indian descent—Jindal has diversity on his side. He is therefore less likely than, say Sarah, to be condemned as a “conservative zealot.”

Hazelton Fights Federal Frankenstein

Federalism, IMMIGRATION

Heroic Hazelton goes up against the ACLU and Federal occupiers. I gave you my take on the town’s plight in “Aliens in the Own Hometown.” Read it for background. I’ll quote one paragraph:

“Reasonable people can debate the constitutionality of [Mayor Louis] Barletta’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act and other Ordinances; only sophists would depict these as a usurpation of federal authority. What next? Banning the neighborhood watch for busying itself with crime? Doesn’t that overlap with state police activities?”

Here’s an update on the case. Transcripts are courtesy of CNN’s Lou Dobbs:

Hazleton, Pennsylvania, is one town that knows firsthand the impact of illegal immigration and what’s required to fight back. The city’s Illegal Immigration Reform Act was struck down by a federal judge more than a year ago. The case is now before an appellate court. At issue? Hazleton’s right to hold employers and landlords responsible for doing business with illegal aliens. Bill Tucker has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just 200 yards from the birthplace of Liberty, Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, lawyers came and judges convened to hear arguments over a town’s limits on governing itself. The courtroom was packed.

The city of Hazleton arguing that its ordinances punishing employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and landlords who rent to illegal aliens are proper and necessary. Lawyers for the ACLU and other groups contend the local ordinances are unconstitutional.

The city appealed to a federal appeals panel after losing its case in the lower district court. But much has changed since those initial arguments. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the state of Arizona, which has similar statutes and a federal district court ruled that Valley Park, Missouri’s local ordinances modeled after Hazleton’s, are legal.

KRIS KOBACH, ATTORNEY FOR HAZLETON: We urge the 3rd Circuit to remain consistent with what the 9th Circuit did out in California and uphold the abilities of cities and states to take limited steps to encourage the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

TUCKER: The ACLU argued the original court order should be allowed to stand. Otherwise, they argued, there will be a patchwork of immigration laws.

WITOLD WALCZAK, ATTORNEY, ACLU: If the court allows laws like Hazleton to go forward, what you’re going to have is immigrant- friendly and immigrant-hostile enclaves in this country.

TUCKER: He rejects the argument that all Hazleton is trying to do is draft laws that are in compliance with federal law. And he argues that the notion of determining a person’s legal status is more complicated than just knowing if they’re unlawfully present in the country. The mayor of Hazleton stands by his law, which has never been enforced.

MAYOR LOU BARLETTA, HAZLETON, PA: I’ll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. I believe what we’re doing is right and that we have the right to do this.

TUCKER: He may get that chance.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: Now just when that day might be, Lou, we don’t know. According to the lawyers, it could take anywhere from four months to a year before the court issues its ruling. Lou?