When Morons Teach in our Universities

by Diane Rufino on January 30, 2014        

LET THIS SIMPLE ARTICLE BE A WARNING….

KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION !!  BRUSH UP ON IT.  DEFEND IT.

If you don't, then progressive, idiotic, asinine ("ass" inine) law school professors will try to convince you of a ridiculous argument such as the following one, and even worse, shape the minds of future lawyers and judges who will be tasked with interpreting the Constitution --

The following comes from Professor Andrew Koppelman, of Northwestern University, School of Law:

     “My claim is that the 13^th amendment (prohibiting Slavery and Involuntary Servitude) is violated by laws that prohibit abortion. When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to "involuntary servitude" in violation of the amendment. 

Abortion prohibitions violate the Amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude." Such laws violate the amendment's guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group which, by virtue of a status of birth, is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves."

OMG !!  Can he be for real?  Luckily for the unborn, Professor Koppelman's claim is premised on a glaring fundamental and fatal flaw..... OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS are grounded in NATURAL LAW. Nature's laws tell us that a woman is genetically and naturally tasked with the miracle of life. No part of the Declaration or US Constitution can conflict with Natural law. Laws are strongest and most sound when they further the laws of nature and are weakest, counterproductive, and most destabilizing when they conflict with them.  

I found Koppelman’s argument offensive and I find the fact that schools employ men of his inability to understand key documents and reason on their behalf very troubling.

PATRIOTS, PARENTS, CITIZENS -- Keep your ears open and expose these asses .... I mean, asinine professors.

To read Professor Koppleman’s troubling article -

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...

Originally posted on Tea Party Nation

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A2765856&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

Nullification vs. Article V Constitutional Convention: Where is the Honest and Open Debate?

by Diane Rufino, January 5, 2014

When the original 13 states came together to discuss the possibility of establishing a confederacy, at the urging of Benjamin Franklin (“Join or Die”), they did so with a great deal of hope, but also a great deal of trepidation. The hope was that a federal government might be formed that could provide greater security and stability to the colonies.  The hope was that it might handle the few issues that were common to all the states but which could not be dealt with by the states individually. The fears, on the other hand, were that this government might come to gain an enormous amount of power; that this power might come to be concentrated in the hands of very few; and that the federal government as a whole might end up overreaching its authority and end up meddling in affairs that ought rightly to be left to the states and the various local governments (if not individuals themselves).

The Constitution created a limited government, which is evidenced in four obvious ways: (1) The Constitution was framed in such a way that the power of the federal government would be split between three separate branches – each acting as a check-and-balance on the power of the others; (2) The power of the federal government as a whole was limited to certain specific areas; (3) Government power structure was split between two co-equal sovereigns – the individual states and the federal government (emphasized or restated by the Tenth Amendment); and (4) A Bill of Rights (“further declaratory statements and restrictive clauses to prevent the government from misconstruing or abusing its powers..”) to put further limitations on government power.

For 200 years, this structure has been eroded, always at the hand of the federal government. After numerous overt acts of usurpation, constitutional amendments, and loose interpretations of the Constitution itself, each of the branches of government has managed to seize more power than it was ever meant to have. Now, as we see and feel most acutely, the federal government involves itself in matters that are neither federal in nature nor are subject to its jurisdiction.  It insinuates itself into virtually every aspect of public and private life, including political, economic, and social.  When we listen to a young mother in Alabama cry because the new healthcare mandate has increased her insurance premiums each month by over $100 and has presented her with a dilemma that is causing her great heartache and distress (she wants to work and do the right thing, but if she does, she can’t afford the increase in healthcare premiums, and so she is faced with the choice that puts and her family on welfare), then we understand how destructive the government has become and how far it has strayed from its intended purpose.

READ IT ALL HERE!

How a Republic Dies

by Diane Rufino, December 30, 2013

One of my all-time favorite HBO series is ROME, starring Kevin McKidd and Ray Stevenson.  Borrowing on a theme similar to Forrest Gump, the series follows the journey of two men in Julius Caesar’s Roman legion who seem to find themselves making history wherever they go. The soldiers are Lucius Vorenus (McKidd) and Titus Pullo (Stevenson).  Although Vorenus and Pullo are real centurions who displayed outstanding bravery and valor in battle and were included in Caesar’s war journals, their journeys and experiences in the series are the creation of the writers. ROME chronicles the period in Roman history when the people lost their republic. Aside from the entertainment provided by Vorenus and Pullo, who are often violent and crude, the story showed how the Senate tried to stand up to the ambitions of men like Julius Caesar and Octavian (who renamed himself Augustus Caesar) to protect the people’s hand and voice in government.

Perhaps I am drawn to the series because of my Italian heritage or perhaps it is because of Rome’s history as a republic and its impact on our Founding Fathers when they sat down to fashion a government to serve the people and protect their inalienable sovereign rights.

Rome was established as a republic in 509 B.C. when it was a mere city-state.  It was easy to manage and government was responsive to the people. Originally established as an advisory board composed of the heads of patrician families (wealthy landowners), the Senate soon became the most powerful organ of republican government and the only body of state that could develop consistent long-term policy. It was involved in virtually all public matters, but its most important responsibilities were in foreign policy and financial administration.  Roman citizens had a voice in government by electing Senators who represented them and were accountable to them.

You will want to read the rest here! 

http://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2013/12/30/how-a-republic-dies/

The NC General Assembly Holds Its First Public Meeting on Common Core

COMMON CORE: The NC General Assembly Holds Its First Public Meeting on Common Core (Dec. 17, 2013)

Diane Rufino, December 22, 2013

 

On Tuesday, December 17th, the NC General Assembly Common Core Study Committee held its first public hearing to address Common Core. I attended, as well as other activists and Tea Party leaders all across the state.   Opponents of Common Core who attended were advised to dress in red to make a visual statement to the NC General Assembly of the growing movement against North Carolina’s adoption and implementation of the controversial education standards.  I proudly wore an oversized red sweater and a sticker that announced my opposition to Common Core – as did so many others.  Indeed, the public arena was a sea of red and opposition was palpable.

Those who spoke in favor of Common Core were Dr. June Atkinson, head of the NC Board of Education, and Michael Brickman, the national policy director at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where he promotes education reform. Prior to his position with the Fordham Institute, Brickman was recruited by Governor Scott Walker to lead his education-reform efforts in Wisconsin.

Brickman has publicly characterized Common Core opponents as a “small but vocal minority of conservatives” coupled with a bit of “the far left.”  In front of the Study Committee and the audience in red, he stated that opponents are caught up in conspiracy theories and unfounded and baseless talking points.  Dr. Atkinson spent a good part of her presentation echoing the same sentiment.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, arguably Common Core’s greatest champion, also has accused its opponents of employing conspiracy theories.

Michael Brickman gave a presentation that was essentially broken down in three parts:  (i) The poor Report Card that Fordham gave North Carolina for its state Education Standards; (ii)  Why Common Core addresses NC’s education shortcomings (and poor standards); and (iii) Why opposition to Common Core is based on Myths and not facts.

Read the entire article!

http://northcarolina.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/common-core-the-nc-general-assembly-holds-its-first-public-meeting-on-common-core-dec-17-2013/?doing_wp_cron=1387694786.9900209903717041015625

How about applying nullification to the entire federal budget?

For Love of God and Country


How about applying nullification to the entire federal budget?


Limit Federal spending through nullification and state escrow accounts

Diane Rufino
August 24, 2013

The government has no legitimate powers that were not initially granted to it under the Constitution. There is no provision anywhere, nor is there any implied right under the Declaration of Independence or any other social compact theory, which permits the government to assume any more powers than originally granted to it. There is, of course, only one way to legitimately alter the Constitution and hence alter the function and scope of government, and that is through Article V's amendment process. But only the states can approve those amendments.

As we all know, the only amendments which fundamentally altered the federal government were the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment.

The US Constitution is a "compact" (a social compact) among the states. It was an agreement among the states, fortified by their ratification, on how they would be managed and served by a common government. The Constitution created a Union of states ("united" States) and NOT the "United States." The Civil War would change that.

In the Constitution, the States delegated certain powers to the federal government, reserving all others to itself. And even with respect to those enumerated powers, there was clarification and limitation (as discussed in the state ratifying conventions, as well as in the very words, phrasing, and limiting clauses in the documents. For example, the "Necessary and Proper" clause, which was meant to breathe life into the powers vested in the government under the Constitution, mean just that... "NECESSARY." As it turns out, the Supreme Court would quickly re-define "necessary" to mean "convenient"). With respect to the taxing power, the states clearly and freely delegated to the government the power to tax and spend. However, the intent was that Congress can only tax and spend with regard to the seventeen specifically enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. Additionally, the "General Welfare" clause was not meant as a separate grant of power as it is assumed today. Yet, we've seen how the government, through independent-minded justices on the Supreme Court, has used all these "limiting clauses" (including the Commerce Clause and now the taxing power) to grow government and to provide justification for every type of policy, program, or legislation that it wanted to enact. Never mind that the Federalist Papers were absolutely clear on the limited nature of the federal government. And all along, the States have refused to stand up, question, challenge, or nullify improper federal spending or improper federal regulation.

At this point, with respect to the taxing power alone, the federal government has plenary power to tax and spend. It has the "Necessary and Proper" clause, which the Supreme Court interpreted in 1819 to be a blank check to the government to do pretty much anything it finds "convenient" to further its power or enable its powers to tax and spend. The healthcare decision enlarged the government's taxing power further, allowing government to tell Americans what it must purchase and punishing them (by taxing them) for not conducting themselves as the government demands. And so the result now is a government that taxes and spends for pretty much anything it wants. Most of the spending is for unconstitutional purposes which means that taxing for such spending is also unconstitutional.

Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty

Congress has been taking money from the citizens of states, and then offering that money back to states on the condition that legislators follow the will of Congress. Using these federal grants accompanied by mandates (which are rarely fully funded), Congress has turned state legislatures into their regional agencies rather than truly independent republican governments.

A radical social agenda and an erosion of the rights of the people accompany all of this. While substantial efforts have been made to combat the social engineering and to protect peoples' rights, we have missed one of the most important principles of the American founding.

Can we trust government to reverse course? Could we trust it to police itself and divest those improper spending powers to state local governments where they can be used to responsibly and directly to benefit their own people? The answer is no.

And that is why it must fall to the States to address the federal budget and use Nullification to enforce those changes.
The Solution


The solution I propose is called the "State Escrow Account" remedy. And yes, it's based on the doctrine of Nullification.

Again, the government can only tax and spend for constitutional objects. It would seem to me that a lot of its spending is on unconstitutional objects, such as state grants (using money to do what it can't do constitutionally, under the law of contracts) and education grants (such as Common Core; education is not a government matter; it's a state function). If the federal government has so much money that it can spend on unconstitutional objects/projects, then clearly it is taxing the people TOO MUCH. If the states had ambition under the 10th Amendment and wanted to stand up for the People's rights to keep their income, they should band together and challenge every bit of government spending. They should seek to have the federal government collect only revenue that goes to constitutional functions and NONE to bribe the states. That extra money should go to the states. This way the states can legislate more responsibly to their own people and not according to government mandates and a one-size-fits-all strategy. I would also set up State Escrow Accounts. For example, all taxpayers who live in North Carolina would send their federal income tax forms to a state treasury office. The funds would go into a state Escrow Account. That office would review the federal budget and decide what percentage of spending goes to constitutional matters and what percentage goes to unconstitutional ones. The NC Treasury Department would send funds on to the US Treasury Department MINUS the percentage that represents unconstitutional federal spending. Those extra funds in the state escrow account would either stay there to fund our own education, highways, etc or would be refunded back to the taxpayer. In this way, the proper power structure would be restored (government is greatest where it is closest to the people), the States would be a lot stronger (as intended), they would be more responsive to the people, we would be free from the "one-size-fits-all" model that is ruining this country, many of the onerous regulations that are killing businesses and the free market would be repealed, the economy would grow and businesses would flourish, money would be put back into the pockets where it is spent the wisest - with the people who actually earn it, and America's proclaimed notion of Liberty would be secure. States would be a lot more responsive to its people and they would be in a better position to protect their inalienable rights, as well as all the other rights associated with a free and sovereign people, if they were free from the financial bondage to the federal government. Individuals would be able to exercise their inalienable rights - to Life, Liberty, and Property - more freely, if they were free from legalized plunder and their financial bondage to the federal government.

Who Has the Right to Determine the Extent of Government?

The Declaration of Independence answered that question clearly, concisely, and before a "candid world."

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
The Declaration proclaims that America stands for the notion that the rights and liberties of the Individual, under Natural Law and Nature's God, are paramount to any self-serving designs of government. And should that day come when the government assumes a position that threatens the liberty of the People, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish that government.

The Constitution embodies the principles articulated in the Declaration. It created a limited government, one organized around the interests of the States and the People and provided for their full participation. Through the Preamble of the Constitution itself and then the preamble to the Bill of Rights, we see the intent for limited nature of government in our lives. The Preamble to the Constitution reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." You can't ask for a stronger expression of intent than that.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights reads: "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." Again, there can be no confusion about the intent of the States to limit the powers of the federal government and to prevent it from trying to pervert itself.

In other words, our Founding Fathers built a government whose purpose was not to control the people, but one that the people controlled. The government's purpose was not to take or usurp the people's sovereignty, but to provide only those things that the people could not provide for themselves, such as a standing army to protect them, uniform currency and commerce, a uniform immigration and naturalization policy, and relations with foreign nations. They stipulated that the people's sovereign rights had to remain with the people. The Founding Fathers made sure to grant to the People the ultimate authority over how they intended to be governed. It is the People who have power over their government. Unfortunately, collusion among decision-makers in Washington DC, as well as the three branches of government, to support party ideology over the preservation of individual liberty, has served to by-pass constitutional checks and balances and has acted to render the voice of the People as moot. Not only has government legislated in a way that frustrates their liberty interests but it has also made sure it controls the means to brainwash them and to keep them from educating themselves in the manner that would best preserve that liberty.

The People, therefore, have the right to determine the extent of their government. If the government refuses to abide by the limits of the Constitution and continues to loot the American people to pay for objects and projects that are unconstitutional, then the proper recourse is with the People (to alter their government) or with the States (where much of the peoples' powers are deposited). If the People can't "alter their government" through the only avenue open to them, which is the ballot box, then the States must interpose and Nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government, including unconstitutional elements of the budget and unconstitutional exercises of the purse strings.

Remember the oath of office for all branches of the federal government and for all representatives and officials in state government calls for support and allegiance to the US Constitution... NOT the federal government. The Constitution is the PEOPLE's document. It protects them from the reaches of government. So in effect, ALL government representatives and officials are OBLIGATED to respect We the PEOPLE... and our right to be left alone by government.

The Declaration of Independence lists 27 abuses of the rights of the American colonists by King George and the British Parliament. It states: "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." Today, we should be shouting: "A government whose character is marked by the actions of a tyrant is UNFIT to rule a free people."


http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2013-08-24-268500.112112-How-about-applying-nullification-to-the-entire-federal-budget.html

How about applying nullification to the entire federal budget?

For Love of God and Country Limit Federal spending through nullification and state escrow accounts

Diane Rufino

August 24, 2013

The government has no legitimate powers that were not initially granted to it under the Constitution. There is no provision anywhere, nor is there any implied right under the Declaration of Independence or any other social compact theory, which permits the government to assume any more powers than originally granted to it. There is, of course, only one way to legitimately alter the Constitution and hence alter the function and scope of government, and that is through Article V's amendment process. But only the states can approve those amendments.

As we all know, the only amendments which fundamentally altered the federal government were the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment.

The US Constitution is a "compact" (a social compact) among the states. It was an agreement among the states, fortified by their ratification, on how they would be managed and served by a common government. The Constitution created a Union of states ("united" States) and NOT the "United States." The Civil War would change that.

In the Constitution, the States delegated certain powers to the federal government, reserving all others to itself. And even with respect to those enumerated powers, there was clarification and limitation (as discussed in the state ratifying conventions, as well as in the very words, phrasing, and limiting clauses in the documents. For example, the "Necessary and Proper" clause, which was meant to breathe life into the powers vested in the government under the Constitution, mean just that... "NECESSARY." As it turns out, the Supreme Court would quickly re-define "necessary" to mean "convenient"). With respect to the taxing power, the states clearly and freely delegated to the government the power to tax and spend. However, the intent was that Congress can only tax and spend with regard to the seventeen specifically enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. Additionally, the "General Welfare" clause was not meant as a separate grant of power as it is assumed today. Yet, we've seen how the government, through independent-minded justices on the Supreme Court, has used all these "limiting clauses" (including the Commerce Clause and now the taxing power) to grow government and to provide justification for every type of policy, program, or legislation that it wanted to enact. Never-mind that the Federalist Papers were absolutely clear on the limited nature of the federal government. And all along, the States have refused to stand up, question, challenge, or nullify improper federal spending or improper federal regulation.

At this point, with respect to the taxing power alone, the federal government has plenary power to tax and spend. It has the "Necessary and Proper" clause, which the Supreme Court interpreted in 1819 to be a blank check to the government to do pretty much anything it finds "convenient" to further its power or enable its powers to tax and spend. The healthcare decision enlarged the government's taxing power further, allowing government to tell Americans what it must purchase and punishing them (by taxing them) for not conducting themselves as the government demands. And so the result now is a government that taxes and spends for pretty much anything it wants. Most of the spending is for unconstitutional purposes which means that taxing for such spending is also unconstitutional.

Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty

Congress has been taking money from the citizens of states, and then offering that money back to states on the condition that legislators follow the will of Congress. Using these federal grants accompanied by mandates (which are rarely fully funded), Congress has turned state legislatures into their regional agencies rather than truly independent republican governments.

A radical social agenda and an erosion of the rights of the people accompany all of this. While substantial efforts have been made to combat the social engineering and to protect peoples' rights, we have missed one of the most important principles of the American founding.

Can we trust government to reverse course? Could we trust it to police itself and divest those improper spending powers to state local governments where they can be used to responsibly and directly to benefit their own people? The answer is no.

And that is why it must fall to the States to address the federal budget and use Nullification to enforce those changes.

The Solution

The solution I propose is called the "State Escrow Account" remedy. And yes, it's based on the doctrine of Nullification.

Again, the government can only tax and spend for constitutional objects. It would seem to me that a lot of its spending is on unconstitutional objects, such as state grants (using money to do what it can't do constitutionally, under the law of contracts) and education grants (such as Common Core; education is not a government matter; it's a state function). If the federal government has so much money that it can spend on unconstitutional objects/projects, then clearly it is taxing the people TOO MUCH. If the states had ambition under the 10th Amendment and wanted to stand up for the People's rights to keep their income, they should band together and challenge every bit of government spending. They should seek to have the federal government collect only revenue that goes to constitutional functions and NONE to bribe the states. That extra money should go to the states. This way the states can legislate more responsibly to their own people and not according to government mandates and a one-size-fits-all strategy. I would also set up State Escrow Accounts. For example, all taxpayers who live in North Carolina would send their federal income tax forms to a state treasury office. The funds would go into a state Escrow Account. That office would review the federal budget and decide what percentage of spending goes to constitutional matters and what percentage goes to unconstitutional ones. The NC Treasury Department would send funds on to the US Treasury Department MINUS the percentage that represents unconstitutional federal spending. Those extra funds in the state escrow account would either stay there to fund our own education, highways, etc or would be refunded back to the taxpayer. In this way, the proper power structure would be restored (government is greatest where it is closest to the people), the States would be a lot stronger (as intended), they would be more responsive to the people, we would be free from the "one-size-fits-all" model that is ruining this country, many of the onerous regulations that are killing businesses and the free market would be repealed, the economy would grow and businesses would flourish, money would be put back into the pockets where it is spent the wisest - with the people who actually earn it, and America's proclaimed notion of Liberty would be secure. States would be a lot more responsive to its people and they would be in a better position to protect their inalienable rights, as well as all the other rights associated with a free and sovereign people, if they were free from the financial bondage to the federal government. Individuals would be able to exercise their inalienable rights - to Life, Liberty, and Property - more freely, if they were free from legalized plunder and their financial bondage to the federal government.

Who Has the Right to Determine the Extent of Government?

The Declaration of Independence answered that question clearly, concisely, and before a "candid world."

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

The Declaration proclaims that America stands for the notion that the rights and liberties of the Individual, under Natural Law and Nature's God, are paramount to any self-serving designs of government. And should that day come when the government assumes a position that threatens the liberty of the People, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish that government.

The Constitution embodies the principles articulated in the Declaration. It created a limited government, one organized around the interests of the States and the People and provided for their full participation. Through the Preamble of the Constitution itself and then the preamble to the Bill of Rights, we see the intent for limited nature of government in our lives. The Preamble to the Constitution reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." You can't ask for a stronger expression of intent than that.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights reads: "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." Again, there can be no confusion about the intent of the States to limit the powers of the federal government and to prevent it from trying to pervert itself.

In other words, our Founding Fathers built a government whose purpose was not to control the people, but one that the people controlled. The government's purpose was not to take or usurp the people's sovereignty, but to provide only those things that the people could not provide for themselves, such as a standing army to protect them, uniform currency and commerce, a uniform immigration and naturalization policy, and relations with foreign nations. They stipulated that the people's sovereign rights had to remain with the people. The Founding Fathers made sure to grant to the People the ultimate authority over how they intended to be governed. It is the People who have power over their government. Unfortunately, collusion among decision-makers in Washington DC, as well as the three branches of government, to support party ideology over the preservation of individual liberty, has served to by-pass constitutional checks and balances and has acted to render the voice of the People as moot. Not only has government legislated in a way that frustrates their liberty interests but it has also made sure it controls the means to brainwash them and to keep them from educating themselves in the manner that would best preserve that liberty.

The People, therefore, have the right to determine the extent of their government. If the government refuses to abide by the limits of the Constitution and continues to loot the American people to pay for objects and projects that are unconstitutional, then the proper recourse is with the People (to alter their government) or with the States (where much of the peoples' powers are deposited). If the People can't "alter their government" through the only avenue open to them, which is the ballot box, then the States must interpose and Nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government, including unconstitutional elements of the budget and unconstitutional exercises of the purse strings.

Remember the oath of office for all branches of the federal government and for all representatives and officials in state government calls for support and allegiance to the US Constitution... NOT the federal government. The Constitution is the PEOPLE's document. It protects them from the reaches of government. So in effect, ALL government representatives and officials are OBLIGATED to respect We the PEOPLE... and our right to be left alone by government.

The Declaration of Independence lists 27 abuses of the rights of the American colonists by King George and the British Parliament. It states: "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." Today, we should be shouting: "A government whose character is marked by the actions of a tyrant is UNFIT to rule a free people."

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2013-08-24-268500.112112-How-about-applying-nullification-to-the-entire-federal-budget.html

Nullify Now! in Raleigh

October 19, 2013

Nullify Now! in Raleigh is THE event to learn about what Jefferson and Madison advised as the rightful remedy to unconstitutional federal acts.

Since September 2010, the Tenth Amendment Center has been hosting events around the country to educate and activate people on the topic of Nullification. At a Nullify Now! event, you learn nullification’s constitutional basis and when it has been used in history – plus much more.

AT NULLIFY NOW! YOU WILL LEARN:

1. The Constitutional history of Nullification. Jefferson and Madison’s basis for states rejecting, nullifying and interposing against unconstitutional federal acts.

2. How Nullification was used in early American history - against attacks on freedom of speech and more.

3. Nullification vs Slavery. The mainstream wants you to believe that Nullification was used to support slavery. This is either ignorance or a lie. Hear the heroic story of nullification being used to reject federal slave laws in the 1850s.

4. How Nullification is being used today. right now, across the country, dozens of states are implementing nullification bills. They’ve already been very successful pushing back against the feds and you can use this lesson as a blueprint in your own state, on issues important to you.

5. About Nullification as a Tool for Protecting Liberty. Nullification is a powerful tool to protect your right to keep and bear arms, stop “indefinite detention,” protect your health freedom – and more. You’ll learn about model legislation that can be used on a state OR local level – and effective methods to get nullification bills passed.

6. What YOU can do right now – you won’t leave Nullify Now! with just a bunch of great information. You’ll also be provided with a practical, actionable plan to do something today. The time to act is now, not next year and not next week. Today, not tomorrow, now.

YOU MUST GET TICKETS HERE: http://www.nullifynow.com/

For Love of God and Country

What it means to be "sovereign"

by Diane Rufino--July 31, 2013

Government in the United States includes the understanding of three terms: Self-government, sovereignty, and social compact. Sovereignty is the inherent and independent right to do all that is necessary to govern oneself. In the United States, the People are sovereign. In fact, only the Individual is truly sovereign because only the people, and not government, have inherent rights to Life, Liberty, and Property which they also have the right to protect and preserve. In the United States, we enjoy self-government; that is, government originates from the people, for the people - "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Government arises out of social compact. In other words, because Man is a social creature, he forms together into communities. And in order that communities run smoothly and common services be provided to protect everyone's rights and property, governments are instituted. And so, individuals delegate some of their sovereign power of self-defense and self-preservation to a government. That is why the bulk of government is always supposed to be closest to the individual, where it is most responsible and most accountable. Our rights and liberties are most protected when people have the frequent opportunity to see their elected officials and look them in the eye and when those officials see a personal story behind acts of legislation, etc.

CONTINUED:  http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2013-07-31-268154.112112-What-it-means-to-be-sovereign.html