Only Ourselves to Blame


I have had a case, Sibley v. Alito et al, pending at the Supreme Court of the United States since January 4, 2008 — some 1825 days.  I think that is the record for a case pending without resolution at the Supreme Court.  I have explained that case in detail before.

My point today is not the merits of that long pending case — though I believe the case has great merit — but rather how can a court refuse to decide a case for over five (5) years?  I fear the answer is that through the collusion of the executive and judicial branches — with the paralyzed legislative branch out to lunch — we now have a system that immunizes its actors from any consequence for misfeasance or malfeasance in office.  In my case, the Supremes can refuse to rule and there is no consequence.  So why would they rule when to do so in my case would expose the very hypocrisy of the judicial system and its actors?  They wouldn’t and thus they don’t.
By Michael Oberndorf · September 10, 2012

It has been my experience that conservatives are not stupid. In fact, they tend to be of well above average intelligence, able to grasp complicated issues and understand “nuances.” In addition, they have been a political majority since the 1950s. How then, have we been conned, hoodwinked, and manipulated into letting the Left dictate what is morally right and wrong, what the clear and simple language of the Constitution actually means, what should be taught in our schools, to the exclusion of all else, what constitutes patriotism, the purpose and value of our military, the rights of private property owners, the condition and how we are allowed to use the “environment,” and darn near everything else in the lives of Americans today? How too, have we come to the point where judges legislate from the bench with impunity and regularity? How is it that today we have an executive branch that violates federal laws, and like the courts, does so with impunity and regularity? How is it that the Left has come to dominate so completely that the Attorney General of the United States can be cited for contempt of Congress, and simply thumb his nose and continue his lawless behavior, unchecked? And how can other cabinet secretaries repeatedly lie in public about their actions and policies, again, with impunity and regularity?One also might ask how what used to be a more or less balanced media, with both conservative and liberal newspapers in most cities, turned into a one-sided, far-left driven, character-assassinating propaganda and indoctrination machine, promulgating huge lies, concocting phony polls, and creating “news” rather than reporting it? How did television get turned into a leftist social engineering tool, pushing foul language, promiscuous sex, selfishness and greed, rampant and perverted violence, disrespect for hard work, success, elders and each other, all disguised as “entertainment.” This applies to Hollywood, too.
How did we come to accept that it is beneficial to individuals and society to allow people to get on welfare, in a system that never requires them to get off it, that encourages repetition of the behavior that got them on it in the first place? When did we lose the ability to understand the idea that, “If you give a man a fish, he will eat today. If you teach him to fish, he will eat every day?” And why can’t we grasp that the total lack of self-respect that comes from a life lived with no purpose other than to be taken care of by others leads to the self-hatred and resentment against the providers of that care that underlies the growing crime and mob violence in our Democrat-run urban paradises. And when, exactly, did parents turn over to the far-left National Education Association (NEA) the responsibility for raising their children, teaching them moral values and proper social behavior? This used to be done in the home, by a mother and a father. How did it come about that now the government schools do this, using not teachers, but “educators,” or as the NEA likes to refer to themselves, “agents of change?” How did the schools get turned into far-left indoctrination centers, teaching our children that our country is evil, that humans are bad, that weeds and rodents have more rights than people, that Christianity is oppressive and destructive, that white Europeans are responsible for all the problems in the world? How did we not notice this was happening?
A comparison of America today with America of the 1940s and 1950s shows stark, undeniable differences. We are on the very brink of becoming a far-left, totalitarian police state, run by an elitist minority of radical Marxists and neo-fascists. The politicians are just puppets, the well-paid and therefore very willing straw men, for globalist fascists like George Soros and his cronies and minions. In spite of the obfuscation by the media and the hysterical ranting against “Wall Street,” Soros and the global banking cabal have been financing the Left for years, and are behind most of the chaos we are experiencing today. As I noted above, conservatives are a solid majority in America, but we have gotten lax and lazy when it comes to doing what used to be called our “civic duty.” We too were manipulated at an early age to become self-centered to the point that we were more concerned with “getting ahead” than with the eternal vigilance that is necessary to preserve our liberty. This has got to change, immediately.

Regardless of how we feel about Romney, the indisputable fact is that if Barak Hussein Obama is re-elected, America as a free, constitutional republic is dead. However, once we have taken the governing of the country back to We, the People, we must, without hesitation, begin to repeal, roll back, and repair the damage that progressives, liberals, leftists, or whatever they were calling themselves at the time, have done to America. We must stand firm for our principles. No more “compromise.” And we must take no excuses from Congress as to why they can’t.
~     ~     ~     ~MAH in Wisconsin
Monday, September 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM

What is equally disturbing to me is the way segments of our society believe outrageous misrepresentations of the truth without a thought for investigation of the facts, if you can find them. For some reason people think their lives will always go on from day to day, in the same fashion they always have. Younger people know nothing about the atrocities of communism in Europe and the ‘iron curtain’. Those of us who do remember are marked for extermination by the Obama regime as a generation. Extreme? I don’t think so. Even as a child I felt the horror of stories from behind the ‘curtain’ and of people who sought to escape. If we give up now, as a swimmer who has tired of fighting the current and slips quietly beneath the surface, we will not recover our freedom or our constitution.

Glover, Booth and Paine: Over 150 years of nullification

In the 1850s, a banging on a door marked the beginning of a seven-year saga that would end with a state defying the U.S. Supreme Court. That defiance continues to this day.

Joshua Glover was playing cards in his single-room, dirt-floor cabin near the shore of Lake Michigan when he heard the ruckus outside. He yelled at his companions not to open the door when the insistent banging started, but it was too late. The door was flung open and three men charged into the room. One was armed with a gun. Glover resisted, but a second man cracked him over the head with a pair of cuffs, and Glover fell to his dirt floor, bleeding profusely. The men drug him out of his home, threw him roughly into a wagon and spirited him away toward Milwaukee.

Under federal law, this kidnapping was perfectly legal.

The three men who rushed into Glover’s home that night were Deputy U.S. Marshal Charles C. Cotton, a deputy marshal by the last name Kearney and Bennami Stone Garland. Garland had in his possession an arrest warrant signed by federal judge Andrew G. Miller based on his ownership of Glover.

Joshua was a fugitive slave.

Several years earlier, he ran away from Garland’s farm near St. Louis. Under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, Garland had the absolute right to travel north and reclaim his “property.” Joshua didn’t even have the right to testify on his own behalf or present evidence to a court of law. The word of the “master” was sufficient to justify kidnapping under federal law. Anybody interfering was subject to arrest and prosecution.

Many northerners refused to accept the federal edict. Among the defiant in Milwaukee was a newspaper editor by the name of Sherman Booth. He was a staunch abolitionist, and when he got word marshals had captured an accused fugitive in nearby Racine and locked him up in the Milwaukee jail, he sprang into action.

After investigating the matter and printing a handbill that asked the question, “shall a man be dragged back to Slavery from our Free Soil, without an open trial of his right to Liberty?”

Later, Booth rode through town crying out, “Free citizens, who do not wish to be made slaves or slave-catchers, meet at courthouse square at 2 o’clock.”

By 2:30 between 3,000 and 5,000 people gathered in front of the courthouse building, also the site of the city jail.

The crowd was far from a disorganized mob. In fact, the gathered masses elected representatives from each city ward and drafted resolutions. The gathering was essentially an impromptu political meeting. But the demands for Glover’s release fell on deaf ears. Many Milwaukeeans delivered, fiery speeches, including Booth. Ultimately, the crowd took matters into its own hands and broke Joshua out of the jail. Supporters rushed him away and took him to a safe house on the Underground Railroad. After a three week journey, Joshua stowed away on a steamer and found freedom in Canada.

Booth helped Joshua Glover win his freedom. He would spend the next seven years fighting for his own.

The feds arrested him and charged him with aiding a fugitive slave. Booth was released on bail, but two months later, he intentionally surrendered to federal marshals in order to bring the case before the court. A day after the surrender, Booth’s attorney, Byron Paine, applied to Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Abram D. Smith for a writ of habeas corpus.

Paine used Thomas Jefferson’s reasoning from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, arguing that the state has a sovereign right to assert its authority when the federal government violates the Constitution. He held that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was unconstitutional because it denied due process and vested judicial authority in court commissioners.

Smith agreed, ruled the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional and ordered Booth released.

The federal government appealed the decision to the full Wisconsin Supreme Court, holding that the state court had no authority to release a federal prisoner and that it was the duty of federal judges to determine the constitutionality of a federal act. Lawyers for the federal government also insisted that the Fugitive Slave Act was constitutional.  On July 19, 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously upheld Smith’s decision to release Booth. Chief Justice Edward V. Whiton and Smith declared the 1850 law unconstitutional. Justice Samuel Crawford wrote a concurrent opinion finding Booth’s writ of commitment to be invalid but the Fugitive Slave Act constitutional.

A short time later, a federal grand jury indicted Booth. This time, the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that since the case was under federal jurisdiction, it could not intercede until after it was tried.

A jury found Booth guilty, sentenced him to one month in jail and fined him $1,000. After his conviction, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a writ of habeas corpus and ordered Booth released again, after concluding it could consider the jurisdictional issue.

When U.S. Attorney General Kaleb Kushing appealed the Wisconsin Supreme Court rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Wisconsin justices refused to send a response, delaying the case for nearly two years. An historical document published by the Wisconsin courts described the effect of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s refusal to comply.

The Court’s action in refusing to make a return to the writ of error issued by the U.S. Supreme Court was tantamount to judicial nullification of part of the 1789 federal act which by that time had served as the basis for federal review of almost 200 cases.

When the Supreme Court finally heard the case, it unanimously overturned the Wisconsin Decisions.  Chief Justice Roger Taney (of Dred Scott fame) affirmed the constitutionality of the U.S. Supreme Court’s appellate authority and declared the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 constitutional.

A short time later, the Wisconsin legislature passed a series of resolutions condemning the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

We regard the action of the Supreme Court of the United States, in assuming jurisdiction in the case before mentioned, as an arbitrary act of power, unauthorized by the Constitution, and virtually superseding the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus and prostrating the rights and liberties of the people at the foot of unlimited power.

Resolved, That this assumption of jurisdiction by the federal judiciary, in the said case, and without process, is an act of undelegated power, and therefore without authority, void, and of no force.

Only a month after the Supreme Court handed down its decision, Byron Paine was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The election of Booth’s lawyer to the state’s highest court was viewed as public affirmation of his states’ rights position.  And as the Wisconsin court’s paper put it “approval by the state electorate of the idea that the state could and should nullify and defy a law of the United States.”

When the Wisconsin Supreme Court received the request to file the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling reversing the state court’s decisions and dismissals in the Booth case, it refused. To this day, those mandates have not been filed, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision has never been officially recognize by the state of Wisconsin.

Federal authorities took Booth back into custody in March of 1860. He remained in prison even after serving his one-month sentence because he refused to pay the fines. In August 1860, armed men broke Booth out of the federal custom house in Milwaukee. Booth spent several months speaking at public events until he was recaptured. He remained imprisoned until Pres. Buchanan pardoned him on the last day of his presidency.

Wisconsin’s battle with the federal government destroys many myths surrounding nullification – chief among them that it was the domain of slavers and racists. It also serves to illustrate the power of state resistance. Wisconsin’s refusal to bow down to federal power offers a bold blueprint for states today to follow.

Some might declare Wisconsin’s stand a failure. After all, Booth ultimately served his time in federal prison. But that would be like declaring Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat on that Montgomery bus a failure because she was arrested, jailed and fined. Placed in a larger context, Rosa’s stand was a significant strategic victory. So, while Wisconsin’s defiance may seem insignificant in isolation, it was part of a larger battle against the Fugitive Slave Act fought in nearly every northern state – a battle that was extremely effective in thwarting enforcement of that draconian law.

And the final chapter on nullification has yet to be written. Perhaps someday, historians will look back at Joshua Glover, Sherman Booth, Byron Paine and other actors during that tumultuous time in the same way they view Parks today, and praise them as trailblazers who hacked out a path that was followed by those yearning for freedom in the 21st century.

About the author

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at and like him on Facebook HERE

A Nullification History Lesson for Jesse Jackson

Saul Alinsky, the king of community organizers, once wrote in his book Rules for Radicals that one should “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

There’s little in American politics that is more polarizing than race, and there’s few better at this kind of fear-mongering than Jesse Jackson.

In his recent columns, Jesse has aggressively pushed the race-card, hoping to convince the fearful that attempts to block Obamacare funding in Congress are somehow born of the same mentality held by those who wanted to preserve the institution of slavery in the 19th century.

Seriously.  You can’t make this stuff up.


Jesse might be a professional polarizer, but he’s an amateur historian, at best.  That’s really an understatement.  Seriously, the guy’s a joke when it comes to facts.

In pontificating about Obamacare, race, and slavery, Jesse tried to give a history lesson, and failed.  Miserably.

Where he really went off the rails was when he attempted to show his “expertise” on nullification.

Here’s a bit of what he had to say:

What is nullification? It’s one of the last-ditch philosophical stands of the slaveholders, the historically disreputable — and thoroughly discredited — concept that a state could “nullify” a federal law by declaring it null and void. The idea of the Slave Power was that the Southern states would “interpose” themselves between the national government and the slaveholders, and prevent our laws from being enforced.

The concept was most famously expounded by South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun almost two centuries ago. It has been struck down repeatedly by the courts and was never accepted outside the Confederacy. Since it was used mainly to protect slavery in the South, it eventually helped lead to a horrible Civil War, and eventually the idea was totally discredited.

In Jesse’s five sentences explaining what “nullification” is, he didn’t get one single sentence fully correct.

Not one.

Jesse Jackson couldn’t be more wrong if he tried.


Jesse must’ve forgotten Alinsky’s 2nd rule, “never go outside the expertise of your people.”  In playing historian on nullification, he went outside of his own expertise and walked right into mine.

So, I have a little history lesson for Jesse – it’s one you can use to refute others who use the same lies.

Let’s take Jesse’s false claims apart with some facts.

FACT:  Nullification was never used to protect slavery

Nullification wasn’t “mainly” used to “protect slavery,” it wasn’t used to protect slavery at all.  This just begs the question.  Since slavery was still allowed on a federal level, what would slave states have needed to nullify?  Nothing.  Not once did such a thing happen.


FACT:  Virtually all Northern States used nullification to resist federal slave laws

History turns Jesse’s version on its head.  It was the Northern States, the anti-slavery abolitionists, that used nullification most prominently prior to the civil war.  Almost every Northern state passed “Personal Liberty Laws” with the effect of nullifying the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

You can learn more about this Northern nullification here.

FACT:  Leading abolitionists supported nullification

While Jesse would have you believe that nullification was “never accepted outside the Confederacy,” he again couldn’t be more wrong.

Beyond the fact that Northern states resisted slavery with nullification, it was leading abolitionists who expressly supported it as well.

Take, for example, John Greenleaf Whittier, the ardent abolitionist poet from Massachusetts:

“Since the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law by Congress, I find myself in a position with respect to it, which I fear my fellow citizens generally are not prepared to justify.  So far as that law is concerned, I am a nullifier.

Or, how about William Lloyd Garrison, editor of the abolitionist newspaper, The Liberator, supporting Whittier:

“The nullification advocated by Mr Whittier…is loyalty to goodness.”

It’s pretty hard to claim nullification is racist, like Jesse does, when one of the founders of the American Anti-Slavery Society considered it “goodness” against federal slavery laws.

FACT:  The “Slave Power” hated nullification.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no fan of nullification and attacked it in his farewell address to the Senate.   When South Carolina seceded, they forcefully complained about Northern nullification as well:

The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the [Fugitive Slave Acts] or render useless any attempt to execute them

Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas denounced nullification when they seceded too.


With these facts, it’s easy to see how Jesse Jackson is either ignorant, or just lying.  If it’s the latter, I’m pretty sure it’s to hide a fact that’s dangerous to him. What might that be?

By claiming that nullification is racist, Jesse Jackson sides with the slavers.

About the author

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter – @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.


How much influence does Jesse Jackson have these days? It’s not like he hasn’t done anything to hurt his credibility.

Very true. But more important than Jesse’s personal credibility are the lies he spews – which are exactly the same ones which come from many of the major think tanks, media, and talking heads.


Jesse is reintroducing the concept of black upward mobility through personal enrichment by owning other blacks. I guess he figures if it worked before…

John Brinar

When you attempt to quote Jessie Jackson and intelligence in the same sentence; that is an oxymoron…. or in Jessie’s case just a moron….

Bob Marshall history where you will find in their own words both democrats and republicans regarding major issues about slavery and much more that each party was founded on and had to say.

Here’s Why America Fell Into The Hands Of Tyrants

April 8, 2014 by

When faced with the inevitable destabilization and destruction of one’s country and culture, it is only natural to define and expose the culprit behind the chaos. The liberty movement spends an incredible amount of time and energy unmasking the criminality of international financiers and globalists, but it is important to point out that the power of the elites is entirely dependent on the ignorance and stupidity of the masses. Without a majority of thoroughly foolish Americans, there would be no base of support for the actions of tyrants. Without the mind-boggling superficiality and bias of the average citizen, there would be no fertile ground for the schemes of totalitarians to blossom. Truly, there are two great enemies of any liberty-based society: the power-mad oligarchy and the idiots who make their conquests more feasible.

Is our Nation built upon carefully crafted lies? Yes. Is our political establishment a false paradigm? Yes. Is our public school system corrupt and poisonous? Of course. But are elitists the only source of our despair? No. It is vital that we acknowledge the important part played by biased, selfish, cruel and mentally challenged persons in the destruction of all that is good in this world. There is no power over us but that which we give away; and, sadly, too many useless Americans are willing to give away everything in the name of comfort, fear or narcissism.

Do you want to see the face of this Nation’s decline? Check out the video diary of this woman and understand that there are millions more out there like her:

Melissa Melton of The Daily Sheeple posted the video under the headline “’The Fruits of Socialism’: I Can’t Even Stand to Watch the Rest of this Video.”  []

It is almost impossible to sit through the entirety of the above video. Though I laughed hardily, I have to admit as well that this was a simultaneous source of entertainment and emotional torture.

First, during the full nine minutes of the video, I was praying that the camera view would not drop below shoulder level. Who knows if this woman had enough initiative or sense to put on clothes before filming her own welfare confessions? Being forced to witness 300 pounds of stark-naked, socialist-fed cellulite is not my idea of fun. Secondly, I realize that this pink haired EBT-addicted sasquatch represents a considerable portion of the American public. As much as I despise her, I understand that she is a part of a much larger collective of parasites gorging on the arteries of those who actually make an effort to better their own lives.

I have met hundreds of people who have embraced the life of the bottom-feeder. They are everywhere. They are your neighbors, your acquaintances, your friends, your family, etc. In using the term “bottom-feeder,” I am not necessarily referring to people who refuse to work within our current economic climate. I have nothing but respect for those who make the effort to break from the system and go their own way, surviving using methods that violate mainstream taboos and functioning without the aid of a bureaucratic machine. No, a bottom-feeder is someone who uses the system as a weapon to take from others while contributing nothing in return.

Keep in mind that there are nearly 50 million people in America today who rely on government-funded food stamps just to eat. That is a bewildering portion of our population, which will defend the socialization of our country no matter what the consequences.

In the view of the common socialist, it is the responsibility of the working class to give shelter to what I call the “disinterested class,” the people who have no inclination to invest in their own futures and who feel that they deserve, for whatever insane reason, the forced charity of others. This may be due to delusions of grandeur like those of the woman above, who thinks her “hobbies” give her artistic license to live on the dime of strangers. Or it may be due to a misplaced sense of expectation — a notion that they reserve the right to have their lives capitalized as if they are precious commodities. As if their existence were assured by some kind of legal mandate.

Not long ago, there was an element of shame when someone played the system for too long and siphoned money through dishonesty and misrepresentation. Today, the welfare society has bred an army of self-righteous leeches: people who are actually proud to live without working, who are proud to steal from others to sustain themselves and who brag about their ability to forage for entitlements through the unsecured avenues of government taxation. Here is yet another example of this attitude on display:

Could it be possible that the existence of the welfare class gives strength and locomotion to the machinations of the aristocracy? Could it be possible that for every person who relies on the system for survival the system fuels its continued dominance? And, if that is the case, would it not benefit the state to engineer economic collapse and conditions of poverty in order to accelerate the socialist condition?

Look at it this way: For tyranny to remain energetic, it must have a growing population of dependent citizens and a growing organization of interdependent economies. The fewer independent people there are, the more real estate tyrants have available to maneuver. This is not to say that every welfare leech contributes directly to totalitarianism. Rather, every welfare leech represents one less person who will stand as an obstacle to the formation of despotism.

Tax-dependent people coalesce into a collectivist hive, an easily enslaved piece of leverage used against independent people as a means to manipulate. When corrupt government confronts us with the argument that more power and more centralization are necessary for the “greater good” of the “greater number,” these are the people to whom they are referring. So it behooves us to ask whether the “greater number” are actually worth the sacrifice of money and freedom the government demands.

Are the people featured in the videos above really products of the “greater good,” or are they something else?

Is it really our job to support with our tax dollars a subculture of overgrown brats, a subculture that will eventually be used as a bartering chip designed to place us in chains further down the road? Should any of us feel compelled to throw money at a problem that will only cause us more pain in the near future? I have to say that I feel no regret in tossing such people to the curb.

In all honesty, most great revelations in human history and most great changes in social environment are triggered by the efforts of dedicated minorities. Why should the liberty movement continue to perpetuate the myth that the “greater good” of the “greater number” really matters? The mainstream is utterly devoid of value or redemption. The vast majority of Americans (and the majority of most people around the world) are waffling simpletons and spectators hiding in the dark recesses of the modern Colosseum. They exist as nothing but cannon fodder for the elites.

This might sound like a harsh judgment, but I suggest you watch the above videos again. The future we are fighting for likely will not include such people. Their survival through the harshest of times is impossible. Their lack of independence makes their demise inevitable. In the grand scheme of things, I see little utility in attempting to save them. This is why I question any liberty movement proponents who claim that our salvation requires the “awakening” of the mainstream. This goal is not only unattainable, but also a distraction.

As much as the globalists have initiated the pain and suffering of our republic, it has been the dull-witted masses that have allowed the horror to endure. Though our primary mission is to inform, it is also important that we recognize that there are limits to the “reach, teach and inspire” methodology. Those who know will always be in a minority. Those who don’t know will always outnumber us. Perhaps it is time that we stop giving the dregs of the mainstream so much support and attention. Perhaps it is time we stop seeking their favor. Perhaps we should build our own culture, separate, free and industrious; and let them wallow in their own self-created misery. Perhaps it is time for a change in the status quo. For if we allow the culture of entitlement to continue as a mainstay of our Nation and a source of pride for acolytes, then are we any better than they are?

Isn’t it our duty to finally say “no” to those who would pick our pockets and trade off our freedoms in the name of equality and charity? Isn’t it better to end this charade now and struggle through the consequences than it is to continue the socialist lie to the benefit of tyrants?

–Brandon Smith

is the founder of the Alternative Market Project, an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for barter and mutual aid. Join today and learn what it means to step away from the unstable mainstream system and build something better. You can contact Brandon Smith at:

Concealing Evil Behind Noble Words

Evil acts are given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions, such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution, caring for the less fortunate, and the will of the majority. Let’s have a thought experiment to consider just how much Americans sanction evil.

Imagine there are several elderly widows in your neighborhood. They have neither the strength to mow their lawns, clean their windows and perform other household tasks nor the financial means to hire someone to help them. Here’s a question that I’m almost afraid to ask: Would you support a government mandate that forces you or one of your neighbors to mow these elderly widows’ lawns, clean their windows and perform other household tasks? Moreover, if the person so ordered failed to obey the government mandate, would you approve of some sort of sanction, such as fines, property confiscation or imprisonment? I’m hoping, and I believe, that most of my fellow Americans would condemn such a mandate. They’d agree that it would be a form of slavery — namely, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if, instead of forcing you or your neighbor to actually perform weekly household tasks for the elderly widows, the government forced you or your neighbor to give one of the widows $50 of your weekly earnings? That way, she could hire someone to mow her lawn or clean her windows. Would such a mandate differ from one under which you are forced to actually perform the household task? I’d answer that there is little difference between the two mandates except the mechanism for the servitude. In either case, one person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another.

I’m guessing that most Americans would want to help these elderly ladies in need but they’d find anything that openly smacks of servitude or slavery deeply offensive. They might have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced (taxed) to put money into a government pot. A government agency would then send the widows $50 to hire someone to mow their lawns and perform other household tasks. This collective mechanism makes the particular victim invisible, but it doesn’t change the fact that a person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of others. Putting the money into a government pot simply conceals an act that would otherwise be deemed morally depraved.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, confiscation and intimidation, to accomplish what are often seen as noble goals — namely, helping one’s fellow man. Helping one’s fellow man in need by reaching into one’s own pockets to do so is laudable and praiseworthy. Helping one’s fellow man through coercion and reaching into another’s pockets is evil and worthy of condemnation. Tragically, most teachings, from the church on down, support government use of one person to serve the purposes of another; the advocates cringe from calling it such and prefer to call it charity or duty.

Some might argue that we are a democracy, in which the majority rules. But does a majority consensus make moral acts that would otherwise be deemed immoral? In other words, if the neighbors got a majority vote to force one of their number — under pain of punishment — to perform household tasks for the elderly widows, would that make it moral?

The bottom line is that we’ve betrayed much of the moral vision of our Founding Fathers. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who had fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison rose on the floor of the House of Representatives to object, saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” Tragically, today’s Americans — Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative — would hold such a position in contempt and run a politician like Madison out of town on a rail.


One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:


Fort Hood and the lies we cannot live with

April 8, 2014

By Alan Keyes

The stories report that “officials” are saying that there was no indication that the second shooting spree at Fort Hood was terrorism-related. They say that “Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, III Corps commander at Fort Hood, said the shooter was a soldier who was under evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder.” They say that “the shooter, identified as 34-year old Ivan Lopez, is among the dead.”

So they say. But these days, what brain-functional person believes what officials, even those in high positions of responsibility, say about events like this. Just yesterday, April 2, I was reading about Michael Morell, a former deputy director at the CIA, who told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence “that the CIA ignored a key piece of information that was the exact opposite of what then-U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice told the American public” about the attack on U.S. personnel in Benghazi that took the life of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, among others.

The information came from CIA officers on the ground in Libya, but Morell said “he did not believe there had been no protests, because there were press reports describing protests.”

What if the III Corps commander is saying there was no terrorism involved in the latest Fort Hood shootings because the people briefing him have read press reports saying there was no terrorism involved in the latest Fort Hood shootings?

That’s the problem with living in a media whirl where everything is being fabricated by people who believe that there is no “truth,” that it’s all relative to someone’s point of view. Of course that includes the bureaucrats‘ concern with how others may react to what the facts say about their competence; the military officers‘ view of how others will judge their fitness for command; the appointed government officials‘ view of whether and how others will upbraid their policies; and the elected politicians‘ view of how their backers will view their viability in the next election.

And, of course, there’s the media bureaucrats‘ fear of what viewers will do with the TV remote if their network comes late to the feeding frenzy because they waited to check out whether the latest “news” feed contained poison.

There was a time when it was not entirely irrational for Americans to assume that, where life and death matters of public concern were involved, “big lies” would not routinely be the stuff the news was made of. We expected high government officials to hem and haw a bit while they were catching up with events. But we also expected that, once the facts became clear, they would make an effort to provide a true account to the people at large. National security considerations made for exceptions to this, of course, but they were not the rule.

In the last generation or so, however, a maxim I often heard associated with a well-known public figure in the early years of my public service seems to have become the rule: Never tell the truth when a lie will do.

The maxim depends on a simple logic: Information is power. Sharing power tends to diminish it. Therefore, never share information unless doing so preserves or increases one’s power.

Moreover, when the power to fabricate information is comprehensively monopolized over several generations, as it was in the heyday of Communist Party dictatorship in the old Soviet Union, the time comes when people at large resign themselves to the fact that their peaceful daily existence depends on conforming to whatever “truth” those in power are determined to impose upon them.

Solzhenitsyn famously chronicled the enormous spiritual and moral toll this resignation of truth involves. On the day before he was forcibly sent into exile in the West, he released the essay “Live Not by Lies!” in which he wrote of himself and his fellow citizens in the Soviet Union:

We have so helplessly ceded our humanity that for the modest handouts of today we are ready to surrender up all principles, our soul, all the labors of our ancestors, all the prospects of our descendants – anything to avoid disrupting our meager existence. We have lost our strength, our pride, our passion….
We have internalized well the lessons drummed into us by the state;… We can do nothing….
Some will counter: But really there is nothing to be done! Our mouths are gagged, no one listens to us; no one asks us. How can we make them listen to us?
To make them reconsider – is impossible.  The natural thing would be simply not to re-elect them, but there are no re-elections in our country….
[Translation from "The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings," Edward E. Ericson, Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney (ed.)]
In America we are still supposed to be able to do “the natural thing.” But how many of us discern the fact that our nation is now on the brink?
One fact about the latest attack at Fort Hood should awaken us: “While it was happening, soldiers began jumping over fences to escape the attacker.” All were told to “Close your windows! Seek shelter immediately.” So thanks to the lie that guns kill, we lose the lives of people trained in using them to stop the real killers.

Policies put in place during the Clinton era, and maintained by Republican and Democratic administrations in Washington since then, require U.S. armed forces be disarmed on American military bases. The nation’s defenders are prohibited from being ready to defend themselves or their family members.

So what do you think they mean to do to the people at large, as they collude to disarm us and make us dependent on their commands for our life and health and daily bread, as Soviet citizens were dependent on their party bosses and bureaucrats?
Until and unless we dramatically signify that we have not forgotten the allegiance to self-evident truth that has been the foundation of our nation’s exceptional character, we are doomed to be consumed by lies, -just as they were.

But unlike them, we can still do the natural thing (i.e., the thing we are entitled to do, by “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”). As citizens, we can use our votes to send a simple message to our elected representatives:

“The purveyors of the culture of lies, behavioral cowardice, and death must go, along with all of their collaborators, or else we will dismiss you.”

I see only one movement under way that rejects the vocationally deceitful political culture that now predominates in both so-called “major” political parties. It is the congregation of those who have pledged to use their vote to energize the political will needed to impeach and remove Obama from power, by constitutional means, along with his henchmen and collaborators.

Have you informed yourself about this movement? Have you signed on? Or are you content simply to cooperate with the twin-party sham, thereby proving that Americans, too, have now “lost our strength, our pride, our passion” for truth, justice, and the liberty of our republic?

To see more articles by Dr. Keyes, visit his blog at and his commentary at

© Alan Keyes


John Gaultier


Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Here is the complete list from Alinsky.

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)


( Learn the Enemy’s game plan and capitalize on that knowledge to defeat him!! )

We were Jane Fonda’s “war criminals.”

In Memory of Lt. C. Thomsen Wieland, who spent 100 days at the Hanoi Hilton [infamous North Vietnam prison] –

This is for all the kids born in the 70s and after who do not remember, and didn’t have to bear the burden that our fathers, mothers and older brothers and sisters had to bear.

Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the “100 Women of the Century.”

Barbara Walters writes: Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country, but specific men who served and sacrificed during the Vietnam War.

[the pot calls the kettle black, -the same B. Walters who interviewed and became quite chummy and taken with dear leader Fidel Castro, -a murdering Marxist totalitarian who threw people in prison for decades merely for disagreeing with his marxist takeover of Cuba.]

The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot. The pilot’s name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat. In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison, the “Hanoi Hilton.”

Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ’s, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American “peace activist” the “lenient and humane treatment” he’d received. He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and was dragged away. During the subsequent beating, he fell forward onto the camp commandant ‘s feet, which sent that officer berserk.

In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying career) from the commandant’s frenzied application of a wooden baton.

From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E’s). He spent 6 years in the “Hanoi Hilton”. . . the first three of which his family only knew he was “missing in action.” His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned-up, fed and clothed routine in preparation for a “peace delegation” visit.

They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they were alive and still survived. Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his Social Security number on it, in the palm of his hand. When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man’s hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: “Aren’t you sorry you bombed babies?” and “Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?” Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper.

She took them all without missing a beat. . . At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him all the little pieces of paper…

Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Colonel Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know of her actions that day.

I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968, and held prisoner for over 5 years.

I spent 27 months in solitary confinement; one year in a cage in Cambodia; and one year in a ‘black box’ in Hanoi. My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Banme Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border. At one time, I weighed only about 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.)

We were Jane Fonda’s “war criminals.”

When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with her. I said yes, for I wanted to tell her about the real treatment we POWs received. . . and how different it was from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by her as “humane and lenient.”

Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees, with my arms outstretched with a large steel weight strapped on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane.

I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda soon after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She never did answer me.

These first-hand experiences do not exemplify someone who should be honored as part of “100 Years of Great Women.” Lest we forget. . . “100 Years of Great Women” should never include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots.

There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane’s participation in blatant treason, is one of them. Please take the time to forward to as many people as you possibly can. It will eventually end up on her computer, and she needs to know that we will never forget.


~Let it be noted and remembered, that when no one in America in the public eye gave a damn about the Vietnam Veteran, Jane Fonda, used her celebrity pulpit to do everything in her power to stand with, and stand-up for the Vietnam veterans.  I know because I was one of them who went to her rally in Los Angeles and marched with a hundred other vets in support of her message that the federal government was totally out of control, heartless, and deliberately blind about the damage that occurred to the minds and bodies of Vietnam combat veterans.

Ron Kovac (“Born on the Fourth of July” starring Tom Cruise) was her guest speaker, and he burned the house down.  She had a conscience that demanded she give the best of herself for his and other’s sakes. Everyone else in America was silent.

And who in the public eye stood with her?  A few folk singers of no real stature.  No one else.  No one in politics, no one in the media, and no one in Hollywood.  She was and was forced to be a one-woman anti-war movement crusading against the damn illegitimacy of sending draftees to their deaths in someone else’s war.  To risk all for a people who were unwilling to take the same risks for themselves, and thus were rolled over by the North within two years of our departure.

No other women in my lifetime has tried to do more with less than what she had to work with.  Where are the loud, insistent voices of objection to the travesty of politics that our nation has degenerated into?  There are no other Jane Fondas, and unless some appear, we will remain in deep doo-doo.