Ron Paul’s Revolution March tomorrow in Washington DC

Posted on July 11th, 2008 by bile Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March:

Where: North East Lawn, Washington Monument, Washington, D.C.
When: July 12th, 2008, 9:30AM
Route: Constitution Avenue.

9:30 AM Assemble on the North Lawn of the Washington Monument
10:30 AM Begin march down Constitution Avenue. Rally begins at 11:00 AM.

Rally:

Rallying Point: West Side of Capitol Hill, begins at 11:00 AM.

Theme: The main theme of the March and Rally is Ron Paul’s message of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom through adherence to the Constitution.

Confirmed Speakers:

  • Tom Mullen - Private citizen, patriotic American, and our grassroots representative, with an important message for our servant government.
  • G. Edward Griffin – founder of Freedom Force International and author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, shares his in depth research and analysis concerning the Federal Reserve System and the forces behind its inception.
  • Charles Goyette – syndicated talk radio host based in Phoenix, Arizona to discuss a return to the country’s constitutional traditions of sound money and limited government, the foundation upon which a viable economy can be rebuilt.
  • Bob Schulz - founder of We The People Congress and We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, to speak on the People’s ability to hold the government accountable to the Constitution and restore the Republic by exercising their natural Right of Redress.
  • Marcy Brooks – Juror in the tax trial of Whitey Harell v. State of Illinois (featured in Aaron Russo’s America: From Freedom to Fascism will talk about the responsibility of being a juror in tax evasion cases.
  • Thomas E Woods Jr - author of “Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush” to discuss how the federal government has circumvented the Constitution and is systematically dismantling the rights and freedoms that are the foundation of a Constitutional Republic.
  • Naomi Wolf – advocate of progressive politics and author of “The End of America: A letter of warning to a young patriot”. Ms. Wolfe will take a historical look at the rise of fascism, outlining the 10 steps necessary for a state to take control of individuals’ lives.
  • Jack McLamb – Military Veteran, retired police officer, and radio talk show host to discuss the potential for martial law to come to America.
  • Howard Phillips - Chairman of The Conservative Caucus since 1974, will discuss the multifaceted plan to turn the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American version of the European Union.
  • Terri Hall – Founder and Director of Texasturf.org to discuss among other things, the ranches that are being unconstitutionally confiscated to build the Trans-Texas Corridor (NAFTA Superhighway).
  • Jim Guest - MO representative to discuss the potential loss of U.S. Sovereignty; U.S. jobs that will permanently be lost; and environmental issues among other things, with the Kansas City Smart Port.
  • Jeff Lewis - National Director of Fire Coalition to discuss the economic impact illegal immigration has had on the country as well as the tie between the lack of enforcement of our immigration laws and the NAU, as well as discussing why we are fighting a war on terrorism when our borders are still not secured.
  • Michael Scheuer – 22 year veteran of the CIA and bestselling author of ‘Imperial Hubris’ to discuss American foreign policy and its implications on terrorism, security, and Iraq
  • Adam Kokesh - Representative from the Iraq Veterans Against the War to address IVAW’s strategy to end the war, the greatest injustice of our time, and how that strategic thinking can be extrapolated to the broader movement in terms of active resistance.
  • Chuck Baldwin – Constitution Party Presidential Candidate, Pastor, and radio talk show host to speak about hope for America and a new breed of politician.
  • Ron Paul - to speak about the future of the Revolution.

The entire rally is supposed to be broadcasted live on RonPaulRadio.com.

You can catch their live stream here. http://ronpaulradio.com/listen.m3u

According to RevolutionMarch.com over 15 thousand people have pledged to be there. If half of that shows up it’ll be a success in my book.

This just in! Congress should have a say in going to war

Posted on July 9th, 2008 by bile Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments »

http://www.cqpolitics.com/…

Two former secretaries of State unveiled a plan Tuesday to require better consultation between Congress and the president over sending U.S. troops into war.

The legislation, the product of a blue-ribbon commission headed by James A. Baker III, secretary of State under President George Bush, and Warren Christopher, who held the same office under President Bill Clinton, would establish a joint congressional committee and require that the president consult with its members before sending the military into battle.

“This statute gives Congress a seat at the table in deciding whether or not to go to war — not just a seat at the table, but one with a permanent staff, a permanent professional staff, and access to all the available intelligence information,” Christopher said.

Christopher and Baker urged Congress and a new administration to quickly take up their proposal, and said they had reached out to the campaigns of Sens. Barack Obama , D-Ill., and John McCain , R-Ariz.

The plan also would require Congress to vote on a concurrent resolution to authorize the conflict within 30 days after military action begins. If that resolution fails, it would allow an expedited vote on a joint resolution of disapproval, which would become law only with the president’s signature or over his or her veto.

Any military action expected to last more than a week would require consultation, and formal consultation would continue every two months. If action requires secrecy, the president would have to consult within three days after the action began. Covert operations, humanitarian missions, limited reprisal against terrorists and repelling attacks on the United States would be exempt.

Under the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. However, since the end of World War II, presidents have committed the U.S. military to several conflicts without asking for declarations of war, though in some cases Congress has enacted authorizing resolutions, as it did in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Congress also has the power to limit spending for military operations, though it could be politically difficult to do so once U.S. troops have been committed to a conflict.

The proposal would replace the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which the commission concluded was ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst.

OHHH. I see what they are saying. Congress does have a say. They just don’t bother to use that power. Nor do they use the power to impeach and try the president for high crimes of going to war without a declaration. Lets take a look at that “Constitution” thing they speak of.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11: The Congress shall have the Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Article 2, Section 4, Clause 1: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Seems pretty clear to me. “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” He is the Commander in Chief only when the Congress calls the Army, Navy and/or Militia of the several States into actual service. When can they be called into service? When the Congress declares war, “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” That’s it as far as I can tell.

And what did James Madison say on the topic?

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

Hence it has grown into an axiom that the executive is the department of power most distinguished by its propensity to war: hence it is the practice of all states, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence.

So it seems even more obvious that Congress not only has a say but it is the only voice. Will such a setup as proposed fix anything? I don’t see how. The more strict and constitutional ways for military deployment has failed for decades. This plan has no teeth. Hell, the president can veto the “joint resolution of disapproval.” Even if the president couldn’t what would that do? It’s just a disapproval resolution. It sounds like a UN security council resolution. There is nothing to back it up.

SCOTUS not done yet: Part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law struck down

Posted on June 26th, 2008 by bile Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law unconstitutional. Davis v Federal Election Commission, 07-320. The vote was 5-4. Here is the opinion.

This case concerned the “Millionaire’s Amendment”, which relaxes contribution limits for any congressional candidate who has a wealthy opponent. Specifically, if any congressional candidate spends at least $350,000 of his or her own funds on the campaign, then the opponents of that candidate are released from the $2,300 limit on contributions to their campaign. The majority opinion, by Justice Samuel Alito, says that the Constitution does not permit the government to set unequal contribution limits. The opinion’s key sentence, on page 16 of the majority opinion, says, “It is a dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the voters’ choices.” Also, on page 18, “The unprecedented step of imposing different contribution and coordinated party expenditure limits on candidates vying for the same seat is antithetical to the First Amendment.”

This language should make it easier to win lawsuits against state public funding laws which set unequal rewards for some candidates, relative to other candidates. Public funding laws in Maine, Arizona, and New Mexico, treat all candidates exactly the same. The public funding that formerly existed in Massachusetts also treated all candidates equally. But public funding laws in Connecticut and New Jersey, and a pending bill in California, do not treat all candidates the same; qualifications to get public funding are easier for Republicans and Democrats than for other candidates.

Justice Stevens dissented, and said that the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision Buckley v Valeo was mistaken when it struck down limits on campaign expenditures. He expressed the view that too much campaign advertising “obscures the issues.” He also said that “the Constitution does not require Congress to treat all declared candidates the same.” This contradicts his opinion in Cook v Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001). In that opinion, he said states may not “favor or disfavor a class of candidates.” That decision struck down a Missouri state law that provided that candidates for Congress should have labels on the ballot that said what their position is, on amending the U.S. Constitution to provide for term limits for Congress.

Justices David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer voted that the Millionaires’ Amendment is constitutional, but they didn’t join the portion of Justice Stevens’ dissent that said Buckley v Valeo should be overturned.

As I see it the entire McCain-Feingold law is antithetical to the 1st.

John McCain says his campaign is about “reform, peace and prosperity”

Posted on June 22nd, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

Call it campaign growing pains. Or bad luck. Or a combination of the two.

By any name, Sen. John McCain is hampered by missteps and self-generated controversy in the early days of the general election campaign for the White House.

Take his most recent trip through several states and the Canadian capital, a five-day span during which he courted conservatives and independents alike, raised more than $10 million and began detailing his considerable differences with Sen. Barack Obama on energy policy.

Still, on Tuesday, he criticized his rival for proposing a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. The attack was complicated by McCain’s earlier statement that he would consider the same thing.

The following day, he met with a group of Hispanics in Chicago. Aides who had kept word of the event secret were placed on the defensive within hours after one participant criticized some of McCain’s comments.

On Thursday, the Arizona senator flew to Iowa, a likely battleground state in the fall, where he expressed sympathy with victims of severe flooding and pledged support for federal recovery aid. The event was overshadowed by President Bush’s appearance elsewhere in the same state on the same day.

Friday’s trip to Canada brought more controversy.

McCain arrived aboard his chartered campaign jet, yet told reporters at a news conference, “this is not a political campaign trip.” The senator added he didn’t feel it was appropriate to have the government to pay “while I am the nominee of my party.”

The centerpiece of the six-hour visit was a speech to the Economic Club of Canada that amounted to a cross-border political attack. McCain criticized Obama, without mentioning him by name, for his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

“Demanding unilateral changes and threatening to abrogate an agreement that has increased trade and prosperity is nothing more than retreating behind protectionist walls,” he said.

McCain’s schedule also included mention of an unspecified “finance event.” While that is customarily campaign jargon for a fundraiser, foreigners may not donate to U.S. candidates, and one aide was quoted in advance as saying that money from $100-per-person event would simply defray the cost of the earlier luncheon.

The non-fundraiser, which may or may not have cost $100 to attend, was held on the top floor of a building with a commanding view of the city skyline. McCain said he knew some of those in attendance had homes in Arizona in the cold weather, and at one point, referred to his campaign themes of “reform, peace and prosperity.”

Reform? Like what? Is that like Obama’s “change” which equates to more of the same?

Peace? Like bombing brown people who happen to be a little pissed that the US federal government has invaded their countries, propped up dictators and otherwise force our way on them?

Prosperity? Like continuing the status quo corpatisim that exists in this country? By continuing the incredibly destructive and immoral system known as the Federal Reserve? By offering bailouts of failing companies and subsidizing big businesses?

It’s sad the man took two thirds of another presidential candidate’s slogan. Freedom, peace and prosperity sounds better though. And we know the man who was saying it meant it.

Oklahoma declares sovereignty

Posted on June 19th, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 5 Comments »

I don’t know how this slipped through the libertarian blogosphere but this is pretty hardcore. Looks like it was on 3/13/2008 and the blog is from 6/15/2008.

http://politicalinquirer.com/…

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key
AS INTRODUCED
A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over certain powers; serving notice to the
federal government to cease and desist certain
mandates; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal
government by the Constitution of the United States.
THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government,
as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates
that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated
powers.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s
legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the
Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.


http://www.okhouse.gov/51LEG/Leg_Votesxx.aspx?include=okh01983.txt

http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf

And as other sovereignty issues arise like with Real ID hopefully the states can exert enough pressure to cripple the federal government. At least slow its march toward total national control.



Read the Bills Act

© 2008 blog of bile is powered by Wordpress