Loading ...Categories
- Constitution (7)
- Economics (35)
- general (56)
- Liberty (4)
- Nullification (23)
- Podcast (34)
- SC (134)
- Secession (105)
- Statism (3)
- US Empire (65)
Last night Michael, John, and I got together on the podcast to talk about President Obama’s State of the Union Address and Governor Haley’s State of the State Address.
We had a great time and it was a pretty good show. Check it out:
Join us tonight as we welcome special guest John Morlan on our weekly podcast and discuss the State of the Union and State of the State addresses!
We’ll start at 8:00 PM Eastern tonight (Sunday). Click on the link above, or on our widget on the right hand side, or use the call in info below:
Phone Number: (724) 444-7444
Call ID: 83081
See you there!
Nikki Haley has been in the news a good bit lately and has garnered the adoration of nationally syndicated talk show host Sean Hannity for standing up to President Obama. Here is an interview from the Hannity show:
She was also “On the Record” with Greta Van Susteren:
I see this as good news. South Carolina is again leading the way in confronting the president on abuses of federal power. While Obamacare is only one drop in the ocean of such abuses, I’m glad that our governor has at least started pushing back. Maybe one day we can convince her to really push back, and to nullify such atrocities as legal tender laws, the income tax, the department of education, etc.
Some folks aren’t so optimistic, and they bring up some good points. Over at the Tenth Amendment Center, Rich Hand writes:
News for both the president and governor elect; read the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. “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 while you’re at it, find the enumeration that gives the Federal government the authority to force Americans to carry health insurance.
There is no need to ask the President to “allow” South Carolina to opt out of healthcare. Has he become King Obama? What is this? I had higher hopes for our new Tea Party candidates.
link: Advice to the Governor-Elect in South Carolina: Read the 10th Amendment
Indeed, the TEA party candidates, including Nikki Haley, do have a long way to go when it comes to realizing the principle of natural law, and our right to self government.
Russel Longcore of DumpDC.com goes a bit further:
While Nikki Haley is a superior choice to the idiot pussy-chaser Mark Sanford, she still has a long way to go to be a true stateswoman. On the issue of the Healthcare legislation, the best response would have been to tell Mr. Obama to expect a formal letter on his desk on her inaugural day informing him of South Carolina’s refusal to be subject to the Act. On the issue of nuclear waste, she could have informed him that South Carolina would simply withhold $1 billion…plus interest…from any tax money that SC would normally send to Washington.
Nikki Haley is a modern-day Carpetbagger. Even though she hails from Bamberg, SC, she is taking her place as a Governor who does Washington’s bidding. South Carolina deserves better.
link: Nikki Haley Pushes Back Against the Feds – DumpDC
Now, while I understand Mr. Longcore’s frustration – after all, Mark Sanford had to know he was going to be under scrutiny while standing up to the Feds on the bailout, yet he still went after Miss Argentina – I also understand that most people don’t see things our way, and Nikki Haley has probably never been advised by or even spoken to someone with such a strong passion for Independence.
Hopefully we can do our part and we can get the subjects of Independence, Nullification, and Secession to the forefront of politics in South Carolina. Maybe if she sees enough of the public demanding that she stand up for our sovereignty, Nikki Haley will show some gumption, stiffen her back, and tell the Federal government “We refuse!”
A couple of days ago Nikki Haley, the governor elect of South Carolina, was in Washington, D.C. attending a luncheon where the president of the United States was speaking to the newly elected governors of several states. This event didn’t garner many headlines as it is basically a “pity” meeting where the all powerful president hosts the powerless governors, basically to give us the illusion of a federal government that gives a damn about the formerly sovereign governments of the several states.
This event would have been non-news if all had gone as planned, but apparently Haley wasn’t satisfied with the dog and pony show so she decided to press Mr. Obama on a couple of key issues. First, she questioned him about the healthcare legislation:
Haley says she told Obama that South Carolina could not afford the health care mandate, and that it would cripple small businesses.
“I respectfully asked him to consider repealing the bill,” she said, to which he clearly stated he would not. “I pushed him further and said if that’s the case, because of states’ rights, would you at least consider South Carolina opting out of the program?”
Obama told her he would consider letting South Carolina opt out, she said, if the state could find its own solution that included a state exchange, preventing companies from bumping people for preexisting conditions and allowing insurance pooling.
“I think it’s something we go back to South Carolina and start crunching,” she said. “This is not about expecting what’s given. This is about saying we’re going to fight this every step of the way and use every option possible.”
link: Haley: Obama might let S.C. opt out of health care | The Post and Courier, Charleston SC
There are several things that we should examine here: first, this is good news, and it is a good sign. This shows that Nikki Haley shares Mark Sanford’s “South Carolina first” attitude.
Second, while we should applaud Haley for asserting states’ rights, we must also point out that she does not fully understand the concept: we have a right to govern ourselves. If we are governed by Washington, D.C., then we are serfs and not free people. When you have a right to something, you don’t ask permission, you simply assert your right. Haley would have been better served to say something like this: “… because of states’ rights, South Carolina will be opting out of this legislation.”
Finally, Obama’s response gives us some insight into the mindset of a dictator, of an imperial master who rules over his slaves. He said he would consider letting South Carolina opt out, if the state could create it’s “own” solution, so long as that solution was based on the same premise as his solution. In other words, if we totally disagree with his premise and we think free enterprise and voluntary exchange are the proper solution, then he won’t “let” us opt out. This is what we’re up against, and it perfectly illustrates the illegitimacy of the federal government, and the reason we need Independence.
The next issue that Haley brought up with Obama was the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository:
Haley said she also asked the president if he would honor the federal government’s commitment on developing a nuclear waste repository. When he said he would not revisit opening Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, “I said, ‘Then give us our money back.’”
The site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas was proposed to house more than 4,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste from South Carolina’s Savannah River Site. The state and Washington have sued over Obama’s attempt to kill plans for the storage site after decades of study.
“SRS has done a good job, but that was a temporary solution. It was never meant to be a permanent solution,” Haley said she told him. “The federal government has reneged on its promise, and the people of South Carolina want their money back.”
South Carolina’s power plants and its customers have contributed more than $1 billion over nearly 30 years to a permanent repository.
She says Obama pledged that he would have Energy secretary Steven Chu call her promptly.
Now this is a smaller issue, but I think Nikki actually took a better approach on this one. Here she asserted the people of South Carolina’s sovereignty, as she demanded our money back from a federal program that had (as per usual) failed to live up to its end of the bargain. Unfortunately, the article doesn’t mention the wording of Obama’s response, though it does say that Obama promised to have Steven Chu call Haley about the issue. I sure would have liked to have seen his face though.
The important thing here is that Haley demanded our money back, and rightfully so. The people of this state funded a program to house nuclear waste and that program has been essentially cancelled. If any nation did the same thing to the United States federal government, they’d probably be accused of harboring WMD and an invasion would follow. In demanding our money back, Haley basically said that we have a right to be respected as a state and that our contracts should be honored. Now she just needs to demand our independence by pushing the General Assembly nullify any and all federal legislation that controls the lives of the individuals in our state, and assert that we retain the right of secession should the federal government not respect our rights.
I don’t think that Nikki Haley was thinking about that when she confronted the president. I don’t think that she’s a staunch supporter of political independence for South Carolina. However, she hasn’t even started serving her first term as governor yet, and she’s already picked up the torch of fighting back against the federal government from Mark Sanford. Hopefully we, the people of South Carolina, can influence her to join our cause.
Another day in the Greater US Empire has passed and not without its own particular outrages. The uniformed goons known (and hated) by the name TSA have apparently reached a new low in their apparent attempt to anger and humiliate the entire traveling public:
A woman is suing over an incident where airport staff allegedly pulled down her top and joked about her breasts in public view.
The 23-year-old traveller, from Amarillo, US, is suing the US Government for the emotional distressed she says the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents caused.
The woman says she was singled out for “extended search procedures” while preparing to board a plane to Amarillo in May 2008.
“As the TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff’s blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs’ breasts to everyone in the area,” the lawsuit said.
“As would be expected, plaintiff was extremely embarrassed and humiliated.”
The lawsuit claims that other employees laughed and made jokes about the incident “for an extended period of time”.
The distraught woman left the screening area to be consoled but when she re-entered the boarding area employees allegedly started joking about the matter.
“One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that ‘he would just have to watch the video,’” the suit said.
One of the Imperial Congress’ longest serving “public servants” has been caught red-handed violating many ethics standards:
The chief counsel of the House ethics committee concluded Thursday that Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, should be censured by the House of Representatives in response to multiple rules violations committed by the 20-term congressman.
“Disciplinary action in this matter is necessary,” R. Blake Chisam said at a committee hearing called to consider possible punishments. “This is about the institution [of the House] and the ultimate test for the institution is whether members behave creditably.”
Rangel, who was found guilty of the violations on Tuesday, pleaded for “a drop of fairness and mercy,” in part out of recognition of his lengthy public record.
And in the continuing Federal effort to completely re-make the demographic composition of the United States, the US President and other Federal leaders have announced their support for amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants against the wishes of most Americans:
A proposed law providing undocumented students in the US a path to legal residency has received major backing from President Obama who wants it passed within the year.
Already, it will be introduced in the ongoing lame duck session in Congress as a stand alone bill, Sen. Majority leader Harry Reid said in a statement.
“This legislation has traditionally enjoyed support from Democratic and Republican lawmakers and would give young people who were brought as minors to the United States by their parents the opportunity to earn their citizenship by pursuing a college degree or through military service,” the White House said in a statement.
Yes, it’s another day of betrayal, humiliation, scandal and deceit – standard stuff for the Feds and the US Empire.
Anyone else ready for independence? It’s time to dump DC before things get even worse.
Just in case you had any illusions that self-government and sovereignty were possible while a member of the U.S.A., check out this little tid-bit:
A chilling report from the Foreign Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) prepared for Prime Minister Putin warns today that United States President Barack Obama has had served on 14 US Governors National Security Letters (NSLs) warning that if their actions in attempting to form what are called State Defense Forces are not halted they will face “immediate” arrest for the crime of treason.
The use of NSLs in the United States was authorized by the Patriot Act law enacted after the September 11, 2001 attacks and forbids anyone receiving them from even acknowledging their existence, and was reauthorized by Obama’s “rubberstamp” Congress this past February over the objections of both civil and human rightsgroups who warned they mimic similar type “government security notices” enacted under both the former German Nazi and Soviet Communist regimes.
link: Obama Threatens 14 US Governors With Immediate Arrest | EUTimes.net
This is really a fascinating article. It’s written from a European perspective and it is quite amazing to see an objective outsider’s view of the situation here in the U.S. It’s also quite chilling.
This article was originally corroborated on Canada Free Press, but has since been removed, so I am not sure of the validity of the claims made. Upon contacting the site I learned that they could not confirm the source, and so they removed it. Regardless, this sadly does not seem that far fetched in today’s political climate.
The crux of the article is basically that the state governors have formed or maintained state militias (the article calls them State Defense Forces), as we do here in South Carolina, and the federal government is using whatever means it can to undermine those state militias. Most of the troops in the state guards are also in the national guard, and so Obama has been targeting states politically to call up their national guard troops. Apparently now that the healthcare bill is passed and it’s about time for those 16,500 new IRS troops to enforce the new tax laws, Obama is going after any state governor who has voiced opposition to his plans using the Patriot Act.
If these claims are true then we are in a seriously dangerous position as American citizens. While I have some hope for Nullification as a means to restoring our liberties and state sovereignty, these actions by the federal government, if factual, prove that no such efforts will be successful. What Obama is essentially saying here is: “If you (the states) don’t comply, we will force you to comply.” Right now he’s just threatening the state governors, but it is clear that he is threatening everyone in the several states. The governors are our representatives because we elected them, so a threat upon them is a threat upon us.
Secession is often deemed too risky to try, doomed to failure because of the assumed retribution from the nation from which we secede… but how does that hold up over the last 100 years?
Well, it turns out that there have been several major success stories where portions of a larger nation broke off and became their own free and independent country. First Norway in 1905, then Singapore in 1965, and finally Slovakia in 1993. These are some interesting stories, and possibly even models to follow or at least learn from. Below I’ve included some information about each and linked to the source so you can find out more. Take a look:
Norway
The union with Sweden was formally brought to an end by the Karlstad Conventions of September 1905. After much discussion regarding Norway’s future form of government, the Storting opted for a constitutional monarchy; Danish prince Carl was selected as king and ascended the throne as King Håkon VII (d 1957) in November 1905. His English wife, daughter of Edward VII, became Queen Maud. King Håkon has since been succeeded by his son Olav V (1957-1991) and most recently by his grandson, the present King Harald V.
In the years immediately following the dissolution of the union the Norwegian economy underwent rapid growth as electrochemical and electro-metallurgical industries were built up, hydro-electric power was harnessed and new products appeared on the market. Population grew rapidly and unemployment fell.
link: Norway: Norway since 1905
Singapore
In the Singapore Legislative Assembly elections on September 21, 1963, the PAP dominated (p 8, SHM). This led to racial tensions as the PAP wanted equal rights for all, regardless of race, while Malaysia’s dominating party (the United Malay’s National Organization, or UMNO) wanted special privileges for Malaysians (p 8, SHM). On July 21, 1964, fighting between Muslims and Chinese interrupted a celebration of the Prophet Mohammed’s birthday (p 10, SHM). The racial and political tensions between Malaysia and Singapore had mounted. On May 15, 1965, the UMNO held their general assembly and unanimously agreed to separate Singapore from Malaysia (p 11, SHM).
Singapore’s abrupt Independence Day on August 9, 1965 was a bittersweet one. Lee Kuan Yew tearfully explained that Singapore would not be able to survive without natural resources (p 453, Turner et al). However Lee’s fears were did not come true.
Singapore’s government was quite stable and free of corruption, though government opposition was punished harshly. By the 1970′s, Singapore had become the second-wealthiest country in Asia, behind Japan (p 453, Turner et al). In 1990 Lee resigned, and his designated successor, Goh Chok Tong took his place as Prime Minister. Throughout the past eight years, Goh has significantly relaxed Singapore’s strict rules, regulations, and censorship, though it is far from the free, democratic, structure of the United States.
link: Singapore’s Road to Independence
Slovakia
Q: Why did Slovakia secede from Czechoslovakia?
Both the United Nations Charter and the International Declaration of the Rights of Man have always guaranteed the self-determination of peoples. The leaders of Slovakia felt that the Czech and Slovak Federation did not provide for adequate autonomy and wasn’t the best way for the Slovak people to develop culturally and economically. In short, after being oppressed and even ethnically cleansed by Hungarians in the Hapsburg and Austro-Hungarian empires, and coexistence with the Czechs on unequal terms in Czechoslovakia, elected Slovak politicians decided to go at it alone in 1993. Although the majority of public opinion was against the split and there were elements in the “Czechoslovak” leadership that resisted the breakup they did not have the support nor military/police resources to forcefully keep the country together. Thus, the secession of Slovakia from the Czech and Slovak Federation was done by wholly peaceful means hence it is referred to as the “Velvet Divorce” – jocularly named after the peaceful fall of Communism in Czechoslovakia, the “Velvet Revolution”. See the history section for further information.
Q: Was the 1993 separation democratic and amicable?
The separation of Slovakia from Czechoslovakia, which is referred to as the ‘Velvet Divorce’ and occurred in 1993, was executed in a democratic and largely uneventful way. Consequently, this clean breakup has been a model for other peoples who wish to forge their own identity via the nation-state. For example, leaders in the province of Quebec in Canada have studied the division of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic and hope to attain a similar separation. There has been some debate as to whether the breakup was truly democratic. Although the decision was made b both Czech and Slovak leaders who were elected by the citizens of each part of the nation, no question about separation was ever posed to the people of Czechoslovakia. The mandate to separate came through representative democracy rather than a direct plebiscite. There are indications that the majority of the public opinion in both parts of the country was against the break-up. Considering that Czechoslovakia on two occasions (1918 and 1945) and Slovakia once before (1939) were created in a dictatorial and wholly undemocratic way, namely by oligarchs and external fiats, the separation of Slovakia in 1993 was comparatively more democratic than both previous separations and conglomerations. Indeed, it was argued that Czechoslovakia was no more a true nation state than the USSR or Yugoslavia. Such geo-political constructs, which were masterminded by a small minority of citizens and glued together by force, were fundamentally flawed due to the domination of one ethnic group. As such, many historians argue, they were destined to fail.
link: Slovak Republic F.A.Q. | Slovakia
So as you can see, there is hope for secession and there is hope for a free South Carolina. While none of these governments may be the perfect model for individual liberty and natural rights, the point is that they have become free to govern themselves as they see fit. This is exactly what could happen and what should happen with the United States: Maine could split off and decide to pass a statewide smoking ban; California could split off and decide to ban all logging; South Carolina could split off and decide to ban (almost) all government. We could all govern ourselves as we saw fit without interfering in the lives or with the rights of our neighbors.
One last thing for those of you who still think secession is impossible: just this week President Obama himself supported the concept:
The statement praises the Sudanese people’s efforts to make the elections peaceful. It says the United States supports a 2005 north-south peace deal that ended a 21-year civil war. It also says it wants a referendum to allow southerners to decide whether to secede from the Muslim-dominated north to happen on time. The referendum is set for next year.
link: US calls Sudan elections important – Taiwan News Online
