Stewart Rhodes

WHY DENNY REHBERG DESERVES TO BE “CONRAD BURNED” TODAY

2012-11-06T07:01:00.002-07:00

By Stewart Rhodes, Former Ron Paul Staffer and Founder of Oath Keepers.

Today, on election day, Denny Rehberg deserves to go down in flames just like Conrad Burns did in 2006. Conrad Burns lost to Tester precisely because he lost the liberty vote in Montana. And Burns lost the liberty vote because he had abandoned the Constitution and violated his oath by voting for unconstitutional laws, such as the Patriot Act.

Even GOP propagandists like Ed Berry acknowledge that the liberty movement killed Conrad Burns’ political career, with 10,000 Montanan’s choosing to instead vote for the Libertarian candidate, which is a larger number of votes than the number by which Tester beat Burns. The Montana liberty movement simply refused to vote for an oath breaker – they withdrew their consent. And without them, Burns was burnt.

Today, the very same thing is likely to happen to Denny Rehberg – and he deserves it. He deserves to be “Conrad Burned.” Like Conrad Burns, Rehberg is an oath breaker who has abandoned the Constitution by repeatedly and willfully voting for some of the most dangerous and spectacularly unconstitutional laws to ever be passed in Congress during the short life of this Republic. Rehberg voted for both the Patriot Act, and for the NDAA, among many others.

The NDAA of 2012 (Sections 1021 and 1022) in particular is a deal breaker. It is intolerable. It is the single most dangerous law in American history and is the death knell of this Republic if it is not stopped. Anyone who would strip you of your right to jury trial, for which your forefathers bled and died, is a traitor and an enemy of this Republic. Anyone who would subject you and your children to arbitrary imprisonment, in a military brig, or to military trial, or to rendition to ANY foreign nation or ANY foreign entity, or who thinks the President has a legitimate power to just order you killed by a Predator drone if HE thinks you are a terrorist - anyone who supports that government supremacist view, is a traitor and a modern Tory. He is your enemy.

Rehberg and Tester both hold that view, and both voted for the NDAA. I don't give a flying *&@#% if Rehberg is supposedly "not as bad as Tester.” He supports the destruction of the Bill of Rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Both of them are my enemy. Both are enemies of the American Revolution and all that came from it.

And Rehberg is not a man who just made a mistake, and is sorry. No, he is defiant in his defense of his oath breaking vote for the NDAA. After his speech at the Lincoln Dinner in Kalispell, I walked up to Rehberg and asked him to explain his vote for the NDAA, which authorizes military detention of Americans. He didn’t try to explain his vote, or try to tell me it didn’t do what I thought it did, or try to defend why he thinks that is OK. He just said “you just don’t support the troops. Shame on you!” Yeh, right Denny. That’s it. I’m a disabled Army Airborne veteran who nearly died twice while serving my country, and the founder of a national organization made up of current serving military and veterans, but I just don't support the troops. He said that to me twice during our short conversation. It was no off the cuff remark. Obviously it was some talking point his staff had cooked up for him to use as a weapon against anyone who publicly challenged him over his vote for the NDAA. Typical neocon. If you dare oppose anything they do in the name of national security or war, they accuse you of not supporting the troops.

The man is an unrepentant oath breaker who has, so far, gotten away with it. And the reason he has gotten away with it has been the “lesser of two evils” con game. Being told that you have “no choice” but to vote for oath breaker A or oath breaker B is like being given a false choice between voting for Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler, with so-called conservatives urging you to vote for the fascist to keep the communist out of office. "Vote for Hitler or Stalin will win!" I won't do it. No sir. I will fight them both, or either one.

My oath was not "I will support and defend the Republican Party." Nor was it "I will support and defend the Constitution by voting for the lesser of two evil oath breakers who both violate it." My oath was to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, and of whatever party. I am an American first, not a Republican first. Political parties are like a cancer that is now killing the host. Republicans, with all too few exceptions, are loyal to party first, not country first, and certainly not the Constitution first, just as Democrats, with few exception, are loyal to their party first, before their country.

This Republic is on the verge of destruction precisely because Republicans have chosen the lesser of two evils (the lesser of two oath breakers) in each election, swallowing principle and pulling the lever for a demonstrated oath breaker each and every time just to try and keep a Democrat from winning. When you take a slightly reduced dose of poison, say 80% poison instead of 100%, you are still poisoning yourself, and you will still die. This Republic has been subjected to a reduced dose of poison over and over, for decades, and is now about to die. And yet, the GOP bigwigs offer us yet another dose of slightly reduced poison and the great majority of the Republican rank and file are all too happy to open wide and swallow it down. It’s time to take a stand, and say NO MORE!

I challenge anyone to explain why a vote for Rehberg is not a violation of your oath, now that it is clear he supports the application of the laws of war on Americans, and supports military detention and military trial rather than trial by jury, and now that it is clear that he is unrepentant and will continue to do so. You vote for an oath breaker, you become one. Either stand for all of the Constitution, all of the time, against anyone of any party, or stop pretending, renounce your oath, burn your pocket Constitution, and then just openly join the ranks of the oath breakers.

I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America.... ~ Thomas Paine

Likewise here. Don't make a whore of your soul by electing and empowering a stottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man who has already violated all that our forefathers fought to win and preserve, by violating our Bill of Rights. It is now very clear that the small window we had for a political solution at the national level has been slammed shut by the GOP leadership by forcing on us yet another oath breaker. Last time it was John McCain - who went on to author Section 1021 of the NDAA which is a declaration of war on the American people. Now it is Romney, who also supports it. As did Pual Ryan, Allan West, Rubio, and a bunch of other "Tea Party" freshmen, right along with Rehberg. The GOP has utterly failed to field true constitutionalists. It has turned its back on the Constitution and thrown away a chance to stop the destruction of our Republic. Now all we have left is nullification and resistance at the state level.

Here in Montana, we need to clean house and sweep our own porch clean by rooting out the oath breaking neoconservatives who are so deeply entrenched in power. Let’s start with Rehberg. Let’s root him out. But wouldn’t that mean that Tester wins again? Yes, it does. Just like back in 2007, when we rooted out Conrad Burns. After that defeat, the Montana GOP should have caught a clue. To guarantee a win this time around, all they had to do is field someone who didn’t vote for the same crap that Conrad Burns had voted for. Duh! As Ed Berry acknowledges, over on Polymontana, if the liberty movement votes for the GOP candidates, they have the election in the bag. Rehberg, Hill, etc. will win if all liberty movement people vote for them. But if the liberty movement doesn’t support them, then they will lose.

To win the Senate seat all the Montana GOP needed to do is run a candidate who had not voted for the Patriot Act and the NDAA, and who pledged to vote against such obvious and blatant violations of the Bill of Rights. Our votes were theirs if they just ran someone who wouldn’t make us throw up in the voting booth. They could have done it, and easily won, but once again, they blew it. Our votes were theirs to lose, and they lost them by yet again running a demonstrated oath breaker. And now they tell us that we need to set aside our revulsion for Rehberg, set aside our principles, and vote for Rehberg to stop Tester.

If you do that – if you set aside your constitutional and liberty principles and vote for a demonstrated constitutional violator, you will just be telling the Montana GOP leadership that they can do as they please, and that they don’t need to run true constitutionalists to win. And you will be telling the GOP faithful that they can continue to vote neocon and still win elections. That is the wrong message to send. The message should instead be that unless, and until, the Montana GOP faithful root out the neocons who are killing their party, they will lose. Election after election, they will lose, until they clean house and return to the Constitution.

Rather than the neocons accepting the blame for losing the Senate seat to Tester in the first place, and acknowledging their transgressions and repenting of their sins, they are doubling down and once again running an oath breaking traitor, while telling us that if Tester is reelected it is our fault. What a joke. The fault lies with a party that has largely abandoned our Constitution, and until the GOP returns to it, and actually defends it, it deserve to lose, and will lose.

Once Rehberg is entrenched as an incumbent in the Senate, how will you ever get rid of him? In a primary? Not likely. We just tried that, and failed because the GOP faithful are willing to vote for an oath breaker who they think can defeat the Democrat. That is all they seem to care about. If you help Rehberg win, you will just be telling them they are correct, and that running an oath breaker is a winning strategy. That will make it all the harder to ever reform the Montana GOP.

Once Rehberg is in the Senate, the only way to get rid of him would be to withdraw your consent in some future election, just like you did with Conrad Burns, and let the Democrat win. And then you would still have to try and defeat the Democrat by once again trying to convince the GOP faithful to finally get behind a real constitutionalist to run against the Democrat, and that would be all the harder after they had had a successful election cycle running an oath breaker for U.S. Senate.

Why kick the can down the road and have to go through all of that all over again? We are in the middle of this fight for the heart and soul of the Montana GOP (and for the heart and soul of this Republic) right now. So let’s get it over with now. Root out Denny Rehberg, and then run a real constitutionalist against Tester in the next election and root Tester out too.

We did the right thing in 2006 by rooting out Conrad Burns. His political career was done. If the GOP had come to their senses and run a constitutionalist against Tester, we could have rooted Tester out this year and finally Montana would have a Senator who was not an oath breaker.

The GOP should have learned their lesson, but apparently need to have another trip to the wood shed. Let’s give it to them. Let’s root out Denny Rehberg and end his political career. He is seen as a “party leader” here in Montana, just as Burns was. As with Burns, he needs to go. We need to root him out as part of our battle to root the neocons out of the Montana GOP.

And then let’s run a real constitutionalist against Tester next election, and finally root him out.

The neocons have joined with the Marxists on the left and are placing this nation on a short track to having to fight another bloody revolution/civil war. The only way to possibly pull us back from the brink is to purge all oath breakers out of office and to clean up our own state. And even if we do that, we may still have to fight. But at least we will go into battle with a clear conscience and the knowledge that we did not give our consent and support to the destruction of our own Republic.

When I confronted Rehberg at the Lincoln Dinner in Kalispell, I told him that he would go the same way that Conrad Burns did - that because of his vote for the NDAA, constitutionalists and liberty movement people in Montana would not support him and he would be "Conrad Burned." Let's make it so. Withdraw your consent. Take a stand. Send Rehberg back to his fake ranch where he can play cowboy. “Conrad Burn”him today.

Stewart Rhodes

PS- the views above are my own only, as an individual American, and not in my capacity as President of Oath Keepers. I would like to personally thank Ed Berry for inspiring me to write this, at the 11th hour. It was his incessant, ankle biting, petty attacks against me and Chuck Baldwin, and his revolting cheer leading for oath breaking GOP traitors that reminded me of my obligation speak out today. Thanks Ed! I was going to just sit this one out, and give the Montana GOP faithful some “tough love” after the election by trying to point out why they lost, in the hopes of talking some sense into them, but you have prompted me to instead send this message out to thousands of Montanans in the liberty movement today to do my small part in purging the neocons out of Montana politics. If Rehberg loses, and I am given any small part of the credit for his loss, then I wish to share that credit with you, since you prompted me to write this.

Documentary Film Premiere, Nullification: The Rightful Remedy

2012-07-08T20:43:00.001-07:00

Go to Oath Keepers Site to Read Recent Writings by Stewart Rhodes

2009-10-20T02:00:00.003-07:00

This is my old, private blog that is now sadly neglected since I have launched Oath Keepers, which has truly taken off like a rocket, leaving me no time for personal blogging - not that I'm complaining. the Oath Keepers mission is very important, and worth the time and effort.

Go here: www.oathkeepers.org

However, if you want to see what prompted me to finally launch Oath Keepers, there are several posts on this blog that show my thinking (in addition to my writings for SWAT Magazine).

Back in 2006 I wrote several scathing criticisms of the Bush Administration's absurd and dangerous claims of nearly unlimited executive "war" powers. Those articles built on my research at Yale Law School (where I won the Miller Prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights).

One of the most common refrains I get from Obama supporters is "where were you when Bush was violating the Constitution." Well, I was right here. Read this:

Government Supremacists: Neocons, the National Security New Dealers

And to see my thinking of how all that expansion of claimed war powers could be turned inward, and used on the American people, read this 2006 article:

The Clinton Era Proposal to Use Military Tribunals on McVeigh and the Militias
That article explains how, back in the Clinton years, there was a proposal to use the laws of war and military tribunals on McVeigh and also on the militia movement. That proposal went nowhere, but then Bush used the same precedents cited in that proposal, and then put into place modern doctrines and case law that built precisely the infrastructure of domestic application of he laws of war advocated in that Clinton era proposal. So, what Clinton did not have, Bush built, and now that vastly expanded executive power is laying around like a loaded gun, just waiting to be picked up and used by a future president who may be tempted to use it against political opponents and so-called "domestic terrorists."

Lastly, here is a post that describes my phone call with the Iowa National Guard Public Relations officer that finally prompted me to start Oath Keepers:

My Phone Call With Col. Hapgood of the Iowa National Guard About Training for House to House Search for a "Weapons Dealer"

Democratic Senator Byrd Warns of Obama Power Grab - Following In Bush's Footsteps

2009-02-26T15:14:00.001-07:00

Hat tip to Mike V.

From Politico:

Byrd: Obama in power grab

By JOHN BRESNAHAN

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

While it's rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he's not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations ....

Well, good for Byrd! Nice to see some resistance somewhere in the Senate.

So much for "change." Obama is merely continuing the nearly unbroken pattern of presidents gathering more power to the Executive branch under one guise or another that has been going on for many decades, regardless of which party controls the White House.

Obama faces a decision as early as next week on whether to support a claim of executive privilege made by former President Bush in refusing to allow Karl Rove, the former deputy White House chief of staff, to be deposed by the House Judiciary Committee on the White House’s role in the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

Bush claimed “absolute immunity” for top advisers in resisting such subpoenas, but Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, filed a lawsuit over the issue. The case is on appeal, and the Obama administration is scheduled to file a motion next week laying out its stance on the issue.

Read the whole thing here:

And watch this video:

How much do you want to bet that Obama criticizes Bush's particular use of that claimed executive immunity, but supports that power as being valid, necessary, and "constitutional" for a president to be able to carry out his duties?

Of course, we know Obama's application of all that power will be "special" and "for the children" and to "help people." And thus, most Democrats will be as cozy, warm, and fuzzy about it as Republicans were when it was their man wiping his ass with the Constitution. Just a bunch of nice sleeping frogs in the ever-heating pot. Byrd is a rare exception - a man who will challenge and criticize his own party's president.

Notice how Obama is not satisfied with the fact that his party now controls Congress - he doesn't want to even have to bother with Congress. He wants his internal White House staff to rule everything by decree, under his direct supervision. His exaulted Great Vision for Our Lives will flow straight from the mind of "the One," right into the hands of Rahm Emanuel (known as "the enforcer"), pure, undiluted, and unsullied by the foul hands of mere congress-critters, to be immediately implemented by absolutely obedient staff members who consider their only loyalty to be to Obama. "Stroke of a pen, law of the land, kinda cool!" has returned.

Sound familiar? It should, because the Bush Administration was the same, of course. Even when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, the Bush Administration consistently asserted that the President has an independent "unitary executive" power and does not need Congress for much of anything, except perhaps appropriations (and that is now no longer really even respected).

The claims of independent executive power by the Bush Administration were absurd - amounting to nothing less than the claim that the President, once elected, under his constitutional Article II powers, is absolutely unrestrained and unhindered by any other branch of government, any provision in the main body of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Basically, the argument was that the President is an elected dictator. Remember what James Madison warned:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." - James Madison, Federalist No. 47

Just for the record, I warned about this back in 2006. See my article Government Supremacists: Neocons, the National Security New Dealers. But of course, few Republicans listened because it was their guy doing it.

Well, now the totalitarian boot is on the other foot - the left foot.

The goal of executive supremacists in both parties is to make Congress an irrelevant debating society, such that it really doesn't matter which party holds a majority in Congress.

And that is yet another reason why the threat of a repeat of 1994 has no teeth as a check on what Obama does - even if Republicans retake Congress (and presuming the GOP quislings don't just go along) Obama will simply ignore them and do what he wants by executive order and decree through these special White House offices and through all of the other mechanisms of vastly expanded Executive Power he inherited from Bush.

We are now in the age of elected dictatorship, with the only election that really matters being for the presidency - and once elected, any President can do pretty much as he pleases.

He will be not just "The One" but also "The Law" since his every spoken word will have the force of law, and all the might of the Executive branch, behind it. He truly will be "the Decider."

The one great difference is that Obama will very likely turn the "war on terror" inward on gun owners and a resurgent militia movement. And that may be the spark that sets off the powder keg that is America.

Stewart Rhodes

National Guard scraps plans to invade rural town 'This operation could be pretty intrusive to the people'

2009-02-20T22:22:00.003-07:00

Well, looks like they called it off!

(hat tip to Mike V.)

Posted: February 20, 2009
4:24 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily DES MOINES, Iowa – Following publicized reports that the Army National Guard was planning a military training exercise on the streets of a rural Iowa town, the commanding officers have called off the mock "invasion."
The Guard had planned a four-day urban military operation in tiny Arcadia, Iowa, population 443, sending troops to take over the town and search door-to-door for a suspected weapons dealer
.
The exercise was designed as a mock scenario to give soldiers the skills needed for deployment in an urban environment, and military officials stressed that only households that consented to be part of the drill would be searched.
"It will be important for us to gain the trust and confidence of the residents of Arcadia," Sgt. Mike Kots, readiness NCO for Alpha Company, told Carroll's Daily Times Herald. "We will need to identify individuals that are willing to assist us in training by allowing us to search their homes and vehicles and to participate in role-playing.
"We really want to get as much information out there as possible," Kots continued, "because this operation could be pretty intrusive to the people of Arcadia."
Military spokesman Lt. Col. Greg Hapgood, however, told WND that the operation has now been "scaled back" and no longer involves an "invasion" of Arcadia.
And while Hapgood confirmed the Guard had been inundated with objections from citizens concerned about soldiers patrolling the streets of an American town, he said most came from people out of state and unfamiliar with the operation. Iowans, he explained, typically cooperate with the Guard. The change in plans was based on troop evaluation, he said, not public outcry.
....

"There are no active duty bases in Iowa, so there are no urban warfare training areas of any size," Hopgood said. "In order to get that larger neighborhood feel or city feel, we have to be creative and partner with our communities."
Hopgood further told WND that in past cooperative exercises with the community, the people of Iowa have welcomed learning how their sons and daughters operate in action.
Plans for the urban operation training, Hopgood explained, are still set to continue, but will be conducted in a smaller, platoon-by-platoon basis in the near vicinity of the Carroll armory.

Read the whole thing here.

Well now, that's interesting! So, "the change in plans was based on troop evaluation, he said, not public outcry." I have my doubts about that!

The public outcry was pretty loud, including people beginning to plan to stage demonstrations, marches, and even half in jest proposals for patriotic Americans to show up and serve as OPFOR (opposing forces for training). Only half in jest ... that means at least half serious.

Americans just do not cotton to the notion of any troops training to go house to house and search for guns, even if it is explained as being done with the best intentions. The current political environment is just too much on edge, as I noted here.

Stewart

My Phone Call With Col. Hapgood of the Iowa National Guard About Training for House to House Search for a "Weapons Dealer"

2009-02-20T16:19:00.009-07:00

I just had an interesting and rather emotional phone call with Col Hapgood, Public Affairs Officer, of the IA National Guard (Pete of WRSA sent me his phone number). I introduced myself as a veteran and a writer for S.W.A.T. Magazine, and said I needed confirmation and clarification on the planned house to house search exercise scheduled for Arcadia Iowa for April 2-5, 2009 because people were very, very concerned.

The Colonel told me it is only to prepare them for Afghanistan and Iraq.

He said that there are no full time military in Iowa, and therefore no place to train in the state to get them ready for MOUT and that is why they used local towns.

He said they were baffled by all this [uproar] because it is just routine training to prepare them for deployment to combat in urban environments overseas.

I asked him why that particular scenario was picked - of having NG troops searching for a "weapons dealer."

He said that in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have to do searches for weapons caches and need to train for it, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with domestic deployment or any plans for domestic use.

I asked him that question twice - "so, it is not for domestic use or training for future domestic use?" And he said no, not at all.

I told him, in no uncertain terms, that Americans, especially gun owners, were extremely concerned because of the current political climate and because of the potential for civil unrest in the future because of the economy - we hear all manner of rumors about preparations for such disturbances - and the use of a scenario of searching for a gun dealer seems aimed at gun owners - and in particular we are concerned because of who is now in power.

As an example of why we are concerned, I told him how Rahm Emanuel, who is called "the second most powerful man in America" gave a speech before the Brady Bunch in 2007 advocating that anyone on the no-fly list be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms, and anyone can be put on that list at any time.

I told him that we know they want to disarm us.

And that is why folks are so very alarmed by this exercise.

I also told him that there were people planning on going there to protest.

He responded by saying that while he did not want to get into politics, he could assure me that all of the people in the Iowa National Guard are the most dedicated supporters and defenders of the Constitution and also of the right to bear arms.

And I responded by saying yes, I took that oath too - most of us did - and we just want to be sure that oath is kept, and the very last thing we ever want to see in this country is it being veteran against veteran (and this is where my voice cracked and I got rather emotional), but, I told him. we are very concerned and our radar is up because the people in power in DC have no respect for the Constitution or our rights and that is why folks wanted confirmation and clarification of this story.

I was going to remind him of what happened during Katrina, to let him know how disturbing that was to many patriots, but because he was so frank, and sounded so sincere when he said that the people in the Iowa NG are dedicated defenders of the Constitution and of the right to bear arms, I did not do that to him.

MY THOUGHTS AFTER THE PHONE CALL:

That was a tough goddamn phone call for me. I truly hope that all men and women in uniform remember, and keep, their oath. I never, ever want to see in my lifetime veterans having to fight against our own troops in defense of our rights. God forbid it.

I still have some serious concerns about this kind of training going on - especially when it is not made clear to the public that it is for training in preparation for overseas, and the "civilians" are supposed to be Afghan villagers and Iraqis.

But even with those qualifications, I still don't like it, since the troops are still going door to door, in America, searching for weapons, and that is still conditioning them for that very act, regardless of the intent.

And I don't think the Colonel or the National Guard troops understand fully just how on edge people in this country are, and how suspicious we are (for very good reason) of anything the government does that even hints at martial law or going house to house in America looking for weapons.

And however sincere the Colonel or the rest of the troops in the NG, we still DO NOT trust the politicians in DC, who have already demonstrated that their oath to support and defend the Constitution was some damn joke, since they violate it all the time.

The forked tongued bastards in DC cynically roll their eyes and mouth the oath with a bored expression on their faces because it is a mere formality before they get power and perks. They don't mean it. They have nothing but contempt for the restraints in the Constitution.

But when us veterans took that oath to defend the Constitution and this Republic against all enemies, foreign and domestic we MEANT IT with all our heart and soul, ready to give our lives to keep it.

And we still mean it, because that oath was for life.

I sure hope to hell that what the Colonel said about the NG troops' commitment to defend the Constitution is true, and I hope that if/when The Day comes, they will side with the people, and not the politicians.

But I still feel like something else is needed to express to these troops our concerns, and our resolve, and to remind them of their oaths, and of our oath. It is just too important and vital an issue to leave to chance.

We need to be sure they will be oath keepers when the chips are down.

Stewart Rhodes

UPDATE:

During our phone conversation, earlier today (Feb 20), Col. Hapgood told me that the Guard unit from Carroll Iowa would be training in the nearby town of Arcadia because there was no full time military facility in Iowa for them to train at. But then Col. Hapgood later, at my request, emailed me a written explanation of the exercise. That written statement says, in explanation of the use of a real town to train:

"this enables our Soldiers to gain proficiency in the exact tasks they will be
conducting in combat but without having to travel several hours to Camp
Dodge, which is the only military training facility in Iowa."

So, which is it? Is there no place else for them in Iowa to do this training except a local town, or is there in fact a place in Iowa for them to do such training but it is just too far for them to drive?

Pete, from WRSA, confirmed that he was told the same thing on the phone - that there was no place in Iowa for them to do this training except in a town - and then the email to him also contained the same mention of Camp Dodge, several hours away in Iowa. (go here for Pete's full post with his comments).

Setting aside that discrepancy, does it really come down to just a difference of a few hours drive time saved? The written response suggests that it does. Frankly, I would think a few hours drive time and fuel expended is worth it to avoid the Pavlovian conditioning of soldiers to search American homes for guns, and of citizens to comply. And especially considering the suspicion and uproar this particular exercise has caused, it would seem worth it to just go train at Camp Dodge.

Now, certainly a real town, with real people in it is more realistic for training, but given the particular scenario presented, of house to house searches for a "weapons dealer" this was not a very swift move in the current political environment, with gun hating extremists in control of the Executive Branch, and with truly evil legislation such as HR 45 already proposed which make it very, very clear that they fully intend to treat gun owners like pedophiles.

HR 45 would require the registering, printing, and tracking of gun owners just as if they were convicted child molesters, with a requirement that you report a change of residence to Attorney General Holder (you know, that nice man from the Clinton Admin). And the Democrats want to require all sales, even between family, friends or neighbors, to go through a dealer with a full Brady check - so, if that legislation is passed, any of us could become illegal "weapons dealers" just for doing what Americans have done for hundreds of years - sell a rifle, shotgun, or pistol to another private citizen.

One last point: The absolute "Red Dawn" scenario that gun owners fear is a declaration of martial law, followed by roadblocks, "cordoning" off areas, and then house to house searches by troops for weapons, and the confiscation of any weapons found, with deadly military force applied to any resisters. That is the nuclear war, Armageddon scenario for gun owners, and yet that is precisely what the Iowa National Guard has planned to practice - without even attempting to explain that it is supposed to mimic searches for guns in Afghanistan, not an actual gun confiscation in the U.S.

And all this in the current political environment, with sworn, public enemies of our right to bear arms in control of the office of the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and all of the massive power of the Executive Branch at their finger tips.

And the good Colonel is puzzled by the uproar?

UPDATE II: The National Guard of Iowa has canceled the planned mock "invasion" and house to house searching of Arcadia, Iowa.

Not A Dime's Bit of Difference: Republicans Propose Bill To Require ISPs, Wi-Fi Keep Logs for Police

2009-02-20T11:04:00.006-07:00

Isn't bipartisanship wonderful!

From cnet news, by Declan McCullagh:

Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations.
The legislation, which echoes a measure proposed by one of their Democratic colleagues three years ago, would impose unprecedented data retention requirements on a broad swath of Internet access providers and is certain to draw fire from businesses and privacy advocates.

"While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children," U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said at a press conference on Thursday. "Keeping our children safe requires cooperation on the local, state, federal, and family level."

Ah, yes, of course! It's all "for the children." Who could be against that?

Joining Cornyn was Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who said such a measure would let "law enforcement stay ahead of the criminals."

....
In the Bush administration, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had called for a very similar proposal, saying that subscriber information and network data should be logged for two years.

Until Gonzales' remarks in 2006, the Bush administration had generally opposed laws requiring data retention, saying it had "serious reservations" about them. But after the European Parliament approved such a requirement for Internet, telephone and VoIP providers, top administration officials began talking about the practice more favorably.

Gonzales never met a totalitarian idea he did not like, so no surprise there, but I thought Republicans were against doing stuff just because those pansy Europeans did it.

After Gonzales left the Justice Department, the political will for data retention legislation seemed to ebb for a time, but then FBI Director Robert Mueller resumed lobbying efforts last spring.

This tends to be a bipartisan sentiment: Attorney General Eric Holder, a Democrat, said in 1999 that "certain data must be retained by ISPs for reasonable periods of time so that it can be accessible to law enforcement." Rep. John Conyers, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said that FBI proposals for data retention legislation "would be most welcome."

Read the rest here.

Well, if both sides of the aisle are for it, by gosh it must be good! Remember HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which proposed keeping files on people considered to be thinking dangerous thoughts and expressing dangerous ideas? That was bipartisan too, passing the House by a vote of 404 to six. It was sponsored by Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman, 36^th District of California (Chair of the Intelligence Subcommittee) and co-sponsored by a Republican.

Harman introduced HR 1955 on April 19, 2007. And she made it clear it was no coincidence, stating “April 19th marks the 12th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, which claimed 168 lives and injured over 800. Only September 11, 2001, eclipses that dark day as the deadliest act of terrorism on US soil.” She introduced her bill on April 19 to make it very clear that her goal is to go after the future “Timothy McVeighs” out there right along with Muslim terrorists.

Well, the hand holding continues! Repbublicans and Democrats have put aside whatever petty differences they may have had and are now singing the same Big Brother tune -and these Republicans are not even worried about growing the powers of Big Brother in the hands of anti-gun Holder, Emanuel, and Obama!

They simply don't care anymore who has that power, so long as it is grown - I suppose they figure they will get to use it one day themselves, and besides, they really agree with Holder, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary and Obama on nearly everything, so why not?

I am DONE with the Republican Party. Done. A pox on both their houses.

Time to sharpen those pitchforks. We can be "bipartisan" too.

Stewart

THE BILL OF RIGHTS: THE CONSTITUTION’S BUILT-IN, MANDATORY MANUAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

2009-02-18T11:32:00.006-07:00

NOTE: This article was first published in S.W.A.T. Magazine, where I write a monthly column called Enemy at the Gate which is dedicated to the Bill of Rights - and that means all of it. The publisher and editor of S.W.A.T. are committed patriots (and no, S.W.A.T. Magazine is not just for police. Its readership also includes military and non-military average folks). They have given their consent to my republishing this article online. I think it presents some foundational principles we should always keep in mind. Feel free to pass it on to others if you like, but be sure to give proper credit to S.W.A.T. Magazine.

Stewart Rhodes

So great was the Founding generation’s distrust of powerful national governments that, when they rebelled against the Crown, they created a loose league of sovereign States under the Articles of Confederation. And even when some of the leading men of the time pushed for a national government with more power, the people would never have consented to such a leviathan as we now see, de-facto, in Washington D.C. They had just thrown off a government that claimed a power to legislate over them in all matters whatsoever and were not about to replace it with another.

Instead, what they consented to by ratifying the Constitution of 1787 was a dual sovereignty system, granting the new national government only certain, enumerated, and limited powers, with no general police power (a general law-making power to pass laws for the health, safety, and welfare of the people). Only the States had such a general power, which they retained, as the debates over ratification make clear:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce …The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberty, and property of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. - James Madison, Federalist 45

Despite such reassurances, the Constitution would never have been ratified without the promise of a Bill of Rights, which the ratifying conventions of several States insisted on because they still feared misconstruction and usurpation of powers never granted.

The Federalists argued that no Bill of Rights was needed since the federal government lacked the power to infringe on any of the people’s rights and listing certain rights and protections could dangerously lead to the inference that the government otherwise had powers not granted, and to the inference that the people’s rights were somehow limited to those listed.

Fortunately, the people did not buy those arguments (imagine where we’d be now, without a Bill of Rights!) but they did address those “concerns” in their proposed amendments, to be doubly-damn sure the Constitution would not be misinterpreted as the Federalists warned. Thus the Bill of Rights itself tells us how we must interpret the Constitution.

First, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights clearly states that its purpose was to prevent misconstruction:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added …. (emphasis added).

As discussed last time, some of those “declaratory and restrictive clauses” are written protections for certain preexisting rights of the people (such as the right to bear arms) and guarantees of ancient procedural protections, such as jury trial. But two others give commands on interpretation “to prevent misconstruction”:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. – Ninth Amendment.

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. – Tenth Amendment. (emphasis added)

These are no mere suggestions. The Ninth Amendment uses the command language “shall not” and is as much a command as “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It also speaks of the enumeration (the listing) in the Constitution of certain rights, not the “creation by the Constitution of certain rights.”

This is no accident. As noted previously, the Bill of Rights does not create rights, but merely provides protection for rights that already exist.

And no, the Tenth Amendment is not merely a “truism.” It is a vital command on interpretation, just like the Ninth. The People meant it to have teeth.

There you go. The Constitution’s built-in manual for constitutional interpretation:

1. You shall not interpret the Constitution as creating rights, and you shall not interpret it as meaning that the people have only those rights listed. We the people have natural rights, and those rights go far beyond those explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights.

2. The national government does not have a general police power to legislate on anything it wants (despite the modern lies of the Supreme Court regarding the Commerce Clause to the contrary). It is a government of particular, enumerated powers, and you shall construe its powers narrowly, as the people intended. There are other powers, which we the people have not granted, and we reserve all of those other powers to our sovereign State governments, or to ourselves.

From all of this, St. George Tucker, in his 1803 commentaries on the Constitution, derived the principle that all of the Constitution’s rights protecting provisions should be read very broadly, while the power granting provisions should be read very narrowly. Tucker was correct, but you don’t need to be a legal scholar to figure it out.

The people who ratified the Constitution did not leave the vital question of its interpretation open to be manipulated by some smart-alecky modern law professor out for tenure and a book deal, or by some future federal judge playing God – they gave us their commands for how it shall and “shall not be construed.”

And it is their understanding and intent that matters, not the preferences of the Nine Nazgul on the Court. Any “interpretive methods” that are contrary to those commands are not only inaccurate, but are themselves violations of the Constitution. Think about that the next time you hear some smooth talking lawyer, judge, professor, or politician prattling on about his own pet “modality” of constitutional interpretation. Look past the smoke and mirrors, and ask yourself if what you are hearing squares with the commands of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

When you use the powerful interpretive lenses the Bill of Rights provides, you will see “Them” for what they are, and you will no longer be fooled.

If you enjoyed this article and would like to read other S.W.A.T. Magazine Enemy at the Gate columns by Stewart Rhodes, you can purchase back issues of S.W.A.T. online, here in electronic format (PDF downloads) or as printed back issues here. You can also subscribe here.

THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

2009-02-18T11:20:00.005-07:00

NOTE: This article was first published in S.W.A.T. Magazine, where I write a monthly column called Enemy at the Gate which is dedicted to the Bill of Rights - and that means all of it. The publisher and editor of S.W.A.T. are committed patriots (and no, S.W.A.T. Magazine is not just for police. Its readership also includes military and non-military average folks). They have given their consent to my republishing this article online. I think it presents some foundational principles we should always keep in mind. Feel free to pass it on to others if you like, but be sure to give proper credit to S.W.A.T. Magazine.

Stewart Rhodes

Ben Franklin reportedly remarked that the Constitution formed “a Republic … if you can keep it.” Well, you can’t keep it if you don’t know what it is.

So, what is it? As George Mason said, “no free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” What are the fundamental principles of our Republic? Should we look first to Supreme Court decisions for such guidance? Hardly. As Jefferson said:

They [the judges] are … in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate.

And that was when the ideas of the Enlightenment still reigned supreme, long before the infestation of Marxism among legal elites. No, the Court has long ago gone astray. Let us begin with our Declaration of Independence:

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

There, at the heart of our Republic, are not just the concepts of equality and consent of the people, but also natural rights. The Declaration of Independence is fundamentally a natural law document and the “long train of abuses” that made revolt necessary were not only deprivations of representation (as we were taught in school), but also of natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property, and the abuse of all of the ancient, hard won procedural protections of those rights, such as habeas corpus and jury trial in a civilian court, rather than a court of admiralty. They finally shot back when the government attempted to strip them of the means of resisting the already ongoing abuse of their other natural rights.

Rights come first, and then government is created to protect them, not the other way round. This is something modern political and legal elites want us to forget. They don’t believe in inalienable, natural rights that are ours by virtue of ‘nature and nature’s God.” Instead, they share the view of Karl Marx, that such “rights” are merely artificial political/legal constructs, that man is just an infinitely malleable animal (to be shaped by social engineers), with no inherit rights whatsoever, and your only “rights” are whatever society wants to “give” you. Black’s law dictionary defines this as “positive law” – man made law - as opposed to natural law. Thus, Janet Reno once told a group of federal law enforcement officers “You are part of a government that has given its people more freedom … than any other government in the history of the world”(emphasis added).

Under this view, which flips the Declaration on its head, on what grounds can you ever rebel? Since your rights are “gifts” from government, and merely whatever the government courts say, with no higher power or law, it is never legitimate for a people to rebel, no matter how ridiculous the government’s “interpretation” of its own powers or how arbitrary and murderous it becomes once its servants in black robes “make it legal” by interpreting your so-called rights out of existence. Without natural rights there is no right to revolt, which is precisely why these elites think it totally illegitimate for you to have effective means of resistance.

Remember that all of the Crown’s actions were upheld by the English courts as legal and “constitutional.” However, for the Founding generation, that was not the end of the argument because they knew their rights were not just whatever the government robed lawyers said.

In harmony with that timeless, self evident truth, the Bill of Rights does not grant any rights. It is really more a bill of protections of rights. The First Amendment does not say “the people are hereby granted a right to free speech, freedom of the press, free practice of religion, and assembly.” Instead, it says “Congress shall make no law respecting … [those rights].” It is a prohibition on Congress, to protect pre-existing natural rights.

The same is true of the Second Amendment. It does not say “the people are hereby granted the right to bear arms.” No. It says “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is a prohibition on government action, meant to protect a pre-existing right.

Likewise, the Fourth Amendment does not grant us a right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. It declares that our right to that security “shall not be violated” and then it sets forth procedural requirements to protect that preexisting right. Nor does the Fifth Amendment grant us a right to life, liberty, or property. It merely prohibits the government from depriving us of those pre-existing rights without due process of law, and spells out specific procedural protections for those natural rights. The same holds true for jury trial.

Thus, whenever you hear a judge, politician, lawyer, or talking head in the media speak of what rights you do or don’t have under the Constitution, you are hearing at best an ignorant statement, and at worst, a lie. And whenever you find yourself running to look in the Bill of Rights to see whether you have a right to do something, you are making a fundamental error. Your rights are inherently yours by nature and by nature’s God.

With that fundamental principle as our background, I will next delve more directly into constitutional interpretation, showing how the Bill of Rights mandates how we must interpret what the people consented to as the means “to secure these rights.”

Montana House Joint Resolution No. 26 Affirming States Rights

2009-02-18T02:22:00.003-07:00

Note: Because one of the earlier links to the full text to Montana House Joint Resolution No. 26 no longer works, I have posted the introduced resolution in its entirety below.

If you would like to go to the official Montana web version, you should be able to find it here:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/HouJoint/HJ0026_1.wpd

Or go to this page and look for HJ0026

But there is a chance those pages will be changed over time as well. Thus, I present it below just as I downloaded it from the above Montana site:

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26
INTRODUCED BY M. MORE

A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA AFFIRMING STATES' RIGHTS AND CONDEMNING ENCROACHMENT OF THOSE RIGHTS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

WHEREAS, The Constitution of the State of Montana declares that the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right to govern themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state and that the people of this state shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining to that right; and
WHEREAS, that right may never be expressly delegated to the United States Congress; and
WHEREAS, The Constitution of the State of Montana declares that the people of Montana solemnly and mutually agree to form a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state, by the name of "The State of Montana"; and
WHEREAS, the people of the State of Montana agree that all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights must be reserved and exercised by individual states; and
WHEREAS, when Montana entered into statehood in 1889, that entrance was accomplished by a contract between Montana and the several states, with Congress and the President concurring and acting as the agent for the several states, a contract known as the "Compact With the United States", archived as Article I of the Montana Constitution; and
WHEREAS, a contract, compact, or treaty must be implemented consistent with the terms and understandings in place at the time it is entered into; and
WHEREAS, the protection of these states' rights is enumerated in amendments to the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, which state that "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".

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
(1) That the several states of the United States are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to general government, but by ratifying the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, they constituted a general government for special purposes and delegated to that government certain definite powers, while reserving all other rights.
(2) That when the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are void and of no force.
(3) That the government created by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights was not granted the right to determine the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, the measure of its powers.
(4) That the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting of the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, felonies committed on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes.
(5) That all acts of Congress that assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those enumerated in the federal constitution and Bill of Rights, are void and of no force.
(6) That the power to create, define, and punish other crimes is reserved by the states.
(7) That power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press remains and is reserved by the states or the people, allowing states the right to judge how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom and how far those abuses, which cannot be separated from their use, should be tolerated, rather than allowing the use to be destroyed.
(8) That states are guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises and retain the right of protecting the same.
(9) That all acts of Congress that abridge freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press are not law and are void.
(10) That power over the freedom of the right to keep and bear arms was reserved to the states and to the people, allowing states the right to judge how far infringements on the right to bear arms should be tolerated, rather than allowing that exercise to be defined by Congress.
(11) That states and the people are guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the right to keep and bear arms and retain the right of protecting that right.
(12) That all acts of Congress that abridge the right to bear arms are not law and are void.
(13) That Congress's interpretation of those parts of the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights that delegate to Congress a power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof" has attempted to destroy the limits of its power.
(14) That those parts of the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, detailed in subsection (13), must not be construed to give unlimited powers to the federal government, and that Congress's inappropriate interpretation must be revised and corrected.
(15) That if Montana accepts these inappropriate interpretations and continues to allow Congress to exercise unbridled authority, it would be surrendering its own form of government.
(16) That the people of this state will not submit to undelegated and consequently unlimited powers.
(17) That every state has a right to nullify all assumptions of power by others within their limits, and that without this right, states would be under the dominion and power of anyone who might try to exercise that power.
(18) That it would be a dangerous delusion to silence people's fears for the safety of their rights.
(19) That this state calls on its costates for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the United States Constitution.
(20) That the rights and liberties of Montana and its costates must be protected from any dangers by declaring that Congress is limited by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights.
(21) That any act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States, or Judicial Order of the United States that assumes a power not delegated by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights diminishing the liberty of this state or its citizens constitutes a nullification of the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights by the government of the United States, which would also breach Montana's "Compact With the United States". Acts that would cause a nullification and a breach include but are not limited to:
(a) establishing martial law or a state of emergency within a state without the consent of the legislature of that state;
(b) requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war or pursuant to or as an alternative to incarceration after due process of law;
(c) requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to or as an alternative to incarceration after due process of law;
(d) surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government;
(e) any act regarding religion, further limitations on freedom of political speech, or further limitations on freedom of the press; or
(f) any act regarding the right to keep and bear arms or further limitations on the right to bear arms, including any restrictions on the type or number of firearms or the amount or type of ammunition any law-abiding citizen may purchase, own, or possess.
(22) That if any act of Congress becomes law or if an Executive Order or Judicial Order is put into force related to the reservations expressed in this resolution, Montana's "Compact With the United States" is breached and all powers previously delegated to the United States by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights revert to the states individually.
(23) That any future government of the United States shall require ratification of three-fourths of the states seeking to form a government and shall not be binding upon any state not seeking to form a government.
(24) That the Secretary of State send copies of this resolution to the President of the United States and to each member of the United States Congress.
- END -

Montana Introduces Resolution Asserting State Sovereignty - And Threatening Secession

2009-02-17T10:10:00.016-07:00

A Montana Resolution asserting state sovereignty has been introduced, today, February 17, 2009, by Montana State Rep. Mike More as HJ 26. Montana thus joins the recent wave of fiery state sovereignty resolutions. And as with the New Hampshire Resolution, the Montana resolution borrows heavily from Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, and then lists particular acts that would nullify the Constitution and void the compact by which Montana became a state - that is a threat to secede if the feds step too far. Here is an excerpt:

(21) That any act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States, or Judicial Order of the United States that assumes a power not delegated by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights diminishing the liberty of this state or its citizens constitutes a nullification of the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights by the government of the United States, which would also breach Montana's "Compact With the United States". Acts that would cause a nullification and a breach include but are not limited to:
(a) establishing martial law or a state of emergency within a state without the consent of the legislature of that state;

(b) requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war or pursuant to or as an alternative to incarceration after due process of law;

(c) requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to or as an alternative to incarceration after due process of law;
(d) surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government;

(e) any act regarding religion, further limitations on freedom of political speech, or further limitations on freedom of the press; or

(f) any act regarding the right to keep and bear arms or further limitations on the right to bear arms, including any restrictions on the type or number of firearms or the amount or type of ammunition any law-abiding citizen may purchase, own, or possess.

(22) That if any act of Congress becomes law or if an Executive Order or Judicial Order is put into force related to the reservations expressed in this resolution, Montana's "Compact With the United States" is breached and all powers previously delegated to the United States by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights revert to the states individually.

To avoid the possibility of dead links, I have posted the whole resolution here. If you would like to go to the official Montana web version, you should be able to find it here:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/HouJoint/HJ0026_1.wpd

Or go to this page and look for HJ0026

My thoughts: All I have to say is God bless Montana! Yet one more reason to love my adopted home state.

However, Montana was already considered to be among the states asserting sovereignty because of its "made in Montana" gun bill, as David Codrea notes here. And last year, before the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, Montana fired a shot across the Supreme Court's bow with a resolution threatening secession if the Court went with the so-called "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment (as I noted in an Enemy at the Gate column in S.W.A.T. Magazine). And in the past Montana has bucked the feds told them to shove their federal highway money over the issue of speed limits, and also said no to Real ID.

Thus, you should not make the mistake of thinking this is some recent idea - Montanans have consistently, over a span of many years, asserted their sovereignty. And more importantly, Montanans have done so from the very beginning, as their state constitution makes clear. As Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association so ably puts it:

Remember, the Montana Constitution says, at Article II, Section 2, "The people have the exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state."

Some will say that these are just words on paper and don't really mean anything. I disagree.

These words are a part of the contract by which Montana was engendered as a socio-political entity. The very existence of the construct called the "State of Montana" is dependent upon this contract among Montana people, a contract giving the state defined and limited powers.

One of these limitations is the terms of Article II. Section 2, which limits the authority of the State to contract with the other states. That is, by its very charter, the State is not authorized to lock itself politically into being a mere administrative region of that creature of the several states, the federal government, nor may the state surrender the rights and prerogatives of individuals to the federal government.

HJ 26 addresses these issues and relationships.

I could not have said it better myself. And no, this is not about money from the feds. This is about self-government, and about being free from onerous, oppressive, and unconstitutional federal laws and actions. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the claim by the British Parliament that it could legislate over the colonists in all cases whatsoever - down to the most minute detail of their lives. Our forefathers rejected that absurd claim. We are now rejecting the same assertion of totalitarian power by the Mordor on the Potomac.

Brace yourselves - it's going to be a wild ride.

Why do I say that? Isn't this just so much posturing which will amount to nothing in the long run?

Not so fast. Note that one of the causes of nullification would be any more legislation restricting the right to bear arms, including restriction of type of arms. That means no new "Assault Weapons Ban." And you can bet that HR 45, which aims to register, fingerprint, and track gun owners just as if they were convicted child molesters, would also be considered a breach.

If there is anything that has the potential to spark actual secession, and even actual civil war or revolution in this nation, it is those two onerous measures. Gun haters are playing with fire, and poking at a hornet's nest, with their plans for a renewed AWB and with the totalitarian HR 45.

I hope they have the good sense to back off - though I fear they are just too "autistic" when it comes to this, and simply do not get it. They think it is simply a matter of passing a law, and then gun owners will meekly submit. But they are only thinking in the conventional legal and political dimensions. As these resolutions remind us, there are other dimensions, and whatever law is passed, whatever executive order "The One" issues, whatever clever decision is handed down by the Nine Nazgul on the Court, that will not be the end of the argument - just as it was not the end of the argument back in 1775.

History does indeed repeat itself. I think there is an awakening, a quickening, happening that may just rival what happened prior to the American Revolution. And I see pockets of resolve like Montana as the place where it will start.

Montana, and other states like it, are the new version of what New England was back then - pockets of radicalism and fiery resolve. But can we be the modern versions of Thomas Paine, Sam Adams, James Otis, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson that are needed?

Time will tell.

If you have not yet read Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions, I highly recommend you do so. As should be no surprise coming from the author of the Declaration of Independence (this nation's birth certificate) the Kentucky Resolutions present the most concise, clear, and common sense expression of the principles of our Constitutional Republic in existence.

Now it is our turn to recall those fundamental principles and take a stand. As Jefferson said:

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

Will we take that stand? If not now, when? If not us, who? Will we leave it to our children and grandchildren to do it? Or will we clean house ourselves, cleaning up the mess we allowed to happen, and leave them in a free nation? I believe we have reached that critical point in this nation's history. Unfortunately, what I see coming reminds me of something George Washington told his troops before the battle of Long Island:

"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army-Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; that is all we can expect-We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die." - George Washington, addressing his troops before the Battle of Long Island.

Please do your part in supporting the resolutions of Montana, New Hampshire, and others like them, in the hopes that the DC crowd will get the message and back off. If they don't, they will leave us no choice but a brave resistance or the most abject submission. I believe enough Americans still retain the fire of liberty in their hearts to choose the former - and to win.

Stewart Rhodes

PS - Gary Marbut of Montana Shooting Sports Association played a critical role by assisting in drafting this resolution and in getting it proposed, and MSSA deserves your support not just for this, but for all else MSSA does on behalf of Montanans in general, and Montana gun owners in particular. Please join MSSA and support it with your contributions.

UPDATE: A point of clarification and a couple additional thoughts:

#1. This is not really about secession. You can't "secede" from something that no longer exists. Dan Itse, the drafter and sponsor of the New Hampshire states rights resolution makes a very good point when he says this is not about withdrawing from the Union. As he recently told Glenn Beck on his show, "the very best resolution of this resolution would be a renewed union within the confines of the Constitution." I agree, and as I told one commenter, I would prefer to just have a national government that lived within its means and within the bounds of the Constitution, but unfortunately, that is not what we now have.

And, as Itse points out, “if the government chooses to aggress in nullifying the Constitution, it is impossible to secede from something that doesn’t exist.”

And you will note that the Montana resolution says nothing about secession - what it says is that if the federal government further transgresses in violating the Constitution and Bill of rights, and violating the rights of Montanans, then Montana will rightfully consider the compact between the states - the Constitution - to have been nullified by the feds, not by Montana. At that point, the agreement among the states by which Montana entered into the Union will have been breached by the national government, "and all powers previously delegated to the United States by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights revert to the states individually."

#2. What Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence is still true:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Nobody is saying this would be a picnic, and we would prefer it not come to that, but:

We are seeing, today, a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evincuing a design to reduce us under absolute Despotism every bit as onerous and dangerous as anything the Founders faced.

Think I'm exagerating? Then please go read this article I wrote about the Clinton era proposal to use military tribunals on the domestic American milita movement - on US citizens - and how everything in that proposal was put into place by the Bush Administration, so that Obama has at his finger tips claimed powers Clinton could only dream of.

Obama now has the court approved defacto power to declare any of us citizens to be unlawful "enemy combatants" and thus strip us of all of the protections of the Bill of Rights, detaining us without indictment and trying us before military tribunals instead of by a jury of our peers. Of course, that claimed power is illegitimate and wildly unconstitutional, as Scalia pointed out in his Hamdi dissent, but the majority on the Court put its stamp of approval on it.

One of the causes of the American revolution listed in the Declaration of Independence was denial of the right to jury trial and the "extraordinary rendition" of their day - whisking men off to England to face trial in kangaroo courts (and of course, all the English courts approved). That was one of the many "long train of abuses" that fueled the Revolution.

And the spark of the American Revolution was the attempt to disarm the people. Today, there are gun hating extremists in the Obama Administration and in Congress who just will not be able to resist the temptation to try and disarm us - what else is HR 45 but a call to register and track all gun owners, to more easily facilitate disarmament?

History is repeating itself. And what Jefferson said about the purposes of government, and our right to throw it off when it violates those purposes, is still true. and that brings me to these last two points we should always keep in mind:

Fundamental Principles of Our Constitutional Republic

A. First fundamental principle of our Republic: your rights don't come from government. As our Declaration says, rights come first, and government is created to protect your rights. Not the other way round. You can read an article I wrote for SWAT Magazine on this topic here.

B. The Bill of Rights affirms that our rights do not come from government, and provides us with a guide to Constitutional interpretation we can use to judge the actions of government. Whatever the judges may say, we the people made it very clear in the Bill of Rights what the boundaries were. Look there first for guidance. I also wrote about this for SWAT, and you can read that article here.

Stewart Rhodes

Vegas Fund Raiser and Potluck-Friday, July 11

2008-07-09T11:24:00.003-07:00

If you are in Vegas please c'mon by.

Swim party and potluck on Friday July 11 to raise funds for my mom's cancer treatments.

So bring a dish, a bottle of booze and your contribution!

You can send money to the addresses below and RSVP to the numbers listed below or just call Dusty Directly at 702 812-1209 and bring your contribution to the party!

Contribute here;
Antioch Church of Las Vegas
Put Dusty on bottom left of check and mail to:
3825 Melody Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89108

Or contribute directly:
Dusty Buckel Enterprises,
Bank of America of West Sahara
routing - 122400724 - account # 501001703274
(If you have a Bank of America account you can do it online in about two seconds)

July 11, 2008 (7-11) at 7P to 11P
YOU are invited for a swim party and pot luck, with live entertainment.
RSVP Darlene Mea tvdarlene@gmail.com
For more info contact Darlene Mea at 702-227-8393 or 702-477-5110 tvdarlene@gmail.com

Press Release below;

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Local Giver needs to Receive, to LIVE...

Las Vegas, NV. July 3rd – Dusty Buckel, a Las Vegas local resident for over 29 yrs is in Stage IV Cancer of the Lymph Nodes and does not have health insurance.

"I have been been graced with health most of my life, so I lived life fully as a giver, here to help, and now I am humbled to the position of having to ask for help, to live."

Dusty Buckel is many things to many people not only in Las Vegas but around the world.

Along with being an Ordained Minister, known to thousands as Rev Dusty.

Dusty has had her own radio show & television shows, An Opportunity to Make a Difference for years; is the originator of of Secret Santa which provides toys, food and necessities for hundreds of Las Vegas families every year, as well as helping stranded mothers off the streets and helping our Vets with clothing and counseling.

Dusty engages donors to give namelessly, selflessly. All who know Dusty have been graced by her extreme presence and drive to help those who need help on many levels, body, mind and spirit... Dusty lives to Give...

The stories are many, and those of you that know her or have been in connected with her, either through a real estate transaction, past president of Commercial Marketing Group in LV, Church, or on an outing in Sedona, AZ, knows the grace of this woman.

Now Dusty needs medical treatments for Stage IV Cancer of the Lymph Nodes. She has been receiving "Intelligent Medicine" out of the country and needs to continue the therapies or she will not survive. We are asking the community – please GIVE TO LIVE for DUSTY, NOW. The cost of treatment is $21,600.00 for 3 week stay to detoxify her blood, strengthen her body to help itself in destroying the cancer cells.

The hospital ~ "Bio Science Research Institute" is dedicated to the CURE, not just treatment. Centro Medico Excel, (a hospital in Mexico, owned by a San Diego cardiologist) has 4 of it's 15 story floors. Dr. Carlos Bautista is Dusty's doctor along with world renown cancer specialist, Dr. Donsbach. Contact: Gosela (Dr. Bautista's Assistant) 619-519-6374 for more information.

"This is a complete humbling experience, asking for help, but I choose to live.",

says Dusty who is always Responding to Miracles!
dustylasvegas@gmail.com

Make your tax deductible donations to:
Antioch Church of Las Vegas
Rev. Peter Gang is a client/friend of Dusty and is glad to help.
Put Dusty on bottom left of check and mail to:
3825 Melody Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89108.

or a contribution directly to:
Dusty Buckel Enterprises,
Bank of America of West Sahara
routing - 122400724 - account # 501001703274

July 11, 2008 (7-11) at 7P to 11P Dusty's family of friends and associates are invited for a swim party, pot luck, with live entertainment. RSVP Darlene Mea @ tvdarlene@gmail.com

For additional info please contact Darlene Mea – 702-227-8393 or 702-477-5110 – tvdarlene@gmail.com

Kent Snyder, RIP, You Will Be Missed

2008-07-02T22:03:00.004-07:00

On Monday, I heard the sad news that Kent Snyder had passed away. Kent was a friend of mine, and that news came as a real shock to me. The last time I saw him in person was when he attended my graduation from law school in 04. I never expected that to be the last time. Life really is short.

Kent was a good man. The word that comes first to my mind when I think of him is "integrity." He was a man of great integrity, and from that came deep, deep courage, wisdom, kindness, and commitment to what he believed in.

He is one of the few people I have ever known who I would trust my life or the lives of one of my children to without question. He passed the "fox-hole" test, as in could you count on this man to watch your back and never desert you if you shared a fox-hole in war. I would have shared a fox-hole with Kent without question, because, though he was a very calm, quiet man, I knew he had the heart of a warrior, and had already made peace with life and death, and I knew that his first thought would be to doing what was right, in any situation, and that he followed through, every time.

His was a life sincerely and passionately dedicated to the cause of liberty. For all the time I knew him, his every waking moment was spent in that cause. In fact, as Ron Paul noted in his comments about his passing, Kent pushed himself so hard during the campaign that it affected his health. He literally gave his all for the cause of liberty.

I have lost a friend, to whom I often turned to over the years for sage advice and wisdom when I was feeling down, and the world has lost a warrior for liberty. Me and my family will miss him, and we send out our condolences to his family. God bless you Kent, and see you on the other side.

- Stewart

Below is what Ron Paul had to say about Kent:

In loving memory of Kent Snyder

The Freedom Movement has suffered a great loss. Kent Snyder, chairman of my presidential campaign, lost his tragic battle with pneumonia last week. Kent was a true lover of liberty. He was an American patriot. He was my friend. And, he will be missed.

Kent was a gentle man who carried himself with quiet dignity. While soft spoken, great inner strength lay behind his kind blue eyes. He was filled with conviction, and principles of decency, loyalty and respect ran to his core. Those fortunate enough to work closely with Kent were touched by his integrity and old-fashioned American work ethic. Stories of his youth in Kansas and lessons taught to him by his two greatest influences, his mother and father, were often shared with friends and colleagues. During difficult times, Kent was always a calm at the center of the storm.

I first met Kent in 1987 when he, as a young man in his late 20's, served on my first presidential run. Over the next twenty years, we worked together on countless projects in the name of Freedom. It was Kent, more than anyone else, who urged me to run again for president last year. I was skeptical, but he was much more confident that the time was right. Without Kent, I don't think it would have happened. Though he was an optimist, in the end, even he didn't expect what we achieved.

Like so many in our movement, Kent sacrificed much for the cause of Liberty. He sidetracked a blossoming political career when he chose to work for a third party candidate. He walked away from a lucrative career as telecommunications executive to work for me in Washington when I returned to Congress in the late '90's. Ultimately, he sacrificed his health as he worked tirelessly around the clock on our presidential campaign, ignoring the pleas of his doctors to pull back.

Kent poured every ounce of his being into our fight for Freedom. He will always hold a place in my heart and in the hearts of my family. We deeply mourn his loss.

I hope we can celebrate Kent's life, the wonderful man he was, the tremendous success of his contribution to the cause of liberty, and the bright path he helped blaze to a future where freedom springs alive once again. Kent should be remembered with every victory we achieve as we move forward together. Without Kent Snyder, the fight for liberty would not be where it is today. We all owe him a great debt.

In liberty,

Ron Paul

the Nevada State GOP Platform Rocks! Repeal the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act; Repeal Real ID; Repeal the Federal Reserve Act ...

2008-04-29T21:55:00.016-07:00

Nevada State Republican Convention Passes A Truly Constitutionalist Platform!

Note from Stewart: You may have heard that the 2008 Nevada State Republican Party Convention ended in a controversial manner, with a surprise "recess" at 6pm, just when us state delegates were about to finish voting for our national delegates. I will have a few things to say on that soon, but first I'd like to point out one very positive outcome of the Convention - the Nevada State Republican Party Platform for 2008-2010. Before the controversial recess, the delegates at the State Convention voted to accept the platform as written and proposed by the platform committee. That vote was overwhelming. And that platform is beyond a doubt the most liberty friendly, constitutionalist state Republican Party platform in the entire nation. No doubt it is not perfect, but it is most certainly the very best that can be expected at a Republican Party convention during the Bush Administration, with John McCain as the presumed nominee of the party (this platform attacks sacred cows of Bush - the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, and sacred cows of McCain - McCain/Feingold).

But I want to make it clear that it was not "Ron Paul people" who wrote that platform. It was CONSERVATIVES. I was on the platform committee and I can tell you that us Ron Paul supporters were not anywhere near a majority (maybe 1/4, if that) on the committee. I know for a fact that there were people on the platform committee who were not Ron Paul people, who in particular disagreed with Ron Paul on the war, but who still believed in core conservative ideals like obeying the Constitution, smaller government, and US sovereignty. It was a great experience to see those kind of people do the right thing, and it gives me hope for our nation, and made me actually proud to be a Republican again after years of disappointment.

I hear through the grapevine that the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee are livid with outrage over this platform. Good! Serves them right for abandoning traditional conservative Republican principles, like obeying the Constitution. I'm proud to have played a small part in pissing them off. Now maybe they'll take a moment to reflect on just exactly what about this platform makes them so angry. Is it too conservative? Too constitutionalist? Too much in favor of limited government? And what does that make them? Well, as for the McCain people, maybe it was plank #11 - "We demand the repeal of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ..." That is McCain-Feingold! Ah well, that's what they get for trying to push a fake conservative on us.

-Stewart Rhodes

I'll give some more of my thoughts down below, after the text of the platform. But without further ado, here is the 2008-2010 Nevada State Republican Party Platform in its entirety:

Nevada State Republican Party Platform 2008 - 2010

Preamble:

We believe that government is instituted solely to secure the life, liberty and property of the citizens of the country, that the Declaration of Independence defines the philosophical foundation of the country, that the Constitution of the United States is the basic law governing the existence and operation of the U.S. Federal Government and the first ten amendments describe its limits, and , as Thomas Jefferson said, that the government that governs least governs best.

Federalism & Limited Government

1. We support less government, less taxes, less regulation and more self determination.

2. All legislation, Federal Agencies, and public servants must adhere to a literal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and as instructed by the Tenth Amendment, in conjunction with Article I, Section 8.

Patriotism

3. We recognize the importance of the national values expressed by our flag, anthem, pledge-of-allegiance and other patriotic symbols that define us as a nation and we believe that the words, “in GOD we trust,” should remain on our currency and the words “under God” should remain in our Pledge of Allegiance.

Taxes and Government Spending

4. We support reform of Social Security, including establishment of private retirement accounts and prohibiting use of its funds for any other purpose. All citizens shall have the right to opt out of the system, but the government must honor its commitments to those who have paid, are legally in the U.S., and remain in the system. We propose the abolishment of the Windfall Elimination Tax when computing Social Security Benefits. We oppose Nationalization of Healthcare.

5. We urge the Nevada Legislature to cut spending and avoid new taxes to encourage strong economic growth. We support the Nevada Constitutional Requirement of a 2/3 majority legislative vote to raise state taxes. We support balanced state, local and federal budgets. We oppose unfunded mandates, Riders, Ear-marks and Set-asides at both the state and national level. We support the permanent elimination of the Federal Death Tax.

The Economy

6. We support a strong private minerals industry. We support the Nevada Mining Association endorsed reform of the 1872 mining law and strongly oppose any laws, regulations, ordinances or any other legally binding actions that diminish the ability of the minerals industry to discover and or access minerals and mine them.

7. Fires are increasing because of the lack of livestock grazing. Therefore, livestock grazing shall be increased immediately on Federal Lands.

Education

8. We support a parent’s right to choice in education including vouchers, charter schools, and home schooling. We also support the elimination of the U.S. Dept. of Education. We further oppose requiring licensure for parents who choose to home school. We support the elimination of the No Child Left Behind law and require the State of Nevada to replace the No Child Left Behind concept.

Family Values

9. We affirm the sanctity of human life and the inherent dignity of each human being from conception to death and oppose cloning complete human beings. We support the private development of adult stem cell research and we support all efforts to stop human trafficking. We support the definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman.

The Environment

10. We support initiatives to maximize the development of America’s domestic oil, gas, coal, solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear resources, and the development of alternative sources of energy to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. We support granting local government more authority in decision-making regarding water rights within their jurisdiction.

Legislation

11. We demand the repeal of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and reaffirm the right of free political speech. We support legislation to require full disclosure of all donations made to political candidates.

12. We support the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and the return of the power of minting and coining money to the Congress of the United States as so stated in the Constitution. In addition we demand a return to a gold and/or silver backed currency as provided for in the U.S. Constitution.

13. We demand that electronic voting only be allowed when uniquely numbered receipts are provided to the voter and results are made publicly available showing simultaneously all votes comprising the total by receipt number.

The Litigation Crisis

14. We believe in informing juries that it is their power and duty to decide on both the law and the facts as they apply to each case so that justice is the main priority. We support election of judges.

Immigration

15. We welcome legal immigrants from all nations, cultures and races. We demand strict enforcement of all immigration laws by all levels of government. We demand that the federal government secure our borders. We do not support amnesty, government benefits or other special treatment for aliens who have or will enter the United States illegally. We support English as the official language of the United States and the printing of government materials in English only.

National Defense and Veteran's Affairs

16. We support all of our men and women in the military who are serving both in the United States and around the world and the missions of all U.S. troops around the world. Be they active duty, National Guard, or reservist, they have our highest admiration and respect. We support honoring veterans with education benefits and we support a strong Veterans Administration subject to strong oversight and audit, to assure veterans and families receive the care and support as promised.

Constitution, Bill of Rights and Protection of Rights

17. We believe that the First Amendment to the Constitution was intended to prevent a state-sponsored religion rather than a separation of God from public life. We affirm that the Second Amendment protects an individual right which should be enforced as strictly as the rights protected by the First Amendment.

18. We support repealing the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. We support repeal of the federal act requiring a national ID card or other required identity papers providing government with “big brother” intrusion into constitutional freedoms.

US Sovereignty & trade

19. We support the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations. We demand that Nevada join Montana, Idaho, Utah and other states in opposing the North American Union (NAU) in withdrawing from the Security & Prosperity Partnership (SPP), withdrawing from North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and that Congress resume their duty of regulating Commerce with Foreign Nations.

Public Lands

20. We oppose Federal legislation regarding public lands including wilderness in Nevada counties unless approved by the county.

END

More comments from Stewart:

Well, there ya go. That is the kind of platform you get with a room full of Nevada Goldwater Conservatives who were in about 95% agreement with us Ron Paul folks. The only real point of disagreement was the Iraq war.

Sure, there were a couple of "pragmatist" neocons who really had no respect for the Constitution, but they were vastly outnumbered by people who DID care about the Constitution and who could be convinced of the proper constitutional position, and once they agreed, they had no problem at all with voting for a staunch constitutionalist plank.

Jury power is just one example. Some of the folks there had just never heard of the full power of a jury to judge the law as well as the facts, but after I explained the history of the jury to them, which has always had the power to "nullify," they understood and supported it. And I got crucial back-up from another lawyer on the committee who, while he disagreed completely on Iraq, was 100% in agreement on jury nullification.

And the same went for repealing the Federal Reserve Act, for getting out of the U.N., NAFTA, the SPP, etc. Most folks on the committee were in complete agreement on all of those issues, and I believe they were a good representative sample of the convention as a whole.

So, those are not "Ron Paul planks." Those are "constitutionalist planks." It was a group of constitutionalists on the committee who first voted for them, and then a bunch more constitutionalists in the rank and file at the convention who overwhelmingly voted for the whole platform.

I have no doubt that Ron Paul's campaign has educated many people on crucial conservative positions, and that education aspect is starting to really have an affect (that the party elites cannot control) but it seemed to me that the rank and file conservatives in Nevada were already pretty well versed in core constitutionalist positions. Us Ron Paul people did not have to do much "convincing" at all.

On the committee, I certainly did not have to do much. Committee members had already expressed support for each of those planks - I just explained a few questions folks had on the Constitution, told them the history of jury nullification, said a bit on the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act (and how it applies its definition of "unlawful combatant" to citizens too), and helped a bit to remind them that being a conservative means being a constitutionalist. Not a very tough job, really, as they were already about 90% there. Truly Salt-of-the-Earth conservatives. A great bunch of people.

And for the record, Las Vegas lawyer Richard Scotti was fantastic as the fill-in chairman of the committee. A sincere constitutionalist and patriot, willing to listen and open to hearing new ideas, very fair, and very much interested only in doing what was right. His leadership was crucial. He deserves the praise of all Americans, as do the rest of the committee. Now if we can just get the rest of the GOP up to speed!

For Liberty,

Stewart Rhodes

Revitalizing the Militia of the Several States - the Spirit of 1775

2008-04-14T10:45:00.005-07:00

OK, now it is time to get back to some serious topics. Below is an excerpt from a most excellent and thought provoking article on the Militia by Dr. Edwin Vieira, who is a graduate of Harvard Law School, among other things. I urge you to read it in its entirety and to give it the serious contemplation it deserves. I then urge you to not just think, but to act, and to do your part, and take your place, in revitalizing the militia of the several states, which, as Dr. Vieira reminds us, is "necessary to the security of a free state." I have been thinking about this vital topic for years now, and am very pleased to see I am not alone. I will share some of my thoughts on this subject over the next couple of days, but for now, please read this:

19 APRIL 1775 vs. THE D.C. GUN CASE

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
April 14, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

From what I have heard, the oral argument in the Supreme Court on the District of Columbia gun case suggested that a majority of the Justices just might discover an “individual right” “to keep and bear Arms” in the Second Amendment, and on that basis might declare the District’s draconian “gun-control” laws to some degree unconstitutional. Such a decision might lead to further victories against “gun-control” statutes and ordinances in other jurisdictions. Yet it might prove instead to be a Trojan Horse, because it could come down larded with so much judicial mumbo jumbo about “reasonable regulation” and “compelling governmental interests” as grounds for “gun control” that the Second Amendment would be left guaranteeing less of a “right” than of an occasion for endless legislation and litigation. Well, one can only hope for the best—but at the same time one ought to prepare for something less.
My concern is what happens if the Justices somehow do rule favorably on the “individual-right theory.” I suspect that such a victory—after the champagne runs out—will have the perverse result of putting all the pro-Second Amendment people and organizations to sleep. With their personal “gun rights” apparently secure (at least for the time being), they will not be worried about how correctly to construe the Amendment, and how really to enforce it, even though this country needs that construction and enforcement now more than ever before.

The inescapable fact is that whatever “individual right” “to keep and bear Arms” emerges from the D.C. gun case will not provide “the security of a free State” at which the Second Amendment aims. True, tens and tens of millions of Americans possess firearms and ammunition; and perhaps large numbers of these firearms are suitable for Militia service. But the armed individual, simply as an individual, is not enough.

All too many individual gun owners are not even aware of each other. Although some are members of firearms ranges or gun clubs, hardly any if them are organized for anything akin to Militia purposes. They are not members of specific units. They have no designated leaders. They lack systems for communications within or among units, or among individuals for that matter. (Where, for example, is the gun-owners’ equivalent of a “Neighborhood Watch” against local usurpation and tyranny?) Even within their own neighborhoods, among families and friends, they make no attempts to insure uniformity or completeness of equipment. They lack sufficient, and often necessary, education and training. They have prepared no plans to deal with various contingencies, let alone have assigned tasks to be carried out in anticipated emergencies. More crucially, they do not understand their constitutional status, purpose, and especially authority. Many, if not most, of them have no idea what they would be defending with their “individual rights” “to keep and bear Arms”—other than, perhaps, simply maintaining possession of their own firearms for purposes of possible self-defense. So, absent direct attacks on their own persons, how many gun owners today, anywhere, no matter how serious the crisis confronting the rest of society around them, would exercise their “individual rights”? Or could effectively do so? And to what end?

Oh, common Americans may be individually insulted, even outraged, by “the insolence of office” that increasingly characterizes rogue public officials at every level of government today. They may rightly resent, even intensely, the contempt with which such obnoxious officialdom treats them. They may correctly see their and their families’ present financial positions and future economic security being destroyed by the debt-currency schemes, speculative bubbles, and bailouts engineered by the Federal Reserve System and its clients among the low life of high finance. They may be subject to endless harassment by the tax Gestapo or the mentally jack-booted thugs in other governmental agencies. They may even have been the bloodied victims of para-military police brutality. But so what? Now what? They do not know what to do, or how to do it—or perhaps why.

Even if some of these isolated and ignorant individuals could somehow come together here and there in the midst of a crisis that sufficiently rocks society’s foundations to wake and shake them up, they would constitute only armed mobs, not even “militia” in the generic sense, and certainly not “Militia” in the specifically constitutional sense. Moreover, the very few who are already organized, and who do train, as “private militia” lack constitutional authority—and often, if not usually, envision themselves as outside of and antagonistic to “the government” (rather than as the ultimate embodiment of “government”). If these few individuals stood up with their “individual rights” against the trained and ruthless enforcers deployed against them by a police state, they would be branded outlaws or “terrorists”, demonized by the big media, deserted by their fellow citizens, and quickly picked off and packed off to morgues or detention centers.

Such a scenario, of course, is the exact opposite of the true Militia model, and of actual Militia experience in American history. When thousands of Militiamen appeared outside of Boston, Massachusetts, on 19 April 1775, were they acting solely in pursuance of an “individual right”? Did “the embattled farmers” fight only as individuals? Were they just a lawless mob? Was their victory at the Battle of Lexington and Concord the lucky result of martial anarchy? Of course not.

Very few “civilians” (in the purest sense of that term) were involved on that fateful day. Most of the men who mustered were members of Militia companies that had been training assiduously for some time theretofore. (And the ones who were not, because they were too old to be required to serve, but who fought anyway, had been members of the Militia when young.) Had not that been the case, the Militia would never have been able to assemble so many men, on such short notice, from beyond Concord all along the road back to Boston.

Neither did “the embattled farmers” fight merely as individuals. They may have employed the tactics of irregulars—neither maneuvering in parade-ground formations nor presenting a concentrated target to their enemies—but they always operated in set units, typically Militia companies, which averaged about 50 men apiece when at full complement. The Militiamen’s success was based upon organization—being called out in a systematic fashion by riders, bells, or the firing of shots; equipment—being adequately armed and accoutred; training—knowing what to do, under their designated officers; morale—being psychologically ready and confident; and especially authority—knowing that they had the legal right, power, and duty to take action, because British General Thomas Gage, and the Ministerial Government behind him, were the usurpers and law-breakers.

Read the rest here

A Clean Sweep for Cobra Kai at Tuff-N-Uff Vegas!

2008-04-13T01:25:00.007-07:00

just as I predicted, Cobra Kai pulled a clean sweep at the Tuff-N-Nuff amateur Mixed Martial Arts event at The Tropicana Hotel in Vegas. That was not really much of a tough prediction, given their grappling talents.

One surprise, at least for me, was the stand up skills of Coates Cobb-Adams. I did not know much about him, but he is apparently a damn fine kick-boxer. He ended his fight early in the first round with a hard, hard spinning back kick that floored his opponent, who stayed down for a long time.

I predicted Chris Holdsworth would get either a RNC or an armbar from the top, and I was pretty much on target (too bad I did not have money on that bet!). Chris shot in, took it right to the ground (with a double-leg, I think), mounted, pounded on his opponent till he gave his back, and then worked for a rear naked choke, but then ended up transitioning from back control to a solid arm bar and got the tap very early in the first round. It was like a scene out of an old-school "Gracie Jiu Jitsu in Action" tape. His opponent did not have a chance. Not that he wasn't game - its just that he was up against the Faithful Young Apprentice of the Dark Lord of Jiu Jitsu (that would be Marc Laimon).

Jason Carpenter's win was also most impressive, showing not just great grappling, but also very good stand-up, great ground and pound, and very savvy ring-generalship. At one point when he slammed his opponent in the corner and began a beat down, the ref separated them and restarted them standing, apparently because he thought they were too close to the ropes (really did not make sense to me - what else is the corner for than pinning your man into it so you can tag him with no place to go?).

Well, when they restarted, Jason shot in again, picked his opponent up and slammed him down again in the corner, but then immediately picked him back up, turned, and slammed him down with authority right in the middle of the ring, as if to say to the ref "OK, how bout I put him here this time. Does that work for you?" He dished out some devastating ground control and ground and pound. Jason is more than ready for The Ultimate Fighter.

Jerry Shapiro was not able to fight because he missed some training due to an illness. Too bad. I was really looking forward to that fight as J -Shap is a heck of a scrapper and very, very fast.

Brian Kangas had the closest fight of the night for the Cobra Kai team, with a tough bout against a very game Don Stoner from RCJ Machado. Stoner was pretty darn good on the ground, and after a short bit of grappling and scrambling on the canvas they stayed on their feet for most of the rest of the fight, trying their hand at boxing,until the very end of the last round when Kangas took it back to the mat and was able to get Stone's back. He very nearly got the rear naked choke, but Stoner was able to survive the attempts to sink it in. Kangas pulled out the decision, especially with that final taking of the back, but it would have been cool to see him get the tap.

Bill Cooper fought last, against a skilled Xtreme Couture fighter, EdsilavMihoylov. It was clear that Edsilav was no slouch, but he just could not handle the overwhelming, nonstop attack and grappling skill of Bill Cooper, who slammed him hard, took the back, flattened him out on his belly, and sunk in a tight RNC for the win in what had to be maybe 25 seconds into the first round. A very convincing victory rivaled only by the speed of Chris Holdsworth's win.

Big props and congratulations to all the Cobra Kai guys and to their coach, Marc Laimon. I have heard some trash talk on Sherdog and elsewhere about Laimon supposedly not being a good MMA coach just because some of the fighters who have trained with him have lost fights (and some guys think because he doesn't fight MMA himself that Laimon cant' be a good MMA coach). Well, the performance of his team at Tuff - N- Nuff puts that nonsense to rest. He was a very effective coach with guys who stuck to their game plan. And just as he does at grappling tournaments, he puts 100% into his guys here too.

Some of the other fights were also outstanding, with very impressive skills for guys who are labeled "amateur." Some of them I would put on a par with guys who have appeared on TUF (and several way above the average). The Cobra Kai guys were most consistently of high level, but there were some good fighters from Xtreme Couture, West Coast MMA and LA Boxing (and some not so great, but hey, at least they had the stones to step into the ring, so who am I to judge - these guys were new to the game and still willing to step up, so props to em).

Matthew Contes of LA Boxing showed he knew more than just how to box by out-grappling Kimo Yadao of Xtreme Couture and winning by submission. Very impressive!

In the womens' bouts, Lacey Schuckman defeated a game Kaitie Tompkins, but not until after Tompkins very nearly secured a triangle choke (actually, several triangle chokes). If Kaitie had just a little better jiu jitsu, and knew how to keep that triangle and how to tighten it down, she would have won for sure. Lacey kept picking her up and slamming her down, loosening the triangle choke, and then got out, over and over. Someone needs to teach Kaitie how to hook an arm under a leg to stop the slam while she has a triangle locked in, and how to pull the head down to finish, and also how to use a triangle to sweep. Alas, if only Katie could train at a good jiu jitsu school for six months, then she'd have something.

She also missed a golden opportunity to sweep Lacey when Lacey stood straight up in her guard for long periods of time, with her feet right there, close to Katie, ready to be grabbed. All she would have had to do was grab those feet and push with her knees and over Lacey would have gone. Kaitie also landed in half guard at one point, but did not know how to base out and keep top position and was easily rolled off and reversed. She just needs basic grappling. If she had it, she could have won. Very frustrating to watch as my wife and I, and our kids, were rooting for the less experienced Kaitie (and because she is a Johnny Cash fan like us, judging from her Myspace page music).

The second female fight was very one-sided with a clearly more experienced, better conditioned, and better trained Jessica Halverson easily dominating Amber Molinari on the feet. Amber was game, came out swinging for the fences, and never gave up, but she lacked stand up technique and was out-boxed and overpowered and finally dropped from some hard punches. Amber has potential, but she needs some solid, no nonsense boxing training and also would of course benefit from some basic takedowns and basic grappling so she has an option of going for the ground. That one was a bit of a mis-match.

There were some other great fights, and some not so great, but for the price of admission, with twenty friggin fights on the card, this was a wonderful show. We'll be back for more!

Team Cobra Kai Fights Tonight In Tuff-N-Uff Mixed Martial Arts Vegas Debute!

2008-04-12T11:53:00.006-07:00

NOTE FROM STEWART: OK, so politics and law is such nonsense lately that I have not bothered posting anything since March 20, when I posted about our kids' jiu jitsu teacher, Ully Gomez, fighting in his first MMA bout. I will be posting on law and politics again soon, what with the Nevada State Republican Party Convention coming up.

I've also been invited to speak to a class at Stanford University on May 1 about enemy combatant status, extraordinary rendition, torture and other fun topics brought to you by the politicians in Washington DC. So, I will be posting some in preparation for that visit to Stanford and I will post my thoughts on it when I get back.

But for now, once again, the only thing worth posting about is MMA - at least the fighters are honest, courageous, and are willing to put their own butts in harms way for what they believe in, which is entirely opposite from the lying, cowardly politicians in DC who's motto is "I never fought, and ducked Vietnam, but I love to send other people's kids to fight while I talk shit." Compared to the honesty, truth and integrity of MMA, law and politics is more like pro-wrestling - just a choreographed show put on for us out here in the "unwashed masses" while the actual decisions are all made ahead of time in back room deals. So, here is something worth talking about!

COBRA KAI JIU JITSU FIGHTERS TO FIGHT IN AMATEUR MIXED MARTIAL ARTS TONIGHT, APRIL 12, 2008 IN LAS VEGAS!

Six fighters from Cobra Kai will be fighting in the Tuff-N-Uff Fighting Championships, at the Tropicana Hotel. Tuff-N-Uff is billing this as a California v. Nevada event.

Here is what Tuff-N-Uff has to say about the event tonight:

Top fighters in California and Nevada will square off in the first sanctioned amateur MMA event in Las Vegas on April 12^th at the Tropicana Hotel & Casino. Doors open at 6:00pm. and fights start at 7:00pm. Many fighters coming from California have trained at the legendary Pit academy with Chuck Liddell and other well known fight teams. Some of the best schools in Las Vegas will be entering fighters to fight in the Tuff-N-Uff Fighting Championships including the renowned Cobra Kai operated by TUF coach, Marc Laimon. The famous gym, Xtreme Couture will also have many competitors and they're more than ready to defend their home turf. Female fighters as well as Super Heavyweights will be slugging it out. Only in Las Vegas will you see History be made with the fastest growing sport in the world.

I don't know much about the fighters coming in from out of state, or even much about the guys fighting out of Randy Couture's Xtreme Couture gym, but I can tell you that all of the guys from Cobra Kai are serious, tough as nails, no-joke fighters, especially on the ground. Because my kids train jiu jitsu at Cobra Kai, I have seen the Cobra Kai fighters roll on several occasions and I can say without a doubt that they are tough as pit bulls. Actually, the best way to describe them is ground fighting Jedi - because they are wizards on the mat. If they can take their opponents down and keep the fight on the ground, I predict a clean sweep for Cobra Kai.

Just to put it in perspective, there was a grappling smoker a while back between students from Xtreme Couture and Cobra Kai and it was a Cobra Kai dominated massacre, kinda like an old school Gracie Jiu Jitsu invasion of a judo school or like a scene out of that Bruce Lee movie where he went in and cleaned house on the whole Karate school.

Of course MMA is not the same as submission grappling. Adding in strikes does change things up a lot. But unless the fighters from Cali are as good at keeping it standing as Chuck Liddell, they are going to find themselves on the floor for the duration, and that is a whole different world. Some liken it to being tossed into the ocean, with the jiu jitsu guy being a shark - even if you are a lion on your feet, on the beach, once you are dragged down into the "ocean" of ground-fighting, you are in the shark's element and are helpless. They don't call the rear naked choke the mateo leon (the "lion killer") for nothing.

But maybe a better way of describing it is to say that it is like being on another planet, in a different atmosphere. Unless you have spent some serious time there, and have adapted to function in that alien world, you will be like one of those guys in a sci-fi flick who has his space helmet suddenly ripped off who looks around frantically, not knowing what to do, clawing at his neck .... and then his head explodes (or implodes, depending on the sick mind of the film-maker). At least with a choke he just goes to sleep and twitches a bit.

This is an amateur event, so it is not very likely that the strikers entering it are of world class caliber, while it is a friggin fact that the jiu jitsu of the Cobra Kai team is world class. Hence my prediction of a jiu jitsu massacre and shut-out unless one of the Cobra Kai guys gets cocky and decides to stay on his feet for some reason.

One of the Cobra Kai team fighters is Chis Holdsworth, who used to train at the Gracie Academy in Torrence California but moved to Vegas last year to train and teach at Cobra Kai. Here is a video of some of his matches. The lead in music samples the soundtrack of Star Wars, which is appropriate because Chris is like the Anakin Skywalker of Jiu Jitsu, the kid has such potential:

Chris has some slick, sick jiu jitsu and has already made a name for himself on the grappling circuit (but my kids know him as the "itsy, bitsy spider" guy because while showing the kids a move he told them to walk their hand on the mat like an itsy, bitsy spider). Keep an eye on Chris. My wife predicts he will win by triangle (with those long spider legs) but I think it will be by Rear Naked Choke (RNC) or by armbar from the top position.

Another guy fighting for Cobra Kai is Jerry "J-Shap" Shapiro, who is an explosive, dynamic scrapper. He also has a mean guillotine choke, and if I had to bet money on it, I would call it as a win for J-Shap by some form of guillotine or Darce-choke. Here is a video of Jerry grappling and competing in pankration:

Next up is Bill "the Grill" Cooper, who is just amazing on the ground. Here is a video of him winning first place at the 2007 World Grappling Championships in Turkey:

Cobra Kai has three other fighters on the card, Coats-Cobb Adams, Brian Kangas, and Jason Carpenter. I could not find video of them rolling, but I have seen them on the mat and they are slick, fast, and skilled grapplers. Kangas is especially dynamic and very strong.

There are also two female bouts up tonight, which is great! I do wish the UFC would get over its old-fashioned aversion to womens MMA. Women fighters train just as hard, and many are just as tough and skilled, as the men, as has been shown by women fighters in other events, such as Bodog.
What counts is your heart, your brains, and whether you came to scrap, not what is between your legs. Heck, my nine year old daughter routinely beats all of the boys her own size in grappling, both in class and at tournaments. She is tough as nails - just ask the boys.

My daughter, Sedona, about to slap a RNC on yet another boy in class

Sedona Rhodes, first place winner, beginner gi-division, 50-59.9 lbs, NAGA 2008. In second place is her classmate, A.J (a very tough, skilled kid in his own right).

And its not just in grappling that women have shown their mettle. Female boxers, Thai-boxers, and wrestlers have been leaving their blood. sweat, and sometimes their teeth, in the ring and on the mats for decades, so I don't know what Dana White's problem is, other than being a male chauvinist.

Anyway, good to see other fight orgs are down with womens' MMA. these should all be great fights! I'll post afterwards with some thoughts.s Cobb-Adams

Here is the full fight card:

Randall Schuckman vs. David Good

Randall Schuckman
130lbs
Team Rugburn
Website

David Good
130lbs
Alvidrez Combat Grappling
WEBSITE

Coates Cobb-Adams vs Jesse Busk

Coates Cobb-Adams
185lbs
Cobra Kai

Jesse Busk
185lbs
Las Vegas Fight Club

Cuauhtemoc Gomez vs Jason Caldwell

Cuauhtenmoc Gomez
195
Team Lion Taekwondo
Website

Jason Caldwell
195
Las Vegas Fight Club
WEBSITE

Jesse James vs Jarvis Shelby

Jesse James
205lbs
Team Evolution

Jarvis Shelby
205lbs
S.B. Fight Team
WEBSITE

Bill Cooper vs Edsilav Mihoylov

Bill Cooper
160lbs
Cobra Kai

Edsilav Mihoylov
160lbs
Xtreme Couture

Mario Trejo vs Jason Quentero

Mario Trejo
220lbs
Team Lion Taekwondo

Jason Quentero 220lbs
West Coast MMA
WEBSITE

Brian Kangas vs Don Stoner

Brian Kangas
160lbs
Cobra Kai

Don Stoner
160lbs
RCJ Machado
Website

Kimo Yadao vs Matthew Contes

Kimo Yadao
170lbs
Xtreme Couture

Matthew Contes
170lbs
LA Boxing

John Cooper vs Jason Ordonez

John Cooper
160lbs
Las Vegas Fight Club
WEBSITE

Jason Ordonez
160lbs
West Coast MMA

Don Johnson vs Jesus Gonzalez

Don Johnson
250lbs
Las Vegas Fight Team

Jesus Gonzalez
285lbs
Ceaser Gracie
Website

Weston Duschen vs TBA

Weston Duschen
205lbs
Xtreme Couture
Website

TBA

Justin Linn vs Chris Ryan

Justin Linn
150lbs
Xtreme Couture
WEBSITE

Chris Ryan
145lbs
Legends

Brooklyn Huntsman vs Wayne Wrath

Brooklyn Huntsman 145lbs
Excel Defense Studios

Wayne Wrath
150lbs
Nation Kenpo
Website

Jerry Shapiro vs Steve Rios

Jerry Shapiro
135lbs
Cobra Kai

Steven Rios
135lbs
Team Evolution

Jason Carpenter vs Chris Chikami

Jason Carpenter
160lbs
Cobra Kai

Chris Chikami
160lbs
Team Caique

Chris Holdworth vs Daniel Garcia

Chris Holdworth
145lbs
Cobra Kai

Daniel Garcia
145lbs
S.B Fight Team

Tait Lund vs Critter Mooney

Tait Lund
170lbs
Las Vegas Boxing

Critter Mooney
170lbs
S.B. Fight Team

Chance Torres vs Shannon Good

Chance Torres
185lbs
Xtreme Couture

Shannon Good
185lbs
S.B. Fight Team

Mark Phan vs Troy Yania

Mark Phan
140lbs
Xtreme Couture

Troy Yania
140lbs
Team One Kick
WEBSITE

Lacey Schuckman vs Kaitie Tompkins

Lacey Schuckman
120lbs
Team Rugburn
WEBSITE

Kaitie Tompkins
120lbs
Five Dragons
WEBSITE

Byron Fields vs Justin Rote

Byron Fields
170lbs
Warrior Training Center
WEBSITE

Justin Rote
170lbs
LA Boxing
WEBSITE

Shawn Rodriguez vs Alex Memar

Shawn Rodriguez
155lbs
LA Boxing
WEBSITE

Alex Memar
155lbs
Team Skip Kelp

Amber Molinari vs Jessica Halverson

Amber Molinari
155lbs
Sapao MMA
WEBSITE

Jessica Halverson
155lbs
Team Illusion
WEBSITE

-fight card subject to change-

Uly Wins in 40 Seconds Into First Round, by RNC (Rear Naked Choke)!

2008-03-20T21:30:00.003-07:00

Aaaand theeee winnnnner, by way of rear naked choke submission at 40 seconds into round 1, Uuuuuly (not so Useless) Gooooooomez!

I called it right! He did not waste time taking it to the mat, and got a fast submission in round 1. I also actually predicted he would win by RNC, but did not put that in my earlier blog post - but I know that is a favorite of his.

Major congratulations to Uly, and props to everyone who helped him get ready, from Marc Laimon to Brian Clements, Uly's boxing coach.

Stewart and family

Our Kid's Jiu Jitsu Instructor, Ulysses Gomez (Uly), Fights Tonight!

2008-03-20T15:30:00.004-07:00

Speaking of Mixed Martial Arts (that the crazy nincompoop John McCain wanted to ban), our kid's jiu jitsu instructor Ulysses Gomez (Uly) is fighting his first MMA bout tonight, in just a couple of hours! Uly is fighting fellow new-comer Greg McDowell in the Palace Fighting Championships in Lemoore California.

Uly, on the left, weighed in at 125, and McDowell, on the right, weighed in at 119.

Our three kids train at Cobra Kai Jiu Jjitsu here in Vegas, and Uly is their instructor and coach. He has done very well in submission grappling tournaments, winning first place at Grappler's Quest:

Uly has also done very well in Pankration, which is like MMA except for no strikes from the neck up, so he has lots of practical experience to get him ready for MMA:

Apparently, Uly's opponent tonight, McDowell, is a boxer who has switched to MMA. Uly has an obvious edge on the ground (to say the least) but you can never count a puncher out. My old Jiu Jitsu instructor, Nova Uniao black belt john Lewis, found that out when he fought Jens Pulver and did not take Pulver's striking seriously enough. This lead to a knockout that is still used on highlight reels (and also broke John's jaw):

Now, I'm not saying that McDowell is on a par with Little Evil Jens Pulver, who went on to become the first UFC Lightweight champ, but that old saying about "a puncher's chance" has a ring of truth to it. If McDowell has knock-out power, Uly's best plan would be to keep his chin down (unlike John Lewis), and not trade, but instead take it to the mat as soon as possible. Uly has good stand-up, but hey, why take the chance? He will easily dominate on the ground.

Anyway, I predict a victory for Uly by submission in the first round if he does take it to the mat right off the bat.

The kids have a blast in class and competing in tournaments and have done well. We wish Uly Luck tonight!

Stewart Rhodes

OK, I'm Back!

2008-03-20T15:10:00.004-07:00

Just took a look at my poor, neglected blog and realized I had not posted since the damn Romney whisper incident, and now it is months later and Romney is out, the Ghouliani is out, etc. and the only two men still standing in the fight for the Republican nomination are McCain and Ron Paul.

Ah, John McCain, John McCain. Many self-described conservatives are putting up at least a show of displeasure and resistance at McCain (kinda like how a prostitute might feign shock, dismay, and mild resistance for a customer before giving him what is already bought and paid for). But they will take whatever the party mucky-mucks dictate, and will rally round the fake conservative so-called lesser of two evils again, out of their terror of a Dem in office. Same ol same ol.

How anyone who calls themselves an advocate of smaller government, limited government, and the Constitution could ever have supported that cracked old fart is beyond me. McCain hasn't got the first clue about limited government. Way back in the early 90s he wanted a federal law to friggin ban the UFC and all mixed martial arts (an entire friggin sport!) just because he did not like it or understand it."the UFC is Human Cockfighting" - damn, what an idiot.

So, McCain was on my shit list from day one for attempting to ban my favorite sport, and that was only the beginning of his stupid ideas on what he thinks is good for the rest of us, which he thinks he has the power to impose by force of law. McCain Feingold? Assault weapons ban? Trigger locks on your gun? Closing the so-called "gun show loophole"? Patriot Act? the list of stupidity and sell-outs of the Constitution is endless.

Ah well. People get the government they deserve - or to be more accurate, those who support McCain, Clinton, or Obama will get exactly what they deserve, but unfortunately those dumb asses will drag the rest of us over the cliff too.

So, I've been off working in grass-roots efforts for Ron Paul, teaching classes on the Constitution, working on some interesting constitutional law cases, and doing the whole Clark County Nevada Republican Party Convention thing (interesting experience, to say the least) and will be a delegate to the Nevada State Republican Party Convention. That should also be interesting.

I am hearing that many delegates from other states are going to Ron Paul, so who can say what will be the final result of the Nevada State Convention. What happens if conservatives across America "just say no" to McCain and actually do the right thing, for once, and go with Ron Paul? Man, that would be craaaazy! Totally off the hook! Not likely to happen in enough numbers to dump the geezer from Arizona, but who knows? I have been wrong before when it comes to the crazy world of politics. I hope I am wrong again.

Anyway, I will try to post more regularly again. Sometimes I just need a break from blogging, but then I feel a need to vent and am back at it.

More soon.

Stewart Rhodes

The Great Romney "Whisper in His Ear" Puppet Show

2008-01-24T23:24:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Friday, January 25, 2008. A POSSIBLE SECOND WHISPER is discovered! I have added the video of that alleged second whisper below! Y es, that's right, there are now two whisper clips! The first one says "raised taxes" and the second seems to whisper "support." Listen to them both.

UPDATE: Saturday, January 26, 2009. On that first, "raised taxes" whisper, if you turn your volume up really loud, you can hear what sounds like more of that whisper, continuing as Romney begins to speak. Sounds like the full whisper is "raised taxes, I'm not." The "I'm not" part of the whisper comes as Romney begins to speak, so it is not as easy to hear. If the whisper is in fact saying "raised taxes ... I'm not" then that cuts against the notion that it was someone whispering to Russert to help him finish his question - that would not make sense.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

In MSNBC Florida debates, when Romney is asked a question about Ronald Reagan - "will you do for social security what Ronald Reagan did in 1983"- you can hear a voice whisper "raised taxes" and then Romney says "I'm not going to raise taxes, what I'm going to do ..."

Watch this video, and listen for the clearly audible whispering voice, telling Romney what to say:

While the above clip replays the "raised taxes" whisper several times, below is a version that plays more of the exchange between Romney and Russert, and it is all the more clear that Romney's entire answer revolves around the catch term "raise taxes," as in "I'm not going to raise taxes, " while Russert uses different language:

Some have speculated that the whisper is a prompt for Russert to add on the rest of the question, "raised taxes," to what Russert said about Reagan, but listen to how incredibly fast the whisper comes after Russert finishes his sentence. Seems mighty fast to have been someone trying to get Russert to finish the question - how does the whisperer know that Russert is done? It sounds much more like a prompt for Mitt.

[Added Saturday January 26, 2008] Additionally, if you turn your volume up really loud, you can hear what sounds like more of that "raised taxes" whisper, continuing as Romney begins to speak. Sounds like the full whisper is actually "raised taxes, I'm not." The "I'm not" part of the whisper is not as loud as the "raised taxes" part, and comes as Romney begins to speak, so it is not as easy to hear. If the whisper is in fact saying "raised taxes ... I'm not" then that cuts against the notion that it was someone whispering to Russert to help him finish his question - that would not make sense. It makes far more sense that it was meant for Romney, and Romney alone.

THE SECOND WHISPER!

And now, an additional whisper has been discovered, this time when Romney is responding to Huckabee's question about why Romney supported and signed an "assault weapons" bill while Governor of Massachusetts and said he supported the federal assault weapons ban, and would have signed it's renewal, just as Bush would have (damn good question, by the way). Right in the middle of Romney's response, you can hear someone whisper what sounds like "support."

Here is the clip. Listen very carefully:

Did you hear that? The word "support" is whispered. Is that a prompt to Romney, picked up by his microphone, or is it another microphone picking up someone in the audience, or one of the moderators, as has been asserted by some people in response to the first whisper? Sounds to me like it is a yet another prompt to Romney. The whisper says support, and then Romney says support.

His defenders are decrying all of this as conspiracy theory, and dismiss it as nonsense, saying that it was someone else talking and not talking to Romney. I might have bought that for one whisper, but two? And both related directly to his answer? Come on! This is getting ridiculous.

And what is so outlandish about suspecting that one of the tools up on that stage is wired? Everyone up there (except for Ron Paul, who is his own man and thinks for himself during debates) has handlers telling them what to do and say at every turn. Why would it be such a shock if that was not just happening before the debate, but during the debate? Those men are nothing but mouthpieces anyway. But "they" don't want you to know that!

"They" don't want you to know that the men on the stage are puppets in a friggin puppet show. The puppet masters want you to think that the plastic, dancing Ken doll that is Romney is actually just answering the questions on his own.

New! From Romco! The Mitt Romney doll! You don't need to pull a string to hear him talk, just whisper what you want him to say in his ear, and he repeats it! Every time! Amazing! He'll even act like a real Mormon ... on command! Delight and fool all of your Mormon friends! They'll think Romney hears the voice of God, but they will never know it is really your voice the little puppet is obeying! (Blackwater national security advisor sold seperately).

That the Romney doll puppet is thinking and speaking on his own is all part of the grand illusion, and it just spoils all the fun whenever you see the strings, the bulge in some puppet's back, or hear the whispered answer.

What a shame! It was such a realistic, convincing puppet show! The McCain doll, the Giuliani doll (which comes with a prom dress), the Huckster preacher doll -they almost looked real! That was amazing!

And who can forget the Bush doll with that clever communications pack on its back, hidden under its cloths!

The JulieAnni puppet doll all dressed up in the deluxe queen of the ball ensemble (Jack boots and black leather "freedom is authority" undergarments sold separately).

Politicians have long been called puppets, but most folks took that as a metaphor, not a literal description. Oh, we many, we happy many, we band of suckers, to live in such an age, when puppets walk the earth, talking, blinking their eyes, smiling, and turning their empty plastic heads just like real boys!

Stewart Rhodes

ADDED COMMENT ON THE LDS CHURCH (MORMONS) AND HOW SO MANY SUPPORT ROMNEY

An anonymous poster has accused me of insulting LDS church members by supposedly assuming that they "follow the leaders of the church like sheep."

So, I want to make a couple of things clear. First, I do not think LDS are mere sheep, who will follow whatever the church says. As another commenter pointed out (correcting my error), the Mormon church has issued a statement declaring its neutrality, so there is no command from the church for members to follow, even if they were so inclined. Even before I was clear on that, I knew not all Mormons support Romney.

There are many members who do not support Romney. I am a member of the LDS church myself, though I no longer attend, and I do not support Romney. I support Ron Paul. Further, I know a considerable number of very devout LDS who do not support Romney. Instead, they also support Ron Paul. They consider Romney a wolf in sheep's clothing sent to fool the church.

Watch this video to hear the thoughts on one very strong member of the LDS church, Joel Skousen, speaking to other church members, on why he does not support Romney and supports Ron Paul, and why:

LDS who who do not support Romney are very disappointed in how many LDS do support Romney, despite the fact that he is a big government fake conservative who has supported gun control, socialized medicine, and a host of other very non-conservative positions, and will continue the destruction of our Republic.

Those LDS who support Romney can point to nothing about Romney that would convince me that Romney will be any different than the big government, pro gun control Bush. As Mitt admitted in the debate, he signed a state version of the "assault weapons ban" and would have signed a federal version, just like Bush would have! So, Romney is as at least as soft on gun rights as Bush, and likely even worse! In fact, I see nothing in Romney that tells me he will be any better a defender of the Republic than Harry Reid has been.

One of the things I like most about LDS members is they tend to be staunch constitutionalists, and to have a real reverence for our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As such, it is all the more sad to see so many LDS not support Ron Paul, a man who is beyond a doubt the staunchest, most strict construction constitutionalist since Jefferson. Why do they forsake such a man of principle and devotion to the Constitution?

Part of the answer may be that like other conservatives, they have adopted the Bush Administration, standard GOP establishment views on the war in Iraq and the "war on terrorism" and just cannot see past their disagreement with Ron Paul on those issues. While I think such LDS are making a grave mistake in doing so, at least that is a reason based on a difference in sincere opinion on what is best for the nation (though still not adhering to the Constitution, in my opinion).

But the tremendous number of LDS who turned out for Romney in Nevada last week, along with what I have heard first hand from LDS members, tells me that foreign policy is not the reason for the support of Romney rather than Paul. For most of those who support Romney, it is simply because he is a member of the church and, for such people, that is all they seem to want to consider. What other reason could there be for the overwhelming numbers for Romney?

Thus, if Romney were not LDS, I think it very likely that Ron Paul would have won Nevada, and likely also Utah. Sadly, in a time when our Constitution is truly hanging by a thread, most LDS are ignoring a man who could throw it a lifeline and instead support a smiling fake conservative with a pair of scissors hidden behind his back.

Stewart

Neocon Kool-Aid Drinker Gets Torn a New One

2008-01-22T19:59:00.001-07:00

I checked out some of the places people have been linking to my post on why so many veterans support Ron Paul, which includes a great video from a currently serving soldier, and came across this gem of an exchange:

BOW'd UP (Kool-Aid drinker who is so afraid of "terra" that he is willing to sacrifice liberty on the alter of security) says:

Wher'd All The Paullocks Go
seriously, whered they all go??????
is the revolution finally over.??

I GUESS THEY FINALLY HEARD HIM TALK ABOUT DEFENDING THE NATION!

And here is the priceless reply from RedFoxx:

All right BOW'd UP, you want to talk about defending the US. Let's talk about defending the US.

Who is the only Congressman to offer a resolution to officially declare war on Iraq? That would be Ron Paul.

Who is the only Congressman to introduce a bill to deny student visas to students from "terrorist" nations? That would be Ron Paul.

Who is the only Congressman to introduce legislation to allow airlines to arm their pilots, which, by the way, would have prevented 911? That would be Ron Paul.

Who is the only Congressman who has introduced legislation to end the practice of birth-right citizenship? That would be Ron Paul.

You Socialist, big government neo-cons that have hijacked the Republican party attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with your Bill Clinton-style, nation building and policing of the world foreign policy as un-American and unwilling to defend the country. It's not going to work with me.

I'm sorry that you're upset that there are at least a few of us left in the Republican party that believe in limited government and believe in a strict adherence to the United States Constitution.

How, sir, is the United States any safer by our meddling in Middle Eastern affairs? Is it that two billion dollars that we borrow each day from the Communist Chinese in order to build trillion dollar embassies (with 30 foot walls) in the middle of Baghdad that makes us safer? Is it the fact that our trillion dollar per year foreign policy causes us to be faced with massive debt and rampant inflation that makes us safer? Is it the fact that Al-Queda is now stronger than ever that makes us safer?

Is it the weakening of the US dollar due to our overextension overseas that makes us safer?

Or perhaps it's our surrendering of our sovereignty to the United Nations that makes us safer. Let's don't forget that enforcing UN resolutions was one of the main reasons for invading Iraq. I'm sorry that some of us in the Republican party still believe that the US should, and by right ought to be, A FREE AND INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION.

Is it the fact that our borders are wide open? How can you be so scared of a bearded, middle eastern man attacking you, yet you're ok with us securing the border of Iraq, while our very own borders remain wide open.

If you neocons really believed in what you argue (that the Muslims are coming!!), then why are our borders wide open? Why?

Here is the link to that particular post, and here is the link to the whole thread. Very well said, RedFox! So funny, but sad, that so many people think the only way to be in support of a strong national defense is to blindly support whatever war the current president thinks would be cool. There is so much more to national security and defense than blindly continuing on a disastrous course. But such flag waivers rarely have the capacity for rational thought, especially when it is their guy, from their political party, who is in power. Stewart

A Soldier's Revolution - An Iraqi Vet Explains Why He Suports Ron Paul

2008-01-21T22:24:00.000-07:00

Below is a compelling, and very well said statement of principle by a U.S. Army E-5, on why he has come to question the wisdom of current U.S. foreign policy and has come to support Ron Paul for President.

It is most certainly worth your time to take a look.

What this soldier says in this video is in accord with my own convictions as a former combat arms soldier and what I have read from the many hundreds of veterans who have voiced their support for Congressman Ron Paul for president. Here are just two examples:

“I unreservedly support Ron Paul for president because he is the only candidate that has kept his oath of office and has promised to do so as president. The least that a soldier should expect from his commander-in-chief is that he is faithful to his oath of office and will not put our troops at risk by sending them to fight unconstitutional, undeclared wars.” Dan Gibson, Combat Veteran, U.S. Marine Corps (1962-1966)

“As a soldier sworn to the Constitution, I cannot, in good conscience, support any candidate for president but Ron Paul. He is indeed the champion of the Constitution.” Arthur Curtis, Army Staff Sergeant, Bosnia (’97/’98), Iraq (’03/’04), and Afghanistan (’05/’06); Awarded two Bronze Stars for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Read others here at the official Ron Paul 2008 website.

Here is a page of additional testimonials on a site not associated with the campaign, and here is a page for testimonials from veterans that includes their photos.

The recurring theme in all of those testimonials is that, as soldiers, we all swore a sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We took that oath deadly serious then, and we still take that oath seriously now, as former soldiers.

Many people, especially politicians, just cannot understand what that oath means to a soldier or a veteran. Unlike politicians and most lawyers, who merely mouth their oaths of office as part of some mere formality they undergo before attaining their cherished positions of power, soldiers speak that oath knowing they may very well die in fulfilling it. Those men meant it, and they still do in a very primal, emotional, and soul stirring way.

This is something the treasonous, lying pack of wolves inside the beltway had better think long and hard about. For the vast majority of soldiers I have known, the entire reason they joined up was to be a defender of freedom. They knowingly, and willingly, took their place in the long line of men who have volunteered to place themselves in harms way to act as a physical barrier between their families, their countrymen, and whoever would dare to attack them. That line of service stretches back through time, right back to the men who stood their ground at Concord bridge on April 19, 1775 and fired the shot heard round the world.

My father in law, John Adams, was such a man. On December 10, 1941, just three days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, he lied about his age to join the Marines so he could fight the Japanese in the Pacific. He fought them at Iwo, among other places. Until his death in 2006, he was a dedicated patriot who still took his oath deadly serious.

Corporal John Adams. Note the date of enlistment - December 10, 1941. Now that is what you call stepping up.

Every soldier takes his oath with the memory of those men, and all who followed, in his mind. The whole point of serving is to be a defender of liberty and that is what they thought they would be doing as soldiers.

Those veterans get mighty upset when they find that they have been used for other purposes, even for opposite purposes, by men who have utter contempt for the very Constitution the soldier swore an oath to defend, and countless others died in defending. And when the veterans wake up to the internal enemies of liberty who are far more dangerous than any foreign foe, those vets tend to take it very, very personally. They tend to feel a rage toward those internal enemies that far exceeds whatever they may have felt toward an external foe.

for now, at least, those awakened veterans are channeling their anger and disgust into support for the one man in Washington that they know takes his oath of office as seriously as a soldier does. That man is Ron Paul. The vet knows, from Dr. Paul's record, and from his demonstrated courage, that Dr. Paul is as dedicated to the cause of liberty and the Constitution as he is. The vet knows that Dr. Paul would lay down his life in defense of liberty just as the vet would. The vet knows a fellow defender of the Constitution when he sees one.

Those who are working to destroy liberty in America had better beware. The true sleeping giant they need fear is that great body of American veterans who are now waking up, and who are righteously pissed off.

Stewart Rhodes

Former U.S. Army Airborne soldier

Bush Admin Lawyers Attack Second Amendment - Saluted By Brady Campaign!

2008-01-15T16:49:00.000-07:00

Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership.

Government argues gun restrictions 'permitted by the 2nd Amendment.'

A faithful apprentice strikes again. Yet another fake conservative legal tool gleefully guts the Constitution for his Master - this time coldly disemboweling the Second Amendment.

Here is an excerpt of the Worldnetdaily.com article:

Since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.

The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.

Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment," he wrote in the brief, the Times reported.

He noted especially the federal ban on machine guns and those many other "particularly dangerous types of firearms," and endorsed restrictions on gun ownership by felons, those subject to restraining orders, drug users and "mental defectives."

His arguments came in the closely watched Washington, D.C., ban that would prevent residents from keeping handguns in their homes for self-defense.

Paul Helmke, of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, told the Times he salutes the administration for its position.

Read the rest here.

My Comments:

There you go! Bush lawyers have sided with the District of Columbia against gun owners, not only arguing that D.C.'s total ban on handguns is constitutional but that all current federal gun laws should be upheld, winning praise (a salute no less!) from the gun grabbing victim disarmament crowd over at the Brady Campaign. So nice to see yet another "bipartisan" assault on the American people.

So much for the old saw that Republican politicians, if only they could, would get rid of all of those unconstitutional federal gun laws, but we just need to be patient until they are in a position to do so. Now, when a case is before the Supreme Court, and they actually have a chance (however remote) of striking down those federal gun laws by convincing the Supreme Court to rule those laws unconstitutional, we have the US government, in the form of the Bush Administration controlled Justice Department, chock full of Republican lawyers, arguing to the Court that all of those federal gun laws are perfectly constitutional and nothing in the Second Amendment can be used to strike them down. To the contrary, doing so would be "dangerous"!

We now see the final nails being hammered in the coffin of the right to bear arms in America.

First, we had the Gonzales v.Raich decision, where the Republican lawyers of the Bush Administration argued that there is no limit whatsoever to Congress's law making power since Congress can even regulate what a person does in her own back yard, growing a plant, not for sale, but for personal consumption. That decision had a direct and almost immediate impact on gun rights.

In United States v. Stewart, before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Stewart argued that his manufacture of homemade machine-guns was not for interstate commerce and was therefore beyond the power of Congress to regulate. He won! The Ninth Circuit agreed! That's right, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Congress lacked the power, under the Article I, Section 8 commerce clause, to regulate homemade machine-guns. An amazing decision, which truly surprised many a constitutionalist who thought the federal courts were beyond hope.

But then came the Supreme Court's Raich decision. In the aftermath of Raich, the U.S. government, once again with Republican Bush appointed lawyers leading the charge against the Constitution, appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court. the Supreme Court ordered the Ninth Circuit to follow Raich, and to reverse its decision in Stewart, because lo and behold, Congress could regulate even home-made machine guns (and any other home-made firearms). So now Mr. Stewart, an American gun owning patriot, is still in federal prison thanks to the Bush lawyers and thanks to the Raich decision the Bush Administration pushed for.

So now Congress can make any law it likes. There is no longer a commerce clause challenge to the power of Congress to pass any law, much less a gun law. Forget about pointing out that the federal government is only supposed to have certain, limited, enumerated powers. Your only remaining way to challenge such laws is to argue it violates your rights.

And now here comes the Bush Admin arguing that not only can Congress pass any law it pleases, but you cannot challenge the constitutionality of those laws by evoking the Second Amendment. Sure, they throw us a bone by saying that the Second Amendment somehow protects an individual right, but then they argue that your right to bear arms can be regulated by Congress, and that none of Congress's regulations violate that right. That's right. Not one of the current multitude of federal gun laws and regulations violates your rights - not even outright bans on whole classes of firearms. I'm not clear on what restriction these so-called conservative lawyers would find to ever violate the Second Amendment. Perhaps a total ban on any and all private possession of firearms? Would that do it? So, short of that, any restriction is constitutional so long as you are at least theoretically "permitted" to own some kind of firearm?

This is like saying in grand language that "the powers of Congress are few and defined, and limited to those enumerated," but then saying that among the powers enumerated is the power to regulate commerce and everything is commerce, so Congress can go ahead and regulate whatever it wants. What a farce of the concept of limited and enumerated powers. What an empty limit on the power of the federal government.

Same here: The Second Amendment protects an "individual right" but that right may be regulated in any way Congress pleases, including banning entire categories of firearms and ammunition, and may track you and your arms at will. What an empty right and a non-existent limit on power.

So now we have a "conservative" administration that argues that the federal government may pass any damn law it pleases, and any damn gun law it pleases.

Forget the illusion that the men in the Bush Administration care about the Constitution. Forget the illusion that your rights are somehow safer with Republicans in office. You have been fooled. Many of us knew that long, long ago. But now perhaps other Americans, especially those who consider themselves conservatives, will finally, after all these years, wake up to this fact.

We are seeing before us a constitutional republic in its final death throes, killed by a thousand treacherous cuts, and we are now seeing the final slashes being inflicted by cold reptilian lawyers who fancy themselves "conservatives" working for a man who truly does treat the Constitution like it is "just a goddamn piece of paper."

Stewart Rhodes

Ron Paul Speaks Out on Racism and the Old Newsletters

2008-01-12T13:44:00.000-07:00

Here is Ron Paul's full press release:

Ron Paul Statement on the New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters.
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

And here is Ron Paul's his statement on racism:

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

And here are more of Ron Paul's writings on this issue:

What does freedom mean?

None of Your Business!

More writings (with a list of subjects)

OK, I think I'm done with this issue. Now let's get back to saving our country. - Stewart