What do we do when DC politicians violate the Constitution with impunity? Thomas Jefferson had an answer. In 1798 he wrote that “whensoever” the Federal State “assumes undelegated powers,” that a “nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” And . . .

Nullification is happening right now!

* Just last week, the Idaho House and the North Dakota Senate passed a Health Care Nullification Act. Nine other states are considering the same.
* Multiple states have passed firearms freedom acts, with more coming soon.

All across the country, the various states are saying “enough” to the Leviathan State in DC!

DownsizeDC.org, Inc. is supporting the Tenth Amendment Center’s 2011 Nullify Now! tour to educate and activate on behalf of this Constitutional tactic

And I, Jim Babka am personally speaking at some locations.

* 3/5 Cincinnati, Ohio
* 3/19 Manchester, New Hampshire
* 4/2 Minneapolis, Minnesota

Here’s a web-link.

Please click this link. Why? Because you’ll see . . .

* All the other stops on the Nullify Now! tour
* The other speakers scheduled to appear
* A new video of my speech at Nullify Now! – Orlando.
* And, how you can get a FREE ticket for THIS WEEKEND’S event in Cincinnati.

At Nullify Now, here’s what you’ll learn:

–What exactly IS nullification? …and why you’ll find this tactic helpful in combatting creeping statism.
–The historical, Constitutional, and moral basis for nullification.
–The history story never told – how states used their powers and nullification to fight-off slavery laws in the 1800s.
–How nullification is being used around the country right NOW.
–What you can do TODAY to stand up for Constitutionally-limited government.

*******

Please share this with your friends, your neighbors, and your family, and join us at a Nullify Now! tour stop near you!

Once again, please visit this link for more information TODAY.

I hope to see you at Nullify Now!

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

But it is the difference between conservatives and those on the Left that we tend not to make horse’s rear ends of ourselves at rallies and protests. I don’t think I’ve ever read of a single conservative riot, no angry mobs of grown-ups running down the street overturning cars, setting fire to buildings, breaking windows, pillaging, and looting. But every time I see rallies on the Left, there they are obstructing traffic, breaking things, making their presence known through obscene gestures and foul language. None of that was in evidence at this day’s Tea Party protest.

We voiced our opinions on Mr. Obama, federal spending, politicians who won’t listen to us, liberty, freedom, the Constitution, you name it, we wrote it on out signs and discussed it with one another as the time passed. A finer group of people I could never find myself around. Thoughtful, opinionated, and, most importantly, intelligent.

We came, we made our point, and if the powers that be still won’t take notice of what we have to say, they’ll hear from us again this November.

From the founding of this nation’s government, we have lived in a society where “all men are created equal,” but are not treated that way. In fact, at some point in America’s short history, you can probably find an example where your ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion has received the short end of the state’s disregard for one of the basic rights that they claim to protect. Such discrimination has also occurred in nearly every administration, across party lines, in good economic times and bad, in times of war and of peace. A common thread can be seen in each case: the discrimination has been driven by political motives and the expansion of state power.

For starters, despite the language in the Declaration of Independence, slaves of African descent were not considered equals when it came time to ratify the Constitution. Although some of the Founders were opposed to slavery (such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin), the institution was nonetheless implemented and was kept in tact – largely for economic reasons – until after the Civil War. Even when Abraham Lincoln took office, the only major push to end slavery – the Emancipation Proclamation – was made for political reasons by Lincoln, who wished to create a slave uprising in the Confederate states.

Throughout the first half of the 20^th century, racial segregation continued to oppress African-Americans, mostly for the political benefit of those in power (affluent white males). Starting in the 1910s and 20s, the federal government embarked on a national housing segregation program which denied housing loans to those living in “areas in decline” (majority black neighborhoods), since it was believed that the presence of blacks in a white neighborhood would bring down property values. Historically black neighborhoods were destroyed to make way for elevated highways which connected white neighborhoods. Politicians, eager to gain the votes of those white voters in the majority opinion, happily violated the rights of the minority race, both to gain re-election and to expand government power in housing and transportation.

As previously stated, however, government discrimination is not confined only to African-Americans. The well-documented case of Japanese-American internment camps during World War II provides a striking example of the government’s willingness to disregard the rights of its citizens. (Is anyone shocked that neoconservatives such as Michelle Malkin have continued to support such practices?) The forced removal of Native Americans in the 1830s to make room for (voting) white citizens is yet another example. The federal government’s use of the Marshall Islands to test nuclear weapons, which had long-term effects on the residents there, made disposable use of the citizens of a U.S. Territory. In the original colonization of Hawaii, the native Asians and Pacific Islanders were not permitted to vote within several years of American troops landing on the shores.

Nor is legal discrimination an issue that is contained within the realm of racism. In an effort to promote national unity and a sense of loyal patriotism, the Supreme Court held that Jehovah’s Witnesses (or any others who might dissent) were required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. In an 8-1 opinion, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote a majority opinion which evoked thought control and national security as a basis for upholding the school district’s decision. Frankfurter wrote that the flag could be a part of legislative initiatives designed “to promote in the minds of children who attend the common schools an attachment to the institutions of their country,” and that “national unity is the basis of national security.” These same rhetorical arguments have since been used to condemn anti-war activists as unpatriotic.

In the three years that ensued, Jehovah’s Witnesses were persecuted zealously across the country, with Kingdom Halls being burned and Witnesses being jailed, brutally beaten, and run out of town. The Court reversed their opinion in 1943, but the damage had been done, and the implications for religious freedom and right to disobey government propaganda was firmly established.

Although many in America believe that the civil rights era of the 1960s and 70s has largely ended discrimination, the fact is that the government has been one of the most ardent supporters of favor-granting on the basis of characteristics which are out of the individual’s control. Lyndon B. Johnson rightly admitted that the concept of affirmative action is inherently a socialist point: “We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.” The government has continued to use “civil rights” as a pseudonym for “equality of result” in nearly every major federal program it has implemented in the past 50 years.

In the housing market, the Community Reinvestment Act promoted lending to minorities, even when the individuals in question were not qualified to take out loans. One result – a housing bubble and financial crisis – was met, predictably, with greater government control over the financial and housing markets, and resulted in the loss of property and employment for many Americans of all backgrounds.

On the other side of the coin, the “War on Drugs” continues to disproportionately affect minority groups: although about 15% of drug users are African-American, nearly three-quarters of those convicted on drug-related charges are black. In combination with the FDA, the drug industry in America is far from a free market: large pharmaceutical companies continue to benefit from the lack of competition in the industry, and continue to lobby Congress for more of the same at the expense of minorities.

The same government that espouses discriminatory policy in the name of “civil rights” continues to violate natural rights, and continues to keep the discussion of race, religion, and other collectives in the contemporary political discourse. As long as the government takes these qualities into account, so too will its citizens. Of course, this government has tremendous incentives to maintain the status quo as it pertains to discrimination: it flies in the face of, and destroys, the protections that keep us free as individuals.

The bottom line is clear: The state will commit acts of violence and oppression upon any individual or group, so long as it supports their cause, and provided those in power believe there are no repercussions. So much for “all men are created equal”; under our government, the only equality that exists is an equal probability to be robbed, denied opportunity, or enslaved.

I will not complicate the untying of that knot by quoting our Founders nor Abraham Lincoln. I will instead make an attempt to use logic. It is up to whomever reads this to decide if I’m successful in this endeavor.

The right of secession is a claim of freedom from the State. It is a rejection of State slavery. It is purely libertarian yet it has always been associated with the “peculiar institution” which was a complete rejection of liberty. Slavery has muddied the secession debate to the point that it is difficult for anyone to sound off in favor of secession without being demonized as a kook (at best) or a white supremacist (at worst).

I want to claim publicly, before I get labeled, I abhor slavery in all forms. It is pure evil. How hypocritical it was for the Confederate States to use States Rights in an attempt to continue violating human rights. It is also quite hypocritical today for those who claim to believe in liberty to marginalize those that support secession as a recourse for combating creeping State tyranny. Such tyranny is nothing more than a form of collective slavery.

How can individual slavery be so wrong and collective State-sponsored, taxpayer-funded slavery be right? The answer, of course, is that it cannot. Slavery in all forms is immoral, whether it be evidenced through the government’s incrementalist approach of freedom reduction or by the sound of a whip gashing a man’s back. The drama of the latter should not minimize the evil of the former.

To be a supporter of secession while denouncing human slavery is consistent and moral in the cause of liberty.

History has shown that one era’s fringe is another era’s mainstream. It is unlikely that secession would be considered a viable option by the masses for combating the ceaseless expansion of government today, thanks in large part to those that feel compelled to associate it with slavery. The secession principle is wholly libertarian and deserves more respect than it is receiving from the detractors.

Ron Paul has been a favorite target of the detractors because of his recently released pro-secession video. In it he focuses on the right message, the principle of secession. Instead of attacking Ron Paul we should be emulating him.

If we make the effort to unmuddy the water of secession in our time perhaps the next generation won’t be afraid to swim in its clarity. After we are gone they will thank us for our eternal vigilance so they still know liberty.

Judge Andrew Napolitano talked about such a tactic during yesterday’s Freedom Watch show, and then repeated the story on Fox News Channel’s Studio-B with Shephard Smith, embedded below.

So the Bush administration commited extortion paving the way for the Obama administration to hip-hop toward fascism. This is becoming even more evident with the recent Obama “firing” of GM head Rick Wagoner. I’m not a religious person, but I do recall that the Bible teaches us that the borrower is a slave to the lender (Proverbs 22). The Obama administration is now a slave owner of once private businesses. This point is further reinforced by the fact that some of these new government owned business “slaves” became government owned unwillingly.

The Bush administration bought the slaves. The Obama administration is lording over the slaves, whip in hand.

Some of these businesses came to the government on bended knee begging for loans. Perhaps they didn’t realize that in doing so they were also begging into slavery. I think Rick Wagoner may realize that now. I hope others begin to realize this and start fighting back. Companies that choose bankruptcy over slavery should be commended and supported.

Unfortunately, the problem with not supporting the government slave businesses just means that more tax money will be utilized to keep them functioning. That is, unless people start not only waking up, but also acting out by holding lawmakers accountable for supporting this kind of slavery.

The road to economic prosperity is not paved by the blood of government economic tyranny. The road to economic prosperity can only be paved by the sweat of free market liberty.

For our sake I hope it is a complete failure like the government’s other perpetual wars.  Though I fear that with the popularity of Obama and his “wolf in sheep’s clothing” words it may end in success.  If that happens, America will no longer be America as we once knew it.  Some may argue that America is already gone, capitalism is dead, and those of us who fancy liberty should self-immolate.  Thank god the nature of liberty coexists with the burning desire to keep it intact.  Rather than self-immolate we should immolate, through the ballot box, all of those in DC who are enemies to liberty. As Chuck Norris has suggested, Ron Paul could be the arbiter of which of his colleagues deserve to be choked out of office.

The actions being taken by Obama to combat capitalism are likely to prolong our second Great Depression. Even though Rahm Emmanuel said that they couldn’t let a crisis go to waste, perhaps what he really meant was that if they could  implement a first term agenda that prolongs the crisis, America may get what the “leftest” of the Left have wanted all along: a socialist country. It certainly won’t happen overnight, but it’s beginning to look more and more like we are in the final stages of the Progressive incrementalism which began in the late 19th century with the British Fabian Society and arrived in America with the administrations of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.  FDR really kicked the effort into high gear during the Great Depression.  Now, Obama seems to be putting the finishing strokes on the American Socialist Portrait.  Be still and say cheese! Wait! Is that a camera or a gun?

Obama is turning the federal government into your gambling- and drug-addicted, abusive father. He will empty your pockets to satiate his infinite losses. He will forever be drunk on credit. His manipulative words will guilt you into loving him, for a time.

In the end you will sit penniless, a bruised and battered slave to the state, if you aren’t already. If you think that’s bad, wait until you see what he does to your children and grandchildren.

How angry will future generations be when they discover the very first African American President was also the man who presided over the return of slavery? The difference this time is twofold.

The slave owner is not a southern farmer with a whip, but rather the entire U.S.  government with the full force of the military and all their weapons. Finally, the box labeled “Race” on your National ID Card does not determine whether or not you are a slave. Modern slavery is colorblind. The slave “litmus test” will be how you answer the following two questions.

Do you live in the United States? Do you work for the government?

If you answer yes to the first, and no to the second, you are a slave.

Then again, if Obama’s War on Capitalism ends up like most other well-intentioned government programs we have nothing to worry about.  It will fail.

The United States was not a shining land of liberty prior to Lincoln’s Presidency. Slavery is the best and most popular testament to that. America was an imperfect country pursuing perfection. Lincoln made it worse. The fact that he is revered so universally from the surface dwellers is bothersome. However, the fact that so many historians make excuses for his authoritarian methods because he supposedly “freed the slaves” makes me downright ill.

Lincoln cared little for abolishing slavery. He cared about keeping the Union together and maintaining his own political interests. He was the first President to truly preside as a dictator. Some may argue that John Adams had dictatorial “qualities” as well, but Lincoln went far beyond the scope of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Lincoln and other Presidents after him like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and George W. Bush paved the way toward a more oppressive authoritarian federal government. Lincoln was the first though. It’s all his fault that we are high kicking toward socialism today. He kicked first. The rest have followed.

A recent article by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel explores the authoritarian side of Lincoln. First, Hummel shows evidence that Lincoln had little concern for freeing slaves.

Lincoln elevated the suppression of Southern independence above any concern for blacks. As he publicly explained to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Fortunate for the slaves that Lincoln ultimately concluded that freeing them offered the most military and political advantages.

So Lincoln was politically motivated, that doesn’t make him a dictator right? Well, that’s not all.

Lincoln’s war delivered a blow to civil liberties. The Union imprisoned without trial or charges at least 14,000 civilians. To be sure, the greater number were citizens of either the border states or the Confederacy, and many of those arrested secured release within a month or two after swearing a loyalty oath. Nonetheless, the federal government monitored and censored the mails and telegraphs, and shut down more than 300 newspapers for varying periods.

Hummel sums up Lincoln’s reign:

The presidency of Abraham Lincoln thus witnessed the simultaneous culmination and repudiation of the American Revolution.

How can a President repudiate the American Revolution and be considered our greatest President? I don’t think he can.

So why is Lincoln to blame for the economic enigma we find ourselves in today? The answer is found a bit earlier within Hummel’s excellent article.

The war occasioned protectionist tariffs, a vast array of internal excise taxes and the country’s first national income tax. The national debt climbed from a modest $65 million to $2.8 billion. This provided the justification for inflationary fiat money and nationally regulated banking.

I imagine Ron Paul or any other lawmaker standing up to blame Lincoln for our current financial woes would induce incredulous laughter from his/her colleagues and the media. It is too easy to ignore the truth when it comes to blind hero worship. These days, that is my greatest worry regarding Obama.

Without Lincoln it is certainly feasible that we’d still be living in an insolvent nation today. It took many well-intentioned yet bad economic decisions over the course of many years to get us to where we are now. However, it is fair to blame Lincoln for making those subsequent decisions possible and acceptable.

Now Barack Obama is using Lincoln as a political baseball bat in the hopes of winning us over. How appropriate.

For a majority of the uninitiated, public school educated masses, it’s working like a charm. For the rest of us, we are merely hoping to avoid the bat crashing down on our skulls.

Obama says that we should “lace ‘em up” for service by preparing “a care package for a soldier”, reading to children, or fixing up a basketball court. He then plugs the service website USAService.org to find “service” events near you.

I thought, “Hey, this is a good thing for our President to be doing as long as it remains voluntary and non-partisan.” So I go to the site to see what types of events I could volunteer for in my area. What I discovered were some events among the “proper” ones that were nothing more than pep rallies for Obama and the Democratic Party. I think I’ll just continue to do what I’ve always done, pay attention to my own community and not seek acceptance from the service bean counters in Washington.

Here are two events in my area alone that are deemed “service”:

• President’s Day Mix and Meet: Democrats are invited to first meeting and mixer to enroll and meet new members. We will reorganize Community Outreach, Communications, and Precinct sub-committees.
• Obama Day: Have a ceremony for president Barack Obama and Family. And selected community guess[sic] will attend. We will have music, Food and Games, just to show our appreciation of the Obama family.

If your among the 30% of the U.S. population who voted for Obama then USAService.org is for you.

If you are in the majority who did not, then you may want to continue to do what he is asking of everyone, but do it on your own terms and in your own community.

If the recent economic situation and Obama’s ill-conceived efforts to fix it are any indication there are going to be a lot more people that need volunteer help. Also, if enough people actually volunteer and results are seen maybe Obama won’t make it mandatory some day. How ironic would that be, the first African American President enslaves the people? That can’t happen here can it?

He agrees with Taft in opposing the draft for individual liberty reasons.

“A compulsory draft is far more typical of totalitarian nations than of democratic nations. The theory behind it leads directly to totalitarianism. It is absolutely opposed to the ideas of individual liberty which have always been considered a part of American democracy.” -Robert Taft

Once again Ron Paul becomes the educator. He also talks bout his own experience as a young adult with respect to the draft.

Watch and learn:

President Obama can be forgiven for celebrating the hypocrisy of Abraham Lincoln because the victors of wars write their history and glorify the winners. The recognition that slavery is a despicable institution does not require hero worship of a president who made the largest contribution to the unraveling of our Constitution. After all when it is settled by brute force that states cannot secede, as they thought they had the right to in 1787, then the federal government can ride roughshod over states and their people’s right — in a word make meaningless the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Read the whole thing.

…all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and … all college students … conduct 100 hours of community service…

As Garry Reed points out in the Dallas/Ft. Worth Libertarian Examiner, compulsory is just another word for slavery.

Why oh why would the first black president of America allow, and perhaps even encourage, yet another form of slavery in our nation? Has Barack Obama forgotten the African-American side of his own heritage? Doesn’t he know that compulsory community service is just slavery by a different name?

The controversy over coercing young people into national servitude to their political masters emerged almost as soon as Obama named Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff-in-waiting.

J.D. Tuccille, Civil Liberties Examiner for Dallas Examiner.com was one of the first to point out that Emanuel co-authored a book that calls for compulsory service for all Americans ages 18 to 25.

Read the rest of the article at examiner.com.

And, as the Disloyal Opposition put it:

…I see no reason why compelled service should not be regarded as involuntary servitude — labor rendered against one’s will — of the sort forbidden in the United States under the Thirteenth Amendment. More importantly, I see no reason why compelled service, as an imposition against an individual’s right to exercise liberty and determine the course of his or her own life, should not be regarded as evil.

The article is entitled Screw compulsory service. It’s a good read.