The Wars and Rumors of Wars GOP Debate

In last night's debate, there was a lot of talk of war, no fly zones and sanctions. Sanctions appealed to most of the candidates as a reasonable solution, so let us reason.

Sanctions are just an early stage of war. They are a political barricade, intended to starve out an enemy. In simple theory, playing Age of Empires (a computer game), it makes a lot of sense; but in the real world, it is just fuel for the propagandist. If we want to lose any good will toward the west that remains in Iran, by all means, starve them ...or should I say, try to starve them, because China and Russia will not play ball. They will not oppose the sanctions, but they will profit from them as they will buy goods at a lower price based upon the politically imposed demand reduction, and sell at a higher price as they are the only ones big enough to cross our sanction lines without the threat of being invaded. Sanctions sound all peaceful and such but you have got to look at the whole food chain, and the unintended consequences. Newt's, Perry’s, Mitt’s and Herman’s plans to sanction will not harm Iran, but will grow their hate for us deep into the fabric of their culture. We face the very real probability of alienating their people who are still sympathetic to the west right now. Their plan will also make China and Russia richer and strengthen the alliance between the three nations through trade. Trade always makes people friends. If we force them to trade with Russia and China we strengthen their friendship, and reliance upon each other. With reliance comes the desire to defend. Bottom line, sanctions do nothing positive for the US, but they do make Iran a lot stronger through new and stronger friendships with powerful buddies. We are about ready to step in it again.

Just Don't Skin the Cat!

One question I ask people who are beating the war drum on Iran is: Has our policy regarding the Middle East since 1954 (subversive overthrowing of leaders, diluting Israel's sovereignty via the UN and US demands for multi-lateral negotiations, outright invasion, occupation of lands and trade sanctions) improved the situation or made it worse? I think just about everyone will acknowledge we have made a mess of things, but a lot of people think if we only micromanaged the affairs of others differently, things would be better. I scoff, as the unintended consequences abound. We installed Saddam and he turned on us or we on him (depending on the congressional testimony you choose to listen to); we funded Osama, the fruit soured, and we killed Kadaffi and now the Al Qaeda flag flies over some of the buildings. We have used a mink glove at times and an Iron Boot at others. We have offered lobster tail under some leaders and made them eat dirt under others; alas the song remains the same.

Not only have none of these methods worked, but they have changed us, the America of today is not the one of our Founders. We have lost our compassion and justified those we kill as acceptable collateral damage because our intentions, we are told, are noble. We can justify our actions or ignore the brutal reality that the TV screen does not sanitize death. We sing the Battle Hymn or God Bless America, and turn it into a patriotic affair, all while the fear merchants (useful idiots for the terrorists) play their theme song, "We'll stick a boot up your ass it's the American way." Really? Is that the American way? Whether one claims to be a Christian or not, only a fool rejects the fact that our country is based upon Christian morality. Would Jesus sing that theme song? Is that the country God would bless? Do the fundamental ethics of man change with the times? NO. It is time to return to the prime ethos of kindergarten, keep your hands to yourself.

Snapshot: Fox, Republican Presidential Debate South Carolina

From 10,000 feet-Any time a “debate” is held, wherein the questions asked of the candidates are not the same question, the observer must look closely at the questions asked and consider the possibility of an engineered or staged outcome. Last night’s “debate”, was the epitome of that concept. Some questions were hard balls and some were quite soft, but the equity and quality of the questions certainly begged.

Another consideration, an observer must account for is, some of the candidates have a record and others speak out of idealism. In this day of the drive by media, a candidate’s record - even if it is sound – can be most often cleverly demagoged; but alas this is the nature of politics in a nation where the people are delinquent in the pursuit of the truth. Further, being without a record provides a candidate the opportunity to speak not from experience but draw from the abstract; nothing to defend and a hypothetical world of idealistic utopia. This sort of dynamic handed Barrack Obama the Presidency in ’08.

Based upon those considerations my first grade goes to Fox News, they earn a D-

The Candidates-

Ron Paul- The questions aimed at Ron Paul were certainly tactically designed to damage. They were loaded with far more content than could be addressed properly in the allotted one minute response time. Although, Dr. Paul answered the questions and did not hurt himself, if anything his gain was small. It is no secret Dr. Paul is not the greatest orator of our time, and I think this may hurt him in the long run, considering the importance of superficial polish and charisma in this age of national politics. In a split field this may prove to be an asset in the long run however, as a certain group of people might find commonality with a real person, rather than a Ken Doll. Dr. Paul’s score B

Herman Cain- The questions asked of Cain were the softest in the field. The hardest question asked of him was the one on the flat tax. The question was phrased, in a manner as to sound tough, but this area is Herman’s specialty, and he nailed it for the republican crowd. Consider however, since the flat tax/fair tax is one of the most favorable topics amongst republicans, and since the IRS is the most hated institution on the face of the earth, is there any way Cain could bomb that question? In my opinion at times Cain got a little “evangelical” in his presentation, but in this day and age style and substance are interchangeable. To honestly score Cain in this debate, we must handicap his performance with the difficulty of the questions asked. Cain’s score B

Tim Pawlenty- The questions asked of Tim were amongst the hardest of the field. I really don’t know why Fox decided to smash him like they did, perhaps he was the sacrifice to the gods of journalistic equity; you know to make it all look fair. Either way, Pawlenty flamed out. Although I listened closely to every thing he said, I found myself hitting the “skip back” button on the DVR because his body language distracted me. To sum it up, Tim Pawlenty reminded me of a poor attempt at an impression of Will Farrell impersonating George W. Bush. Stick a fork in Pawlenty. Even though the questions were bangers I can not handicap him to a higher score; a snowman is a snowman. F

Rick Santorum- Rick’s questions were pretty soft, and his answers were typical; no gain or loss based upon content. I hate to draw two comparisons to past figures in one article, but Santorum reminded me of a young John McCain. He was stiff in the neck, shoulders and arms; his hand gestures were abbreviated. I know this is superficial but I think unless he changes that and loosens up people will record the commonality subconsciously and look poorly upon him. His score C-

Gary Johnson- Gary got a bad shake in this debate. They ignored him and phrased questions in a no win way. It is quite obvious Fox wants Gary out of there. He did a nice job being forthright and no-nonsense with his answers (even his abortion stance), which people appreciate, but on the flipside of that an impression of dryness came through. Gary is going to have a rough time, especially in this type of a forum. Considering the handicap Gary gets a C-

My Senate Committie Testimony for HB-117 (Obamacare Nullification)

Mr. Chairman, Committee members,

Today you are going to hear a lot about the foundation of our country, the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and their Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798, as well as the proper role of the states in a republic. I will spare you the redundancy in advance, but I ask you to listen closely as each of these people speak. Listen and swell with pride or shrink in fear, for what you are about to hear represents the awakening of America; the people of this state are no longer silent nor ignorant to the Constitution, and it is your sworn role and duty to uphold it.

Today, it is also likely you will hear from some self proclaimed experts on the Constitution. They will site obscure case law, and court opinions rather than the very plainly worded Constitution. They will do this because they know you have neither the time nor perhaps the expertise to dig up the relevance of their claims amongst the millions of pages and billions of words, of “legal precedence” handed down by judges most likely appointed by a politician. I remind you that opinion does not equate to Law and does not supersede the Constitution. However, if opinion did carry weight, I would put my money on the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Able Upshur, over those opinions of the Idaho Attorney General’s office, Barrack Obama or a self endowed Constitutional expert.

Today, we consider the nullification of Obamacare, so that the state may be spared the implementation cost of over 228 million dollars we just do not have. Further, the people of this state are overwhelmingly at disfavor with the eventuality of being forced to buy into an insurance pool of socialized medicine. A pool where there money could go to provide abortions, hormone treatment to the transgendered and who knows what else, the administrative authority, (who have great leash in Obamacare) might dream up. The people will be forced to buy into this plan, rather than being free to buy food for their kids, send their kids to non-government schools, give to the needy, or whatever they need or want. The bottom line is the concept of Liberty is that man is not owned by the state; Obamacare kills Liberty by claiming your property; which is a byproduct of your life.

Furthermore, the damage to the state is understated in the 228 million dollars. The compliance costs to business will be huge, as if things are not bad enough as it is with the IRS, State Tax commission, the County revenuers, OSHA, the DOT, DEQ, EPA, and so on. Business is buried in red tape with huge costs of compliance, which inevitably end up in the cost of goods, but in the end do not equate to a higher GDP; it is effort and capital expense with nothing produced.

For these reasons, every member of the Idaho house and senate should do everything within their power to eliminate Obamacare. We the people of Idaho would expect you to take even the wildest chances to do so. However, Jeffersonian Nullification is not a wild chance, it is the rightful remedy to unconstitutional law. If you do not stand and pass H117 on to the full senate with a DO PASS recommendation, you are effectively killing a Republic, in which the representatives are not the rulers of the people but rather the keepers of the law. But instead and installing a representative oligarchy, which is arbitrary law and Liberty is vulnerable to the whim of the elected. If you pass this on with a do pass recommendation, you may someday tell your grandchildren how you saved America. If you don’t you will surely feel shame. The gravity of this day is great.

"Hang Ten" Obama Respects Nullification

In a startling turn of events today, the Obama Administration has chosen not to defend the Constitutionality of the Federal, “Defense of Marriage Act” (1996). While this might be somewhat unsettling to the morals of many, there is certainly a silver lining to this storm cloud from Washington.

Several states have recently passed either blatant “Gay Marriage” laws or Civil Union Laws, including President Obama’s claimed home state of Hawaii. These states (including The District of Columbia) have done so in direct defiance of the 1996 Federal Law which was overwhelmingly passed, 342-67 and 85-14, and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. This outright resistance to Federal Law, by these states, baffles most people who were educated in government schools. We were told the Federal Government is the supreme authority and the states are little more than administrative districts. That line of thought however is not based in logic nor does it have historical standing. One concept that is poorly taught in government schools is that the United States are States; we are not the United Administrative Districts of Columbia. When our Union was re-founded under the Constitution, terms and conditions of the Union were set and clearly described in the Constitution. The several States, which were (and are) as sovereign as France and Spain, came together and created a mutually beneficial general government, wherein they ceded certain and specific powers to that general government, which were clearly defined in the Constitution and the first ten amendments; The Bill of Rights. It was very clear from the beginning of the union that the States had no intention to cede all their powers, since the people in each state were different; they had different ideas on governance and different state religions. They had no intentions of allowing the new government the authority to meddle in social matters. The States were so adamant about this fact that they demanded the Tenth Amendment which states-

“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.”

In other words, if it is not written it is not said (the first rule of contract) and the States keep all the powers not mentioned; this goes for the administration of marriage.

Based upon the obvious nature of our Constitution, it should be clear that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is an act outside the powers assigned to the general government in the Constitution; it is unconstitutional. Furthermore, states like Hawaii who ignored the federal law, and made their own Civil Union law, in blatant rebellion to the Federal Government, are fully within their rights as a state to do so. I know that statement is going to ruffle a few feathers on moral lines, and I am certainly not endorsing gay marriage (I don’t think the government has any business in the marriage business but that is a different matter). The principle of the matter is what is important here, who has the right to make a law on marriage? If the Tenth Amendment stands true, it is the “…States or the people.”

The silver lining within this turn of events; States rights are alive and well! Hawaii nullified federal law by passing one of their own, obtuse to DMA-1996. Although Hawaii did not follow the exact Jeffersonian principles described clearly in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, the outcomes are the same; the states interposed lawfully. Furthermore, with the Obama administration’s cease order, in regards to enforcement of the gay marriage laws, the principle of nullification in the modern day is strengthened (perhaps by accident). Although the modern precedence is kind of neat, the “Principles of ’98,” stand on their own as their Constitutional orthodoxy is as firmly moored to the history of our country as the men that wrote them; Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Father of the Constitution. Today “Hang Ten” has a new meaning to me; the Tenth Amendment is Alive and well. I look forward to the day when the Federal government gives up hopes of defending the very unconstitutional Obamacare.

My Testimony FOR HB-117 (Obamacare Nullification)

Mr. Speaker, committee members.
The Constitution of the United States is a document that outlines the function of the Federal government and assigns specific powers to that government. The branches, are specifically limited in jurisdiction to these enumerated powers. The Tenth Amendment further amplifies the limitations of the Federal government when it says,

“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.”

This Amendment is often referred to as the, “States Rights Amendment”, it is much more than that; it is also the peoples rights Amendment. The phrase “or to the people,” must not be ignored!

When a law is made by the Federal government, in an area that is in conflict with the Constitution or in an area where Constitution is silent, the states must not remain silent. So often are they silent, a term was spawned to describe it; “Implied consent.” Implied consent is often a result of, implied or specific threats, by the Federal Government. However, even if a state is silent there is still the matter of “the people”, and their right to “The powers not delegated”. In this case if Idaho does not nullify this law and chooses to remain silent, according to the Tenth, “the people” can grasp the power. Alas this Constitutional power of the people is unlikely to stand in the face of the most powerful National government in the history of mankind; the US government. Alone a person acting in full accordance with The Constitution may be forced to conform.

Thomas Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolution, “The states are duty bound to resist.” However, I would say the states are duty bound not to remain silent. The state of Idaho must either nullify this law or formally accept it, for silence serves only to place the people, that may act fully within their rights, according to the Tenth Amendment, in harms way.

Walt Holton

Idaho Nullification Resolution

It is regretful, and too often at the expense of the Blessings of Liberty, the States fail to rightfully act and throw off laws and judicial rulings handed down by the National government; those laws and rulings which clearly lie outside the boundaries of the General Government described in The Constitution of the United States of America. Such inaction by the States and People may find its genesis in many accounts; be they unfamiliarity with the specific meaning of The Constitution in full orthodoxy; be they desirous of the temporary general felicity, inaction brings the perception thereof; be they fear of unconstitutional economic sanction by the General government; or be they agents of Nationalism which The Constitution of the United States of America specifically and purposefully rejects. Regardless the purpose, the very Liberty of the People, for which its securing was the specific purpose of the Constitution, is the casualty either by gradual erosion or sweeping claims of undue power over the People or the States by the General Government.

It is pure folly for one to think the perpetual union of the States and the fate of our Republic, as built by our founders should be entrusted to one man or a mere nine, knowing the corruptibility and the lust for power men are known to have. Would it be part of our Founders design to leave the Supreme Law, The Constitution, vulnerable to reinterpretation and revision by a few men posing as sages or the papacy of the Law? Indeed such assumed power to smelt and re-forge the law to suit the desires of a group, is the death of a Republic and the birth of an Oligarchy. For in a Republic, government is the keeper and enforcer of The Law. The Law is King, not the men within government, nor the ballot box. Would it be logical for one to think that a man or men may be so desirous of power that they sponsor confusion on the Law, with the truth of the original intent of the law so distorted that they declare for themselves, (perhaps with the endorsement of others) the Sage of the Law, thereby holding all the real power? The answer seems obvious, as we view the account of history. Concentrated supreme power in men ends in tyranny.

It is with sincere desire to preserve the Republic and the perpetual Union of the States; we do claim our Lawful, Righteous and reasonable rights as a state.

RESOLVED- We the Legislature of the State of Idaho, shall demand all pertinent claims of National supremacy in law, shall be derived from The Constitution of the United States of America interpreted by the most orthodox means only. These orthodox means shall include The Declaration of Independence (provides the Spirit of the Law and an outline of what conditions existed to warrant a revolution), The Constitution, viewed through the Preamble (its executive summary and mission statement), the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers (the argument for and against provisions within the Constitution, with clarity), and period dictionaries (to provide the meaning of the words in the day they were written).

Case law and prior rulings by perhaps corruptible men of the courts shall carry no weight, unless the ruling is based upon full orthodoxy as described above.

RESOLVED- In the case of the Idaho Fire Arms Freedom Act, and the recent ruling against it in a Federal court by Judge Malloy, on the grounds of Federal Supremacy through the “Commerce Clause”, we do hereby claim his ruling, and any higher court ruling with the same justification, NULLIFIED based upon the improper usage of this clause. Additionally, the State of Idaho will only cede power to the National government under the “Commerce Clause”, when the National Government uses the law as it was intended, which was “to make regular” (period definition of the word regulate) “the commerce between the several states...” Any assumed power by the National government under the misinterpretation of this clause, will only be honored at the pleasure of the State. Furthermore, to strengthen our claim of specific NULLIFICATION against Judge Malloy’s ruling and any other higher court ruling in regards to the Idaho Fire Arms Freedom Act, it is worthy of note that the contradictory Federal laws are specifically and blatantly an usurpation of the Second Amendment, which states, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is inexcusable that the Second Amendment, which is so strongly worded and clearly focused on firearms, can be overruled by a completely unrelated clause that has been intentionally misused for political gain. For such illogic to stand as the rule of law, regardless of the Highness of the judge, is suicide for the Republic and would constitute malpractice of the legislature.