States Oppose Federal Laws: Has Federal Government Exceeded Its Authority?
Fef
2013/02/21 20:00:00
Colorado joins the growing list of states that flagrantly disobey federal laws relating to drugs. Nearly 30 states have refused to join the Obamacare health exchange. Arizona faced off against the president on immigration policy. Now, a Texas proposal threatens to arrest local police officers who enforce federal gun control laws. States have reacted to the growing centralized power in Washington, D.C.
Have the states gone too far? Or has the federal government gone too far?
HOUSTON.CBSLOCAL.COM reports:

Have the states gone too far? Or has the federal government gone too far?
HOUSTON.CBSLOCAL.COM reports:
Under a measure advancing in the Texas Capitol, local police officers could be convicted of a crime for enforcing any new federal gun control laws.

Read More: http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/02/19/texas-propo...





















I'm tired of referring to something that must be done concerning the government as a "we" issue, it's "them" who has to fix it. They want total power? Good, do something with it. It's almost like they WANT this country to destroy itself from the inside.
"shall not be infringed" from the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, & "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of Independence, should come to mind immediately.
"to promote the general Welfare" was not intended to condone and create a welfare state.
The Founders left more than guiding document, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, & The Bill of Rights as guidance for a free independent and Sovereign Republic. They gave you their writings expounding on the ideas and laws set forth in those guiding documents. They instructed in plain words how to keep your Republic intact and safe, knowing human frailty may cause the people to fail in the endeavor, all the while hoping they would not.
The only honest answer is YES. A NO answer can only be based on feelings.
Can nobody think for himself?
We see this especially clearly in the case of ObamaUncaringTax. There is no provision in the Constitution for the federal government to take charge of the health affairs of the individual. There could be no such thing, since the Founders would never have thought that the collective owns the bodies and minds of every individual. They would have viewed the takeover of our life maintenance as a form of universal slavery. This is exactly what it is. Despite many states opposing this villainous act, many whose people oppose it are falling prey to the money the federal government prints and is offering to distribute to the state if the state betrays the people. Virginia, Ohio, and other states where most of the people oppose ObamaUncaringTax have betrayed the trust of their citizens.
What rights the States still had at the beginning of the last century they sold to get a little of our tax dollars back.
http://lostliberty1.wordpress...
http://lostliberty1.wordpress...
The Two Nations, Christopher Hollis 1935
As soon as Independence had been won from Great Britain, the decks were clear for a second fight. That fight, as is usually found after a successful revolution, was the fight to decide whether independence was to be true independence or whether, after the change of names, the financial system was to re-establish over the new government that same control which it had exercised over the old. The protagonist of plutocracy, a surprisingly frank protagonist, was Alexander Hamilton. Among his proposals was one astonishing in its impudence even for the antagonist of such a cause. The Germans in our own day have carried to a fine art the technique of first defaulting on the interest of their loans and then, when as a result the bonds have slumped, buying them up at a fraction of their par value and thus getting rid of their debts for perhaps a quarter of what they originally borrowed. Things were not very different in Alexander Hamilton's America. In order to fight the war, Congress had raised certain loans and then had subsequently defaulted on their interest. As a result, of course, they stood very low and were o...
The Two Nations, Christopher Hollis 1935
As soon as Independence had been won from Great Britain, the decks were clear for a second fight. That fight, as is usually found after a successful revolution, was the fight to decide whether independence was to be true independence or whether, after the change of names, the financial system was to re-establish over the new government that same control which it had exercised over the old. The protagonist of plutocracy, a surprisingly frank protagonist, was Alexander Hamilton. Among his proposals was one astonishing in its impudence even for the antagonist of such a cause. The Germans in our own day have carried to a fine art the technique of first defaulting on the interest of their loans and then, when as a result the bonds have slumped, buying them up at a fraction of their par value and thus getting rid of their debts for perhaps a quarter of what they originally borrowed. Things were not very different in Alexander Hamilton's America. In order to fight the war, Congress had raised certain loans and then had subsequently defaulted on their interest. As a result, of course, they stood very low and were only sellable at a fourth or a fifth part of their par value. Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, gave private information to his financial friends, who therefore bought up the loan at its low market figure. He then announced that the Government would redeem it by paying off the present holders at par plus accrued interest, with the price-level considerably lower than that of the time of the contraction of the debt. In order to pay them off, he raised a new loan from the New York bankers, thus saddling the new country with a permanent National Debt, which he confessed to thinking necessary in order that finance's mastery of its policies should be unshakable. "He wishes it never to be paid," explained Jefferson at the time, "but always to be a thing wherewith to corrupt and manage the legislature." He thus bound, as Calhoun afterwards put it, "more strongly to the Government that already powerful class by giving them, through its agency, increased profit and a decided control over the currency, exchanges and the business transactions of the country."
With the exception of the 8 years of Andrew Jackson, the bankers have controlled America ever since. Freedom has been an illusion sustained by mock elections.
"What If" currency had been left to the free market?
As regards your question, I have absolutely no idea. I have never lived under a free market. I'm only 70 (and eleven months).
The goal of socialism is communism.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Here's a start on learning the enemy and their mindset