Don’t Tread On Me! States Explore the Tenth Amendment

By Debbie Morgan, staff writer, http://www.TakeBackWashington.com, March 26, 2010

Watching the debate on healthcare was like having a nightmare while living in the circus. The clowns never hear those they “entertain,” yet they continue to throw nasty legislation at the public. In one of the better moments from the debate, a Representative said the bill was totally unconstitutional, as the Federal Government does not have the authority to force the public to purchase anything. In an online forum, one gentleman stated that the bill is tantamount to extortion. It is apparent that we are down to the only peaceful recourse available…Support local State Sovereignty bills; the only way to overturn the healthcare nightmare, as well as all other over-reaching federal legislation!

When the subject of the Tenth Amendment has been raised in past conversation, some have laughed and some have said, “Oh, that will never work.” Since its passage, many States have tried to invoke their Tenth Amendment rights on several occasions. The largest combined effort, before now, was during the Civil War, when eleven states sought to secede from the united States. Interestingly enough, the last time people got truly fired up about their States rights was during the Roosevelt Administration’s “New Deal.” Why do we have such a magnificent amendment to protect the states if we are not going to use it?

The February 2008 CRS Report for Congress, after quoting the Tenth Amendment, states, “While this language would appear to represent one of the most clear examples of a federalist principle in the Constitution, it has not had a significant impact in limiting federal powers. Initially, the Supreme Court interpreted the Tenth Amendment to have substantive content, so that certain ‘core’ state functions would be beyond the authority of the federal government to regulate.” Yet, in the past, as now, the Federal Government continues to take what it wants, expecting the states to bow down in servitude.

Shortly after that Constitutional Convention, lawmakers saw the vague language and the need to recognize the rights of the States and their citizens. The Tenth Amendment was added, along with nine other defining amendments. Federal legislators, derelict in their duties, still see the Tenth Amendment as very vague and pass laws they are not truly authorized to pass. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights expressly states it’s purpose, “…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…” Since the Federal government overlooks this, I propose that, for clarity, it would be prudent to turn to the state-level debates that ensued during the formation of the State’s Rights Amendment.

The book The Complete Bill of Rights gives us a much-needed glance at the thoughts of our legislators at the time. Eight states proposed clarification for the Tenth Amendment. It is interesting that all these states were clear about not allowing the Federal Government any extra flexibility from its Constitutional boundaries. Of those, a few stand out.

From New York:
“That the Powers of the Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same…”

From North Carolina:
“That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers, be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress…”

From Pennsylvania:
“That the sovereignty, freedom and independency of the several states shall be retained…”
>From South Carolina:
“…that no Section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a Construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the General Government of the Union.”

From Virginia:
“…That all power is naturally vested in and consequently derived from the people; that Magestrates, therefore, are their trustees and agents at all times amenable to them…”

In the upcoming film Don’t Tread On Me, Constitutional Expert Dr Edwin Vieira makes a striking observation, “We-the-People do ordain and establish…Public officials didn’t do that, judges didn’t do that…that is a statement that We-the-People have the authority; we are the ultimate law-givers…” This statement echoes the thoughts, opinions and written words of our early State legislators, as well as many citizens of today.

James Madison, one of our Founding Fathers and chief author of our Constitution, made several defining statements about the States and government. These two stand out.

From Federalist Paper #45:
“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.”

In regards to state sovereignty and the compact theory:
“Our governmental system is established by compact, not between the Government of the United States and the State Governments but between the STATES AS SOVEREIGN COMMUNITIES, stipulating EACH with the OTHER…” from the Dictionary of American History

There are other references, as well. Under the subject Reserved Powers of States in the 1940 Dictionary of American History Vol. IV, it states of the Tenth Amendment that it “…securely established the United States as a Federal state composed of a central government and a number of constituent state governments each possessing powers independent of the other.” It also confesses that the “Supreme Court has, by a consistent policy of broad construction, added many implied powers.”

In Vol. V of the same Dictionary, the States’ Rights heading conveys “states’ rights has meant different things at different times” further stating that, as Jefferson envisioned State’s Rights, it was a “rule of strict construction applied to the powers of the central government…”

There are more references, to be sure. It is clear by the above exactly what our legislators at the time meant by the Tenth Amendment…the individual States will, indeed, keep their sovereignty. The Federal Government will be limited from over-reaching its bounds and converting the united States in to a dictatorial government under the Federal government. I heard someone say, and it makes sense, that our Founding Fathers had just fought a war to win our country’s freedom from a tyrannical government (England) so why would they “create” a government with the same agenda? Why would they “win” their freedom just to give it up, again, to a central power?

Several states are drafting legislation to assert their sovereignty. Some of the more recent laws that have driven states to seek their Tenth Amendment rights are: the USA PATRIOT Act (which treads on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 13th Amendments) and its extensions, the Real ID Act (not passing on its own, it was attached as a rider to an appropriations bill), the John Warner Defense Act (ending Posse Comitatus), the Military Commissions Act (ending Habeas Corpus), the FISA Amendment Act (ending, then redefining, privacy), the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and, most recently, the newly passed healthcare disaster. No one is playing favorites. The last several administrations have been guilty of treading over the rights of the states and their citizens.

Charles Key, State Representative from Oklahoma and one of the most outspoken on the State Sovereignty issue, said in an exclusive interview for Don’t Tread On Me, “The whole reason we have the Second Amendment in there…is to protect ourselves against an out-of-control government, a tyrannical government, a government that is violating the rights of the citizens…violates the law.” Filmmaker William Lewis says, “Throughout history, tyrants don’t give up their power willingly.”

So what do we do? In a March 16, 2010 Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll, fifty percent of the people said they would “replace every single member of Congress, including your own representative,” while forty-seven percent said they would not. It may be time to “start kicking ass and taking names,” according to film producer Gary Franchi. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer’s stand is clear, “The Federal Government says we want to be your daddy. We want to tell you how to live your life. That’s where we draw the line and say, whoa, not here in Montana.” It is evident that other states are drawing their proverbial “line in the sand,” as well.

What will it take for people across the United States to get angry enough to stand up and take back what is rightfully theirs; rights given to them by their Creator, NOT Congress? It didn’t happen when Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act way back in 1913, or any of the other encroaching pieces of legislation since. Now we have the Federal Government mandating that we, as sovereign, individual citizens, purchase government approved health care! Can we not see that with each passing of an egregious piece of legislation the people are becoming more and more enslaved? What is it going to take to make people shout, “Stop treading on me”?

Endnotes:
CRS Report for Congress, Federalism, State Sovereignty and the Constitution: Basis and Limits of Congressional Power, Kenneth R Thomas, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, Updated February 1, 2008

The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources and Origins, Edited by Neil H Cogan, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford, 1997

Dictionary of American History, James Truslow Adams, Editor in Chief, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1940, Volumes II, IV, V

For more information on the upcoming film, Don’t Tread On Me, please visit
http://www.DontTreadOnMeMovie.com

States Rights
http://www.states-rights.com/bills.aspx

Nullification Legislation
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/health-care/

13 attorneys general sue over health care overhaul
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6926807.html

Governors Rise Up Against Federal Takeover of Health Care
http://gopleader.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=176816

Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll: Throw Them All Out
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/03/16/wsjnbc-news-poll-throw-em-all-out

Oklahoma to feds: Don’t tread on me
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67229

RestoreTheRepublic.com, 3149 Dundee Rd #176, Northbrook, Illinois 60062, USA

To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit:
http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?LIxsHOyctCysjAwsTKzMtEa0bKzsjIwcrA==

The Weatherization Boondoggle

March 26, 2010

By Peter Wilson

Leave it to the left to turn something as sensible as insulating your house into a big-government organized-labor boondoggle.

Dismal reports from Spain and other European countries about investing public funds in solar and wind power manufacturing seem to have shifted attention lately toward the humble goal of “weatherization” — making our buildings more efficient by replacing windows, installing insulation, and caulking up leaks, and by “retrofitting” — buying new, efficient furnaces and appliances for the deserving disadvantaged.

President Obama’s proposed $6-billion program known as HOMESTAR, a.k.a. Cash for Caulkers, is only one of many energy efficiency initiatives taking place on federal, state, and municipal levels. To cite a few of many examples:

• The City of Boston announced “the nation’s largest public housing energy performance contract” — $63 million for an energy upgrade at 4,300 Boston Housing Authority apartment buildings. That works out to $14,650 per apartment.

• Boston’s spending comes on top of a State of Massachusetts $1.4-billion Energy Efficiency plan signed by Gov. Patrick last November. The plan was in the news this week with the release of an Apollo Alliance report titled Energy Efficiency Employment in Massachusetts.

• The American Recovery and Reinvest­ment Act provides an additional $220 million to the Massachusetts Weatherization Assistance Program.

• Cambridge, Massachusetts announced last week the inauguration of a Green Jobs program to train low-income people in the weatherization trade.

Elsewhere around the country:

• Clean Energy Works, a project of Green for All and the Apollo Alliance in Portland Oregon, aims to retrofit 100,000 qualifying homes. A budget is not offered, but at Boston rates, this would cost $14.6 billion.

• Created last September, the New York State Green Jobs-Green New York Act (where do they come up with these names?) aims to retrofit one million houses and businesses in the next five years, with money raised by selling carbon offsets.

So, one might ask, what’s the problem? It’s foolish to waste energy by heating or cooling the outdoors. Supporters claim that the money invested up front will save money in the long run. Everybody wins. In my own house, I’ve followed this sane policy by installing insulation and a modern gas-fired furnace in order to reduce my heating bills. Furthermore, if we must concede ground to aggressive green advocates and their phobia about greenhouse gases, retrofitting existing buildings is far and away the most cost-effective, no-regrets means of reducing CO₂ emissions. Better to spend money to upgrade the nation’s buildings than give away ineffective solar panels that will be worthless in a decade or two.

The new weatherization schemes, however, are about much more than energy efficiency. As the name “Green Jobs” implies, the movement is both a green initiative and a government-run jobs program. It has brought together a strange coalition of environmental groups, labor unions, and businesses hoping to profit in green ventures.

One leading coalition, the Apollo Alliance, co-founded by President Obama’s former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones, is advocating for an “investment” of $500 billion in green jobs. Their board of directors offers a look at the cast of characters:

• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Green for All (also co-founded by Van Jones)
• United Steelworkers of America
• Service Employment International Union (SEIU)
• Laborers International Union of North America
• Pacific Gas & Electric
• Center for American Progress
• Sierra Club
• Google’s division for Climate Change and Energy Initiatives

Apollo’s Massachusetts energy study was produced in collaboration with its local affiliate, the Green Justice Coalition, and Community Labor United. The Steering Committee of Green Justice includes nineteen local groups, including carpenters’ and painters’ unions, the Coalition for Social Justice, and New England United for Justice (formerly ACORN). The CLU board is similarly made up of executives from SEIU, other labor unions, and ACORN.

Government has previously been involved in weatherization from the sidelines, offering rebates and subsidized loans, often through electric utilities. Even the stimulus money currently being targeted toward weatherization proceeds on a familiar model: The owner of a home or business takes the initiative to lower his electric bill. He gets competitive bids for insulation or new storm windows, hires a contractor, and then applies to the proper authority for a rebate.

Apollo and green jobs organizations propose a new paradigm, described on the Green Justice Coalition website:

Under the new plans, the utilities will work with the Green Justice Coalition and:

• Find up-front financing so residents can pay for home efficiency work;

• Pay community-based organizations that residents know and trust to do energy efficiency outreach in their neighborhoods; and

• Sign up hundreds of residents for home retrofits and “bundle” those together into a single contract…

• So well-paid, well-trained workers can do the work through a high-road contractor.

In its next meeting, the EEAC will discuss plans for an Equity Committee, where working class and of-color communities can make sure that these new jobs and services get delivered.

Notice the following:

1. GJC inserts itself in a position of power between the homeowner and the utility (collecting a management fee, no doubt).
2. Up-front financing changes the process from a rebate system to a free service with no incentive for competitive bidding.
3. ACORN and community groups get a piece of the pie for their “outreach” efforts.
4. “Signing up” residents shifts the initiative for weatherization from homeowner to community organizers, who have the power to decide who is “qualified.”
5. New legislation is needed to dictate weatherization employment conditions. Workers have become government contractors who must by law be paid a “living wage” and receive benefits. (See this Boston Globe editorial, “A living wage for weatherizers.”)
6. “Well-trained” means that only people who have gone through the training program are eligible. Private, non-union, “low-road” contractors currently engaged in weatherization will be pushed out of the market.
7. “High-road” is code for the unions who are pushing for green jobs.
8. Weatherization becomes an affirmative action program, both on the receiving end of the retrofit and in the selection of contractors performing the work. In the past, laws favoring minority-held businesses have led to corruption.
9. The entire program is overseen by SEIU government employees, expanding the union’s ranks.

Proponents frequently cite that weatherization programs are cost-neutral, since future savings reimburse up-front costs. This may work for the Boston Housing Authority, which owns the properties it is retrofitting. Weatherization, however, is financed by increases in utility bills, paid by all energy users. Benefits accrue only to, in the words of the Apollo Alliance, “people of color, speakers of other languages, women, and people with barriers to employment.” It is thus yet another Obama-era vehicle for redistribution of income.

The Green Justice website lays out their strategy for getting legislatures to fork over the green:

Take a Climate Crisis… Add an Economic and Environmental Justice Crisis… …And You Get the Green Justice Solution.

Rahm Emanuel would be proud.

Peter Wilson is a writer who blogs at walkingdogcapitalist.

‘Capitalism’ Yesterday, ‘Capitalism’ Today, ‘Capitalism’ Tomorrow, ‘Capitalism’ Forever

by Walter Block and Jackson Reeves
by Walter Block and Jackson Reeves
Recently by Walter Block: Say ‘Yes’ to Capitalism

Previously, I, Walter Block, published an article on the use of the word “capitalism.” I defended the employment of this nomenclature in the promotion of libertarianism, criticizing the formation of a group, lead by my old and good friend, Sheldon Richman, called Libertarians Against Capitalism. I am now co-authoring this reply to Sheldon with Jackson, who wrote me a letter very supportive of my side of this debate; I have edited this letter of his and included it in this response.

In due course, Sheldon published a rejoinder to my article. As is his wont, it was thoughtful and knowledgeable. So much so, that it almost convinced me. But, not quite. However, he might well have made one good point, about which I was, I confess, ignorant. I had stated that the bad guys were trying to steal the word “libertarian” from us; but Sheldon, perhaps a better historian than me, has pointed out that we free enterprisers were the initial “thieves.” (I place scare quotes around “thieves” to indicate that poaching of language is not akin to stealing real property. As Stephan Kinsella has so masterfully shown, there can be no such thing as intellectual property in the libertarian law code; thus, there can be no theft of it, either.) It was my supposition that Spooner and Tucker were the first to use this word in the modern (political economic) manner, but, alas, I may well have been mistaken in this. I did some (belated) research on this question; see here, here and here. The first two links still seem ambiguous to me; the latter clearly supports Sheldon’s position. As well, I have been told that a forthcoming book of Murray Rothbard’s letters, edited by David Gordon, buttresses Sheldon’s interpretation. On the other hand, this essay would tend in the other direction, and I am not historian enough to come to a definitive conclusion. So, let me stipulate, arguendo, that I was wrong in my contention, and Sheldon correct. I nevertheless persist in thinking that this error of mine, and thus Sheldon’s correction of me, if that is what it indeed is, is really irrelevant to the point I was initially making: that it would be a grievous mistake to jettison the word “capitalism” from our libertarian lexicon. I think Sheldon agrees with me as to the relative unimportance of the (well nigh possible) error of mine, as he says, “But let that pass.”

Now we come to the crux of his rejection of “capitalism.” Sheldon says, in response to my request that he disband this initiative of his: “Sorry, can’t do it, old friend. It’s not worth the candle. The word was tainted from the start – free-market radicals uses (sic) it disparagingly – and it has never lost its taint, despite the efforts of Mises and Rand. It creates confusion not clarity. We have perfectly good words for what we want: the free market and laissez faire, voluntarism and market anarchism. We don’t need the poisonous word capitalism.”

But the most widely understood meaning of “anarchism” is, surely, “chaos,” or, maybe, “bomb throwing” (against innocent people). Libertarian anarchists, of course, mean by this word, absence of archy; that is, no arbitrary unjustified rule of one man by another. Should we therefore give up on the word anarchy because it is misunderstood?

A similar challenge to Sheldon’s position emanates from the word “individualism.” In our camp, this certainly evokes a positive reaction. Some libertarians go so far as to equate our libertarian philosophy with individualism, and to denigrate what they see as “collectivism” as its polar opposite. I don’t go out that far on the limb at all (it is not for nothing that I am widely known, at least within the libertarian community, as Walter “Moderate” Block). For this would put us in opposition to voluntary collectives, such as the kibbutz, the monastery, the nunnery, the convent, even the typical nuclear family which lives according the doctrine of “from each in according to ability, to each according to need.” It would also denigrate team sports (football, soccer, baseball, basketball) as collectivist, and unduly elevate individual sports (swimming, track, handball, tennis) as a matter of libertarian principle. Further, “individualism,” too, is under dispute; it is also claimed by our political enemies. It would be a sad day if we ever had to give up on this word, but that, as I see it, is the logical implication of Sheldon’s perspective.

“Free market” is a wonderful banner. I would not jettison it for all the tea in China, so to speak. However, it really doesn’t do all the work we need it to do. As far as I am concerned, there is not one but rather three arenas in which we contend against our competitors on the political spectrum. Not only economics, but, also, personal liberties and foreign policy. Someone who favors freedom only in the commercial field is not really one of us, if he is “weak” on the other two. For example, he favors economic liberties, but wants to put people in jail for prostitution, pornography, gambling, drug use, and supports U.S. imperialism. There are plenty of “free market” advocates like that; they are not one of us. They are, rather, conservatives, and are just as much the enemies of libertarianism as are the left liberals. If you ask a typical leftie what “free market” means to him, undoubtedly, he will associate it with exploitation of the poor. If you ask this of the modal mainstream economist, you will hear a litany of “market failure,” and economic inefficiency.

Here is my edited version of my co-author’s brilliant letter to me (I agree with every word of it, or I would not have invited Jackson to co-author this rejoinder with me):

“There have been a slew of blogspot writers rushing to the aid of Mr. Richman in response to your latest LRC article. They can be found on the Libertarians Against Capitalism’s wall posts, buried amongst the links of Chomsky interviews and praises of Michael Moore documentaries.

“I find the attempt to popularize phrases like ‘laissez-faire’ or ‘market anarchism’ so as to avoid the negative connotations of ‘capitalism’ more than a little silly.

“For those of us who are anarcho-capitalists, the phrases are interchangeable; clarity is not an issue. I doubt there has ever been any confusion when one Mises Institute Senior Scholar says ‘capitalism’ and another says ‘laissez-faire’. The only reason I can find as to why one would attempt to change the vocabulary of our message would be to appeal to people who do not share our economic views. I cannot see this little ploy as anything but a waste of time.

“The first reason I believe this to be foolish is that if anyone is under the impression that ‘laissez-faire’ or ‘market anarchism’ will be an easier pill for the general public to swallow, they need to do a bit of thinking.

“‘Laissez-faire’ will make the average Soccer-Mom-Mandi think of Dickensian orphans having to beg for pennies on a muddy street (in the rain) because they lost one or more limbs in a coal mining accident and their mustached robber-baron employer threw them out into the wilderness because of their reduced productivity. She will be overcome with a fear for the safety of not only her tow-headed children, but of all tow-headed children in the Good Ol’ USA. As fearing for children makes her feel unpleasant, and as the phrase ‘laissez-faire’ was used disparagingly by both her matronly 11th grade social studies teacher who inspired her and her EN 211 American Lit. professor who she had a crush on, she will not like it.

“I also do not believe that ‘market anarchism’ will accurately communicate the message of liberty and win the hearts and minds of the masses. If we were to take Teamster Union Randy the Welder from Local 102 and do a bit of word association, I would imagine we would end up with something like this: ‘Market’; ‘Wall Street.’ ‘Market’; ‘Exploitation.’ ‘Anarchism’; ‘Chaos.’ ‘Anarchism’; ‘Arson.’ ‘Market’; ‘Madoff.’ ‘Anarchism’; ‘Africa.’ ‘Market Anarchy’; ‘Workers of the World Unite.’ To the average American whose reason in constructed by either The Daily Show, pop music, or whatever blockbuster is playing at the cinema, the phrase ‘market anarchy’ would lead one to think of a Hollywood-envisioned dystopian future in which a large pharmaceutical company controls every aspect of our lives so that a few privileged crooks at the top can live in ivory towers. I cannot see people flocking to this phrase.

“If you want to proselytize to the masses, ‘capitalism’ is your best bet. It’s not threatening to most people as both Republicans and Democrats generally speak of it as a kind of good thing. It is what made ‘us’ great and all that blather. The fact that it is commonly used and commonly misused is its best quality. Every time someone incorrectly equates capitalism to corporatism, mercantilism, bailouts, price fixing, subsidies, natural monopolies, central banking, etc. we are given an excellent opportunity to say ‘Well, that’s not exactly what capitalism is…’ We have the perfect icebreaker which enables us to wax poetic about how you agree that these things are unjust but are really examples of interventionist policies and state reallocation of resources not intrinsic qualities of capitalism. And then we can smoothly transition the conversation into free market solutions and extol the virtues of economic liberty.

“But now to the second reason I think this is pointless: the ideas of absolute liberty will never, ever, ever be popular to the masses. The values that have led us to our vision of rights, justice, and liberty are less popular than the values that lead others elsewhere. There is something within many people that finds a calming satisfaction in dependence. Depending upon the state does offer a lot of stability to many people who would rather not be bothered with trying to steer a course through the ‘tumultuous sea of liberty.’ Trying to put a pretty bow on our ideas by abjuring all words with negative connotations will not help promote liberty. If anything, we should focus on bracing the remnant, as it were. The people who will find the message of liberty appealing will do so because of the philosophy, not because of the label, indeed, in spite of the label.

“I have a hunch that making a big ado about not supporting ‘capitalism’ because the word is misused and preferring to support whatever alternative word its critics agree upon will further alienate proponents of economic liberty, on the part of both like-minded individuals and potential converts. People who do this will just look pedantic, as if they are trimming their sails to be agreeable. ‘Um…yeah, I like supported Capitalism before it was cool…then everyone else started digging it. But they didn’t really get it, ya know? So now I’m into Anti-Capitalist-Market-Anarchy. It’s really rare, I doubt you’ve heard of it.’”

Now, back to me. This is Walter Block, writing again. While my co-author and I are taking on Sheldon Richman on this issue, we might as well widen the debate, and consider the mistaken views of some others.

According to one contributor to Sheldon’s web: Since “leftists like Noam Chomsky and right-wingers like Glen Beck keep calling themselves ‘libertarian,’ let’s ditch that moniker, too, and reclaim ‘liberal’ to mean both personal and economic liberty.” (By the way, Milton Friedman is another who promiscuously used the word “libertarian” to apply to himself. See on this here, here and here.) But, if we are losing “libertarian” what makes us think we can re-attain “liberal”? Why not play defense as well as offense? Try to keep both. The more words we can use to express ourselves the better. We already have “capitalism.” Sheldon is willing to jettison it even when no one else is trying to seize it from us.

In the view of one over-the-transom remark: “Since the word “capitalism” does not have the meaning we intend, (we should) cease using it incorrectly. From its historical roots and etymological derivation it does not and has not meant ‘free markets.’” Yes, but the meanings of words change, according to usage. There is no intrinsic meaning of a word. For example, black people have been called the N word, negroes, Negroes, African-Americans, blacks. The same object, different appellations. Even the objection mentioned just above takes cognizance of the malleability of language, as this one does not.

The next objection comes from Clarence B. Carson who published “Capitalism: Yes and No” some 25 years ago in the Freeman. He praises “lucid discourse” and on this ground prefers “free enterprise” to “capitalism” as a description of our perspective. Well, I’m as much in favor of “lucid discourse” as is the next fellow, I suppose. But there is something I rank even higher: promoting liberty. And when the two diverge, as I claim they do in this case, my way forward is clear. Yes, “capitalism” may be more “in your face” than the “free enterprise” that was criticized above. And, some people may be put off by it, preferring more gentle terminology. But if there anything I have learned from the methodological individualism taught by Mises, it is that people are different. Other people may need the “slap in the face” that, on this supposition, only “capitalism” can supply.

In Carson’s view, there is a commonly accepted understanding of “free market” and it is a pretty good one: “A free market is a market open to all peaceful traders.” This sounds good, but, I fear, Carson is living in a dream world, at least based on the common understanding of this word, in terms of exploitation. In contrast, he avers, “capitalism … does not have a commonly accepted meaning.” Well, yes, but, it has been used effectively, and neither does his favorite appellation, “free enterprise.”

I don’t really regard the debate over nomenclature as a substantive one. It merely concerns strategy, branding, labeling. And, as with all such issues, it is difficult to say which side is definitively correct. If we win, and economic freedom is maximized, will it be because of, or in spite of, our positions on this question? I think it will be difficult to ever know for sure. However, my “instinct” is that we should keep for ourselves as many words as we can. The most powerful argument on this score I save for last. Sheldon Richman states: “(Capitalism) has never lost its taint, despite the efforts of Mises and Rand.” Yes, yes, but as my co-author and I have shown above, every other word we use is also “tainted,” or problematic on other grounds. What is “tainted” in the minds of the people is not the word. Once they even partially understand the concept, the booboisie doesn’t much like it. “What are you, crazy?,” they would say. “Turning back the clock and getting rid of welfare, unemployment insurance, the central bank, the minimum wage law, social security, protective tariffs? We’d have mass starvation. Not make war all over the place? How else can we protect ourselves? You people are insane.” So, I ask, who have been the people in the recent past who have done the most to promote our movement, whatever we call it? And, surely, it cannot be denied that Rand has converted the most ordinary people to our movement, and that Mises, along with Rothbard have made the most serious inroads amongst professional scholars. So, here we have Richman, who has had, oh, I don’t know, an impact of one millionth of a per cent of Rand plus Mises, criticizing them for poor word usage. (I am not trying to denigrate Sheldon here; my own impact has been much more like his than these two GIANTS of our movement.) I hope and trust no one thinks me guilty of an ad hominem argument here. I am not saying Richman is wrong, and Rand and Mises are right because they are more famous than him. What I am saying, instead, is that one of the vehicles used by Rand and Mises in their successful promotion of liberty is the word “capitalism.” Surely, this must count importantly in our debate.

Ayn Rand converted more people to libertarianism than anyone else, and she used that word often, and with great effect. Indeed, if there was any one word associated with her, it was “capitalism.” Are we really to believe that she would have converted even more people without the ceaseless and unrelenting use of this nomenclature? Although it is difficult to draw certain conclusions from contrary to fact history, it is difficult to see how this could have been the case then, or, indeed, is at present. If there is one description of Ayn Rand that strikes to the core of her being, it is “in your face.” She was no shrinking violet. She made the case for the freedom philosophy in the most aggressive manner possible, bless her. And, “capitalism” was a crucial element of that effort. It makes far more sense to follow her in this regard, than to jettison this word, in an attempt to be historically “accurate,” or indeed, for any other reason. That is, if we really want to promote liberty efficaciously.

March 26, 2010

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable and Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective. His latest book is The Privatization of Roads and Highways. Jackson Reeves [send him mail] is a graduate of the University of Alabama. Currently he is residing in Edmonton, Canada, and is a member of the Edmonton Liberty Society as well as an active member in many online libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, and free-market communities.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

ObamaCare a Huge Hit—With Fidel Castro!

By John Lillpop  Thursday, March 25, 2010

Those who doubt that ObamaCare is an evil Communist scheme that will destroy our way of life: Listen up to the words of the second most dedicated Marxist in our Hemisphere.

That would be Fidel Castro, the dried-up old Commie prune from Cuba, the only man outside of Moscow more smitten with Marxism than our very own Barack Obama.

// //

As reported at Yahoo.com news, in part, Castro applauded America for falling into the clutches of destructive socialism:

“HAVANA (AP)—It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.

“Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform “a miracle” and a major victory for Obama’s presidency, but couldn’t help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

“We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama’s) government,” Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president’s hand against lobbyists and “mercenaries.”

“But the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform, and for his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, among many other things.

“And he said it was remarkable that the most powerful country on earth took more than two centuries from its founding to approve something as basic as health benefits for all.

“It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence … the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago,” Castro wrote.”

Points well made, Mr. Castro.

Incidentally, when do you suppose your puny little island will master the science of providing toilet paper for all the Cuban people? In time for the next revolution, sir?

Still, by speaking out, Fidel Castro has provided invaluable insights for the American people: Namely, ObamaCare is just the first step toward economic and political doom.

Want to be just like Cuba, Pilgrims? Continue to elect Demoncrats!

Aftermath, or AfterFIX of Obama Government Takeover, PART ONE:

By Jerry McConnell  Thursday, March 25, 2010

Our illustrious United States Senate spent a busy day on Wednesday, March 24, 2010, just three days after the Sunday Night Massacre of the nation’s taxpayers who, in a majority, wanted no part of the Obama health care legislation that was snookered and fudged and then rammed down their throats by a tiny margin,  thanks to conscienceless maneuvering by turncoats who held their hands over their hearts and proclaimed faithfulness to the pro-lifers as they held their fingers crossed hoping not to be struck down by a higher authority for being blatant liars.

// //

As Newsmax.com stated: “The latest development came as the Senate completed nine hours of uninterrupted voting on 29 GOP amendments to the legislation. Majority Democrats defeated every amendment.”

In typical double-talk fashion, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV stated as reported by Newsmax.com, “There’s no attempt to improve the bill. There’s an attempt to destroy this bill,” as if there were some other reason to hold the session.  It was a done deal that the Democrats would make absolutely no moves to improve a mistake-filled, travesty of justice and fairness to America’s tax payers and to senior citizens in particular who drew the short straw and the barbed shaft.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY offered that the Republicans “could improve the bill significantly,” and the 29 Amendments they offered that were battered into oblivion was his proof.  But most of the Amendments offered too much common sense for Democrat thinking and ideals as with this one offered by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, barring federal purchases of Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. Coburn said it would save millions.  It would also very likely help some defenseless women and children.  But Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., called it “a crass political stunt.”  Imagine that; a “crass political stunt”; but that’s how Democrats think.  They never consider the fate of an unsuspecting child or woman.

Republicans also tried to roll back cuts in Medicare to protect seniors’ health and lives, but the Democrats had plans for that one half TRILLION dollars to pay down some other scheme of theirs, so the seniors were out of luck.  Oh, they mentioned that there would be cost breaks for the senior’s drug purchases to offset the other reductions; a half trillion dollars worth of drug cost breaks?

If you’re an Internet fan you probably have seen the many petitions and requests for the government big-wigs to change the law so they would be forced to carry the same insurance that they were forcing on the public.  And you probably heard or noticed that, as usual, they ignored those demands as if they were too good to be in the same plan as THE PEOPLE – UGH!

So the Republicans made that one of their 29 amendments.  Here are the details of that vote:
Amendment Number:
S.Amdt. 3564 to H.R. 4872 (Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010)

Statement of Purpose:
To make sure the President, Cabinet Members, all White House Senior staff and Congressional Committee and Leadership Staff are purchasing health insurance through the health insurance exchanges established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Vote Counts:
YEAs—43
NAYs—56
Not Voting—1

3 Democrats voted with Republicans in favor of this Amendment, but the 56 votes of the rest of the Dems doomed it.  So, as much as the public wanted the President and his Cabinet and Staff and all members of Congress to enjoy all of the wonderful and beautiful benefits of this heavenly healthcare plan that is being crammed down the throats of the rest of the peons who pay the bills for these exalted creeps, IT AIN’T GONNA’ HAPPEN.  The BIG “O”, wants to be a cut above the common folk.

Out of the 23 so-called conservative Republicans voting to stop the pork along with 3 Democrats were, of course some of McCain’s amnesty comrades, including Graham and Hatch; trying to be fiscally conservative for public consumption on earmarks, while just itching to reward more of those law-breaking illegal aliens with “instant citizenship.”

Now get a load of this one:

Question: On the Amendment (McCain Amdt. No. 3475 )
Vote Number:—60
Vote Date:—March 18, 2010, 04:45 PM
Required For Majority:—1/2
Vote Result:—Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number:—S.Amdt. 3475 to S.Amdt. 3452 to H.R. 1586 (No short title on file)
Statement of Purpose:—To prohibit earmarks in years in which there is a deficit.

Vote Counts:
YEAs—26
NAYs—70
Not Voting—4

McCain very wisely proposed an Amendment to prohibit earmarks (pork) in legislation during years when there is a deficit.  Once again, the liberal Dems jumped all over this money-saving measure when 54 out of 57 voted against being frugal with our tax dollars; (three did not vote and 2 Independents voted with the Dems) while the Republicans who are always putting the Dems down for being big spenders, had 16 of their members voting to keep the pork rolling (1 did not vote.)

Is it any wonder why the public calls them RINO’s; even the newest Senator, Scott Brown of MA, who claims to be a fiscal conservative, (??) voted to keep the pork, regardless.  I sometimes wonder if ANY politician has ANY conscience. They can look you right in the eye and say something then turn around and vote just the opposite.  How do they face that reflection in the mirror in the morning?

Quite naturally, the Amendment, along with all the others was beaten down by the Democrats with a large measure of assistance from the “want-to-be-known” as fiscal conservatives, Republicans.  Sometimes it’s enough to make you want to just barf and never vote again.  But then, I think that is what they would love to see; so they can keep right on rampaging our tax dollars to their whims.

Most of them are profound hypocrites.  Even John McCain, who I’m sure piously got astride his white horse, donned his white ten gallon hat and holding his lance aloft, went charging into the press arena claiming fiscal responsibility as his mantra.  Then when finished, he started rounding up all the criminal illegal aliens he could find to tell them that he was going to make them all “instant citizens” ahead of the more productive, industrious and patient Europeans who have been on the waiting list for LEGAL immigration into our country, sponsored by good Americans who will see that they become self-sufficient instead of wards of the state and current citizenry.

How much is that going to cost us, John?

Here come the climate change refugees – more social justice

By John Burtis  Thursday, March 25, 2010

Like clockwork, they have emerged from the wood: the first of what promises to be an ever increasing wave of Third World “climate change” refugees seeking asylum in the First World.

// //

The inhabitants of some islands in east Papua New Guinea have appealed for “funds to enable them to flee, find housing, receive job training, and to enable them to find the final home of their choice” and have expressed the hope that “decisions made by leaders at the forthcoming climate change negotiations in Copenhagen will offer them hope,” according to the Environment Times news outlet.

The implication of the appeal is that the industrialized world is responsible for “global warming” and that these nations are therefore obliged to take in yet another wave of “refugees” under the excuse of “man made climate change and industrialized pollutants and their climate impact.”

According to the Environment Times, the relocation effort is headed by Ursula Rakova, a Papua New Guinea islander who quit an executive position with Oxfam in Bougainville three years ago to set up Tulele Peisa, an organization that “raises money and campaigns for social justice on behalf of her people.”

Ms Rakova told an audience in Melbourne, Australia: “We have a feeling of anxiety, a feeling of uncertainty because we know that we will be losing our homes. It is our identity. It is our whole culture at stake.”

There is however no firm evidence that the land to which she refers, the Carteret Islands, are being affected by “climate change.” At the best of times, these islands are no more than four or five feet above sea level and are thus always prone to tidal movements, rogue waves, storms, tsunamis, and typhoons.

Even the Environment Times, which is slavishly pro-“climate change,” is forced to admit in its coverage of the “asylum” claim that “Probably (sic) due to climate change, the Carteret Islands in north east Papua New Guinea are being submerged by the sea. However, another suggestion is that tectonic movement may be causing the gradual subsidence of the atoll, or that nearby volcanic activity may also cause the islands’ settling.

“Historically other populated islands, for example Tuanaki in the Cook Islands, are known to have sunk entirely and relatively suddenly from causes that might be unrelated to rising sea levels.”

Nonetheless, the Environment Times continues to say that, “As a result, the people that live on these tiny atoll islands have unwillingly found themselves on the front line of climate change and dependent upon the success or failure of the UN’s climate negotiations in Copenhagen.”

The article goes on to point out that “one problem making their plight all the more pressing is the fact the 1951 Geneva Convention, does not protect environmental refugees, such as those displaced by climate change.

“Sadly, this technicality means that communities such as the Carteret’s cannot, as yet, be granted refugee status under the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and they have subsequently found themselves excluded from the international community’s social welfare, protection and asylum systems.”

In other words, the push will now be on to create a new category of “climate change refugees” which will be yet another channel through which the overpopulated Third World will be able to invade America, Europe and other First World nations.

As the Environment Times article concludes: “With many millions predicted to be displaced by climate change, supporters of the Islanders have highlighted that the world needs to establish fair, realistic and funded policies which recognize that many of those most affected by climate change include those least able to fund adaptation and those least responsible for humanity’s production of greenhouse gases. Tulele Peisa believe they should not need to sail the waves alone and calls on the leaders of the world to provide moral and political leadership in Copenhagen.”

Sadly, no mention is made of the Pacific Islanders who have lost their homes as a result of atomic testing by the Americans and the French.  In many cases, the islands in these tests were completely obliterated.  Perhaps these islanders may at some point also seek some form of delayed, but nevertheless, important social justice.

A Black Man, The Progressive’s Perfect Trojan Horse. Thanks tpgow

As millions of my fellow Americans, I am outraged, devastated and extremely angry by the democrat’s unbelievable arrogance and disdain for We The People. Despite our screaming “no” from the rooftops, they forced Obamacare down our throats. Please forgive me for using the following crude saying, but it is very appropriate to describe what has happened. “Don’t urinate on me and tell me it’s raining.” Democrats say their mission is to give all Americans health care. The democrats are lying. Signing Obamacare into law against our will and the Constitution is tyranny and step one of their hideous goal of having as many Americans as possible dependent on government, thus controlling our lives and fulfilling Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America.

I keep asking myself. How did our government move so far from the normal procedures of getting things done? Could a white president have so successfully pulled off shredding the Constitution to further his agenda? I think not.

Ironically, proving America is completely the opposite of the evil racist country they relentlessly accuse her of being, progressives used America’s goodness, guilt and sense of fair play against her. In their quest to destroy America as we know it, progressives borrowed a brilliant scheme from Greek mythology. They offered America a modern day Trojan Horse, a beautifully crafted golden shiny new black man as a presidential candidate. Democrat Joe Biden lorded Obama as the first clean and articulate African American candidate. Democrat Harry Reid said Obama only uses a black dialect when he wants.

White America relished the opportunity to vote for a black man naively believing they would never suffer the pain of being called racist again. Black Americans viewed casting their vote for Obama as the ultimate Affirmative Action for America’s sins of the past.

Then there were the entitlement loser voters who said, “I’m votin’ for the black dude who promises to take from those rich SOBs and give to me”.

Just as the deceived Trojans dragged the beautifully crafted Trojan Horse into Troy as a symbol of their victory, deceived Americans embraced the progressive’s young, handsome, articulate and so called moderate black presidential candidate as a symbol of their liberation from accusation of being a racist nation. Also like the Trojan Horse, Obama was filled with the enemy hiding inside.

Sunday, March 21, 2010, a secret door opened in Obama, the shiny golden black man. A raging army of democrats charged out. Without mercy, they began their vicious bloody slaughter of every value, freedom and institution we Americans hold dear; launching the end of America as we know it.

Wielding swords of votes reeking with the putrid odor of back door deals, the democrats landed a severe death blow to America and individual rights by passing Obamacare.

The mainstream liberal media has been relentlessly badgering the Tea Party movement with accusations of racism. Because I am a black tea party patriot, I am bombarded with interviewers asking me the same veiled question.“Why are you siding with these white racists against America’s first African American president?” I defend my fellow patriots who are white stating, “These patriots do not give a hoot about Obama’s skin color. They simply love their country and oppose his radical agenda. Obama’s race is not an issue”.

Recently, I have come to believe that perhaps I am wrong about Obama’s race not being an issue. In reality, Obama’s presidency has everything to do with racism, but not from the Tea Party movement. Progressives and Obama have exploited his race from the rookie senator’s virtually unchallenged presidential campaign to his unprecedented bullying of America into Obamacare. Obama’s race trumped all normal media scrutiny of him as a presidential candidate and most recently even the Constitution of the United States. Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase health care which is clearly unconstitutional.

No white president could get away with boldly and arrogantly thwarting the will of the American people and ignoring laws. President Clinton tried universal health care. Bush tried social security reform. The American people said “no” to both president’s proposals and it was the end of it. So how can Obama get away with giving the American people the finger? The answer. He is black.

The mainstream liberal media continues to portray all who oppose Obama in any way as racist. Despite a list of failed policies, overreaches into the private sector, violations of the Constitution and planned destructive legislation too numerous to mention in this article, many Americans are still fearful of criticizing our first black president. Incredible.

My fellow Americans, you must not continue to allow yourselves to be “played” and intimidated by Obama’s race or the historical context of his presidency. If we are to save America, the greatest nation on the planet, Obama’s progressive agenda must be stopped.

Lloyd Marcus, (black) Unhyphenated American, singer/songwriter, entertainer, author, artist, and Tea Party patriot

LloydMarcus.com

Start spreadin’ the news, I’m leaving Orlando 6am to Searchlight NV for Tea Party Express tour III, continuing my Million Handshake March.

---

Lloyd Marcus, (black) Unhyphenated American, Tea Party Spokesperson and Troubadour, releases his  much anticipated book; Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America.

Mr. Marcus travels extensively singing his originals, American Tea Party Anthem and Twenty Ten, Vote Them Out to thousands in audiences across America. At each event Marcus receives raucous applause for his signature statement, “I am NOT an African American, I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERICAN”.

Lloyd Marcus believes America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who simply choose to Go For It! It is Mr. Marcus’ wish that this book will contribute to opening the eyes of his fellow black Americans who have been deceived for so many years by liberal leaders committed to keeping them on the victim-hood plantation of Liberalism.

Lloyd Marcus, international singer/songwriter/entertainer/columnist/artist tells in his new book, through his own personal stories which chronicles the virtues of Conservatism in common sense easy to understand non political terms, why Conservatism is best for all Americans.

Foreword of this book is by the highly respected and notable Michelle Malkin and was released by Higher Standard Publishers at CPAC 2010 in Washington DC and is available through http://www.LloydMarcus.com

About the Author: Lloyd Marcus was born in the ghetto of East Baltimore and by the young age of 9 recognized the entitlements from government birthed resentment and hostilities. Fortunately, Lloyd Marcus’ dad rose above and as a responsible father, brought his family out of the ghetto and raised Mr. Marcus and his siblings into fine responsible Americans relying on their education and faith in the American Way.

Lloyd Marcus resides in Deltona Florida with his wife as President of the Deltona Arts & Historical Center. He travels with the Tea Party Express and appears at conservative events expressing his belief that Conservatism is best for All Americans. He is available to speak at events promoting Conservatism.

Mr. Marcus’ American Tea Party Anthem, the rally song of the Tea Party Movement is available on the American Tea Party full cd/album of 12 great conservative Take Back America patriotic upbeat songs.