"Publius," The Federalist LV.

Greetings!

The New Year will soon be upon us. And, as much as I would like to wish everyone a HAPPY new year, I'm afraid that 2008 begins as our nation is facing the fight of it's political and economic life.



(Madison)


Because of this state of current events, I wanted to take the time to share with you the words of James Madison. I find that his writing has special relevance for us today, and we need to heed his concerns:

The true question to be decided then is, whether the smallness of the number (of Congressmen), as a temporary regulation, be dangerous to the public liberty? Whether sixty-five members for a few years, and a hundred or two hundred for a few more, be a safe depositary for a limited and well-guarded power of legislating for the United States?

I must own that I could not give a negative answer to this question, without first obliterating every impression which I have received with regard to the present genius of the people of America, the spirit which actuates the State legislatures, and the principles which are incorporated with the political character of every class of citizens I am unable to conceive that the people of America, in their present temper, or under any circumstances which can speedily happen, will choose, and every second year repeat the choice of, sixty-five or a hundred men who would be disposed to form and pursue a scheme of tyranny or treachery.

Sadly, while Madison could not conceive of such treachery, Men in our modern Democracy (the Republic promised to us by the Constitution no longer being in existence) are living under a Matriarchal dictatorship, and continuously vote in the same sad-sacks that make it their business to condemn us as abusers and deadbeats.

Politicians have no interest in protecting our Constitutional rights, but seek to eliminate and erode what little liberties we have left.

It's no surprise that Congress has spectacular approval ratings; it does such a good job of making sure that all laws passed or proposed cut the Constitutional mustard!

Like this little beauty of a proposal here.

It's time, ladies and gentlemen, to THROW THESE BUMS OUT OF OFFICE!

Please DO NOT support your Congresspeople if they are not doing what they are supposed to do: Protect your God given constitutional rights.

Please DO NOT continue to blindly support the Female-crats or the Redumb-licans. Both of these parties are to blame for our present situation. DECLARE YOUR INDEPENDENCE!

Please consider alternatives, such as the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, or check out this interesting website, Liberty Congress.org.

Getting back to Madison:

I am unable to conceive that the State legislatures, which must feel so many motives to watch, and which possess so many means of counteracting, the federal legislature, would fail either to detect or to defeat a conspiracy of the latter against the liberties of their common constituents. I am equally unable to conceive that there are at this time, or can be in any short time, in the United States, any sixty-five or a hundred men capable of recommending themselves to the choice of the people at large, who would either desire or dare, within the short space of two years, to betray the solemn trust committed to them.

All of this is beyond prophetic. Madison's worst fears have been realized.

As many of you are aware, 1913 was the beginning of an era that saw the rise of a massive centralized government hell-bent on manipulating the people at every turn. The unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act was passed in a deceitful manner, the Feds instituted it's prohibition of Marijuana by dishonest means (which was the opening shot of a Drug War that has further eroded the rights of all citizens), and probably most of all, the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution was enacted, depriving the States of their ability to check the powers of Congress.

What this means is that States are now slaves to the Federal government both legislatively, and also judicially, since Federal judges are confirmed by the Senate, whose members were originally chosen by the States.

Therefore, their ability to challenge abusive federal laws and policies on behalf of the people and their own self interest is quite weak. Such limitations only serve to concentrate power in the hands of fewer and fewer men. Treasonous conspiracies, such as the forthcoming North American Union, are much easier to enact, since there are less opportunities for oversight and debate by the State Legislatures and the people they represent.

The vital oversight that Madison counts on as a bulwark against tyranny is no longer.

However, before we hold up the States as shining examples of truth and justice, we should note that just as States violated the Natural Rights of it's black citizens in times past, States also conspire to violate the Natural Rights of Men in our modern time.

Before moving forward, let's take a moment and review what Natural Rights are:

If, then, law be a natural principle—one necessarily resulting from the very nature of man, and capable of being destroyed or changed only by destroying or changing the nature of man—it necessarily follows that it must be of higher and more inflexible obligation than any other rule of conduct, which the arbitrary will of any man, or combination of men, may attempt to establish. Certainly no rule can be of such high, universal and inflexible obligation, as that, which, if observed, secures the rights, the safety and liberty of all.

Natural law, then, is the paramount law. And, being the paramount law, it is necessarily the only law: for, being applicable to every possible case that can arise touching the rights of men, any other principle or rule, that should arbitrarily be applied to those rights, would necessarily conflict with it. And, as a merely arbitrary, partial and temporary rule must, of necessity, be of less obligation than a natural, permanent, equal and universal one, the arbitrary one becomes, in reality? of no obligation at all, when the two come in collision. Consequently there is, and can be, correctly speaking, no law but natural law. There is no other principle or rule, applicable to the rights of men, that is obligatory in comparison with this, in any case whatever. And this natural law is no other than that rule of natural justice, which results either directly from men's natural rights, or from such acquisitions as they have a natural right to make, or from such contracts as they have a natural right to enter into...

...in order that the contract of government may be valid and lawful, it must purport to authorize nothing inconsistent with natural justice, and men's natural rights. It cannot lawfully authorize government to destroy or take from men their natural rights: for natural rights are inalienable, and can no more be surrendered to government—which is but an association of individuals—than to a single individual. They are a necessary attribute of man's nature; and he can no more part with them—to government or anybody else—than with his nature itself.

But the contract of government may lawfully authorize the adoption of means—not inconsistent with natural justice—for the better protection of men's natural rights. And this is the legitimate and true object of government. And rules and statutes, not inconsistent with natural justice and men's natural rights, if enacted by such government, are binding, on the ground of contract, upon those who are parties to the contract, which creates the government, and authorizes it to pass rules and statutes to carry out its objects.*

Now then, having reviewed what Natural Rights are, let us now consider the Essential Baskerville's damning report entitled From Welfare State to Police State:

... In 1984, the Child Support Enforcement amendment to the Social Security Act required states to adopt advisory child-support guidelines. The legislation was promoted by OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) itself and by private collection companies—again, less to help children than to save the government money under the theory that the system would help to get single-mother families off welfare by making fathers pay more.

No statis-tical data were presented then (or have been since) to indicate that the legislation would have the desired effect (Seidenberg 1997, 107–8). Given that most lowincome, single-mother families did not and still do not have valid child-support
orders, that most unpaid child support is owing to unemployment, and that “most non-custodial parents of AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] children do not earn enough to pay as much child support as their children are already receiving in AFDC benefits,” higher support guidelines could not and cannot help these children (Garfinkel and McLanahan 1986, 24–25).

With no explanation or clear constitutional authority, guidelines and criminal enforcement machinery conceived and created to help the minority of children in poverty were then extended, under pressure from OCSE and other interests, to all child-support orders, even the majority not receiving welfare, by the Family Support Act of 1988. The law also made guidelines mandatory. By one estimate, the new guidelines more than doubled the size of awards (Comanor 2004, 5).

All this legal fanfare dramatically enlarged the program and continues to do so by bringing in millions of middle-class cases, most of which result from divorce, but for which the system was never designed. As a result, “the number of dollars passing
through the government collection system exploded” (Comanor 2004, 8).

Nonwelfare cases now dwarf welfare cases. Welfare cases, consisting for the most part of unmarried parents, account for only 17 percent of all cases, and the proportion is shrinking.

The remaining 83 percent of nonwelfare cases consist largely of previously married fathers who are usually divorced involuntarily. Nonwelfare cases currently account for 92 percent of the monies collected (U.S. HHS 2003, figs. 1 and 2).

Despite this growth in collections—and contrary to what was promised when the program was created—the cost to taxpayers increased sharply. Promoted as a program that would reduce government spending, federal child-support enforcement has in fact incurred a continuously increasing deficit. “The overall financial impact of the child support program on taxpayers is negative,” the House Ways and Means Committee reports: federal taxpayers lost $2.7 billion in 2002 (U.S. House 2004, 8–69
and table 8-5).

This money does not vanish, of course. It provides a revenue stream for state governments that officials may spend however they wish (U.S. House 1998, 596).

Though ostensibly revenue neutral, federal subsidies have made child-support collections a source of general funds. “If the state needs more highway funding,” writes one commentator, “all they need to do is raise the state’s level of child support and they can spend their resulting welfare incentive increases on highway projects and remain in perfect compliance with the relevant programs funding requirements” (Tersak 2007). Moreover, federal taxpayers subsidize not only state government operations through child support, but also family dissolution because every fatherless child is an additional source of revenue for states.

In addition to stiff penalties and high interest assessed on alleged arrearages, states profit through federal payments based on the amount collected as well as through the receipt of 66 percent of operating costs and 90 percent of computer costs
(U.S. HHS 1997).

(When two states collaborate, both states qualify for the incentive payment as if each state had collected 100 percent of the money.) Federal outlays of $3.5 billion in 2002 allowed Ohio to collect $228 million and California to collect more than $640 million (U.S. House 2004, table 8-4). “There is a $200 million per year profit motive driving this system” in Michigan alone, attorney Michael Tindall points out.

“It dances at the string of federal money” (Green 2002). To qualify for these funds, states must channel all support payments—not only delinquent payments, but also current payments—through their criminal enforcement machinery. This arrangement makes them eager to bring in as many affluent payers as possible.

Unlike the welfare cases, in which it is almost impossible to collect from impecunious, young, inner-city fathers, the divorced fathers have deeper pockets and can generally be counted on to pay. Ironically, because low income payers do not provide significant amounts to help states qualify for federal funds, these cases are now neglected even though they are the ones for which the system was ostensibly designed, and enforcement measures concentrate instead on the middle class.

Middle Class = Middle Class Men = YOU.

Get it?

Those nutty State governments are at it again: Abusing the rights of men, in clear violation of both federal and state constitutions, in the pursuit of fun and profit. Never mind that these violations of the Supreme Law ruin lives.

Stay far, far away from State Marriage. When you get married, your rights go out the window. You cease being a person, and magically transform into a walking revenue stream for some worthless politician who probably has no idea WHAT the various State and Federal Constitutions have to say about anything!

Also, note that everything depends on Federal money.

But, you may wonder, where does the government get the money to spend on these unconstitutional programs? Isn't it true that tax money is used almost exclusively to finance our government's massive IOU's?

The answer to that question is simple: The Federal Reserve and it's unholy power to create money out of NOTHING [1][2].

When you get down to it, Funny Money is indeed the root of ALL evil, as the world is getting ready to find out when the American economy undergoes terrible contractions next year.

In conclusion, the question here is:

Has the faith that Madison had in the American people to take the steps necessary to monitor their Representatives, remove them at their displeasure, and secure their liberties turned out to be misplaced?

Was his hope in vain?

I say No. Because, as it's been said, Men neither live nor die in vain.

We the People were once blind, but now many of us are starting to see. It is my belief that there are still enough people out there who are not afraid to declare themselves as Free men, and who are willing to resist tyranny and FORCE governments, local, State, and Federal, back into the chains of the Constitution where it belongs.

In the grand scheme of government tyranny, feminism is but an ultimately irrelevant symptom of a larger sickness. As the noose tightens, even the weak handmaids grow fearful of their evil Money Masters.

No matter what happens, let it be said that there are still Sons of Liberty worthy of the name. We will do our best to educate, enlighten, and engage our would be betters on the political and ideological battlefields without apology.

Kublius.