Monday, January 31, 2011


State Nullification

What Is It?
State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.
Says Who?
Says Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished Americans. His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word “nullification” into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.
But Jefferson didn’t invent the idea. Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Patrick Henry and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.
What’s the Argument for It?
Here’s an extremely basic summary:
1) The states preceded the Union.  The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of 13 states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted.  The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.
2) In the American system no government is sovereign.  The peoples of the states are the sovereigns.  It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government.  In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.
3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power.  No other arrangement makes sense.  No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power.  In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created.  James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800.
Why Do We Need It?
As Jefferson warned, if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. In his Report of 1800, Madison reminded Virginians and Americans at large that the judicial branch was not infallible, and that some remedy must be found for those cases in which all three branches of the federal government exceed their constitutional limits.
Isn’t This Ancient History?
Two dozen American states nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005. More than a dozen states have successfully defied the federal government over medical marijuana. Nullification initiatives of all kinds, involving the recent health care legislation, cap and trade, and the Second Amendment are popping up everywhere.
What’s more, we’ve tried everything else.  Nothing seems able to stop Leviathan’s relentless march.  We need to have recourse to every mechanism of defense Thomas Jefferson bequeathed to us, not just the ones that won’t offend Katie Couric or MSNBC.
Won’t This Make the New York Times Unhappy?
More proof it’s a good idea.
Isn’t This Just a Smokescreen for Slavery?
Nullification was never used on behalf of slavery.  As I show in Nullification, it was usedagainst slavery, which is why South Carolina’s secession document cites it as a grievance justifying southern secession, and Jefferson Davis denounced it in his farewell address to the Senate.  Thus Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, backed up by the state legislature, declared the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional (the mere existence of the fugitive-slave clause in the Constitution did not, in its view, suffice to make all the odious provisions of that act constitutionally legitimate).  In Ableman v. Booth (1859), the Supreme Court scolded it for doing so.  In other words, modern anti-nullification jurisprudence has its roots in the Supreme Court’s declarations in support of the Fugitive Slave Act.  Who’s defending slavery here?
How Can I Learn More?
The indispensable source for developments connected to nullification and the Tenth Amendment is Its Legislative Tracking page covers a variety of nullification initiatives and tracks their progress in state legislatures across the country.
My new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, makes the historical, constitutional, and moral case for nullification. Read a free chapter.
And check out what happens when a Princeton professor shoots off his mouth on nullification without knowing anything about the subject.
Nullification is an important defense mechanism for a free people, with deep roots in American history – albeit American history no one is taught in school. Learn more about it, and join the cause.






Abercrombie's buddy promises to grill guv on birth certificate

'I am going to call him,' radio personality confirms

Posted: January 27, 2011
8:06 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Neil Abercrombie and Mike Evans
Radio personality Mike Evans, who says he was mistaken when he told a radio station that Gov. Neil Abercrombie said there is no birth certificate in Hawaii for Barack Obama, now says he's going to be grilling the governor on the issue, if he can get hold of him.
WND reported earlier this week when Evans said in an interview with 92 KQRS Morning Show in Minneapolis, "Yesterday, talking to Neil's office, Neil says that he's searched everywhere using his powers as governor at the Kapi'olani Women's and Children's Hospital and Queens Hospital, the only places where kids were born in Hawaii back when Barack was born and there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii– absolutely no proof at all that he was born inHawaii."
At the time Evans, a long-time Hawaii resident, explained that Abercrombie, whom Evans has known for decades, gave up his search for Obama's nativity records because the governor was unable to find in Hawaii's vital records Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.
His comments are here:
After WND's report, however, Evans back tracked. To Fox News, he said, "Only this I can … tell you is 100 percent fact: that Neil never told me there was no birth certificate. I never talked to him."
"I was on 34radio stations that morning. That was the only station where I said, instead of saying 'the hospital said there's nobirthcertificate' I misspoke and said Neil said that," Evans told Fox. "I misspoke and I apologize for that. I apologize to Neil."
However, Evans claim to get information from Abercrombie also was made on 945 KOOL FM radio in Phoenix,where a podcast reveals Evans saying, "Yesterday I talked to Neil … said he has searched everywhere using his power as governor… there is no Barack Obama birth certificate."
"I asked what does that mean," Evans says. "He says it could be a big controversy when the election takes place."
Further, in a radio interview with 590 KLBJ in Austin, Evans also stated that he had talked to Abercrombie.
"Former United States congressman from Hawaii Neil Abercrombie has been a friend of mine for decades. When I spent time with Neil during the Obama inauguration in Washington, D.C., Neil told me that he was going to run for governor of Hawaii. Neil also told me when he was in college in Hawaii he was a friend of Obama's dad… and he remembered Barack, he called him Barry, when he was a kid. He's actually a very, very good friend of the president.
"Neil promised that when he became governor he was going to cut through all the red tape and get Obama's birth certificate and once and for all and end the stupid controversy," Evans said.
"Yesterday I talked to Neil. Said that he searched everywhere using all of his power as governor. Looked at Kapi'olani Womens Childrens Hospital and Queens Medical Center where children were born back in that day. And he said, 'Mike, there is no Barack Obama birth certificate,'" Evans said.
The KLBJ audio of the conversation starts about seven minutes into the podcast:
Listen to Mike Evans:

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie

Evans was asked on the Peter Boyles show on Denver's KHOW 630 AMradiostation yesterday about the conflict in his statements. He eventually promised that he would try to reach his friend and find out the true story about Abercrombie's hunt for Obama'sbirthcertificate.
Also at the microphone there was Jerome Corsi, author of the soon-to-be-released" Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President."
On the program, Evans said, "I said I talked to Neil's office. I didn't say I talked to Neil."
He continued, "I was never able to get hold of the governor."
Peter Boyles' interview with Evans and Corsi:
Evans explained he was trying to reach Abercrombie following publication of a story in which a former Hawaii election official signed an affidavit that he was told there was no Obama birth certificate in Hawaii.
"I was calling Neil to see what he thought about that. I never got through to him," he said.
Pressed by both Boyles and Corsi on the issue, Evans promised, "I am going to call him. … I'm going to apologize to him, and also [say that I] wish I would have been able to reach him when I read this story."
"I definitely am going to call him," Evans promised.
In an interview broadcast on C-SPAN that Evans conducted in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 21, 2009, the day after Obama's inauguration, Abercrombie also stated that he first remembered seeing Barack Obama Jr. when Obama was old enough to walk around Hawaii as a child, together with his grandfather, Stanley Dunham.
Here is a key section of the C-SPAN interview transcribed:
EVANS: What was the first time you set eyes on Barack Obama?

ABERCROMBIE: Well that, of course, [laughs] was after he was born [laughs]. Barack Sr. had met his mom [Barack Obama Jr.'s mother, Ann Dunham], in a Russian class. She was just scarcely out of high school, really. And, they got married and, with statehood essentially, within a year or so of statehood, Barack Obama was born. Barack Hussein Obama was born.

EVANS: Do you remember him growing up?

ABERCROMBIE: No, I remember him as a little boy, with his grandfather. Because his mother and father separated. That story's pretty well known. And, the father, Barack Sr., went on to the mainland to go to school, and then back to Kenya. And, his mom went on, married again. In the process, I would see "Little Barry," as his grandfather called him, Little Barry and his grandfather mostly, all over. They walked everywhere. Stan Dunham, his grandfather, took him everywhere and they met everybody and knew everybody … I mean it's Hawaii, right? It was easy. You want to be friendly, you want to see people and know people? You can do it. And he [Stanley Dunham] did and Little Barry went with him everywhere.
There is nothing in the C-SPAN interview that suggests specific memories Abercrombie has of noticing the infant Barack Obama Jr.
Nor did Abercrombie seem aware that Ann Dunham left Hawaii with her child some three weeks after the baby's birth to go to Seattle to attend the University of Washington, and that Ann Dunham did not return toHawaii with Barack Obama Jr. until after Barack Obama Sr. left the islands to attend graduate school at Harvard in June 1962.
In a interview published by the New York Times on Dec. 24, 2010, Abercrombie distinguished that he did not see Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham at the hospital with their newborn son, but he remembered the couple bringing the baby to social events.
The New York Times did not press Abercrombie to describe any specific social events where he could remember seeing or being with Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii with the parents.

Previous stories:
Bob Unru his a news editor for

Read more:Abercrombie's buddy promises to grill guv on birth certificate


According to Jihad Watch, “the Muslim Brotherhood is an international Islamic organization dedicated to the imposition of Sharia (strict Islamic law), by violent or peaceful means, throughout the world. It was founded in Egypt in 1928 as a reaction to the abolition of the caliphate by the secular Turks in 1924, in order to reassert the political and supremacist elements of Islam.”

The overarching concern is protestations metastasizing into a domino theory within the M.E. countries. The true fear is not in Egypt alone, but the protests will spread, like a rash from riding a camel bareback, into a wide scope ending dictatorial control in many of sham governments and faux Republican Democracies.  

Will the riots spread to Saudi Arabia?  Will it spread to Iran?  As of Saturday evening, protests are spreading indeed, first into Jordan then Saudi Arabia.  


The Washington Times Online Edition


WOLF: Tawdry details of Obamacare

White House quietly exempts pampered politicos

By Dr. Milton R. Wolf
7:21 p.m., Friday, January 28, 2011
Illustration: Obamacare by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times If you would like to know what the White House really thinks of Obamacare, there’s an easy way. Look past its press releases. Ignore its promises. Forget its talking points. Instead, simply witness for yourself the outrageous way the White House protects its best friends from Obamacare.
Last year, we learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had granted 111 waivers to protect a lucky few from the onerous regulations of the new national health care overhaul. That number quickly and quietly climbed to 222, and last week we learned that the number of Obamacare privileged escapes has skyrocketed to 733.
MugshotAmong the fortunate is a who’s who list of unions, businesses and even several cities and four states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee) but none of the friends of Barack feature as prominently as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
How can you get your own free pass from Obamacare? Maybe you can just donate $27 million to President Obama‘s campaign efforts. That’s what Andy Stern did as president of SEIU in 2008. He has been the most frequent guest at Mr. Obama‘s White House.
Backroom deals have become par for the course for proponents of Obamacare. Senators were greased with special favors, like Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and his Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary L. Landrieu and her Louisiana Purchase. Even the American Medical Association was brought in line under threat of losing its exclusive and lucrative medical coding contracts with the government.
Not only are the payoffs an affront to our democracy and an outright assault on our taxpayers, the timing itself of the latest release makes a mockery of this administration’s transparency promises. More than 500 of the 733 waivers, we now know, were granted in December but kept conveniently under wraps until the day after the president’s State of the Union address. HHS is no stranger to covering up bad news; in fact, this is becoming a disturbing pattern. Last year, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hid from Congress until after the Obamacare vote a damning report from the Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary showing Obamacare would cost $311 billion more than promised and would displace 14 million Americans from their current insurance.
For this administration, transparency promises last only until the teleprompter is unplugged.
Backroom deals and cover-ups may be business as usual for Washington, but understanding why the Obama administration protects its friends from Obamacare offers special insight into what the purveyors of the mandate themselves think about their own law. This is key: The waivers aren’t meant to protect victims from unintended consequences of Obamacare; they are meant to exempt them from the very intentional increased costs of health insurance that the law causes. Under Section 2711 of the Public Health Service Act, Obamacare increases the annual cap of insurance benefits, which sounds great - as does everything else in big government - until the bill comes due, in this case, in the form of higher insurance premiums.
In short, the administration has decided that you will face increased health insurance premiums, but special friends in the unions will not. Look closely, and you’ll see not only theWhite House‘s duplicity but also what the Obama administration really thinks of its crown jewel, Obamacare. White House words say that the annual insurance benefit cap is a feature of the program, but its actions say that it’s a bug.
The question remains: If Obamacare is such a great law, why does the White House keep protecting its best friends from it?
Our democracy cannot allow a president to exercise the unholy power of picking and choosing winners and losers, of choosing who must follow his flawed laws and who gets a free pass. If any American deserves a waiver from Obamacare, then all Americans do.
It was Mr. Obama himself who infamously said, “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends.” This president speaks anything but softly, and Obamacare is his big stick.

It’s time to give every American his own waiver: Repeal Obamacare.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist, medical director and cousin of President Obama. He blogs daily at

Sunday, January 30, 2011


Boehner: U.S. Will Not Default on Debt, But Congress Will Slash Spending

Published January 30, 2011
The United States will not default on its obligations, but must reduce spending at the same time it raises its debt limit, House Speaker John Boehner said Sunday.
Suggesting that lawmakers are willing to uncouple the debt ceiling from the spending debate so that the U.S. doesn't default on its loans, Boehner said the Republican-led House will demand that an increase in the debt limit is met with changes to the budget process so that Washington's spending spree "never happens again."

"If the president is going to ask us to increase the debt limit, then he's going to have to be willing to cut up the credit cards," he said. "I think our team has been listening to the American people. They want to us reduce spending, and there is no limit to the amount of spending we're willing to cut."

But Boehner said suggestions that the U.S. go into default are a non-starter.

"That would be a financial disaster not only for our country, but for the worldwide economy," he said. "You can't create jobs if you default on the federal debt."

In order for the debt ceiling to rise, Congress must approve taking on more debt, which currently is growing by more than $4 billion per day. If it doesn't approve raising the ceiling, then the U.S. will default on its loans and lose its standing as the globe's most reliable bet.

Congress is also grappling with a budget for the federal government, which is operating on last year's numbers since Congress never approved a budget for the 2011 federal fiscal year that spans Oct. 1-Sept. 30. During the lame duck session after last year's midterm election, lawmakers agreed to allow the 2010 spending levels to persist into March, at about the same time the U.S. bumps the debt ceiling.

Meanwhile, President Obama is expected to release his fiscal year 2012 budget proposal on Feb. 14, the same week Republicans plan to bring up for a House vote a budget proposal for the rest of the current fiscal year.

In that budget, Republicans won't insist on across-the-board cuts, Boehner said, but the House Appropriations Committee will target reductions at big-ticket items like eliminating remaining stimulus spending, ending the bank bailout, getting the federal government out of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and repealing the health insurance law signed by President Obama last year.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," said the president should not expect to get a budget signed similar to the one he will submit.

"Our annual deficit is completely out of control. We're gonna send the president a lot less -- we're going to allow him to sign on to a lot less spending than he recommended the other night and is likely to send us in the budget," he said.

In a jab at unnamed predecessors, Boehner added that the amendment process will be open so that everyone will have a say.

"I'm the speaker of the House -- speaker of the whole House. My job is not to do what's been done in the past and that's to dictate what members will get to vote on. We will allow the House to work its will and we will," he said.

The speaker said he's also willing to have a conversation about entitlements though that's hard to do when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Social Security is solvent. Congressional budgeters this week announced Social Security accounts will no longer be in the black again if current income and payout levels are maintained.

"If we can't get Senate Democrats and their leader to recognize that we've got real problems, I don't know how we begin to move down this path of having this adult conversation that I'd like to have and I, frankly, like the president would like to have," Boehner said. 

"We know Medicare is on an unsustained path; they took a half-a-trillion dollars out of it to fund this health care program that they enacted," McConnell added.

Boehner said Americans are waiting for Congress to look them in the eye and be honest about how bad the problem is. 

"Once that happens, we can begin to talk about an array of possible solutions. And have that conversation. Then begin to develop a plan of what's doable to address the long-term concerns that we have in these entitlement programs," he said.


As Egyptian Unrest Builds, Obama Left With Two Bad Options
Published January 29, 2011
As 30-year Egyptian ruler Hosni Mubarak clings to power and protesters continue to storm the streets of Cairo for a fifth straight day, the Obama administration is increasingly looking at a choice between two bad options. 

On one side is Mubarak, who has presided over a corrupt government and meager economy without holding free elections and is now paying the price. Unfortunately for President Obama, he's a key U.S. ally and recipient of billions in U.S. military aid. 

On the other side is the big unknown. Though many protesters are not taking to the streets armed with religious slogans, analysts warn that the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood -- an outlawed, but significant, opposition group -- could be jockeying to take power if Mubarak falls. And if they do, Egypt's peace with Israel, friendliness toward the West and key role in the Israeli-Palestinian talks could be in jeopardy. 

No wonder the White House keeps insisting it's not taking sides. 

"We have backed the wrong horse for 50 years," said former CIA officer Michael Scheuer. "To think that the Egyptian people are going to forget that we backed dictators for 50 years, I think is a pipe dream."

President Obama Friday night tried to dial back the tension, announcing that he had spoken personally with Mubarak and told him to take "concrete steps" [Chicago mafia dance] toward improving the rights and addressing the grievances of the Egyptian people. His remarks reflected a desire for Mubarak to, without using violence, learn from the crisis and parlay the unrest into a reformed political system. Under that scenario, the United States keeps its ally and some semblance of stability, while still siding with the ideals of the protesters. 

"Let's be clear what the stakes are for the United States. We've got an authoritarian regime in power that's been our ally. We don't know at this point what the real alternatives are," said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under the Bush administration. 

But Mubarak's decision Friday to dissolve and recreate his Cabinet failed to mollify the protesters Saturday. Elliott Abrams, a former Middle East adviser to George W. Bush and a current fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, questioned the effectiveness of that move, noting that the people on the streets are objecting specifically to Mubarak. 

"Changing the puppets in that puppet show is not going to have an effect," he told Fox News on Saturday. 

He said Obama should be calling publicly for free and fair elections, suggesting that would be a way for the United States to keep a "moderate, centrist type of government" in place. He expressed doubts that in such a scenario, the Muslim Brotherhood would prevail. 

"I don't buy the notion that everybody in Egypt is for the Muslim Brotherhood," Abrams said. 

But some doubt free elections would follow. Observers count the Muslim Brotherhood -- along with the Egyptian military and former International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei, who has returned to Egypt and called on Mubarak to leave -- as viable possibilities for filling the void should Mubarak fall. 

Scheuer said that if Mubarak goes down, the Islamists in Egypt are the only ones with the institutions to replace the existing ones. 

"I think they have a leg up here," he said. 

The Brotherhood is not listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, and the Egyptian wing has renounced violence in the past. However, terror groups like Hamas spawned from the decades-old organization and Usama bin Laden deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri used to be a member. It advocates for Islamic law to be applied by the government. 

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs deflected questions about the Muslim Brotherhood's influence when asked repeatedly about the group at Friday's press briefing. 

"I do not think that the grievances of the people of Egypt are of a monolithic political belief," Gibbs said. 
If Mubarak stays in power without making critical reforms, the White House made clear Friday that the country's $1.5 billion in military and economic aid would be in jeopardy. That aid has been expanding ever since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979. According to the State Department, the United States helps support education and other programs, but most importantly the Egyptian military. U.S. assistance has over the years provided Egypt with F-16 fighter jets, Apache helicopters, tanks and other vital equipment. 
There are also about 625 U.S. troops in Egypt, according to the Pentagon.