THE CULT OF INSANITY

Obama's pursuit of good ties with America's adversaries at expense of allies has failed

Our World: Ideologue-in-chief
By Caroline Glick Jun. 29, 2009


For a brief moment it seemed that US President Barack Obama was moved by the recent events in Iran. On Friday, he issued his harshest statement yet on the mullocracy's barbaric clampdown against its brave citizens who dared to demand freedom in the aftermath of June 12's stolen presidential elections.

Speaking of the protesters Obama said, "Their bravery in the face of brutality is a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice. The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. In spite of the government's efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it and we condemn it."

While some noted the oddity of Obama's attribution of the protesters' struggle to the "pursuit of justice," rather than the pursuit of freedom - which is what they are actually fighting for - most Iran watchers in Washington and beyond were satisfied with his statement.

Alas, it was a false alarm. On Sunday Obama dispatched his surrogates - presidential adviser David Axelrod and UN Ambassador Susan Rice - to the morning talk shows to make clear that he has not allowed mere events to influence his policies.

After paying lip service to the Iranian dissidents, Rice and Axelrod quickly cut to the chase. The Obama administration does not care about the Iranian people or their struggle with the theocratic totalitarians who repress them. Whether Iran is an Islamic revolutionary state dedicated to the overthrow of the world order or a liberal democracy dedicated to strengthening it, is none of the administration's business.

Obama's emissaries wouldn't even admit that after stealing the election and killing hundreds of its own citizens, the regime is illegitimate. As Rice put it, "Legitimacy obviously is in the eyes of the people. And obviously the government's legitimacy has been called into question by the protests in the streets. But that's not the critical issue in terms of our dealings with Iran."

No, whether an America-hating regime is legitimate or not is completely insignificant to the White House. All the Obama administration wants to do is go back to its plan to appease the mullahs into reaching an agreement about their nuclear aspirations. And for some yet-to-be-explained reason, Obama and his associates believe they can make this regime -- which as recently as Friday called for the mass murder of its own citizens, and as recently as Saturday blamed the US for the Iranian people's decision to rise up against the mullahs -- reach such an agreement.

IN STAKING out a seemingly hard-nosed, unsentimental position on Iran, Obama and his advisers would have us believe that unlike their predecessors, they are foreign policy "realists." Unlike Jimmy Carter, who supported the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting shah 30 years ago in the name of his moralistic post-Vietnam War aversion to American exceptionalism, Obama supports the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting freedom protesters because all he cares about are "real" American interests.

So too, unlike George W. Bush, who openly supported Iran's pro-American democratic dissidents against the mullahs due to his belief that the advance of freedom in Iran and throughout the world promoted US national interests, Obama supports the anti-American mullahs who butcher these dissidents in the streets and abduct and imprison them by the thousands due to his "hard-nosed" belief that doing so will pave the way for a meeting of the minds with their oppressors.

Yet Obama's policy is anything but realistic. By refusing to support the dissidents, he is not demonstrating that he is a realist. He is showing that he is immune to reality. He is so committed to appeasing the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei that he is incapable of responding to actual events, or even of taking them into account for anything other than fleeting media appearances meant to neutralize his critics.

Rice and Axelrod demonstrated the administration's determination to eschew reality when they proclaimed that Ahmadinejad's "reelection" is immaterial. As they see it, appeasement isn't dead since it is Khamenei - whom they deferentially refer to as "the supreme leader" - who sets Iran's foreign policy.

While Khamenei is inarguably the decision maker on foreign policy, his behavior since June 12 has shown that he is no moderate. Indeed, as his post-election Friday "sermon" 10 days ago demonstrated, he is a paranoid, delusional America-bashing tyrant. In that speech he called Americans "morons" and accused them of being the worst human-rights violators in the world, in part because of the Clinton administration's raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993.

Perhaps what is most significant about Obama's decision to side with anti-American tyrants against pro-American democrats in Iran is that it is utterly consistent with his policies throughout the world. From Latin America to Asia to the Middle East and beyond, after six months of the Obama administration it is clear that in its pursuit of good ties with America's adversaries at the expense of America's allies, it will not allow actual events to influence its "hard-nosed" judgments.

TAKE THE ADMINISTRATION'S response to the Honduran military coup on Sunday. While the term "military coup" has a lousy ring to it, the Honduran military ejected president Manuel Zelaya from office after he ignored a Supreme Court ruling backed by the Honduran Congress which barred him from holding a referendum this week that would have empowered him to endanger democracy.

Taking a page out of his mentor Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's playbook, Zelaya acted in contempt of his country's democratic institutions to move forward with his plan to empower himself to serve another term in office. To push forward with his illegal goal, Zelaya fired the army's chief of staff. And so, in an apparent bid to prevent Honduras from going the way of Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua and becoming yet another anti-American Venezuelan satellite, the military - backed by Congress and the Supreme Court - ejected Zelaya from office.

And how did Obama respond? By seemingly siding with Zelaya against the democratic forces in Honduras who are fighting him. Obama said in a written statement: "I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of president Mel Zelaya."

His apparent decision to side with an anti-American would-be dictator is unfortunately par for the course. As South and Central America come increasingly under the control of far-left America-hating dictators, as in Iran, Obama and his team have abandoned democratic dissidents in the hope of currying favor with anti-American thugs. As Mary Anastasia O'Grady has documented in The Wall Street Journal, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have refused to say a word about democracy promotion in Latin America.

Rather than speak of liberties and freedoms, Clinton and Obama have waxed poetic about social justice and diminishing the gaps between rich and poor. In a recent interview with the El Salvadoran media, Clinton said, "Some might say President Obama is left-of-center. And of course that means we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential."

But not, apparently, enhancing human freedoms.

FROM IRAN to Venezuela to Cuba, from Myanmar to North Korea to China, from Sudan to Afghanistan to Iraq to Russia to Syria to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration has systematically taken human rights and democracy promotion off America's agenda. In their place, it has advocated "improving America's image," multilateralism and a moral relativism that either sees no distinction between dictators and their victims or deems the distinctions immaterial to the advancement of US interests.

While Obama's supporters champion his "realist" policies as a welcome departure from the "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush years, the fact of the matter is that in country after country, Obama's supposedly pragmatic and nonideological policy has either already failed - as it has in North Korea - or is in the process of failing. The only place where Obama may soon be able to point to a success is in his policy of coercing Israel to adopt his anti-Semitic demand to bar Jews from building homes in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. According to media reports, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has authorized Defense Minister Ehud Barak to offer to freeze all settlement construction for three months during his visit to Washington this week.

Of course, in the event that Obama has achieved his immediate goal of forcing Netanyahu to his knees, its accomplishment will hinder rather than advance his wider goal of achieving peace between Israel and its neighbors. Watching Obama strong-arm the US's closest ally in the region, the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states have become convinced that there is no reason to make peace with the Jews. After all, Obama is demonstrating that he will deliver Israel without their having to so much as wink in the direction of peaceful coexistence.

So if Obama's foreign policy has already failed or is in the process of failing throughout the world, why is he refusing to reassess it? Why, with blood running through the streets of Iran, is he still interested in appeasing the mullahs? Why, with Venezuela threatening to invade Honduras for Zelaya, is he siding with Zelaya against Honduran democrats? Why, with the Palestinians refusing to accept the Jewish people's right to self-determination, is he seeking to expel some 500,000 Jews from their homes in the interest of appeasing the Palestinians? Why, with North Korea threatening to attack the US with ballistic missiles, is he refusing to order the USS John McCain to interdict the suspected North Korean missile ship it has been trailing for the past two weeks? Why, when the Sudanese government continues to sponsor the murder of Darfuris, is the administration claiming that the genocide in Darfur has ended?

The only reasonable answer to all of these questions is that far from being nonideological, Obama's foreign policy is the most ideologically driven since Carter's tenure in office. If when Obama came into office there was a question about whether he was a foreign policy pragmatist or an ideologue, his behavior in his first six months in office has dispelled all doubt. Obama is moved by a radical, anti-American ideology that motivates him to dismiss the importance of democracy and side with anti-American dictators against US allies.

For his efforts, although he is causing the US to fail to secure its aims as he himself has defined them in arena after arena, he is successfully securing the support of the most radical, extreme leftist factions in American politics.

Like Carter before him, Obama may succeed for a time in evading public scrutiny for his foreign-policy failures because the public will be too concerned with his domestic failures to notice them. But in the end, his slavish devotion to his radical ideological agenda will ensure that his failures reach a critical mass.

And then they will sink him.

SOMETHING HUGE IS HAPPENING - LIKE WORLD ORDER CHANGE & DESTRUCTION OF THE USA

Pamela "Atlas" Geller began her publishing career at The New York Daily News and subsequently took over operation of The New York Observer as
Associate Publisher. She left The Observer after the birth of her fourth child but remained involved in various projects including American Associates, Ben Gurion University and being Senior Vice-President Strategic Planning and Performance Evaluation at The Brandeis School.


by Pam Geller

I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in
six languages, and have studied history all my life. I think there is
something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a
banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes, these exist
but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now
coming into a sharper focus.


Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it
because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people
react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something
happening within our country that has been evolving for about 10 - 15 years.
The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing
our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history,
and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why
we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think
critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are
not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close
election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so
controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one
woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We
have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to
write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream
Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana
republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free
fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of
collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire
government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and
know precisely what I am talking about.) The list is staggering in its
length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x 10. And we are at war
with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same
religion who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have
the opportunity to do so.

And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has
never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big a s Wasilla ,
Alaska . All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in
their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip
by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him
speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force
stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course.
The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he
answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more
important.)

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am
now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has
never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will
divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign
the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed
coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral
German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former
smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German
knew next to nothing.. What they did know was that he was associated with
groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they
disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory
and promises.. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he
was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even
newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would
bully them into submission.

And then he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled economic
crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the
controls of government power, department by department, person by person,
bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name,
where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his
side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and
goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating
the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages,
better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country,
across Europe , and across the world.

He did it with a compliant media - Did you know that? And he did this
all in the name of justice and . . .. change. And the people surely got
what they voted for. (Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.) Read
your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down,
called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed
out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in
England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and
called a crazy troublemaker.. He was right, though .

Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in
Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, a nd
universities. And in less than six years - a shorter time span than just
two terms of the U. S. presidency - it was rounding up its own citizens,
killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and
neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course.
The road to Hell is paved with them.


***************************************************************

Since many of you enjoy senior citizen status or will sometime in the not
too distant future, I thought you might be interested in this information.

IN GOD WE TRUST

Every body that is on this mailing list is either a
senior citizen, is getting close or knows sombody that is.

Most of you know by now that the Senate version
(at least) of the "stimulus" bill includes provisions for extensive
rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this20part of
the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by
Bloomberg with the following statement.

Bloomberg: "Daschle says health-care reform "will
not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that
come with age instead of treating them."

If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just
remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that
is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder
of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.

Please use the power of the internet to get this
message out. Talk it up at the grassroots level. We have an election
coming up in one year and nine months. We have the ability to address and
reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and it allies have
begun and in the interim, we can make our voices heard! Lets do it!

If you disagree, don't do anything.

GREEN ODE TO PADDY O'MOUSAVI

O Paddy dear, and did ye hear the news that’s goin’ round?

The shamrock is by law forbid to grow on Irish ground!

No more Saint Patrick’s Day we’ll keep, his color can’t be seen

For there’s a cruel law ag’in the Wearin’ o’ the Green.

”I met with Napper Tandy, and he took me by the hand

And he said, “How’s poor old Ireland, and how does she stand?”

“She’s the most distressful country that ever yet was seen

For they’re hanging men and women there for the Wearin’ o’ the Green.”

“So if the color we must wear be England’s cruel red

Let it remind us of the blood that Irishmen have shed

And pull the shamrock from your hat, and throw it on the sod

But never fear, ‘twill take root there, though underfoot ‘tis trod.

When laws can stop the blades of grass from growin’ as they grow

And when the leaves in summer-time their color dare not show

Then I will change the color too I wear in my caubeen

But till that day, please God, I’ll stick to the Wearin’ o’ the Green.

OBA-HUSSEIN'S UNCLE SAM PLANTATION

Back on Uncle Sam's plantation
Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God's grace, I found my way out.

It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America 's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability.

"Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the SynfuelsCorporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.

"Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

CONSIDERATIONS HOW ISRAEL WILL ATTACK IRAN

Israeli government ministers and Knesset members who will help make the decision about whether to attack Iran's nuclear facilities do not have to wait any longer for a preparatory briefing by the Israel Air Force.

They can read about all the possible scenarios for a strike on Iran, and about the potential risks and chances of success, in a study by Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Never before has such an open, detailed and thorough study of Israel's offensive options been published.

The authors of the 114-page study meticulously gathered all available data on Israel's military capabilities and its nuclear program, and on Iran's nuclear developments and aerial defenses, as well as both countries' missile inventory.

After analyzing all the possibilities for an attack on Iran, Toukan and Cordesman conclude: "A military strike by Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities is possible ... [but] would be complex and high-risk and would lack any assurances that the
overall mission will have a high success rate."

FULL ARTICLE http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085619.html

OBAMBI WANTS TO SPEND NEARLY ONE BILLION DOLLARS ON SUPPORTING PALESTINIAN TERRORISS

As President Oba-Hussein is getting set to welcome Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to Washington this week, and US lawmakers debate the proposed $900 million aid package to the PA, it is once again using its money to proclaim that killing Israeli woman and children is heroic.

The PA chose to name its latest computer center "after the martyr Dalal Mughrabi," who led the most deadly terror attack in the country's history. Her 1978 bus hijacking killed 37 civilians, 12 of them children, including American photographer Gail Rubin. The new center is funded by Abbas's office, which is bolstered by Western aid money. (Al-Ayyam, May 5).

US law prohibits the funding of Palestinian structures that use any portion of their budget to promote terror or honor terrorists. But $200 million of the US's proposed $900m. aid package is earmarked to go directly to the Abbas government, which regularly uses its budget to honor terrorists.

In fact, this latest veneration of Mughrabi is not an isolated case, but part of a continuing pattern of honoring terrorists that targets children in particular.

Last summer the PA sponsored "the Dalal Mughrabi football championship" for kids, and a "summer camp named for martyr Dalal Mughrabi... out of honor and admiration for the martyr."

It also held a party to honor exemplary students, also named "for the martyr Dalal Mughrabi," under the auspices of Abbas and at which Abbas's representative "reviewed the heroic life of the martyr [Mughrabi] (Al-Hayat al-Jadida, July 23, 24 and August 8, 2008).

All these PA-funded activities were to teach kids that a killer of women and children is a role model.

TWO MONTHS AGO, 31 years to the day after the Mughrabi murders, PA TV broadcast a special program celebrating the terror attack, calling the killing of 37 civilians "one of the most important and most prominent special operations... carried out by a team of heroes and led by the heroic fighter Dalal Mughrabi" (PA TV March 11).

And its not just Mughrabi who is a Palestinian hero. Despite professions in English by Abbas and other PA leaders that they reject terror, the PA has a long and odious history in Arabic of celebrating terrorists as role models and heroes, often involving US money.

USAID spent $400,000 in 2004 to build the Salakh Khalaf soccer field. After Palestinian Media Watch reported that Khalaf was the head of the Palestinian terror group that murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and two American diplomats in Sudan, USAID publicly apologized and said it would demand that the PA change the name. The name was never changed.

In 2002, US money funded renovations of the "Dalal Mughrabi school for girls." After PMW alerted the US State Department to Mughrabi's terrorist past, the funding was cancelled. Within 24 hours, the PA said the name would be changed, and the American money was reinstated.

Once the work was completed, however, the school was renamed for the terrorist. It bears Mughrabi's name to this day.

AT A RECENT hearing of the House Appropriations Committee, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged: "We will work only with a Palestinian Authority government that unambiguously and explicitly accepts the Quartet's principles, [including] a commitment to nonviolence."

And it's not just Clinton's pledge. US law interprets nonviolence to include not honoring terrorists: "None of the [US]... assistance under the West Bank and Gaza program may be made available for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise honoring individuals who commit, or have committed acts of terrorism" (2008 Foreign Operations Bill Sec. 657.B - C.1).

This latest glorification of the terrorist Mughrabi, coming as Congress considers the administration's latest request to fund Abbas, imposes a profound responsibility on Congress. But it also creates a unique opportunity.

Will the US follow its own laws, and insist that the PA stop turning killers of women and children into heroes and role models before it receives another cent of US money?

Congress and Obama can send a message to the PA that the US will not fund the PA, or any part of its budget, until it proves that it has ceased promoting terrorist murderers as heroes and role models. It can demand a statement from Abbas - in public, in Arabic and in the PA media - that murdering Israelis is terror, that terrorists are neither heroes nor holy martyrs and that they will no longer be honored.

Or they can send a different message to Abbas: that raising another generation of Palestinian children to the values of hate, murder and martyrdom is acceptable to the US - so acceptable that the US is even willing to fund it.

Alan Note: and spend nearly a $100 million bringing thousands of these trained terrorists into the USA and establish a life for them at taxpayer expense. Another Oba-Hussein, increasingly overt, dilution of loyal Americans with the import of terrorists and illegal aliens with little or no loyalty to America. When will we wake up and SEE through what he is doing to us and our country.

The True Story of the Bilderberg Group (Book)

By: Daniel Estulin

As a rhetorical question, can someone please explain to me how it is that progressive liberals such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, as well as do-gooder humanitarians with multiple social projects ongoing such as the Rockefellers and every Royal House in Europe, can perennially attend Bilderberg meetings apparently knowing that the final objective of this despicable group of hoodlums is a fascist One World Empire? —Daniel Estulin (P.318)—

NO DIFFERENT really, as a non-Moslem version of the Islamic Jihad to create a world caliphate obeying archaic Koranic rules and only loyal to Allah.

Daniel Estulin is a Madrid-based journalist and an investigative reporter who took on the daunting and dangerous task of researching the Bildeberg Group. Equally intriguing as his harrowing tales of being followed and nearly killed on a couple of occasions while working on the book, is the manner in which Estulin connects the dots between the Bilderberg Group, world events, notable politicians and corporate tycoons and the two other secretive monsters of the ruling elite, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission (TC).

The project lasted fifteen years and was motivated by Estulin's curiosity about how it is that the mainstream media has never covered in depth the meetings of the Bilderberg Group whose combined wealth exceeds the combined wealth of all U.S. citizens.

What Estulin's book makes clear is that the group, along with the CFR and TC, has become a shadow government whose top priority is to erase the sovereignty of all nation-states and supplant them with global corporate control of their economies under the surveillance of "an electronic global police state."

The author emphasizes that not all members of the group are "bad" people, and he implies that membership is structured somewhat like concentric circles in a target scheme within inner core and various levels of relationship between that core and the outer circles of membership.

Almost every famous player in politics and finance in the world is a member of one of the three organizations mentioned above, and their political affiliations range from liberal to conservative, for example, George W. Bush, George Soros, Gerald Ford, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter. Of this private club, Estulin says:

This parallel world remains unseen in the daily struggles of most of humanity, but, believe me, it is there:

a cesspool of duplicity and lies and double-speak and innuendo and blackmail and bribery. It is a surreal world of double and triple agents, of changing loyalties, of professional psychotic assassins, brainwashed black ops agents, soldiers of fortune and mercenaries, whose primary sources of income are the dirtiest and most despicable government-run subversive missions-the kind that can never be exposed.

In the final months of 2007 we are witnessing the stupendous success of the Big Three's strategy for planetary economic hegemony as the cacophony of their carefully engineered global economic cataclysm reverberates across America and around the world.

It was never about buyers who didn't read the fine print when taking out liar loans. It was always about silver-tongued, ruling elite politicians and central bankers, anointed by the shadow government, who ultimately and skillfully stole and continue to steal governments from people and replace them with transnational corporations.

No one could have said it better than David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, a Bilderberg member and board member of the Council On Foreign Relations in his Memoirs:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

If you want to know who really runs the world and the lengths to which they will go to establish their globalist hegemony, you must read Estulin's well-documented The True Story of The Bilderberg Group.

MASS-MURDERER AHMADI-NEJAD CAN SPEAK AT OUR UNIVERSITIES BUT NOT NETANYAHU

Imagine it's 1940, and picture Adolf Hitler speaking at a US university, receiving a polite reception, while Winston Churchill is barred from speaking because his safety cannot be guaranteed.

It's unthinkable, yet the very same pro-fascist dynamic is a reality in 21st Century America.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu comes to America knowing he is a second-class citizen who is denied the free-speech rights enjoyed even by prominent jihadists, having been violently prevented from speaking on campuses in the US and Canada in recent years.

Protestors at Berkeley, the campus once synonymous with the term "free speech," forced the cancellation of Netanyahu's speech there, as well as two subsequent speeches, in November 2000. The Jewish Bulletin of Northern California reported:

Hundreds of protesters shouting "Support the Palestinians, choose a side" and "No free speech for war criminals" blocked the gate leading to the Berkeley Community Theatre Tuesday evening, forcing the cancellation of a scheduled speech by former
Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Additional talks by Netanyahu that were scheduled Wednesday and Thursday in San Mateo and San Rafael were subsequently cancelled.

Waving banners reading "Zionism=Nazism" and "End U.S. aid to Israel," the crowd was estimated at more than 500 by the Berkeley Police Department and at 200 to 250 by observers...

The vitriol that greeted Netanyahu at Berkeley only worsened in the ensuing years. Anneli Rufus of the East Bay Express recalled that in 2001:

...Students for Justice in Palestine had become large enough to stage a high-profile sit-in at UC's Wheeler Hall. The group had demanded that the regents divest from companies with significant holdings in Israel.

When the regents failed to respond, dozens of group members chained shut nine of the building's twelve doors. They formed human chains to block two of the remaining doors and ushered students out of the building through the last door. Professor Gordon, who had an important class scheduled that day in Wheeler, burst through the chain of students only to be showered with spit and hit by a student...

Later that year, 23-year-old Aaron Schwartz was walking toward the Hillel building as part of an obviously Jewish group celebrating the annual holiday Simchas Torah.

According to accounts in The Daily Californian and the Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, one onlooker mocked the procession by goose-stepping in place, chanting "Heil Hitler," and performing the Nazi salute. After punching Schwartz in the face and knocking him to the ground, the man and his two companions strolled away.

But many remember spring 2002 as the season the screaming really started. On spring break, someone hurled the cinderblock through the front door of Berkeley's Hillel Center, scrawling the words F--- JEWS nearby...

The same mentality was on display in spring 2002 at San Francisco State University, where pro-Israel students and elderly Holocaust survivors trying to hold a rally were stopped by violent protestors screaming "F-- the Jews," "Jews, go back to Russia,"

"Too bad Hitler didn't finish the job," and "Get out or we'll kill you."

Threats of "we'll kill you" appear to have led to the logical next step in the recent violent death of 38-year-old pro-Israel activist Daniel J. Kliman in San Francisco.
It appears that present-day northern California is to Jews what Mississippi in the early 20th Century was to African-Americans-the epicenter of explosive hate-although the same bigotry permeates much of the academic world.

That would include Concordia University in Montreal, where Netanyahu was prevented from speaking about the war against terrorism. Daniel Pipes, writing in the New York Post on September 17, 2002, described the violent scene:

... he never made it onto the campus - because a thousand anti-Israel demonstrators staged a mini-riot with the intent of preventing him from speaking...

The anti-Israel forces physically assaulted the would-be audience... They smashed a plate-glass window and threw objects at the police inside. They hurled furniture at police from a mezzanine. As Toronto's Globe & Mail put it, "By lunchtime, the vestibule of Concordia's main downtown building was littered with paper, upturned chairs, broken furniture and the choking aftereffects of pepper spray."

The police, saying they couldn't assure Netanyahu's safety, canceled the event...
Pipes noted a revealing contrast involving another speaker the same week:

On Thursday, Hanan Ashrawi, the former spokeswoman and colleague of Yasser Arafat, went to Colorado College in Colorado Springs to give a keynote speech at a symposium on "September 11: One Year Later."

Protestors noted that Ashrawi is smack on the side of America's enemies in the War on Terrorism. For example, while the U.S. government formally designates Hamas a terrorist group, Ashrawi states she doesn't "think of Hamas as a terrorist group." Also, she considers Israeli civilians living on the West Bank to be "legitimate . . . targets of Palestinian resistance" -- that is, legitimate targets for deadly violence.

Yet the protestors did not block the terrorist spokeswoman from expressing her opinions (a mere year after the 9/11 attacks), and she is just one of countless pro-terror speakers who are welcome on US campuses.

Sheikh Khalid Yasin, a convert to Islam, has been invited to numerous colleges to preach that terrorism is justified, homosexuals should be murdered, and Christian missionaries in Africa are injecting people with AIDS. Terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, of course, have never had to worry about efforts to shut them down at the universities where they teach.

Little wonder that when the genocide-espousing Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University on September 24, 2007, the event did not seem out of the ordinary. His politely received speech was hailed by many observers as a fine display of one of the noblest ideals of institutions of higher learning -the free exchange of ideas.

Hardly anyone in the media noted that, the day before he departed for America, Ahmadinejad re-emphasized the two most heartfelt ideas to which he and his regime are dedicated--"Death to America" and "Death to Israel," emblazoned on signs in a military parade over which he presided.

Were the deaths of America and Israel debatable propositions? For many in the academic world, the answer apparently is yes. After all, they would tell us, that's what universities are for. Let all views be heard.

All views, that is, with certain exceptions, including the anti-terror message of the prime minister of Israel.

Courtesy American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/ahmadinejad_can_speak_on_a_us.html

H.I.H. REZA PAHLAVI SPEECH MAY 06, 2009

ADDRESS GIVEN BY Reza Pahlavi of Iran

ON"Iran-US Relations At a New Cross Roads" University of California – IrvineWednesday, May 6th, 2009


Members of the faculty, students, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

I am very happy to be back at UCI today. It is a special privilege for me to have the opportunityof addressing you at this important crossroad in the relationship between our two countries, and the significance it has for the future of peace and stability in the Middle East.

Let me begin by saying that a good university where one can study in peace and freedom may seem common place to you. But not so for many thousands of students in my homeland whose eager young minds remain constrained and constantly shackled by a closed and dogmatic atmosphere that has been ruthlessly imposed on them by an unpopular dictatorship.

Consequently, universities in my country are not places for critical learning, and students are not given the kind of opportunities that they need to freely debate contemporary issues or contemplate the shape of the future in the manner that is common practice here in the West.

But having said that, I would like to inform you that students in Iranian universities have refused to accept the imposition of the fate prescribed for them by the state as fait accompli, and have, through their resistance, remained a major thorn in the eyes of the regime.

Their stubborn defiance and their continuing struggle for the promotion of secular democratic values, even from the confines of their “intellectual prison”, has been a source of great inspiration across Iranian society.

Indeed, many in Iran credit the robust movement of Iranian students for freedom, justice and human rights, for being a major impetus behind the kind of similar demands that are now being made by Iranian women, labor unions and ethnic groups throughout the country.

Yet, students in Iran continue to remain quite savvy and realistic about their prospects for the future. They are aware of the challenges that lie ahead in the hazardous road which they have chosen to take for the promotion of their aspirations. They know at the same time that their cause is just while recognizing that there is a battle at hand for the future that belongs to them.

Dear Friends,

My cause is to ensure that they emerge victorious in this battle so that our people may ultimately shrug off the combined yoke of religious fanaticism and political despotism that has brought havoc to the lives of ordinary people, and to the standing of our country in the international community.

However, I have no illusions about the obstacles that lie before us, and the difficulties that we continue to face on a daily basis. But it is my solemn conviction that this is a battle we can win!

The clerical regime is a detested and unpopular tyranny that has done nothing in the last 30-years to safeguard or enhance the welfare, peace of mind and the prosperity of the Iranian people, despite having had access to more than $800 billion of oil revenues!

After coming to power, it did not take the ruling clerics much time to squander the good will of the Iranian people and the international community, and particularly those of our neighbors.

Looking back over time, it is hard to imagine any other outcome, since those who had taken power in Tehran were part and parcel of a revolutionary, revisionist regime that was bent on changing the status quo, not just in the region or in the Islamic world, but everywhere else as well.

However, so long as the regime had not alienated the majority of the population at home, their ambitions for actually implementing the export of their radical ideals and religious extremism were largely confined to senseless ranting and sloganeering.

With the exception of adopting a foreign policy based on militant anti-Americanism that came into full view following the seizure of American diplomats in Tehran and which has continued to remain with us to this day, the regime never saw the need to indulge beyond a war of words to demonize states like Israel for violating the rights of the Palestinians, or some Arab states as being subservient lackeys of the US, and in the case of Saudi Arabia and its leadership, which were the prime source of Khomeini’s personal venom and hatred, the un-rightful and usurping custodians of Islam’s holiest shrines in Mecca and Medina.

But as the initial euphoria that had come about in the aftermath of the revolution started giving way to a more sober understanding of realities at home, things began to change. First and foremost, the prolonged war with Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives were needlessly sacrificed, was used as a vehicle for consolidating fundamentalist rule across the country and brutally crushing every trace of opposition.

Moreover, as the regime’s ineptitude became more apparent with the way in which our nation was being so grossly mismanaged, the need to rely on other factors – for example, the construction of a “forward line of defense” for the protection and the preservation of the Islamic Republic – became more urgent; hence, the range of various controversial Iranian policies which we have seen in the course of the last twenty somewhat years, starting with the creation of Hezbollah in Lebanon as far back as the early 1980s, to the financial and other support that isgiven to radical groups like Hamas in Palestine, or the meddling that have gone on with hardline Shiite groups in Iraq, Afghanistan or Bahrain… and the list can go on.

It is ironic that this whole notion of the Islamic government’s quest for a “forward line of defense” should be confirmed and validated by none other than Mohammad Khatami, a former President of the regime.

In response to a question posed to him by a senior US diplomat who testified before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year, suggesting that Iran’s arming of Hezbollah and Hamas could potentiality spark a terrible conflict between Israel andothers in that region, Khatami had responded by reminding that “Iran planned its line of defense from external lines”.

In other words, promoting regional conflict and instability is perceived by the regime as a key consideration of its survival! So, contrary to the opinion of some who continue harping on how strong the Islamic regime has become as a result of various American policies here and there, my response is to say:

Nonsense!

I say this because no government with a strong popular base sacrifices the peace of mind and prosperity of its people in order to exhibit lines of “forward defense” in the manner I just described.

In the case of the regime’s nuclear ambitions which has now become the centrepiece of Iran’s dispute with the international community, what kind of government that sits on some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves, would subject its own citizens to undue and damaging economic sanctions or potential war through a lack of transparency, if its only real intent was to pursue a peaceful nuclear program for creating electricity?

Therefore, my suggestion is that, far from being either self assured or strong, the kind of costly aggressive policies which the clerical regime has pursued – whether in support of their surrogates in places like Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan, or those which they have pursued in defiance of the UN Security Council in their dangerous search for nuclear weapons – are clear manifestations of the kind of insecurity that any unpopular regime feels when it knows that is hated by a vast majority of its own people.

I now wish to turn to the all important issue of Iran-US relations at this critical juncture.

Despite President Obama’s personal popularity and the new momentum which his administration has been able to generate since taking office earlier this year, it is foolish to think that a serious breakthrough with Iran can be achieved, as if the factors that have exacerbated Iran-US relations in the course of the past 30 years have miraculously disappeared!

Since its inception in 1979, the ruling clerics in Iran have pursued ideologically -based policies aiming at the ascendancy of a doctrinaire Shiite state.

Enmity with the United States has been a central part of that doctrine. The regime perceives the US as a pillaging force, anchored in the Islamic heartland through the state of Israel, and a corrupting cultural beacon for the Islamic youth. Moreover, the US is seen as the main obstacle that stands in the way of the geo-strategic goals and hegemonic ambitions of the clerical regime in the region.

In the course of the last 30 years, five U.S. presidents have sought to meet this challenge, using to no avail a range of policy tools – from containment to appeasement to plain threat of force.

To no little extent this failure has been due to a flawed understanding of the nature of the adversity as well as random and haphazard use of these tools.

Today, the new US administration, in its hope for ending the gridlock that has stifled both parties in the last three decades, has indicated that it privileges engagement over confrontation. But if the objective of the dialogue is to dissuade the Islamic regime from pursuing its current policies, a first question to ask is: what leverage does President Obama have for ensuring a different outcome?

If this leverage is predicated on America’s restored world standing and Mr. Obama’s own personal prestige and popularity, the US government may still be in for more frustrations and disappointments. It is quite possible that the Islamic leadership will respond to a call for engagement in order to gain the moral legitimacy it lacks by becoming a dialogue partner to the US President and his western allies, without any willingness to compromise on the kind of key issues that are critical for both the US and its Western allies.

If President Obama’s objective from direct engagementwith Iran is to use diplomatic channels to persuade the Iranian regime to change some of its key controversial policies such as its nuclear ambitions or its various negative regional interferences, then as we have already witnessed in recent weeks, he is in for a big surprise.

In fact, it is the Iranian leadership which is calling the shots and asking for the US to change its behavior, before they sit down to talk!

My primary concern here is that, at the end of the day, millions of nameless freedom loving Iranians who are the West’s only real natural friends and allies in Iran, should not bear the brunt of any mishap as a consequence of any possible misperception.

Here it is most pertinent that I say something about President Obama’s much publicized Iranian New Year message that was widely distributed on March 21st.

Unlike his predecessor, in a message that was deliberately addressed to both the Iranian people and the Iranian government, President Obama made specific reference to the words of one of Iran’s most eminent and revered poets, Saadi, who lived in the 13th Century.

As a matter of fact, the very same poem also graces the entrance to the Hall of Nations of the United Nations building in New York, with this call for breaking all barriers:

Human beings are members of a whole,
In creation of one essence and soul.
If one member is afflicted with pain,
Other members uneasy will remain.
If you have no sympathy for human pain,
The name of human you cannot retain.

My country’s rich history of culture and civilization has ingrained Saadi’s words into the subconscious of the overwhelming majority of our people who are today the main victims of their brutal and bloodstained rulers.

While I applaud President Obama for his courage and initiative in wanting to advance a new agenda, I am not at all sure about the wisdom of putting a suffering people on the same footing as an oppressive government.

By highlighting this point, my aim is to draw your attention to the responsibility that we all have, as human beings, for showing care and compassion for those most in need of our understanding.

In the case of Iran, I assure you that it is the people and not their ruthless government that needs to be assured of this understanding. It is they who need your support and solidarity, and not their oppressive government.

I do not object to the new US administration’s call for engagement and dialogue with the Islamic Republic, if that should serve the higher interests of world peace.

But if a sober assessment should bring us to conclude that the Islamic regime is unlikely to deviate from its ideological line and enmity towards the United States, then it may be worth recalling that the real Iran has little in common with those who have usurped power and face the world with a clenched fist.

This is a good juncture to tell you why the debate between idealists and adherents of realpolitik has not led to a solution for dealing with the Islamic Republic effectively. Idealists emphasize democracy and human rights over security and economic interests, while realpolitik does the reverse.

But in the case of Iran this is a false dichotomy. Here, idealism is realism! The history of nuclear diplomacy with Iran provides ample proof that external economic and diplomatic pressures are not enough to make the clerical regime change course.

One must look at support for democracy and human rights as the means of increasing internal popular pressure on the regime for it to yield. It is not that diplomats should add human rights and democracy to their list of demands, adding to their burden.

I argue that policies that strengthen the voices of Iranian people will be the most important instrument of pressure available to diplomats. That is why I say: “here idealism is realism.

”Ladies and Gentlemen,

Prior to concluding my remarks, I want to just say a few words regarding the so-called presidential elections in Iran.

To all the hype that is being given to this upcoming event that is scheduled for June 12th, I just want to remind you of the following:

Today, Iran is not a democracy, and the election process does not in any shape or form reflect the will and aspirations of the Iranian people!

Thus any submission to the propaganda put forth by Iranian lobbyists and apologist who harpon the fact that, contrary to some other countries in the Middle East, “at least some form of elections are conducted in Iran!” is highly misleading.

In simple terms, all the candidates are closely vetted by the state, and irrespective of the kind of differences that they may have in style or presentation, they all adhere to the same agenda when it comes to most issues of consequence to ordinary people in the country or the international community.

At the end of the day, whoever is elected must carry out in full whatever decision or policy that is prescribed for him by the country’s Supreme Leader. In short, whether Ahmadinejad is re-elected or not will not make much of a difference.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In closing, let me reiterate that my compatriots’ hopes and aspirations for a promising future in a free and prospering society should not be compromised for the sake of certain ploys that will in all probability come to nothing.

It should never be forgotten that beneath the unpleasant face ofpeople like Khamenei or Ahmadinejad, there exists another Iran; an Iran which yearns for change.

Female activists, restless youths, unionists, teachers and academics, writers and artists, ethnic and religious minorities, and disenfranchised citizens have been part of a nation-wide struggle for change.

These are the true voice of Iran! These are the people that risk all for a better tomorrow…

And I implore you: do not deny my valiant compatriots, your support. You must let the youth of Iran know that they are not alone, that you have heard their cry for freedom.

You must not, you cannot, in all conscience, turn your back on them in their hour of need; for THEY…ARE…THE FUTURE!

OBA-HUSSEIN'S UNREAL WORLD VIEW

Is the real world ready for Obama's unreal world view?

by Sol Sanders

Only the historians decades hence, if then, will know what measure of President Barack Hussein Obama's worldview was conditioned by the small band of 60s Stalinists and fellow-travelers his mother and he moved in as a child and as a young man and what part was formed of an innate cunning that produced a more pragmatic — if often uninformed — view as he entered the real world.

One aspect is already clear, however: the terrible choices that are presented all of us in life, but particularly the ones for the world's most powerful figure as president of the United States, have come down on him hard.

He admits as much in his casual statements about how surprised he is that all problems come to the presidency [the phenomenon Harry Truman described as "the buck stops here"], or his finding that there were so many important issues at a given moment. That much comes through despite all the teleprompterspeak he so skillfully employs in what now seems an unending appeal for public support in his continued drift as a campaigner.

Leaving aside the turbulent domestic scene and its problems — not a small aside since they must in the nature of things demand his first priority — it is perhaps in foreign policy where the nature of reality throws more cold water at his [mostly] sunny rhetoric.

And while Europe seemingly retreats into self delusion, self indulgence and impotency, after almost 500 years of dominating world events, Obama is drawn to the problems of Asia as those needing attention as immediately threatening world peace and stability.

He seems loathe to try to strip out in an analytical way the inevitable debris left over not only from the Bush Administration but decades of U.S. policy before him. Amid the machinations of a wide gaggle of discordant advisers, many of what he purports to be new initiatives are not new or if new, have already met stalemate.

That is despite his steadfast determination to ignore the reality with his endless rhetoric.

Nowhere is the hollow call of the Obama trumpet so off key as in the Mideast.

Obama's highly publicized one-year schedule for achieving a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine affair is a non sequitur. "The Palestine Project", now the rallying cry for the European left from the entertainment world glitterati to reawakening virulent anti-semites, is at its lowest ebb for decades.

There is no negotiating partner for the Israelis — not only one that would make a Sadat-like statement accepting the Jewish state's right to exist but a deepening division between a once dominant secular Jerusalem Arab elite and the Hamas Muslim fanatics throws up. There is no unified Palstinian representation.

Israeli opinion has moved right, in obvious reaction to the facts on the ground, that is, the chaos in "Palestine" and the almost daily repeated threat from Teheran. And, ironically, a tacit alliance is developing between Cairo and Jerusalem against the suspected weakness of Obama vis-à-vis the growing threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

It has never been true that Israel-Arab was the beginning and the end-all of problems in the umma, the Muslim world. But it is now dramatically clearer although not recognized in Washington.

From Morocco to Tokyo, among the Afro-Asian leadership — however much his popularity with the street as the first African-American president enthralls — dismay on the part of traditional friends and allies is apparent. Old enemies seem caught in equal parts bafflement and encouraged by his naïveté.

This is leading to important if little remarked occurrences everywhere which are inferentially related to his public statements. Thus Rabat broke diplomatic relations with the mullahs in Teheran, exhibiting the fear throughout the Sunni Arab Establishment that Obama's perceived Iran strategy is dangerously imperiling them..

The Moroccans were explicit about the threat when they came to the support of the Bahraini monarch, King Hamad Bin Isa al-Khalifa, against outright territorial claims by Iranian officials to that little oil kingdom. The Gulf has seen nothing like it since Iraqi Saddam's claims on Kuwait which led to two wars.

The Tehran challenge becomes acute, based on longstanding agitation among Bahrain's dissatisfied Shia majority. Critical is that the Morrocan monarch Mohammed unlike other Arab leaders claims descent from the Prophet and therefore to Sunni religious as well civil and national leadership. But for Obama and the U.S. directly Tehran's claims make another point: the little Persian Gulf sheikhdom is the site of the American Fifth Fleet headquarters, the main stabilizing force in the area.

Were that not enough, Hizbullah — the terrorist organization that Washington in its absent mindedness forgets has taken more lives than any other radical Muslim grouping — is about to cap its growing control of the Lebanese army with an election victory.

That would end the always precarious sectarian balancing act that has characterized the state since the French set it up in the post-World War II era as a Middle East sanctuary for Christians.

The control of Syria over Lebanon which Sec. of State Clinton challenged with nothing more than mantras when she dropped in on Beirut in her first trip to the area is increasing by the day.

Meanwhile, Obama's first above-board initiative in the area, sending State Dept. delegates to Damascus, has not moved Basher al-Hafaz' dicatorship one inch from its alliance with Teheran [and through Teheran with North Korea] as he continues to facilitate weapons flowing to Hizbullah.

Obama's elaborate state visit to Turkey under the benighted assumption that Turkey's old role as the quintessential modernizing state of the Third World — a cliché which no one has believed since World War II — has resulted in no settlement with Ankara.

In fact, the Turkish "moderate" Muslim administration in a drunken sailor "multidirectional" foreign policy is jeopardizing the Bush Administration's partially successful effort to make it the hub for an effort to limit Europe's dependence on Russian fossil fuels from new sources in Central Asia.

Turkey has mocked its alliance with Israel [and NATO] with overtures to Hizbullah and negotiations to increase its own dependence on Russian gas, its "neutral" stance in last summer's Moscow attack on its neighbor Georgia.

It refuses to join American and NATO efforts to use sanctions to curb Iran before it reaches weapons of mass destruction. So much for the much heralded seminal speech to the Muslim world with which Obama was to turn everything around which, luckily, Obama decided not to give in Turkey.

In Afghanistan-Pakistan, the Obama has thrown initiative after initiative at the crumbling ceiling hoping something would stick, and accompanied it with ceaseless — often ill conceived — public announcements. [One of Obama's campaign tidbits was a threat to intervene directly with U.S. forces in Pakistan.]

The Aministration daily contradicts itself on the depth of the crisis. [Gauletier and notorious bull-in-china Richard H.A. Holbrooke contradicted the President within a 24-hour span on the depth of the crisis.] Reversing the Bush assistance in toppling the quasi-military regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Obama Administration is moving to closer and closer relations with the military, the only substantial national force in the country.

Admitting the fecklessness of President Asif Ali Zardari, the new massive aid [$400 million in the next year] aid will detour around the State Dept. and the Islamabad civilian leadership for a direct military-to-military effort. But it will have to be a subtle strategy which nothing so far from this Administration suggests.

Paralyzed by the month-long unpredictable Indian elections, Washington has made no progress in that long, long trek of trying to patch up India-Pakistan relations.

New Delhi refuses to even have a backroom discussion of Kashmir — the issue between India and Islamabad that must be defused if Pakistani generals are to turn their full attention to the sanctuaries along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and their own growing internal terrorism. The Obama Administration's pre-inaugural suggestion of sending former President Bill Clinton as mediator only aggravated the wound.

Meanwhile, 750,000 Indian security forces maintain a precarious peace in Kashmir itself with a growing majority probably in favor independence of both neighbors, another ministate which would be a troublemaking defenseless entity.

In East Asia, the Obama Administration — stuck with the failed Bush policy of trying to negotiate an end to North Korea's nuclear arming and proliferation of weapons through a Six Nation multilateral talkfest dependent on Beijing — adds to the confusion.

Clinton told a Congressional panel the Administration wants to continue food aid to Pyongyang [to avert famine] and get an extension of the president's authority to waive sanctions against a terrorist state. But not only does North Korea refuse to return to the negotiating table, but indirectly seemingly confirms the suspicion that it is working on a second uranium track to make bombs.

The beleagured regime — King Jong Il is probably terminally ill and has made a drastic lunge toward giving more control to the military in an effort to assure one of his delinquent sons may inherit the dynasty — is harder to read than ever. But there seems no inclination in Beijing, fearing something worse [for them, including an implosion which would bring about Korean reunification] might occur, is hardly a reliable partner.

Administration spokesmen, are prepared to buy into China's game of chicken — pitting its hoard of American debt against any Washington pressure to open its markets or play a role in international problem solving. S

ec. of Treasury Timothy Geithner shocked the professional financial world with comments entertaining a Chinese suggestion of an alternative to the dollar as a world reserve currency; something he almost immediately backed away from, a suggestion which on its face was impractical and inimitable to Beijing's own interests.

One has to brace for a promised Obama Administration review of Taiwan policy, now further complicated by a very successful wooing of the KMT government by the Mainland. Both South Korea, with a new and determined conservative government, and Tokyo find themselves often out on a limb with sudden changes in U.S. policy, particularly toward North Korea — granted something inherited again from the dying years of the Bush presidency.

To be sure, many if not most of these problems are the accretion of pre-Obama problems and an inheritance no one should have wished on any presidency.

But precisely because the Obama presidency spends so much of its time trying to escape the past, apologizing, ignoring continuations, adopting contrary tactics simply out of an effort to be different, endless rhetoric where often silence might be helpful, it is creating new and difficult atmospheric conditions if not altering the fundamentals themselves.

One of the many problems — as well as the blessings — which the digital revolution has brought with it is adding to the fundamental life problem of distinguishing perception from reality. In another context, Richard P Feynman, 1965 Nobel laureate in physics, put it well:

"Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

In a politician as skillful as Obama, it is often not possible to distinguish how much his understanding of reality differs from that perception of a lack of realism he presents through his greatest weapon, his oratory.

But there has to be a growing suspicion that the wedge is widening, that he is still a long way from accepting and working with what is in fact the hard facts of international political life.

It augurs badly for the Republic.

NULLIFICATION LEGAL FOR STATES

Nullification Revisited

by Robert Hawes

“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.” - James Madison, Federalist 45

Recent debates over sweeping new federal laws have re-ignited old quarrels concerning the proper constitutional role of the federal government and the rights and reserved powers of the states. As a case-in-point, on February 1, 2007, the Montana State House of Representatives unanimously passed two bills condemning the federal REAL ID Act as an improper use of federal legislative power. Both bills were designed to exempt Montana from the Act; however, the bill introduced by Representative Diane Rice of Harrison, Montana, went a step further, stipulating that, “the legislature of the state of Montana hereby nullifies the REAL ID Act of 2005, as it would apply in this state”.

Read that again: “The legislature of the state of Montana hereby nullifies the REAL ID Act”. Nullifies. Hmmm, there’s a word we haven’t seen in awhile, and with good reason. You see, the word “nullify” like its conceptual kissing cousins “secession,” “states rights,” “delegated powers,” and sometimes even “Constitution” belongs to a special class of political four-letter words, so called for the reason that they are verboten in polite conversation amongst the political mainstream. In that parlance, they are akin to the type of words that self-conscious adults tend to spell-out in front of small children so as to avoid embarrassment, and are allowed to be spoken only in a historical context, and only when accompanied by an obviously derisive tone of voice.

For this reason it’s understandable that the use of this little three-syllable word “nullify” will make some people skittish. Like a hand-grenade, the word is small but loaded with explosive potential, enough even to cow some otherwise hardy and ruggedly individualistic Montanans. According to Missoulanews.com, Hal Harper, an advisor to Montana governor Brian Schweitzer, downplayed the significance of the word ‘nullify’ when commenting on Diane Rice’s bill, stating that it “is simply a synonym for ‘repeal’ and carries little significance beyond demanding that the federal government reverse its law.”

Technically, what Harper says is true; the word “nullify” can be used as a synonym for “repeal,” although that is not its primary meaning, and its use in this context is rather dubious. To see what I mean, try using ‘repeals’ in place of ‘nullifies’ in the sentence that I quoted from Ms. Rice’s bill. When you do this, you get: “the legislature of the state of Montana hereby repeals the REAL ID Act of 2005.” Nope, I’m sorry, Hal, but this doesn’t work.

Montana didn’t pass the REAL ID Act, so it can’t very well repeal it; and nowhere in Ms. Rice’s bill do I see any call for the federal government to “reverse its law”. The bill simply states that the REAL ID Act “is inimical to the security and well-being of the people of Montana, will cause unneeded expense and inconvenience to those people, and was adopted by the U.S. congress in violation of the principles of federalism contained in the 10th amendment to the U.S. constitution,” and that the state “nullifies” it “as it would apply in this state.”

This language seems pretty clear to me. Ms. Rice’s bill says that Montana doesn’t like
the REAL ID Act, doesn’t think it’s constitutionally sound, and won’t have anything to do with it. End of story.

But a state can’t do that…can it?

Most of us have been taught the idea that nullification, like secession, is unconstitutional; and further, that it is a discredited political doctrine. The federal government is absolutely supreme, thus the states are subordinate entities that must obey federal edicts — this is the reigning dogma in American politics, and one of the pernicious ideas that the elites are laboring to teach to school children. If you ask for proof, the supporters of this dogma (generally federal officials and those who benefit from the favor of same - surprise, surprise) will usually throw a quote from Abe Lincoln at you and tell you that ideas like nullification and secession died at Appomattox, Virginia in 1865.

Why? Well, because that’s the place where Lincoln and those who supported his authoritarian ideals finally wore down those who disagreed, and forced their surrender on the battlefield. Thus, nullification and secession are ‘discredited’ political doctrines largely for the same reason that your claim to your wallet can be ‘discredited’ by a mugger in an alley. Ask Rush Limbaugh if you don’t believe me. “Might makes right” is the most sophisticated reason an authoritarian needs to do anything, although the idea tends to sell better if he wraps it in Old Glory and calls it “patriotism,” while simultaneously demonizing his opposition as “anarchists” and/or “anti-American.”

However, others of a less philosophically rigid sort understand that physical force cannot discredit an idea, and it is for their benefit that I offer the following discussion:

What is Nullification?

From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary:
Nullify - (verb)

1. to render or declare legally void or inoperative: to nullify a contract. 2. to deprive (something) of value or effectiveness; make futile or of no consequence.
Thus, when a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective’, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

A Short History of Nullification

Nullification has a long and interesting history in American politics, and originates in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds, to the point of ignoring federal laws. Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.

Other instances followed, most famously in 1833, when South Carolina nullified the federal Tariff of 1828, which it deemed to be unconstitutional because it was specifically a protective tariff, not a revenue tariff. This act of nullification created a conflict between South Carolina and President Andrew Jackson, and nearly led to war before a compromise tariff was adopted.

And lest it be assumed that nullification and state sovereignty were political doctrines unique to the Southern states, it should also be noted that there were times when the Northern states also asserted them (in particular, see the Hartford Convention of 1814 and the various “personal liberty laws” that Northerners enacted in defiance of federal fugitive slave laws).

And now, with that short introduction out of the way, let’s get to the meat of the issue.

Is Nullification Constitutional? Compact Theorists versus Nationalists
In his opposition to South Carolina’s decision to nullify the Tariff of 1828, Andrew Jackson denounced the idea that a state could “annul a law of the United States,” arguing that nullification was “incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.”

Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts agreed with Jackson in 1833, as did Abraham Lincoln in 1861. These men were nationalists. They believed that the Constitution of the United States had formed a consolidated nation-state, not a confederation, and thus they held to the idea that the Union was sovereign over the states. They also believed that the Constitution had been established among the “people of the United States” in the aggregate sense, not amongst the states themselves, and thus it was not a compact (or agreement) as the Jeffersonians contended.

As you can see, there are some intricate issues involved here, and I cannot possibly use the short space available in this article to do them all proper justice; however, I will do my best to summarize the main points in contention and provide some clear answers. I will do so by addressing the main points of those who oppose nullification and what is called the Compact Theory of the Constitution in favor of the consolidated nation-state idea.

Those who are interested in a more thorough treatment of these issues (and the issues in contention during the war of 1861-1865) may wish to refer to my book, One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution, among other works such as: When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, by Charles Adams; Was Jefferson Davis Right? by Ronald and Walter Kennedy; and The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked, by Thomas DiLorenzo.

Is the Union a Consolidated Nation-state, or a Confederation of States?
Those who favor the consolidated nation-state school have some serious problems to overcome, problems that go all the way back to the colonial era. To begin with, in spite of certain claims made by men like Webster and Lincoln to the effect that the American Union actually began in colonial times, the thirteen British colonies that eventually became the American states were always separate political entities. Certain attempts were made to institute a common government over them, but these plans were defeated by differences arising between the colonies and, further, by interference from Great Britain.

Their strongest, pre-independence connection was their status as British subjects, and thus their mutual allegiance to the British crown. Nor did the Declaration of Independence create an American nation. Indeed, the Declaration merely established that “these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states.”

The colonists made no declaration establishing a Union of any type amongst themselves; they merely announced that they were united in their determination to be free of the British crown. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegate Luther Martin spoke to the truth of this when he said: “At the separation from the British Empire, the people of America preferred the
establishment of themselves into thirteen separate sovereignties, instead of incorporating themselves into one.”

Following the Declaration, the new American states began working on a plan of Union, a fact which, by itself, should establish that no such thing existed at the time. Thomas Jefferson recorded in his Autobiography that, “All men admit that a confederacy is necessary. Should the idea get abroad that there is likely to be no union among us, it will damp the minds of the people, diminish our struggle, and lessen its importance…”

The plan of Union that finally emerged: the Articles of Confederation, required the agreement of every state to become effective, and so did not go into formal operation until March of 1781, when Maryland became the thirteenth state to ratify the document. Thus, the true birthday of the United States of America as a country is March 1, 1781, not July 1, 1776.

The Articles of Confederation were a political compact and established a Union of States, as even Daniel Webster later admitted. They declared outright that, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressely delegated to the United States.” Make note of the mention of sovereignty here, as being applied to the states; this will be important later in addressing nullification specifically.
In 1788, a convention called to repair defects with the Articles tossed its mandate aside and drafted a new Constitution, which was then presented to the states for ratification.

Unlike the Articles, which had been ratified by the legislatures of the states (Rhode Island excepted), the Constitution was to be ratified by the people of each state via conventions called in each for that purpose. Also unlike the Articles, the Constitution was to become effective when ratified by nine states, but, as per its own language, it would be active only “between the states so ratifying the same” (see Article VII). In other words, the Constitution was to be binding only upon those states that agreed to it.

As a result, when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution in 1788, the Union was effectively broken up; Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island had not ratified, and thus were no longer politically united with the other nine states. James Madison testified to this fact in comments he made to Congress on June 8, 1790, concerning North Carolina and Rhode Island, neither of which had ratified the Constitution by that time: “I allude in a particular manner to those two states who have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the confederacy: it is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible.”

Like the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution was also a compact between the ratifying states, as the language of Article VII (specifically the words, “between the states”) demonstrates for us. Patrick Henry, speaking in Virginia’s ratification convention, argued that it was actually a consolidated national form of government because it referred to ratification by “the people of the United States”; however, James Madison countered that idea. “Who are the parties to it?” asked Madison, “the people — but not the people as composing one great body — but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.”

As evidence of this, Madison pointed to the fact that each state was ratifying the Constitution for itself, whereas, had it been a truly national endeavor, a binding ratification vote would have been taken among the American people as a whole. Those who crafted the Constitution, Madison included, had in fact considered a “national government…consisting of a supreme legislative, judiciary, and executive,” but the plan had been rejected, and the word ‘national’ had been stricken from every resolution presented to the constitutional convention from that time forward.

The founders, including that rascal Alexander Hamilton, repeatedly referred to the Constitution as a “compact” to which the states had “acceded” (agreed to join) and the new Union as a “confederacy” and a “confederate republic.” The fact it was not to be a confederation along the same lines as had existed under the Articles did not diminish the fact that the new Union was still a form of confederation. As Hamilton stated during the constitutional convention:

“Different confederacies have different powers, and exercise them in different ways…great latitude, therefore, must be given to the signification of the term.”Sovereignty and State Powers within the UnionThose who reject doctrines such as nullification and secession often point to the “Supremacy Clause” in Article VI of the Constitution, where we read: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding.” Nationalists frequently use this clause to argue that the federal government is supreme over the states in every way; however, this is an error, one that can be corrected readily enough by reading the clause again without wearing authoritarian goggles. The clause states that the Constitution and all laws made pursuant to it, are supreme, not the federal government itself or any law it passes at whim.

The powers of the federal government are, as the Constitution itself clearly states, “delegated,” not inherent. In ratifying the Constitution, the states agreed to give up the exercise of certain sovereign powers (such as the power to declare war) in favor of having those powers exercised by the Union on behalf of all the states. All other rights and powers were to be retained by the states (see Amendments 9 and 10). This arrangement made the federal government a sort of agent of the states, authorizing it to act on their behalf in certain ways, while, at the same time, making it possible for the states to manage their internal affairs as they saw fit, and to peacefully interact with one another and with the nations of the world. Alexander Hamilton remarked on this state of affairs as follows in Federalists 32 and 33 respectively:

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.And…

But it will not follow from this doctrine [the ’supremacy’ provision of Article VI] that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.

Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union…only declares a truth which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution. . .These concepts were echoed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798:

Kentucky Resolution: “The several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States. . . that to this compact each State acceded as a State. . . that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself. . .”

Virginia Resolution: “RESOLVED. . . That this Assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States. . . That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact. . .”A Constitutional Right to Resist

It follows logically that if a government is empowered to do only certain things, and is forbidden from doing anything else, that any attempts made by that government to reach beyond the scope of its rightful powers are illegitimate. Laws enacted on that basis are, therefore, not laws at all, but are “acts of usurpation,” as Alexander Hamilton phrased it. It also follows logically that if a state has rights and powers that are reserved for its exclusive use, it must also possess the natural right to defend those rights and powers.

This is the underlying justification for nullification. It is, in essence, an act of self defense on the part of a state, whereby it seeks to protect its reserved rights and powers from being overthrown by a usurper, and is, contrary to the ravings of the nationalists, both logically, morally, and constitutionally consistent. States are required to yield to federal authority only in those instances where the Constitution clearly states that such-and-such falls within the federal realm, such as the power to declare war, make treaties, etc. In all other instances (save only if the Constitution specifically forbids them from doing something) they are free to act as they please.
In light of this, Andrew Jackson’s assertion that nullification is “incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed,” is 180 degrees south of the truth.

Nullification is entirely compatible with the existence of the Union because it finds its justification on the very foundation of the Union: the related principles of delegated authority and the separation of powers. It is not contradicted by the letter of the Constitution, in either an express or implied manner; however, federal usurpation is expressly prohibited by Amendments 9 and 10, and also by Article VI, which requires that all federal and state legislators, executives and judges pledge to uphold the Constitution (including its limited grants of power) by “oath or affirmation”.

It is absolutely authorized by the Constitution’s “spirit,” which rests in respect for the law and the separation of powers, and is perfectly consistent with every principle upon which the Constitution was founded. The “great object” for which the Union was formed was, in the words of James Madison (see Federalist 14), to serve as:
Our bulwark against foreign danger, as the conservator of peace among ourselves, as the guardian of our commerce and other common interests, as the only substitute for those military establishments which have subverted the liberties of the old world, and as the proper antidote for the diseases of faction, which have proved fatal to other popular governments. . .

Nullification - a state exercising its natural right to self-defense in protecting its reserved rights and powers - is not destructive of any of these things that Madison mentioned, but usurpation certainly is destructive of those ends, as we have seen illustrated time and time again throughout our history. Usurper presidents (most notably Abraham Lincoln) have killed more than half a million Americans in undeclared wars and other “police actions” and “peace-keeping missions,” none of which are constitutionally authorized.

Unconstitutional acts of Congress and activist courts have severely restricted our commerce and polluted our common interests with partisan, political corruption, thus exacerbating the very “diseases of faction” that Madison and others feared. And as for those “military establishments which have subverted the liberties of the old world,” we are starting to see this now as well, as federal paramilitary raids increase against the civilian population (sometimes in defiance of state laws), and as the current government seems determined to employ military forces in future domestic “crisis” situations, with or without state cooperation and permission.

Responses to Two Common ObjectionsWhat about the Courts?
Some of you who read this article will inevitably ask: “What about the federal courts? Aren’t they supposed to determine the constitutionality of a law or a given action?” Over time, nationalists — thanks primarily to Chief Justice John Marshall’s decisions early in the country’s history — have been very successful at planting the idea in the American mindset that our federal courts are the final arbiters of any and all constitutional issues, but there is actually no constitutional justification for this notion. Indeed, it may surprise you to learn that, in Federalist 81, Alexander Hamilton remarked that there is “not a syllable in the plan under consideration [the Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.

I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution.”

The role of the federal courts and the final determination of constitutional issues in dispute is, in my opinion, the Constitution’s greatest failing. Article III empowers the United States Supreme Court with legitimate authority over all “cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution,” and Article VI states that the Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land…any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not with-standing.”

As a result, it follows that the Court should have authority to rule in situations where violations of some clear constitutional provision are alleged to have occurred. However, what if the question before the court is not how the Constitution applies to a given matter, but if the Constitution applies to it at all? Or what if a verdict of the court introduces some new doctrine, and thus somehow changes the fundamental relationship of the federal government to the states and individual Americans? Now the question has undergone a radical change.

We are no longer considering an overt — or, as Hamilton once put it, “evident” — violation of a constitutional provision or prohibition. In this case, we are dealing with the question of what are the delegated powers of the federal government and what are the reserved powers of the states and the people, of whether the federal courts, by involving themselves in a given matter, are somehow changing the Constitution and the framework of our country by fiat. In other words, the notion of federal judicial supremacy creates a ’separation of powers’ issue (in some instances) because it makes the states subservient to an arm of the federal government in the matter of their reserved rights and status.

Further, it turns the idea of delegated powers on its head by giving the federal government final authority in the matter of the scope of its own powers, thus giving it the ability to re-invent itself and evolve beyond its authorized scope.

Also, consider how the steady politicization of the federal courts has affected our society at large, given the steady expansion of judicial power. This issue came to light in a particularly noteworthy way following the 2000 General Election. When the matter of recounting votes was thrown into the courts, suddenly the media was filled with stories of how “Judge so-and-so” votes, or who appointed him, and whether he was a Republican or Democrat; but, interestingly enough, what was not being discussed was the fact that we were openly admitting that our court systems have become politicized, and that Lady Justice was no longer blind but actually on the take.

The politicization of our courts is now all but openly admitted as such, and some politicians and special interest leaders take considerable pride in their efforts to tip the scales of justice in their agenda’s favor. Consider any typical Senate hearing on the appointment of a federal judge or Supreme Court justice. Senators parade before the television cameras asking candidates how they feel on various litmus test political issues. Judicial appointments come down, not to whether the judge understands the Constitution and has a history of upholding the law, but to whether he passes the political litmus test of the dominant party!

Thus, our sacred liberties under the law have slowly been supplanted by the advancement of political agendas operating in the halls of justice. Due to the efforts of the nationalists, we have lost the concept of federalism and the separation of powers. Anything and everything is now subject to being read into the federal Constitution, and politics reigns supreme.

The Constitution never foresaw the development of political parties or the way partisan wrangling would play havoc with our system of government, particularly how it would corrupt the courts. As such, nullification is an important means by which states can defend themselves against partisan abuses of federal power. The Constitution is imperfect in this regard, and, I believe, should be updated to provide for Thomas Jefferson’s solution to the clash of federal versus state authority and constitutional ambiguities:

But the Chief Justice [Federalist John Marshall] says, ‘there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.’ True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force.Wouldn’t Nullification lead to Anarchy?

Ah, my favorite authoritarian bogeyman, ANARCHY. Failure to comply with authoritarian wishes will lead to chaos, blood in the streets, the rise of the undead, mattress tags being thoughtlessly torn off by the millions, and a multitude of similar horrors. Good Lord, deliver us!

The assumption here seems to be that, should nullification ever come into fashion, that states will start nullifying whatever federal laws they please and the country will fall apart. This fear hardly seems warranted though, and for a number of reasons:

First of all, it is in the best interest of the states to support the federal government in its legitimate, constitutional roles — such as providing for the common defense — and to cooperate with one another. State government officials are well aware of this fact, as are the people of the states, and neither will have any desire to unnecessarily alienate themselves from the rest of the country or bring about a crisis. As James Madison wrote in his report on the Virginia Resolution against the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1800, “It does not follow, however, that because the states as sovereign parties to their constitutional compact, must ultimately decide whether it has been violated, that such a decision ought to be interposed in a hasty manner, or on doubtful and inferior occasions.”

As is true of the use of any of their other rightful powers, states should exercise discretion in their use of nullification.

Secondly, political overlap means that, regardless of whether politicians represent state or federal interests, members of the same political party can be expected to pull in roughly the same direction. This factor lessens the potential for confrontations between Washington and the states, except in instances where opposing political parties are involved.

Third, it is in the best interests of the country overall that partisan designs do not corrupt the law or the political process; and while this can occur at both the federal and state levels, it is arguably more dangerous a menace at the federal level. This is because the effects of a bad state law or judicial edict are usually confined to the state that passes it, whereas bad federal laws and edicts affect every state. Freedom is apt to flourish more in de-centralized rather than centralized societies.
Fourth, recognition of the fact that states are likely to nullify controversial federal laws or edicts may help restrain federal politicians from attempting such actions in the first place.

Fifth, states already ignore onerous federal laws and provisions on occasion, and handle their internal affairs differently on a variety of issues every day, and the four horsemen of the apocalypse have yet to ride. Consider that not every state has adopted mandatory seatbelt or motorcycle helmet usage, in spite of federal threats to withhold highway funds — New Hampshire is one such state. Some states (like Montana) allow individuals to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, or in Alaska’s case, for any reason at all (up to a certain quantity limit), and this is in direct contravention of federal policy (federal agencies continue to illegally raid and imprison persons living in such states).

Arizona and Hawaii do not recognize Daylight Savings Time. Nebraska has the country’s only unicameral, non-partisan legislature. And for one last example, consider that the State of Utah recently withdrew from the federal No Child Left Behind program. In spite of all these differences between the ways that states conduct their business, and others that I do not have space to mention, the country has gotten along remarkably well. The only people who are anxious about these differences are elitist authoritarians who think that it is, or should be, incumbent on everyone to act as the authoritarians believe is best.

Conclusion

Far from being a discredited political doctrine, nullification is, in actuality, a constitutionally consistent principle whereby sovereign states can defend their reserved rights and powers from federal acts of usurpation, most of which are motivated by partisan politics and power scheming. It is in every way consistent with the Constitution’s fundamental principles, most notably the concepts of delegated powers and the separation of powers. Indeed, it should be recognized that it is not so much a state that nullifies a federal law or act, as it is the Constitution that does so, in that the Constitution limits what the federal government may rightfully do.

Viewed in that light, nullification is really nothing more than a state saying to the federal government, “The Constitution does not authorize you to do this, therefore, we are not obligated to submit to you in this matter, and are choosing not to do so.”
The REAL ID Act of 2005 is plainly and simply unconstitutional, and therefore an act of usurpation. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power to dictate state driver licensing requirements, nor does it allow Washington to force Americans to carry ‘papers’.

If the State of Montana decides to nullify this so-called ‘law’, it will have every right to do so. I would even go so far as to argue that it would have the duty to do so, given that Montana’s elected officials are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, of which the REAL ID Act is a naked violation.

Consequently, to Hal Harper and others who may have their doubts, I would say, stand up for yourselves with pride and assert your rights. Far too often these days, the federal government forgets that it is a servant tasked with certain limited duties, not an omnipotent master; and it is high time that it was put in its place — while such is still possible. Benjamin Franklin once said, “We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it.”

Simply put, nullification is all about “keeping it”.
Robert Hawes is the author of One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution. He was born and raised in Northern Virginia, now lives in South Carolina with his family, and is pursuing a career as a freelance writer.

He maintains a blog at jeffersonian73.blogspot.com.