As democratic legislators move to block efforts to assert state sovereignty, the time for complacency is past.
Efforts in more than half of the state legislatures to assert state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution and prevent unwanted impositions by the federal government are now running into serious partisan opposition. Most of these bills have been introduced and are supported by Republican legislators and Democrats are doing everything they can to block them and make sure that their states comply with federal mandates issued by a national Congress dominated by their party. They seem more concerned with profiting from their control of the federal government than in protecting the rights of their citizens and being fiscally responsible.…
Article comments
26 - RJ
Oh, and a prediction:
A few leftist bloggers will infiltrate some of the "We Surround Them" Glenn Beck meetups that will be occurring all over the country this Friday at 5:00 pm EDT. They will pose as hard-core right-wingers. They will secretly audio- and/or video-tape their conversations with other attendees. They will act as agents provocateur and try to troll some of the attendees into making politically-incorrect statements. They will then upload this audio/video onto YouTube. MSNBC and other "news" organizations will play these clips in an endless loop for several days, while denouncing the movement as a "radical new hate group." Glenn Beck will be forced to offer some sort of "apology" about it, and his movement will have been effectively strangled in its crib.
That's how the activist Left operates. They are insidious.
27 - Clavos
I'd much rather be screwed by a corporation, against which I have legal recourse, than by the federal government, against which I can do nothing, much as I'd like to abolish it.
28 - roger nowosielski
You wouldn't have any legal recourse, Clav, if the rule was global. Besides, your very talk of "legal recourse" presupposes some "higher power."
What would it be now, let me guess? The government?
29 - RJ
Dave:
You are correct about the Ron Paul libertarian Republicans being against this sort of stuff for well over a year now. The "Campaign For Liberty" is basically just a post-election extension of Paul's presidential campaign.
But the Glenn Beck movement is, frankly, huge. (Check it out.) And it's entirely new.
The gun and ammunition sales didn't skyrocket until 0bama won the election in November. And the "tea parties" are also a completely new phenomenon.
It's more than a little ironic, but now that the "conservative" party is totally out of power, the conservative movement is free to act in an activist fashion for the first time since BJ Clinton was in office. These are frightening times, but also exciting ones.
30 - Clavos
You wouldn't have any legal recourse, Clav, if the rule was global
But it's not.
Besides, your very talk of "legal recourse" presupposes some "higher power."
What would it be now, let me guess? The government?
Point taken. But, we have one, at least for now. In the absence of such, I'd have no qualms about seeking my own form of redress.
31 - roger nowosielski
If they corporations hadn't folded because of their overreaching, it could have led to some such scenario. And we'd all be under their thumb. Fortunately, it hadn't happened and the world is about to right itself - however both you and I may dislike the shape it's about to take.
In the absence of a viable government, the only recourse you'd have, it seems to me, is revolution.
32 - Clavos
If they corporations hadn't folded because of their overreaching, it could have led to some such scenario. And we'd all be under their thumb.
It's always one thumb or another, Roger: corporations or government, USA or EU, Democrat or Republican; there's little difference.
In the absence of a viable government, the only recourse you'd have, it seems to me, is revolution.
In the absence of a viable government, revolution is superfluous.
And anyway, revolution is for zealots.
33 - roger nowosielski
Correct. I didn't think you'd fit in that category.
34 - handyguy
Any "movement" that depends on a vacuous loudmouth Know-Nothing like Glenn Beck is in trouble for sure.
35 - Dave Nalle
You know, I don't normally watch much news TV, but I recently had occasion to watch two shows, Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman. I was surprised at how sensible Beck seemed and was shocked at how idiotic Olberman is. I probably wouldn't go out of my way to watch Beck, but he was much better than expected. I can't believe Olberman is on TV.
Dave
36 - handyguy
They both serve their purposes. But neither is 'sensible' by any meaningful definition of that word.
They are deliberately provocative and obnoxious, so if you sort of agree with whatever they are spouting off about, maybe you can tolerate them at that moment.
Plus Olbermann sometimes has good comic timing and delivery, especially if you hate Bill O'Reilly [count me in].
37 - RJ
"a vacuous loudmouth Know-Nothing like Glenn Beck"
"if you hate Bill O'Reilly [count me in]."
You're so full of hate towards those who have opinions different from yours, handy. Not very "tolerant" or "progressive" of you.
:'(
38 - handyguy
I don't think one even has to be a liberal to find Beck annoying. In fact, he thrives on being irritating. But he is a black hole of negative energy -- nothing positive about him. [Yes, I know I used the same term for a writer on this site yesterday. Perhaps he took lessons from Beck.]
At any rate, it's his delivery and his attitude more than his opinions per se that I despise.
Same with O'Reilly: it's not so much a matter of 'agreeing' or 'disagreeing.' His bullying tactics serve no useful purpose. I used to watch him to laugh, and to try to understand his point of view. I actually don't think the latter is worth the attempt - he's just an opportunist [and a breathtakingly sexist creep].
I enjoy listening to George Will, and even occasionally to Newt Gingrich, and I certainly don't agree with them much. [I'd include David Brooks, but I think he's practically a liberal himself now.]
And I'd be really surprised to hear you say anything positive about, for instance, Rachel Maddow or Jon Stewart. But neither comes close to being as deliberately unpleasant as Beck and O'Reilly [and, yes, Olbermann].
In fact, Maddow has set new standards for expressing a strong point of view while remaining remarkably civil and good-natured; and Stewart's [and/or his writers'] wit is one of the most valuable cultural commodities anywhere right now. Thank God he's around [and popular].
Beck and O'Reilly don't even seem to know what wit is, or why it might be useful in political commentary.
39 - Dave Nalle
I enjoy the hell out of Stewart, but I find Maddow to be a self-righteous bore. I have no interest in O'Reilly. He's mainly a font of bad ideas and bad behavior. I didn't notice beck being particularly negative the couple of times I've seen him and he seemed to consistently make sense which was refreshing when you have so many gushing idiots on cable news.
Dave
40 - Cindy
Personally, I think handy is extraordinarily tolerant.
I never watched Glenn Beck. And if Dave thinks he sounds reasonable, I probably won't. But, Bill O'Reilly? He a raging nutcase. What does being insane have to do with opinions?
41 - RJ
handy:
You're entitled to your opinion. I think Beck is hilarious (especially his radio skits). And O'Reilly may be an unpleasant human being, but he has a very entertaining program (which is why it's been #1 in cable news for like a decade now).
Jon Stewart is funny, but in a kinda formulaic way. His shtick is wearing a little thin. Also, he's a left-winger who uses his comedy show to bash Republicans/conservatives (or critics of leftists/Democrats) about 10 times more often than it goes after the other side. Which is fine, it's his show. But the sad thing is, a lot of younger people (late teens and 20s) actually watch The Daily Show as their sole source for "news." That's frightening.
Olbermann is a jerk. Maher is a nut. Maddow seems like she's pretty good, but I simply can't stomach her politics. Matthews is a pathetic shill.
Anyway, just my opinions. Thanks for the polite response to my comment.
- RJ
42 - Dave Nalle
It's kind of fun watching Stewart being reluctantly forced by circumstances to criticize the Obama administration.
Dave
43 - RJ
From the clips I've seen, Stewart tore Cramer to pieces. (Why Cramer even went on the show in the first place is baffling. What the hell did he expect?)
That being said, the only reason Stewart targeted Cramer is because Cramer dared to denounce 0bama (calling him a Leninist, or whatever). Stewart didn't give a damn about Cramer's shenanigans back when Cramer was supporting 0bama. It was only when Cramer became a national news story for his bashing of 0bama that Stewart suddenly decided to go after him.
Stewart isn't just a "comedian." He's an attack dog for 0bama and the Left.
44 - roger nowosielski
Stewart vs Cramer.
45 - roger nowosielski
Sorry, link doesn't work.
46 - RJ
Works for me...
47 - RJ
Well, it's a discussion about the Stewart-Cramer showdown, anyway.
48 - handyguy
I think you are overreacting to something that isn't even there, RJ. Stewart did take an 'attack dog' stance, sort of, in the weird Cramer interview. But most of the time he is making satirical jokes, occasionally even about Democrats.
Nowhere in the run-up to the Cramer interview, which was a week in the making, did Stewart connect CNBC to Republicans or anti-Obama sentiment.
It all started when he showed a series of clips, devastatingly well edited, that demonstrated that CNBC was an enthusiastic cheerleader in keeping the market bubble alive as long as possible, while CNBC commentators belittled and attacked anyone who said, "Hey, this is a bubble. Won't it burst eventually?" They were also shamelessly kissing the asses of CEOs and billionaires.
Little or nothing was said about Obama or other Democrats, or Republicans.
The Cramer interview itself was atypical. As the NY Times pointed out in a review, it was more like a Congressional hearing than a comedy show. Cramer was a meek, droopy dawg.
I actually wanted Cramer to fight back more. If I were he, I would have said: "Without risk, nobody makes any money. Yes, the risk-taking on Wall St got way out of hand. But you can't erase it completely, or there's no upside to the market."
49 - El Bicho
It actually started before that, Handy, when Stewart took on Santelli for calling out homeowners who screwed up their finances while not holding banks and other financial institutions to the same account. Santelli was supposed to appear on TDS, canceled, and in his place came the attack piece on CNBC. Cramer became the face of it when he wrote an opinion piece and said he was taken out of context.
Unfortunately, too many people like RJ just buy the first thing that fits their mindset and obviously don't do any research on their own.
50 - REMF(MCH)
Re #41;
"Olbermann is a jerk. Maher is a nut. Maddow seems like she's pretty good, but I simply can't stomach her politics. Matthews is a pathetic shill."
While Limbaugh is a draft dodger and a drug addict, and Hannity is a phony chickenhawk.
51 - Dave Nalle
Still waiting for you to back up those accusations of child molesting agaisnt all these conservatives, MCH.
Dave
52 - handyguy
Yes, Santelli yelled at Obama. Stewart didn't specifically use that aspect of Santelli's [idiotic] rant in his response.
The best response to Santelli came from Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs, who offered to treat the wild-eyed Santelli to coffee - but only if it was decaf.
And if I'm not mistaken, Cramer is a Democrat. He did make some off-the-cuff remarks on Chris Matthews's show slamming the stimulus but praising the bank rescue....or something like that. His political 'commentary' is not, shall we say, astute.
53 - roger nowosielski
I must say something about Chris, though. He may have started alright, and sometimes he's still OK in print. But he is, IMO, a a total sellout.
54 - handyguy
Chris Matthews? It is sooo embarrassing when he drools on his chin. He must spit on guests all the time.
His show can be either fun and informative or very irritating, mostly depending on the guest/spittoon.
55 - roger nowosielski
His print pieces are still OK. But once he got his show, it was all downhill. Not a TV persona. It's getting away from him.
56 - Clavos
All those talking head "pundits" are jerks (or worse).
It's beyond me why some of you supposedly intelligent people pay attention to them, much less care what they say.
TV is the worst place in the world to look for intelligent commentary/analysis, anyway.
They're either pompous asses or raving maniacs, with a liberal (pun intended) smattering of boring drones.
57 - handyguy
What's all this nonsense about 'FEMA detention camps' Glenn Beck continues to spout off about? He cites them as evidence of the US's 'march toward totalitarianism and socialism like you've never seen.'
Another bright boy on Fox this weekend compared, with a straight face, President Obama to Bernie Madoff, 'only Obama's Ponzi scheme is worth $2 trillion.'
Hard as it may be to believe, neither of these nuggets of wisdom were presented as comedy sketches.
58 - Dave Nalle
Handy, I wrote an article about the FEMA camps a while ago here on BC. If Beck is saying they exist then he has no credibility.
There was a contingency plan for camps to handle mass evacuations in a natural disaster or a mass deportation of illegals. They contracted with Haliburton to do the work of building the camps on disused federal land. The money was never appropriated to implement the project and none of the camps have been built.
So. A. the camps had a legitimate purpose and were not intended to be for political prisoners or anything like that and B. the camps were never built.
Dave
59 - RJ
I think you are overreacting to something that isn't even there, RJ. Stewart did take an 'attack dog' stance, sort of, in the weird Cramer interview.
Sort of??? He ripped the guy to shreds.
But most of the time he is making satirical jokes, occasionally even about Democrats.
But usually about Republicans.
Nowhere in the run-up to the Cramer interview, which was a week in the making, did Stewart connect CNBC to Republicans or anti-Obama sentiment.
No, he didn't connect Cramer to Republicans. Why would he? After all, Cramer was an 0bama-supporter.
But it is a fact that Cramer has been making a fool of himself on his CNBC show for years now, and Stewart didn't go after him then. Stewart didn't go after him after the stock market collapsed. Stewart didn't even go after him for the Bear Stearns thing until just recently.
No, Stewart suddenly decided to go after Cramer right after Cramer made national news for attacking 0bama. I'm sure this is just a "coincidence."
It all started when he showed a series of clips, devastatingly well edited
In other words, as out of context as possible...
that demonstrated that CNBC was an enthusiastic cheerleader in keeping the market bubble alive as long as possible, while CNBC commentators belittled and attacked anyone who said, "Hey, this is a bubble. Won't it burst eventually?" They were also shamelessly kissing the asses of CEOs and billionaires.
Why wasn't Stewart going after them then? Why didn't Stewart go after them in September or October, when the stock market was collapsing? Or in November or December or January? Because the folks at CNBC weren't criticizing 0bama then, that's why.
Little or nothing was said about Obama or other Democrats, or Republicans.
No, but he just "coincidentally" decided to go after two of 0bama's biggest critics in the business media (Cramer and Santelli). When will we get to watch the big attack on Barney "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis" Frank? I wouldn't hold my breath.
My point isn't that Cramer is a "victim" here. My point is that Stewart is targeting Cramer because Cramer dared to attack 0bama. Same with Santelli.
60 - The Obnoxious American
Stewart is pathetic. Jim Cramer may have his warts, but understanding how to short a stock wasn't the root cause of our problems today. Attacking Cramer for talking about ways to make money in the market, judiciously editing Cramers words from a different time is beyond the pale.
I don't agree with Cramer's politics, but I like the man. He didn't do anything different than the rest of wall street. Short selling has a role in the market. The government, which WAS at root of the issues here, does not have a role in the market.
61 - handyguy
Both of you react to Jon Stewart, as you do almost everything in life, apparently, in purely ideological terms. He's a liberal, therefore he is the enemy.
But he and his writing staff consistently come up with some of the best comedy on TV, anywhere. Sometimes the stuff is partisan, but not nearly always -- if you think otherwise you probably don't watch the show much. And he's a great interviewer.
[I would actually exclude the Cramer bit from this praise, because, intentionally, it wasn't funny, and because, for whatever reason, Cramer chose not to participate, just sat there like a wet noodle. The original CNBC montage, however, fair or not, was genius.]
62 - Betsy Ross
This is all well and good, expect that this state sovereignty is unnecessary, and another one of those "shut up" moves by the state legislatures rather than doing what they need to do in order to curtail the federal government and act as "representatives" of the people rather than "agents" of the feds. In Article IV, Section 4 it already asserts the "sovereignty" of the states by "guaranteeing to each state a Republican form of government," and the Tenth Amendment already reinforces that any and all powers not given to the federal government rest with the states and the people.
This is redundancy, and will serve no purpose unless and until the states actually start suing the federal government for "lack of performance" when they don't provide the revenue or resources for the enumerated powers, or start filing "injunctions" when they overstep their powers and start forcing the state's and people to cowtow to their unconstitutional edicts.
This is nothing more than a move in "word" that will not be enforced by "deed," unless more energy is put into confronting the state legislators also on the "negligence" in doing their proscribed functions when the feds are either out of line, or themselves negligent in their duties.
Nothing more than more bureaucracy and looking like they are doing something, when actually doing nothing at all.
63 - RJ
On March 10th, I wrote:
Oh, and a prediction:
A few leftist bloggers will infiltrate some of the "We Surround Them" Glenn Beck meetups that will be occurring all over the country this Friday at 5:00 pm EDT. They will pose as hard-core right-wingers. They will secretly audio- and/or video-tape their conversations with other attendees. They will act as agents provocateur and try to troll some of the attendees into making politically-incorrect statements. They will then upload this audio/video onto YouTube. MSNBC and other "news" organizations will play these clips in an endless loop for several days, while denouncing the movement as a "radical new hate group." Glenn Beck will be forced to offer some sort of "apology" about it, and his movement will have been effectively strangled in its crib.
That's how the activist Left operates. They are insidious.
Looks like I know what I'm talking about:
The Huffington Post wants to have citizen journalists at as many of these events as possible. If you think you'd be interested in attending one of the Tea Parties and reporting back to us with dispatches, photos, or video, click here to sign up. We'll contact you shortly with further instructions.
Keith Olbermann will be running out-of-context video snippets of politically incorrect comments made by Tea Party attendees for weeks. You watch.
64 - Dr Dreadful
Any indication that acting as agents provocateurs is what HuffPo wants these 'citizen-journalists' to do, RJ?
And it's not exactly infiltrating if they're broadcasting their intent all over their website, is it?
65 - bliffle
Paranoia reigns supreme!
RJ ups the Hysteria Quotient by suggesting that a rather blatant reporting ploy by Huffpost is somehow 'insidious'.
"A few leftist bloggers will infiltrate...They will pose as hard-core right-wingers. They will secretly .... They will act as agents provocateur and try to troll some of the attendees into making politically-incorrect statements. ......and his movement will have been effectively strangled in its crib.
That's how the activist Left operates. They are insidious."
Better go hide under your bed.
66 - Dave Nalle
The HuffPo "infiltration" is just their usual citizen journalist schtick. I'm sure it will produce some snarky articles, but it's not intended to disrupt the events. The disruption is supposed to come from paid ACORN "volunteers" and union agitators who will apparently also be attending some of the events.
Dave
67 - Silas Kain
I'd like to agitate a few union members. Why haven't any union members screamed about all the overtime being paid out to "select" union members? Why aren't state purchasing agents looking at union-contracted jobs through a microscope?
As far as leftist and rightist bloggers go, I wish the middle-of-the-road bloggers would come out en masse to shut both extreme sides up.
68 - roger nowosielski
Good point, Silas. For too long now, the prevalent attitude has been "my only concern is about number one." I don't call it patriotism, not even being an American. It's "I care only about myself and fuck the rest" kind of attitude. We've lost the commonality we all shared as a people, and this country has become for too many, I'm afraid, nothing but a mother lode and to take advantage of, whatever the consequences. We won't have the country for much longer if we persist in our ways.
69 - ron
Looks to me like we have some right wing extremists following a blogger around clinging to every words hes says much like the Manson family did with Charlie. Heck i have even see in the posts on here people calling for taking up arms and blood in the streets. What kind of people are you you lost a couple elections get over it all you are doing is what Bin Laden wants done your doing his job for him .
70 - ron
I could go on and on. I wrote over 500 articles while Bush was in office, plenty of them critical of his policies when they were bad ones -- which was often enough. The ones I link to are only a fraction of them.
Dave
How about just reposting one where you are calling for blood in the streets and the taking over of the country during the Bush administration ?
71 - Dave Nalle
Ron, I don't believe I've called for overthrowing the government or blood in the streets since Obama has been in office. If I have, please show me where.
However, since you asked for it, I did write an article on the subject you mention during the Bush presidency, but I think that at this point three years later it's going to seem rather like a prophecy.
Dave
72 - roger nowosielski
I wonder where he got that, Dave. I have never taken you for a violent person. And revolutions and spilling blood would only be a matter of last resort.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Roger
73 - Dave Nalle
Well, I'm all for revolution, but the spilling of blood is certainly a last resort, something which only comes if the established order is unwilling to accept change and resorts to oppression in response.
Dave