The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy (52 page)

Beginning with the 2008 election of Barack Obama, state legislators began acting less subservient to the federal government as many citizens joined the Tenth Amendment Movement to rally against too much federal control. Members of the movement argue that the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment clearly states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In late September 2009, the Ohio State Senate passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 (SCR 13), which was meant to “claim sovereignty over certain powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, to notify Congress to limit and end certain mandates, and to insist that federal legislation contravening the Tenth Amendment be prohibited or repealed.” The Ohio State Senate was the eighth state senate behind Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee to pass a resolution reaffirming state sovereignty. By October 2009, Tenth Amendment resolutions had been introduced in thirty-seven state senates.

Oklahoma state representative Charles Key compared the resolution he authored for Oklahoma to a cease-and-desist order given by a landlord to a nonpaying tenant. “If you’ve got a tenant that’s not paying rent, you don’t just show up one day with an empty truck,” said Key. “First, you serve notice. That’s how we see these resolutions, as a notice to the federal government. And there definitely will be follow-up.” Supporters of the resolutions say that they are a long-overdue first step in moving the country toward a constitutional government.

The Tenth Amendment is similar to a portion of the Articles of Confederation, which were written before the Constitution. A provision of the articles state, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

Although states have long grumbled about the enforcement of federal laws, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled only twice on Tenth Amendment cases in modern times. In 1992, the court found that the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 was unconstitutional in forcing the states to retain and assume liability for radioactive waste. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act unconstitutionally required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Both cases involved only narrow and defined interpretations of the Tenth Amendment, indicating the high court will not hasten to clarify the overall intention of this basic constitutional revision. This is similar to the Court’s refusal to hear arguments that the penalties imposed by the IRS on those who fail to file a 1040 tax form, which can be used by the prosecution in tax cases, are a direct violation of the Fifth Amendment, which states that persons cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves. As noted by both Professor DiLorenza and President Wilson, the War Between the States temporarily settled the argument over whether local representatives elected by the citizens or some federal bureaucrat in Washington would rule over the public. Today, there is virtually no law or ordinance passed anywhere in the United States that cannot be overturned or superseded by federal authorities. If one questions this, just ask the medical marijuana shops in California that were raided by the feds even after California voters approved such sales for medicinal purposes in 1996.

Rather than passing resolutions to simply reaffirm their sovereignty, some states pushed for specific freedoms. In 2009, Montana and Tennessee passed Firearms Freedom Act legislation to “declare that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.” Ten other states considered similar legislation. After the legislation passed, officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) sent letters to gun dealers and federal firearm permit holders in both states. The letters stated that the dealers and permit holders should ignore the state law. Clearly, the contest for state regulation of firearms will continue in higher courts.

Disputes between the government and the states aren’t just limited to firearms. Voters in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington voted on and passed legislation permitting marijuana use for medical purposes, but federal authorities have looked down on these laws, even though they were voted on by the majority of those states’ citizens.

In 1996, medical marijuana was legalized in California after Proposition 215 passed by a 56 percent citizen vote. Regardless, marijuana remained illegal at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act, which has led to a number of disputes. In 2005, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by federal agents. Citing a constitutional clause that grants the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that even though the woman grew pot strictly for her own consumption and had never sold any, growing one’s own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana. The Court warned that homegrown marijuana for medical purposes could nevertheless, even inadvertently, enter the stream of interstate commerce. On the basis of this argument, the judges deemed that the federal actions of the Drug Enforcement Agency were warranted.

Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, an editorial in the September 21, 2009, edition of the
San Francisco Examiner
dealing with concerns over the REAL ID Act, firearms, and marijuana laws and even the health-care debate proclaimed, “State sovereignty supporters stand on solid historical ground…. James Madison’s ‘Virginia Plan,’ which would have given Congress veto power with state laws and allowed the federal judiciary to hear all disputes, was soundly defeated by the signers of the Constitution. A needed check on an overreaching federal government that grows bigger by the day, the reassertion of state sovereignty should be a welcome development to Americans concerned about losing their liberties—just like the Founders were.”

On February 1, 2010, five Democrats in the Virginia State Senate broke ranks with their party to endorse bills prohibiting compulsory government health care. Three bills protecting Virginians from being forced to buy federally mandated health care were approved on 23–17 votes in the Virginia Senate, where Democrats have a 22–18 majority. If approved, Virginia would join Arizona as the second state to pass measures in defying such federal legislations. Senator Frederick M. Quayle, sponsor of one of the three proposals, argued that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to require individuals to buy anything. “This is not a bill that deals with health care. It is a bill that attempts to reinforce the Constitution of the United States,” he explained.

It remains to be seen how successful states will be in regaining their sovereignty. Regardless, there are some encouraging signs. Beginning with Maine in 2007, nearly twenty-five states have passed legislation opposing the REAL ID Act, which mandated federally approved identification. The act was passed in 2005 and was to go into effect in 2008 but was not enforced by 2010. Many governors scorned the responsibility and cost of ensuring that those who hold driver’s licenses are citizens or legal residents of the United States.

It is clear to many that more state sovereignty is achievable in the near future. Supporters of the Tenth Amendment Movement point to successful actions against the REAL ID Act, as well as the legalization of medical marijuana in thirteen states, as proof that with enough state-level resistance, the federal government may have no option but to back off—with or without judicial approval.

There is also a good chance that when states are able to freely practice sovereignty, we will find practical, profitable, and safe alternatives to our current dependence on petrochemicals. As new energy sources become available, the globalists who profit from monopolies on gas and oil will have to diversify their products and begin to market alternatives.

Twenty years ago we were told that solar energy was a viable alternative but that the necessary harnessing technology wouldn’t be available for twenty years. Now that twenty years have passed, one must ask, where’s the solar energy? It has been estimated that the sun provides between 10,000 and 20,000 times more energy than we use on a given day. In order to use this energy, we need to learn how to collect it and put it to work.

The fact that we haven’t learned how to collect this energy should no longer be blamed on technology—rather, what is at fault is stubbornness, the lack of will on the part of corporate business and its hired politicians in Congress. There is even a fundamental disconnect in the thinking of schooled energy experts. For example, one solar expert explained that it would take solar-collector panels covering the state of Arizona to produce enough electricity to power the city of Los Angeles. Although this may be true, the expert based his conclusion on the faulty assumption that central generation was necessary to produce electricity for the city. Few power experts can visualize that by simply placing solar collectors on every rooftop in Los Angeles, the city could become largely energy independent. This independence could mean that electric bills would be cut in half or more. The only real problem would be for the monopoly utility companies. They could not place a cloud over a home owner who failed to pay the monthly electric bill.

But advances in alternative energy slowly continue to move forward. In October 2009, Suniva announced plans to transform some Michigan farmland near Saginaw into a 200,000-square-foot solar manufacturing facility. The announcement was made by Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, who said that the $250 million project could create five hundred jobs during the coming years. Local business leaders call the project a much needed economic boost for the whole region. “We have generations of skilled manufacturers here and we have people that understand the manufacturing industry,” said Saginaw Future Inc. president JoAnn Crary. Though Suniva was hoping to break ground in 2010, it was having trouble securing financing for the project.

Even some of the corporate giants seem to be jumping on the alternative energy bandwagon. In October 2009, Dow Chemical announced its innovative Powerhouse solar shingle, which company officials hoped would boost solar energy use by home owners in the coming years. The Powerhouse solar shingle incorporates photovoltaic solar collecting/generating technology into a roof shingle. This allows people to use their entire rooftop to generate electricity at a reasonable cost. Dow officials said the new solar shingles will be on the market in limited quantities in 2010 and more widely available in 2011.

With the advent and implementation of these new technologies, Americans must commit to new ways of thinking about energy. With apologies to Edmund Burke—the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good zombies to do nothing.

NONVIOLENT NONCOMPLIANCE

S
TRENGTHENING THE POWER OF
the central government will not solve many of the country’s central public issues, especially that of public health care. The government has failed over and over with so many federal programs. How can the public remain confident in a health-care program built by the government amid a financial crisis? One unsigned message circulating on the Internet bluntly presented the truth in this manner:

“The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. They’ve had 234 years to get it right. It is broke, and even though heavily subsidized, it can’t compete with private sector FedEx and UPS services. The U.S. Postal Service will lose over $7 BILLION this year and will require yet another bailout.

“Social Security was established in 1935. They’ve had 74 years to get it right. It is broke. There is nothing in the Social Security Trust Fund except IOUs from the government.

“Fannie Mae was established in 1938. They’ve had 71 years to get it right. It is broke. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. They’ve had 39 years to get it right. It is broke. Together Fannie and Freddie have now led the entire world into the worst economic collapse in 80 years.

“The War on Poverty was started in 1964. They’ve had 45 years to get it right. One trillion dollars of our hard earned money is confiscated each year and transferred to ‘the poor’. It hasn’t worked.

“AMTRAK was established in 1970. They’ve had 39 years to get it right. [In 2008, the government] bailed it out as it continues to run at a loss!

“Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. They’ve had 44 years to get it right. They are both broke. And now our government [the Obama administration] dares to mention them as models for all US health care…. This is the government at work and they now want to run the most complex economic program they have ever tackled—our health care system.”

The secret here is that the government is not the problem. Nor is the Constitution on which it’s founded. The problem lies in the people who control the government—the New World Order global fascists who now have a chokehold on the government. Their corporate money controls all three branches of government while their associates are appointed to cabinet-level positions of authority. Recall that the Obama administration is top-heavy with members of the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and Bilderberg group.

The states do not have to follow the schemes and dictates of these plutocratic globalists. Nor does the general public. The path to independence from government control does not need violence. The people of India did not gain independence by battling the British army in the field. African Americans did not gain freedom by waging violent war against the government. In both instances, they simply practiced nonviolent noncompliance.