Florida Moving to Nullify National Health Care?

The most recent effort comes from Florida State Senator Carey Baker and State Representative Scott Plakon, who this week filed a proposed State Constitutional Amendment (HJR37) as a means to prevent Floridians from being affected by any Federal Health Care Legislation. If approved by the legislature, Florida residents could be voting on it as early as 2010.

HJR37 would deny the ability of any new law to impose demands, restrictions or penalties on health care choices on Floridians. Versions of proposed federal health care reform legislation have included insurance coverage mandates, and certain penalties on employers who fail to provide employee health insurance.

A step in the right direction. I just hope we can build and maintain some momentum.

Senator's Town Hall Erupts With Protest

Senator's Town Hall Erupts With Protest; FOXNews

At a recent town hall meeting, members of Senator Claire McCaskill's staff heard firsthand from her constituents, and many of them didn't sound happy about ...

Dodd's 'grand strategy' to test Obama's coattails

Dodd's 'grand strategy' to test Obama's coattails: The Washington Times

It was yet another recent health care event at the White House Rose Garden, and there, standing next to President Obama — so close to the lectern that it almost seemed he was on top of the presidential seal — was Sen. Christopher J. Dodd. Given his precarious political situation, it wasn't a bad place for the five-term senator to be.

The Connecticut Senate race is shaping up as a key test of whether presidential attention can carry Democrats to the election finish line, as the embattled Mr. Dodd has taken every opportunity to grasp Mr. Obama's coattails. He's setting records for White House appearances and is receiving heaps of praise from Mr. Obama, his former Senate colleague. ...

Comment: A five term senator wouldn't be such a bad thing if the person actually represented the state that elected them. Dodd, like the rest of the US Senate, is nothing but a lackey for special interest, who has seriously hurt the sovereignty of this country. Senate elections have turned into huge money pits where candidates court, not their constituency, but the interests of those that gain from government collusion. Politics will never be pure as the driven snow, only a clod would believe it could, but with a return of state representation in the senate, a notable amount of illict special interest gain would be abolished.

Obama: No Pork or Earmarks in My Stimulus

Audacity, indeed:



In reality, there are plenty of earmarks, pork, or whatever you want to call it.

It is power that corrupts Washington. The corruption can be fought by repealing the 17th Amendment and decentralizing the power-hungry machine.

Hot Air highlights a new book by Michelle Malkin on the corruption in the current administration.

Missouri Supports the Constitution

A United States soldier explains the Constitution at a town hall meeting in Missouri to a standing ovation:



This is the kind of thing that gives one hope!

Hat tip: Hot Air

Federal Government Moves to Regulate Wi-Fi

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000.

That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user's account be retained for subsequent police inspection.

...

Wednesday's vote caught Internet companies by surprise: the Democratic leadership rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure that's supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation. It was introduced October 10, but has never received even one hearing or committee vote. In addition, the legislation approved this week has changed substantially since the earlier version and was not available for public review.

Not one Democrat opposed the SAFE Act. Two Republicans did: Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning presidential candidate from Texas, and Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia.

This is why we need a Senate devoted to keeping power decentralized. Washington will continue to expand its power, always claiming the best of intentions.

And be ready to be called a pedophile if you oppose the federal government's regulation of the internet.

Ohioan Tenth Amendment Rally

On August 1st, a rally will be held in Columbus, Ohio in support of the state legislature's Tenth Amendment Resolution.



Hat tip: Tenth Amendment Center

Nebraska Pushes for Sovereignty

The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska's sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

Nebraska wouldn't try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.

“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”

The tension between states' rights and federal authority has been a repeated theme in U.S. history, starting with arguments among the founding fathers.

The struggle turned bloody when Southern states seceded, citing states' rights on the question of slavery, and the Civil War ensued.

Critics say the current measures amount to little more than political posturing — passing resolutions doesn't mean that states refuse to comply with federal law or send back federal funds that come with mandates.

State Sen. Bill Avery of Lincoln said the proposals sound disturbingly similar to the states' rights arguments made in defense of racial segregation and laws blocking blacks from voting.

Anti-freedom advocates often try to tie liberty to unpopular subjects. This is like advocating against individual freedom because individual freedom has been used to argue for a right to murder. It's an idiotic and historically-inaccurate argument.

First of all, the anti-slavery movement started and prospered as a states'-rights movement. The federal government was pro-slavery, and the anti-slavery movement would have failed if it had relied on the federal government's support. The anti-slavery movement is tied to states' rights. The abolition of slavery started within the states.

Secondly, it should be obvious that arguing for the abolition of freedom because some people abuse their freedom is insane. Just because some people want their freedom to do bad things doesn't mean that everyone must have their freedom stripped away. In fact, the opposite is true. The fact that there are people who want to do bad things is the argument against centralization of power. Good ideas don't need to be forced on people. Only people who know that the ideas they support are bad want to force them on everyone. Advocates of good ideas merely advocate the goodness of those ideas.

Advocates against states' rights sound disturbingly similar to those who advocated for the internment of Japanese-Americans and supporters of the Dred Scott decision. Making a law national instead of state does not make the law more moral. In fact, it does the opposite.

Obama Responds to Falling Polls with Tough Talk on Iran

Responding to his falling poll numbers, the Obama administration gives some tough talk on Iran. Of course, our Secretary of State delivers an incoherent message:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that Iran will never achieve its goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon, declaring to Tehran: "Your pursuit is futile."

"What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions, that if you're pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen," Clinton said.

"Whoever"? Does our Secretary of State not know who is in charge in Iran?

"First, we're going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran — nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed — it is something that we view with great concern, and that's why we're doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening. ... We believe, as a matter of policy, it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons."

What the heck happened here? This is utterly incoherent until the very end.

As a security summit in Thailand earlier this week, Clinton raised the possibility of a "defense umbrella" over the Middle East to protect other nations from a nuclear-armed Iran, marking the first time a senior administration official has publicly broached the prospect of the Persian nation succeeding in building a nuclear weapon.

A missile defense is not effective against a next-door neighbor who has the capacity to send a nuclear weapon in under the umbrella.

Clinton said the Obama administration might still engage with Iran’s regime, even though she thinks the people there “deserve better than what they’re getting."

Moderator David Gregory asked Clinton if the U.S. would be betraying Iran’s democratic movement if the administration decides to negotiate with the government over its nuclear program.

“I don’t think so, David,” she replied. “We have negotiated with many governments who we did not believe represented the will of their people. Look at all the negotiations that went on with the Soviet Union. …

That's because they already had nukes. Are we going to negotiate with every two-bit tyrant who threatens us?

“That’s what you do in diplomacy. You don’t get to choose the people. That’s up to the internal dynamic within a society. But, clearly, we would hope better for the Iranian people. We would hope that there is more openness, that peaceful demonstrations are respected, that press freedom is respected.”

Why should we hold them to a higher standard than we hold ourselves?

Gregory asked if Iran is run by an illegitimate regime.

“You know, that’s really for the people of Iran to decide,” Clinton said. “I have been moved by the … cries for freedom. … People that go back millennia, that have such a great culture and history, deserve better than what they’re getting.”

This is just bizarre. Are there people who don't have ancestors? Are only those people who have a "great" culture and history deserving of freedom? Don't we all have cultural heritage of some kind?

Clinton chuckled heartily when Gregory played a clip of her being asked overseas if she would ever be U.S. president.

"This is a subject that is on the minds of people literally around the world," Clinton said.

About a run for herself, she said: "I have absolutely no belief in my mind that that is going to happen."

That's the best news from this article.

...

Appearing live for the full hour, Clinton continued her increasingly tough talk on North Korea, saying: “They’ve engaged in a lot of provocative action in the last months. … It’s not going to work this time.”

It's worked before? When?

“It’s not only that North Korea has, against the international norms … proceeded with this effort, but they also are a proliferator,” she said. “We know that for a fact. So it’s not only the threat they pose to their neighbors, and eventually beyond, but the fact that they’re trying to arm others.”

If this stupid reporter had had an ounce of sense, s/he would have asked for names.

Clinton was asked if the effort to keep North Korea from going nuclear has failed: “No, I don’t think so, because their program is still at the beginning stages.”

“They are very isolated now,” she continued. “They don’t have any friends left. … We’ve seen even Burma saying that they’re going to enforce the resolution of sanctions.”

Oh, well, if Burma's turned against them...

Clinton began by saying: “What’s important here is the clear message that we’re sending to North Korea. … North Korea must change their behavior, and we have to get back to moving toward verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. … We’re imposing the most stringent sanctions we ever have. We have great cooperation from the world community.

Really? This is as tough as it gets? Are you kidding me?

“We still want North Korea to come back to the negotiating table to be part of an international effort that will lead to denuclearization. But we’re not going to reward them … for half-measures. They now know what we and the world community expect.

As opposed to before, when they didn't have a clue?

“We want to make clear to North Korea that their behavior is not going to be rewarded. In the past, they believed that they have acted out — doing things which really went against the norms of the international community—and somehow then were rewarded. Those days are over.”

"somehow then were rewarded"? Can we get an example of this?

Our federal government has gone insane. The politicians we elect keep getting more and more ridiculous. Let's repeal the 17th Amendment and end the American Idol-ization of our federal government.

The Sovereignty Project

Forcing current and campaigning public officials to take a principled and public stand (yea or nay) on the 10th Amendment and the Enumerated Powers Act will flush officials out into the open about their dedication to the very document they swore to uphold. The Project believes politicians will be sweaty around the collar about the notion of thumbing their noses at to the Constitution, on either front.

As one might expect, the Missouri Sovereignty Project will compile lists, which will become part of the public domain through blogs, prints and broadcast media inside the state.

The Missouri Sovereignty Project is only a month old and already has a growing number of dedicated members. Unlike many movements across the country, the Project is not a social group. It has an explicit charter, has already sent out two press releases, and has a membership group that is organized, by each member’s choice, on three levels:

1) those who spread the word,

2) those who monitor, call and write public officials,

3) those who organize and manage.

Every state needs to have people willing to spread the word, confront politicians, and maintain lines of communication within the movement. We should be discussing the Constitution and the philosophy of freedom with our neighbors. We should be holding our politicians accountable, in the same way we would confront an employee who failed in his job. And we should be actively networking with other groups who have a similar ideology.

The 17th Amendment, of course, limited the ability of people to protect their freedom through their state governments. The only way to overcome that now is for the people to speak more loudly and demand their freedom.

And repeal the 17th Amendment to restore the balance of power in the federal government.

Tom Woods and Gene Epstein Debate on the Federal Reserve

The FreedomFest debates are starting to show up. Here's Thomas Woods and Gene Epstein debating Warren Coats and John Fund(?!) on what James Madison referred to as a "wicked project": fiat money and the Federal Reserve.

Part one of five:



Update: I originally included Ron Paul. That error has been corrected. My apologies.

Obama Rips Off Seinfeld

We interrupt our normally scheduled programming for this totally awesome video:



Hat tip: Legal Insurrection

Don't Mess With Texas

Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be "disastrous" for Texas.

Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as "Obama Care." But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a "number" of states might resist the federal health mandate.

"I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare," Perry said. "So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."

Perry, the state’s longest-serving governor, has made defiance of Washington a hallmark of his state administration as well as his emerging re-election campaign against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 Republican primary. Earlier this year, Perry refused $555 million in federal unemployment stimulus money, saying it would subject Texas to long-term costs after the federal dollars ended.

...

"It really is a state issue, and if there was ever an argument for the 10th Amendment and for letting the states find a solution to their problems, this may be at the top of the class," Perry said. "A government-run healthcare system is financially unstable. It’s not the solution."

Perry heartily backed an unsuccessful resolution in this year’s legislative session that would have affirmed the belief that Texas has sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

Must-Read: Timothy Baldwin

“[T]he States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation.” (Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, [New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900], 133)

I will not attempt to persuade the reader at this point on the fallacious position that only the US Supreme Court can make a determination of constitutional actions. However, for those who would argue that the US Supreme Court is in fact the only legal means by which a State can say “no” to the federal government, then I believe that such a person has reached the point of voluntary slavery, and such a person is dangerous to the concepts of federalism, American-sovereignty, and constitutional limits and freedom, as expressed by thousands of the most influential men in our history. And such a person has accepted only those political means of redress whereby the Sovereigns of each State drudge through the treacherous mud of tyranny and get absolutely nowhere.

What we are seeing today, and have seen for over 100 years in America, is the usurpation of the federal government over Sovereignty–we the people–and over Jurisdiction–the States. While this article cannot begin to expound in depth the true character and nature of the US Constitution, a study of history reveals that the US Constitution was an agreement between the Sovereigns of each State whereby they acceded to give up only certain parts of their power for the “more perfect union” of the people within those States. As with any sovereign people or government, accession may be limited to whatever means and ways necessary to protect the freedom of that society. This is in fact what the Colonists did in 1776 when declaring independence from Great Britain, what the States did in 1781 when ratifying the Articles of Confederation, and what the States did in 1787 when ratifying the US Constitution. It was the Sovereigns, through their respective States, who declared their natural rights under God, who secured their natural rights through independence from governments and who expressed that any act outside of their consent is tyranny.

I wanted to quote the ending, but you're just going to have to go read the whole thing.

Climate bill needs "off ramp": Senate farm chief

Climate bill needs "off ramp": Senate farm chief Reuters

The climate bill being assembled in the U.S. Senate should include an "off ramp" allowing the United States to relax its greenhouse gas rules if other nation fail to control theirs, said the Senate Agriculture Committee chairman on Wednesday.

Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin of Iowa told reporters that he would allow other nations three to five years to act to curb carbon emissions.

"If other countries don't join us ... hey, we're off the ramp," he said during a break in an Agriculture Committee hearing on climate legislation.

Harkin said the "off ramp" should be written into the Senate bill.

The idea of an off ramp was raised during testimony by farm groups. Groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation said U.S. farmers would be at a disadvantage on the export market if other nations kept their prices low by not curbing carbon emissions.

U.S. farm costs are expected to rise under a climate law.

Comment: Sure; what law ever passed in the US was repealed once enacted? Who does Harkin think we are?

Come on the whole supposed problem is fiction!

Texas senator: Let's sell F-22s to allies

Texas senator: Let's sell F-22s to allies; Bizjournals.com

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is not finished in his fight to save future production of Lockheed Martin’s F-22 fighter jet.

A day after the U.S. Senate voted to kill funding for additional aircraft passed the 2008 fiscal year, Cornyn released a statement saying if the U.S. government does not want the jets, then permission should be granted to sell the fighters to allies abroad. ...
Cornyn added that arming countries such as Israel with the jets will intimidate bordering nations like Iran that are aggressive toward American allies.

Comment: Rather than intimidation, maybe it might cause more problems Mr. Cornyn.

At some lost point in US history we used to export machinery, farm equipment, tools, consumer goods, just to name a few, but today all we export is war and the related tools. Maybe if the States had representation in Congress we would be focusing on the economic health of our states and communities rather than furthering the international imperialism agenda.

Aggressive Sovereignty

Last November, I wrote an update entitled, “Preparing for an Expansion of Government.” In that update, I referenced how that over time, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, both parties have used the expansion of federal government as a tool to accomplish their various agendas and in doing so violated the important concept of states’ rights.

...

Since that time, I have been contacted by a number of worried constituents who are desperate to know what can be done. They have contacted their U.S. Senators and Congressman but are terrified because with vote after vote, the U.S. Congress seems to be moving towards implementing a frightening new socialist agenda. They want their Oklahoma lawmakers to do whatever we can to stop this agenda.

I believe these types of calls and e-mails are also being placed and sent to other Oklahoma Representatives and I predict that next year there will be a significant number of 10th amendment/states’ rights legislative initiatives filed by Oklahoma legislators.

Several Representatives are considering filing a bill tailored after a measure that was signed into law in Montana earlier this year that seeks to keep the federal government from regulating the production and sale of firearms.

Traditionally, the federal government has regulated this industry through the “Commerce Clause” in the constitution. However, the Montana law seeks to provide a means by which the producers and users of the firearms can clearly document that the product in question was made in Montana and is thus not subject to federal regulation.

This type of creative concept can likely be expanded into other areas of policy ranging from health care to energy. For instance, Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming have all considered proposals to take preemptive action against the pending federal mandates tied to the ongoing socialization of health care efforts by Congress.

Make sure your state reps are aware that you will support candidates who will work to protect your rights. And then support those candidates, regardless of their party.

Brown, Voinovich help vote down conceal carry proposal

Brown, Voinovich help vote down conceal carry proposal; The Columbus Dispatch

Both of Ohio's U.S. senators, Democrat Sherrod Brown and Republican George V. Voinovich, were among the "no" votes that helped defeat a Senate proposal to let gun owners carry concealed weapons across state lines.

The proposal needed 60 votes to be attached to an unrelated defense spending bill, but fell short with 58 "yes" votes. It would have allowed people with concealed carry permits to take their weapons to all 48 states with such laws, regardless of the differences between states' laws and concealed carry permitting processes.

Most Republicans and some pro-gun rights Democrats backed the proposal by GOP Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, but Voinovich, a former mayor of Cleveland, has been a past proponent of various gun control measures and was one of just two Republicans to vote against it.

Ohio has a concealed carry law, and has in place reciprocity agreements with some other states.

Comment: I told a friend of mine that there really is only one political party in Washington City...he told me accepting that view was akin to being a 9/11 Truther...I say "which way to the Truther meeting,"because Brown and Voinovich proved my point, at least to myself. And everything else in Washington politics is just theatrics to help create the illusion.

Centralization Is Corruption

Lobbying firms had until Monday to disclose how much they were paid by clients to influence legislation on Capitol Hill during the second quarter of this year. And with a major push for health care reform, a $787 billion economic stimulus package and proposals to tighten the regulation of Wall Street, there was plenty to lobby.

The Senate Office of Public Records was flooded with thousands of filings Monday, and several major firms had yet to report Monday evening. Among those without a final second quarter figure were DLA Piper and the BGR Group.

Patton-Boggs’ mid-year haul led heavyweight rivals Akin Gump, Van Scoyoc Associates, Cassidy & Associates and Podesta, which posted the largest year-over-year revenue gain of K Street’s top firms.

Podesta’s total of nearly $11.6 million for the first six months of the year was 57 percent higher than the firm’s mid-year 2008 total.

Holland & Knight and Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck posted gains of 39 percent and 33 percent, respectively.

Al Mottur, managing partner of Brownstein’s Washington office, said the Denver-based firm’s $5.4 million second quarter receipts were driven by strong performances from its advocacy in the energy, health care, telecommunications and financial services sectors, as well as by business interest in the stimulus funding.

Even Colorado’s central role in the 2008 presidential election boosted the firm, Mottur said.

“It’s impossible to quantify this, but I really believe that our firm’s involvement in the Democratic convention has helped our business,” Mottur said. “We might break $20 million this year, and that would be very exciting for us.”

Power corrupts. Washington's absolute power is the reason it is absolutely corrupted. It's simply more efficient to run our lives from one central power bank rather than try to establish dominion over every state.

Repealing the 17th Amendment would eliminate much of this corruption by eliminating the incentive to engage in corruption. They won't do it if there's no power to influence.

Gun Rights Vote in Senate Today (Update: Vote Fails)

Gun control and gun rights advocates are bracing for another clash with a Senate vote on a measure that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry those hidden weapons across state borders.

Backers, led by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., say truckers and others with concealed weapons permits should be able to protect themselves when they cross into other states. Opponents say the measure would force states with strict procedures for getting permits to accept permits from states with more lax laws.

The Senate has scheduled a vote Wednesday on the measure, which Thune offered as an amendment to a major defense policy bill. Under an agreement reached among Senate leaders, 60 votes will be needed to approve the amendment.

Hat tip: Drew M. at Ace

Update:

The vote was 58-39 in favor of the provision establishing concealed carry permit reciprocity in the 48 states that have concealed weapons laws. That fell two votes short of the 60 needed to approve the measure, offered as an amendment to a defense spending bill.

Opponents prevailed in their argument that the measure violated states rights by forcing states with stringent requirements for permits to recognize concealed weapons carriers from states that give out permits to almost any gun owner.

...

Congress this year voted to restore the rights of people to carry loaded weapons into national parks and the Senate moved to effectively eviscerate the tough gun control laws of the District of Columbia.

Congress has also ignored urgings from President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to revive a ban on military-style weapons that expired in 2004.

The concealed weapons measure, promoted by the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America, would have made a concealed weapon permit from one state valid in the 47 other states with permit laws. Only Wisconsin and Illinois have no carry permit laws.

Who Pulled the Trigger?

A Congressional report identifies a primary culprit of the financial crisis as the federal government:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the chief culprits in the housing crisis because they encouraged people who could not afford payments to borrow money, according to a congressional report released Tuesday.

...

But the report explains in detail how Fannie and Freddie -- government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that were not subject to the same oversight as other publicly traded firms -- “privatized their profits but socialized their risks.”

“In the short run, this government intervention was successful in its stated goal – raising the national homeownership rate,” says the report, the result of an investigation launched last fall by Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“However, the ultimate effect was to create a mortgage tsunami that wrought devastation on the American people and economy,” says the report. “While government intervention was not the sole cause of the financial crisis, its role was significant and has received too little attention.”

...

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made 54 percent of the “subprime” mortgage loans from 2002 to 2007, or about $1.9 trillion in mortgage loans to borrowers with credit scores lower than 660.

When are we going to restore sanity to the federal government?

Eat the Rich

People are perfectly free to give as much money as they want to the government or their favorite charity. But some people aren't happy with power over their own property. They won't rest until they have control over everyone. They're not happy supporting their values. Everyone must be forced to support their values.

Class warfare is the ultimate outcome of mob rule. Mob rule is the ultimate result of the 17th Amendment.

What Is Freedom?

Lew Rockwell highlights a couple of really good articles today. First, Claire Wolfe wants to help us find our own freedom:

If you don’t think and act like a free person, then you’ll be unfree wherever you go.

If you do think and act like a free person, you’ll always find a degree of personal empowerment even if your home is a prison cell.

Being free means not only taking responsibility for our own choices. It means taking initiative so that we have choices.

It means we figure out what we want in life, then begin actively heading in that direction.

It means when we run into an obstacle we figure a way around it or we change our course. But we don’t just shrug and wait for a bailout.

Sure, ask for a helping hand along the way. But don’t expect others’ hands, or weary backs, to haul you the whole distance.

If you want to be free, it's up to you to make the most of the opportunities with which you are presented. The world isn't perfect, but it's up to each of us to make the best of the hand we've been dealt. It's not enough to sit around and complain that you haven't been made free. And this leads us to the second article, by Dr. Ron Paul, on the difference between a "right" and a "good":

Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

We may have a right to be free, but it is not someone else's responsibility to make us free. It is up to each of us, as individuals and freely-chosen friends, to do our best for ourselves and those we choose to value. The world is what you make of it, and waiting for someone else to make your life better is not sufficient. Making it someone else's responsibility makes your life and your freedom someone else's property. You need to take it back.

So go. Do. Decide what you want and make a plan for obtaining it. It's your life and your freedom, the most important things you have. Don't let anyone take it away, not all at once or one day at a time.

What If It Doesn't Work?

Are people willing to risk not just their own lives, but my life and the lives of my family and friends? If it's such a great idea, why don't they do it without the government?

Coercing Value

Here's a decent article about the government's abuse of the Commerce Clause:

One of the enumerated powers cited by advocates of the modern monster-state is the Commerce Power. This derives primarily from two sources:

(1) the Constitution’s grant to Congress of authority to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States” and

(2) the Constitution’s grant to Congress of authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers. . .”

According to promoters of the monster-state, those constitutional phrases go further than allowing Congress to regulate trade among the states. They also allow Congress to control manufacturing, wages, agriculture, crime, mining, land use, firearm possession, and a range of other activities.

The problem with defining "commerce" is that anything that someone values, because s/he would spend money on it, can be defined as "commerce". But what really threw the chains of the Constitution off was the creation of a centralized bank. Because the bank was authorized to issue money that had a legally-enforced value, it was necessary for the federal government to enforce its value wherever it was used, a clearly unconstitutional expansion of federal power.

What has happened is that the commerce clause has been twisted to mean any interaction where one or both parties are benefited. Since one major reason people interact is because they want to interact, all interactions are deemed "commerce".

The best way to restrain the commerce clause is to restore the rights of states to protect their sovereignty by repealing the 17th Amendment.

ATF Claims Second Amendment Does Not Apply to Them

Tennessee state law nullifies all federal regulation of guns. The ATF says that federal law, whether Constitutional or not, is supreme:

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:

“The letter [from the ATF] says, in part, ‘because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.’ That is precisely what I predicted the Federal Government’s response to the Tennessee act would be. As I told Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News’s Glenn Beck Program on June 5, 2009, federal officials don’t care about a good historical argument concerning the meaning of the Constitution.”

“Their view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.”

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”

All three branches of the federal government have, for a long time, colluded in order to violate Constitutional limitations using the Commerce Clause and the doctrine of Incorporation. None of the branches of the federal government can be trusted. In order to keep power from centralizing in the federal government, the 17th Amendment must be repealed. Restoring state representation will preserve all of our individual rights, enumerated and otherwise.

Hate Crimes Laws Make Some More Equal Than Others

The Senate has voted in favor of expanding "hate crimes":

People attacked because of their sexual orientation or gender would receive federal protections under a Senate-approved measure that significantly expands the reach of "hate crimes" law. The Senate bill also would make it easier for federal prosecutors to step in when state or local authorities are unable or unwilling to pursue those acts deemed to be hate crimes.

...

Washington Sen. Patty Murray suggested the measure could actually protect people of faith by boosting penalties for hate crimes motivated by anti-religious bias. "Burning down a building is a crime -- but that crime takes on a new character when that building is a church or a synagogue or a mosque," she stated. "It's wrong when one person attacks another person on the street, for sure; but it has a different meaning when violence occurs because a victim is a different race or religion or sexual orientation."

...

The proposed legislation expands federal hate crimes to include those perpetrated against people because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also removes restrictions on federally protected activities.

"There is no room in our society for these acts of prejudice," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. "Hate crimes fragment and isolate our communities. They tear at our collective spirit."

Some 45 states have hate crime statutes, and investigations and prosecutions would remain mainly in state and local hands. But the bill provides federal grants to help state and local officials with the costs of prosecuting hate crimes and funds programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles. The federal government can step in after the Justice Department certifies that a state does not have jurisdiction or is unable to carry out justice.

My problem with "hate crimes" legislation is not that it criminalizes thought (It doesn't). The problem is that it is inherently unequal protection based on particular identity characteristics. Read Senator Murray's quote again: "Burning down a building is a crime -- but that crime takes on a new character when that building is a church or a synagogue or a mosque,"

Some people, based on their identity, will be more protected than others against violent crimes. That is unconstitutional, unAmerican, and wrong. This is pandering to popular special interest groups. This is the same kind of mob rule mentality that results in democracies eating the rich. We're punishing people for not being a member of popular identity groups. This could easily by fixed by not singling out particular identities, but making a blanket statement that all crimes of violence based on the victim's identity are subject to penalty. That would provide equal protection, at least.

We can stop this descent into mob rule by repealing the 17th Amendment.

If it's not too late.

Penn Jillette and Stossel Discuss Health Care on Beck

I'd love to see Penn & Teller do a special on Canada's health care system!

Update: Obama begins the full-court press for his health care legislation.

Big Government Blow-Out

When Barack Obama said that he wasn't concerned about "big government", he wasn't kidding:



And the more the government spends, the more it taxes. And those taxes fall disproportionately on the most productive citizens. If our tax structure were directed at taxing wealth instead of punishing productivity, you can bet that these ridiculous plans would never be supported.

Just out of curiosity, if someone wanted to wage a war on productivity, would that person do anything different than Obama has done?

Hot Air has a lot more on the rising costs of big government.

The Abdication of Personal Responsibility

The principal aim of most members of Congress is to secure reelection to office. In order to do this, Congress avoids controversial moral and cultural issues whenever possible. Far better to have the Supreme Court, an unelected body that voters cannot unseat, take the blame for unpopular decisions.

Similarly, the Constitution clearly gives Congress the sole power to declare war. But, wishing to avoid blame should a war go badly, Congress has abdicated its power to the president. It is better, Congress thinks, for him to take the blame for Vietnam or Iraq. By its own lights, the Congressional policy has been remarkably successful. Most incumbents are reelected. The cost, though, is a severe one. Our actual Constitution, one of congressional preeminence, has been replaced by the Happy Convention, in which the president and Supreme Court have supplanted Congress. No Jeffersonian can accept this.

While pointing out the dangers of the Supreme Court and the unitary Executive, a democratic Congress also poses dangers. Repealing the 17th Amendment would establish the Senate as the office that would take responsibility for being the unpopular adult, while making them accountable in a way that judges are not. The Supreme Court is dangerous because it is unaccountable to anyone. A proper Senate would be accountable to state legislatures, avoiding the danger of great centralization of power in the federal government. The 17th Amendment made it more difficult for people to know who to hold accountable for government.

Accountability would promote responsibility.

Gag Me

Let's repeal the 17th Amendment and get rid of these nausea-inducing, pathetic, ignorant, self-righteous hypocrites.

New Jersey Residents Secede

From Tom's River to join Lavallette:

Residents on the block say they only turned to secession after failing to have their needs met through regular channels. They shay they've complained for years about snow plowing and irregular garbage pick-up, complaints they say were ignored.

Lavallette Mayor Walter La Cicero says he's happy to have new constituents.

"We're gonna get a substantial amount of tax revenue from that, and we will not have to hire anybody to provide the services that are gonna be necessary here," La Cicero says.

But Toms River Mayor Tom Kelaher says that lack of resources are not the real reason the residents want out. He says homeowners just want to take advantage of Lavallette's lower tax rates.

"One of the people said that his taxes would go down a couple thousand dollars if they're in Lavallette," Kelaher says. "That's really not a valid reason for granting the relief hey got in this case."

Oh, yes it is. The desire itself supplies the validity of the reason. The Declaration of Independence says that all government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. The lack of consent thereby renders the government illegitimate. The argument against individual freedom is the same as the argument against state sovereignty.

Limited Government Gaining Popularity?

Michael Boldin says so:

The Fed Under Fire

Hat tip: Minnesota Chris

Paul, Kokesh at FreedomFest

Eat the Rich

Dan Mitchell:



This type of mob rule is exactly what the Senate was originally designed to prohibit. The 17th Amendment changed that.

Too Good to Pass Up

Don Boudreaux:

While capitalism emphatically does improve material living standards, all the great champions of economic freedom (aka capitalism) ultimately justify this system because only it affords true dignity to individuals - the dignity that is denied by interventionist systems which arbitrarily diminish each person's freedom to choose. For "Progressives" such as Mr. Dionne not to share the value of freedom is fine. But it's rather cheeky to accuse, with one breath, proponents of capitalism of being unduly focused on material goods, and with the next breath to insist that a major problem with capitalism is that some people get fewer material goods than do other people.

...

"I want to keep what I earn" is regarded as greedy and unenlightened.

"I want to take what you earn" is regarded as selfless and progressive.

States Push Back

Hat tip: Tenth Amendment Center

The Sotomayor Show Trials

The three-ring circus has begun. Hot Air has streaming video.

It's important to consider why the Constitution required Senate confirmation (or "advise and consent"). Originally, as most of the readers of this blog know, the Senate was considered the calm, sane counterpoint to the hot-blooded House. Having a Senate one step removed from the public opinion allowed its members to engage in more thoughtful, less pandering behavior. As it is now, Senators must appeal to the lowest common denominator in society, which is why this has become more "show trial" than Constitutional process. Byron York points out the ease with which an agenda is hidden from public scrutiny.

Republicans and Democrats have already reached the agreement that she will be confirmed, barring any major shift in public opinion. The party system that the 17th Amendment established shifted government into back room deals, where policy is made in shadowy, smoke-filled rooms while the public is distracted by the bright lights and loud noises of a common street magician's act.

Sotomayor's confirmation hearings are merely a show trial, designed to give the parties more ammunition in the war for public opinion. The pandering to different groups pits Americans against each other, as each believes his race, her gender, his class, her ethnicity, every individual's identity group is under attack. Everything is reduced to the lowest common denominator in the struggle to win the next election. And what is lost in all this?

Our freedom. Our freedom is worth less to our government than our votes are.

If we seek to have a government more interested in our individual freedom than pandering, we must repeal the 17th Amendment.

Tough Love

Senator Sessions launched the opening salvo in the GOP's war on Democrats' "empathy" standard:



About all I can do is reprint Politico's transcript:

“I will not vote for—no senator should vote for—an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court,” said Session (R-Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. …

“Judge Sotomayor has said that she accepts that her opinions, sympathies, and prejudices will affect her rulings. Could it be that her time as a leader of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, a fine organization, provides a clue as to her decision against the firefighters?” Sessions said. “It seems to me that… Judge Sotomayor’s empathy for one group of firefighters turned out to be prejudice against the others.”

Hat tip: Hot Air

FrredomFest 2009

Video is starting to come out of FreedomFest 2009. There ought to be some interesting debates coming soon.

Senate Blocks Fed Reserve Audit

After delaying Cap and Trade, the Senate blocked legislation to audit the Federal Reserve:



Here's Senator Jim DeMint fighting for his amendment (Mostly boring procedural stuff, but he gets in a couple of good licks):



Until the 17th Amendment is repealed, the Senate, and the federal government, will continue to be subject to the same mob mentality as the House.

Senate Blocks Cap and Trade?

Well, they put it off until September, which is a really good sign.

Will wonders never cease?

Unreal ID

Now, Obama’s Homeland Security chief, Janet Napolitano, is urging Congress to enact what is portrayed as “REAL ID-Lite” — the PASS Act (Providing for Additional Security in States’ Identification Act of 2009).

But this bill contains many of the same risks as the REAL ID. And Napolitano is promoting requiring state drivers’ licenses to contain RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips with unique numbers for each individual.

While the 2005 REAL ID Act only changed the standards for identification used for federal purposes, and did not create national standards for identification (as the article briefly mentions, "More than half of all the state legislatures have passed resolutions or laws restricting REAL ID’s bite in their state."), national identification is a threat to individual liberty and states' rights. The PASS ID Act does create a national mandate for universal identification cards.

While I'm confident that any RFID requirement can be neutralized with available technology (devices are available to overload RFID chips), what this new law does is not supportable. It creates universal standards that are easily surpassed through fraudulent means. This punishes law-abiding people while rewarding illegal behavior.

PASS ID is a bad idea. We need a Senate dedicated to keeping power decentralized.

Mob Rule

Nearly half of Americans don't pay income taxes. No wonder Obama calls all tax cuts "tax cuts for the rich". This is the very definition of "mob rule" that the Constitution was designed to prevent. Any system that robs Peter to give to Paul can always count on the support of Paul. Care to speculate what percent of people who don't pay income taxes support more federal spending? How many people who don't pay income taxes want the federal government to provide health insurance?

Restore sanity to the federal government. Support politicians who promise to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Hat tip: Hot Air

The Criminalization of Speech

Two Ways to Fix It

Millions of Americans perceive that the federal government is broken and might not be fixable. They view centralized power as heavy-handed, intrusive—and yet useless when it’s called upon for help, as in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Right or wrong, like them or not, state sovereignty activists say, “We have a solution.”

Their solution is radical local activism to restore power to citizens at the state level. They aim to make state laws that counteract federal ones. They hope to preserve local or regional cultures against homogenization. They’re all aiming for their idea of freedom—although often their concepts of freedom are diverse, to say the least.

Watch them: They may be the vanguard of a much larger movement of frustrated citizens who feel helpless to achieve their aims at the federal level but who aren’t willing to accept the status quo.

The federal government is broken. Unlimited, centralized government can't work. It must be limited either by sovereignty movements or by repealing the 17th Amendment.

Beck Interviews Thomas Sowell

On the economy and the housing bust, and how things are going to get much worse:

Kokesh for Congress

It's a shame he's running for the House. We need him in the Senate more. I guess we'll just have to take what we can get:

Independence Day - An Afterthought

John Payne (Is that his real name?):

The United States long ago ceased to be anything resembling the republic the Founders envisioned. When the Constitution was ratified there 30,000 people for every representative in Congress, and for many of the Founders, like George Mason who spearheaded the drive for a bill of rights, this number still seemed high. But now with over 300 million people in the country, and the number of representatives capped at 435 there are almost 700,000 people for every representative in Congress–a number that will continue to grow. It may be absurd to believe that one person can represent 30,000, but that just makes it all the more absurd to believe one can represent 23 times that much. It is the equivalent of six people representing the entirety of the American population at the time of the Constitution’s ratification.

We can only restore the level of representation circa 1790 in two ways: expanding the number of representatives from 435 to just over 10,000 or by dividing the country up into smaller polities. The first option raises the obvious question of how an organization of 10,000 could function and where they could meet, but it would also make each representative’s power negligible in exact proportion to how much it would strengthen each citizen’s power to influence her representative, making the whole point moot.

"Representation" itself is something with which a lot of people have a problem. Montesquieu discusses this in the context of a state which has gotten too large. He says that a republic which becomes too large will die due to a thousand special interests. What he means is that special interests will accumulate power to the detriment of the general population, including the representation of the political body. Representatives start representing the interests of those who fund their re-election campaigns.

Originally, the Senate dealt with this by ensuring that special interests could not become centralized, but a couple of minor faults were exploited in order to create the 17th Amendment, which allowed powerful interests to control both houses of Congress, and unleashed central government growth. The only way the government can be limited again is to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Tax Foundation: Cap and Trade

This is a catchy video Tax Foundation put out that's worth sending around:



Hat tip: Hot Air

ID and the Super-ego

There was a lot of misinformation put out about the Real ID Act. The most serious bit of misinformation is that states were required to have their drivers' licenses meet certain criteria. Despite what you've heard, it is not true that the REAL ID Act requires states to do anything. The discussion about what is required took place in the context of what would be required for federal purposes, as in "If a state wants its drivers' licenses to be usable for federal purposes, these are the requirements that would have to be met." However, states were not required to meet those standards. Identification meeting those criteria would be obtainable aside from drivers' licenses.

Now that Democrats are in charge, they've come up with a new bill that does require uniformity among state drivers' licenses. However, it's being sold as a "scaling back" of the REAL ID Act. This is an outright lie. By "softening", they're referring to "easier to obtain dishonestly", but the requirements, instead of being voluntary, are being made mandatory. It's no longer "if you want your drivers' licenses to be used for federal purposes"; it's "your drivers' licenses will be used for federal purposes". The federal government is just making it easier for them to be obtained fraudulently.

Repealing the 17th Amendment is the only way to stop the growth of the federal government. Can we do it before it's too late?

Obama Moves to Bypass Senate on Treaties

As bad as his domestic agenda is, it's his international agenda which worries me most.

With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.

Just what we needed: another unitary executive who wants to centralize power in himself.

Hat tip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, who adds: "After listening to the Democrats screech for the last two years about the rule of law, this Jake Tapper report should be surprising …. but it’s not. Apparently, Barack Obama finds treaty ratification a little too complicated, and so he figures he can just commit the US to nuclear disarmament and bypass Congressional oversight".

Of course, the reason why the Senate was given the power of ratification was to preserve the ability of the states to defend their individual sovereignty. Repealing the 17th Amendment is the only way to fight power grabs by the executive branch.

Celebrating Independence

Liberty, independence, and sovereignty are all words that highlight different aspects of the same idea. I'd like to direct your attention to some thought-provoking articles highlighted by Let a Thousand Nations Bloom as part of Secession Week (in honor of Independence Day, celebrating America's secession from Britain, of course).

I hope everyone had a fun and safe Independence Day! God Bless the USA!

Florida Moves to Declare Its Independence

Today, Florida State Represenatives Workman and Plakon, along with co-sponsors Dorworth, Eisnaugle, Kelly, Precourt, and Tobia introduced House Memorial 19 (HM19), which “Urges Congress to honor provisions of U. S. Constitution & U. S. Supreme Court case law which limit scope & exercise of federal power.

The resolution reads in part:

NOW THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Florida: That the Legislature claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution of the United States.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this memorial serves as a notice and a demand to the Federal Government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, from issuing mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this memorial be dispatched to the President of the United States, to the President of the United States Senate, to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, to the presiding officers of each state legislature of the United States of America, and to each member of the Florida delegation to the United States Congress.

Another reason to celebrate Independence Day!

Happy Independence Day!

Hat tip: Reason TV

This Is Something, Therefore We Must Do It

Obama's basic argument for health care reform and pretty much everything else he wants to do is that opposition to his plan is opposition to making things better. I'm all for making things better, but his plans just don't do that. No matter how bad things are, some changes just make things worse.

"I can assure you," the president said recently in Green Bay, Wisconsin, "the cost of doing nothing is going to be a lot higher in the years to come. Our deficits will be higher. Our premiums will keep going up. Our wages will be lower. Our jobs will be fewer. Our businesses will suffer." Echoed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius a week later: "The cost of doing nothing will render us a second rate nation on into the future." Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), in subsequent House hearings, went still further: "There is not one child, not one worker, not one employer, nor one taxpayer who can further bear the cost of doing nothing."

Hyperbole aside, the urge to have the government do something in the face of a perceived crisis is arguably the most powerful and effective legislative engine known to man. If the crisis is acute enough, backers of state intervention will even admit that content matters less than the mere existence of action itself.

This video needs to become a lot more popular:



Update: Apparently, Obama's economic plans are losing popularity. Let's hope that keeps up.

Frankenweenie

(Bonus points for recognizing the movie reference)

Dan Mitchell on CNBC:



Al Franken: one of a hundred reasons to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Why Medical Care Costs Have Risen So Much

John Stossel points out the obvious:

Americans have been paying less and less out of their own pocket. It's basic economics that the less you have to pay for something, the more of it you'll use. And yet the “reformers” keep pushing for MORE health insurance.

He has an awesome graph that you should check out and send to everyone.

Just as a suggestion, instead of trying to institute a one-size-fits-all solution, why not let every state make its own judgment? When ideas compete, everyone wins, because we can all see what ideas worked best!

Bipartisanship is Overrated

Hat tip (yes, again!): Reason TV

Arizona Defends Against Federal Takeover of Health Care

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to understand that state legislatures work to protect their people's rights better than a centralized federal government. State legislatures deal with something that the federal government doesn't: competition. Real competition provides fair choices for people, not government (taxpayer) subsidized choices to tilt the playing field. Repealing the 17th Amendment would make Senators accountable to state legislatures that are more concerned with the rights of its citizens than party politics.

Signing Off

Julian Ku highlights Obama's hypocrisy on signing statements:



While signing statements have no more legal effect than a President expressing his opinion about a bill, this is noteworthy for two reasons: 1) the sheer hypocrisy and patently obvious fearmongering, and 2) Obama said that he does think that signing statements grant the President legislative power. His continued use of them is more than just hypocritical given his expression of what they do. It shows how dangerously power-hungry he is.

Are Democrats Revolting?

Of course they are. But they're also rebelling against Obama's so-called "public option", a taxpayer-subsidized, government-run insurance company:



Is Senator Lieberman the only person who can stop the nationalization of health care? Maybe. But if we repealed the 17th Amendment, we'd have a better chance.

The Federal War on Guns

It has begun:

Among other things, the agents are combing neighborhoods and asking people about suspicious purchases as well as seeking explanations as to how their guns ended up used in murders, kidnappings and other crimes in Mexico.

“Ever turning up the heat on cartels, our law enforcement and military partners in the government of Mexico have been working more closely with the ATF by sharing information and intelligence,” Melson said Tuesday during a firearms-trafficking summit in New Mexico.

The ATF recently dispatched 100 veteran agents to its Houston division, which reaches to the border.

The mission is especially challenging because, officials say, that while Houston is the number one point of origin for weapons traced back to the United States from Mexico, the government can’t compile databases on gun owners under federal law.

Agents instead review firearms dealers’ records in person.

Yes, they're bragging about circumventing federal law. Then there's this quote:

“An angry ex-girlfriend or wife is the best person in the world, the greatest source of information,” Sloan said.

Ya, I'll bet. I hope no ex-girlfriends have anything against you guys.

We'll Be Watching, Bernanke

"CBS" stands for "Columbia Business School", whose dean, Glenn Hubbard, made this video.

Hat tip (yes, again): Reason TV