Tag Archives: State Sovereignty

Immigration: A State or Federal Issue?

Article I, Section 8: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

Note: This article was written by Shelli Dawdy and Linda Rohman of Grassroots in Nebraska (GiN). Shelli is the founder of GiN and Linda is the Policy Research Coordinator for the Lincoln, NE based group, founded in 2009, the mission for which is to actively promote a return to Constitutional, limited government and sovereignty.

The Nebraska Unicameral session has been in full (fast, furious) swing since its opening on January 5.
We’ve been taking a look at the many bills that have been introduced, including Senator Charlie Janssen’s LB48, which many people have characterized as “Arizona-style immigration law”, referencing the controversial SB1070.

There are a number of elements in the bill we’re examining and among them are potential implications for the very important issue of jurisdiction. Recognizing the need for a deeper look at this subject, I asked Linda to prepare a presentation for our January 10 meeting, which I’ve edited for ease of reading and reproduced here along with some additional thoughts from the follow-up discussion at the meeting.

For the purposes of discussing jurisdiction and the implications for immigration, it’s necessary to take a look at some history associated with citizenship.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that a person, born into slavery in Virginia, was not freed by virtue of being transported into and residing for a time within either the State of Illinois or the Territory of Wisconsin, both of which outlawed the practice of slavery within their borders.

Specifically with reference to the matter of citizenship, the Court further held that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants, whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens.

Chief Justice Taney and President-elect Buchanan thought that the Court’s decision would lay all existing sectional differences to rest, fully and finally, but they overestimated their ability to persuade abolitionists to accept constitutional law as the Supreme Court interpreted it. Far from resolving the crisis, the Dred Scott decision is now considered to have actually accelerated the country’s descent into civil war.

Civil Rights Act of 1866

Enacted during Reconstruction following the Civil War.

Response to continued discrimination against former slaves, particularly in the South, denying them the rights attendant upon citizenship, including the rights to:

  • Make contracts
  • Sue and be sued
  • Testify in court
  • Inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and
  • Vote

The Act declared that everyone “born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power” is a citizen without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude.

Fourteenth Amendment (1868)

Introduced shortly after the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Supporters feared the Supreme Court would declare the Civil Rights Act of 1866 unconstitutional and supported the Fourteenth Amendment in an effort to forestall any such ruling by the Court.

Citizenship Clause:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

“. . ., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, . . .”

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

GiN is committed to the concept of ORIGINALISM: (from our About page)

The Constitution is an enduring document, not a living, evolving one. Consequently, a proper interpretation of the Constitution can only be achieved by reference to the original meaning of the words it contains.

An understanding of original meaning requires consideration of the words themselves and their context, as well as history, tradition, and legal precedent, the latter grounded in American jurisprudence as opposed to that of foreign jurisdictions. A judge’s consideration of “values” and of consequences evaluated in light of those values is inconsistent with the rule of law and outside the proper role of a judge.

Using the concept of Originalism, as defined above, one can examine a phrase contained in the Constitution, step by step:

1. The words themselves and their context:

AND is a conjunction. When used in the context of a list, it implies plurality rather than the singular.

If a person is born in the United States, he or she is physically in the United States at birth.

To construe “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as meaning within the boundaries of the United States reduces them to a redundancy. In other words, the phrase would literally mean:

“All persons born . . . in the United States, and in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

“A fundamental rule of statutory construction requires that every part of a statute be presumed to have some effect, and not be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary.” Raven Coal Corp. v. Absher, 153 Va. 332, 149 S.E. 541 (1929).

2. What’s the history and tradition behind the adoption of this language?

Senator Jacob Howard (MI) introduced the proposed amendment for consideration by Congress. In discussing the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” Sen. Howard stated:

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Senator Howard also said:

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already . . .”

(Arguably, a reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1866.)

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” into the Fourteenth Amendment explained:

“[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

(An even more clear reference to language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866.)

There are many other examples similar to the ones above, sufficient to demonstrate that this was the general understanding of the clause when the proposed amendment was discussed in Congress (although there were a few Congressmen who stated the language would render anyone born within U.S. borders citizens).

3. Legal precedent:

Elk v. Wilkins (1884)

John Elk was born on an Indian Reservation.

As an adult, he renounced his allegiance to his tribe, moved to non-reservation U.S. territory (Omaha, Nebraska), and there attempted to register to vote, claiming citizenship under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Wilkins, the registrar of voters in the district where Elk lived, refused to register Elk on the grounds that he was not a citizen of the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court held:

Although “Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states,” “they were alien nations, distinct political communities,” with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress.

Thus, born a member of an Indian tribe, even on American soil, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States.

The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth. “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

But just 14 years later, the Court reached the opposite conclusion:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

Wong Kim Ark was born in the U.S. to parents who were Chinese immigrants and, apparently, legal resident aliens (i.e., they remained citizens of China although living and running a business in the U.S. for a period of years).

The parents returned to China in 1890, and Wong Kim Ark went to visit them there in 1894, returning to the U.S. from that visit in 1894.

He was detained upon seeking re-entry into the U.S. on the grounds that, because his parents were Chinese citizens and owed their allegiance to China, Wong Kim Ark, although born in the U.S., was also a Chinese citizen.

The Court:

Distinguished Elk v. Wilkins as limited solely to Native Americans. This is not as surprising as it may seem at first reading. In many respects, recognition of Native Americans as a minority group and acknowledgment of their civil rights came even more slowly than for African Americans. For instance, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 specifically “exclud[ed] Indians not taxed” from its birthright citizenship provision.

HELD: The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, according to the court’s majority, had to be interpreted in light of English Common Law, which had included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory.

The majority held that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically incorporated these exceptions (plus a fourth — namely, that Indian tribes “not taxed” were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction—and that since none of these exceptions applied to Wong’s situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act).

Where does that leave us?

Considering the citizenship clause from the perspective of originalism, at least two arguments can be made:

  • The Wong Kim Ark decision was wrongly decided. Even though there is some legal basis to support this contention (i.e., that the interpretation of the citizenship clause runs counter to legislative intent and the original meaning of the words used therein), there is always a great deal of reluctance on the part of the Court to upset settled precedent. Without more, it is unlikely such an argument would prevail.
  • If the English Common Law exceptions recognized by the Court in Wong Kim Ark are to apply, the children of illegal aliens are arguably more similar to exception number (3) — children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory — and should be denied birthright citizenship under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment on that basis. In today’s political climate, this contention would unleash a firestorm of criticism upon anyone with the temerity to assert it. Even setting that aside, there are legitimate questions as to whether the facts support the analogy. BUT videos like the one below and the Absolut vodka ad picture, give some credence to the argument.

An Absolut vodka ad targeting Hispanic customers

At the January 10 meeting, there was further discussion of this issue, with a number of questions raised, associated with the 14th Amendment and the implications when interpreted according to long standing legal standards.

At the time of the meeting, our preliminary survey of relevant court cases had only turned up Elk and Wong. We are continuing our research work and have just discovered some additional information, which we’ve only started to dive into. One of the things we’re looking at is a research paper entitled “Regulation of Immigration is Historically a State Function“.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the US Congress. Included in that list is, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”. Naturalization is the process by which someone becomes a citizen.

The Constitution does not enumerate immigration as falling under the Federal government’s power. Immigration is simply “the act of moving to or settling in another region or country, temporarily or permanently”.

It turns out that immigration laws were originally handled by the States. Once an alien was present within the borders of a state, it was also permissible for that state to deny certain rights to that resident alien that citizens take for granted. In fact, it seems that a number of state laws “discriminating” between citizens and aliens in this manner are still on the books. How many, we don’t yet know. A good example of one law is right here in Nebraska; foreign nationals are prohibited from owning or leasing property for more than five years.

It’s very unclear when immigration became a Federal issue – did it occur legislatively in Congress or through bureaucratic regulation? The Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization was created by federal law in 1906. So, certainly, by that time, it was being treated as within the purview of the federal (general) government.

Just because something is done at one time and another way now doesn’t necessarily indicate which is the RIGHT way. The question remains: Is immigration properly handled as a State or Federal issue?

These questions are highly relevant, considering that LB48, the immigration measure introduced by Senator Janssen, includes language that would actually codify Federal authority over immigration into Nebraska law. Is that a good idea? Further, is it not a relevant question: If there are existing immigration statues on our books, including the law pertaining to property, are there already adequate laws available that are simply not being rigorously and consistently enforced?

We are looking into all of these questions and hope to have some answers very soon. Again, one of the things we are looking at is “Regulation of Immigration is Historically a State Function“, which references many court cases on this subject.

I thought Ron Paul was a social liberal?

Click on the pic for more about the artist Leah Tiscione

By Danielle Rhymes

Facebook post here (shared with permission)

This question has popped up a few times recently, and I realized just how much of a misconception has been instilled by the media concerning Ron Paul on social issues.  One problem that many Republicans have with Ron Paul is that they think he is not socially conservative.  Discussing every social issue in one writing would be overwhelming, though I do plan to address others in the future.  For now I will focus on the top priority social issue for conservatives—abortion.  I knew that Ron Paul did not support Roe v. Wade on the grounds that abortion is not in the realm of the federal government’s authority, but what I did not know even as a Ron Paul supporter, and is little known, is that Ron Paul is in fact the most pro-life politician in D.C.

Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act bill in 2005 that would define personhood as beginning at conception and bar the Supreme Court from interfering with state prohibitions on abortion—essentially a permanent repeal of Roe v. Wade.  Interestingly, the bill only had five co-sponsors.  Ron Paul introduced this bill again in 2007, again with only five cosponsors.  In 2009, Ron Paul introduced the bill yet again with three cosponsors.  In the current legislative session, he is a cosponsor of the Protect Life Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, all of which prohibit federal funds from being used to fund abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother’s life.

Interestingly, a similarly titled bill introduced by Representative Broun, The Sanctity of Human Life Act, received many more cosponsors, yet, with all due respect to Rep. Broun et. al., does not have nearly the same weight as Paul’s version.  The Broun bill with all of its good intention has little real legal substance.  Paul’s version expresses the same ideology but with actual legal weight outlined in great detail.  The Broun bill, outside of expressing the ideology that human life begins at conception, claims that Congress, the States, and U.S. territories have the authority to protect human life within their respective jurisdictions but with no detail as to how to protect that jurisdiction in the current context (e.g. how to prevent the meddling of an activist Supreme Court).   The Paul bill expresses not only ideology but the fact that scientific findings support that ideology; additionally, his bill specifically prohibits the Supreme Court from reviewing any law on the basis that it protects the rights of human life between conception and birth or prohibits the performance and/or funding of abortions in any way.  It addresses the real obstacles that are likely to come up if, hopefully when, a pro-life bill passes.

There are times where one must use a pragmatic eye to get results, even on an issue as sensitive as abortion.  This is an example of the genius of our founders.  Controversial issues left in the states’ hands make it so 1. It is much more likely that people can actually make the change they want.  2. People can move to a state with different laws if they are unhappy with the existing laws.  3. The subject is less divisive nationally and allows the federal government to focus on issues that can be resolved.  I am not implying that I do not support a federal ban on abortion.  I would like to see a Constitutional amendment, which would be necessary to prevent another Roe v. Wade, similar to those recognizing all races and women as full persons with full rights.  However, rather than waiting until such a change, it makes sense to argue the practical (which is currently Constitutional) to save these innocent lives in at least some states rather than waiting for all fifty to get on board.  The political consequences of one state prohibiting abortion would almost certainly go a long way toward the final goal of such a Constitutional amendment.  Ron Paul at CPAC 2008:

I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But it’s been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. That’s not a political statement, but a scientific statement that I’m making. We’re all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life–but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says “no abortion,” it doesn’t go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order.

All the cosponsors of Ron Paul’s bill, Reps. Jones, Bartlett, and Garrett, also cosponsored Broun’s bill.  So the obvious question is, where were the other 58 of Broun’s cosponsors, whom we’d assume are pro-life, on Paul’s bill?  Not one Oklahoma representative, Tea Party fave Paul Ryan, or former Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter.

Many conservatives also do not know where Ron Paul stands as far as his faith is concerned.  He is modest, but if you go looking you can find out what he has to say.  Unfortunately, the media doesn’t perform this task for us, leaving an incomplete picture in the minds of conservatives when compared to, say, Huckabee or Romney.  So I gladly here, leave you with a quote from Ron Paul’s “Statement of Faith” from 2007:

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

Full-text of Broun’s bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111%3AH.R.227:

Full-text of Paul’s bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111%3AH.R.2533:

Paul currently sponsoring/cosponsoring (click his name, then click search): http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=BSS&c=112

Ron Paul’s “Statement of Faith”: http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm

R3publicans is pleased to have this feature post by Danielle Rhymes, the wife of Jeremy Rhymes, who is currently serving as an intern for OKGrassroots.  Jeremy has been working on the issue of State Sovereignty while finishing up his education. His post on the State Sovereignty Resolution was recently featured here.  We look forward to many more posts in the years to come from the Rhymes.

Special thanks to Life of the Party for providing the link references for the graphic artist Leah Tiscione featured on this post

Resolution to Strengthen Oklahoma Sovereignty from OKGrassroots

by Jeremy Rhymes

State sovereignty is about having the chance to determine our own degree of peace and prosperity, not having them decided by self interested globalists and corporatists in the national government.  State sovereignty is based on the premise that government governs best that is closest to the people.  That’s not an opinion, that’s demonstrable.

If you have a problem with the way your city is being run, you can voice it at a town hall, directly to the mayor and council, or give them a call or even pay them a visit at the office.  It takes a little drive, but you can do the same thing with your state legislators, and, if you bring a few friends, they’ll remember the visit and remember you.  Local and state politicians are typically reachable and manageable, and when they are not we can hold them accountable more easily than federal officials.

Our Founders knew a centralized national government needed limitations and checks, a need they articulated by those placed in our Constitution.  Today the feds feel very little constraint when it comes to what they can do with their power.  Bailing out corporations and banks, imposing universal healthcare, cap and trade, sanctioning a private bank to print our money and loan it to us with an interest rate; you name it, they’ve mishandled it.  There’s very little they are in a position to do well and even those things haven’t been attended with the integrity and responsibility we could wish from men and women we trust with so much.  And what can we do?

The answer is here with us, the People, from which all governmental power stems.  The answer is state sovereignty; recovering enough independence from the federal government to affect national changes through state politics.  Right now the states are virtually powerless against federal mandates and excesses.  Most rely heavily on federal subsidies and grants with strings attached, and our Right to self determination is null and void under such conditions.  If our state cannot respond responsibly to federal initiatives, how can we?

But state sovereignty isn’t a new issue for us here in Oklahoma.  We’ve seen sovereignty resolutions introduced under two governors, in 1994 and 2009.  In 1995 our House passed the Oklahoma State Sovereignty Act in an attempt to safeguard us from unfunded federal mandates.  Each time it comes up there have been obstacles on the state level.  Basically, our state government is more responsive to the influence of the federal government than the people of Oklahoma right now.  The good news is that, unlike politics on the national level, this is something we can change directly.

Making a change will take getting involved in precinct and county level politics, but that is what we should have been doing the whole time to maintain our own self governance.  We have to do more than vote.  Below is a resolution useful for introduction on the local level of party politics.  It asserts State sovereignty and recalls some of the history of similar attempts in our State.  If we’re going to put ourselves back in the driver’s seat, it all starts on the ground, in our neighborhoods and precincts.

Resolution to Strengthen Oklahoma Sovereignty

WHEREAS the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and Amendments IX and X to that Constitution reserve to the States and to the People all rights not “delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States;” and

WHEREAS the Oklahoma State Legislature passed State Sovereignty Resolutions introduced by State Representative Charles Key in 1994 and 2009, and

WHEREAS the Oklahoma State House of Representatives passed the Oklahoma State Sovereignty Act introduced by State Representative Charles Key in 1995 requiring the escrowing of federal tax funds by the State for the purpose of withholding them in the event of an encroachment of Oklahoma’s Sovereignty, and

WHEREAS Article IV, Section IV of the Constitution of the United States guarantees a republican form of government to each of the several States and

WHEREAS the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma in Section IV-1 declares the separation and distinction of the powers of government, as the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departments “and neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others.”

WHEREAS Section V-1 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma invests Legislative authority of the State in a Legislature, and

WHEREAS Section V-55 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma prohibits the expenditure of State money without an appropriation by law and that law shall “distinctly specify the sum appropriated and the object to which it is to be applied”, and

WHEREAS Section II-2 lists as an inherent right to all persons “the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry”, and

WHEREAS the United States Congress has passed laws not in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States, such as a health care law requiring individual citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a tax and that law requires implementation of that regulatory program by the State of Oklahoma, and FURTHERMORE has passed laws regulating firearms, requirements for security within Oklahoma’s airports, and the collection of information about Oklahoma citizens beyond the powers delegated by the Constitution of the United States, and

WHERAS Federal Executive Branch Departments have issued regulations mandating expenditures by the State of Oklahoma absent consent by the State Legislature, and

WHEREAS former Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry engaged in a Legislative act by submitting applications for federal funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on two separate occasions in 2009 and 2010 that obligated the State of Oklahoma to the expenditure of funds in particular ways and for a particular period and FURTHERMORE Governor Brad Henry tied the hands of a future Oklahoma State Legislature, and

WHEREAS the State of Oklahoma has entered into “Memorandums of Understanding” with foreign nations, other States, and entities through the actions of unelected State employees, absent Legislative authority,

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Oklahoma calls upon elected officials within the State of Oklahoma, particularly those members of the Republican Party within the state in elected offices to take all  necessary and appropriate actions to protect, strengthen, and maintain the integrity of the Sovereignty of the State, the inherent and Constitutional rights of its people, and to ensure compliance with spirit and letter of laws in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States and the State of Oklahoma, including conducting research studies and investigations, and introducing and providing vigorous support for appropriate legislative measures.

Submitted and Adopted by Precinct #_________, _____________ County, Oklahoma, Congressional District #_____, on _____________(date).”

A lot of people don’t know it, but anyone can write one of these and, assuming they are registered with a party, propose it for inclusion in that party platform.  Even one person has the power to change things on the local level.  That’s why we must start here and work our way up.

Jeremy Rhymes, Intern for Oklahoma Grassroots 2010-2011

Oklahoma Sovereignty Graphics Design by Jan Leonard of Louisiana (she has done similar graphics for Nebraska and Michigan also).  You may contact her here.

_____________________________

R3publicans is pleased to have this feature post by Jeremy Rhymes, an intern for OKGrassroots who has been working on the issue of State Sovereignty while finishing up his education. In that capacity, he has helped draft this resolution and is now sharing with activists in Oklahoma and other states for the purposes of sparking debate and action on the matter. We thank him for his efforts on the State Sovereignty issue and hope through this article that we can all play a part in insisting upon it!

_____________________________

Additional links and references:

Oklahoma Grassroots Presents Resolutions to be Considered for Introduction at Precinct Meetings 2011 – for more resolutions

Scribd – downloadable version of Sample Resolutions for Oklahoma

OK-Safe Precinct: Most Powerful Office

Oklahoma Constitution

Sovereignty Special! Join R3s Friday Night to Listen and Share

click here to see original post on Grassroots in Nebraska

This Friday evening 6-8PM CST, Shelli Dawdy will be filling in as host of the Axxiom for Liberty radio show on Rule of Law Radio Network for Kaye Beach. Sitting in as her co-host for the evening will be Sandra Crosnoe.

We will be discussing the issue of state sovereignty, some of the current issues impacting its status, and ideas for additional action.

Guest Line-Up Includes: Linda Rohman from Nebraska, Amanda Teegarden of OK-SAFE, Oklahoma State Representative and Sovereignty Champion Charles Key, and a very special guest former Oklahoma Congressional District 4 Candidate and currently serving in Afghanistan National Guard Air Traffic Controller Chief RJ Harris.

To listen live to the show on Friday, click on the radio icon on the top of theRule of Law site, or listen live by calling in to 512-485-9010.

Rule of Law is an independent radio network based out of Austin, TX and heard on twenty AM and FM radio stations across the country, online, and via a special call-in number.

Shelli Dawdy’s GiN post on Federal Red Ink Tsunami: The Life Boats Are Within Our Reach

By Shelli Dawdy

In two recent articles, I laid out what I believe to be some unfortunate truths. In Don’t Count On A Republican Congress To Save The Day I theorized there is ample evidence and information that placing all hopes on the results of November’s election is a fallacy.

The title of the second, GOP Congress Will Not Save Us: Time To Choose OURSELVES,  was very deliberate both in repeating the mantra about Congress and in echoing the title of a 1964 speech by Ronald Reagan. Shortly before that year’s Presidential Election, Reagan informed America it was time to choose. He urged Americans to preserve freedom by rejecting the establishment of the day. He believed the members of the establishment embraced collectivism both at home with welfare state policies and abroad through the advocacy for “accommodation” of Communist nations. Reagan warned that failure to reject those forces would ultimately result in Nikita Kruschev’s prediction coming true. The Soviet dictator said America would someday freely choose Communism. Reagan believed it would come after a period that degraded the spiritual, moral, and economic fiber of the nation.

Ronald Reagan was correct. After decades of weakening from within, the wheel has turned – the paradigm has shifted. The forces which were oceans away in 1964 have embedded themselves in government and other structures of power. The appeaser crowd, then largely relegated to the Democratic Party and higher academia are now running the Republican Party.

If you remain a skeptic I urge you not only to read both of the above articles in full (they include a number of references), but in addition urge also that you read or watch “A Time for Choosing” and read the article “America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution” by Andrew M. Codevilla.

If you followed a link to this article, you are likely searching for answers. You are wondering what can be done to reverse the course of government and if you have stuck with what I’ve had to say so far, you must at least have some degree of skepticism regarding a Republican majority in Congress. That nagging feeling you’ve likely been having is to be encouraged.

Continue reading here >>>