Now, it’s perfectly reasonable for Clinton to protest China’s hacking of American companies’ networks, using them to spy on Chinese users’ communications, and the theft of their intellectual property. But it’s another thing altogether to invoke cold-war rhetoric in an explicit call to undermine foreign governments:

Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.

While it’s unclear what this speech signifies beyond escalating rhetoric, it seems that Hillary is trying to enlist American companies to protest or undermine foreign governments’ Internet policies, á la Google’s stand in China.

This goes to show that despite the neocon characterization of Obama as some sort of a fuzzy-headed dialogue-with-your-enemies conciliator, his administration is actually in thrall to the same the democratist ideology that characterized the Bush years. Sorry, but Web censorship and surveillence in China from seeing is surely outrageous to right thinking people the world over, but it’s not anything close to a core American national security interest.

Am I some kind of apologist for the Chinese dictatorship, or something? No, I’d like nothing more than to see China’s government undermined and thwarted at every turn by Chinese dissidents and their supporters all over the world. The Chinese aren’t stupid, and they’re figuring out ways to circumvent the Great Firewall. They also continue to use traffic anonymizers such as Tor despite their government’s attempts to suppress them, and we — as private individuals — can help them by supporting such projects with our time and money.

And if Hillary is so keen on using her position to protect individuals from the arbitrary whims of the national-security state, there’s plenty that she can do right here at home.

If she’s so worried about Internet surveillance, maybe she should find out what’s going on with that secret room in San Francisco that AT&T built to route all if its Internet traffic and phone calls through to NSA spies.

If she’s worried about China looking at its dissidents’ e-mail, maybe she should focus on how the NSA “routinely examined large volumes of Americans’ e-mail messages without court warrants,” a program that was “still in operation” as of June 2009.

Or she could make some noise about the FBI, which couldn’t even be bothered with creating the self-issued subpoenas provided for under the Patriot Act when snooping on thousands of Americans’ phone records.

If she’s so exercised about civil liberties, maybe she could call on Obama to make sure that new government powers under the Patriot Act are only used for terrorism investigations. Or better yet, she could call for its repeal.

Finally, if Hillary is worried about openness in government, maybe she should call for an official investigation of the three Guantanamo prisoners who were apparently tortured to death by their interrogators, and whose deaths were passed off as suicides.

By the same token, I was drawn into a number of fights because some of my friends relied upon me to back them up when they started a fight. It was not uncommon for one of my friends to start a fight with a guy they knew they couldn’t beat because they knew I would come to the rescue. And, because they were my friends, I had no choice but to do so. As a consequence, I was involved in far more fights than I would otherwise have been. (And spent far more time in the principal’s office than I would otherwise have).

The United States is in a similar position. We have allies that pick fights with their neighbors, or at least refuse to make peace with their neighbors because they can depend on us to back them up. If the United States were to make clear that these friends were on their own, they would cease to make trouble and would be willing to make peace with those with whom they have beefs. Some fights are unavoidable but, by and large, most are not. Those that can be avoided ought to be and powerful nations ought to make clear that their wimpier neighbors and friends ought not to place them in a position to be drawn into them. This is the essence of what George Washington said when he said that we should avoid entangling alliances. Certainly, we should not hand out defense guarantees.

If the United States were to make clear that it was not going to fight for others, two things would happen. First, it would be drawn into far fewer fights. Second, its supposed friends would be far more likely to find an amicable resolution to its disputes and be far less likely to foment disputes with their adversaries. As a rule, those of our friends who are nuclear armed should be weaned from the teat first. They have less need of our support than any others. Other nations should be put on notice that the United States is not in the business of meeting their friends’ enemies behind the schoolhouse. We have enough enemies creeping across our own borders to worry about the problems of other nations.

According to my critics one would expect me to be far out of the mainstream.

But then, two weeks ago, George Will, writing in the Washington Post, wrote this. I wonder if he has crossed over to the dark side, cozied up to the anti-war left. Certainly, I think it would be a tough sell to paint George Will as some sort of slavering extremist. I may have anticipated the movement among those who are more conservative-minded, but it does appear that sentiment within conservative circles may be turning. And that should be a welcome thing.

The article to which you linked, when read through the lenses of one conversant with history (which one would expect a self-described historian to do), demonstrated far better than I could of the bankruptcy of your side. Kagan starts out by mentioning the Great Depression. He failed to note any of the actual causes of that depression. He failed to take into consideration the “adventurism,” to borrow one of your words from a recent comment, of the United States leading up to that crisis. The economic decisions in the midst and wake of the Civil War (National banking acts of 1863 and 1864 which consolidated currency to fund the Union’s war; Federal Reserve creation in 1913; Aldrich-Vreeland in 1908, etc.) and the domestic and foreign policy decisions in the wake of the war (Reconstruction; almost immediate attempts at imperialism in Santo Domingo, Cuba, and Liberia – all of which came about due to slavery and its end; westward expansion, Indian wars, Alaskan purchase; Roosevelt’s splitting of the Republicans, his appointments to the Supreme Court, etc.; financial, monetary, and fiscal management and mismanagement), not to mention World War I, all contributed directly to the spreading thin of the American military and building resentment throughout the world.

Kagan goes on to insinuate that, because the United States seemed to somehow ignore foreign policy, Japan militarized and Germany fell under Hitler’s sway. This is howlingly funny. What we are required to do if we are to accept Kagan’s hypothesis is to absolutely and unequivocally deny that black is black, that water is wet, or that fire is hot. Aside from the fact that it was American “adventurism” (e.g., with the Great White Fleet, which further fueled a zealous desire to militarize in newly-nationalist Japan) which thrust Japan on its path toward imperialism (read about Perry’s Black Ships and the cracking of isolationist Japan, the Meiji Restoration, the Manchurian, Korean, and Russian campaigns of Japan), we can hardly be faulted for “ignoring” Germany: we had shipped thousands of American boys there to fight, bleed, die, and kill, and had established a new world-political body to deal with the German problem only 20 years before the 1933 Nazification. One could be excused for refusing to read any of the rest of Kagan’s ludicrous bombast after realizing this, but, intrepid soul that I am, I trudged on.

Kagan engaged in your least-favorite pasttime. He had the balls to criticize Ronald Reagan (gasp! the horror!) in practically the same breath as he criticized Jimmy Carter. Calling Reagan’s policy decisions about Lebanon “failed” and asserting that these policies led to the bombing of the Marine barracks is hardly what one would expect to hear you lauding. Implicit in this is the recognition that we should not have been there to get bombed. Reagan quickly and wisely realized this and did exactly the right thing: he got out and left Israel to what it was perfectly, demonstrably capable of doing: defending itself and letting Beirut and the Lebanese tend to their own damned affairs. No more Marines were killed there after that. No Al-Aqsa,  ”Quds Force,” or Hezbollah started trouble by killing Americans there. What a concept.  What were “Reagan’s failed policies” in Lebanon? Assisting a “multinational force” along with French troops and others to “keep the peace” in a sectarian civil war. What spawned the Muslim hatred and subsequent suicide bombings? Perceived American preference for Maronite Catholics and the shelling of Druze areas which inadvertantly killed civilians.

Kagan touches tangentially and seemingly accidentally upon one truth: things now are probably more dangerous for the U.S., but because of our huge overseas presence and constant “spreading of democracy” or “war on terror” or “search for WNDs” (we really do need to find those nasty World Net Dailies) or whatever they’re calling it these days, not because we are letting our guard down.

People are growing weary of the wars, growing weary of the constant misequation of the United States of America with Israel by the radical Zionists, and people are growing weary of the stubborn economic hardships put upon them by constant imperialism. Bring Americans home to defend America. Root out radical Islam here and deport it. If the resistance starts here, put it down swiftly and with no remorse. But there is no way we need to be defending South Korea from a tinpot near-dead in charge of a run-down non-entity. There is no justification for making all those “security guarantees” to states in the Russian sphere of influence. There is no way you could possibly believe that Kagan essay if you know and understand history. There is no way you can continue to call yourself a conservative and defend such Wilsonianism. It is definitionally schizophrenic, or alternatively simply mendacious, to claim to be conservative and yet espouse this baseless, historically-illiterate, radical Ledeenishness while at the same time believing it makes us safer. Your apologists split their time between appealing to how much safer we are and how dangerous it’s getting. Your side constantly purports to support “democracy” and “freedom” while working overtime - often in cahoots with outright radical socialist would-be totalitarians – to quash them through Patriot Acts, occupations of foreign countries, propped-up banking cartels and outdated unionized auto companies (remember which President started those great things?). Your side is trying to cling desperately to relevance, which is understandable. But for whom are you striving?

I have posited that America is maintaining an empire – a claim that is refuted by Doughboy who prefers the term “peacekeeping.”  By using the word empire, instead of a more misleading term, I have been labeled a “guy who care[s] about your pocketbooks and cozying up to the anti war left”; that I am a cult member of Ron Paul’s; that I am a xenophobe who lacks understanding of the “global nature of the present times”; that I maintain a “leftwing site” that “never [has] any praise for our military, our Republican leaders, America etc. And there’s never any criticism twrd Obama, Pelosi, etc, only the military, Bush and peacekeeping.”

As to the last several specious arguments: that this website “never [has] any praise for our military,” see here, here, here for instances where I, personally, have praised the military during the last year. These do not reflect Bill’s constant praise for our soldiers. As for praising our Republican leaders, I would direct Doughboy’s attention here, here, here, here, here, here, and here where I have praised Republicans. Just recently I wrote this praising the very idea of America and I would note that virtually everything I write is suffused with an abiding love and respect for our constitutional way of life. So, as for Doughboy’s criticisms of the website, I think we can safely view them as hyperbole and emotional reaction unrelated to actual facts. I admit that I do criticize Republicans and even conservatives. As I have written before, the more vigorous the debate on the issues, the better. A strong debate tends to cull weaker ideas that cannot be justified. In that sense, debate among conservatives is healthy. When conservatives cease debate about their plank, that is a sign of unhealthy group-think that will inevitably lead to trouble.

As for the primary question, whether America is an empire, I point to our continual military presence in far-flung provinces as evidence of empire. Doughboy responds that these are for the purpose of peacekeeping, although one wonders if Germany still remains at risk of descending into chaos but for the presence of our soldiers there. Wouldn’t America be safer if its allies maintained strong militaries instead of abdicating their responsibility to defend themselves to the United States? Think of it this way. If you were a criminal looking for victims and you saw a huge, tough guy walking around with a bunch of four-year-olds in his gang, you would instantly recognize that in order to take control of the gang, you would simply have to take out the huge, tough guy – the rest would fall into your orbit from a lack of any real options. However, if you approached a gang where the huge, tough guy were accompanied by a fair number of sizable companions, you may find yourself less likely to consider them as a potential target. I invite Doughboy to consider which model the situation in Europe is more like. The fact is, our presence there excuses them from providing for themselves. Their refusal to accept responsibility for themselves, in turn, places the United States at greater risk, not lesser. A strong allied Europe would be a boon to the United States, but that will never happen as long we maintain our protective umbrella over our European provinces.

Oh, I’m sure referencing “our European provinces” is likely to draw fire, but if one nation cannot defend itself and relies on another, the stark reality is that the nation that holds the strings of life or death over the other actually holds the nation. It has been rendered a dependent state and cannot in any meaningful way be regarded as sovereign as long as such a condition persists. America was once in that position; it was then a colony of Great Britain, a holding of the crown. I will readily admit that America is bad at maintaining an empire. For instance, it is customary to force the colony to pull its own weight by remitting taxes or tribute to the emperor. Instead, we foot the bill for the entire world’s security.

Doughboy maintains that we are safer because we have troops scattered all over the world. He maintains that we benefit economically from this arrangement and that the world is more secure as a result. I have asked him to make his case. I am persuadable, I will listen to cogent argument. I will not listen to a harangue about how I have turned the website into a CNN.com chatroom by making myself into a leftist, who harbors a secret love for Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Set me straight, Doughboy. I welcome the opportunity to engage in reasoned debate.

Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (ugh), said “There’s reason to believe they (North Korea) may respond in an irresponsible fashion to this.”  Hmm, more irresponsibily that the Obama administration?  Rice said the administration was “very pleased” with the sanctions. She called the new resolution, which was supported by China and Russia, an “unprecedented” position by the Security Council.  Right, unprecedented because Russia and China did not veto new sanctions.

Rice also said Obama’s wagging finger should scare the Hell out of Iran.  “I imagine that they have been following this closely.”  She said Iran will observe that “the response from the international community has been very clear, very firm and very meaningful.”  Oh, indeed.

UPDATE:

It appears the United States Navy has encountered its first suspect ship!  Start wagging, Mr. Obama.  I am sure the NoKos wont threaten Hawaii…AGAIN.  Looks like we might have to santion North Korea.  God, I am sure they aren’t ready for that!

After kid-napping the captain of the Alabama, the pirates now seem to be angling to meet up with their comrades as to set sail for the Somalian coast.  While trapped in a life boat, the pirates called for a flotilla of ships previously hijacked by other Somalia pirates to come to their aide.  It appears that they will do so.  Anticipating further detention or worse, Captain Phillips attempted an escape on Friday only to be recaptured.  Meanwhile, U.S. warships watch while FBI agents negotiate with his captors.

What shall Obama order?  Assuming more pirate ships arrive on the scene, will he allow the Navy to destroy the vessels?  Will he allow the pirates to whisk away Phillips to the relative safety of the Somalian coast?  Will he fold like a stagnant sail and pay the pirates for the safe return of the captain?  Will he allow the pirates to escape if they first surrender their captive?

I am no longer so sure of the prediction I so boldly made months ago.  After Obama allowed North Korea to launch a missile towards the United States with virtually no repercussions, I have serious doubts that he has the fortitude to take this threat head on.  And yet failure to act decisively on this situation could spell doom for the historic deterrent effect the United States military.   This is a great opportunity for the president.  He could take on the pirates by sending a volley of missiles down on known pirate hideouts.  He could raid and destroy the numerous captured vessels held by pirates.  He could do a lot of things but he probably wont.  And if he does not take aggressive action now, it will become clear to enemy and ally alike that the President of the United States is a weakling and not seriously concerned about protecting American interests at home or abroad.

UPDATE:

Mr. Phillips is free thanks to the U.S. Navy Seals! It turns out Obama has something like a backbone after all!

And Bloomber News is now confirming my earlier suspicions.

The fact that the Mexican armed forces are on a numerical parity with the drug cartels should be a cause for grave concern in Washington, but it is unclear what, if anything, the current administration proposes to do to protect its citizens living near the border. Mexico is now counted as one of the top three threats to America’s national security along with Pakistan and Iran. Presumably that means we will send envoys to the cartels and try to make them like us by giving them things, saying nice things about them, and ignoring the fact that they have a tendency to leave headless corpses in their wakes in a style redolent of al Qaeda.

It has been nice (although suicidal) that the United States heretofore has been able to maintain a largely open and unguarded border with Mexico, but it is abundantly clear that those days have passed. With 230,000 armed soldiers likely to be engaged in open war on our border shortly, it behooves Obama to tend to his southern border with a large military presence. If not only to protect against an overspill of the conflict which looms, but also to protect against the wave of refugees that is likely to use the opportunity to make the border run that, for whatever reason, they have been putting off. The one good thing that might have come from the United States’ complete financial meltdown is that the U.S. might have looked a little less attractive to potential skulkers across our borders. However, with the upsurge in violence and political instability across the Rio Grande, that silver lining is tarnishing fast.

Perhaps Obama, Pelosi and Reid should rethink their plans to gut the military budget as it appears the military may be needed in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

HCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED

2009 SESSION

09-0274

09/01

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Sen. Denley, Dist 3

COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

ANALYSIS

This house concurrent resolution affirms States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

09-0274

09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and

Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and

That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; and

That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; and

That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and

That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court; and

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.

It would seem New Hampshire has done everything short of drawing up articles of secession. Let us hope a) that more states follow suit in drawing up similar resolutions, and b) that the federal government takes heed. I suppose the practical reality of the discussion that Bill and I were having is that states can secede if the federal government breaches its contract with the states. Live free or die, baby!

On a side note: Does anyone know if the New Hampshire bar exam is tough?

As I uncover the other states who have proposed these types of resolutions, I will update this posting. I know Missouri proposed something similar.

UPDATE: The other states are Washington, Oklahoma, Missouri and Arizona. H/T Daily Paul

It is unfortunate that, since 2005 when they were originally convicted, these men have had to serve prison sentences for defending this country from the scourge of illegals trafficking in drugs. The president should have acted sooner to redress the wrongs done to these two men. Indeed, he should have granted them full pardons. Nonetheless, I give him credit for finally doing the right thing and freeing Compean and Ramos.