Dobbs promotes website that hosts several pro-secession articles
On the September 17 broadcast of his radio show, Lou Dobbs hosted Tenth Amendment Center founder Michael Boldin and repeatedly "urge[d]" his listeners to visit the group's "very interesting" website. The site, among other things, has published or reprinted several articles advocating secession from the United States.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Dobbs hosts founder of "very interesting" Tenth Amendment Center
From the September 17 edition of United Stations Radio Networks' The Lou Dobbs Show:
DOBBS: Well, there we are. The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, language ratified back on December 15th, 1791. My guest now says our nation's Founding Fathers had very good reasons to pin the 10th Amendment; he joins us now for a Constitution Day history lesson. Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center -- and Michael, it is great to have you with us.
BOLDIN: Lou, it's an honor to be here. Thanks for having me on.
[...]
DOBBS: Well, you know, I -- you have a website that is, I think, very interesting, and one that people should know about, and it is the TenthAmendmentCenter.com. That's 10th, T-e-n-t-h, Amendment Center, and you've got your 10-4 Pledge. Tell everybody what that is.
BOLDIN: Well, what we're trying to do is find the politicians that get out of this left-right discussion, like you talk about so often. It isn't just "Democrats are going to save us from Republicans" or "Republicans are going to save us from Democrats." What we're looking to find are people that are running for office or in office that are focused. The number one issue on every political decision should be: Where in the Constitution is this authority?
And we have a 10-point, 10 affirmations about the role of the federal government under the Constitution and 10 promises. One most prominent one is, "I will vote in favor of the Constitution every issue, every time, no excuses, no exceptions," and those are the only type of people that we should be voting for.
We just released this. This week we've already got 20 signers, including Randy Brogdon who's running for governor in Oklahoma, Mike Folmer in the state Senate in Pennsylvania, and a number of other good, state legislators around the country.
DOBBS: Good. Well, Michael, thanks for being with us. We wish the best. Come back soon, we've got a lot to talk about.
BOLDIN: Couldn't have picked a better day. It's been an honor chatting with you, Lou.
DOBBS: Good to talk with you, and Happy Constitution Day; Michael Boldin -- who runs the Tenth Amendment Center, and that's a Los Angeles-based think tank, by the way. Thetenthamendmentcenter.com: you can go there, and I would urge you to do so.
TenthAmendmentCenter.com publishes pro-secession articles
"Decentralization for Socialists: A Brief Primer," reprinted from LewRockwell.com. The essay argued "a peaceful, just, and democratic solution to a centuries-old problem" would be to "[l]et the people of each sovereign state decide their own fate." The essayist argued strongly in favor of "decentralization" and bemoaned "the amount of time the modern statists, particularly on the Left, spend labeling the idea of decentralization and secession as 'kooky.' " [Tenth Amendment Center website, posted 8/25/09]
"State sovereignty is a long-standing American tradition." In a partially republished Charleston City Paper commentary by Jack Hunter, Hunter cited Kirkpatrick Sale, "author and director of the Mulberry Institute, a pro-secession think tank," as saying, "Of course, it is true that the particular secession of 1861-65 did not succeed, but that didn't make it illegal or even unwise. It made it a failure, that's all. The victory by a superior military might is not the same thing as the creation of a superior constitutional right." Hunter added, in the part of his commentary reprinted on the Tenth Amendment Center's website: "Sale raises a good point. If the Founding Fathers had lost the American Revolution to Great Britain, would the colonial's quest to secede from England have been decided forever, all because of a military loss? The idea that the U.S. could still be an outpost of the British Empire is one that many today would find as laughable as some find secession." [Tenth Amendment Center website, posted 5/19/09]
"Guns, Gold, Secession." The post by contributor Karen De Coster praised recent state legislative activity, in which "[t]wenty-eight states are invoking the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, by rolling out legislation to assert their sovereignty as free states in order to keep from being undermined by the never-ending swarm of unrestrained federal decrees." De Coster argued that "[g]uns are the tools with which you defend yourself, not only from the local criminal who wants what you have, but even more so, they provide free men with the capability for physical resistance from a federal government whose expansion of powers and oppressive tactics are out of control." And, the post concluded, "The only way to get this oppressive tyrant -- known as the federal government -- off our back is to break away from it and start anew." [Tenth Amendment Center website, posted 4/5/09]
"If At First You Don't Secede." A "guest commentary" by "VirginiaConservative" argued that "[s]ecession, in my mind, serves as final tool to bulwark against the threat of tyranny. ... It should serve as a last resort to advance the cause of liberty, freedom, and self-determination." While the author described secession as an "extreme option" and expressed "hope that American government can be restored rather than broken apart," the author concluded: "If we lay aside or are stripped of the principles and values under which this nation was founded, then I have little choice but to say, 'If at first you don't secede...' " [Tenth Amendment Center website, posted 2/3/09]
Transcript
From the September 17 edition of United Stations Radio Networks' The Lou Dobbs Show:
DOBBS: Well, there we are. The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, language ratified back on December 15th, 1791. My guest now says our nation's Founding Fathers had very good reasons to pin the 10th Amendment; he joins us now for a Constitution Day history lesson. Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center -- and Michael, it is great to have you with us.
BOLDIN: Lou, it's an honor to be here. Thanks for having me on.
DOBBS: So, why the 10th Amendment? It's a clear effort to emphasize the limited nature of the powers granted to the Federal Government. Why was the amendment itself necessary?
BOLDIN: Well, what the founding generation had to live under for so many years was a government that had an unwritten constitution, a government that had absolutely no limit. And we should all know from our -- just a light study of history that a government that doesn't have rules that guides behavior is a tyranny. So the Founders created this constitution that said that the federal government would be authorized to exercise only those powers that were delegated to it in the Constitution. And that's what the 10th Amendment codifies in law -- that anything not given to the federal government by we the people is kept back in our state governments or in our own hands to deal with how we see best.
DOBBS: You know, you don't even hear a discussion right now -- and haven't for some time -- a discussion of states' rights as once we did in this country. There seems to be sort of an acquiescence to the federal government as the -- as the end all, the power that dominates in every quarter of our lives. Why is that?
BOLDIN: I really don't know, and I think you've been reporting on this for a long time, too -- is the sad thing of it all is that the one thing that the federal government does well is it breaks your leg, and then a few years later, it comes in with a solution to the problem it created. And then, on top of it, it's going to tax your children, your grandchildren, and their children to pay for it for years and years and years.
And the reality is, is that the Founding Fathers created a system of government with the most difficult issues, the most divisive, the most -- tough decisions were kept close to home in state governments. That way, you can have people of so many different backgrounds, like we have in this great country, all living together in peace and harmony. They don't have to always battle over who's going to control the federal government and force you to have a toilet of a certain size or force you into a certain health care program or whatever it may be. People can decide those things close to home.
DOBBS: The 10th Amendment, is it in effect being ignored by our political leadership?
BOLDIN: Oh, absolutely. And I don't think there's many politicians that ever refer to the federal government, their power as being limited. The people created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes, and a simple reading of the Constitution, which is in plain English, so that there's approximately 35 powers that we gave to the federal government -- and not listed in there, for example, are cap and trade, and health care, and most everything that they do. An interesting thing, Oklahoma recently was looking to pass or introduce a state constitutional amendment making English the official language of the state.
DOBBS: Right.
BOLDIN: And that's something that should be left to people in Oklahoma to decide. What kind of paperwork they want to have, how much they're going to spend on these things, et cetera, et cetera. So they get a letter threatening them from the federal government, from a -- the person below Holder, saying, "Well, you're going to lose all kinds of funding." So they used this funding thing from the federal government, money that they take from us in the first place to twist states' arms to follow their dictates.
DOBBS: Yeah, it's crazy what is -- what happens here. What are some of the most prominent examples of the 10th Amendment being ignored?
BOLDIN: Well, I think the big one, and the one that's the hot button issue today, is health care. If you look through the Constitution, there's nothing, nothing whatsoever, at least in the original understanding of the Constitution. Now, mind you, the Supreme Court, those unelected judges in Washington, will not agree with me. They think that the Constitution is different than what Jefferson and Madison and the rest proposed to us.
But there's nothing in there that allows the federal government to take money from you to force you to pay for health care program for someone else or even for yourself or to penalize you for not joining in a program. The proper way to do that, if they were going to follow the Constitution -- whether you oppose it or support it -- is to keep those decisions in state government.
Now Massachusetts has their own single-payer system. I think it's an utter failure, but that's constitutional. If the people of Massachusetts wants to choose a failed or a bad health care strategy, that's their right under the Constitution.
DOBBS: Well, you know, I -- you have a website that is, I think, very interesting, and one that people should know about, and it is the TenthAmendmentCenter.com. That's 10th, T-e-n-t-h, Amendment Center, and you've got your 10-4 Pledge. Tell everybody what that is.
BOLDIN: Well, what we're trying to do is find the politicians that get out of this left-right discussion, like you talk about so often. It isn't just "Democrats are going to save us from Republicans" or "Republicans are going to save us from Democrats." What we're looking to find are people that are running for office or in office that are focused. The number one issue on every political decision should be: Where in the Constitution is this authority?
And we have a 10-point, 10 affirmations about the role of the federal government under the Constitution and 10 promises. One most prominent one is, "I will vote in favor of the Constitution every issue, every time, no excuses, no exceptions," and those are the only type of people that we should be voting for.
We just released this. This week we've already got 20 signers, including Randy Brogdon who's running for governor in Oklahoma, Mike Folmer in the state Senate in Pennsylvania, and a number of other good, state legislators around the country.
DOBBS: Good. Well, Michael, thanks for being with us. We wish the best. Come back soon, we've got a lot to talk about.
BOLDIN: Couldn't have picked a better day. It's been an honor chatting with you, Lou.
DOBBS: Good to talk with you, and Happy Constitution Day; Michael Boldin -- who runs the Tenth Amendment Center, and that's a Los Angeles-based think tank, by the way. Thetenthamendmentcenter.com: you can go there, and I would urge you to do so.
Could it be that Lou Dobs has the Critical Thinking ability of a Door Knob?
There was a time with I actually watched Lou Dobb's Show.
Atleast I did until MMFA explained how that was a major No-No.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Mr. News
Samuel Johnson
Edward R. Murrow
Emma Goldman
George Bernard Shaw
George Jean Nathan
Mark Twain
The day after Texas secedes, I'm moving to the US.
PS - I think in order to be Governor here in Texas, you must pass an IQ test. If your IQ is above 50, you can't be Governor in Texas. Remember, we went from Bush to Perry.
"Dobbs promotes website that hosts several anti-war articles" ??
or
"Dobbs promotes website that hosts several pro-marijuana articles" ??
or
"Dobbs promotes website that hosts several anti-torture articles" ??
They're all there.
America has plenty to like, but it has plenty to hate. In my estimation, the balance of the two grows worse with each passing year. I'm far from alone.
Why not let the people of an area decide their own destiny? If Arizona cracks down on immigration, let neighboring states reap the benefits of additional eager workers. If the people of Kansas won't let you treat your chronic pain with marijuana, then why shouldn't you be free to seek more compassionate care in Oregon?
I find that, usually, advocates of secession are answered by charges of racism. I suppose it's possible that some people think that way. However the people I know personally, who support the right of peaceful secession, do so out of a genuine desire for the liberty and well-being of their fellow man (and woman). I can never recall receiving a well though out response in favor of coerced centralism, feel free to provide the first.
Since we are using a gold backed currency, we wouldn't be using the same banks because they don't accept gold deposits.
No highway funds. We would do it at the state and local level like it should be. No subsidies, no permanent republican stranglehold. The republicans are no different than the democrats.
Do us all a favor and actually do some research before you just make an ignorant, hateful comment like this.
First, it's worth seeing who the core of the secessionists are. Sure, there are a bunch of phony ass kissers who like TV cameras, Glenn Beck etc., folks who kissed Bush's boots and ignored his fiscal profligacy, then turn around and hate Obama for the same things. They can safely be ignored, along with any web site or TV show that feels that bashing these simpletons a useful or constructive way to fill an LCD screen.
Instead, spend a week reading the articles linked on the first article on this site, LewRockwell.com - you might not agree with any of it, but it might help break you out of the ghetto of phony left/right divison. Sure, this site is generally scathing in their assessment of Obama - but it was equally scathing of Bush since the day he got in office; it didn't just oppose the war in Iraq, but the war in Afghanistan too.
One of the strongest sentiments among some secessionists is a rejection of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Dollar. In the last 100 years, the dollar has lost 95% of it's purchasing power - $20 today buys what $1 would have in 1913. In a very real sense, this is value that has been stolen. If even a small country respects the integrity of their currency and does not print money to pay bills, it will have a strong currency. Look at Switzerland. America is now facing a very real threat of currency devaluation caused by too much debt, a situation which falls equally at the feet of Messrs. Bush and Obama.
The greatest point you miss is this, which I believe to be axiomatic: "With Money Comes Control." Not immediately, but over time. If an organization or body funds something, over time it will gain a level of control of what it funds in direct proportion to the level of funding it provides. Thus, reasonable people who value their freedom and independence will, indeed, reject ALL federal funding - most of which is unconstitutional anyway (remember, that the Constitution specifically states what the government is allowed to do, and implies that it is NOT allowed to do anything that is not specifically enumerated).
The federal government knows no bounds and follows no laws. We have not had a Congressional Declaration of War since 1941, meaning ALL wars since then are enormously illegal. I would argue that the u.s. federal government is currently the most destructive entity in the world today. Considering Vietnam, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iraq, the War on Drugs, the red tape that smothers small businesses and allows giant corporations to thrive with no competition, the runaway deficits which threaten the well being of all Americans - Can you think of any other entity that even comes close?
How can you trust the same bunch of people who voted in 2003 to level a proud country to ruins with anything, for instance the health of your children? Do you think they will show more wisdom and independence from moneyed interests now? Do you think that the benefits of having, say, a Federal Highway system is worth having a CIA that spreads misery, blood, and broken dreams around the world?
There is a very sound choice to be made of secession. America was originally designed to be a voluntary union of sovereign states, for limited, common goals such as self defense, which they were free to leave at any time. Now, the world is soaked with the blood that falls on all fifty states. If you pay Federal taxes, you are complicit to murder.
On what ground to you reject discussion of dismembering this bloodthirsty beast?
Lou Dobbs is very independent, as are the states that want to secede. Nothing wrong with free speech: consequences are different.
ex: Gov. Rich Perry of The Great State to Nowhere wants to secede. It is incredibly funny to see secessionist rallies, and everyone yelling U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A! All that is well, is not good. It is O.K; I am from Texas.
Reality: If federal monies, institutions, and highway funding were cut, how will the state make up the shortfall? Anarchy will prevail, and groups will fight, literally.
He who has the gold makes the rules: those that have rifles will kill him. Lou Dobbs and the idea he supports have no exit strategy.
It be it,
Ronin Kannushi.
I don't know about Texas, but here in Connecticut we get about 64 cents for every dollar we send to Washington. As for states with "shortfalls"? Why just do what they do so well: spend anyway.
Or NOT!
-Greater accountability of representatives: a return to a more acceptable ratio of constituents:politician.
-Greater diversity in governmental structure: i.e. VT and Quebec could possibly form a "progressive" style government while places like TX or KY could practice libertarian style government. This would allow for more empirical evidence to develop regarding the efficacy of different political systems.
-Decreasing the chance of constant warfare and eliminating the stranglehold that the banking cartel holds over the excessive debt generated by war: this is relatively self-explanatory... Without a central bank which can leverage inflation and taxes over the aggregate 600 million in this country, large portions of the debt-based financing which takes place would no longer be possible.
These are just a few of the thoughts that cross my mind when thinking about secession. Regardless of your opinion of Lou Dobbs, I think it would be prudent for everyone to consider the concept of secession objectively and without the religious haze of American imperialism obstructing their rationale.
[...] whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it [...] when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
There you have it. It's not just a good idea. It's the law.
ROTFL! You people say this like it's an insult or something!
It is singularly unfortunate that some political racists in the Southern states in the 1960's--during the "civil rights movement" (as if civil rights started in that era and not when James Madison intorduced the Bill of Rights in 1789 or Thomas Jefferson conceived that brilliant document of our secession from England)--used the principle of states rights and secession to further their racial agenda and attempt to block the "civil rights movement".
But secession (after 1776) was first fired by Federalists in Massachusetts because they did not agree with the Embargo Act of 1807 and later, the War of 1812. These New Englanders again agitated for secession in the late 1830s and 1840s when they did not like the Texas Annexation, slavery and the Mexican-American War. What did they use to defend secession? States rights. Were they racists? Hardly, because they were abolitionists. Then there was the South in the 1860s (and you know what the was like...)
How about West Virginia's secession from Virginia to become the 35th state? Racists? Wrong move?
How about the secession of Texas from Mexico then joining the US? Racist? Wrong move?
How about the secession of California from Mexico then joining the US? Racist? Wrong move?
How about the independence movement in the Philippine Commonwealth? Were Filipinos of that age racists for asking the US for independence?
In more recent times, how about Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, these guys tried to secede from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the US as well. Racists? Wrong move?
Is there anything wrong with the Second Vermont Republic (during GW Bush's era) that they wanted a peaceful secession? Racist? Wrong move? Crazy?
Before you call Lou Dobbs an idiot, please use your brain and try to know the issue better. It's called being a good well-informed, citizen...You might also vote better people next time around.