Sovereign State Duty to Protect Its People

Whether you like her or not, Governor Jan Brewer did the right thing by signing Senate Bill 1070, an act strengthening Arizona’s ability to protect itself and its citizens from illegal immigrants.

 Contrary to President Obama’s socialist rhetoric that the act is misguided and would undermine the notions of fairness, the bill does exactly the opposite.  It is not discriminatory . . . except against illegal immigrants.

 What one has to acknowledge is any notion of fairness in this country was discarded when Mr. Obama stripped bondholders of their assets in General Motors and Chrysler and turned ownership over to the United Auto Workers, an organization that certainly did not earn or deserve ownership.

 The Arizona act prevents any city or county or other political subdivision from limiting enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws. The federal government is responsible for border security. However, when the federal government abdicates its responsibility to secure the borders, it is the responsibility of the State to protect its citizens.

 Once the illegal immigrant passes through the border, the illegal immigrant becomes a State issue as well as federal issue. The State of Arizona has a right, an obligation, a duty to protect its citizens, especially when the federal government refuses to do so.

 Mr. Obama now threatens the people of Arizona with his Justice Department by examining the “civil rights and other implications” of the new law. Mr. Obama would be better off to provide comprehensive border security. What about every citizens’ right to be free from harm caused by illegal immigrants?  Too bad Robert Krentz, Arizona rancher, cannot ask this question. He was murdered by an illegal immigrant who was tracked back into Mexico.

 If the federal government refuses to protect the border and attempts to limit the State’s ability to protect itself, in violation of federalism and State sovereignty, each and every border State will seriously have to consider the option of secession. The U.S. Constitution is silent on the subject, meaning the power to secede is reserved to the States or the people through the Tenth Amendment.



  1. James Davidson says

    Any talk of secession is stupidity. Under the Constitution the federal government has plenary control of the border. If Congress deemed it appropriate, it could go back to open borders, as was federal policy for most of the nation’s history. I do not advocate that. I also do not advocate stupidity such as secession talk.

  2. Yeah right. says

    If the federal government refuses to protect the border and attempts to limit the State’s ability to protect itself, in violation of federalism and State sovereignty, each and every border State will seriously have to consider the option of secession. The U.S. Constitution is silent on the subject, meaning the power to secede is reserved to the States or the people through the Tenth Amendment.

    You sir, are once again raising that prime old Southern Canard of Nullification or Succession.

    That is nothing more than Southern Trash talk.

    That anybody would cotton to this seditious talk is amazing in the modern era.

    RDBrinkley has joined himself to those who can not live in the modern era.

    As a someone whose ancestors fought and died for this stupidity, to see it raised on what was previously a somewhat mainstream Republican website is abhorrent.

    You Sir, do not belong in the Party of Lincoln.

    The Owners of this Website have now shown their true colors, and they are not the Flag of America.

  3. charming nancy says

    Isn’t it amazing that when legal citizens of the United States of America-mainly the state of Arizona stand up to lawbreakers and criminals they are called profilers. I cannot believe that our country has fallen so far from its origins. I believe we should do more profiling–perhaps then we would have not had to endure the tragedy of 9/11. I don’t mind going through the detectors at the airports or taking off my shoes or jacket. But, then again I don’t have anything to hide. So it seems that if someone is stopped for a traffic violation and they have nothing to hide–it is not a big deal.

    We have always welcomed the people from other countries, but they must follow the procedures to enter our country–become a citizen, learn the language and earn a living. If they do not want to do that–no matter what country they are from they should go back to the place of their birth.

    Just because someone wants to come to the United States-doesn’t mean they have the RIGHT. If they want to be African, Hispanic, or whatever type of name–Then they should go back to Africa, or Mexico or whatever–if they are a citizen of the United States of American–then they are AMERICANS.

    It is time for our country to stop pandering to the neer do wells who want something for nothing and want to tear down our country and its values. If you are not for America and it’s Judeo/Christian heritage then PLEASE go back to your original country or if you were born here go find yourself another country to call ‘home’.

  4. James Davidson says


    We have freedom of religion in this country, and thank God for it. If someone does not want to believe in our Judeo/Christian heritage, or if someone does not want to believe in anything, so it goes. It shakes my faith not an inch. Our forebears fought and died for religious freedom. Let’s not throw it away. Let’s also not forget that the first religious beliefs prevalent in Arizona were neither Old Testament nor New Testament.

    As for profiling, why? It does far more harm than good.

  5. charming nancy says

    I, too, believe in freedom of religion. I am only stating what our country was founded on.

    Profiling does harm? In what way–if it rids our country of just one terrorist, criminal, or anyone who would do our country harm then HURRAH FOR PROFILING.

    How is a traffic stop, probable cause profiling? I want policemen to stop ANYONE whom they feel may be a danger to society I don’t care what race, religion or color they are. I want an America where our children can play in their neighborhoods without their parents having to worry what might happen to them. I want to be able to leave my house and not lock my door. I want to be able to go out at night and not be afraid what might happen to me. If it takes profiling of ANY kind–then I am all for it.

  6. James Davidson says


    I said profiling did more harm than good. How? We have a Fourth Amendment in the United States. Our forebears adopted it in part in reaction to the petty tyrannies imposed on them by the Redcoats, who broke into homes and detained people without a warrant.

    Since 1969 the Suprme Court has held that a police officer cannot detain anyone except upon a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to do so. The case is Terry v. Ohio. Look it up.

    Profiling based on race or color does not satisfy the requirement of reasonable suspicion. A person being brown or black does not give a police officer reasonable suspicion of anything.

    I too want an America free of crime. I would not sacrifice the Bill of Rights to get there.

  7. kralmajales says

    Hell I would love to see this state succeed and become the f’d up country that you all think you should be living in.

    One that asks this taxpayer to spend a huge portion of my taxdollars to fight some freakshow of a war at the border that we keep spending money and people on to no avail.

    Send troops? That is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. It was stupid when Janet Napolitano did it also.

    It would be cheaper…far cheaper to just pay the costs of undocumented immigration. It would. Some costs for a little extra teaching and a little extra medical care…versus the billions to keep them out? I want to sign them up as Americans, get them paying taxes, and get them into the productive work that most of us do…and in most cases…do not do.

  8. kralmajales says

    And let me remind you…if this problem is not about the costs…then what is it really about?

  9. James Davidson says


    It is about gaining and keeping control of the border, which we do not have now. Mexican drug paramilitaries act at will on our side of the line. They are vicious, and stop at nothing. That is not tolerable, and Big Sis does nothing about it.

  10. charming nancy says

    What is about the words ‘illegal immigrants’ you don’t understand?

    I haven’t heard anything about breaking into people’s homes with this bill–on the contrary the upstanding folks coming in across the border illegally (not all are of Hispanic heritage) seem to do the breaking in.

    Let’s see what would happen to you if you went into a country illegally and committed a crime (or just went in illegally). Give me a break–all the do gooders who want to hand over anything that isn’t tied down to anyone with their hands out should possibly travel illegally to another country, then return (if they are able) and give an account of their treatment.

    Of course, you will probably say it is a civil rights issue–why do illegal immigrants get to step all over my civil rights? I was born and raised in the United States of America. I have no criminal record, I get along with my neighbors, yet I have to put up with accepting the fact that anyone who can climb a stupid fence, shinny through a tunnel or make it across the desert is allowed in my country. If they want to come let them do it in the right way.

    Illegal is NOT a sick bird

  11. charming nancy, concerning the civil rights of Americans, you makes one of the best arguments for this law heard to date.

    If civil rights is central to this discussion, then our civil rights are the priority, not those of law-breakers. SB1070 is pro-civil rights law before its an immigration law. Yet so called civil rights activists from other states have been summoned to stage a battery of protests. I don’t mind people protesting, but please don’t obstruct commerce, productivity, or our daily routines with this drama. The federal government created this obstacle to public safety, and now that we’ve taken a stand against it, the White House, like the consummate mob boss, stirs up more obstructions to peace in our state.

    There IS a breaking point. This author is not the only one to broach the subject of succession. Another mom and I had the exact conversation on Friday. We are fed up with chronically having to be on guard and looking over our shoulder. We reserve the right to draw a line; this far and no farther. The daily news from Mexico is total chaos and lawlessness. There’s a dead body found in the city of Phoenix at least weekly. “All that is needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.” The good people of Arizona are weary of seeing nothing done and are unwilling to be put upon indefinitely. That’s our heritage and a very healthy one at that.

  12. James Davidson says


    There is nothing about illegal immigrant I misuderstand. I am all for apprehending and deporting those here illegally.

    But what is it about the Fourth Amendment that you do not understand? You wrote, “Hurrah for Profiling.” I denounce that as just as illegal as those who have snuck across the border.

    The Fourth Amendment means something, and one of the things it means is that to stop and detain someone in this country merely because of color is ILLEGAL. Millions and millions of American citizens are of the same color as those who have snuck into this country. If law enforcement detains based on profiling, how do you know you have detained an American citizen or an illegal immigrant? You don’t.

    It comes down to this: Are you for the Bill of Rights or not?

  13. James Davidson says


    The good people of Arizona will denounce secession for the treason that it is.

  14. Hopefully,,,this may open the door to proper action?? Talk of succeding as a state
    just would never work !! It’s all about the money,,living 4 miles from the border I often wonder 2 thing’s #1 How much of the U.S. population has any idea of the amount of money spent by the federal government DAILY !
    My second is just how much money is spent ?? I see all the brand new trucks and vans, all specially set up for heavy desert use, the horse’s and trailers (and horses are not cheap to board) the amount of 4 wheel A.T.V.’s and trailers. The trucks set up with a miniture version of the hubbel telescope in the bed. And then the amount of employees!! not just the agents,,but all the support WAY too numerous to list !!
    I have got to know,,and the truth and proof need to be there,,just what is the dollar amount spent every single day.
    I am very strong about ending illegal immigration and firmly believe it can be done MUCH more efficiently and beneficial. But I am just one,, but the support and disgust is rising !!

  15. kralmajales says

    Charming Nancy,

    First, some of the people you are talking about came with children who have grown up here for most of their lives as well, have not committed crimes, have gotten great grades, and are shut out of college because of laws that treat them as sub-humans.

    Second, all that stuff about them just crossing the border and they are an American…how can they get what you got for simply being pumped out of your mothers vagina on US soil? That is the only thing that makes you any different or any MORE of an American than some of these fellow humans.

    What did you do to earn your right? And if you did anything great or useful for society, I ask why they should not be treated the same for doing the same.

  16. kralmajales says

    And all this crap about nothing being done by the federal government. They have spent countless billions on this problem. Even built a wall, the newest tech, they have hired and hired and hired border patrol. By the way, they tried hiring 5000 new border patrol in the latter years of the Bush administration. They couldn’t hire them. There were not enough people interested in the freaking job. So yes, they are doing quite a bit…you all just want to close down education, health, and god knows what just so you can stop this problem.

    There are other ways to do it. A pathway to citizenship. The last immigration bill. The Dream Act. Each are cheaper. With even some penalties attached.

    But most here call that Amnesty…you dont want them here at all. That is the point. And that it why it is perceived as racism to a whole lot of people.

  17. charming nancy says

    Actually, kral, my mother was born in America and was a citizen of the United States. I don’t know why it is so difficult to understand that if someone comes into the United States without the proper immigration status–it is against the laws of the United States.

    Illegal immigrants come here have children (who are then citizens of the United States because they were born here). That does not take away the criminal status of the parents.

    Does a traffic stop for just cause signify profiling. I believe you, James, make the point. If one is stopped within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment you will at that time determine if such detainee is a citizen or not based on their identification and in all probability checks for warrants, etc. If they are in fact without proper identification, or have warrants–then I would imagine they would be handled accordingly.

    I again would not have any problem being stopped and asked to provide identification–would you?

  18. James, your fear at the mention of succession is telling. Anyone who informs their assailants that they won’t resist–no matter what–guarantees their own demise. Don’t fail an understanding of Burke’s observation: all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Good men are willing to stand up and fight for what is right. If that doesn’t include you fine, but you can’t wish away the essence of good in this context.

    Not since health care reform has there been a bigger effort from liberal media at disinformation. The idea that people think police have been commissioned to pull Hispanic people over out of the blue, go into their homes, search and seize their belongings is positively bizarre!

  19. James Davidson says


    You have the wrong noun. It’s not fear it’s disgust — with the stupidity, arrogance, illegality, and treason related to secession. The Union soldiers once put down a secession. And using the word “succession” is dishonest. Call it what it is — secession.

    As for disinformation, I’m very familiar with the liberal media. That’s a different issue for a different day.

  20. James Davidson says


    I have no problem with being stopped -if I had done something that gives a police officer a reasonable suspicion that I was committing a crime, had committed one, or was about to commit one.

    I have a huge problem with being stopped if I have done nothing to give a police officer such a suspicion. My concern is called the Constitution of the United States, in particular its Fourth Amendment.

    No police officer in the United States has a right to stop or detain anyone without such a reasonable suspicion. That’s one of the great things what distinguishes this country from many others.

  21. James, Arizona’s sovereignty resolution is effectively complete. You should be aware that Arizona is a sovereign state in this Union of States. In the truest sense, it could be said that your “disgust” is sedition and treasonous.

  22. James Davidson says


    You are flatly wrong and foolish on top of it. In this country the people are the sovereigns. Our ancestors delegated certain powers to the federal government and certain powers to the state governments. The states ceded no powers to the federal government because they were not the source of the power. The people were.

    As for Arizona, my family has been in this state since before the Arizona Territory was organized — by the federal government I might add. When she was admitted to statehood in 1912, my grandparents celebrated mightily. But she came into the union with only the powers delegated to her by the people who adopted the 1910 Arizona Constitution and by the enabling act. Secession and treason are not among them.

  23. James! Wrong about what? Look up Arizona’s sovereignty resolution. You’ve been bellowing about the 4th amendment, but maybe you don’t realize there were others. And, what adult comes away from reading SB1070–for himself–thinking the police are going to enter his home or detain him in the street for no reason at all? In lockstep with the left, your 4th amendment complaint is lunacy!


    Can one read the Declaration of Independence, an act of secession, and completely miss the gist of the entire document? Let’s go back to your previous notion: the good people of Arizona will denounce secession for the treason that it is. If, as you said, “In this country the people are the sovereigns,” then they can agree together to do whatever they want! Is the meaning of sovereign lost on you? Again, your severe protest at the mention of secession is telling. Sovereignty is not for the fainthearted. You have no idea what the tenth amendment means, nor is it evident that you have read for yourself any of the documents cited in this post, at least not with any comprehension.

  24. James Davidson says


    I have not written a word for or against SB 1070. I have denounced Nancy’s comment, “Hurrah for profiling.” Her comment does not square with the Fourth Amendment. She has not said one word that supports her position.

    I know fully well what sovereignty means. I have read the accounts of the Virginia ratifying convention. I also have read the Federalist. Have you?

    The Tenth Amendment has not a word in it permitting any state to secede. This country fought a Civil War over the issue, and it was settled now and forever against the notion that a state had a right to secede. That’s what the Union soldiers sacrificed life and limb for.

    And I close with the reminder that the good people of Arizona will denounce secession and any talk of it as the rubbish that it is.

  25. James Davidson said:

    “The Tenth Amendment has not a word in it permitting any state to secede. This country fought a Civil War over the issue, and it was settled now and forever against the notion that a state had a right to secede. That’s what the Union soldiers sacrificed life and limb for.”

    After the Civil War, Congress debated whether a law should be passed prohibiting secession by the states. Congress never passed that law.

    Our country was founded on secession . . . from Great Britain.

    The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    The right to secession is morally based in the Declaration of Independence and legally retained by the people and the States through the Tenth Amendment.

    Contrary to the writing of some, discussion of secession is not treason. It is simply one option among many.

  26. James Davidson says

    Mr. Brinkley,

    You miss a basic point. The States never retained a right to secede because they never had it. The people of the 13 original states, acting through their respective ratifying conventions, not through the State Legislatures, ratified the Constitution.

    After the Civil War, Congress never passed a law on secession, because one was unnecessary. No state legally can secede. It can rebel, in which case the rebellion should be crushed and the rebels caught and tried for treason.

  27. Mr. Davidson:

    I respectfully disagree.

    The people never lost their ability to secede. They may exercise their option to secede through an initiative or referendum. The State Government must execise the people’s will. Otherwise, the people will change State government.

    The exercise of defining “secession” and “rebellion” is akin to describing one man’s “freedom fighter” as another man’s “terrorist.”

    As defined in the Declaration of Independence, we have never given up our right as a people to change our government, or leave it, for cause, whether that be a State or Federal government.

    Those that disagree with this statement ignore man’s basic yearning for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I then have to ask, why do thes epeople ignore the unalienable rights provided by our Creator?

  28. James Davidson says

    Mr. Brinkley,

    The best legal case against any right of secession is found in Lincoln’s first inaugural address. Read it and you will see why you are wrong.

    Following one of Lincoln’s themes, let’s say that 50.01% of the voters in Arizona approved a secession initiative. What legal right does that slim majority have to compel the 49.99% who oppose secession to abide by the initiative? What point of law would stop the 49.99% from seceding from the 50.01%? What would prevent a minority of a smaller majority from seceding?

    Here are Lincoln’s words. Ponder them:

    “From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government, is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority, in such case, will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments, are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

    “Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?

    “Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.”

  29. Mr. Davidson:

    I respectfully disagree.

    President Lincoln was making a case against secession in order to preserve the union.

    I am making a case that the people always have a right to change their government should that government become destructive of the peoples’ unalienable rights.

    If you disagree with the peoples’ right to change government in this instance, then you find yourself in disagreement with not only our founding fathers but also the Declaration of Independence.

    When government becomes destructive of our unalianable rights, the people have the right and the duty to change the government.

    This change may take the form of a Declaration, a vote of the people, a secession directed by the people, non-violent resistance, or open rebellion/war.

    The point of the discussion is that the people decide whern the government must change, not the government.

  30. John Vandemar says

    Mr. Brinkley,

    It is a false parallel sir, that you draw between the right of the citizenry to change their government and their “right” to secede from the union. Beyond the fact that secession was never a right and therefore is not a “right retained by the states“, secession is UNNECESSARY! American Democracy provides its citizenry with BOTH the inalienable right AND the legitimate mechanism to peacefully change their government. The mechanism is VOTING! This is the “safety valve”. This the genius, the guarantee that the US will never need to have either another Revolution or another Civil War. If the majority of the citizens of the NATION are not happy with their government then the nation’s leadership loses the general election and the government is changed. In federal matters, each voter is considered as a citizen of the nation. If this was not the case, immediately following each and every presidential election, either all of the “red” states or all of the “blue” states would conceivably secede en masse. Perhaps you can see how this would be a stumbling block to maintaining a functioning Democracy.

    In response to the comment above:
    “However, when the federal government abdicates its responsibility to secure the borders, it is the responsibility of the State to protect its citizens.”
    …again a false premise.

    The failure of the Federal government to easily and completely resolve a nearly insurmountable problem like border security does not mean that it has “abdicated” its responsibility. This argument is akin to saying that both Federal and State governments have failed to wipe out America’s drug problems so they have abdicated their responsibility and are forcing the citizens to take up arms and go confront anyone that they suspect may involved with drugs. This is not how the American system works AND it would, in practice, be a complete and all-out disaster.

  31. Mr. Vandemar:

    I respectfully disagree with your comment that secession has never been a right. The Declaration of Independence is a statement of secession. Do you disagree with both our Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence? It is a right built into our DNA.

    I respectfully disagree with your statement that American Democracy provides us our unalienable rights, to wit.: “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness . . .”

    I respectfully disagree with your comment that the federal government has not abdicated its duty to enforce border security. How do you explain Phoenix being the largest kidnap center by Mexican drug gangs, second only to Mexico City? How do you explain 500,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona? How do you explain the death of Bob Krentz? What has the federal government done as a result? Nada.

    However, Mr. Vandemar, I do agree with and admire your passion. We need more people with passion like yours.

  32. John Vandemar says

    Mr. Brinkley,

    Being a direct descendent of a man named Ethan Allen who was from time to time, as I am led to believe, of some material use to the Founders, I think I would fully expect and deserve to be physically thrown from both the bosom my own family and the soil of this country if I were to disrespect the Founding Fathers or the Declaration of Independence. That said sir, please allow me the space to discuss with you the circumstances, and a few of the fine points of the Declaration of Independence.

    The signers of the Declaration of Independence were men who sought redress from a power which allowed them no voice at all in the governmental process. They suffered form genuine, protracted, repeated and WILLFUL injury at the hands of that foreign government until they could take it no longer. Even then, it was with great hesitance (“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…”) that they strove to break free so that they could create a government wherein the citizens could be represented. This, parenthetically, spawns my great distain for the co-opting of genuine, historic, and authentic patriotic images and terms by the folks who now seek some heightened political legitimacy by claiming for themselves the name “Tea Party”. I truly believe that if the events of the two eras in America’s history were distilled down to the ACTUAL FACTS of daily life, the original Patriots would likely be sickened, appalled and embarrassed by what some of their progeny have come to consider today as “tyranny“.

    America’s original Patriots acted in opposition to a colonialist monarchy whose heavily armed occupying forces lodged with, looted, raped, and killed the civilian population at will on a daily basis. This was overseen by a foreign-based government infrastructure which exploited every single resource, natural and human without allowing the citizenry any voice in the political process which governed every single aspect of their daily lives. The original tea party protest (in Boston) consolidated public support behind a real revolution against real and life-threatening oppression. The success of that revolution gave America the opportunity to create a whole new representational system of government unlike any other in the history of the world. The system they created is the one we have now. The first patriots put their lives and families on the line, risked everything they had, changed history, and painstakingly hammered out the very system of government which the modern-day “tea party” and secessionist groups find unacceptable and loudly protest as oppressive.

    I strongly urge you sir, to carefully read the entire last half of the Declaration of Independence, starting at the quote (“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world…”. Please, if you will, compare the circumstances described there with what raises the call for secession and/or revolution in our present day. Please also pause in your reading to ponder this grievance spelled out therein as unacceptable by our Founding Fathers… (“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither”)

    As for the present day, self proclaimed “Tea Party Patriots”, what is it that they actually stand in opposition to? The things they call insufferable tyranny are, in fact, the normal, predictable workings of one of America’s two mainstream political parties. That is all. They dislike seeing a Democratic administration proposing and implementing Democratic Party policies. They are absolutely entitled to this view but they mock America‘s founders when they try to equate their own political dissatisfaction with the genuine life and death circumstances that drove America’s original Patriots to bloody revolution.

    Every American, no matter what their political leanings, will at times experience the ascendancy of circumstances or presidential administrations that they find difficult. This is not tyranny, not insufferable government oppression or cause for revolution, it is in fact the opposite of that. It is the proof of a working Democracy, one which sticks together to resolve chrysies, even complicated ones! This is the very essence of what the original Patriots risked everything to create. The founders were far-sighted, ingenious, and the system they created was, and is, beautiful! I for one still would, and WILL fight to the death to preserve it.

    Thank you for both your time and the spirited discourse.

  33. Mr. Vandemar said:

    “Even then, it was with great hesitance (“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…”) that they strove to break free so that they could create a government wherein the citizens could be represented.”

    We are in agreement to this statement.

    Regrading grievances, there are many current day grievances that meet the historical test, beginning with the unilateral passage of a universal healthcare bill that the majority of Americans were against. If the will of the people is to be ignored by politicians, then these politicians are no better that dictators and the people are subservient.
    It should be the other way around.

    The health care bill created the largest unfair tax increase in American history on the middle class.

    The health care bill unconstitutionally demands that every citizen purchase health care. This demand has no constitutional precedent.

    I could go on. I do not consider one party, absent checks and balances, making laws against the will of the people. That is a dangerous precedent.

    I do not consider one political party, absent checks and balances, unilaterally shutting out the other political party, health government. It is a dangerous precedent.

    I do not consider one political party unilaterally changing the economic base of this country form free-market capitalist to national socialist healthy government. I call it fascism.

    I do not consider one political party forcibly taking wealth from 50% of the people and giving to the other 50% healthy government. When 50% of the people can keep voting for Democrats to keep giving them government largesse forcibly taken from the other 50%, it is nothing less than tyranny.

    let me say, to your last sentence, you are welcome. And I add my thanks for a passionate and civil discourse over the last few days.

  34. Mark Cage says
  35. john vandemar says

    Mr. Brinkley,

    I thoroughly and absolutely believe that the United States of America is every bit as much a working Democracy today as it has ever been in its history. American Democracy is and always has been an ongoing and messy process. There has never in our history been any one day when the process was completed, when anyone could stand back and say… “there, look, this is what finally became of the United States and their Democracy” … and today is not that day either.

    In our nearly 235 years thus far we have had a great many Presidents and we have passed a great many laws. Some of them have been the best, most inspiring ideas that the world has ever seen and some have been such dismal failures that they were utterly abandoned, winnowed through the Founder’s ingenious three-branch system, and with the wisdom of hindsight, were seen as unsuitable and reversed… and American Democracy moved on. Even the laws (and Presidents) in the latter category have strengthened, rather than weakened our Democracy with knowledge gained through experience and with precedent for future decision-making. The recent health care bill you refer to is no longer a bill, it is now one of those laws. It, like all other laws, will come to fit into one of these two categories. It, no more than any other of these laws will bring the downfall of America or our Democracy.

    You say… “If the will of the people is to be ignored by politicians, then these politicians are no better that dictators”… to that I say AGREED.
    But, as long as America continues to hold general elections and abide by their results, the people are NOT subservient to these politicians, it IS the other way around. Politicians of all eras, including this one, ignore the will of the majority at their own peril and at the risk of their political future. There have been super-majorities, on both sides of the aisle in American politics in the past. They have not brought what you have referred to as “fascism” (which is far RIGHT extremism), or “socialism” (far LEFT extremism), or an “absence of checks and balances” to America. Most often they have just unwisely overplayed their hand and they have been appropriately punished by the voters and harshly judged by history.

    The Founders did not have the (dubious) benefit of on-demand daily opinion polls, and our Democracy is still catching up with this idea too. I believe that this is one thing that makes politics so shrill and urgent today. A nationwide groundswell of support or objection to any topic does not take horse-and-buggy-months to circulate, it rises now in a single 24 hour “news cycle”. This may be what makes things so uncivil and seemingly out of control in our time. The Founders system was not set up to respond to the will of the people in “real time” but it did, and still DOES assure that the will of the people will be done.

    In having this discussion with you sir, it seems to me that you view America and our Democracy as a lost cause, something to be given up on and either rebelled against or seceded from. I am truly sorry to know that. I would like to think that you may reconsider. Regardless, you should know this, since the time of its founding, American Democracy has been one of the best, most adaptable and most positively enduring ideas that mankind has ever conceived of and put into practice. Thus far, history has greatly favored those who have chosen to stand for, and fight for American Democracy and it has been very unkind indeed to those who counted it out, considered it weak, or stood in opposition to it.

    John Vandemar

  36. Brian McCandliss says

    The right to secede is not guaranteed through the Tenth Amendment, but by the simple fact that every state’s people are its sovereign rulers. If not, then every state is ruled by the people and government of the United States– and therefore the Constitution would mean nothing, since any lawyer can circumvent its every argument.
    Likewise, if the “Civil War settled” ANYTHING, then the USA is an dictatorship-empire rather than a democratic republic, since national boundaries are DICTATED by force– rather than respected according to the original intent of the parties to them.
    Since the Civil War, the Constition has been a joke-book to the federal government– which can do anything it pleases, as long as it pleases the mob that elects them.
    The Tenth Amendment says that certain powers are delegated to the federal government and prohibited to the states– but now the federal government is the JUDGE of these powers, and so the federal and state governments can get away with murder and worse against the people, while ignoring their rights entirely. Immediately after the war, the walls began closing in; for example, in 1876 the Supreme Court said in “US v. Cruikshank” that the people are at the mercy of the state government to protect them from crime, and that they have no right to bear arms for self-defense. Other laws like compulsory school-attendance, income-taxes and national banks began springing up overnight, and mass-subsidies were given to special-interest fatcats.
    But those who proudly defend this dictatorship, always claim that this can all be fixed with a few more million laws… and when that fails, they blame the other party.
    They’ll never learn.

  37. Brian McCandliss says

    P.S. James Davidson; secession is not treason, since not one person– even Jefferson Davis– was found guilty of treason for seceding. They were not pardoned, they were simply ACQUITTED, since there was no law against it– and the federal government didn’t want this fact coming to light.
    The Constitution cannot outlaw secession, since many states are OLDER than the Constitution– and they doesn’t anywhere SURRENDER their sovereignty in the Constitution (though legal illiterates will always spuriously construe such in every clause… to their own discredit).
    Every argument against secession is simply a fast-and-loose attempt to railroad the issue— ultimately claiming “it was all settled in the war anyway…” i.e. to cover up the fact that the USA is a dictatorial empire, in which the fed can do whatever it wants, as long as it pays lip-service to the Constitution– and adding insult to injury by breaching it daily in new ways.
    The simple fact is that the states have NO power to resist ANY federal law anymore; and so national debt and other problems (like illegal immigration)will simply rise through attrition and mob-rule, until the states take matters into their own hands through nullification and secession.
    Fortunately the Lincoln-tyranny can’t happen again, due to the miracle of new technology keeping the press free and unstoppable– as we saw recently even in Iran; and thus we see that the “end of tyranny will come not with a shout, but with a Twitter.”

  38. Mr. Vandemar:

    I do not view America as a lost cause, else I would not be here. It is precisely that I view America as the greatest country on earth. It is why I believe in American exceptionalism.

    What I do not like are politicians attempting to transform (destroy) the United States into a socialist state.

    By the way, fascism is not right extremism and socialism is not left extremism. They are flip sides of the same coin: Statism. At the other end of the spectrum you have anarchy.

  39. Brian McCandliss Said:

    “The right to secede is not guaranteed through the Tenth Amendment, but by the simple fact that every state’s people are its sovereign rulers.”

    Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    The power to secede is not delegated to the United nor forbidden by the Constitition. Therefore, the power to secede is preserved for the States and people by the Tenth Amendment.

    Futhermore, assume that the Constitution did forbid secession. If the federal government met the test found in the Declaration of Independence, the people always retain the right to change government.

    However, as my friend, Mr. Vandemar wrote, above, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…”

  40. J. U. Herman says

    Mr. Brinkley

    I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “flip sides of the same coin” but Mr. Vandemar is right, they ARE opposite ends of the political spectrum.

    The left (Liberals) represent… Anarchism, Stalinism, Marxism, Communism, Socialism and Social Democracy. The Right (Conservatives) represent…Conservative liberalism, Conservatism, Fascism, and Nazism. There are much better political spectrum models than the “straight line” model but if you do lay them all out in a line, this is the order they fall into. Socialism is a left wing idea and Fascism is a right wing idea.

    You can look it up here…

  41. J. U. Herman said:

    “I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “flip sides of the same coin” but Mr. Vandemar is right, they ARE opposite ends of the political spectrum.

    The left (Liberals) represent… Anarchism, Stalinism, Marxism, Communism, Socialism and Social Democracy. The Right (Conservatives) represent…Conservative liberalism, Conservatism, Fascism, and Nazism. There are much better political spectrum models than the “straight line” model but if you do lay them all out in a line, this is the order they fall into. Socialism is a left wing idea and Fascism is a right wing idea.”

    Mr. Herman, the model you describe was taught in the sixties. I suggest you read Mark Levin’s book, “Tyranny,” for the updated model. It actually makes mre sense when the contuum is Statist at one end and anarchy at the other.

  42. Well I for one, am sick and tired of these illegals in AZ. Two years ago, my vehicle was burglarized and all my documents stolen from my glove box. For the past two years, my identity has been and continues to be illegally used by none other than ….illegals from Mexico using my information and their freaking picture ! Frankly, I’d like to find a lawyer and see if we can sue the federal government for their failure to protect us legal U.S. Citizens from the illegals. You can’t imagine the nightmare these illegals cause by using someone else’s identity for credit, jobs, IRS, etc. Personally, I believe they all ought to be shot on sight, no questions asked.

  43. as someone of 60yrs old and having watched and read historical events all my life. And having several old aunts with the middel name of LEE I believe 2 things on this issue 1 we have not learned our lessons well; and 2 yes the south as well as many other parts of this nation will rise again.

Leave a Reply