Open Rebellion in these United States: wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces

Oklahoma in Open Rebellion?

Here's a little more "secesh" talk for my favorite libertarian and my second favorite cannoncocker (the big firble that owns this blog being #1).   [What the heck is a "firble" the firble asks...?]

As I once noted to some of our more regular commenters with sympathies to the one-time Confederacy regarding state's rights, it is not that I never agreed with the premise of too much power in the hands of the central government being bad. Nor that Lincoln exercised extraordinary power that set off an un-ending precedent of government expansion of that power. It is simply that the issue that it was fought over had moral implications that should have been rejected by all.

As some general of the time once noted (Longstreet?), had the south freed the slaves and then declared rebellion on the part of state's rights, they would have received much more sympathy and support.  Both, at the time of their fight and throughout posterity. 

Here we are, though, over 150 years later still discussing the issue of state rights v. central government.  Long may we have that discussion because, as long as we do, neither wins totally and we may see a continuation of this nation, balancing precariously as we are, until the end of human life on this earth. 

Every once in awhile, we lean too far in one direction or another and the balance must be righted.  For over a century, the ever widening expanse and expense of the federal government has been placing an overwhelming burden on the American people.  The central government has forced states to comply with laws that are not necessarily within the state's best interests, often against the citizens' wishes and sometimes without any real constitutional power to do so. 

They have taken money from the coffers of citizens in one state and given it to citizens of another.  Often without any real central purpose for the security of the whole such as interstate infrastructure to promote interstate commerce or national defense.  Most often and the highest expense is used to provide citizens of one state with government funds taken from the sweat and toil of a citizen in another state.

To paraphrase Lincoln, it is strange that 150 years after a civil war to end "wringing...bread from the sweat of other men's faces", that we end up here, in a nation that has exchanged the ownership of one man over another for the ownership of 300 million.  A large part of which seems all to willing to wring their bread from the sweat of another man's face with the demands for ever increasing government handouts in the form of refunding more "taxes" to someone than they actually paid in or in establishing government pools of money to dole out to whichever interest party begs the best or pays the most to individual candidates and parties. 

The 300 million owners pay more attention to the national elections of presidents and congressmen than to their local elections because they have all figured out that the power lays at the center.  It is the power to induce millions of people to do something that they most likely wouldn't do without the onus of the central government behind it: pay someone money for doing less than another or nothing at all.  And, it is a grand amount of money, too.

At its heart is this national election where each candidate is promising to make the central government do something for the citizens that is beyond its scope.  Worse, that one candidate seeks to take this power to its zenith, to, in fact, "spread the wealth".  That was never the intent of this nation and never should be.  

It is understandable that some who have been giving their bread to the central government, seeing it given willy-nilly to an unending array of people with their hands out, would wonder when they should receive some of that bread back.   Those arrayed with them are members of our society whose causes have little to do with founding principles or constitutional limitations.  There are the political classes who do not want to see their power diminished through a reduced national government.  Those who have extrapolated Lincoln's moral imperative to end slavery and establish the root of our nation, freedom, for all, into an obligation to consider every difference in condition, including health and wealth, to be a moral imperative to be resolved with the apparatus of the state at the cost to millions of others.  And, finally, those who are ideologically opposed to the very idea of unfettered freedom, democracy and capitalism.
 
It is not moral, constitutional nor even sustainable for the central government, even at the behest of any part of its citizens, to take any part of another citizens bread, earned by their own sweat, and give it to another.  The Central Government was established for the limited puproses of providing common defense, foreign trade and foreign diplomacy.  At most, it's centralized monetary policy provided a stable and creditable currency to conduct such trade.  It was not and is not a replacement for the individual's responsibility to obtain an education, work for a living, provide their own shelter, food and clothing and maintain their own health. 

While it may be understandable that, as a nation grows, so would it's government, it is not understandable that it would grow outside of its constitutional bounds or purpose.  So much so that, instead of invigorating freedom and enshrining individual responsibility, we have obtained unmitigated slavery to the state in the form of taxes and minute regulations that any violation of either should see someone ruined or jailed. 

Add to that this current election that show cases a candidate promising a continually growing burden on one part of the population to mitigate the circumstances of another.  All under the guise of laws that were only meant to collect funds for those things that were absolute necessities of defense and commerce equally necessary for every citizen and state.  These funds have been shown time and time again to be abused, mishandled and used by some as a source of political power. 

In no way is the promise of economic equality given or implied in any document or law of this nation.  Only that the path be open and remain open for those opportunities.  In fact, any promise above and beyond that is unutterably ruinous to the whole while purporting to save a few.  It is unobtainable.  It pulls people down to the level of another instead of building people up.  It takes away their means and their incentives to build wealth and provide opportunities for others in a free and fair system that does not require the state to create it, but is natural to the very principles of freedom and capitalism. 

The American people have known for decades that this system of growing centralized government and economic control was unequitable and unsustainable.  They have known that a system that is based on "wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces" leads to a continually widening array of abuses.  The American people have known that the day would come when that slippery slope would no longer be a gentle decline, but a rolling and dangerous descent. 

We have reached that day today.   Regardless of the state of things that has come before, it is time to draw a line in the sand.  It is time to determine whether this nation turns back from its decline to live up to its ideas or whether it accelerates to the point of no return.  It is time for the American people to decide whether they will relinquish the ideas of individual freedom and responsibility for the collective demand to wring "bread from the sweat of other men's faces". 

That is the choice facing us today. 

One state, quietly and without much fanfare outside of its own borders, has fired the first shot at the proverbial Ft Sumter with a simple resolution. 

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: '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 Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more;

and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states;

and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. …

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

Yes.  It has come to that. 

Let us determine here and now to take back our nation.   To return it to its correct path.  To bring back the ideas that have made it a success.  To bring back individual freedom and responsibility as core principles and values of our people and nation.  To take back the power of the government and restore it to its rightful owners; a government for, of and by the people. 

To become, again, the shining city on the hill.