By Scott Wells

     I felt today was an appropriate day to lament the death of personal freedom and rights in our nation, as well as the continued disregard for our constitution displayed by all branches of the federal government, as well as disdain for it's own laws.  The Feds seem to have a hard-on for forcing their will on the states by continually overstepping their constitutionally granted powers, as well as stripping you and I of our rights.  My tone might be amusing at times, but the topic is serious as hell, if you value the ideals of our nation and the principles outlined in the constitution.

    I'll begin with some examples of unfunded federal mandates (UFM from now on).  In short, a UFM is when the Federal Government forces local and state governments to pay for compliance with federal mandates and laws, yet doesn't fund the cost of covering the mandates.  According to laws passed in 1995, any mandate that would cost more than $50 million per year for state or local governments to comply with would be blocked.  Of course, the Feds determine the costs themselves, so the $50 million figure doesn't really mean much, since our Government routinely lies about minor issues like this one to get it's way.

    Unfortunately, the bill wasn't retroactive, like President Clinton's tax increase.  So, things like the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act remained the responsibility of the states and municipalities to cover.  Now, I'm all for clean water and air - I need to drink and breathe as much as the rest of you - but the enforcement of this act is patently absurd.  For example, in my home town of Anchorage, Alaska, sewage inflow was so clean that the municipality could not meet Congress's requirement that all sewage treatment facilities reduce incoming organic waste by at least 30 percent. Still, the federal Environmental Protection Agency insisted that the city meet the arbitrary standard. Anchorage's response was to arrange for two local fisheries to dump fish guts into the river so the city could remove them.  That's right, folks - in order to meet Congress's clean water mandate, Anchorage had to MAKE THE WATER DIRTIER.  Does this make any sense whatsoever?  In order to cut household expenses, do you first increase spending so that the percentage saved seems bigger?

    Then, of course, there is the example of Arizona and the Clean Air Act.  In order to meet the federal standard, Arizona would have to take every single car off the roads in their state - don't worry, it gets better - and also pave a good portion of the dessert so that naturally occurring sand wouldn't enter the air.  Of course, if they were to pave the desert, they'd probably be fined by the EPA for destroying natural habitat.  Either way, the feds are dry-raping Arizona - pun intended.

    The No Child Left Behind act the latest in an ever increasing number of UFM's.  The cost of testing the students, grading the tests, hiring teacher's that meet federal standards, and raising the pay of said teachers to offset the cost of additional education are all paid for by the states.  Way to go, Congress and President; go ahead and pat yourself on the back for increasing costs for the states, then leaving them to fend for themselves.  It's like sending soldiers to war without adequate armor and vehicles.  And you would never do that...wait, I forgot, you did.  Assholes.  Another high-profile example of a UFM is the Brady Bill.  While I have no problem with making people register to purchase firearms, I do have a problem with the Federal Government passing the law and then holding a metaphoric gun to the state's head and telling them, "pay for it...or else."  Sweet, bitter, irony.

    Of course, for a long time, the Feds have been busy trying to gut the 10th amendment, also.  The amendment clearly states, and I quote:

    "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."

    Pretty straight forward, isn't it?  I bet even Matthew Lesko could figure that one out.  But along came Bill Clinton, and Executive Order #13083, which gave nine broad, vague exceptions in which the Feds could intervene for the purpose "of national or multi-state interest."  In short, pretty much any reason the power-hungry assholes in Washington could imagine.  I shudder to think of what Dubya would have done with this Order.

    A rare thing happened though - enough people bitched about this slap in the face to our Nation that President Clinton rescinded the order.  Of course, it was soon replaced with Executive Order #13132, which says that where state rules directly conflict with federal law, federal law shall be supreme.  Sure, the Feds have to "consult" with the states first.  But as long as they consult (meaning:  "This is how it's gonna be.  You've been told.") they can pretty much do what they damn well please.  Good bye, states-rights.

    The National ID Card falls under this same category - under the proposal, the States will have to pay to bring their technology in line - some of which the Federal Government doesn't even have yet - and Airlines, especially, will be hard hit by having to pay for new training and equipment (of course, the airlines are more likely to receive assistance than the States.)

    Of course, the tenth amendment isn't the only one under attack.  Lets look at the fifth amendment - "no person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” 

    Apparently, the amendment doesn't apply to drug trafficking charges - the police, FBI, DEA, ATF, etc. can and do take personal possessions and property into government custody BEFORE a conviction.  And it's a long, arduous, expensive task in most cases to get it back even if you're NOT convicted.  And if you are convicted, it remains the property of the government, even if they can't prove it had anything to do with drug trafficking/selling (which also violates Due Process, included in the Fourth Amendment - the third bastardized amendment.  Quite a track record you're building there, Federal Government).

    And just recently, the Supreme Court ruled that under Eminent Domain, local governments can seize private property - not for public works, but to turn over to PRIVATE DEVELOPERS if the development means increased tax revenue.  What this means is this - say you own a home.  You've owned your home for many years; maybe it's been in your family for generations.

    Now, some rich asshole decides he wants to build a hotel, mini-mart, miniature golf course, parking lot, or any sort of tax-revenue generating business on YOUR property.  So, said rich asshole greases some palms at City Hall, and the next thing you know, you're homeless, and a big part of your life is torn down so that the city and the rich asshole can make more money at your expense.

    Of course, all of this could take on some rather poetic justice - California Business man Logan Clements has filed paperwork to seize a home owned by Supreme Court Justice David Souter (who voted in favor of gutting the 5th Amendment) and turning it into the "Lost Liberty Hotel," which would include the "Just Deserts Cafe" and a museum dedicated to the erosion of individual rights in America.  In fact, you can sign an online pledge stating that you'll spend at least one week at the proposed Hotel.  So far, over fourteen hundred people have signed up.  I hope the fine folks of the city government of Weare, New Hampshire are thinking about the tax dollars rolling in, and give Justice Souter something big and black besides his robe.

    You know, I'd go and let those asshole lawmakers know what I think myself, but they'd probably set up a "no-protest zone," thereby violating my first amendment rights.  Along with my 2nd, 4th, 5th, and the States 10th amendment rights.  Keep on chuggin, Feds!  Only five more amendments to go!  How soon can you rape us of all our rights, not to mention our dignity, sanity, and general welfare?  I guess there's nothing we can do about it.

    Oh, wait, there is - we can get off our lazy, collective asses and vote.  Not just for the big two parties, but vote Libertarian, vote Populist, vote Green, vote whoever - but vote for those who value Liberty and Freedom, and aren't looking for a fat-ass government paycheck or bribe (oops, I mean campaign contribution) and routinely sell us out.  Get the career politicians out of there, and get back to government "for the people, by the people, of the people."  We may have to start on the local and state level, but it's a start, dammit.  Otherwise, you can sit back and watch everything America stands for whittled away to nothing.

    I close with the words of Benjamin Franklin - "Those who would sacrifice a little Liberty for more Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."