The Tea Party Jacobins — Mark Lilla, NY Times Book Review

A new strain of populism is metastasizing before our eyes, nourished by the same libertarian impulses that have unsettled American society for half a century now. Anarchistic like the Sixties, selfish like the Eighties, contradicting neither, it is estranged, aimless, and as juvenile as our new century. It appeals to petulant individuals convinced that they can do everything themselves if they are only left alone, and that others are conspiring to keep them from doing just that. This is the one threat that will bring Americans into the streets.

I would have missed this, had it not been for the ever watchful @jayrosen_nyu who tweeted it again because it was his most popular recent link. For good reason.

There is almost nothing I could write that could make the point better than this thoughtful and prescient post does. Everyone should read it—twice.  It could be the first really complete overview of what is actually happening to this nation, and just how dangerous a predicament we are in.

The concorporate media is part of the problem, so they are hardly going to be the one's to tell this story well, despite articles like this which sneak into their product mix now and then.

If I have any criticism at all, it's that it pays far too little attention to Roger Ailes, the Koch brothers, Dick Armey's Freedomworks, and all the other cynical forces of darkness that are gaming the Tea Party movement—and America—more and more each day.

Please  click the GREEN Retweet button below, and help others understand this growing menace to this foundering American experiment.

Read: The Tea Party Jacobins


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 list below is the entire contents of a section added to Wikipedia, snuck into the Federal Funding section.  As you probably know, any person or group that can learn the basic rules, and document what can pass the very slim tests for a verifiable source can—and often does—game the Wikipedia review and editing process all the time.

Hence, a Tea Party-type Tenther group like The Tenth Amendment Center, gets to fluidly itemize all the state actors and actions predicated on overturning any social program they don't like, or creating gun rights which they do like, based on one or more of their self-serving interpretations of any given10th amendment clause, principle, precedent or dictate.

This sort of section-addition is rarely meant to educate. It's merely a form of infowar propaganda meant to lend the impression of weight to the actions, so that the impressionable will be seduced into thinking they are well founded, credible, and nearing legislative action. In most cases, they're little more than the rhetorical chatter from perpetual local-election noise machines that, in one form or another, have been spamming state legislative processes for decades. Unfortunately, the reckless Republican party and its Tea Party movement cousin have given rise to new and more dangerous (and potentially enactable) variant of these ideas, and they are what is mostly recapped in this list.

I don't mind their data being there, assuming even the most basic facts can be validated. But I do mind it being placed there with no-cross referencing to the background, core issues, viability, and known or potential implications of such proposals.

I also resent the fact that, knowing the overall impact Wikipedia has, that liberal experts and scholars aren't regularly looking at such things and challenging them—openly.  Full disclosure: This knowledge reputation problem has always troubled me about WikiPedia, and it's something I've invested a lot of time thinking about a solution for.

If you know anything about some of these issues, the wording in each action is almost comical. Yet the Tea Party movement-types just eat this stuff up, and regurgitate each action as if they were the most important issues facing America in the 21st century, and a crucial development if they are to continue enjoying what they've been told are their "freedoms."

Note:The wording below is verbatim as it appeared in Wikipedia. Note the word "bipartisan" in the opening paragraph. A few moments looking at their website should dispel that notion quickly.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

State Sovereignty Resolutions and Nullification Acts

The Tenth Amendment Center, an organization seeking to promote the concept of state sovereignty, has gathered information on various actions taken by state legislatures in protest to federal actions. The organization is bipartisan. The movement has quietly gained support in a number of states.

    * State Sovereignty Resolutions ("10th Amendment Resolutions") – During 2009, "state sovereignty resolutions" or "10th Amendment Resolutions" were introduced in the legislatures of 37 states; in seven states the resolutions passed (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee). As of April 2010[update], resolutions were introduced or reintroduced into the legislatures of 19 states; the resolution has passed in five states (Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming).[4] [5]

    * State Sovereignty Bills ("10th Amendment Bills") – As of March 2010[update], in five states (Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma) Tenth Amendment supporters have introduced "State Sovereignty Bills" (one step beyond the Resolution stage discussed above), which would mandate action against what the state legislature perceives as unconstitutional federal legislation; none have made it past the introductory stage.[6]

    * Firearms Freedom Act Legislation and Federal Gun Laws Nullification – As of April 2010[update], resolutions have been introduced in the legislatures of 27 states that would "declare[] that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states". During 2009 the legislation passed in Montana and Tennessee and during 2010 the legislation passed in Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.[7] South Carolina has taken the issue one step further: in 2010 a bill was introduced which would effectively nullify all gun registration laws within the state.[8]

    * Medical Marijuana Laws – As of March 2010[update], 14 states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) have passed legislation which permit the use of medicinal marijuana.[9] California has a proposed November 2010 constitutional amendment which would go one step further, and legalize marijuana use by persons over age 21 for any purpose whatsoever.[10] The Obama Administration announced in October 2009 that it advised federal prosecutors not to target medicinal marijuana users, or their suppliers, in states that have passed such laws.[11]

    * REAL ID Act – As of March 2010[update], 25 states (beginning with Maine in 2007) have passed legislation and/or resolutions which opposed this legislation. Though the legislation is still on the books, its implementation has been delayed on several occasions and is currently not being enforced.[12]

    * National Health Care Nullification – As of March 2010[update], 30 states have introduced legislation which would declare certain provisions of any proposed national health care bill to be null and void within the state; the legislation passed in Arizona, Idaho, Utah, and Virginia.[13] Such provisions include mandatory participation in such a system as well as preserving the right of a patient to pay a health care professional for treatment (and for the professional to accept it) outside of a single-payer system. Arizona's legislation passed as a proposed constitutional amendment, to be submitted to the voters in 2010.[14] On February 1, 2010, the Virginia Senate took a stand against a key provision of a proposed federal health care overhaul, passing legislation declaring that Virginia residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance. On March 17, 2010, the Governor of Idaho signed a bill requiring the Attorney General to sue the Federal Government if Idaho residents are required to buy health insurance.[15]

    * "Bring the Guard Home" – As of March 2010[update], seven states have introduced legislation which would permit the Governor of the state to recall any National Guard troops from overseas deployments (such as in Iraq and Afghanistan); the bills failed in Maryland and New Mexico.[16]

    * Constitutional Tender – As of March 2010[update], seven states have introduced legislation which would seek to nullify federal legal tender laws in the state by authorizing payment in gold and silver or a paper note backed 100% by gold or silver; the legislation failed in Colorado and Montana.[17]

    * "Cap-and-trade" Nullification – As of March 2010[update], four states have introduced legislation which would nullify any proposed federal emissions regulation under the "cap and trade" model); none have advanced beyond the introductory stage.[18]

    * State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Acts – As of March 2010[update], three states have introduced legislation which would require businesses (and in some cases, individuals) to remit their Federal tax payments to the state Treasurer (or equivalent body) for deposit into an escrow fund. If the state Legislature determined that a portion of the federal budget was not constitutional, or if the federal government imposed penalties or sanctions upon the state for creating the fund, then the money would be withheld.) None have advanced beyond the introductory stage[19]

    * "Sheriffs First" Legislation – As of March 2010[update], three states have introduced legislation which would make it a crime for any federal agent to make an arrest, search, or seizure within the state without getting the advanced, written permission of the sheriff of the county in which the event would take place); none have advanced beyond the introductory stage.[20]

    * "Federal Land" Legislation – As of February 2010[update], Utah has introduced legislation to allow the use of Eminent domain on federal land. Rep. Christopher Herrod has introduced the bill in a state where the Federal Government controls over 60% of the land. The effort has the full support of Republican Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who would have to defend the law. The proposal includes setting aside $3 million for legal defense.[21]

    * "Nullification of Federal Intrastate Commerce Regulation" – As of March 2010[update], four states have introduced legislation which would nullify federal regulation of commerce and activities which are solely within the boundaries of a state and which do not cross state lines. The Virginia legislation has passed one house.[22]
Source: WikiPedia/10th_Amendment