Obama, Reid & Pelosi Are The Anarchists

By: Michael Lotfi
76

PEL

“We’re diverted totally from what this bill is about. Why? Because the anarchists have taken over. They’ve taken over the House and now they’ve taken over the Senate. People who don’t believe in government — and that’s what the Tea Party is all about — are winning, and that’s a shame,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor only weeks ago. (emphasis added)

His claims of anarchy were then echoed by many in the democratic caucus. Reid cites that because the SCOTUS upheld Obamacare it is the “law of the land” now and republicans should bow down.

I would remind Harry Reid that democratic federalists also sought to ensure slavery was upheld by the SCOTUS as the “law of the land” and it was only until republicans fought tooth and nail did that change. Furthermore, the SCOTUS upheld that African Americans were property and not humans. In retrospect, perhaps we should really take what the SCOTUS says with a grain of salt seeing as how Chief Justice John Marshall singularly gave the SCOTUS powers it was never intended to have in the first place in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison. Not to mention that Justice Marshall, on more than one occasion, created cases outside of the Court so that they would eventually reach his newly created jurisdiction so he could rule in favor of more central government- thus making his hand crafted cases the “law of the land”.

Justice Marshall, a federalist who wanted a massive central government, acted above the law to create a Supreme Court, which acts above the law. Acting above the law is also known as anarchy.

Back to Harry Reid. Okay, the SCOTUS upheld Obamacare. Then why don’t Reid, Pelosi and Obama just uphold the law of the land? Democrats scream, “Well what do you think they’re trying to do!” No.

Law-of-the-land-Obamacare says nothing about the IRS having authority re-write the healthcare law, which is unconstitutional since only Congress can create and change laws. Yet, the IRS re-wrote the law anyways. Obama has bailed out his huge corporate sponsors giving them deadline exemptions. Law-of-the-land-Obamacare says nothing about the president’s corporate sponsors getting exemptions.  Law-of-the-land-Obamacare also says that members of Congress will lose their subsidy. That didn’t stop above-the-law-of-the-land-Obama from holding secret meetings to give Congress their exemption from law-of-the-land-Obamacare.  In fact, the very act of the SCOTUS declaring Obamacare a tax by rewriting the law was unconstitutional, as only Congress can make laws.


Democrats having been screaming that America will default because of the “republican shutdown”. That is simply a lie. For one, there’s plenty of money coming in to pay creditors. Second, if America did default it would simply be because above-the-law-of-the-land-Obama decided to act above the Constitution in an act of political theater. Sections 4 & 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly make default unconstitutional as detailed by Robin Koerner.

Lois-above-the-law-of-the-land-Lerner illegally targeted tea party groups under the Obama administration’s direction. She’s now quietly retired with a $50,000/year tax payer funded pension. Pretty sweet deal for an anarchist.

Hillary-above-the-law-of-the-land-Clinton simply stepped down from her position as Secretary of State and will probably win the 2016 democratic nominee for president after the Benghazi tragedy. No jail time, no fine, not even a pink-slip. Another sweet deal for an anarchist.

The list goes on.

You see, it’s really quite the contrary. The tea party, libertarian wing of the Republican party are actually the ones seeking to uphold the law-of-the-land known as the Constitution. A nation of laws is one where Americans prosper. America does not, and has not prospered in this nation of anarchist men, who consistently rule themselves above the law.

(OPINION)

The following two tabs change content below.
Michael Lotfi is a political analyst and strategist living in Nashville, Tennessee where he works as the executive director for the Tenth Amendment Center (TN). Lotfi also writes a column at The Washington Times called "American Millennial". Lotfi graduated in the top 5% of his class with honors from Belmont University, an award winning, private university located in Nashville, Tennessee.

SIMILAR ARTICLES

  • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

    Nice REPUBLICAN propaganda piece. SHILL, BABY, SHILL for your LEFTIST republican party! CO-OPT, BABY, CO-OPT the alt-media for your LEFTIST republican party.

    The anarchists are THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT (same thing) PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE ALL 100% LAWLESS, CONSTITUTION-SHREDDING CRIMINALS!

  • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

    THERE IS NO “tea party, libertarian wing” of the MOTHERTRUCKING Republican party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    NONE!!! ZERO!!!!!! Only LEFTIST republicans CLAIMING TO BE ANYTHING BUT!

    • Don’t Tread

      Are you completely retarded? “There’s no Libertarian wing”? What about Rand Paul, what about Ron Paul, what about Justin Amash, or Ted Cruz, who believes he’s a Libertarian, but isn’t really. He’s more Tea party. Not to mention the MILLIONS of Libertarians throughout the country, and growing by the day. The Libertarian party controls the younger half of the GOP, and will take the whole thing over before long. And for the better, for damn sure.
      (Granted, Rand and Cruz and their like aren’t per se “Libertarian” due to their stances on abortion and gay marriage, etc, but they’re pretty close on most issues, and they’ll pave the way for true Libertarians to get elected in the future)

      • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

        One of these things, is not like the others…

        Ron Paul exploits the republican party for the Liberty Movement.
        Rand Paul exploits the Liberty Movement for the republican party.
        Ted Cruz exploits the Liberty Movement for the republican party.

        • Don’t Tread

          Hey look, you’ve finally made a point worth noting. You’re right, even. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz ARE taking advantage of the Liberty movements for their own gain, but they are still not textbook GOP, that’s for sure. And if one of them holds the White House in 2016, that’ll be good for the Liberty movement. Ron started it, and if they are able to continue it, great. Even if they aren’t truly liberty advocates, as long as they don’t taint it, fine.

          • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

            1. I said “EXPLOIT”… NOT “take advantage.”

            2. Rand and Cruz ARE TEXTBOOK GOP (Ron is not).

            3. Rand or Cruz 2016 (listen closely) WILL DO NOTHING for Constitutional Liberty. NOTHING! This “Grand Scheme” theory IS IDIOCY ON IT’S FACE! Rand and Cruz are SELLOUTS and will do ANYTHING to “play the game” and “move up the food chain.” THIS IS FACT! So… the theory goes… once Rand Cruz is elected President… they will DO AN ABOUT-FACE, SPIT IN THE FACES AND SCREAM “SUCKAAAAAZZZZ” to the neocons, illegal aliens, Establishment, Boomers, religious groups, warmongers, Military Industrial Complex, croni-capitalist contributors, etc, etc… THAT ELEVATED THEM TO PRESIDENCY… and suddenly work toward restoring Constitutional Liberty?!?!?!?!

            Good luck with that scam. I’m praying my Liberty Movement isn’t as gullible as my Tea Party movement was in 2010.

          • Linda League

            I was so enjoying all the posts and learning a lot and then you posted the above. You claim that Ted and Rand will do an about face and you said FACT, Since none of it has happened, how can it be a FACT? Do you have some sort of mystical powers you want to tell us about?

  • Anonymous

    This article is crap. What in the world are you even talking about, saying that Democrats are the anarchists? You make no sense. And then you state that government-run society is basically more prosperous than anarchism, which hypothetically, is BS. Nice Republican spin-off, keep kneeling down to Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and the rest of the blowhards who knelt down to McConnell and the entire establishment GOP.

    • Christy Barnett Bennett

      They may not be anarchists but they are moat definitely communists.

    • Don’t Tread

      I agree with you that saying Democrats aren’t anarchists, because that is BS, but this article isn’t “kneeling down” to Rand Paul and Cruz. It’s saying that the Democrats believe themselves above the law, and that the Libertarians are trying to defend the constitution and the People of the U.S. Also, I’d hardly say that the Libertarians knelt to McConnell.

      • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

        Really confused…
        You said “Libertarians”… TWICE. “Libertarians” have NOTHING TO DO with this REPUBLICAN propaganda piece.

        • Don’t Tread

          The person was saying that it was an article kneeling to Rand and Cruz, therefore claiming it to be a Libertarian-style propaganda piece, I was simply saying this is not true and that Libertarians are protecting the constitution and the People when standing up to Obama and his ilk.

          • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

            FALSE. You were trying to insinuate, through INSULTINGLY TRANSPARENT propaganda, that REPUBLICANS are Libertarians.

            Republicans are NOT “libertarian.”
            Republicans are NOT “tea party.”
            Republicans are NOT “conservative.”

            Republicans are… REPUBLICANS.

          • docgardner

            They aren’t anarchists they are revolutionary Marxist fascists. Which is decidedly worse.

          • Don’t Tread

            Okay, look jackass.
            It is what it is. Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and Justin Amash all RUN as Republicans so they can get elected because we all know that someone with an (L) beside their name will not even get on the ballot. That doesn’t make them GOP assholes like the rest of them. The Republican party has a vast amount of personalities in it just like any party, and many LP candidates are very keen on the idea of taking over the GOP, so they are trying. The Republican party as a whole is full of jackasses and Statists, but there’s a lot more to it than that.

          • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

            Oooops. You failed my cute little game above, and are CONTINUING your propaganda, so I’ll make it clearer. RON Paul IS IN NO WAY, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, to be included in your list of LOYALIST REPUBLICANS. Ron Paul WAS NEVER, EVER a PUPPET like the rest, regardless of how you try to MASH THEM TOGETHER (a tactic implemented to try and CO-OPT his Liberty Movement FOR YOUR LEFTIST REPUBLICAN PARTY).

            EXHIBIT A:
            2012 support for Romney…
            Ron – HELL NO!
            Rand – SURE, I’ll bend over!
            Cruz – SURE, I’ll bend over!
            THAT… is the difference.

            “An L will never get on the ballot” IS AN ABSOLUTE LIE that REPUBLICANS repeat to trick naive people into supporting their “better” evil LEFTIST republican party. I have voted for MANY Libertarians and Constitution Party folks over the years.

          • g.johnon

            one more time.
            republicans are DECIDEDLY libertarian.
            I have no idea what the tea party is all about other than misusing a good name.
            what the hell does conservative mean in the context of politics anyway? I have trying to figure that one out for over 40 years.
            republicans ARE republicans. most members of the republican party are not. ergo rand and cruze are not true republicans, just party trash.

        • g.johnon

          you are confusing “republican” with the republican party. a very common mistake.
          the gop has nothing to do with republicanism.
          for example, a true republican simply believes in the constitutional republic, he does not believe that fundamental Christianity should be the source for law and he knows better than to believe that corporate capitalism has any resemblance the the free market enterprise which our founding fathers tried to install.
          a better term for this piece could be “neocon propaganda piece” or “republican party propaganda piece”.

  • Christy Barnett Bennett

    I don’t think Hilary Clinton will win the nomination obamanation got his socialist healthcare and bills and laws passed. by the time the next election gets here he will have done what he’s been wanting to do. Abolish presidential term limits. Everyone has said oh he can’t do that…Well they also said he couldn’t do all the other crap he’s done too. But he did it…forced it right down our throats just like Hitler in Nazi Germany. So anyone who has the means to get the hell out of this country before it burns to the ground better run. I know I would. Because my friends we have just witnessed the beginning of the end of America.

    • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

      Actually no. Not even CLOSE to reality. The “Obamanation” GOT NOTHING PASSED… NOTHING… WITHOUT THE HELP FROM HIS PARTNERS, THE LEFTIST REPUBLICAN PARTY and the USEFUL IDIOT “better” evil voter.

    • Don’t Tread

      The beginning of the end happened a long time ago, even before Bush used false-flag attacks to get us involved in a “war on ghosts”, er. “terror”.
      Obama will not be able to get rid of term limits, that’s just a stupid thing to think. Not to mention, the healthcare laws aren’t “socialist”, they’re fascist, which is not the same thing. If they were socialist, it would be free healthcare for everyone, with the same benefits and terms&conditions, but it’s not.
      And telling you to get out of the country is idiotic, there are still few countries in the world in a better position that us, mostly including the Scandinavian countries, New Zealand, and Singapore, and most people don’t want to learn Norwegian, so if you want to get out, go. But I think I’ll stay here and fight for change in the country I was born and raised to love. And die if I must.

    • docgardner

      The beginning of the end of America was September 11, 2001 and it had nothing to do with Islamic terrorists.

      • docgardner

        I do absolutely agree with you though.

  • Anonymous

    Comparing Republicans and Democrats to anarchists is an insult to true anarchists.

  • g.johnon

    michael, i agree with a lot of what you are saying, but you do have some Kool-Aid in you when it comes to your take on anarchy.
    my belief in the constitutional republic of the united states makes me a defacto anarchist.
    the term “anarchist” was vigorously demonized during the dubya administration and the demonization has continued quite strongly as you so unwittingly demonstrate.
    the most concise true working definition of anarchy that I have ever heard came from Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address. “a nation of the people, by the people and for the people”.
    anarchy basically means no ruling class, no monarch, no king.
    an anarchy is exactly what our founding fathers attempted to install and control freak wannabe rulers have been trying to tear it down ever since.
    and they are getting it done.

    • docgardner

      yup. well put, I love the Gettysburg piece. It is the polar opposite of anarchy that they are after, they want complete centralization of power, I’m surprised they haven’t come up with a name for it yet other than the vague “change” but in absence of them placing a moniker on their movement, I think it can be at the time best labeled neo-fascism, or it might just be good old fashioned fascism, not sure on that yet…

      • g.johnon

        how about “global imperialism”. just noodling here.

    • lberns

      You’re not an anarchist.

      • g.johnon

        ok, explain since you seem to know me so well.

        • lberns

          “my belief in the constitutional republic of the united states”

          That’s one. Which ties into this:

          “the most concise true working definition of anarchy that I have ever heard came from Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address. “a nation of the people, by the people and for the people”.”

          Which is about the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard a statist describe as their idea of the definition of anarchism.

          “an anarchy is exactly what our founding fathers attempted to install”

          No, your founders established a hierarchical state, which is the polar opposite of anarchy.

          • g.johnon

            let’s start with your final misperception:

            “No, your founders established a hierarchical state, which is the polar opposite of anarchy.”
            a hierarchy is exactly what we had just won a revolutionary war to abolish on our shores. I would agree with you if you were to say that their attempt at setting up a constitutional republic based on a common document that protects the rights of individuals against the will of majorities to allow freedom of thought and action to each individual human so that one could be free to live one’s life by one’s own lights. ultimately failed or is failing. but to say that their intention was to reestablish what we had just expended so many lives to abolish is the epitome of ludicrous.
            if a broken clock is right twice a day, then even a “statist” can be right from time to time. although I did not say that this was “his idea of the definition of anarchism” as he may well have not been thinking in terms of anarchy at the time (again we will never know).

          • g.johnon

            oh, and one thing that we have not established is whether or not you consider yourself to be an anarchist. and if you do, can you explain why?

          • lberns

            I prefer Voluntaryist, but yes, I call myself an anarchist. Anarcho-Communists and Anarcho-Syndicalists may disagree, but I don’t really give a flip what they think.

            I started out as a pretty hardcore Progressive until it dawned on me that everything I believed involved putting a gun to my neighbor’s head. I eventually found the Libertarian Party and quickly adopted the philosophy surrounding the Non-aggression Principle (NAP). I used various methods of begging our masters including jumping around waving signs, writing letters, and running for office only to come to the conclusion that it is all a big joke and a waste of time. Eventually I stopped all that nonsense (especially after I realized that advocating for limited government is pretty much advocating for limited statism, which is still evil). The final nail in the coffin was when the Libertarian Party nominating that blood sucking political opportunist Bob “Once a scumbag drug warrior, always a scumbag drug warrior” Barr as their 2008 Presidential nominee, as well as watching how the general public pretty much rejected Ron Paul when he started putting the ideas of Freedom and Liberty right smack dab in front of their moronic collectivist faces. At that point, I became an anarchist. I absolutely embrace the tenets of the NAP, and have fully given up the ludicrous superstitious belief that some people have the legitimate right and authority to rule others. It’s like giving up the superstitious belief in the existence of Santa Clause. Once one does that, the facade is exposed and the state can finally be seen for what it truly is: A violent gang of parasitic thugs.

          • g.johnon

            “volutaryist” I gotta say that’s a new one on me.
            “anarcho-communist” wow, if ever there was an oxymoron.
            “anarcho-syndicalist” huh?!
            well, I don’t give a flip about em either.
            I was a kennedy liberal when I was 12-13. Johnson brought that to an immediate and permanent halt. no way for me to go to conservative with the likes of Nixon and ford leading the way. when the repuplicans started worshipping Reagan that proved to me that they were mad. carter..wtf!!?. we have not had a president who didn’t have to look up to a turd since.
            I do like the basic libertarian narrative, but like all parties they have opened themselves to miscreants who want to put their own personal stamps on things and have begun to slide askew of that basic narrative (bob barr is a good example).
            so, I am just an independent human being, i.e. anarchist.
            although the ist at the end kinda dilutes the message.
            I don’t see how we are that far apart on the basics. and each of us having our own takes and reasons is a good thing.

          • lberns
          • g.johnon

            do i continue to participate in the system. depends on how you define the system. but mostly I work against it.
            thanks for the definitions. I don’t see a single system among them that does not have the potential of ending up in tyranny. no, probably more the assurance than the potential.
            the two (one) that you claim to subscribe to is so very close to what the founders tried to install that the major difference, the idea of an overriding “state” seems to be the main point of separation.
            my contention is that the idea of state is not the problem. all the above have ideas of state instrinsic to them. even if that state starts out as just a “council of workers”, it will soon become corrupted. argue that if you will, but a buttload of historical precedence will make you a loser.
            “state” does not need to be authoritarian, but a society does need to have some degree of overriding principal, or universal understanding and agreement before a true anarchist society can develope. and that principle can, at least theoretically, be something as simple as everybody gets it and common respect for each other becomes the normal without interference of any type of authority.
            a utopian rant? sure why not, but until we, as individual humans, have evolved to such a point anarchy can only be an individual matter.
            and unless we first address the core problem of a rampant and, so far, unchecked epidemic of sociopathy that is in play among us, we have no chance of creating any kind of workable system or system free society.
            to call oneself an anarchist and subscribe to a movement is self cancelling idealism.

          • lberns

            “but to say that their intention was to reestablish what we had just expended so many lives to abolish is the epitome of ludicrous.”

            Well, that may have been the idea with the Articles of Confederation, but it certainly was not the intent of the Federalists whose successful coup gave us that Magic Scroll more often referred to as the U.S. Constitution, and the illegitimate right for some people to forcefully extort money from others (tax) at the point of a gun (Whiskey Rebellion anyone?). So yes, that was their ultimate intention. You see, gangsters hate competition. Your founders (with perhaps the exception of Sam Adams, Jefferson, and Madison) knew exactly what they wanted, and they got it for them and infinite generations to follow.

            Here’s a dose of Larken Rose (a real anarchist) for you:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

            As far as Lincoln, there is absolutely nothing positive I can say about that guy any more. Google Tom Woods for a pretty accurate idea of just how evil he really was, and how we were all fooled by that gang of parasitic thugs call government’s revisionist history we were spoon fed by those horrible propagandizing indoctrination centers they run that folks call public schools.

          • g.johnon

            you put a big pile on my plate here. I have spent all night and most of this morning trying to figure a way through your minefield that will not further expand this conversation to the point of ridiculous endeavor.
            first off, the articles were a huge failure because they created a group of independent countries as opposed to united states. each state made its own law with no deference to an overriding code of uniformity which rather quickly turned to chaos. interstate travel became risky as the traveler stepped from one set of rules into a completely different set as soon as he crossed a state line. several states had already become involved in tariff wars against their neighbors in an attempt to increase market share of import duties at the expense of those neighbors, and soon became financially insolvent as a result, rendering them unable to pay their relatively modest shares of “donation” to support the virtually toothless federal government.
            attempts to revise the articles in order to solve these and many other problems soon proved to be futile.
            thus a replacement constitution in place of the failed and unfixable articles.
            ironic to your statement above is that three of the main “federalists” at the constitutional convention were adams, Madison and Jefferson. their brand of federalism in the day was one of creating a system of peaceful unification between the states by establishing a uniform code for law that all states were legally bound to adhere to. without the usurpation of states rights by the federal government and to create a viable and adequate means of common defense that was sorely lacking under the articles.
            the real problem forces at the convention were the centralists and even monarchist (Hamilton was both) who wanted supreme central power over the states.
            the convention was a flat out war and the resulting constitution that was finally hammered out was indeed far from perfect. but it was those dirty federalists who managed to make sure that the bill of rights from the articles was installed along with the checks and balances that we know so well (also not perfect to be sure)
            aside from this, I really don’t see where we disagree all that much.
            well, there is larkin. kinda comes across as the typical kid who didn’t get that corvette on his 16th birthday and has been pissed off at the world ever since doesn’t he?
            his analogy of the write your own letter of permission thing kinda comes up short when you realize that he leaves out the whole ratification thing.
            but hey, you want to believe in this guy as the poster boy for anarchism, you have the freedom to have at it.

          • lberns

            First – On Larken Rose: your comment about him says much about your ignorance on what anarchy really is. Feel free to post comments on his youtube vids. He’ll more than happy to reply.

            The most notable reason why you aren’t an anarchist is you keep talking as if the state is legitimate. There is no anarchist I know of who thinks that way. The state is a fiction. It’s legitimacy only exists in your head. Now the group of individuals calling themselves government, they are real. However, because I’ve given up the superstitious belief that some people have the legitimate right and authority to rules others, I now see those individuals as nothing more than a Mafia on steroids who rule through fear and intimidation. Don’t do what they say, men with guns will pay you a visit and threaten to throw you into a cage. Resist being thrown into a cage, and they will shoot you. A peaceful, cohesive, moral and just is not one that is achieved via the barrel of a gun, as all statists believe (they are blind to the guns in their collectivist hands).

          • g.johnon

            you really need to define “state” as it fits into your argument. otherwise I pretty much agree with everything you are trying to say. more detail below in my answer to your post following this one.
            I am a practitioner of anarchy:
            1. because I say I am and I am the final authority on what I am.
            I believe I expressed my concerns with “ist” earlier in our conversation.
            2.i bow to no man.
            you are an anarch-ist because you require involvement in a movement to validate yourself.
            what system do you work in?

    • LocalHero

      Lincoln, your anarchist hero, was a tyrant.

      • g.johnon

        that may or may not be true. since all we have to rely on to tell is agenda driven recorded history, we will never know for sure.
        however, that has nothing to do with attributing the quote to him which at least seems to be an historical fact. and it fits the definition no matter your opinion of the integrity of it’s coiner.

      • g.johnon

        oh, and I make note of one decent quote a guy makes and suddenly he is my hero.
        raise your bar.

  • Conal McLaughlin

    Anarchists??????? As an anarchist. I take that as a severe insult. Obama, Pelosi and Reid have NO IDEA what the non aggression principal is, which is at the core of Anarchism…. Please correct this huge mistake STAT.

  • stephen

    Anarchy is the radical notion that other people are not your property. #ReadRothbard
    http://www.readrothbard.com/#book-anatomy

  • jonkernpa

    Nice post. But I would call the 3 Puppeteers “Tyrants” (total state control) not anarchists (total lack of government).

    • g.johnon

      probably a lot more accurate to call them the three puppets,

  • gman68137

    To act unlawfully is criminal, not anarchy.

  • toa

    An archy, without rulers. How you can conflate anarchism and fascism is beyond me.

  • Justin

    Please don’t call anyone involved with government, an anarchist. It gives real anarchists a bad name and confuses people.

  • Tom223

    The correct term is Oligarch.
    Meaning: “a person who belongs to a small group of people who govern or control a country…” Websters. In this case above the law.
    This is why our schools don’t teach kids to read, write and use math (teaches logical thinking). If people can think for themselves it is much harder to control them. The schools are rotten because they have been turned into indoctrination centers and not centers of learning. If the schools were better perhaps the use of Anarchy in this article would have been different.

    • Patriot from the nanny state

      COMMON CORE= INDOCTRINATION TO BE SLAVES TO THE STATE AND CORPORATIONS( FASCISM)!

  • CMP

    I knew there was a reason I liked everything you said because it must be that you went to Belmont University in Nashville, where my daughter is currently a Junior.

  • robert p reeves

    i wish folks would stop lumping L(l)ibertarians in with the Tea party wing of the Republican Party. we are not the same people. for one thing, we did not sell out the man who gave birth to our movement.

    • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

      i wish folks would stop lumping L(l)ibertarians AND the Constitutional Libertarian Tea party with the LEFTIST Republican Party. They are, IN NOW WAY, the same people.

  • LocalHero

    Defy DC at every opportunity. That goes for ALL “authority.”

  • Rich Grise

    Actually, in its purest sense, “anarchy” simply means “no ruler.” The Gang of Five (Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al) aren’t “anarchists,” by a long shot. They’re autarchs, or plutarchs, or oligarchs; wannabe dictators.

    Anarchy in no way means “chaos,” other than in the sense that day-to-day activities are “chaotic.” Have you ever been to an open-air marketplace? Absolutely nothing about it is predictable, which is pretty much the definition of “chaotic,” but yet everybody gets along fine, and people are happier after making good deals. And there is no central authority, other than the person at the vendor sign-up table.

    Between anarchy and totalitarianism, anarchy is better.

    • g.johnon

      that works for me. anarchy means no ruler; it does not mean no rule.

    • Gabe

      Well said. Statists of all stripes will continue to ignore ignore the truth that central planning (fueled by the compulsive need to organize via coercion, even if for good intentions) ends up creating much of the animosity and disorder in the world..while the voluntary exchange of free individuals (fueled by self interest) breeds cooperation and stability and thus ‘spontaneous order’.

  • Techivarian

    We all know that the 2-party system is a perverted system, due to the fact that both parties are crooked and ‘voters’ are left with to choose between 2 evils. Time to drop the parties and ignore their illegitimate authority.

    Also, it baffles me how misused the term anarchy/anarchist is, especially in this site dedicated to promoting truth and liberty.

  • David

    Well … it looks like the Rats keep Winning … it looks like the last Election was Rigged … because that is the only way Obama could have won … will anything be done to fix Voter Fraud by the 2014 Elections? by the 2016 Elections? If the Elections are Rigged, we will not be able to Vote the Corrupt Politicians out of Office. So… are we screwed or what?

  • ax123man

    Anarchy = shutdown panda-cam

  • John

    If you want an actually worthwhile explanation for what Anarchy is, check out Stefan Molyenux. He is an expert.

  • Slim_Strontem

    HyperArchy would be accurate.
    When a law making / law enforcing system doesn’t obey the law that is its very existence, it is chaos–Which is not an exact synonym for anarchy.

  • genesis667

    A house divided will not stand—America is in the final stages of standing…

  • Storris

    Can people please stop trying to tarnish us Anarchists with the same brush as either wing of either party. Thanks.

  • Brian Hawkins

    This is a really, really weird piece. The more I read it, the worse it gets. For one thing, it’s not even news. It’s a “he said-she said” story with an overdose of speculation. For another, to say that anarchy doesn’t mean whatever they want it to mean, then proceed to use it however you like is bizarre. “Anarchy” means, “no ruler.” Look it up. How can you call the dictatorial ruler of the world’s most imperialistic state, an anarchist?! By definition there isn’t even such a thing as an anarchist politician! Your usage is not merely discolored or slightly incorrect, but so wrong it borders idiocy.

    There was a little bit of useful info about the history of the SCOTUS (which I will be fact-checking), but the major portion of this reeks of propaganda. The weirdest part is that I don’t even know what ideology you’re trying to promote.

    This isn’t what I wanted when I donated to Truth in Media. Where in the world is Ben Swann anyway? The rest of these writers are more like bloggers writing for page hits than journalists interested in discovering and proclaiming truth.

    FYI, you can’t report to libertarians the way you would to other groups, spouting whatever you think they want to hear, because what we want to hear is the truth. To us, BS—even with a vaguely pro-libertarian slant—is still BS.

  • Hated Hydra

    Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

    The
    Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to
    any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
    United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects
    of any Foreign State.

    Can you say [TREASON]

    12 USC 95(b) refers to the authority granted in the Act of October 6,
    1917 (a/k/a The Trading with the Enemy Act or War Powers Act) which was
    “An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for
    other purposes”.

    This Act originally excluded citizens of the
    United States, but in the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2 amended this
    to include “any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

    It was here that every American citizen literally became an enemy to the United States government under declaration.

    Title 8 USC 1481 states once an oath of office is taken, citizenship is
    relinquished, thus one becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That
    means every public office is a foreign state, including all political
    subdivisions. ( i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign
    entity )

    That the Oath of Office – Title 5 USC 331, 332, 333
    backed up by Title 22 CFR Foreign Relations 92.12 – 92.31 and Title 8
    USC, section 1481 – the public official relinquishes his national
    citizenship and are thus foreign agents as stipulated under Title 22
    USC, chapter 11, section 611, loss of national citizenship – Public
    officials are no longer US Citizens, but rather are foreign agents UNDER
    THE UNITED NATIONS and must register as such.

    That the
    International Organization Immunities Act of 12-9-1945 – – Congress
    relinquished every public office over to the UN. Local governments up to
    the president fall under UN jurisdiction. Congress gave the UN the
    right to dictate what laws will be international & gave them the
    right to tax the States.

    That the International Reorganization
    Rescind Act- Congress put this into form but they never took action to
    rescind the act. Fairly recently an Ohio judge filed suit claiming that
    Congress did not have the right to relinquish government authority over
    to the UN (a corporation or foreign country) and that the Congressional
    act was a constitutional violation because they didn’t put it to the
    States or the people to agree on it. In 2005 the US Supreme court
    declined to hear the case therefore all public offices are under UN
    jurisdiction & they are not American Citizens.

    The 11th Amendment states “The Judicial power of the United States shall
    not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
    prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another
    State, or by Citizens or Subjects of a Foreign State.” ( A foreign
    entity, agency, or state cannot bring any suit against a United States
    citizen

    Human trafficking what government does best ..

    Trafficking Statutes

    18 U.S.C. § 1581 (Peonage)
    18 U.S.C. § 1584 (Involuntary Servitude)
    18 U.S.C. § 1589 (Forced Labor)
    18 U.S.C. § 1590 (Trafficking with Respect to Peonage, Slavery, Involuntary Servitude, or Forced Labor)
    18 U.S.C. § 1591 (Sex Trafficking of Children or by Force, Fraud, or Coercion)
    18 U.S.C. § 1592 (Unlawful Conduct with Respect to Documents in Furtherance of Trafficking, Peonage, Slavery, Involuntary Servitude, or Forced Labor)
    18 U.S.C. § 1593 (Mandatory Restitution)
    18 U.S.C. § 1594 (Attempt and Forfeiture)
    18 U.S.C. § 1595 (Private Right of Action)
    18 U.S.C. § 2423 (Transportation of Minors into Prostitution)
    18 U.S.C. § 1546 (Visa Fraud)

    Sounds like the department of transportation

    18 USC § 1592 – Unlawful conduct with respect to documents in
    furtherance of trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or
    forced labor

    a) Whoever knowingly destroys, conceals, removes,
    confiscates, or possesses any actual or purported passport or other
    immigration document, or any other actual or purported government
    identification document, of another person—

    (1) in the course of a violation of section 1581, 1583, 1584, 1589, 1590, 1591, or 1594 (a);

    (2) with intent to violate section 1581, 1583, 1584, 1589, 1590, or 1591; or

    (3) to prevent or restrict or to attempt to prevent or restrict,
    without lawful authority, the person’s liberty to move or travel, in
    order to maintain the labor or services of that person, when the person
    is or has been a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, as
    defined in section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
    2000,
    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

    (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to the conduct of a person who is or
    has been a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, as defined
    in section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, if
    that conduct is caused by, or incident to, that trafficking.

    (c) Whoever obstructs, attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes
    with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be subject to
    the penalties described in subsection (a).

    (3) to prevent or restrict or to attempt to prevent or restrict, without lawful authority, the person’s liberty to move or travel.. Supreme Court has made it clear that you have a right to travel in your Auto mobile without a Driver license.

    Since most of YOU all have a driver license, Sounds like a Labor management dispute , the D.O.T. has not been paying any of you for your services.

    “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” … if we want to look the other way or we want to play favourites then somewhere along the way where going to find out that we are messing with divine justice”

  • Hated Hydra

    “The primary control and custody of infants is with the government” Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62

    “Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.” Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.

    “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual so-called ‘ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. Senate Document No. 43 73rd Congress 1st Session. (Brown v. Welch supra)

    You own no Property because you are a slave. Really you are worse off than a slave because you are also a debtor.

    “The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were instituted, and never can exist under government.” Wynehamer v. The People. 13 N.Y. Rep.378, 481

  • Steven

    You keep using that word, “Anarchist”. I do not think it means what you think it means. I believe the word you are looking for is “Totalitarian”.

    • Alistair

      I could not agree with you more, Steven. A person acting above the law is not an anarchist, but simply a law breaker.

  • Andy Jorgensen

    I get tired of the supposed splinter groups. These people are elected by the people and are they not supposed to work on behalf of their constituent’s? If that were true than we would not have a govt. shutdown or obama care. Because a majority of the people in this country did not want either. Gun control! The Constitution are these people so arrogant that they think that can rewrite what is the very foundation of what this country was founded on. I say get rid of the two party system and make sure there is a term limit on whoever is in office. Get rid of the lobyest and their money.

  • Carl Garver

    Mean while, while Rome burns to the ground, all you politically correct and technically correct morons got nothing to talk about but someones spelling, use of a word, or lack of use of a word! Obama is a piece of shit that is in the process of destroying this country and needs to go, Thats the only thing that matters and you clowns need to join with the rest of us to make that happen or you can carry on your meaningless conversations in whatever FEEMA camp they put you in!!

  • Hated Hydra

    Title 8 USC 1481 states once an oath of office is taken, citizenship is
    relinquished, thus one becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That
    means every public office is a foreign state, including all political
    subdivisions. ( i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign
    entity )

    That the Oath of Office – Title 5 USC 331, 332, 333
    backed up by Title 22 CFR Foreign Relations 92.12 – 92.31 and Title 8
    USC, section 1481 – the public official relinquishes his national
    citizenship and are thus foreign agents as stipulated under Title 22
    USC, chapter 11, section 611, loss of national citizenship – Public
    officials are no longer US Citizens, but rather are foreign agents UNDER
    THE UNITED NATIONS and must register as such.

    • Chris D

      That is not what the law says!

      USC› Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part III › § 1481

      8 USC § 1481 – Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

      Current through Pub. L. 113-31. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

      (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

      (2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

      (3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if

      (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

      (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

      (4)

      (A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or

      (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required

  • Kat

    When are you all gonna learn that NO party in the US is worth what we pay. They are ALL liars and thieves sucking on your tax teat. They all need to go, we need to petition them all out and start new. Not only get rid of them…but also cap their retirement, cut them short for a change.
    Are you not all tired of the I’m better, no I’m better, he said, she said, your to blame, no your to blame? Are you all not tired of living in a nation divided? Since when did it become ok with the masses for our gov’t to lie, scam, and cheat…let alone, change the rules underhandedly, without our consent? And now, they are turning other friendly nations against us by their actions. Not good.
    Time to rebel maybe? Time to throw corrupt career criminals in jail. Get the treasonous liars out. All of them
    No one in DC cares about us, the people. Just our money.