Rocker and Sage

The Mandate of Heaven

2010-11-23T07:03:00.000-08:00

As a passionate student, and teacher of the history of the world, I have studied the lives of many of both the famous, and infamous characters that have shaped it. Thus I have always been an admirer of Genghis Khan. On the surface he would appear to be nothing more than a minor player who stepped on the stage from the outback of Mongolia for a few brief moments. A barbarian from a backward time and a strange land whose major accomplishment was to cut a swath of blood, and terror across Central Asia for a short time in the 12th/13th centuries, and then disappear forever into the dusty history of the Silk Road. But upon a closer examination, he emerges as one of the most remarkable leaders in history. And it is in this respect, he differs from most of the others that the closer you get to him, the more admirable he becomes.

To begin to understand him is to look at the experiences of his youth. He had been born in obscurity on an ocean of grass, a veritable louse on a hill. He was a quick study, and soon learned that the key to survival was to be found in the thing that he most lacked: power. Power to fight to win ,to command,to rule, to reform, and rebuild what had been lost, and then to continue to create further security that could be passed on to his posterity, and not be threatened by anything of this world.

And while I realize that all of this sounds like the babbling of a historian trying to work up a resume piece to find his niche in some think tank, or other house of historical psychology,one that would in effect, attempt to make his case(Genghis) as that which arose out of some "deprived childhood", I would doubt that the spirit of Temujin, were it here to be questioned, would ever concur. To do so would be to deny the force that, in his view, lay outside himself. For his personality was infused with the undenialable certainty of being divinely ordained for the world leadership that he was to have placed upon him. Yes, help was given to him through "mysterious" means-the reading of a sheep's fire-cracked shoulder bone,and prayer on the sacred mountain in which he received special insight,yet the pre-ordained end was clear: he was to achieve an unprecedented power on Earth to the end of an unprecedented justice in Heaven. And power was the key.

Therefore, to win power, to hold power, to increase power, and to keep power was his lifelong purpose. He was not the first,nor would he be the last to come to this realization. But his greatness is to be found, I think, in the fact that he was imbued with the largesse of soul to innately know that in order to achieve this he would need the divine combination of charisma, and faith to inspire others in that same certainty that the "mandate of heaven" was to be one with his own.

What became extraordinary about his life was the maintenance over the period of fifty years of a balance between evolving personality, changing conditions, and increasing power-holding these three variables in constant tension against the ever present ends of falling into corruption, and paranoia thus allowing events to dictate an agenda. This was something new, and unique in the annals of human history. I call it governing under the "Mandate of Heaven". As I thought on the meaning that a life lived such as his was lived could have on us in the present, as any good historian would attempt to do, I have arrived at the conclusion that there is a deep strand of truth that needs to be understood by us about the kind of leadership that we should be demanding from the various candidates who seek to govern us. The following is provided for a quick guide for both the elected, and the electorate.

1. Reward Loyalty
In his dealings with people, Genghis never forgot an act of generousity. Once, after he had ascended to power, he met a man who had helped him escape captivity in his youth: "In my dreams in the dark of night, and in my breast in the bright day I have always remembered the good will that you showed me". As part of his revolution, he honored the brave, and loyal whatever their origin, or status in life. The bonds of loyalty were not easily tied, and often had to be maintained by every means possible. But once convinced of a man's devotion to him, he delegated brilliantly. An instance of this was when he left his viceroy Mukhali to the all important task of conquering, and maintaining the northern territories of China. Under Mukhali's leadership taxes were raised to support poverty-stricken followers. Please understand that this was not done under the pretense of any foreshadowing of socialist, or democratic impulses, or even humanitarianism, but rather should be seen as an embodiment of a supreme traditionalism in which the basic duties of the successful tribal leader were carried out to their ultimate end. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

2.Be Austere
Genghis remained the tough nomad that he was despising the life of luxury, and honoring simplicity for himself, and thus became the example for his followers. It was well known that he would give the clothes off his back for another Mongol in need. He was a physically hard man for all of his life, fit for the hunt, or the fight until well into his sixties, keeping his roots in the mountains, and grasslands of his youth. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

3. Exercise Self-control
One of the extraordinary characheristics that he displayed was the ability to control his anger, and allow others their say in matters. When an uncle defected to a rival tribe, according to protocall, he immediately ordered his death. but upon his being reminded by two brothers in arms Boorchu, and Mukhali that to kill your uncle would be to in effect, "extinguish your own fire" (because of the relationship to his deceased father), Genghis sobbed "let it be", and fell into silence. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

4.Recognize talent, and use it
Under the rule of Genghis, herdsmen became generals, and enemies became trusted officials. To the plethora of non-Mongols who served him he was as fair, and generous as he was to his own kind. He admired, and rewarded talent without prejudice, given only that it was practiced with loyalty. In his service were Chinese, Muslim merchants, Nestorians, and Buddhists. Ye lu Chut-sai, the Chinaman, who was his closest advisor, was a primary example of this. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

5.Kill your enemies without mercy
To those who had not bound themselves to him and his cause, or who opposed him Genghis was merciless. Once he became convinced of disloyalty in either friend, or foe he was a ruthless executioner. If he never forgot a favor, he likewise never forgave an insult. He considered such an insult not only to be against him, but also against Heaven as well.The Merkits abducted his wife Borte, and held her captive for a brief period not long after they were first married. His response was "to divide them until they were no more". The Taychiuts, who captured him, and held him against his will, were made "to blow like ashes in the wind". Of the Tatars, who were responsible for the death of his father, he made war with them, and killed them to the last man wherever he found them. To him, vengeance was a Heaven sent duty. There was no quarter shown by him that other military leaders showed in their dealings with the opposition in the hope of future alliances. To Genghis, an enemy that would not defer to him at once was not worthy of any tratment short of all out destruction. This determination was without a doubt the salient point in history's identification of him as nothing more than a bloodthirsty barbarian. Once, when on the hunt with his General Boorchu, he is reputed to have asked what he (Boorchu) considered to be a man's greatest happiness. After some thought, Boorchu replied that it lay in falconry. What could be better than a sturdy gelding beneath you, and a swift bird on your wrist? Genghis's reply was: "You are wrong. A man's greatest good fortune is to be found in the destruction of his enemies, and the seizing of all of his possessions, and the leaving of his women weeping, and wailing." In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

6.Oppose cruelty
While the last point could certainly be seen to suggest otherwise, the record shows that he did not sadistically enjoy the suffering of those he had conquered. There are no accounts of him employing torture to his victims, and on more than one occasion there is record of him specifically ordering restraint on the part of his men on a defeated foe. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

7.Adapt to changing circumstances
This, I think, is his most remarkable virtue as a commander. In this, Genghis displayed more sublety to him than any mere barbarity might suggest. If a leader is to be judged by the men who serve him, and the decisions that he makes, then Genghis Khan deserves to be credited for recognizing the benefits of education, and bureaucracy by his commanding the briefing of his scribes for the sake of posterity, and administration. This is quite remarkable for an illiterate herdsmen/warrior of the 13th century. And he matured as he went. With each leap to the next level of power; from clan chief to tribal leader, to national statesman, and finally to emperor, he grew in status. This is all the more astonishing when you consider that he was the first of his people to make this leap, and that his only mentors were his enemies. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

8.Know that you have divine support
At each level, he never doubted that he had Heaven's support. His ideology was simple, and straightforward. It was set forth by the belief that all tribes, and nations were to be subject to Mongol rule by the will of Heaven even before their conquest. If all foreign kings would acknowledge this basic truth, all would be well. This belief reminds me of the simple faith required by the Hebrews in achieving their biblical conquest of the land of Canaan. The fact of it was already written in Heaven, all they had to do was accept it. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven for a true leader of his people.

9.Make your friends, and enemies believe it too
Yeh-lu Chutsai joined Genghis because he believed that the Khan possessed the Mandate of Heaven. His success had proved it, and history had demonstrated it. How could any man defeat his enemies in so many instances without the power of Heaven behind him? It simply could not be done. When Genghis made war against a people, it was as if Eternal Heaven had already slain, and marked them for annihilation because they opposed the great Khan, and thus were in opposition to his Heaven.In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven as a true leader of his people.

10. Respect the power of mystery
Why Genghis had been chosen for this role was a mystery to him, as was the nature of the godhead that chose him. With no clear understanding of Heaven, and its will, respect was due by him to all who sought to understand it, and might help him to travel a little farther down the path. In so doing, he upheld the Mandate of Heaven as a true leader of his people.

From Alexander the Great to Adolph Hitler, the best, and vilest of leaders have all had some of these traits. Select a few of them and consider for yourselves. Jesus's kingdom was not of this world. Napolean was perhaps a more brilliant military general/politician, but he made no claims to divine backing; and he ended in defeat without empire. Mohammed balanced religion with military genius, but the briefly unified empire of Islam that he founded was less his creation than that of his heirs.
Alexander came the closest to Genghis I think, though he was no match for ruthlessness to the Khan. He might have been constrained by his tutor Aristotle with lectures on ethics, or possibly he never got the proper chance having died at half the age of Genghis.

When I look to American leaders, I see none that are his equal beyond George Washington,and to a somewhat lesser degree Abraham Lincoln. Jefferson, and John Adams were world class statesmen but lacked divine support, and were thus unable to inspire their people to claim the goals, and ideals that they themselves were aspiring to. The American people have had real leadership only in form without function since the Civil War as the moneyed class has usurped the reins of governmental leadership parading an assortment of acceptable puppets across the stage in what has been perhaps the greatest political hoax of the ages,the ideal of a sustaining constitutional republic. There has been little, or nothing of "the mandate" in the lot of them. Most have been scoundrels, and the cronies of the men whose wealth has bought for them the offices that they have sought. And "WE THE PEOPLE" have heartily endorsed the lot of them as representative of the world as we believe it to be.

The point being here is that those who we elect to public office are a direct reflection of the people that have elected them. Thus we have the kind of government that we deserve. When we deserve better, we will get better. But,if WE THE PEOPLE will allow history to teach us something, the life of a so-called "barbarian" from the 13th century has much to tell us about the kind of leadership that can lead a great people to great achievements,even in this modern era. I hope that we will all consider that any leadership without "The Mandate of Heaven" is not leadership at all, and that those whose feet walk this path will be put to its fire! So let it be written, so let it be done!

The Revolution will not be televised.

Thou Shalt Laugh

2010-02-19T08:52:00.000-08:00

This post would be downright hilarious if it weren't the best example I have seen recently of just why our country is in deep trouble. Read it and... well, laugh! Sometimes you just gotta do it!

This post is a DC airport ticket agent's version of "why" this country is on the "rocks".

1. New Hampshire congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter asked for an aisle seat so that her hair wouldn't get messed up by being near the window... on an airplane!

2. Kansas Congressman Moore wanted to go to Capetown. I started to explain the length of the flight , and the passport information, and then he interrupted me with, "I am not trying to make you look stupid, but Capetown is in Massachusetts. I replied by saying, "I am not trying to make you look stupid either sir, but Cape Cod is in Massachusetts, Capetown is in South Africa."

3. Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders called, furious about a Florida package that he had booked with us to Orlando. When I asked him what was wrong, he said that he was expecting a room with an ocean view. I tried to explain to him that's not possible as Orlando is in the center of the state. He responded, "don't lie to me, I looked on the map and Florida is a very thin state".

4. A Congressman's wife, Landra Reid called and asked, "is it possible to see England from Canada during our vacation?" I said,"no". She responded, "but they look so close on the map".

5. Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky called to ask how it was possible that her flight from Detroit left at 8:30 A.M., and arrived in Chicago at 8:33 A.M. I explained that Michigan was an hour ahead of Chicago due to the change in time zones, but she couldn't grasp that concept. Finally I told her that she was flying in a very fast plane, and she bought that.

6. John Kerry called to inquire about a trip package to Hawaii. After going over all of the cost information he asked, "would it be cheaper to fly to California, and then take the train to Hawaii"?

7. Congressman Bobby Bright (D) from Alabama called to ask how he would know which plane to get on. I asked him what he meant, to which he replied, "I was told my flight number is 823, but none of the planes have numbers on them".

8. Senator Diane Feinstein (D) called and said,"I need to fly to Pepsi-Cola, Florida. Do I have to get on one of those little computer planes?" I asked if she meant to fly to Pensacola, Florida on a commuter plane. She said, "Yeah, whatever, don't try to get smart with me!"

9. Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu called and had a question about the documents she would need to fly to China. After a lengthy discussion about passports, I reminded her that she needed a visa. She responded, "no, I don't... I've been to China before, and never had to have one of those". I double checked, and sure enough her stay required a visa. When I told her this she said, "I've been to China four times, and they have always accepted my American Express!"

10. New Jersey Congressman John Adler called to make reservations, " I want to go from Chicago to Rhino, NY." I was at a loss for words having never heard of it. finally I said, "Are you sure that is the name of it?" He said, "yes." After some searching, I came back with, "I'm sorry sir, I've looked up every airport code in the state, and can't find a "Rhino" anywhere". The man retorted hotly, "What the hell is the matter with you! everyone knows where it is, check your map again." So, I scoured the map again and finally offered "you don't mean Buffalo, do you?" His reply was, " whatever, I knew it was some big animal."

Can there be any further wonder as to why the government is in the shape that it's in?

The revolution must be televised-ASAP!

Declaration of Interdependence?

2009-11-20T11:40:00.000-08:00

In 1976, long before I began my journey toward learning the truth about the power that is behind the government of this country, a letter was drafted by the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, quietly inviting members of Congress to participate in the ceremonial signing of a "Declaration of Interdependence" on January 30 in Congress Hall, adjacent to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. It was requested that a number of prestigious House members be present to lend "credibility" to this document, and its theme. It should be noted that one "Marjorie S. Holt", a representative from Maryland at that time, stated that "for the record", she was opposed to this declaration because "it calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations, it declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities, and it proposes that we enter a "new world order" that would re-distribute the wealth created by the American people." She continued by stating that,"this is an obscenity that defiles our Declaration of Independence signed two hundred years ago in this very city! We fought, and won a great Revolution for independence, and individual liberty, but now it is proposed that we join in, and participate in a world socialist order".

Although this incident was conveniently "ignored" by the mainstream media of that time, and was left to go quietly to rest in the midst of the "hoopla" of the bi-centennial celebration, its core message begs a question of dire current relevance to us here, today: Are we still a proud, free, unconquered people, or are we a carcass to be picked by the jackals of the world who wish to consume us, and would destroy us? In the high flying rhetoric of this "declaration" one will find the answers to these questions, for in it is stated that: "The economy of all nations is a seamless web in that no one nation can any longer maintain its processes of production, and monetary systems without recognizing the necessity for collaborative regulation by international authorities." The declaration goes on to urge the strengthening of the United Nations, the broadening of the jurisdiction of the World Court, "that these may preside over a reign of law that will end all wars, and the mindless violence that terrorizes our society even in times of peace." Lately, we have witnessed the United Nations organization in full cry against America, and her allies of the free world( a shrinking group). We have watched the UN become an instrument of the increasing hate groups and their shabby, despotic leaders allied against America. We can never allow ourselves to be subject to any decisions made by such an assembly, unless we long for national suicide. The Declaration of Independence that is the foundation of our republic, and is still the law of our land forbids it, as does almighty God!

Avowed Marxist Bill Clinton recently spoke to the NH State Assembly of the Democratic Party in Manchester, NH reminding the faithful to "stay the course" in supporting the current "comrade" in the White House as he continues to dismantle the sovereignty of our nation in the name of "interdependence" with other nations. Then there is Alvin Toffler, who has said, "We need to either completely re-structure the Constitution, or eliminate it entirely." The vile, and despicable Faux news commentator Newt Gingrich wrote the forward to Toffler's book. Newt is his "boy", and if you want to know the REAL Newt, read the book. He is what we call the "controlled opposition", as is Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck et al. These lackeys do the bidding of their boss, porn king Rupert Murdoch for boo-koo millions. Murdoch's agenda for this country is to use its wealth, and influence to increase the power of an "elite" group of internationals at the expense, and ultimately the destruction of American middle class. When Gingrich was an elected official, he never lifted a finger, or said a peep to get us out of the UN, abolish the privately owned Federal Reserve(illegal) that prints our "fiat" currency(worthless), or get rid of the IRS(also illegal). He "rode the fence" to get NAFTA passed; cheered on by windbag Rush Limbaugh, which thus furthered the agenda of the"elites" by sending American jobs out of the country to points distant overseas. His cohorts in this criminal activity, to name a few, were "comrades" Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Christopher Dodd, Ted(now dead)Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Joe Biden, "Juan" McCain, Bob Dole, and Mitch McConnell. Take special note of the fact that they represent former, and present members of BOTH the Republican, and Democratic parties. We now have upwards of 15 million Americans unemployed, but these so-called "leaders" have been well rewarded for their treachery in selling out the American worker. No wonder that Michelle Obama can speak of "rejoicing" in this Christmas season in the comfort provided by the lavish "redistribution" of the wealth of the American middle class!

"The monster has been on the loose" for too long, "he has our heads into the noose, and he is just sitting there watching". In 1947, newspapers(New York Times) were writing about a secret "new" constitution that was to eventually replace the existing one(see "Constitution for the New States of America"). Americans weren't paying attention then. The war had just ended, and our parents, and grand-parents were trying to get our country back to its normal pursuit of "happiness", and the American dream. There was no internet then to provide information that was anything contrary to the hash that was being delivered by the mainstream media.

In 1972, Richard Nixon met suddenly, and without merit with Chinese butcher Chou En-Lai in Shanghai to plant the seeds of a "new world order". Avowed Red Communist Chairman Mao was on the way out, and the Chinese economy was in shambles. I remember being appalled at this turn of events, and shocked that an American president that had just been re-elected as "the candidate of principle" would crawl into bed with these commie crooks. The very same communists who were holding our POW/MIAs from the Korean, and Vietnamese "wars". The Butchers of Beijing had them at the same time that Nixon was over there kissing Chou's ass, and toasting his accomplishments with champagne!

As increasing awareness of their plan began to circulate throughout America during the 70s, and 80s, the "new world order"(elites) wasted no time in implementing plans to force a police state on us, and cover their tracks with "good government programs to help the people". Under the direction of Ronald Reagan, a little known Major named Oliver North, the darling of the "right", and a disgrace to the uniform that he wore, drew up plans for FEMA, a fledgling agency, that would become a "major" player in the in the "elites" big plan. North directly helped to draft a plan in 1984 to impose martial law in the United States in the event of an "emergency". All of this was perfectly legal under the "emergency presidential powers" that were granted first to FDR in March of 1933, and which have not been rescinded under any president to this time of this writing, which name the people of the United States as "enemies of the state". This plan, kept secret, would suspend the US Constitution, and turn over control of the government to that "little known agency" of the time: FEMA. The implementation of this plan would appoint military commanders to run state, and local governments in the event of "widespread internal dissent, disagreement with government policies, or national opposition to any use of US military force deemed necessary abroad". Essentially, this amounts to a complete, and total suspension of the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

Now I know that thi kind of information is very upsetting to most people because betrayal is a very painful emotion. Unless you take the time to do the research, and I don't mean just taking someones opinion that you have heard on the nightly news, I mean documented names, dates, and places along with the agendas presented, it is very easy to blow all of this off as the blabbering of some right-wing conspiracy wing nut. But to do so will be fatal to our republic. Once you are able to see the big picture, then it will be obvious why all of these monstrous pieces of legislation-cap&trade, health care, water heist, gun control are so important to those who want to control our lives. Their agenda is now in hyper-drive because the "cat is out of the bag" so to speak, and the American people are on the move to put a stop to it all.

Many americans truly believe that Barack Obama is just a nice, charismatic, black american who has worked his way up from his humble roots to become the leader of the free world. They have swallowed the big lie sold to them by the big liars for hire at CNN, and "Faux" news. Many are now becoming aware that they have bought a defective product. Comrade Obama was groomed by his masters to be right where the ruling cabal wanted him to be to do their bidding. He is impossible to attack; as to do so will immediately draw the charge of "racist", and the dismissing of any legitimate argument that might have been had. Every single step he has taken has been carefully meted, and measured by the ruling cabal for its maximum effect on their global designs.

So, who are these people, these so-called "elites", this "ruling cabal" who are operating behind the scenes controlling the Congress, the White House, and the mainstream media? "They" are the Bilderberg Group, The Council on Foreign Relations, and the Tri-Lateral Commission. The CFR, and the Tri-laterals are the "operatives" for the upper crust bankers, and global elites known as the Bilderbergers. This is the group that was poo-pooed by Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck over at "Faux" news, which should come as no surprise when you consider that their substancial paychecks are signed by Rupert Murdoch, a Bilderberger. This is also why I refer to them as the "controlled opposition". They exist to provide a place of rant, and vent for the growing group of "opposition" that the elites have expected that they will encounter as they continue the plunder of what remains of the USA. In spite of what these "useful idiots" have to say, the elite's agenda IS to destroy this republic, and bring the last bastion of human freedom under global world domination. And while the flunkies of the media, and academia have made the claim that these groups are nothing more than "think tanks", I have done the hard "digging" that is necessary to know better. These people play governments around the world like pieces on a big chess board. They have been the ones responsible for the destruction of the American republic that we have been seeing slowly take place for the last one hundred years. If you are interested in a good read that connects all of the dots read: "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group" by Daniel Estulin.

Patrick Henry once said: "It is natural for a man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of the siren til she transforms us into beasts... for my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it".

This is the motto that I live by, and the prayer that I pray each day to God Almighty. I hope it will be yours as well to the resurrection of our republic.

The revolution will be televised

April Fools Day

2009-04-01T09:23:00.000-07:00

April Fools Day. Today is April first. As I pondered the origins of this normally harmless day of foolishness, I got to thinking about another day that will soon be on the horizon, April 15th!
As the great day-of-pay approaches, I have been asking the people that I know why we have federal income tax? Almost without exception they have answered: "to pay the expenses of government". Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. Income tax has nothing to do with paying the expenses of the government.

If I were to ask you when the country was created, most of you would give me a date somewhere around the fourth of July in 1776, so let's use that date for our point of reference. When the country began in 1776 there was no income tax. In fact, there was no machinery for collecting any such tax; even after the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88 there was still no provision for any tax on the people's income. Except for the "temporary" income tax illegally administered during Lincoln's War to destroy the Union, there was no income tax in this country until 1913, when the Supreme Court upheld its validity in Brushaber, 240 US 1, and the passage of the 16th Amendment in "the dark of the night". And even then, it did not affect more than a few people. Until 1942, only 3% of the people paid income tax. Up to then, most people had heard of it, but they didn't pay it, and had never seen the form. The reason for this was that it did not apply to them. For the record, in 1941 the Federal government collected more money from alcohol, and tobacco than it did in income taxes. Remember the "moonshine", and "infernal revenooers" of the old comic "Snuffy Smith"?

The income tax as we know it today did not find its way into the pocketbooks of the people until 1942, and then only because we were in the middle of the war that FDR "arranged" to end the Depression. Even then, the money grabbers could only get away with it by calling it the "Victory Tax" which was to be repealed at the end of the war.

Question for you: Name for me one year between 1776 and 1942 when the nation could not function without income tax?; can't find one?; Neither could I, amazing isn't it? In all of those years, through all of the wars that we fought, and won, including WWII which we won by American might, and willpower more than any "Victory Tax", we were able to accomplish all of this without an income tax.

So, if we didn't have an income tax for all of this time, where did the federal government get the money to pay for itself? Why alcohol, and tobacco taxes, of course! These taxes, along with the tariffs that used to be in place that made foreigners pay for the privilege of selling their products here, were enough to pay for the few powers that the Constitution grants to the Federal government. As a matter of fact, there was so much money pouring into the Treasury that Congress didn't know what to do with it.

So, if we don't need an income tax to pay for the federal government, why do we have one? In 1942, a man named Meyer Jacobstein, of the Brookings Institute, testified to a Senate subcomittee of the "need to mop up the excess purchasing power of the nation" because of its effect on the price situation in the country. In other words, the people are producing too much wealth, which, with the lack of a metal-based currency equates to hyper-inflation, and the destruction of the dollar, so we have to remove this "excess" in order to preserve the economy. When there was "real" money(gold&silver) behind our currency, the government had to deposit the appropriate amount of "metal" in the Treasury to support the paper whenever any of it was printed in the same way you put money into your account before you write a check. This is the reason that you find the words "pay to the bearer on demand one silver dollar" on the old silver certificate money that used to be in circulation. Even the early Federal Reserve notes said that.The bank would pay to the bearer on demand the amount of the bill in "silver" if requested. The only difference between a personal check, and government currency is that the check names the person to be paid, and the currency does not.

So, this being the case, why doesn't the government just print the money that it needs, bigger numbers, on bigger pieces of paper? The answer brings us back to Meyer Jacobstein's testimony to the subcomitee which is "that doing so would bring on hyper-inflation" send the prices of goods to the moon, and destroy the purchasing power of the dollar. That is what happened to the Weimar Republic in post-WWI Germany, and is now happening in the African nation of Zimbabwe. It is also happening right here in the good ole USA, only it has taken so long for it to manifest because of the "shadow government" running the unbacked printing through the un-Federal Reserve System, which is , of course, un-Constitutional. This system, which has been brilliantly conveived to confuse, and conceal its intention, is being implemented by the "New World Order"(Novus Ordo Seclorum) to achieve its envisioned world government.

So, basically what we have here is the redistribution of the wealth of the people which has been ongoing since 1942. This is the "change" that Comrade Obama is talking about. It is also communism on a world level. So too is the subsidizing, and penalizing of various industries by the government which is to be seen most lately in the alleged take over of Ford Motors, which would have old Henry rolling over in his grave. The real issue here is controlling the purchasing power of the dollar. If the people have too much of it, the prices will rise. Simply put, the dollars taken by government cannot be spent by the people, and thereby cannot be used to acquire the things that are for sale. This is what Meyer Jacobstein meant by "mopping up purchasing power".

Thus, the true purpose of the income tax is to inhibit the inflationary effect of out of control government spending. The income tax allows our elitist rulers to "live off the fat of the land" by transferring the power of purchase from the people to the government, which has absolutely nothing to do with paying for the cost of government.

So, now that I got that off my chest and into your reservoirs of knowledge, maybe its time to re-think just which day of April is really "April Fools Day". The Revolution must be televised.

"Real" Change we can believe in!"

2009-01-16T11:55:00.000-08:00

A militarized police state is coming to our neighborhoods with us as its target- unless we start, right now to enforce the Constitution as is our right, and duty as American citizens.

Recently, I have been thinking long and hard about what our options really are with respect to the posture that the Federal government has taken on human rights, most especially the rights of "we the people". It seems to me that they are lacking in respect for the people they have sworn to serve. The will of the people has been voiced time and time again, on everything from immigration to gun control, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and in most instances we are told that all we need is "change". Usually, when one examines just what that "change" entails, we are told that we will have to give up some more of our freedom to attain some questionable level of relief or comfort from whatever perplexes or annoys us.

As I pondered these thoughts one dismal evening, I came to the conclusion that only a policy of "blood and iron" will ever seriously get the attention of the sycophants in the Disgrace of Columbia; and the only viable option for actually achieving this is via the revival of the militia of the individual states. So with that thought in mind, I will digress from my series on the Constitution which I have been working on for these past months to say my piece on this subject, for I believe that if "we the people" are to succeed in keeping the republic, it will be only this way, and in the nick of time, as the enemy has us surrounded and pinned down!

In addition to the Feds' longstanding strategy of para-militarizing state and local police under the government umbrella of "homeland security", the tyrants in D.C. have two additional schemes openly in the works: 1. the overtly military, which will depend upon the deployment of the armed forces as domestic police, which is technically illegal under "Posse Comitatus"(not that they really care); and 2. the covertly military, which depends upon the creation of a proposed twenty-thousand man so-called "national security force".

The question is, and must be, "What should patriotic Americans do about this situation"?

As I have been describing in my recent posts on the Constitution: the government of the United States is a type of political machinery. When you are unsure as to how any piece of machinery should be used to the greatest effect, the wise operator will consult the manufacturer's set of instructions- in this instant, the Constitution. The Constitution clearly establishes four, and only four "homeland security" provisions:

1. "the militia of the several states"(Article 1 Sec. 8)

2. "the army"

3. "the navy"

4. "troops, and ships of war that the states may keep in times of peace with the consent of Congress (Article 1 Sec. 10)

Of these, ONLY the militia is described as "necessary for security": " a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep, and bear arms shall not be infringed"(Amendment #2). Not just for security in some general sense, but specifically for "the security of a free state". And, contrary to what constitutes a popular argument these days as to what the militia was meant to be; it is patently NOT the National Guard, which is really a branch of the army!

The second amendment, through the militia, guarantees an actual "state" with independence, and its own sovereignty- not just some impotent subdivision of a regional, or global conglomerate in which each nation surrenders its identity, and authority for self-governance. It also guarantees "a free state"- one in which the people actually(not theoretically)govern themselves, because that is the only form of political organization entitled to the adjective "free"

Thus, the 2nd amendment, through the militia, preserves America's entire political system, including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the constitutions of the all of the states.

Beside being "necessary, the militia are also the only form of permanent "homeland security" establishment that the Constitution absolutely mandates. Congress is not required to maintain, or provide an army, or navy, or to allow the states to keep troops, or ships of war in times of peace, if any, or all of those forces are not deemed "necessary, and proper" under Article 1 Sec. 8. But neither Congress nor the states may dispense with "the militia of the several states, which the Constitution recognizes as "necessary" indefinitely in its existence, and continuance.

Thus, the militia are to be permanent because they are to be composed of "we the people" themselves! Constitutions, and governments may come, and go; but the people remain. The militia are hence, the only Constitutional claim to the title "democratic"(in the best sense of that over-rated adjective).

People govern themselves to the degree that they alone exercise supreme political power. Mao Tse-tung had it right when he said; "political power emanates from the barrel of a gun".

The militia are composed of "we the people" in their entirety- armed, organized, disciplined, and trained to wield the power of the sword. It is my belief that popular self-government is impossible without the militia fully active, and in force in "the several states".

Not too surprisingly, the Constitution expressely delegates to the militia the authority, and responsibility "to execute the laws of the union, supress insurrections, and repel invasions(Article 1 Sec.8 #15). As self-governors,"we the people' must exercise the ultimate power to execute the laws, because directly, or indirectly we make all of the laws! Thus, "we the people" are the law- subject only to"the laws of nature, and nature's God!!!

The President has the constitutional responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed"(Article2 Sec.3) and thus appoints him as "commander in chief of the militia of the several states"when called into the actual service of the United States(Article 2 Sec. 2#1)

The key word here is "actual service" because the militia's subordination to the President can only occur when they are called into the "actual" service of the United States government as a whole. Otherwise, the militia are subject to the command of only their own officers, because the Constitution reserves to the states respectively" the appointment of the officers"(Article 1 Sec. 8#16). The requirement that the militia come under the command of the President solely in the "actual" service of the United States provides a safeguard against any rogue President's usurpation, and tyranny. Thus, by this act, the militia are authorized on Constitutional grounds to ascertain for themselves whether any command from a President are at that time genuine to the interests of the states, or pretended by some act of tyranny on the part of the President.

In other words, is the "service" in the national interest of "we the people", or is it in the interest of something else? If it is not in the interest of "we the people" as we understand it, than we have the right, the duty, Constitutionally, to follow it, or not.

Therefore, the requirement of "actual service" reinforces the 2nd Amendment's definition of the militia's purpose: "the security of a free state", a state in which the people really and genuinely govern themselves, particularly as it relates to the decision to employ their own armed force in the "service" of their own " common defence".

The incorporation of the Militia into the Constitution is not just a matter of Constitutional Theory, but also because the Founders were quite familiar with the Militia's practical uses in the area of "homeland security". This would seem to indicate that the Militia would be just the thing that is needed in the present state of terrorist alert that we have been living in since 9/11. The opportunity to demonstrate their usefulness would be perhaps, more evident than ever before. For example, a fully realized Militia will provide literally millions of citizen soldiers to patrol streets, malls, public parks, and buildings thus maximizing deterrence against terrorists, and potential criminals. Because the Militia are composed of every adult in the community, their existence will ferret out every illegal alien who make his presence known to anyone in the community. A revitalized Militia will emphasize local readyness, and self-reliance in all its forms from securing food supplies, fuel, medicines, and other critical materials necessary in the event of emergency from manipulations by any outside speculators who might attempt to control them for their own purposes, to putting into practice an alternate constitution, and solvent monetary system that will protect the community from the inevitable collapse of the Federal Reserve System, and its "shadow" government.

With the revitalized Militia monitoring polling places, and verifying the counting of paper ballots, the present day scourge of voting fraud will be terminated. Because all elected public officials will be members of the Militia, and will thereby be subject to investigation by the Militia for whatever infractions of the law they might commit, political corruption, police brutality, and the arrogance of power so wide spread, and uncontrolled today will receive swift, and just exposure, and punishment. When young adults, and mature teens, through Militia discipline, and training recognize that they are being prepared to genuinely direct, and defend their country's future under their own authority, and in their own interest with an understanding of the personal as well as the public purpose, and benefits of, and from patriotism, then the level of aimlessness, drug use, and mindless violence so prevalent among the young people of today will shrink into insignificance. This aspect alone should make the revitalization of the Militia a paramount concern for our nation's leaders as they assume the reigns of responsibility for the future direction of the country.

Sadly, this picture of real social progress, "real change we can believe in", because common Americans would themselves be responsible for it, is at present a dream to be visited behind closed doors at night in our beds. It is as if we have arrived at the point finally where the only fear we have to fear is the fear of our own possibility of success.

Although the Constitution requires that all able-bodied adult Americans(excepting conscientous objectors) be organized in some manner in "the Militia of the several states"; Congress, and State legislatures have consigned Americans to the illegal "unorganized militia" that operates outside of the system in the side alleys in a fearful, pathetic attempt to defend itself from the present darkness that is descending upon us. And although the Constitution requires that all members of the Militia possess firearms equivalent in firepower to those carried by light infantry units in the Armed forces, Congress has busyied itself enacting statutes(that the states have not opposed) that make it nearly impossible for the average American to acquire this necessary equipment even while pretending to uphold "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

The Constitution sets forth in plain English that the Militia is absolutely necessary in the preparation of a free people according to the principles of self-reliance, self-suffiency, and especially self-governance, to deal with "homeland security" in the most effective, and legal fashion in their home states, and local towns. And although it is illegal for these programs to not be in operation, there are no plans at present for the implementation, or even the contemplation of beginning to establish them.

This situation is intolerable, and flies in the face of Congress's absolute duty to organize, arm, discipline, and train the Militia according to Article 1 Sec.8 clause 16. The 2nd Amendment declares that "a well organized Militia is necessary to the security of a free state", and that a "well regulated militia" are those organized according to the pattern common in the colonies, and independent states prior to the ratification of the Constitution, and as such, Congress must exercise its power by enacting such appropriate legislation to empower it. If Congress fails, or refuses to do so, the states must themselves enact it by their own statutes as "the Militia of the several States"

In July of 2008, Barack Obama was reported to have said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that have been established. We must establish a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, strong, and well funded."
Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's White house Controller has followed these statements by saying:"We are planning to have universal civil defense training. Somewhere between the ages of 18 to 25 you will do three months training which will give young people a sense of what it means to be American."

My son would be terminally deficient in patriotism if he needed the likes of Barack Obama, or anyone else at the pyramid of power in the Disgrace of Columbia, to give him a "sense of what it means to be American". This is especially true when one considers how much more deficient is Obama with respect to his familiarity with elementary constitutional principles.

We, who are by nature suspicious of politicians, may rightly speculate as to what are the true purposes Obama and his ilk may be planning for in the establishment of any new "civilian nationl security force" that would indoctrinate a generation of young Americans in the Party line, teaching them how to be "good" citizens of the world, then turning them loose to terrorize the remaining patriotic Americans into acquiesing to the totalitarian ideal that would become a modern Hitler Youth militarizing, and fanaticizing young Americans into becoming cannon fodder in foreign wars designed by their imperial masters to advance the cause of global fascism. Such suspicions are not needed for us to know that the proposed "civilian national security force" is, to say the least, undesirable, and also quite unecessary, for unless that force solely, and faithfully serves Constitutional purposes, it will serve non-American, un-American, and probably anti-American special interests.

There is a "civilian security force" already provided for by the American Constitution for the purpose of "homeland security" that if enacted, will take the form of the revitalized "Militia of the several States". Anything else will be unnecessary, and unconstitutional.

So, now what? What must the patriots of America demand of Obama if he refuses to do his duty in upholding the Constitution? Simply put, "if it is to be, it is up to me" "we the people" must enforce the Constitution by the revitalization of the Militia. Now that would be real "change we could believe in"! And in the nick of time too.

The Revolution will be televised.

"What have ye wrought?"

2009-01-16T07:59:00.000-08:00

The Constitution was the settlement of a revolution, and on which class the political center of power would come to rest. The human race is ultimately divided into two political groups; those who desire to be controlled, and those who do not.

It was opened on May 25, 1787 to suggest some mere revisions to the Articles of Confederation. The proposed constitution was approved on September 17, and the closed doors of secrecy were finally opened to the world. It was on this date that a local woman inquired of Benjamin Franklin the now famous question, "What have ye wrought?" Will it be a republic, or a monarchy? Franklin's answer,"A Republic, if you can keep it.", was an outright half-truth as he knew that there was no way that the convention had created a "keepable" republic. When analyzed in contrast to the history that has followed since 1787, it very clearly shows that the Constitution was purposely weighted with with several components that were designed to guarantee the gradual expansion of the Federal Government.

Under the first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, Congress depended on the good will of the states (how awful!). Had the states not waged pointless trade wars with each other, and been more responsible with their use of currencies, most of the opposition to their continuance could have been avoided. Congress did not have the power to raise taxes, to regulate commerce, or to prohibit the states from coining money. Since Congress assembled could not act without unanimous agreement, the states often ignored them. Congress "got no respect".

For those who desired an "energetic" central government, this was intolerable. Washington said, "experience has taught us that men will not carry into execution such measures that are the best for their own good without the intervention of a coercive power". Of course "the best for their own good" was to be determined by their imperial majesties, the "nationals", as they always know what is best for the people (sound familiar?). To get to the point: the Articles of Confederation created a Congress which had to go begging to the states, and the control freaks were chomping at the bit! This sort of thing infuriated the nationals. Jay wrote to Washington,"Rage for private property suppresses public considerations, and personal rather than national interests have become the object of greater attention. Virtue can only be exerted by a strong , central government that will put down the crisis at hand".

Great effort behind the scenes was done to foment a panic over the overstated "crisis at hand". A "weak government" cannot muster a viable defending army to protect the nation from powerful nations without, and from the Indians within, so we need to strengthen Congress. Translate: create the "problem"; create opposition to the"problem", offer your solution to the "problem"(sound familiar?). This is the classic Hegelian philosophy so well used by the Socialists/Communists of today. Most men in the know were having none of it, and vigorously challenged any notion of the existence of a "crisis". A year later in his June of 1788 warning against the adoption of the Constitution, Patrick Henry would say: "I ask you; where is that danger? I see none. Why then tell us of supposed dangers to terrify us into the adoption of this new government? Sirs, it is the fortune of a free people not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers. Fear is the passion of slaves".

In retrospect, although some might disagree, the Articles of Confederation have been unfairly criticized by historians I think, perhaps due to the many weighted books, and opinions that have been used in arguments against them. But it should be remembered that the Articles successfully brought a war to conclusion, and negotiated the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which gave the USA world status as a nation, and gave the new nation a lesson in the need for interstate cooperation in the handling of national problems which led to the further refinement in the practical application of such measures.

In the Autumn of 1786, the nationalists had their "crisis" - self created of course - with Shay's Rebellion. After the revolution, most states raised taxes to pay their war debts, and kept them as paper currency issues for the most part in various degrees. Massachusetts debtors that could not pay in currency had their cattle and lands seized and were thrown in jail. All petitions for relief were ignored, and a flashfire rebellion ensued. Armed farmers (another good reason to keep and bear arms) prevented courts from opening, and stopped the seizures. Led by Daniel Shays, eleven hundred angry men attacked the Springfield courthouse and federal arsenal. Although they were easily defeated, and dispersed by a superior force, the politicians panicked and created a hysteria that spread through the states like a wildfire. They made it seem that this was the beginning of the end!

While the rebellion was a failure militarily speaking, it made for a rout in the spring of 1787 elections. John Hancock easily defeated the inflexible Governor James Bowdoin, as well as three-fourths of the House members. Relief laws were immediately enacted, the seizures stopped, and the imprisoned debtors were freed rendering further rebellions as being unneccessary. The nationals, however, had their "crisis". Shay's rebellion was the proverbial "drop that overflowed the vase", and set the wheels in motion for the call for the convention of 1787 to be held in Philadelphia. Madison himself admitted years later that the "unjustified sense of alarm which threatened the economic status quo contributed to the uneasiness which produced the Constitution more than any inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation."

In other words, it wasn't the "principles". It was the "money" and the consequent loss of power by the "moneyed" class that constituted a "crisis" in the land. By alarming the people with fears of a looming, hollow "crisis", delegates were sent to Philadelphia for the purpose of "revising the Articles of Confederation"- not scrapping them entirely for a replacement. But the nationalists knew that this was their moment. Madison had already sent his replacement plans to Washington, and Hamilton for their review in April prior to the convention. The evidence is that the nationalists hidden agenda, unbeknownst to the other delegates and the people at large, was to scrap the Articles in favor of replacing them with their own form of "energetic" central government.

As always, the people did not understand the sweeping nature of the scheme. "The American war is over, but the American revolution has just begun," said conventioneer Benjamin Rush. Little wonder why the convention operated under such extraordinary secrecy. The delegates were sworn to the strictest silence, sentries were posted at all doors, and the windows were shut tight. Fifty-three years would pass before Madison's thoroughly edited notes were publically released. Great measures of propaganda were used to conceal the true levels of dissent that were present. Electing the widely respected George Washington as convention president was responsible for much of the "public confidence" that was associated with these meetings. According to Maryland delegate James McHenry, at least "21 of the 55 delegates favored some sort of monarchy", and although generally of high caliber, most delegates were of the "moneyed" class, and as such were anxious for a national government that would make them the rightful inheritors of power.

The American countryside of "middle class yeoman" that were so much championed by Jefferson were hardly represented at the convention. The "Virginia Plan" supporters, Hamilton and company, pretty much wanted to abolish the state governments. Madison proposed that they be "reduced to corporations", and Hamilton imagined that they" might gradually dwindle in power to nothing", which is in fact exactly what has happened in both instances. It should be noted that the famous revolutionaries were not delegates, either by choice or by circumstance. Jefferson, and Adams were on assignment in Europe. Patrick Henry had outright refused to participate in such vility, while Thomas Paine and, Samuel Adams were not among the chosen (I wonder why). So the stage was set, and the plan was ready for enactment. Madison's plan, which he envisioned as "strengthening the confederacy", in fact did not and was hotly contested by the defenders of state sovereignty. William Paterson offered a fair compromise called the "New Jersey Plan". It provided that any laws that were to be applied to all states would be "the supreme laws", and would be reserved to Congress with the executive having the power to enforce the law if necessary. Each state would have an equal voice in Congress, and would retain most of the attributes of sovereignty. This is, in a nutshell, the Swiss system.

Fearing that the convention might slip out of the nationalists' control and (Horrors!) return to the the original idea of revision, the brilliant attorney from New York, Alexander Hamilton, spoke on June 18 for five hours praising the British Constitution as the world's best, opining for a Senate and Presidency elected for life, and declaring that state government should be appointed by Congress (wow). Little wonder that John Adams referred to him as an "Anglophile" from that point on. However, his long-winded afternoon harangue cleverly made Madison's Virginia Plan seem like a viable compromise and quite moderate by comparison. Hamilton later molded his "energetic" central government from the willing clay of this plan.

It is an interesting side note that the other two delegates from New York refused to be cowed into siging on to the fraudulent illegality, leaving Hamilton to generously sign for New York by himself. This is why his name is the only one that appears on the document in behalf of one of the wealthiest, and most populous states of that time. A bit of math is illumininating here. The states chose 74 delegates, 19 of whom refused to attend. Of the 55 who did, 14 left early, leaving 41. Of those 41, 3 refused to sign. So, only 39 of 74 delegates actually signed on to the hallowed document, or 53%.

Asked why he boycotted the convention, Patrick Henry replied, "Because I smelt a rat."

In retrospect, the convention was a well-run "dog and pony show", and the debates were an excellent piece of deliberation by a singularly august body of 18th century cosmopolitan Americans. That aside, what did it achieve? In any proposed governmental ideal, trying to discern at the outset the probable ultimate beneficiary of that action will be difficult. It is like a game of chess. The winner can only be recognized by a series of board moves to the completion of the game, or "checkmate". Patrick Henry and George Mason feared that the inherent weaknesses that were written into the Constitution would produce a corrupt, oppressive aristocracy, and after 222 years, that is what has happened!

It appears that the real genius of the Constitution has been to utterly transform political reality without the subject people knowing it. It has destroyed the power of the states without sound or smoke, and like a Houdini trick, by the time the people realized what had happened, it was too late. Read between the lines of Washington's transmittal letter of the Constitution to Congress: "Individuals entering into any society must give up a share of their liberty to preserve the rest". Does that sound like a blank check or what? The words of the avowed Socialist Hillary Clinton are very nicely encapsulated in this letter ("to stop terrorism and organized crime, the American people must give up some of their personal freedom, and privacy."). Wow!

The Constitution's obvious tendency towards an expansionist government was clearly understood by the anti-federalists of 1787-88. Would they be able to sound the warning in time to defeat ratification? Sadly, no, but they sure came close...

The revolution will not be televised.

Original post date 10/23/2008. Date changed to bring it to the top due to extended edit time. - RWR

NJ Citizenship Case Goes to the SCOTUS

2008-11-26T08:39:00.001-08:00

This case was held up by a clerk, but is now going before the US Supreme Court (and the clerk is being charged with misconduct). With the Berg case also going there, this issue doesn't look like it's going away. Our President-elect could be in some trouble here.

Also being challenged is the legitimacy of the candidacy of John McCain, who was born in Panama while his father was serving in the military. However, despite my not being a McCain supporter, I do believe a good case could be made that McCain, being born to two American parents in US-controlled territory while serving in the military, could easily pass the legitimacy test, especially if he were born in a US military hospital or other similar facility.

Obama, on the other hand, was allegedly born in Kenya to parents who were of different nationalities (an American mother and a Kenyan father) and not serving in the US military or other similar mission. There is also documentation from Barack's Indonesian school that suggests he may have been recorded as a citizen of that country at some point as well. IN addition, Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate has been called into question due to technicalities that exist within that state's laws.

The only way to stop all this would be for Obama to allow his original birth certificate to be released to the public. While this would be ridiculously simple and easy to do, he has steadfastly refused to do so, despite court orders ordering him to do just that.

I recently renewed my driver's license. I was required to show multiple forms of identification. Any time you start a new job, you are required to show certain forms of identification, largely to prove that you are eligible for the job. Why then, should our new President not also be required to show documentation proving that he is eligible for his job?

Mind this as well: If Barack Obama satisfies the order to show his original vault birth certificate and it turns out to be legitimate (to my satisfaction - which will be easy), then as far as I'm concerned, this issue is closed and I will deal with his successes and failures as they come. I am not bringing this to the fore for any reason other than to participate in the enforcement of the law set forth in the Constitution. Once the constitutional requirement is satisfied, so then should the law be satisfied. If it turns out that Obama was born on foreign soil, then he should be ashamed of himself for defying the Constitution in that manner, and so should his party. I would even support criminal charges being filed against him and the DNC for knowingly nominating an ineligible candidate for President of the United States. Should the SCOTUS drop the ball and not apply an appropriate ruling, then they also should face the wrath of the people.

If we cannot expect the US government to take the Constitution seriously in this matter, then that goes a long way in bringing its prior usurpations to the fore. Based on this and those prior usurpations, why would anyone be so stupid as to assume our elected officials will EVER take the Constitution seriously?

RWR

"Does any gentleman believe this?"

2008-07-01T15:24:00.000-07:00

"It is freedom gentlemen; and not a choice of the forms of servitude for which we contend. We entertain no jealousy of the present Congress, but who knows whether in some corrupt future time there may be a Congress that will form a design against the liberties of the people"- John Adams.
The new government cloaked purposely insurmountable advantages to themselves in very subtle ways. It is a credit to the "anti-federalists" intelligence, and foresight that most of these crafty advantages were spotted. Having seen the seeds of federal tyranny, they correctly envisioned the future trees of oppression under which we now find ourselves. Any talk of these so-called "trees" back in 1787, however, was subject to the open scorn of the smooth talking federalists.

Such a tyrannical future time when property rights would be ignored, where a standing army(police) would reign unchallenged, where Congressmen would virtually hold office for life, where ruinous treaties, and alliances would be commonplace, where the Executive would openly abbrogate Constitutional law with an impunity, and arrogance that would make Nero jealous, where gold and silver would disappear from circulation to be replaced by worthless pieces of paper(fiat currency) from a private banking cartel, where the states would be reduced to administrative departments of the federal government, and where the grip of taxation would actually reach into the common laborer's pocketbook, all of this was too fantastic to be even theoretically debated during the ratification processes of that time.

An example would be John Marshall's reply to Patrick Henry's concerns at the NY ratification convention in 1788: Henry had made the comment that "the officers of the proposed federal government will be protected from merited punishment by the federal judiciary." To this Marshall replied " The Federal sheriff, says he; (Henry) will go into a man's house and beat him, or abuse him, and the federal courts will protect him. Does any gentleman believe this?

Is it necessary that the officers will commit a trespass on the property, and person of those with whom they wish to "transact business"?(Note: The 21st century embodiment of this glittering generality is the Internal Revenue service). Will such great assaults on the people be allowable? Were such a law ever made to authorize them, it would be made null and void."(Theoretically, yes, but not in fact unless the Supreme Court says so). As you can see, the federalists quite easily dismissed the urgent warnings of true patriots as grotesque delusions. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Does any gentleman believe this? Ask the few Branch Davidians who survived about the federal sheriffs as in 1993 they poured machine gun fire through the roof of a homestead church on dozens of women and children. The 17 children that lived through that assault were again made subject to their federal masters 51 days later by tanks firing gas cannon shells when the feds knew damn well that the children had no gas masks for protection, and the type of gas used was lethal to the kids. The Clinton Administration launched an attack on American citizens in Waco, Texas, because those people were "religious nuts with guns". Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns! Who did Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock? Peace Corp Volunteers? Or maybe the people in Texas were attacked because of child abuse? But if child abuse was the issue, why didn't Janet Reno teargas Michael Jackson?

The attack on individual rights has reached a point where a citizen has no right to use his own land if a government official finds a wet area on it, no right to the money in his own bank account if an IRS Agent thinks he might have dodged paying the illegal extortion that is committed every April 15 by the feds. A man's house is his castle, unless a politician covets the land in the name of "making it more productive"(for whom, pray tell?), or if his house is more than fifty years old, or if he has too many relatives living with him(does not pertain to illegals), or if he has old cars parked in his yard, or wants to add a porch, or deck. "Does any gentleman believe this?"

We have federal sheriffs beyond imagination. There are 46 civilian agencies of the Federal Government whose officers carry guns, and can make arrests. Those "great assaults" on the people have been allowed because there is nothing we can do about them short of armed rebellion. And by the way, no laws authorizing federal tyranny have ever been struck down by any sitting Supreme Court, and in the wake of 9/11, are not likely to in the near future. As Patrick Henry so wisely observed, "Will the oppressor ever let go the oppressed? Was there ever such an instance?"

The Congressional Hearings on Waco, and Ruby Ridge were a farce. None of the federal sheriffs have been brought to justice, and never will. Following the federal massacre at Waco Janet Reno told a group of the same sheriffs that "they are a part of the government that has given its people more freedom than any other government in the history of the world" (Wow!) So much for the notion that freedom, and "certain inalienable rights" of men come from God!

Patrick Henry did'nt have to wait until the 21st century to be proven right. He was vindicated in just six years when the venerable first president of the United States George Washington descended on the farmers of western Pennsylvania with an army of 13,000 men-nearly as large as which he had when he faced Cornwallis at Yorktown to suppress none other than a revolt that was caused by the farmer's refusal to pay a tax that was illegally imposed on them by the same government that was supposed to be constrained by the so-called "checks and balances" of constitutional government. The seeds of tyranny were transported from London to Washington; and were already growing!

Folks, there are no real "checks and balances" amongst the three branches of government because no branch has any real motive to restrain the other! The appetite of government is only for more; it is never satisfied! Can anything be more obvious than this?

The Founders well knew that their beloved federalism could only be achieved covertly and gradually over time through a political sleight of hand (Houdini), so they created a dog and pony show(elections) to misdirect the people from seeing the "trees" of tyranny that were growing along the sides. And so for the last two hundred years, while the seemingly fruitless gyrations went on, the shoulder dislocated, and helped the hand to wriggle free.

Since the shoulder(Supreme Court) was the key, it was deliberately underplayed in its importance in the Constitution. Article III concerning the federal judiciary is merely a few paragraphs compared to the voluminous pages of details of Articles I&II for Congress, and the President. For years the work of the Supreme Court went unnoticed by the people in the cramped, cold basement of the Capitol. Unnoticed, and uncontrolled, and that was precisely the idea. Any alleged control of the Supreme Court by the people is so insignificant it is worthless. The people elect state legislators, who appoint electoral college delegates, who choose the President, who then appoints the Justices. The link is so obscurant as to be barely more than theoretical- a veritable four ball combo shot in a game of pool!

If there is a true hope for freedom in the present application of the Constitution, then I will cheerfully wear the repute of being a sworn cynic forever! I would love nothing better than to be wrong about all of this, but the evidence is that: federal expansion is subject to no real, practical, and enforceable constitutional limits, and that both circumstancial, and historical evidence clearly supports the Constitution as being conceived, planned, and executed with the goal of relentless and unstoppable federal expansion of power at the expense of the freedoms of the people in general.

Some have attempted to refute this premise by responding that "the Constitution was inspired by God". Those who believe this will be quite surprised to learn that the Federal Convention was not even opened with prayer in May of 1787. It was proposed by Ben Franklin, but opposed by Alexander Hamilton on the grounds that the convention was not in need of "foreign aid". No action was taken on Franklin's proposal. As a result, the convention was never led in daily prayer

Others have said that"the founders were free-market guys weren't they?" No, they were not. As wealthy lawyers, and businessmen they had little commitment to any notions of an unregulated free market. The economy supported by them was a mixed economy that gave clear leverage to the merchant, and financial classes to directly benefit those classes. It is fair to say that this was considered to be pragmatic in the world of the 1780's.

Our "parchment worship" has blinded us to the provable history of the Constitution being a lukewarm servant of both freedom, and tyranny. Our oppressors have understood this for a long time; we're just now beginning to wrinkle our brows a little bit. So while there are many sincere clarion calls to "go back to the Constitution", even by men as honorable as Ron Paul, WE ARE ALREADY THERE! Don't blame the "liberal" justices, don't blame the lazy Congress, don't blame an imperial Presidency. They are all acting perfectly legally within the allowable limits imposed by the Constitution. Ignore the "Federalist Papers" ad copy and look instead at what they did, not what they said. When you focus your eyes on the rules of the game, and not on the board pieces, it is easy to see just what has happened to our country.

Let no one ever say that "John doesn't believe in America anymore". I do believe as much as ever in the "natural rights of men" as embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and as they were SUPPOSED to be defended by the Constitution. And when the day comes that that government is firmly in place I will be its most ardent supporter. However, we're in big trouble. We have no rights, only privileges, and responsibilities that are given by those that rule over us. We are one crisis(created) away from the end of liberty. We are "in check", and soon to be "checkmate" from the powers that be. Obama's "change" will not save us from the this demon, and neither would have McCain's. Both are "owned" by the present darkness of tyranny that besets us, and are ready to do its bidding. One need only look at the "Constitution for the Newstates of America" to see where we are going.

My hope is that we will wake from our slumber and realize that" the glory of Rome rests on the life of one righteous man"(Claudius). Let us finally understand the name of the game being played, take the hand we have been dealt, and play it better, and with more honor than our opponents while there is still time. The Revolution must be televised.

The Federal "Houdini"

2008-06-05T16:06:00.000-07:00

"That system which was pompously displayed as the perfection of government, proves upon examination to be the most odious system of tyranny that was ever projected, a many headed hydra of despotism, whose complicated and various evils would be infinitely more oppressive and afflictive than the scourge of any tyrant... it is a crime of the blackest dye."

These are strong words. The words of a prophet usually are. The great patriot Patrick Henry wrote these words in an essay published in January of 1788. He went on to say that the American people would not see the Constitution thus because of a forecasted "distraction of misery" which would blind them from the realization that their government was a "many headed hydra of despotism", and that it would be, in fact, the weakness of the document itself that would be most responsible for this.

In every instance, whoever sets the rules of the game determines the eventual winner. As it is presently manifested, the Federal Government is like holding water in your hand- there is no way to really get a good hold on it. The feds have given themselves several viable, constitutionally legal escape routes which have proven more than adequate to defeat any conceivable restraint that might be placed upon them by the people. For all intents and purposes, the people and their States were checkmated back in 1789. The "game" was won at that time by the federal rule makers. It has just taken two hundred or so odd years of board moves for the checkmate to become visible(painfully). The painful point being that a "winning" margin of constitutional balance was given to the feds assuring their eventual victory. The "Houdini" was tricking the people to believe that the proportioning of constitutional power was balanced, and thus would be self-sustaining in its claims of checking federal power. Most people then, and now have continued this misguided belief almost to the point of making it a national religion. Only the Anti-Federalists, Patrick Henry among them, smelled the federal "rat" and realized that the Aristocrats had set themselves up to one unhappy day come out on top. That is the reason Patrick Henry never signed off on the dotted line, and in fact, boycotted the convention. He knew what would come of it.

The Constitution was, at least in form, to be the confining straightjacket of the Federal Government. The government was to have some use of its legs for international purposes, its body was to be bound up, and thus restricted from ever wielding its full power over the states. A straightjacket will reliably constrain a "normal" physique. One must only "change" the body, and escape will be simply a matter of time, and effort. All the body needs is an inch of new movement, and it can, with effort wriggle out of its hold. If you have ever watched an old Houdini flick of him extricating himself from a straightjacket, you know what I mean! Its all in the shoulder. The shoulder normally does not have anymore free movement than the arm, however, while the arm cannot shorten, the shoulder can dislocate itself. A straightjacket was not designed to hold a dislocated shoulder. Once the shoulder has dislocated, the arm has won the battle! Escape is only a matter of time, and effort. The audience, however, is reassured that the restraint is permanent because of all the wriggling which seems fruitless initially. This applies to the government in this respect: the Executive is the hand, Congress is the arm, and the Supreme Court is the shoulder. The branches are distinct, but they are all part of the same body with the single goal of freedom for all parts. The "checks and balances" myth is now seen for what it seems, and truly is: a form without function. It makes no sense to think that the shoulder, and arm will jointly prevent the hand from groping. There is, no de facto "separation of powers", they are all in the same hands like three bully brothers each promising to restrain the other from beating you up.

The shoulder is the key. Only it can dislocate and thus foil the intended purpose. Only the Supreme Court can "pop out of the socket" and cheat the master plan. Once the arm is out of the restraint and begins to unbuckle the suit the torso's eventual victory is plainly seen by "all who have eyes to see". What the audience hasn't seen, however, and would have even less understood has been that escape is the inevitable result once the shoulder has dislocated.

By now most Americans would agree that the Feds are busy unbuckling the constitutional straightjacket. What they cannot fathom is: How this has happened, and how they can wrestle it back into its place. While ideas vary widely, the general consensus is that the government somehow cheated, that Congress, and the President have broken the rules. The sharper minds among us understand that the so-called cheating has taken place in the Supreme Court, and has not really been cheating at all, but rather the use of a back door approach that was purposely left open by the founders from the outset.

It is painfully clear that the founders had foreseen the coming, guaranteed dislocation of the shoulder, yet did nothing to prevent it! And why was this you ask?

The answer is to be found by remembering that it wasn't the people, or the states that were clamoring for the 1787 convention, but rather a distinct group of mostly wealthy, aristocrats(federalists) who very much wanted a "strong central government"(Hamilton). While there was wide spread support for altering the Articles of Confederation for very good reasons, it was the federalists alone that wanted to scrap the Articles in favor of a "more energetic" national government, believing that it alone was "good and necessary"(Madison).

While I do believe their motives were genuinely sincere, I heartily disagree with their conclusions. The way to hell is paved with good intentions!

Here is a listing of the two hundred years or so of the acts that led to the straightjacket extrication that we are presently confronted with:

1790: "Rogue" Island joins the Union, new govt. in its constitutional straightjacket.
1791: Hamilton forms up the Bank of the US.
1794: Whiskey Rebellion; violent wriggling begins.
1798: Alien and Sedition Acts; first concerted effort by the shoulder, arm, and hand.
1803: Marbury vs. Madison; Supreme Court decides what is or isn't constitutional.(biggie)
1819: McCulloch vs. Maryland; Supreme Court rules that there are "implied powers" that Congress has that are not mentioned in the Constitution.
1824: Gibbons vs. Ogden; Supreme Court stretches "commerce" to mean "intercourse".(Congress can now federally regulate ANYTHING)
1876: Munn vs. Illinois; Supreme Court rules that when private property is used publically it is subject to public regulation(read: THEIR regulation)
1930: Shoulder now fully dislocated by Congress by "necessary and proper" legislation.
1933: Declaration of presidential emergency war powers, New deal legislation reverses 10th Amendment doctrine. Arm free of straightjacket.
1933-1980: Arm out, hand working on the buckle.
1984: Executive hand has complete freedom of movement, Posse Comitatus suspended with Executive power to declare martial law.
1994: Exclusionary Rule Reform Act(H.R. 666) passed by Congress
2001: Patriot Act; buckle undone, jacket coming off. Audience beginning to panic!
2008: Neo-feudalism, or the 2nd American Revolution???(Ron Paul)

The Revolution WILL be televised!!!

Civics 101: The Mythological Document

2008-04-22T08:46:00.000-07:00

Probably 90% of Americans feel that the Federal Government has become too powerful, and too intrusive. Worse, they have no idea of how this came to be- or what to do about it. In the 20th century alone, government has grown five hundred times faster than its citizens. How has this happened? Where has our republic gone? Wasn't the Constitution supposed to check the growth of the Federal Government, and protect our liberties?

Yes, the Constitution was supposed to do that according to what we learned in Civics 101, according to the "mythological document". However, when faced with the sheer logic of what happens when Constitutional text and history are coldly analyzed this thinking collapses in a heap of dust.It collapses when one merely looks around seriously- the feds presently take one third of our productivity, and regulate everything from milk to the size of chimneys. There never was a tenth amendment of any substance, and there never will be. THE FEDS CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT!!!

Americans know nothing about the Constitution; only one in a hundred can correctly name James Madison its "Father'; only one in a thousand can name even one of the Bill of Rights.
Real Constitutional knowledge does not exist, but the myth is alive and well! We very much believe the founders advertisement of 1787-88 that the Constitution was written by great statesmen, the founding fathers, so its become a sacred cow that cannot be touched. So here we are blasting Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court without ever even looking at the document itself. I admit to having been guilty of this myself. But the truth is that despite our mythology, despite our so-called traditions of liberty, we are sinking into the depths of despotism and no one seems to be able to do anything about it.

This thinking of mine has been so depressing even for a cynic that I have gone over it again and again thinking that I must have missed something; that I had no right to arrive at such a foreboding conclusion. It was like passing by a well known building and hearing a weird sound coming from within; a sound that I had never heard before. What I found when I went inside was no less than horrifying. Under the Constitution, Americans have no legally enforceable avenue to counteract the Federal usurpation of the people's power that we are presently witnessing . Worse yet, this was in fact planned for , and intended by the founders from the beginning. The weird sound was an inconsistency in the Constitution's Preamble. What inconsistency you're wondering? Linguistically it is almost invisible. But if you eliminate all of the legalistic jargon you will spot it here:"We the people of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". Doesn't it strike you as at least curious that both of these are mentioned in the same passage? Did you know that there is a difference between the "US" and the "USA"? Did you know that the "US" is actually a corporation, separate from the "USA"? The founding lawyers of 1787 knew exactly what they were doing and summarized it in the very first paragraph of their new corporate charter!

Please do not dismiss this as nothing more than a hair-splitting play on words. The Constitution is not only a political document, but also a body of law, and as such "the devil is in the details"! Detailed language is the structure of all legal matters. To understand the matter, we must first understand the structure. While not openly governing the text, this "wording" hinted at what was to be in the future.

Too many state delegates believed the federalist hoopla, and as a result overlooked the ambiguities, and subleties of the document. Only the Anti-Federalists saw through the papier-mache handcuffs on government that appeared to the rest as being solid iron. The Aristocrats won, and they are still winning because we are still living under their system, completely clueless as to why its not working.

And that is exactly the point, it wasn't supposed to work as advertised! It was never meant to guarantee state autonomy, or protect individual rights. And even more importantly, it was NEVER meant to limit federal growth.

I have come to the horrific conclusion that the Constitution as it was framed was the most insidious, protracted coup d' etat in history. Since its ratification, our federal masters have exhausted all powers, and stretched all ambiguities in language to the breaking point. The Constitution, as currently interpreted, now resembles what the founding lawyers truly wanted in their aristocratic hearts. For over two hundred years "We the sheeple" have been blindly in love with a lovely virgin of our own image that does not exist!

The Federalists were unhappy from the start because their beloved "Aristocracy" would not be achieved in their lifetimes, and they knew it! Hamilton himself angrily blurted out his feelings in 1792 when he said that "the Constitution was a shilly-shally thing which would not last, AND WAS ONLY GOOD AS A STEP TO SOMETHING BETTER!!! He best understood its "frail and worthless fabric! Helplessly caught between the two diametrically opposed forces- freedom, and big government, it would be just a matter of time before it would be radically altered, or replaced by one of them.

I realize that this is the most depressing post I have ever written, and may just be the most controversial as well. However, my resources are all orthodox, and my conclusions, if applied with reason seem inescapable. As awful as this premise sounds on its face, I believe it to be circumstancially compelling, if not conclusive.

Know that I am for true liberty under a constitution, even this one if it were possible. But it must be a documentary guarantee of our freedoms with some real limits on government, one that requires substance, and not just clever form. Its long past the time we finally see through the form and learn how truly hollow this document really is, and has always been. I am willing to know the truth; and I hope you are too. I have always agreed with the saying that "liberty has always been a fourth quarter team". We're up against a very formidable opponent that is well organized, and aims to fight. Its late in the game, and we're all really on the same team. A synthesis of effort is needed here.

Republicans need to cast off their "Democrat Light" costumes, and get serious about freedom. They need to crave something more substancial than Rush Limpbiscuit, and Ann Cuttlefish's liberal-bashing.

Libertarians need to get their heads out of the clouds and do something beyond intellectual dreaming. Face it, we won't be hosting the Inaugural Ball in 2009.

Conservative Christians need to learn to mind their own business, and spend their time applying their religion to themselves. They need to quit harping on the issue of "morality"; most especially someone elses. The point of government is not to make a heaven on earth, but rather keep from making a hell of it. Libertarians wouldn't think of interfering with anybody's church service, so why not let them buy a six-pack on Sunday if they want to?

Everyone needs to examine their "parchment worship" of the Constitution, and eliminate the idolatry.

Civics 101 starts here. See you in class!!! The Revolution will not be Televised.

Good Old Fashioned Government

2008-04-03T15:31:00.000-07:00

I shouldn't really complain; it could have been worse . A trip to Canada this past weekend ended with me having to plead with a Spanish bureaucrat to convince him that I was an an American citizen. My NH driver's license wasn't good enough to get me home, or my knowledge of all of the presidents in chronological order backwards, and forwards(I am a teacher of US History after all)The threat of being detained for possibly hours, or days while my citizenship was verified loomed as large in my car window as did his bulbous nose. He sensed all of this I think, and thus released me with a stern reprimand, and admonishment that" if I had real I.D. with bar codes that could be scanned quickly, I would have been on my way without further ado, but since I had only a license, which must inputted manually, it would take much longer. I was standing in the way of government efficiency. I meekly offered the defense that "passports cost money,lots of it, and are a hassle to get nowadays".

What I really wanted to say was: "the hell with so-called efficiency". It is poisoning our food production, destroying the environment, squandering our financial security, and efficient entertainment is numbing the minds of our children. In fact, the last thing in the world that we should want is an efficient government, but that is what seems to be the test of a good government at least according to a study done by a major foundation. Our old fashion way of running government has put New Hampshire dead last in a Pew Foundation analysis of efficiency in state government.From the perspective of this Washington think tank and their government managers, New Hampshire is an "antiquated, odd ball state, hopelessly mired in the ideals of an 18th century decentralized republic that is suspicious of any form of centralized power". I took this as something of a backhanded compliment of which I am quite proud of as it affirms without doubt the reason that I want to live here. It seems to me that I can almost hear the applause of the founding brothers echoing from the top of Mt. Washington!

It is true that our structure of government has remained largely unchanged since 1784, three years before the US Constitution was adopted. And while other states have marched to the tune of "centralized government efficiency", the Granite State has stubbornly resisted. We have a large citizen Legislature, a slew of volunteer boards, a purposely weak executive that must deal with department heads that are independently elected, and an Executive Council that must approve all appointments, and expenditures. All of this is admittedly inefficient. It drives government bureaucrats and power hungry politicians absolutely mad! And it makes for one of the "freest states" in our nation.

It is my humble opinion that government operates best in small places where maximum participation is possible. From the Mayflower Compact to the New England town meeting, we have learned that the only way to control the abuses of government is by distributing its power as widely as possible, and encouraging the inherent distrust of anything that can become too large and powerful. It is, after all, our heritage. We are a nation of exiles, and immigrants, who left their homes because of their government's efficiency at denying their God-given rights.
The measure of a "good" government is not its efficiency, but rather its restraint. It is best when it allows maximum freedom and opportunity according to the will of the people.

When the powers that be speak of "patriotism, and security" and the need for efficiency in carrying out their jobs as defenders of these ideals, I am reminded of the words of one the founders in this regard,"Those who would surrender liberty for security deserve neither."

The revolution will not be televised!

Forcing Constitutional Debate at RWN

2007-11-09T06:15:00.001-08:00

Yesterday, I spent considerable energy arguing with a bunch of liberal morons over at RWN. John correctly brought to the fore the ideology of Norman Thomas, an American socialist from the 1920's, who basically said that Americans would never accept socialism unless its name was changed - to liberalism. Once this happened, just about any socialist concept could be applied, even here.

Thomas, who ran for President six different times, understood the power of incrementalism. He knew that a socialist agenda in America could only be pursued with the use of deception and half measures, until one day Americans would wake up in a socialized state.

Well, wasn't that the truth?

American liberals have fallen for Thomas's passion hook, line, and sinker. Since the post was drawn up in the face of a debate on Hitlerycare, liberal commentors jumped at the chance to defend it. Conservatives fell for their game, unfortuantely, trying to defend the country against this foolishness by arguing on the libs' terms - in other words, trying to demonstrate why Nationalized Socialized healthcare is such a bad idea compared to why the libs thought otherwise. No one brought up its blatant unconstitutionality.

Until I entered the debate.

Go read the thread. It's quite enlightening. Here's the link again.

Over the course of the debate, I was able to get the libs on record as either saying or implying:

1. That socialism is allowed in the US under the general welfare clause of Article 1, Section 8,

2. That socialist non-solutions are better than real free-market solutions to problems that were largely a result of socialism (e.g. healthcare regulations).

3. That the cost of lawsuits and malpractice insurance doesn't drive up the cost of healthcare more than the price of medicine.

4. That government regulation is a good thing, especially for the healthcare industry.

5. That people with BDS are right.

6. That James Madison would advocate socialism and/or nationalist socialist healthcare.

7. That James Madison and the Founding Fathers are irrelevant.

8. That George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and others would have a problem with acknowledging James Madison's contributions to the US Constitution.

11. That adhering to a "rock solid" Constitution is akin to totalitariansim.

I left out 9 and 10. Seems a lib or two had a problem knowing the difference between the 9th and 10th Amendments. I just don't want to confuse people - ya know??

The conservatives largely left me to work my magic and came to defend the Constitution after I left the thread.

This is the most important thing we conservatives can do to defend our great nation against the liberals who seek to dismantle everything that has made her great. Far too often we argue on their terms. Why? Their terms are FLAWED. Their terms are BULLSHIT. Their terms are IRRELEVANT.

As long as the Constitution is the law of the land, it must be defended against all enemies. Many of these enemies are holding public office today. These people must be defeated, regardless of their branch of government. The Founders' vision, as enshrined in the Constitution, MUST prevail.

In order to defeat the socialist liberal onslaught that threatens our country, we must be sure to argue on Constitutional grounds. We must be prepared to use the Constitution in her defense. We must be prepared to call socialism what it is: SOCIALISM. We must be prepared to defend ourselves against these accusations of advocating totalitarianism with facts about real totalitarians and what they advocated.

This is an EASY argument. It takes little or no effort. If you want to defend the Constitution, just know it. Read it. Read the Federalist Papers - AND the Anti-Federalist Papers. Know what the Founders said in its defense. Know why the liberals are full of it and show them. If you like, give them plenty of rope and let them hang themselves as I did yesterday.

This is, I believe, the biggest problem with the way conservatives confront liberals today. There seems to be some need to debate the liberals on the facts of the argument e.g. how much nationalized socialized medicine will cost or how it will affect the choices available as opposed to whether the federal government really has any such authority to begin with. The people of the USA need to be re-educated about the Constitution and what it says, and you know damned right well the schools aren't going to do anything about it.

If we don't bring the Constitution back to the front lines of the fight, we are going to have serious problems winning it. If we do, we will win every time. Powerful thing, that US Constitution. Powerful thing. The perfect tribute to the minds that created it.

RWR

Another Retro-Blogoversary Wish

2007-05-30T08:37:00.000-07:00

I'm SUCH a loser.

Last year, I forgot Sage's Blogoversary and missed it by over a week. THIS year, I miss by more than a month.

April 19 ... Gotta put that on my calendar!

Anyway, congrats, Sage, for hanging in there another year!

And please do accept my apologies ... again. I'm such a shitty blogfather.

RWR

Fred Thompson on VA Tech

2007-04-20T13:00:00.001-07:00

Fred Thompson posted an opinion yesterday that is quite encouraging, though not completely in the right. The part that I have issues with, however, is minor compared to the issues I have with the opposition. Here's where Fred and I differ:

Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms -- and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain. (my emphasis)

While Fred is absolutely on the mark about people being safer where they can pack and carry, he's missing the point with regard to who is legally allowed to carry and use guns. The Second Amendment makes no provision for "citizens with training and legal permits". It says only that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Nothing about permits or training. If you are a citizen of this country, you have the right to carry any means you wish to defend yourself against perpetrators such as that which fired upon Virginia Tech earlier this week. You don't need training, and you don't need a permit. Any law that requires either infringes directly upon that right and is therefore ILLEGAL.

Fred goes on to make many excellent points about why the Second Amendment needs to be respected more now than ever. I just wish any caveats would be consistent with those in the Constitution. Still, this is a LOT closer to reality than what you will get from those on the Left.

RWR

Ginsberg's Latest Idiocy

2007-04-20T09:54:00.001-07:00

Can the liberals on the Supreme Court be any more out of touch with reality?

... at stake in cases challenging abortion restrictions is a woman's "control over her [own] destiny." - Ruth Bader-Ginsberg

The usual pro-abortion blather. It's as if these people believe that somehow these women get pregnant completely at random and have no say in the matter of conceiving a child in the first place. You don't get to be a Supreme Court Justice by being stupid enough to believe that kind of bullshit, but it's clearly what Ms. Ginsberg and her ilk want YOU to believe.

Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right "to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation."

I wonder how this is relevant to the discussion. I further challenge anyone to show me how being a mother conflicts with "[participating] equally in the economic and social life of the Nation." Motherhood is the very essence of the economic and social life of ANY nation. Without it, all humanity would cease to exist.

Their ability to realize their full potential ... is intimately connected to "their ability to control their reproductive lives." Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.

Frankly, I don't see how being a mother interferes with any of the above. Women do realize their full potential as mothers. They do the most important work in the world which, as a man, I absolutely cannot do. I don't see how banning partial-birth abortion or, for that matter, ANY abortion, interferes with a woman's ability to control her reproductive life. Women DO choose to have sex, after all, and KNOW the risks involved.

What she is suggesting as legitimate would be the equivalent of my running General Motors into a court battle over an accident that was my own fault. I knew the risks involved in operating a motor vehicle. I knew I could have an accident. The accident may have ruined my life, and quite a bit more so than simply giving birth and raising a child would ruin the life of a mother. Therefore, Ms. Ginsberg, your argument that a woman being able "to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature" is as much bullshit as my making the same claim against General Motors in the above example, not to mention an insult to mothers all across America.

I really don't need to go on here. If this is how Ms. Ginsberg introduces her position, the rest of it can't be any less idiotic.

Is the Left's entire position on abortion based on the faulty premises that women don't choose to have sex and that babies aren't human? Can't they come up with something substantive? They couldn't use the libertarian argument that the government should just stay out of it, now could they? After all, that argument would be an admission that their entire socialist agenda is as much bullshit as their position on abortion.

What else is new?

RWR

Hokey Madness

2007-04-17T13:16:00.001-07:00

The massacre at VA Tech has my traffic running high for today, and I haven't even posted about it yet. John Hawkins has said it quite well in his post on the matter today:

The calls for gun control are already coming in hot and heavy after the massacre at Va. Tech yesterday, but isn't what happened there proof positive that gun control doesn't work? After all, we just had the biggest gun massacre at a school in American history at a university where it is illegal to carry guns.

Well, duh. Take away the citizen's final line of defense, and this is EXACTLY what you get. I will repeat the key question here: Isn't what happened there proof positive that gun control doesn't work?

My answer is this: While it is true enough that gun control laws do not bring any kind of violence under control, the question of whether these laws work is completely irrelevant. The Second Amendment says:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. - (my emphasis, of course)

If the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, what the fuck difference does it make whether a law that does just that "works"? These laws are illegal and, as such, require the punishment of those creating and bringing them into law.

Of course, given the liberal nutjobs running the shows, don't expect it to happen any day soon.

RWR

A Win for the Second Amendment

2007-03-11T09:02:00.000-07:00

I saw this on Friday, but was busy with touring and such.

It's about time we had a win for the Second Amendment. I, for one, am too weary to speak of the bullshit we hear about the Second Amendment applying only to "state militias". Governments at all levels need to get their grimy paws off of the guns of American citizens.

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. appeals court struck down a three-decade-old District of Columbia law that bans residents from keeping a handgun in their homes, saying the Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Washington also threw out a district law requiring registered firearms to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock.

It's the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a gun-control measure on Second Amendment grounds. Nelson Lund, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University in neighboring Virginia, said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is "very likely."

This may be the first time a law has been struck down on Second Amendment grounds, but it's DEFINITELY not the first time a law has NEEDED to be. Let's get started on the rest, and right away.

Lawyers for the District of Columbia, which banned residents from owning handguns in 1976 for public safety reasons, argued that the amendment guarantees the right to bear arms only for members of a militia.

OK. So what if I start a militia tomorrow ... how exactly do you figure I'm going to get my hands on the appropriate weaponry if you've banned the owning of guns? Morons. Oh yeah, and exactly how do you expect taking away people's ability to defend themselves to improve "public safety"? Who's the knucklehead that dreamed that one up?

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, saying that because the capital district isn't a state, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to it.

Here's a good one. The Second Amendment applies only to people who live and work in the 50 states, and the unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitutiona and the Bill of Rights (the Second Amendment in particular). It doesn't apply to our nation's capital? You can own weapons anywhere in the US except Washington, DC? What a fucking joke.

Most U.S. appeals courts to consider the issue have said the Second Amendment preserves state militias and doesn't protect individual rights.

Yeah, well most U.S. appeals courts are full of shit. The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about state militas, in case you didn't know.

For the good of the American people, this decision must be upheld. It is truly a victory for the Constitution and the people of this great country.

RWR

Retaking the Party

2007-01-23T11:28:00.000-08:00

My blog is a bad news blog. I am forever trying to say the nastiest things in the nicest way. I have a gift, or some might say a curse, of seeing what is deficient in the machinery of any thought almost before it has expressed itself. Rocker calls me "the quintessential cynic" I take no offense at this either, for it is the truth. I will always counter by saying that "a cynic is nothing more than a realist with experience", but I think it is time to let everyone see another side of me, a more "optimistic" side, because I've got good news, in fact some very good news!

As anyone who has ever read my blog knows I am a "free thinking" constitutionalist leaning toward, but not committed to the principles espoused by the Libertarian Party, at least not entirely, as my thinking is not constrained by any party line.I usually have little enthusiasm for any of the "spin" coming from either of the two dominant parties. My "gift" does not allow me the luxury of any such indulgence. As a result, my enthusiasm is usually held "tongue-in-cheek". There are, however,occasional moments of optimism breaking through the clouds of doubt that give even me some hope. This is one of them.I believe that we have an opportunity for what might be a pursuit worth thinking about-retaking the Republican Party.

According to an Associated Press report released late last week, Dr. Ron Paul(R-Tx) is contemplating a run for the presidency in 2008. He has filed papers in Texas allowing him to form an exploratory committee that can begin to raise the money necessary for such a venture. The nine term Congressman from southeast Texas has already done so before in 1988 as the Libertarian candidate. He received over 400,000 votes on election day. This time around he will be running as a Republican, which means he will be facing much better known, and funded candidates such as "RINO" John McCain, however, I think that we may have a very small,but distinct window of opportunity here.

Both parties are controlled from the top, make no mistake about that, but I have been reading in my "sources" of compelling arguments that a power struggle has emerged among the ranks of the super-elites of the GOP. Arrayed on one side are the longstanding internationalist bankers who want to operate through entities like the UN, and the IMF. On the other side are the neo-cons and their wealthy ilk that have a vision of some great "Pax Americana", a global empire run from Washington (thru Israel). Lest there be any misunderstanding; both camps are internationalists through and through. Both are in the business of promoting neo-socialism, and communitarianism. Both would dissolve our national sovereignty, and our constitutional republican form of government in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it. But they differ over certain specific issues. One of them is the war in Iraq.

A few months ago, Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations,published an article in which he declared the Iraq war unwinnable, and has called for an exit strategy. The neo-con controlled Bush Administration wants to "stay the course" without informing the American people as to what this really means, however, with the president having just called for 21,500 troops to be sent to Iraq it doesn't take too much of a brain to see what is to come-war with Iran, which the neo-cons have been salivating at the mouth for for quite some time. I sometimes wonder if the corporate interests that put both Hitler, and Stalin into power ever imagined the pure evil, and bloodlust that would be as a result of their myopic vision. But that is another thought to be argued another day because all of this is good news. The "freedom movement" has an opportunity to retake the Republican Party now that the warmongering neo-cons have been stalemated by the neo-socialists, thus dividing the party in two.

As far as Ron Paul is concerned, he is one of the very few true constitutionalists in Congress. The Constitution is his bible. If its not in there, he doesn't even attempt to do it. He casts his votes exclusively on what he believes the Constitution empowers the federal government to do, and votes consistently against bills he believes exceed the authority given Congress in the Constitution.As a result, he usually finds himself at odds with most of the rest of Congress, including the power brokers of the Republican Party. Its no secret that both of the major parties endorse the "nanny state", and have long since departed from the concept of a constitutional republic in any real form. Ron Paul has no "secret" agendas that include the dismantling of America in the name of "free trade"(NAFTA) which isn't "free" unless you are part of the corporate elite. There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the feds to "partner" with big business, or supply it with corporate welfare in the form of either money or "workers"(read-slaves). As a result Paul has co-sponsered a resolution(H.C.R.487) to put a stop to the ongoing merger of the US with Canada, and Mexico, which would be a de facto reversal of the Declaration of Independence.

None of this can be said about John McCain the "beloved" of the mainstream. As a matter of fact, I doubt that we can say it about any of the others who seek the Republican nomination except for Tom Tancredo who is also sending out "feelers"(he was the co-sponser of H.C.R. 487 along with Paul).

"There's no question that it is an uphill battle, and that Dr. Paul is definitely an underdog," said Kent Snyder of the exploratory committee, "but he feels very strongly about his chances in light of the present situation, and that it is well worth the doing. We'll let the voters decide."

So here's what "we the people" have to do; we, of course, refers to everyone who wants to live in a free society. Should Ron Paul officially announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination in 2008, we need to get behind him, and roll up our sleeves in preparation to go to work.

Whether it be by making financial contributions, knocking on doors, making presentations, or producing written articles like this blog. If Ron Paul is in the race, we should begin sending mainstream newspapers with guest columns, and letters to the editor. If those columns, and letters are refused print, continue circulating them online through the many resources available to us there. Where possible, and visible post banners, and signs along interstate highways, exits, and intersections where traffic slows. That way thousands of ordinary commuters that are fed up with a government bureaucracy that takes upwards of 30 per cent of their income in taxes will see: RON PAUL, REPUBLICAN, AND CONSTITUTIONALIST FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008! The mainstream media will do their best(or worst) to blackout any grassroots movement that is not of their own making so we will need to be ever more diligent by taking direct action to thwart these efforts.

This will call on the "Freedom Movement" to do something that many of its members will find very hard to do. We must set aside our differences and work together for a common goal- establishing the credibility, and plausibility of a Ron Paul Presidency that would reverse the present direction of this country. The inability of different groups and organizations to cooperate has hurt the "Freedom Movement" terribly in the past. Christians refusing to work with non-Christians and vice-versa. Libertarians who will not work with Christians because they are "too religious", Christians who will not work with Libertarians because they are "too secular".

And Christians don't always get along with each other-nor do Libertarians who have fallen into an in-house argument over who is the "purist" Libertarian. Both have their differences with the Constitution Party. C'mon people, its time to shit, or get off the pot! Christians need to lighten up and share God with the rest of the world,it won't hurt you to let a Libertarian have a beer on Sunday; they wouldn't even think of pissing in the front yard of your church much less stand in the way of you going inside. Libertarians need to get their heads out of the clouds, and realize that their vision of a "free" America is not the only one out there, because after all, they are not going to be hosting the Inaugural Ball in "08"! Conservative Republicans that are already in the fold need to shed the "Republican Light" image that they have cast themselves in by throwing away their vote on candidates that are not worthy of them in the name of "the lesser of two evils" philosophy, which, if you've read my last post, only adds to the problem rather than attempting to solve it.

Should Ron Paul take the plunge and declare himself a candidate, every single one of us needs to set aside our factional differences of opinion and join together under one umbrella. I will even go as far as to say that if Ron Paul runs, all third parties should refrain from nominating a candidate of their own and throw all of their support to him. Are we not ALL nothing more than disenfranchised conservatives who would be Republican if only...? Other groups also need to get on board: the John Birch Society, Sons of Confederate Veterans, the League of the South and so on.

WE DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE IN THIS!!! Cooperation among all of us "underdogs" is the only way that a candidacy of this kind can succeed against a firmly entrenched Establishment. Tyranny is always better organized than freedom, but liberty is a fourth quarter team looking for a big play! WE CAN SORT OUT OUR DIFFERENCES LATER, THIS IS NOT THE TIME OR PLACE!!!

Congressman Paul has stepped up to the plate because he knows what we all know if we're honest with ourselves; the noose is tightening, and there isn't much time left for liberty's team. If we ever hope to restore Constititional government to the USA its now, or never.

There isn't a man better that I can think of for the job. He has an impeccable voting record. He is "right" on every freedom, and sovereignty issue. In a time of universal deception, Paul dares to commit the revolutionary act of being truthful.

Of course there will be the usual parade of naysayers, and sceptics who will claim that his views are outdated, and archaic, and that his candidacy can't possibly succeed... and they will be right unless WE THE PEOPLE prove them wrong!!!

I for one am sick of the moaning, and groaning coming from so many Libertarians about how terrible things are in Washington. I recently sent them a blog/comment that read to the effect, "When you guys are ready to do something beyond whining, and hand-wringing, give me a call." With that I terminated my membership, and have withdrawn my support($).

I think it all comes down to this, with Congressman Paul, we have an opportunity to finally do something. Let's not blow it by fighting among ourselves, but rather take the fight to the real enemy that is truly the enemy of a free people. A Ron Paul anywhere near the White House is a certain step in the right direction. But he has got to get there first. If this does not happen at the grassroots level, it won't happen at all. I normally support men/women before parties, and philosophies/ideas before men/women. I have never endorsed a candidate for office on this forum, but to quote another famous American, "extreme times demand extreme measures".

It is the fourth quarter, and time is running out; time for a "hail Mary", so go deep, its our last chance-RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!!!

The Revolution will not be Televised.

Dictatorship by Democracy

2007-01-10T10:26:00.000-08:00

I recently learned of a poll taken last week by WorldNetDaily that asked the question: "Who should the Constitution Party nominate for president?"

A list of names followed which included these patriotic Americans:
1. Tom Tancredo
2. Ron Paul
3. Alan Keyes
4. Jim Gilchrist
5. Jerome Corsi
6. Howard Phillips
7. Chuck Baldwin

The first three are favorites of mine, although I could support any of them were they the chosen candidate.There were several other choices on the menu which included some alternative choices to the naming of a particular candidate, they were:
1. "I've had it with the major parties, and will vote for a third party.
2. "I need someone of more prominence than these names.
3. " A vote for any Constitution Party candidate will virtually assure that
Hillary or another Democrat will win."

Guess which of the ten options the majority of the respondents selected?

If you chose number three of the alternative options than you are feeling the heartbeat of America! Nearly forty percent of the poll participants expressed that they would cast their vote for the "lesser of two evils(?)" presented by the two dominant parties. To ignore what are obviously superior third party candidates to vote for the least deficient of what are clearly two deficient candidates is absolutely ludicrous, if not criminal thinking. To make my case in point of the absurdity of such thinking, I offer the following illustration.

Suppose that you had a daughter, a beautiful young lady who is the apple of your eye.Since she is your pride, and joy, you will naturally want only the best for her. Now lets suppose that your daughter is being courted by three eligible men from about town, two of which come from very prominent, wealthy families with great influence, but who you know to be lacking in character. One is slightly more corrupt than the other if that is possible, but the thought of either of them becoming your son-in-law is rather distasteful. The third suitor comes from modest means, and has neither wealth, nor influence, but is nevertheless possessed of both intelligence, and integrity of character. In deference to the wealth, and influence of the families of the two young men without character, would you encourage your daughter to marry the lesser of these reprobates, or would you do everything in your power to send her in the direction of the one who would love her, care for her, and cherish her?

To have chosen the former over the latter would tell me that there is something wrong with your thought process. The history of reprobates being reformed is heavily weighted with failures, including our most recent attempt by "conservatives" to rescue the Bush administration from its ventures into liberalism. If we think that we can elect the "lesser of two evils" as our commander in chief and then reform him once he is in office, we deserve the grief that we have chosen for ourselves. The fact that we can no longer ignore is that the politics of our national two-party dictatorship is contributing to the rapid demise of our republic, and have been doing so for quite some time.This is not by accident either, lest you be fooled. The system works very nicely to insure that the corrupted limit the choices to like-minded individuals forcing the people to choose between the perverted and like-wise perverted.

The differences between the two parties are cosmetic at best. They are the same horse internally with a few different spots on the outside, carefully designed and painted mind you as to dupe the people into believing that they have a viable alternative where in fact none is present. This brilliant contrivance is outwardly wrapping themselves up in the American flag while inwardly they do away with the pledge of allegiance. Make no mistake about them, both the Democratic and Republican parties intention is to move the United States toward a "new world order" socialist government. All comments to the contrary are only a smoke screen to cover their actions.

Any of the above named potential candidates would be infinitely superior to those who comprise the long list of prospects that are being paraded past the voters by the two national parties at present. Unlike the party favorites, none of them are internationalists motivated by goals of a one world system. They understand the implications of our present drift toward a socialist state. They are all committed to a government that is guided by the principles set forth in the Constitution, including the limits that it places on the scope of their power. Above all else these people have demonstrated a clarity, and purpose in regards to the absolutes of morality in respect to the will of the people, and are able to differentiate between what is legal, and what is not as far as their conduct is concerned. The likes of Bush, Clinton, Obama, and Kerry and their ilk in both parties represent the "new world order" socialists that have been violating the dictates of the Constitution in direct opposition to the mandates given to them by the American people. They are traitors to their country and to the offices to which they have been elected.

I have repeatedly stated to all my belief that we are standing on the abyss over which we will fall into a communistic form of government. Many of the so-called "internationalists" among us in their ignorance are promoting the already failed doctrines of Marx, and Lenin when they advocate this brand of neo-socialism. Too many of our political leaders are either in collusion with, or are the unwitting dupes of these utopian dreamers. The ranks of the two national parties are both corrupted beyond any realistic efforts at serious reform. If we are honest with ourselves, the choice laid before us is abundantly clear. If you as a voter, want to hasten the fulfillment of the wishes of the "new world order", keep voting for the lesser of two evils and be thankful for what you've got-dictatorship by democracy.

Or, if that is not your cup of tea, wake up and smell the rat. Its not too late to really "make your vote count"for a country to die for.

The Revolution will not be Televised.

Speech Restrictions Unconstitutional

2006-12-22T15:51:00.000-08:00

Wild Thing reported earlier this week that portions of the McCain-Feingold First Amendment Repeal have been ruled unconstitutional. I'll be looking into this.

RWR

6 "Good" Reasons to Vote for Bob Menendez? Please.

2006-10-28T23:46:00.000-07:00

Cross-posted from rightwingrocker.blogspot.com ...

I've been weary for some time of the annual election-time barrage of bullshit that comes to my home from the teachers' union. I join this thing every year in case an overzealous school administrator starts taking him/herself too seriously. Today's mail included a flyer from the Menendez campaign (via the NJEA) - "6 good reasons why educators are supporting Senator Robert Menendez for United States Senate".

Let's take a look at the 6 "good reasons", shall we?

Bob Menendez opposes school vouchers. Unlike his opponent - who supports school vouchers - Bob Menendez will stand up to the forces of privatization and oppose vouchers and tuition tax credits.

As a United States Senator, Bob Menendez has no authority to involve the federal government in state decisions regarding school vouchers, tuition credits, or anything else that has to do with education. The Tenth Amendment assigns full authority to determine the course of education to the individual states and the people, period. Therefore, a vote for Bob Menendez is a vote for federal intrusion into states' rights with regard to school vouchers - NOT a "good reason" to vote for him.

Bob Menendez will work to fix a bad law. In 2007, Congress is scheduled to vote on reauthorizing the "No Child Left Behind" Act. Bob Menendez will work to fix the law's many flaws, and to hold George Bush accountable for funding it properly.

Again, NCLB is unconstitutional, and therefore ILLEGAL, under the Tenth Amendment, which is the only "flaw" the law has that is relevant. As far as holding the President accountable for funding it, all Menendez is saying in this ad is that he will increase the amount of spending on a program that is not legal in the first place. Again, NOT a good reason to vote for this candidate.

Bob Menendez is a proven friend of children in public education. With an almost 100 percent NEA voting record, Bob Menendez has shown unflinching support for public education.

You'd think those charged with education our children (the NEA) would know what the Constitution has to say about "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States" being "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". You'd think an organization of teachers would be teaching our children about this very important constitutional provision. If they are, then I find it to be the height of hypocrisy that they would so consistently support candidates that stand against this very basic right - NOT a good reason to vote for him.

Bob Menendez will fight to protect our hard-earned benefits. He believes school employees should be able to retire with the pensions and post-retirement medical benefits that we've earned. As a state legislator, he supported full funding of our pensions and benefits and opposed any attempts to diminish them. He'll continue to do so.

Quite frankly, Bob Menendez would have had EVERY RIGHT to support these things as a state legislator. As a federal legislator, however, he has no business getting involved. Pensions and medical benefits are within the rights of the various states, but not of the federal government - not the President, not the House or Senate, and not the federal judiciary. Again, Bob Menendez is showing himself in this ad as completely disrespectful of the Tenth Amendment - NOT a good reason to vote for him.

Bob Menendez will help college students. He will fight for more Perkins funding and Pell Grants, to make college more affordable.

Exactly how, as a US Senator, is he allowed to do any of this, save for reaching into his own personal bank account? Please. NOT a good reason to vote for him.

Bob Menendez supports universal health coverage. He's already restored $130 million of George Bush's cuts to New Jersey for seniors' prescription drug coverage. He supports universal health coverage because he understands the crisis that uninsured families face every day

Ah, yes, Hitlerycare. Playing on people's pity for "seniors" and "the uninsured". Look, if any state, including New Jersey, wants to provide universal healthcare for its citizens, it's more than welcome to bring it on. The federal government has no authority in the matter.

Please help elect a true friend of public education - Senator Robert Menendez.

I don't see how the following words could be misinterpreted:

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.

This ad should really say...

Please help elect a true enemy of the Tenth Amendment - Senator Bob Menedez.

I'm not saying his opponent is much better, but this guy's openly putting his desire to break the law right into his campaign ads. Anyone who casts a vote for this man is as much an enemy of the Tenth Amendment (and therefore of the Constitution) as he is.

RWR

Judicial Activism

2006-08-18T10:58:00.000-07:00

Cross-posted from rightwingrocker.blogspot.com ...

A judge has ruled the terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional.

While I have been (and continue to be) a fence-sitter on this issue for some time, concerned both for the First and Fourth Amendment implications of this program, I have ruled this decision a clear-cut case of judicial activism.

I've read the opinion, and after doing so, I'm still unsure of the constitutionality of the program. I'm no closer to an opinion than I was before. The judge has clarified NOTHING.

First of all, I have an issue with granting blanket constitutional rights to non-Americans, especially those who openly depise America and call themselves our enemies. These people have made their intentions very clear: Convert to their ultra-wacko brand of Islamic religion and espouse their Islamofascist backwards way of life or die. All free people in the world are their targets, and they have vowed martyrdom in achieving their goals.

The very Constitution that protects Americans and our rights to life, liberty, and property is under assault by these people, and they have now succeeded in using it to their advantage by extending constitutional protection to those who seek to destroy the very same Constitution.

Regardless of the constitutionality of the program itself, it is very clear what the ACLU and its minions are up to here - protecting the terrorists.

Of course, the judge was anything but impartial.

It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another. It is within the court's duty to ensure that power is never "condense[d] ... into a single branch of government." Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion). We must always be mindful that "[w]hen the President takes official action, the Court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 703 (1997). "It remains one of the most vital functions of this Court to police with care the separation of the governing powers . . . . When structure fails, liberty is always in peril." Public Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 468 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

Cite the "parameters" if you care to have Americans agree with you. The whole purpose of this case was to determine just that - whether any rights were disregarded. While these things are addressed in the rest of the opinion to some degree, this is the most vital place to mention them, given their proximity to such strong words as "blatantly disregard", a phrase I have myself used here to describe judicial, legislative, and executive actions that were unconstitutional.

I also take issue with Judge Taylor's statement about checks and balances. Clearly, it's been liberal activist courts that have "condensed" all the power int their favor over the past hundred years. Why else would there have been such a clamor over judges like Roberts and Alito, who had established in one way or another that the Constitution would be their guide? Who will "police with care" the courts?

Here's more proof of bias ...

The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution itself.

This judge should have recused herself from the case due to known personal bias. There is no way a judge making a statement like this in an official court document will rule with impartiality.

The Defendant's argument here (and Judge Taylor knows this) is that the Constitution and the laws of the Congress provide provisions for intgelligence gathering with regard to known enemies like al-Qaeda. Here's the actual text of the Constitution that is being used to defend the program:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States ... (Article II, Section 2)

Does this grant the President broad intelligence-gathering privileges? Judge Taylor does not address this directly, as any reasonable American should expect, but does make a roundabout reference to a 1952 case regarding a president's order to sieze steel mills, the so-called relevant text being this ...

In the Youngstown case the same "inherent powers" argument was raised and the Court noted that the President had been created Commander in Chief See generally Youngstown, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)of only the military, and not of all the people, even in time of war.

Of course, she does not address the fact that intelligence-gathering is a military operation, and that the wiretaps involved known or suspected enemies of the United States. She does not address to what extent the First and Fourth Amendments apply to foreigners, particularly sworn enemies of the US; and she does not make any statements regarding to what extent these rights should apply to those who sympathize with or, apparently have professional responsibilities that include working with these animals, such as lawyers and reporters.

Our founding philosophy states that all men are created equal and with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). Our Constitution guarantees these rights.

Still, how do these rights apply to those, particularly foreigners and sworn enemies of the US, who wish to take those rights away from us, and those who associate with them? I don't know, and Judge Taylor has been no help.

Judge Taylor, if the program is unconstitutional, fine. If it's constitutional, fine, but check your own agenda at the door. You failed to do so in this case, and you haven't persuaded me one way or the other.

RWR

A Victory for Marriage ... and the Constitution

2006-08-09T10:31:00.000-07:00

I apologize for not cross-posting this at the time. Original post date - July 27, 2006 at RightWingRocker.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled yesterday that laws in their state requiring (as do God and nature) that both genders be included in marriages (which may only include two people) do not violate the state's constitution.

See, folks? This is exactly how it's supposed to work. You want to bitch about a law, you challenge it in court. The court looks at your complaint, reads its constitution, and applies it. You get to appeal to a higher court if you dont like the decision. The Supreme Court is as far as you can go.

Quite frankly, I don't give a crap one way or the other how the court ruled in this case, as long as the state's constitution legitimately matches the decision. These matters need to be resolved at the State level, so that the process is as close to home as possible. We don't need the politicians in Washington, DC getting involved in something the Constitution doesn't authorize. It is good that this issue has been resolved by the State of Washington.

The SCOTUS would be wise to leave this one alone.

RWR

Holy Grail

2006-06-20T07:51:00.000-07:00

I am writing this post upon the recommendation of my good friend Right-wing Rocker. If you read his blog, you may have already read it in the comments over there under "Sage on Education".
This is the last day of school,finally, as it has been a long year and I am looking for some R&R! This will be my final post until September. I will be travelling to Wyoming, and NH for the purpose of monitoring the pulse of "freedom" in America, which brings me to the point.

For the record, let it be known that I am only "nominally" a Libertarian, and that being only for the sake of some sort of political I.D. that most people can recognize. I am a staunch Constitutionalist with a deeply grounded faith in the power of that document as a core human response to the fundamental yearning for freedom. I believe in its ability, when applied, to provide the support necessary for a truly prosperous, and vital society of people. I also believe that it is in grave danger, as is the culture that birthed it, from those in power who live in fear of the limitations imposed on them by its dictates.

I write in hopes of providing a warning to the people of freedoms lost, and its impact on the future of the republican form of government.The quest for the "holy grail" of government has become my passion, as well as my pleasure, and has opened my eyes to a truth that is, to say the least, somewhat scary.

I am, however, a "Free Stater" having already made the committment to move to New Hampshire by purchasing property there. I had done so prior to the choice of that organization(Free State Project) of the state of NH as the most "free" state in the union for like reasons. I believe we(lovers of freedom) will have to make a stand somewhere where it counts. New Hampshire just may be the best bet for success. We shall see!

As far as the Libertarians are concerned, they are actually moving away from positions that I hold dear in an attempt to become "legitimate" contenders in the upcoming elections(read: middle of the road).

I, meanwhile, hold to Jefferson's thinking: "He who is governed least is governed best", and while that may sound too much like anarchy to some, it sounds like paradise to me!

Have a great summer!

Power to the people-The revolution will not be televised

The Old School

2006-06-09T14:50:00.000-07:00

It is no secret that I have major disagreements with the way discipline is handled(or not) by the administration in the school where I work. We have gone 'round and 'round for the last several years, but never more so than in the past year as the state breathes down the proverbial necks of those whom they would first "make mad".

Most of you know this to be as a result of the dumbing down of America's public schools ander the guise of No Child Left Behind in preparation for the future homogenization of North America. But as I was in a heated disagreement a few weeks back with one of my supervisors over a disciplinary issue which I felt was not handled very well by them, an epiphanal moment occurred for which I was not prepared. I had said to her that when I was the age of my students, and I was not in class on time, the teacher would simply close the door, and I would then be required to go to the office to get a late pass, which of course would be accompanied by an office detention as a consequence of my tardiness. Her reply was to say that I was "old school", and that "we can't do that anymore". As I reflected on these words, I asked myself,"What is that supposed to mean?, just what is "old school"? Is it a point of reference, or a historical moment in education? Or is it a way of thinking, or acting that has somehow become archaic, and unneccessary in this "new age" of education?

So, just exactly what does it mean to be "old school"? My search for the answer to this question led me on a quest that took me back to the roots of public education. Back in time to old, dusty, library shelves containing articles, and books that are mostly yellowed by the passage of time, and in many instances, out of print. Back to "old school", and an even "older school", if you will, than that.

It is no secret to anyone that the public school system of the US doesn't do a very good job of "educating" the children. Studies abound that show American schoolkids lagging behind their counterparts in pretty much every other country in the industrialized world. We are shocked, and horrified at the number of high school seniors that cannot find the United States on an unmarked map of the world, and have never heard of Abraham Lincoln(an especially disturbing statistic to a teacher of history). Fingers are pointing everywhere as to the whys, and wherefores of the problem, and as to how to fix it. Some will say overcrowded classrooms are the problem, others will insist that the teachers are incompetent, many say that the government has underfunded the school system, and has therefore inadvertantly created the problem. But what I found in my search for the "old school" led me to a completely different conclusion. All of the aforementioned problems are secondary, and therefore insubsequential in trying to fix the problems. Even if all of them were cleared up, American schools would still be sub par. Why?

Because they were purposely designed that way.

How do I know that this is true? How do I know that America's public school system was designed to ultimately not educate the children that it was supposed to be educating? Because the men who were the designers, and those responsible for its implementation wrote about what they were doing.

Almost all of these books, articles, and reports are out of print and impossible to obtain. But a man named John Taylor Gatto did his "homework" and tracked some of them down for us. Gatto was voted the New York State Teacher of the Year in 1991, but he became disillusioned with public education- the way they enforce conformity, the way they crush natural creativity, inquisitiveness, and ultimately the love of learning that every child is endowed with by nature. So he began to dig into the roots of an even "older school", America's educational system.

It plays like this. In 1888, the Senate Committee on education was getting nervous about the localized, non-standard based, non- mandatory form of education that was actually succeeding in the teaching of reading at advanced levels in very young children. Apparently, these kids, normal, regular, red-blooded American kids from mainstreet USA, were demonstrating(there is a good ole education buzz-word) an uncanny ability to read and comprehend history, and, egads, think for themselves. The committee's report stated, "We believe that education is the principle cause of discontent manifesting itself among the laboring classes." By the end of the 19th century, a whole new breed of education technocrats were promoting a "new school" form of public education, with a new mission (and it was not educational).

The famous philosopher, and educator John Dewey wrote in 1897:"Every teacher should realize that he(she) is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the right social growth." In his 1905 dissertation, the future Dean of Education at Stanford, wrote that schools should be factories "in which children are to be shaped and formed into the finished products whose specifications for their manufacture will come from government, and industry." The very next year, the Rockefeller Education Board, which was very instrumental in the funding of this new public education initiative, issued a statement which read in part: "We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers, or men of learning, or men of science. The task before us is very simple, we will organize children, and teach them to do in a perfect way the things that their fathers, and mothers are doing in an imperfect way."

At the same time the US Commissioner of Education, William Harris wrote: "ninety-nine out of one hundred students are automata, and made careful to walk in prescribed paths, and to follow prescribed customs. This is not an accident, but the result of an essential education, which, scientifically defined, is the subjection of the individual." Harris, in a later writing, also said,"the great purpose of school can be better realized in dark, airless, ugly places... it is to master the self, to transcend the beauty of nature. School should take the human out and replace it with something better." And again several years later, President Woodrow Wilson would echo these same sentiments in a speech made to an audience of businessmen: "We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a much larger one by necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education that they might be made fit to perform specific manual tasks.

One of the major architects of standardized testing, H.H. Goddard said in his book, "Human Efficiency" that public education was about "the perfect organization of the hive." President of Harvard, James Bryant Conant wrote that the change to a rigid, forced, penitentiary style of education had been demanded by "certain industrialists,and the engineers of innovation who were responsible for determining the nature, and progression of the future industrial process."

In other words, the chieftains of industry, and government purposely created an educational system that would maintain the "proper' social order by teaching us just enough to get by as "trainable idiots", but never enough so that we could think for ourselves, question their idea of the "natural order' of things, or communicate articulately. We were to become the good worker bees in the hive, with the children of the chieftains inheriting the royal jelly that is fit only for a queen-to rise to the level where they could continue to maintain the status quo.

This is the blueprint used for the formation of the public education system, which remains unchanged unto this day.

So,if this is the "old school" that the administrator in question accused me of being, then she is right to say that "we can't do that anymore", if it is our job as teachers to communicate this culture to our youth, than we are indeed failures, and no amount of finger-pointing, hand-wringing, or buck-passing is going to change anything. If the "old school" order that John Dewey envisioned is to be maintained, then we need to get back to the "old school" practices that instituted it in the first place. Under those circumstances then, "I just may be the lunatic they are looking for". I heartily prescribe an engaging diet of hard work, and intensive study in which "education" instead of "sports" is the main course on a very spartan menu.I am very demanding in terms of discipline, both on myself and on my students. I don't give grades, I give opportunities to earn them, which are then rewarded accordingly. I expect the best that my students can do for themselves every time, and why shouldn't I?; I will tolerate nothing less than that for myself. And as a result I find myself in this "new age" of education, having to defend these proven tools of success against encroaching mediocrity, and ignorance. And the assault is not coming from a "new and improved state vision" intelligently planned by a "new and improved" generation of education technocrats bent on dragging a tired, and worn out "old school" into the 21st century, no siree, the assault is coming from a legal/state mandate that is determined to protect a system of values that ultimately rewards failure over success,and thus has removed any possibility of success for the "old school" or any other school for that matter.The "old school", for all of its shortcomings, was successful because it did what it needed to do in order to be successful, and thus became the American institution known as "public education"

On the other hand,if we really want to get a truly "public education", we need to go back to a yet "older school" than that, one that puts "public education" where it belongs which is in the hands of the people themselves.There is no time like the present to do the right thing.

Power to the People-The Revolution will not be televised.

"Common Sense" in Common Times

2006-05-19T16:05:00.000-07:00

,The inspiration for this post is a result of my having re-read this classic document written by none other than the venerable pen of Thomas Paine, the vocal conscience of the American Revolution. While I was reading, I became uncomfortably, and painfully aware of how easily the interchange of the words "King" and "President" as well as "government and "people" had become in the years that have passed since this essay had first appeared, while at the same time noting that this "voice of the first American Revolution" would very probably be re-submitting this work with a few corrections in an attempt to spark a second American Revolution were he with us today. That being the case, at least from this readers perspective, I have humbly agreed to volunteer for the task at hand. Please forgive me in advance for any presumptions that I have made in regards to the text in its original form and setting.
Of Monarchy(presidency) and Hereditary Succession(dynasty)
All men being created equals in the original order of creation,the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance;the distinctions of rich and poor may in great measure be accounted for in this instant. But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into kings(presidents)and subjects(citizens). Male and female are the distinctions of nature,good and bad the distinctions of duality;but how a race of men came into this world so exalted,and distinguished like some new species,is worth inquiring into.
In the early ages of the world,according to scripture chronology, there were no kings(presidents)the consequence of which there were no wars;it is the pride of kings(presidents) which throw mankind into confusion.All of antiquity favors this remark;for the quiet, bucolic lives of the first patriarchs hath a happy something in them which vanishes when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.
Government by kings(presidents) was first introduced into the world by the heathens from whom the children of Israel copied the custom.
It was the most prosperus invention of the devil ever for the promotion of idolatry. As the exalting of one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature,so neither can it be defended by the authority of scripture;for the will of the Almighty,as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel,expressly disapproves of government by kings(presidents). All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over or ignored all together by both the church, and government in modern times,and,I might add,quite to the detriment of personal freedom in the process.
Nearly three thousand years passed from the time of the Mosaic account of the creation till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king(president). Until then their form of governing themselves,except when the Almighty interposed,was a kind of republic administered by a judge and the elders of the tribe.Kings(presidents) they had none of,and it was held to be sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts.
Monarchy(presidency) is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews,for which a curse in reserve has been denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to.
The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites,Gideon marched against them with a small army and achieved victory through divine intervention.The Jews elate with success,attributed it to the generalship of Gideon,proposed making him a king,saying,"Rule thou over us,thou and thy son,and thy son's son".Here was temptation in its fullest extent;not a kingdom only,but a hereditary one as well.Gideon in the piety of his soul replied,"I will not rule over you,neither shall my son rule over you,THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU.Words need not be more explicit;Gideon does not decline the honor,but rather their right to give it,neither does he compliment them with his thanks,but in the style of a prophet charges them with disloyalty to their proper sovereign,the King of Heaven.
About one hundred years after this,they fell again into the same error.The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens,is something exceedingly unaccountable;but so it was,that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons,who were entrusted with some secular concerns,they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel saying,"Behold,thou art old,and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us like all the other nations.And here we cannot but observe that their motives were bad in that "they might be like all the other nations" whereas their true glory was to be found in their"not" being like them."But the thing displeased Samuel when they said,give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said to Samuel,listen unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. Now therefore listen to their voices, howbeit protest solemnly unto them and show them what manner of king that shall reign over them",not of any particular king(president)but the general manner of the kings(presidents) of the earth,whom Israel was so eagerly copying after.And not withstanding the great distance of time, and manners,the character is still in fashion. "And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said,"this shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you;he will take your sons and appoint them for himself(military draft) to be his charioteers,and horsemen,and he will appoint him captains over thousands,and will set them to grow his ground and reap his harvest,and to make his instruments of war, and he will take your daughters to be confectionaries,and to be cooks and bakers(luxury and servitude), and he will take your fields,and your olive gardens, and the tenth of your seed,and of your vineyards the best of them to give to his officers(tax and spend,cronyism and corruption) and you shall cry out on that day because of your king(president) which ye shall have chosen,AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY."This accounts for the continuation of the monarchy(presidency);neither do the characters of the good kings(presidents) which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin of the office.
To the evil of monarchy(presidency) we have added that of hereditary succession(dynasty); and as the first is a degradation and a lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on our posterity. For all men, being equals originally, no one by birth could have the right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever.One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary(dynastic) rights in kings(presidents) is that nature disapproves of it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.(or as in the present case something infinitely worse)
If we inquire into the business of a king(president),we find that after sauntering away their lives without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation, withdraw from the scene,and leave their successors to tread the same idle round.
The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a king(president).It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for the government of England(America)Sir William Meredith calls it a republic;but in its present state it is unworthy of the name,because of the corrupt influence of the monarchy(presidency) has so effectually swallowed up its power, and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons(representatives) that the government of England(America) is nearly as monarchical(presidential) as that of France and Spain(Saudi Arabia and Qatar) Men use names without understanding them. It is the republican and not the monarchical(presidential) part of the constitution which the people glory in, the liberty of choosing the house of commons(representatives) from out of their own body.Why is the constitution of England(America) sickly, but because monarchy(presidency) has poisoned the republic.In England(America) a king(president) has little more to do than to make war and give away places(welfare& graft) which in plain terms is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand a year sterling($450,000.00) for, and virtually worshipped in the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God than all of the crowned(elected) ruffians that ever lived.
In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader than that he will divest himself of prejudice, and suffer his reason and feelings to determine for themselves; that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day.
Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between England and America(kings/presidents & subjects).Men of all ranks have embarked in the controversy.All have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is fast closing.Arms, as the last resort must decide the contest.The appeal was the choice of the king(president) and the continent(people) have accepted the challenge. The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth.'Tis not the affair of a city, a county, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent, yea even a world.'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age;posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be unto the end of time by the proceedings that we are now engaged in.
I have heard it asserted by some, that as America(the people) has flourished under her connection with England(the govt.),that this connection is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because a child has thrived on milk, that it is to never have meat, or that the first twenty years of our life is to become the precedent for the next twenty. but even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly that America(the people) would have flourished as much, and probably more, had no European power(the govt.) had anything to do with her.The business, and commerce by which she has enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom among men.
But she(the govt.) has protected us say some. True, she has engrossed(taxed) us, and defended us on occasion at our own expense,and would have defended Turkey(Iraq) from the same motive that being trade(money) and dominion(control). Alas, we have been long led away by prejudice, and superstitution. We have boasted the protection of Great Britain(government) without considering that her motive was self interest, and not attachment; that she did not protect us from our enemies on our account, but rather from her enemies on her account.But Britain(Washington) is the parent country(govt.) Then more the shame be upon her for her conduct.For even the brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war on their families in such a matter as these do now.
I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation to show a single advantage that this continent(people) can reap by being connected with Great Britain(Washington). Our corn(products) will fetch its price in any market in Europe(the world), and our imported goods must be paid for by us, buy them where we will. But the injuries, and disadvantages we sustain by that connection are without number(and increasing); and our duty to mankind, as well as to ourselves, instruct us to renounce the alliance: Because, any submission to , or dependence on Great Britain(Washington), tends to directly involve this continent(people) in European(foreign) wars and quarrels; and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom we have neither anger or complaint. As Europe(the world) is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection to any part of it. It is(and has always been) the true interest of America to steer clear of European(world) contentions, which we can never do, while by our dependence on Britain(Washington), we are the make-weight in the scale of British(Washingtonian) politics.Europe(the world) is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between Britain(Washington) and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection to Britain(Washington).
The authority of Great Britain(Washington) over this continent(people) is a form of government, which sooner or later must end. As parents, we can have no joy knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure anything that we may bequeath to posterity: and by plain method of argument,as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly, and pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we should take our children in our hand and fix our station a few years farther into life; that eminence will present a prospect which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from our sight.
Though, I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence, yet I am inclined to believe that all of those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation, may be included in the within following descriptions: Interested men, who are not to be trusted(lawyers clergy & businessmen),weak men, who cannot see(uneducated in most matters), prejudiced men, who will not see,(conservatives & liberals); and a certain set of moderate men who think better of the European world than it deserves(state employees,police,& teachers) This last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this continent(people), than all of the other three.
Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Britain(Washington), and still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, "Come, come, we can still be friends again for all this".But examine the passion of mankind, bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me if you can hereafter love, honor, and faithfully serve the power that has carried fire,and sword(taxation w/o representation) into your land? If you cannot do all of these, then you are only deceiving yourself, and by your delay bringing ruin upon your posterity.
Every quiet method for peace has been ineffectual.Our petitions have been rejected with disdain; and only tended to convince us that nothing flatters vanity, or confirms obstinancy in Kings(Presidents) more than repeated petitioning. Wherefore, since nothing but blows will do, for God's sake let us come to a final separation(restoration), and not leave the next generation to be cutting throats under the violated names of parent, and child.
A government of our own is our natural right, and when a man reflects on the precariousness of human affairs he will become convinced that it is infinitely wiser, and safer to form a constitution of our own in a cool, deliberate manner WHILE WE HAVE IT IN OUR POWER, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance.
O ye that love mankind! Ye that oppose not only tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom has been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa have long expelled her, Europe regards her as a stranger, and Britain(Washington) has given warning to her to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare(repair) in time an asylum for mankind.
The revolution was not televised then- and will not be now!
Thomas Paine/The Old Sage

The Constitution is dead... Long live the Constitution!

2006-05-04T08:58:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while in conversation about the problems plaguing our beloved country I will sally forth with the proposal that all of these so-called problems could be quickly solved by putting the country back on what I have come to call "Constitutional footing"; that is by actually applying its true principles to the present day problems that we are facing. Usually, I am met with the response "the Constitution is dead" and that any attempts to apply it according to its "original intent" especially in regards to limiting the power of public officials would be futile, and that any arguments to the contrary could be classified from the ridiculous to the screwball in their character.
The Bible says that "a prophet is not without honor except in his own country". This should not be misconstrued to mean in any way that his prophesy is erroneous, most especially when the argument against his pronouncements are as non-sensical as "the Constituiton is dead".
Quite obviously, the Constitution is anything but "dead" in respect to the application of political power that effects the lives of Americans on a day by day basis. To the contrary, it is very much alive and active in regards to the election process, the Supreme Court's decisions, the President's command of the armed forces and so on. Every happening in these areas is subject to its authority, and procedures according to its dictates in the original form.
True enough, many of these so-called "procedures" done in the name of the Constitution are quite unconstitutional. But my point here is that there is no one who would dare seek public office at either the state or federal level that would ever admit that he is acting outside of its dictates in terms of anything procedural in regards to his own behavior as an elected official. Even those public officials who do in fact flout it in practice
nonetheless acknowledge the Constitution to be "the supreme law of the land"(Art.6 Sec.2) which everyone, including them, must follow. They invoke the Constitution as the source of their authority, and make all claims that their actions are fully consistent with it, they swear an oath of allegiance to it as public servants of its dictates. That these acts are in many cases, acts of self-deception, hypocrisy, and perjury does not diminish the character of this document as "the supreme law" in any way.
The fact that criminals violate laws does not in one iota negate those laws.A good case in point is the ongoing exodus of Mexicans into the US "in search of a better life" that feel that the end justifies the means in spite of any violation of immigration laws and statutes to the contrary.
So, how is it then that the powers that the Constitution grants to officials is fully alive and operative, whereas the limitations that it places on that power, also written in plain language, and no less in force, are supposedly "dead"? How can it be that those in power can pick and choose that which empowers them, and ignore that which limits them?
On what theory of law, or constitutional government can officials enforce the parts of the law that grant them power, while ignoring, or refusing to honor the parts of the very same law that restrains and limits that power?
If this is in fact true in the practical sense that "the Constitution is dead" in regards to its limitations on governmental power, then how can anything that public officials do ever be legally wrong? If public officials refuse to obey the Constitutional parts that limit their power, and need not do so because that part is "dead", then how can American citizens determine whether what is being done by them is in the best interests of the republic? If the Constitution is "dead" as to its limitations, then no public official violates his "oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution"(Art.6, Sec.3) when he disregards those supposedly ineffective restraints.
So, it can only follow, that if the Constitution is indeed "dead" as to its limitations, then it is "dead" to the individual rights that it guarantees, because those rights establish the very limitations on government power that are being violated.If, on the basis of the excuse that the Constitution is "dead", Americans lie supinely on their backs obeying the dictates of these officials whenever they break the statutes of the Constitution, then by their own affirmation they are admitting that those who succeed in seizing control of the reigns of government can do whatever pleases them, whenever it pleases them. These officials are thus accountable only to their own designs of government as they wish it to be.
When this finally, and fully becomes the accepted norm, the age of the coming dictatorship in America will have arrived.
In short, if "we the people" concede the fight to come, and make no mistake about it, we are in a fight to the finish,that the Constitution is "dead", then we will have given away the high ground, and put ourselves at our enemies mercy.
The so-called "American Revolution",was not really a revolution in the best sense of that word, but rather a war of independence from England, and not from the basic precepts of English law, but rather from the rule of a system that was so easily corrupted by usurpations, and tyranny.
This, of course, was the result of a traditional political precedent that was the norm, which is not at all the case today where the establishment's usurpations are exercises of powers that were never delegated to them by 'we the people" and which no public official "sworn to the oath" may thus lay claim to.
This being true,then we find ourselves in the unenviable position of being our own worst enemies having elected the worst possible miscreants to the highest public offices.Thusly, voters ignorant of "the supreme law of the land", have simply provided further evidence for History's teaching that unrestrained democracy leads straight to tyranny, and when has it not?
The task ahead, for those that would "keep" the republic, is not as daunting as the founding brothers, for they had to create something new from scratch, without a map to follow in unknown territory. Whereas, "we the people" merely have to stand our ground and keep what is rightfully ours already.
This,then, raises the even more profound question of whether if it may be conceded that the Constitution is indeed "dead" in such a way as to be beyond revival, or preservation, that it also must be conceded that the concept of constitutionalism is "dead" as well. Is government in the only worthwhile understanding of the term, that is, "organized political power controlled by the laws of nature, and God" impossible and therefore "dead" also?
Any patriot must reject this conclusion outright without further consideration along with the premise on which it rests.What is in fact "dead" is not the Constitution, or constitutionalism, as these are the embodiment of the ideals of every man in every place and time, but rather the defenders of the faith in the eternal truths that they convey. And not because they even believe them to be wrong, or inapplicable to the times, but simply because they lack the courage to stand up for the way of life that the founders of this country left for them.
This, however, does not have to be a fatal condition. Regular Americans once had courage, and believed in the greatness of the founders vision, and they can again. It requires only enough energy and determination to overcome the political laziness that gives up because that is the easiest thing to do. If Americans cannot muster up enough gumption to overcome that sloth then the Constitution is "dead", and so is America-Long live the Constitution!
The Revolution will not be televised.

The United States of the Americas

2006-04-28T09:56:00.000-07:00

Well, it would appear that the Bush plan to merge the US, Canada, and Mexico into one regional government are just about complete. This happening is not the result of some mal-contrived misstep, or some grave oversight on the part of the president, as some conservatives would like to believe, but rather the deliberate, purposeful drive for a regional hegemony of these formerly sovereign nations.
If you are still one of those in doubt of the president's real agenda here, one need only be reminded of Bush's outcries in regards to the Border Project(Minuteman), Alberto Gonzalez and "La Raza", and the unabated stream of millions of illegal aliens that are still pouring into the US in spite of the maelstrom of opposition from a democratic majority of truly "American" citizens.
Let's face it,we have to admit it out loud,each of us, not only to ourselves but to each other. Bush is a left moving liberal,a global communist, an unofficial member of the Tri-lateralist Commission(like father, like son), always has been, always will be. He is a bona fide traitor as has been shown time and time again throughout his administration.Can anyone trust this traitor about anything that he says, or does? Education? Health Care? War on Drugs? 9/11? Homeland Security? National ID cards(Driver's license)? Methinks not.
The Iraq and soon to be the Iran wars. It is absolutely ludicrous to think that we can spread democracy anywhere in the Middle East when we are on the throes of losing our own republic right here at home.Are we to send our children to "die for democracy" in Iraq so that they can come home to communism in America? It is farcical thinking to believe that the man who is responsible for the greatest loss of freedom in the freest nation ever created in human history can accomplish anything of the former anywhere else in the world.
The war on terror. Yet another farce. Both big business, and big government are guilty of being in collusion with the enemy as they intentionally insist on holding our borders wide open to mass migration while "we the sheeple" are subject to increasingly intrusive searches and seizures of our possessions and freedoms in the name of the so-called "patriot acts". Bush constantly praises mainstream Islam as a "religion of peace" while he gives away control of our ports to known terrorist groups.The federal government has dismantled immigration control laws which, if they had been followed, were working quite well. This, of course, has led to the present need to create new laws to address the "crisis" at hand. However, new laws here are unnecessary, and will only serve to increase the ongoing transfer of power from the people to the government.
And just what kind of country are we building anyway? Congress is spending money almost faster than it can be printed. Our kids are going to inherit a debt load that will guarantee them a lower standard of living for at least the next century, and maybe even longer than that. America hating free-loaders are pouring into our country by the millions and placing a tremendous burden on an already over-taxed middle class, which is in danger of extinction even as we speak. This was the very act, by the way,that ultimately brought the Roman Empire to where the barbarians overran the borders and were able to sack Rome in 776 AD.
Do you think that your "conservative" talk show hosts are going to alert you to the truth? When did Bill Bennett inform you that Bush's NCLB is the same United Nations program as it was under the name of "Goals 2000"? When did Michael Savage point out that the architects of the war in Iraq, Bush's closest advisors, belong to the Likud Party?, and as such, has a vested(religious) interest in the destruction of their "natural"(religious) enemy Iraq? And that Bush himself, is descended from a line of Jews going back to the 19th century? I don't listen to Rush myself, too much pomp and posturing for me, but I seriously doubt that he had much to say about "La Raza"(the race) affiliation of Bush's attorney general. Did you ever hear Sean Hannity say anything about Bush's intentions to complete the merger of the Americas into one EU-style regional government? Or Bill O'Reilly tell you that the national ID card was designed by an ex-KGB officer years before 9/11 ever took place? And when did you hear Ann Coulter alert listeners that the US government has already began to build concentration camps across the country for future "dissidents" to the new world order of which Bush is in the forefront in the name of a newly reformed FEMA?
You didn't hear this, and you won't because the mainstream Republican spin machine is too busy berating the "liberals" and celebrating the self destruction of the Democratic party, which is exactly what the administration wants them to do.
They are doing a wonderful job of being the "useful idiots" that are necessary to keep the party faithful right where they need them.
"We the people" are on our own. We must face this hour of crisis with courage.
Consider what will happen when the tens of millions of Mexican nationals and other illegals are given de facto American citizenship through the "guest worker" program that the president is proposing? They will bring their families. They will be in a position to influence politicians to access the rights and privileges that formerly were reserved for those who paid the price of genuine American citizenship. In time they will no longer be willing to work for "guest worker" wages. They will want more, and who will pay the bill? Waving the Mexican flag, re-writing The Pledge of Allegiance, and The Star-spangled Banner, they will work to remake the US in their own image. We are already at a disadvantage as hate crime laws are stacked against Americans. The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and all of the traditional rights represented by English Common Law are under attack by a so-called "conservative" government and administration. Hard won limits against government abuse such as Habeas Corpus, and Mens Rea are disappearing. Our government now openly spies on its own citizens with impunity. Richard Nixon was impeached for a lesser crime in 1974 than what George Bush considers to be within the context of the parameters of his job in 2006. We used to consider such activity as something only communist governments would do. Do you remember what "conservatism" meant in the 60's when Barry Goldwater ran for president? What is there left of that to conserve now?
And then the so-called "Patriot Act". Could there ever be a name more wrongly, and insultingly applied to such a thing? Jefferson and Adams are crying out from their graves. Rushed into law before most members of Congress could even read it, it has become the final death knell to what remains of the Constitution. And as bad as it already is,this act was just the previews of things to come as we enter the era of the first American dictator.If you have never read George Orwell's "1984" now would be a good time if you want to get a picture of just where all of this is headed.
What can real "patriots" do? Well, you could help to convince your congressmen to begin impeachment preceedings against the president. You could join the Minutemen Project, the Free State Project, and/or the Christian Exodus if you are so inclined. You should be homeschooling your children, and that is whether you decide to send them to public school or not. There is too much lacking these days from even a good public program to neglect the importance of this fact. I teach, I know. You need to start voting for people instead of parties. Forget about the impossibilities of them being elected or not. Of course, this will require more familiarity with the core issues, and with "reality" itself than the mainstream media wants you to have. When you start to pay homage to truth rather than their lies, they will have no choice but to follow. To pay homage to truth is hard work, make no mistake about it. It has, and ever will be, "on the scaffold".
But in the end, there is no substitution for it. In short, you need to define what the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence mean to you so that you know where your own heart lies. Then you must be prepared to take action. "On April the 18th of "75" hardly there is a man alive that remembers that fateful day..." so goes the words of that famous poem that immortalized the midnight ride of the "real" American patriot Paul Revere.
He rode, as I do now, to warn the "real" patriots of the imminent threats that were looming against the liberties of men. I can see the clouded breath of the valiant steed, and hear his hoofbeats in the midnight air. I can feel the tightness in his chest as the rider encounters the British patrols sent to stop him from delivering his fateful warning. I can hear the urgency in his voice as he approaches each village and town that they might prepare for the break of the dawn that was to come. A day that "the shot heard 'round the world" was fired. And though we be few, like the patriots of those times perched behind stone walls firing through the sparse greenery of a New England spring, we can make each shot count, and be reminded of the cost of freedom.
But before you do any of these things, and I cannot emphasize this point strongly enough, you must make a personal confession. You must say:"I denounce this present situation as unconscionable, and unworkable." That doesn't sound too hard to do, does it? But can you really do it? Can you criticize Bush as easily, and as strongly as you do the Clintons and "Weird' Howard? If you can, the need has never been greater. Then can you stand up to the lackeys and liars of the Republican party who trumpet the virtues of conservatism, but lack the courage to stand and deliver? Will you risk alienation, your reputation, stands against the "taxation without representation" provided by the IRS, and "put on the whole helmet of freedom" by arming yourself with the truth, and not just the superficiality and froth that the mainstream media dishes out for public consumption? Will you take a stand behind the wall with the few "real" patriotic leaders that remain in Washington, men like Ron Paul(R-Texas) by taking the time and effort it takes to rightly identify them as true champions of liberty regardless of their party affiliation?
If conservatives cannot admit out loud, right now to everyone in the world, that most of our government, including the president are in fact traitors to America, then we don't stand a chance of "keeping the republic", and we don't deserve to.
Are you brave enough to admit what you already know by seeing what is painfully obvious right in front of you right here, right now?
That the emperor has no clothes.
Power to the People. The Revolution will not be televised.

Retro-post - Happy Blogoversary, Sage!

2006-04-19T14:11:00.000-07:00

I'm pre-dating this post in honor of my blogson (who's about ten years my senior) The Old Sage for the one-year anniversary of his joining the blogosphere.

The actual date of this post is April 27. I was late for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was a long tour in Atlantic City that ate up a lot of my blogging time ... and my thoughts ... and my family time. Even my blog saw a big drop in readership during this time, just because I wasn't around much to maintain it. Living out of a suitcase takes its toll.

Anyway, Sage, I hope you will accept this belated blogoversary wish, and may I also wish you many more. Keep those opinions flowing. Maybe the Libertarians will start to pay you for them - HAHAHAHHAHAHA.

RWR

National Insecurity

2006-03-09T11:15:00.000-08:00

Much has been made recently of giving a United Arab Emirate company control of at least twenty-one major US ports.It doesn't take a lot of brains for anyone to see the enormous potential for the Islamic leaders of the UAE to use their control of US ports to aid in the destruction of the US economy and infrastructure of American society by the shipping of containers to US ports holding supplies, and terror agents loyal to AlQaeda,Hamas,Hezbollah,Islamic jihad and others of their ilk. The reason for this well founded concern are based on the close ties and loyalties of UAE's leadership to Islamic terrorism and extremist groups.UAE's leaders are also close to Osama Bin Laden,fully recognize the Taliban, and fund the terror group Hamas.The UAE's president and his father have been at the forefront of their own declared "economic jihad" waged against the economies of the West including the US. Their financial center was used for the financing of the 9/11 hijackers. The question that must immediately come to be asked here is, how could this information have escaped the scrutiny of the National Security Administration and, ultimately the president? He can only be seen in this instant as really naive, or part of an incredible conspiracy to bring down his own country.The former is unacceptable, the latter is treasonous, the implications are startling. Lets have a look. It seems the UAE center in question was also connected to the same drug, arms, and money laundering schemes of the American-Turkish Council by FBI translator Sibel Edmonds. President Bush protected, and covered up his own involvement with UAE leaders and the American Turkish Council to help carry out 9/11.Bush deftly blocked testimony and information about the UAE and American-Turkish Council from getting into Congressional and Commission reports on 9/11 by having Edmonds gagged on the pretense of "revealing US states secrets".You may remember the missing twenty-eight pages Mr.Bush had removed? The plot thickens.
The foremost ally of UAE, Iran,and other Islamic terror states is Communist China who already has unprecedented access to US ports and shipping via the Chinese Ocean shipping Company(COSCO).COSCO controls the Panama Canal, trucks freight on US highways, and has access to the Long Beach shipyard and port.Inside the US, Chinese agents provide surveillance training, money,weapons, and safe haven to Bin Laden, and other members of various terrorist groups,which may explain why we have been unable to apprehend him as of this writing.COSCO already has the same ability as the UAE may yet get to bring supplies,weapons,and terrorist agents into the US via the ports, and their trucking fleets which explains why Bush was surprised at the uproar over the handing over of the eastern seaboard to the UAE. China hired a public relations and lobby firm (APCO) to ensure that COSCO continues to get favored treatment by Congress at the request of President Bush. This will allow COSCO continued unfettered access to US ports and shipping.What follows is a quote from APCO's own website concerning this effort. "COSCO faced a series of complex challenges harming its reputation and ability to compete in the US marketplace. In addition, the company suffered from unfounded(not true), and negative perceptions(true and warranted)(we're talking Red China here!) among US policymakers, and the media who viewed it as a state-owned company(it is) that violated market principles(which, of course all communists do) and acted on behalf of the Chinese government(which, if it is came from China would be obvious as there would be no other option in a totalitarian state).APCO engaged with key decision makers in the US Congress, and other federal agencies to build a support mechanism.APCO also created arguments to justify COSCO's request for an exemption from certain trade laws, and that would reposition the company in the eyes of policymakers, and the media.Apparently the bullshit tactics worked. The US government, at the request of the president, agreed to exempt COSCO from existing laws discriminating against state-owned(Chinese) shipping companies.As a result of the Republican spin machine, and other useful fools, media coverage of the company continues to be positive, and focused only on its business, trade, and other economic successes. The company continues to be well-regarded by the US Congress, federal transportation agencies,the maritime community, and the trade media. Were it not for the president's unbelievably poor choice of the UAE to continue the transfer of power, and the public outcry that has followed as a result,little if any further light would have come to this atrocity.
The Bush, and Rice so-called "war on terror' is a failure because it was designed to be a failure. The proof of this has been made painfully obvious in the president's insistence even to the point of veto of any opposition to the virtual handing over of the eastern seaboard to a known terrorist affiliated entity.They have refused every plea, and have ignored every opportunity to secure the borders of this country.One can only be left with the conclusion that they are either very naive, or in collusion with the enemies of America.Bush and Rice have not only refused to block China's and the UAE's support of terrorists around the world, they have also protected, and facilitated China's and the UAE's support of these terrorists by arrogantly shoving the COSCO, and UAE port and shipping deals down the throats of Congress and the American people. And as has been consistent with the Bush family, brother Prescott(HW Bush) as Chairman of the US-Chinese Chamber of Commerce(how convenient) has been very active in helping APCO promote COSCO and Chinese illegal espionage in the US. As a result, China has been using their agents to operate more than three thousand espionage "front" companies in the US to obtain US military and industrial secrets at national laboratories around the country. The FBI has publicly reported this fact repeatedly as far back as the first term of the Bush Administration, but the wily fox has used Robert Mueller,and Alberto Gonzales intentionally, and illegally to block the FBI,and the DOJ from pressing cases and taking known agents of Hezbollah, Alqaeda, and Hamas off of US streets.Bush and Rice have consistently refused to carry out the recommendations of their own party to stop Chinese agents of espionage from carrying out their agendas in the US. The Cox Report, which was issued in the aftermath of the 1998 "Chinagate" is filled with revelations of Chinese access to and theft of US nuclear missile secrets. Even though those revelations came out during the Clinton years, the policies to transfer the tech secrets were put into place by none other than President HW Bush. Maybe that is the real reason why they have been such good asshole buddies lately! Rice became a co-conspirator when she worked closely with Chinese army and intelligence at Stanford.
The fact is both Bush and Rice make the same dishonest, knowingly false lies to defend their hands-off policy for the promotion of COSCO as they make to defend their promotion of the UAE port deal: "China and the UAE are both allies of the US in the war on terror and in nuclear negotiations with terror states like North Korea and Iran." These statements could not be farther from the truth because China, like the UAE, is involved in the ongoing development of both Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs, and are assisting Hezbollah, Alqaeda, and, yes, even Osama Bin Laden.This also explains why we haven't got him and never will until it becomes "politically expedient". North Korea, acting on behalf of China, is currently providing the plutonium for Iran's nuclear aspirations, which will soon become the next part of "the long war" as it has been called by Bush. To add insult to injury, China is also presently collaborating with North Korean agents in the US toward this end.By the way, they got into this country via COSCO thanks to the influence of the hands-off policies of our want-to-be tyrant George W. Bush.
Only the "mingling of the blood of tyrants and patriots" can save us from what is to come,"the chains of slavery have been wrought, I can hear them clanging on the streets of Boston..." The Revolution will not be televised

The Coming American Dictatorship

2006-03-02T08:17:00.000-08:00

President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law,suspend habeas corpus(he already has) and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. The full implementation of this would give him absolute dictatoial power over the government with no checks and balances.
Bush discussed imposing martial law on American streets in the aftermath of of 9/11 by activating"national security" iniatives put in place by Ronald Reagan during the 1980's.
These "national security iniatives" came by way of controversial Marine Colonel Oliver North, one of the key players in the Iran-Contra Scandal.
The initiatives charged the Federal Emergency Management Agency with administering executive orders that provide for the suspension of the Constitution, implementation of martial law, establishment of national internment camps, and the turning over of all functions of government to the President.
John Brinkerhoff, deputy director of FEMA, developed the implementation of the martial law plan to battle a potential national uprising of black militants. The plan called for the jailing of at least two million African Americans. Brinkerhoff later admitted in an interview with the Miami Herald that President Reagan signed off on the initiatives and they remained in place dormant until George W.Bush took office.
Brinkerhoff has provided the Bush Administration and the Pentagon with talking points supporting "revised national security initiatives" that would allow the imposition of martial law, and the suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act implicitly forbids the use of troops for domestic law enforcement.
Brinkerhoff wrote that the purpose and intention of Posse Comitatus have been "misapplied and misunderstood", and that the government has in times of national emergency the "full and absolute authority" to send troops into American streets to "enforce order and maintain the peace".
The issue here,the way I see it is that this president has made several public statements about "wishing this was a dictatorship because it would be easier to rule". The people of the United States under the guise of 'homeland security" have lost more freedom under his "rule" than at any other time in American history.The opportunity has never been better for getting rid of "that goddamn piece of paper". The transfer of power would be complete, the cycle would be finished, and his name would be quite appropriately, King George III. I think its time to sound the alarm!
The Revolution will not be televised.

Government Enforced Protection

2006-02-15T08:30:00.000-08:00

Ever since the days of the "New Deal"(bad deal) the federal government, and the presidents have, without exception, been in the business of transferring power from us(the people) to them. More often than not, the power grab has gone hand-in-hand with a "deal" that the government has made with big business. Of course, they always claim that they are only protecting us from something awful that will happen to us otherwise.

The latest power grab in the name of "protection" is called the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). It is a system proposed by agribusiness and embraced by the United States Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) to track livestock in this country. Its supposed function is to keep terrorists from intentionally infecting our food supply, and also to protect us from things like avian flu, mad cow disease,and whatever else they can come up with to implement it by the target date of January 2009-or earlier if they can fast track it as they are currently attempting to do.

Here's how NAIS will work. On the individual level, your home (including name, address, telephone number, and Global Positioning Satellite coordinates) will have to be registered with the government. Your livestock-every fish, fowl,cow,hog,sheep,chicken, etc.- will have to be registered. Your animals will have to be electronically tagged so they can be tracked by satellite. They will also have to have blood drawn so they can be identified by their DNA. Of course agribusiness, the promoters of the system,will have it easier than the individual; they'll be able to register their stock in lots with one entry covering a herd(how convenient)
Who pays for all of this? The family raising a pig, cow, or a flock of laying hens for their own consumption will absorb the cost of compliance themselves. Agribusiness gets to pass on their costs to the consumer.

Government bureaucrats like to portray themselves as capable agencies that ride Quiotic-like to the rescue of the ordinary folks like you and me in times of crisis. The "national herd" concept the government now projects does not bode well for those of us who love freedom. And don't be fooled into thinking that this directive will be easily avoided, or ignored. The NAIS will turn your veterinarian into a spy. He will be required to see your documentation for registration before treating your animals, and must report you if you are not in compliance.The exact degree of compliance enforcement is one of the details not fully spelled out yet. As if its not a bitter enough pill-the uneccessary intrusion, the cost, the corporate welfare-without the added discussion of penalties, but I would expect enforcement to be the way bureaucrats always enforce so-called laws, that being with fines, imprisonment, and seizure of your property.

So, who actually stands to benefit from this do-gooder program? It will be agribusiness, and the high tech companies that provide the tracking and identification systems that will be mandated,not the public.

I am not anti-business, but I am anti-business-in-bed-with-government.

Businesses should prosper or die on the basis of their ability to provide a product that the public needs and wants, not because they've received government hand-outs, and favors. NAIS is out and out welfare of the worst kind,that being corporate welfare. It is a program to benefit large corporations, and expand big government.

Who loses with NAIS? The consumer, the small farmer, the family that wants to take the initiative to take control of their food supply by raising a few organic chickens for eggs and meat,the 4-H kids-yeah, even the 4-H'ers will have to comply, and by increasing the burden on the small producer, the NAIS will help destroy the small producer's market to the advantage of the agribusinesses.

This is not a program that was proposed by consumer groups, or voters, and it hasn't even been run through Congress. It is, pure and simple, a naked attempt to increase power, and profit on the part of both government, and corporations at the expense of small farmers, and the public.
The businesses involved are moving fast on this one. For them, the windfall profits will be enormous,so they have much to gain for a long time to come by forcing it through.The small farmer, the rural family, the consumer,the advocates of personal freedom of choice in America all have much to lose.

The good news is that there is still time to stop this usurpation of the people's rights by big government under the guise of "protectionism". Now is the time to enact the real "Patriot Act" by E-mailing,calling, or writing your congressman,and governor to protest."Will we lie supinely on our backs until we are bound hand and foot?;forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me give me liberty, or give me death."

The revolution will not be televised.

Conservative?

2006-02-10T08:56:00.000-08:00

I'm concerned about a subtitle I recently read under a Libertarian heading entitled, "True Conservatives turn to the Libertarian Party" since I've never seen a comparable article that says, "True Liberals turn to the Libertarian Party".
There seems to be a disturbing trend in the Libertarian Party to equate only conservatism with libertarianism, and this trend is showing up in the party leadership.This bias ignores the historical, and classical connection of liberalism to libertarianism. As a result, it implies that only conservatives would be interested in the movement despite the fact that there is only one short period in American history (during the 1930's) when conservatism (then known as "isolationism") was consistently, and truly equated with free market principles, and individual rights.Even the Reagan era gave only lip service to libertarian values with little real support in terms of the issues of that time.True Libertarianism, by definition, shows very clearly that libertarians are in a separate category from both conservatives and liberals. They are philosophically no closer to one than the other. Why then, is the Libertarian Party acting as if all conservatives are potential good guys ie."recruits", while liberals are always the bad guys to be "reviled" and ignored as potential recruits?
This, to me, is a very disturbing bias, and if it continues unabated, may very well result in the Libertarian Party turning into the "new" Conservative Party and away from its real purpose, that which is truly "liberal", and is the distinguishing point between it and the rest of them, which is "legalizing freedom".
If it succeeds at this it will lose its reason for being, and even more importantly-it will lose me.
The Revolution will not be televised.

Gun Control Rant

2006-02-01T12:18:00.000-08:00

Normally, I don't rant. I leave that particular genre to my partner RWR who rants enough for both of us over at his blog.

But this one is so incredulous that it even got my low key dander up!

The people of San Francisco have proven that once again they are the biggest morons on the face of the earth. By a vote of 58% to 42% they enacted a total firearms prohibition and confiscation. All firearms and ammunition must be surrendered by April1,2006. Sadly, that is no April Fool's joke.

In my humble opinion, all of these stupid sons of bitches that voted for this travesty should, for their open contempt of the Constitution, be permanently stripped of their citizenship and forever barred from holding office ad infinitum.

If I were part of the 42%, I would join the Free State Project and move to New Hampshire ASAP and leave those sorry s.o.b's in my distant past!

The Revolution will not be televised!!!!!!!!!!!

The Mythology of Power

2006-01-26T08:41:00.000-08:00

With few exceptions,historians have taken a positive view of the New Deal, which was of course formed in the depths of the Great Depression by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Most of them have proclaimed him to be a great "savior of America" as a result. However, a little closer look from another perspective will reveal a different more sinister reality.

Roosevelt was a "born politician",which is to say he was devious, manipulative, and was not beyond stretching the truth when he felt it was necessary.His campaign promises-"to cut federal spending, balance the budget, maintain a sound currency, and rein in the overreaching power of the federal government sound very familiar, which they are, or have been for just about every other president in U.S. history, including the man current. Unfortunately, most Americans have come to believe that the legacy of a great president can be formed only under duress, as a diamond is formed from coal under pressure. In fact I believe that greatness means,in this case, almost exactly the opposite. As a result, we have found ourselves more often than not, having presidents who have felt the need to sensationalize their deeds to the point of exaggeration in respect to their acts, and in so doing, place the nation in unneccessary danger. In many instances these acts have been in violation of the Constitution, the very document that they have sworn to uphold.

F.D.R and the New Deal is a case in point, as is L.B.J's Great Society, as was the war in Vietnam, and presently the war in Iraq. All of these programs have lifted the ego-driven needs of their founders above the needs of the office that they were supposed to be serving to the point of doing damage rather than good to the cause that each swore to serve when elected.

A notable exception would be Grover Cleveland who, when viewed in the proper fashion, may have been one of the best of them all. How's that? What exactly was Cleveland's presidency noted for? There were no wars, no Great Depression, no lengthy periods of domestic, or foreign unrest to be calmed by presidential intervention Quite simply, Cleveland's greatness was found in doing what a president is supposed to do-keep out of the way and leave the business of running the country to the people! That is precisely what made him a great president. He kept the country at peace, respected the Constitution, fought to lower tariffs, and preserved the gold standard. Greatness such as this is rarely seen in a president, and badly needed in a time of super inflated egotism and media coverage to match. Greatness in an American president appears only in those who lead by keeping out of the way, by preserving the peace, by following the Constitution, and by striving to keep government out of the lives of the people as much as possible. In short, a great president is one who leads by following the lead of his people and who supports THEIR endeavors rather than his own!

As an oft used recourse to check the monster egos of these mean spirited little men, citizens can, and often do throw the bastards out at the next election. But getting rid of one set of these bastards isn't enough. We have been flinging them hither and yon for more than two centuries, and what do we have to show for it? What we have to show for it is two revolving factions of a one party dictatorship who masquerade as authentic alternatives to each other, the one specializing in crushing economic freedom, the other concentrating on crushing every other form of freedom. The result is a government for all of its references to freedom, justice, and equality that could be stacked up in fair comparison to any 21st century totalitarian state.

The really scary aspect of this reality is that few people in the United States today have either the vision, or the courage to live as free men and women, and are thus part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

The Revolution will not be televised.

Confirm Alito

2006-01-09T07:44:00.000-08:00

A Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, once said. "In fact, if you look at some of the quotes of his former law clerks, they don't believe that he'll overturn Roe v. Wade."

I hope he will. Sage hopes he won't. In either case, it's not really fair to place him in a position to issue a ruling in advance of a case being placed before him, as many Senate Democrats want to do. Ginsberg didn't have to; neither should Alito, and if Teddy Kennedy doesn't like it, he knows what he can do. I won't say it out loud here, 'cause this is also Sage's place and he would likely prefer I keep that level of passion over at my own blog.

The most important thing about Alito is his record as a judge. Most sources, even those coming from the Left, seem to point to him being an originalist, which is the POV both Sage and I come from.

This was arguably the most important promise made by President Bush, and although he has done some REALLY stupid things (expanding the welfare state and failing to properly secure our borders, just to name a couple), his ultimately having kept this promise will be the most positive part of his legacy. Congrats to conservatives for forcing him to keep it. It's for his own good, and, more importantly, for the good of our Constitution and our Nation.

RWR

Stand your ground

2005-11-17T11:03:00.000-08:00

Florida has a new law that gives legal protection to someone who shoots another person as long as the shooter feels threatened or is attacked. This is very good news for all of those who support the second amendment. Florida's "stand your ground "law, which went into affect last month says that citizens are no longer obligated to retreat from an attack if they are somewhere they have a legal right to be such as their home, or a public street.A shooter will also receive immunity from prosecution so long as the person shot is not a police officer, which, I believe is an unfortunate glitch in what otherwise appears to be a people-empowering legal victory.The Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence has responded by warning visitors to "not argue unecessarily with local people or make threatening gestures". Brady spokesman Peter Hamm says that this law "could cause the most aggressive people in society to overreact". It would seem to me that these folks have totally missed the point here and I'm not talking about the gun point either! They have missed the fact that most violent crimes are committed by "aggressive"people and they are usually the ones with the guns! They will now need to think twice before they stick a gun in someone's face because that someone might send them to meet their maker! Now, if the state of Florida can just pass a law requiring every able-bodied,and minded person to carry a gun and use it when needed they just might "take a bite outta crime" in the Sunshine State!
The revolution will not be televised.

Growing the garden of government

2005-11-14T11:15:00.000-08:00

It has been twenty-five or so years ago since I first heard the American political system described as a "welfare state". I was stunned by the realization that this might be in fact the sad truth about the state of affairs in this country. But now it is obvious that my worst fears had already been realized even then at the dawning of the Reagan years.

Our political system consists of an "axis of evil" in the persons of two cooperating gangs masquerading as political parties creating theater for the media,while they go about their real business of stealing working Americans blind. For our purposes, we shall call these gangs "the war party",and the "welfare party".

The war party recently started two wars, and is threatening to start more. The welfare party supports these wars because their polling indicates that opposing them might adversely affect their chances of getting what they really want; control of the 2.5 trill per year federal money spigot.

Despite what either of them say,they both use welfare,and warfare for fertilizer to grow the garden of government. The cancerous non-stop growth of government over the last sixty years documents clearly how successful these gangs have been.

The revolution will not be televised.

Legalizing Freedom

2005-10-25T11:46:00.000-07:00

Anyone who knows me knows knows that I don't think that drugs should be illegal.I'm also not saying that I want to take them,because I don't. My premise is that what you do with your body is your own business,and not the state's or your neighbor's.That being said let us proceed. The primary reason for imprisonment in the United States is for the violation of drug laws.Therefore, the easiest, and quickest way to empty out the prisons of America,and elimininate the burden that we all have to pay to maintain them is to make all drugs legal.If this were to be done the price of drugs would plunge so far that you would'nt have to steal to buy a "dime" of weed any more than you have to rob to buy a six pack of beer.
Speaking of prisons, I have some close friends that work in some of the prisons in the state of NJ, which is where I live. They have shared some of their "war stories" with me. It seems that prisons are very violent places.
I would not want to be in one either as a guard,or an inmate. When I did a little research I quickly discovered that this is a national problem. As I pondered the situation,it suddenly dawned on me what should be done about it.Legalize all drugs,let all of those who are in prison smoke as much pot as they want,in fact,encourage them by providing the stuff for them! All day, hell, twenty years, but do the time calmly. What do we care? Let them grow it in their cells. They might even get a degree in horticulture!
What would a prison full of potheads be like? As many studies have shown,
when a guy is about to rob a bank, shoot somebody, or steal a car the drug of choice is always alcohol(a "legal" drug)not marijuana. One puff of weed and all of the plans literally go up in smoke! In another life, I used to play music for a living. Many of my associates were stoners. It came with the territory. Unfortunately, I must report that most of them were the better for it.The biggest problem was to get them back inside after our breaks to play the next set. All they wanted to do was socialize! Inmates will be sitting around gabbing,and zoning-moving slowly,and talking slowly. Many will want to just sleep. The downside? The only thing that I can think of is that prisoners would eat more and gain weight.So what! The food bill would be going up on far fewer inmates. As far as the problems with violence are concerned,people that smoke pot are not violent. My friends would be very happy to come to work every day to be with nice,slow inmates afflicted with logorrhea. Now I know that some of you are thinking that people will be committing crimes just to go to jail for free weed. I doubt it seriously, except in the case of some hard core prisoners who have already been in so long that they are capable of nothing other than institutionalized living. In this case,the libertarian way of thinking is not only the most morally responsible, it is also the most economically, and socially sound approach to solving this most vexing problem. So, the answer is to decriminalize drugs to make plenty of room for the few who think that a nice way to spend what remains of their three score and ten is found in a six by eight concrete condo.You think I'm joking? irresponsible? insane? I don't think so! Legalize ALL drugs,not just some of them, and we will quickly empty our overcrowded,and violent prisons making them safer,and saner for both inmates and guards. The revolution will not be televised.

Democrats, the Founders, Hurricanes, and the Constitution

2005-09-21T22:55:00.000-07:00

I've been laying off the Katrina posts for personal reasons, but Walter Williams has put into words what has been my contention from the beginning.

What's interesting is that a good number of the quotes he uses to support his (and my) position come from Democrats:

In February 1887, President Grover Cleveland, upon vetoing a bill appropriating money to aid drought-stricken farmers in Texas, said, "I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."

President Cleveland added, "The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

This is what the Democratic party USED to belive. Here's more:

In 1854, after vetoing a popular appropriation to assist the mentally ill, President Franklin Pierce said, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." To approve such spending, argued Pierce, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

Franklin Pierce was also a Democrat.

It is important that we recognize that the Constitution was written as a statement of the Founders' vision so that it could be implemented according to their wishes.

James Madison, the father of our constitution, irate over a $15,000 congressional appropriation to assist some French refugees, said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Modern Democrats and the rest of the socialist movement in America try to use the General Welfare Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment to justify expenditures like that inappropriately outlined by President Bush on the object of benevolence we know as New Orleans.

Williams appropriately addresses the issue of the General Welfare Clause by bringing the words of the Founders to light:

Here's what James Madison said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Thomas Jefferson explained, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

In other words, there is no justification for such expenditures under the General Welfare Clause.

As to the Fourteenth Amendment, here is its text in full:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

You will be looking for a long time for the words that justify this because they are not there. The federal government is not authorized to spend taxpayer dollars in this fashion.

Other quotes on the matter, which shed a lot of light on this (quoted from Williams' piece):

In 1796, Rep. William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying that Congress didn't have a right to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require."

In 1828, South Carolina Sen. William Drayton said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?"

The American people are themselves responsible for the recovery efforts in New Orleans, not the American government. If state constitutions allow agencies like FEMA within their governments, then so be it. Every penny the federal government spends outside its constitutional authority is an infringement on the very rights the Constitution was written to protect.

It is high time Democrats and Republicans alike took the time to study the foundations of our great nation, and put their quests for power aside in the interests of a strong populace and a government that serves only to defend and secure the rights of the people. American government is not a means of providing for people. In America, we provide for ourselves.

There is a move on within the Republican Party that seeks to bring the federal government within its constitutional restraints. The New Federalist platform outlines what needs to be done to achieve this goal. If neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party will choose to serve the Constitution, then the New Federalists have a responsibility to take their place as defenders of the Constitution and the philosophy of the Founding Fathers.

I only hope that the Democrats' demise into oblivion is complete before it happens. Socialism must be defeated before any of this can happen.

RWR

The Separation of Rocker and Sage

2005-09-21T22:37:00.001-07:00

Sage and I have been separated. I have been re-assigned to another school building, and Sage and I have not yet worked out the details of how we will communicate. This is quite unfortunate, since I have found very few people I can disagree with so strongly on specific items, while agreeing so strongly in general. He's also a wonderful person to share thoughts and ideas with, and he's probably the only person I know who is farther to the right than I am. Disagreements between Rocker and Sage NEVER result in any detrimental effect on our friendship.

Moving has been a pain in the a$$, I must say, and while I do like my new principal in general, I do believe he has a copy of that book that all school administrators seem to refer to, How to Piss Off the Music Teacher. He's already hit a few of the more dissonant chords found in that popular treatise. The new school is nice. I have an office that is separate from my instructional area, but still no phone there. Internet service - check. Phone - still waiting. I would think the priorities on that would be the other way around, but ya know, this is the American education system ...

Anyway, the last contact I had with the Sage was an interesting one. Of course, every interaction I have with him is interesting. He said he had some ideas for a post, but hadn't completed the thought to the point where he could post it.

In the meantime, my next post is actually a paste-over from my own blog, RightWingRocker, showing the constitutional implications of President Bush's proposals for dealing with the carnage in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (ya know ... Katrina is such a pretty name ... ). Hopefully, all will take the time to read, think, and comment.

RWR

Sage on Vacation

2005-07-28T08:21:00.000-07:00

Well, folks, it looks like Sage has taken the summer off ... or maybe not.

If he returns, I will post it on RightWingRocker so that you won't have to surf by here just to find nothing's happened.

I'm definitely interested in knowing how he feels about the nomination of Judge Roberts, but am reluctant to ring his phone due to summer vacation.

RWR

Update 8-12: Sage is back from touring all over the USA. Not sure when he'll be blogging again. He's the kind of guy that takes the term "get away" literally. He gets away from everything, including friends, relatives, and probably the news of the day, as well. I'm sure he's going to need time to catch up. - RWR

Some Great Articles on the Constitution

2005-07-21T09:06:00.000-07:00

I've been reading up for an upcoming post over at RightWingRocker, and I have found the following to be invaluable in my research.

http://www.constitutionalfreedomfoundation.org/Articles/Articles.htm

Enjoy!

RWR

Trials at Gitmo

2005-06-24T10:07:00.000-07:00

Michelle Malkin reported this week that all detainees at Guantanamo Bay have received a tribunal, and further detainees should receive the same.

The process (Adobe Reader Required) seems to be dated Jan. 31 of this year, but that may only be the date of publication, as the Administrative Review Procedures Notification, which is used to notify detainees of the trial verdict, seems to be dated earler.

The ARP Notification seems to clearly indicate further steps a detainee can take in order to, in effect, "appeal" the decision to continue his detention. It also clearly states that if an Administrative Review Board determines that the detainee no longer poses a threat, that he may be released from detention.

Perhaps we jumped the gun back in April when we called for trials for these guys. But why don't we get this information for at least five to six months after it is publicly documented that these trials have taken place?

Part of the blame has to lie with the Bush Administration. I fail to see the logic in keeping this information quiet. If the MSM has downplayed it, do as Reagan did and go directly to the American people. Would making this information public bring about some military disadvantage that I don't know about? That would be one explanation, and a very good one, too, but as a non-military individual, I have my doubts.

However, politicians like John NcCain and the Donks can't seem to shut up about it. The Left is falling all over themselves trying to make a point that these terrorists haven't had a fair trial.

They do not have the right to a traditional civilian-type trial - a military tribunal (which is what they have already received) is appropriate in this situation. Should the President allow his foes to continue to make political hay of this situation? Wouldn't it make sense to at least put enough information out there to defend himself? Again, I'm just not sure. The few liberals who acknowledge that these trials took place pass them off as "not good enough". Should we treat terrorists the same as we do American shoplifters (Malkin used this analogy)? I have no doubts whatsoever as to my answer to that: NO.

It does make me curious, though, as to why a pursuasive man like President Bush wouldn't at least try to pursuade as to why information like this is so limited and/or so underreported. If the media doesn't want to report it, why not go directly to the American people like Reagan would have? Why not at least explain to us why the information is so scant? I don't want to second-guess him on a war issue, but I am confused on this one. These trials were perfectly within the bounds of the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties. Why not have us know about it? Would that pose a danger? I'm just not sure.

RWR

Vermin

2005-06-22T06:54:00.000-07:00

The American colonists feared one group of people amongst them. This group originated in the Middle Ages,and had counted thousands of people as their victims for centuries with little punishment. This group of human parasites were hated throughout the colonies yet the magistrates would not punish them even though a majority of colonists wanted to.
Of all who sailed from England to Plymouth in 1620, not one of these two-legged "vermin" were aboard. "Vermin" is what the colonists called them parasites who fed on the unfortunate creating human misery wherever they went. Yet they were permitted coexistence within the colonies for a while anyway.There were laws,of course,prohibiting the practice of their infamous craft,but as they were masters of twisting,and manipulating the truth,ways were found around them.
In 1641, Massachusetts Bay Colony took a novel approach to the problem. The government attempted to starve out the "devils" through economic exclusion. They were denied wages,and it was thereby hoped they would perish. Four years later, Virginia followed their lead,and for while it seemed that the problem was solved. However, this is a particularly sticky group of parasites,and hard to be rid of.
In 1658 Virginia proposed what should have been the 'final solution': banishment and exile. The "treacherous ones' were cast out of the colony. At last, after enduring the psychological gloom of these hovering vultures,these birds of death, the sun came out,and all was well with the world. The elation rang from the hills for a generation!
History is not clear as to why they were ever allowed to return,but return they did like a festering pustule bringing their plague once again upon the land.In 1680, after twenty-two years of exile, the "vermin" were readmitted to the colony on the condition that they be subjected to the "strictest surveillance".
How soon they forgot! During the century that followed,the restrictions were slowly and quietly lifted and swept away,and those who were abhorred since their first appearance have wormed their way into every transaction that takes place in our society until nothing can be done without their foul odor polluting the air.
These perverters of the truth, these manipulators of the law, these usurpers of humanity, these"vermin" were lawyers!

The Revolution will not be televised.

Business as Usual?

2005-06-17T08:00:00.000-07:00

Is there no end to the"Leviathan's" appetite? Is there no filling the cavernous belly of this vile beast?

With the president's plan to address the coming collapse of the Social Security System has come the best opportunity in years to finally put the government on a crash diet. Having no more money available in the FICA fund to "misappropriate"for the purpose of funding their "pet" projects, they will either have to cut spending,or raise taxes. It would seem that they have already seen the handwriting on the wall, and have made their decision as to what they are planning to do; business as usual!

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said last week for the first time explicitly, that he expects tax increases to be part of any future agreement to reduce the federal budget deficit. Greenspan,appearing before the Senate Budget Committee, also acknowledged that his support for tax cuts in early 2001 unintentionally led to policies that helped swing the federal budget from a surplus to a deficit.

The deficit hit a record $412 billion last year,and is projected to expand dramatically as the huge baby boom generation starts retiring and collecting Social Security in the near future. "The federal budget deficit is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates, and ever growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years", Greenspan said in his prepared testimony last week.

It looks like the future is now for all of you tax-payers to say "hell no we won't go" to the government's plan to once again put their greedy little paws in your pockets to keep on with "business as usual". If we don't "head them off at the pass" this time,there will be the devil to pay for all posterity.

The Revolution will not be televised.

We are now Open For Comments!

2005-06-17T05:36:00.000-07:00

Just a quick note that "The Old Sage" has made the call to open our team blog, Rocker and Sage, for comments.

I basically try to stick to Constitutional issues here, but since it's Sage's only blogging experience, he gets to post about pretty much whatever.

Let's have some fun!

RWR

Second Amendment

2005-06-15T09:51:00.000-07:00

A month or so ago, an article was published that stated the position
taken by Condoleeza Rice on the issue of gun control,and the Second
Amendment. My journaling partner(Rocker)brought it to my attention.
I determined at that time to put up some thoughts that I had about it.

It seems that Dr. Rice was quite supportive of the amendment adding
that "we should not undermine the Constitution by picking,and choosing
our likes and dislikes of the words,and thoughts of the founding fathers",and of the amendment itself she said "the second amendment is as important as the first". If what she says is true,she need not leave
the national capital to find the enemy's flank.

Presently,the law concerning the possession of a functional firearm
in D.C. stipulates that no handguns can be registered. Even pistols
that were registered prior to the District's 1976 ban cannot be carried
from room to room in the home without a license which,of course,is never granted. Essentially,no one in the District can possess a firearm
And the law applies not just to unfit persons like felons,minors,or
the mentally incompetent,but across the board to ordinary, honest,
responsible citizens.

Under those circumstances,it would seem to me to be a good time for
Dr. Rice to use the power,and prominence of her position to ask the
D.C. Circuit,and perhaps the Supreme Court to tell us whether the
city's total ban on all functioning weapons can withstand scrutiny
under the microscope of the Second Amendment. No one should have to break the law in order to vindicate a Constitutional right.

The Revolution will not be televised.

War and Global Warming

2005-06-13T14:01:00.000-07:00

Politics and Politicians are about one thing; increasing the power and scope of government in order to manifest the transfer of wealth (power) from the people to the government. The most efficient vehicle used in the twentieth century for this purpose has been war.

It has been said that "War is just one more government program", which puts quite an interesting socialist spin on a subject to which it is seldom applied. James Madison,"the father of the Constitution" had much to say about this subject as well. At the end of one speech he said,"No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare". This is a point that has not gone unnoticed by the powers that be in their ongoing attempt to usurp the God given rights of the people. In this statement, Madison has hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head. War has been the most efficient vehicle for governments to do what they do best, and what politicians have intended that it should do, and that is to transfer wealth(power) from you to them.

And when they get tired of war, which they will in a few years, no matter the perceived level of fear projected onto whatever "bogeyman" is the latest in line, there will be a new program to effect the continuance of the ongoing transfer which will very nicely take the place of war. That program will be environmentalism.

I'm an unusual conservative in that when it comes to human interests vs. the environment, I will always lean toward the position that I believe will best support what I feel is right for nurturing, and maintaining the environment in as close to a natural state as possible. I think this is because I see humans as "one among the animals", instead of a separate species that is somehow superior to the rest. My point here, so as to not belabor my intentions, is to say that while I support environmentalism theoretically, I am opposed to any form of unilaterrally imposed government programs designed for the said purpose of maintaining it.

The beginning of the end of the "earth conscious" movement,of which I was a part, commensurated with the formation of the E.P.A. in the 70's. Big government quickly realized both the potential, and the threat posed by that movement in the 60's, and acted as government always does by placing itself in the best possible position to further its ends, hence the formation of the E.P.A. At present, this bureaucratic arm of the government is gearing up for its future role in the transfer process. I believe when the present war cools down, environmentalism will heat up (no pun intended).

One of the major tenets of environmentalism is the current misunderstanding of the science of global warming. The ideas posed by this science were first suggested over one hundred years ago by a man named Arrhenius. It seems that he was able to calculate that planetary temperatures would rise as co2 increased in the atmosphere. With the advent of "Earth Day" in 1970 the theory of 'global warming" was off and running. Government, quick to seize any opportunity to further its ends, saw this as an advantageous moment,and took it.

Last week, I read an article which was highlighting the escalating disagreement between President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair over the effects of global warming. It seems that Blair has been frustrated in his protracted attempts to convince the president of the urgent need of American endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol, which imposes air quality standards on the industrialized nations of the world. In theory,the protocol points to a situation which I believe cannot, nor should not be ignored, that being the impact of human civilization on the earth, and its environs.

However,after careful examination of the mandated standards in question, the flaws in this document become apparent, and it is easy to see why the president has not, and should not ever put his signature on it. It also points out an even more sinister truth, however, which is my argument in this instance, that being the real intention of the government, which is to create another program using fear to take freedom from the people.

Unfortunately for all of us, no matter which side you find yourself on both war and global warming are about transferring wealth plain,and simple. When you understand one, you will understand the other.

The Revolution will not be televised.

Unconstitutional Generosity

2005-06-03T11:32:00.000-07:00

As I thought long and hard about the excellent post by "The Delftsman" which can viewed via this blog,many examples in,what has by now become a long train of like abuses came to mind. This one really jumped up,and begged to be front and center for all of the right reasons,so here goes.

In the weeks after a tsunami wreaked havoc along the coast of the Indian Ocean on December26, 2004, President George W. Bush reportedly donated $16,000 from his personal bank account to relief efforts there. Bush should be lauded for this move. Whether his donation was politically motivated, or from a deeply held desire to assist the needy is beside the point. He made a voluntary decision to give his own money to what he felt was a worthy cause, end of statement. What Bush could have, and I believe should have told the American people is:"I hope Americans will be generous in this time of need. I want to do my part, so I've written a check for $16,000 as my contribution to the relief effort. I urge all of you to do what you can to help."

Unfortunately, while in the process of making his own contribution, Bush also was stealing hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to send to the relief effort, thereby forcing Americans to both fund the relief effort, and in the long run, pay more taxes to the tune of three hundred fifty million dollars to fill the hole that was created in the budget by this act of "unconstitutional generosity".

The president had no authority to commit even one dollar of anything that hadn't been approved by Congress,which in turn had no constitutional authority to commit even one penny to even a really good cause such as this one truly is. But the president and Congress are all too often unconcerned with what they are allowed to do by the dictates of the Constitution.

Immediately after the tsunami hit, Bush pledged fifteen million in U.S. taxpayer money to the effort. two days later he added another twenty mil to that figure. On December 31, he succumbed to International pressure, much of it from his so-called "buddy",Tony Blair of Great Britain,and multiplied the pledge by the factor of ten(his idea of a good Christian tithe perhaps?) promising to take(read:steal) three hundred fifty million dollars from Americans for tsunami relief.

"Surely relief efforts such as this are the proper function of government, and we owe it as humans to help our fellow men under these circumstances" was the general sentiment expressed by most journalists who covered thestory. Not so my friends,not so.

The federal government has no right under any circumstance, no matter what the nature of that may be, to give your money to any cause no matter how charitable it may seem.Any pressure from the U.N,and other nations is beside the point, and should be seen just as it is; irrelevant,and without merit. Let them complain if they will that the richest nation on earth hasn't contributed enough. Their complaints don't justify our government officials' non-compliance with the law of the land.

The way I see it, the president provided the perfect lead as to how matters of this kind may be handled both charitably,and constitutionally.

There is an old saying, "the gift without the giver is bare". By not trusting the charity of the American people,Bush violated the Constitution of the United States. And even worse,he has denied the recipients of the relief effort the gift that is perhaps the most desirable, that being the gift of the love from the giver.

The Revolution will not be Televised.

Just a Lull ... Don't Sweat It

2005-05-31T06:01:00.000-07:00

RWR checking in here ...

Sage and I have been pretty busy with the end of the school year. Hopefully, you don't mind our extremely light posting of late. I am trying to keep up with my every-other-day posting over at RightWingRocker, but I'm just getting by with that.

We really wanted to get around to things involving the "Constitutional Option", but work comes first, and it just didn't happen. Of course, there will certainly be more opportunities to comment on that issue, especially with the Bolton situation and some possible openings on the Supreme Court.

Hopefull we can get something up here soon!

RWR

Delftsman Does Some Homework

2005-05-18T17:43:00.000-07:00

I'd comment on this, but I'm on my way out, and I'm going to be pretty busy.

Check this out, by Delftsman, regarding unconstitutional spending.

Maybe Sage can work a post on it.

RWR

New Deal/Real Deal

2005-05-13T07:58:00.000-07:00

Opportunity always arises from crisis. There is no better example of this than the coming collapse of the Social Security System. The opportunity that I'm referring to has arisen from the failure of the government to deal honestly with the people, and realistically with the program itself.

Theoretically speaking, Social Security and Medicare are supposed to be supported by payroll taxes and FICA,while general spending by the federal government is supposed to be supported by personal, and corporate income taxes.Throughout their history, FICA taxes have provided more than was required by Social Security payouts,leaving an excess of money. Congress, as usual, being unable to control its appetite for"pork", borrowed(read:misappropriated) from this account to fund any pet project that they wanted that went in excess of what was made available to them by general taxation. As a result, the Social Security Trust Fund is now filled with IOU's from Congress that need to be repaid from the general fund.

As Baby Boomers reach retirement age, this scam must come to an end. It may yet go down in history as"their finest hour" (I am one among them). Any excess funds remaining from FICA income are drying up,and will be gone by 2018. After that date, those IOU's will become due and payable immediately.

They will, of course, have to be paid from the general fund which will require the federal government to choose one of two possible options-they will either have to run up a surplus in the general fund, forcing them to cut government spending, or they will have to raise large sums of money via raising taxes in order to pay back those IOU's. Not liking either fiscal responsibility or accountability, they will not desire either of these options, however, there will be no other choice.

So,the federal government has built for itself a gilded cage. Inevitably, by the sheer size of it,Social Security obligations are going to squeeze out a great deal of the available money in general funding. And make no mistake about it, re-paying those IOU's are a government obligation, and not a hand-out, a sort of reverse I.R.S tax, (I like that!) if you will. As a result, the size of government will be reduced whether Congress likes it or not. (they won't)

The people are also going to have to get used to fewer goodies from the "nanny state". They will need to learn to do more for themselves without asking the government to do it for them. And there is nothing but good news here! The sooner, the better. Amen.

We have not had an opportunity like this to return real power to the people in my lifetime. Once again, I find myself indebted to President Bush for handing this goodie to us on a silver platter.(I'm really trying to love that man) His plan for Social Security Reform is to gradually phase out Social Security with compulsory personal investment for retirement. While I do have some reservations about this method, especially for the long term, and the underlying motives of its principle initiators(see'Corporate Communism"), I still truly believe that this is one for"we the people" if we see it in its best light.

Of course,"compulsory" anything goes against my libertarian principles, and the constitutionality of any government program can always be argued.But I do think the right course of action is to support the president on this one. We can talk about "tweaking" the particulars later.

This is how I think it will work. When FICA funds are diverted into these personal accounts for younger people, money will be removed from the Social Security System, and thus will bring its day of reckoning closer even than the projected date of 2018. It will also increase the need for the general fund to repay its obligations to retirees still in the system. The borrowing that will be necessary for the transition will use up all of the government's ability to fund itself. Quite simply, Congress willbe forced to live within its means, and government will begin to shrink. The only"mosquito wing"on the track that could possibly derail the train would be additional taxation from the federal government. We can, and should "head them off at the pass" by supporting real tax reform that will come by replacing income and payroll taxes with a national retail sales tax. In order to make Americans more resistant to any attempts to put off the collapse of Social Security with higher taxation.

I believe we have a small window of opportunity here. Yes, I still have concerns as I stated earlier in this text, however, this is a genuinely golden opportunity to move this country in the direction that it was originally intended to go.

If we"damn the torpedoes",and take this opportunity to transform the country's retirement system from a tax supported entitlement to a private investment, and at the same time bring clarity and fairness to our system of taxation, we can leave our kids with a world that rightly may be called "the land of the free, and the home of the brave".

The Revolution will not be televised.

Condi Rice on the Second Amendment

2005-05-12T06:43:00.000-07:00

Hat tip to BC Imperial Torturer at the Rott for finding this ...

TBO.com has this piece today about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and what she thinks of the Second Amendment. Go read it. It's quite enlightening.

From personal experience, Dr. Rice clearly shows that it is sometimes necessary to take up arms to defend oneself and family. The police may not be there, or they may not be willing to help.

Dr. Rice was born in Birmingham, Alabama in 1954. When she was about 9 years old, Birmingham was the site of a series of awful terrorist attacks by the White Knight Riders (read that Ku Klux Klan and Robert Byrd), in which her father and others had to take up arms to defend themselves against these thugs, who bombed a church there in 1963. Without easy access to these weapons, Dr. Rice doesn't believe for a minute that her father and his friends would have been able to defend themselves.

Rice said the Founding Fathers understood "there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Ala., when, in fact, the police weren't going to protect you."

"I also don't think we get to pick and choose from the Constitution," she said in the interview, which was taped for airing Wednesday night. "The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment."

Right on the money, Dr. Rice. Now will someone please go tell Senator McCain how important the First Amendment is? I think he forgot.

RWR

Paul Jacob on the First Amendment

2005-05-08T19:34:00.000-07:00

I posted on this over at my blog as well, but due to the Constitutional implications of the article, it seemed important that it be reiterated here.

Paul Jacob hit this one out of the park. In fact, he hit it so far I doubt anyone will get to keep the ball as a souvenir.

Let this be fair warning for Congress. McCain-Feingold is a blatant repeal of the First Amendment. Americans will not stand for this. To quote the humble Old Sage, "The Revolution will not be televised!"

RWR

Corporate Communism

2005-05-06T10:22:00.000-07:00

In spite of my record to the contrary,I do like to give President Bush credit for his achievements as often as I can. I believe he is to be commended for placing the responsibility for providing for ones own retirement in the hands of the individual via privatizing, and I heartily endorse his efforts to encourage Americans to"take the power back" from
big government at every opportunity.I also have to give the president credit for deftly using a free-market spin to sell his idea,while in fact screwing us using the old"bait and switch" concept.

It seems the old "Skull and Bonesmen" have grown bored with simply lobbying for increased taxes,and government spending to fill their pockets
and control us with our own money. Now the plan is to"allow" you to put your money into a so-called"private' account. A private account that will
be used for purchasing shares in the stock market. And just whose shares will we be purchasing, pray tell? Why, the good old Yale boys,of course!
You can bet that this won't only be in the best interests of the depositor
(ie.victim),and like the present system,conveniently,won't be available for withdrawal at the time of its,or your,maturity.

You know,when socialism is privatized, don't you think it deserves a new
name,one that complements its increased status? How does "Corporate Communism"sound? The Revolution will not be televised.

Right -Wing Socialism

2005-04-27T06:02:00.000-07:00

The more George Bush makes great proclamations about his achievements in spreading democracy and freedom to the world, the more our liberties at home are being chiseled away. Bush may be on the path to liberate the world, but, he is in fact enslaving Americans at a rate that would make any hard core liberal proud of his record. In fact, if Bush's vision of American interventionism continues as part of the foreign policy landscape,Americans will virtually become the world's slaves before he leaves office. It is nowhere written in the Constitution that it is America's responsibility to foot the bill to provide freedom to the rest of the world.
We already have a massive federal deficit that is growing thanks to our government leaders,including our august president,and now his plan is to continue to give billions,soon to be trillions of your money to aid foreign nations that neither have the means(education),or the will to implement the American model of democracy that has been successful for over two hundred years. They only see the U.S. as some fat cat tossing them scraps. Bush thinks, as have others before him,that by giving the rest of the world our wealth,and our 'model' that some how they will see the error of their ways,and the world will be a "safer place for democracy"(Wilson),and thus will be more secure,and less anti-American.

We only have to look at western Europe to see the failure of this policy(The Marshall Plan),and the resentment that has been engendered.
"Read my lips" Mr. Bush,either way,Left or Right,socialism does'nt work at home or abroad! The Revolution will not be televised.

Article One Section Eight

2005-04-25T11:46:00.000-07:00

Too often we speak of the constitutional limitations of the federal government as though citizens/readers know what Congress may do as listed in Article One Section Eight of the Constitution.Few people that I know of actually do. Most have not read anything of it since their high school days,and then were often taught by teachers that knew little more about it than they did.In light of the present"crisis"in misunderstanding,it would seem that there is no better time than now to become re-acquainted with this most important of documents.

Remember that every elected government official swears to " uphold the Constitution"before he or she takes office. If they proceed to ignore the limits of Article One Section Eight,they are guilty of lying under oath. Lying under oath is perjury. Perhaps someone should send George Bush a copy? The Revolution will not be televised.

The Crisis

2005-04-23T08:00:00.000-07:00

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.

You would think these words were writted by the likes of Cal Thomas or George Will. Without discussing its obvious application to the war, it applies as well to the ever-increasing burden of socialist programs that have choked us of our freedom and liberty over the last century.

But they weren't. These words were written in 1776 by Thomas Paine, a man still revered today for his words of wisdom penned during the American Revolution.

There is a war on, and it's not being fought in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's being fought right here in our great Nation. It is a time where we, as a people, must choose the direction that will be followed by our children and grandchildren. This is not a war being fought with weapons of mass destruction, nor is it being fought with the precision-guided missiles that are keeping those who would harm us from actually doing so.

This war is a war of beliefs and ideas. The belief system first established in America by the Founding Fathers has been under assault for nearly 100 years, and finally, there is an opportunity for their America to prevail.

The American left has gradually chipped away at American freedom in the interest of replacing our freedoms with socialism. Make no mistake about it. When the word "program" comes out of the mouth of any politician, simply replace the word "socialism". Want to balance the budget (2005 Federal Budget)? Cut out everything that's not constitutional. Projected spending growth in 2005 is $255 billion unconstitutional vs. $128 billion, and that's just the numbers that I know for sure. That's about two thirds of the considered budget growth, not even the actual figures! Just cutting that out could free up over $100 billion for deficit reduction and/or increased constitutional spending. And that's just if you cut out the GROWTH.

The only constitutional "programs" are those involving the military, embassies, and that which is needed to pay the bills for utilities and salaries of constitutionally mandated government officials.

We really need to replace the "summer soldiers" and "sunshine patriots" in Washington with people who have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the Constitution. Dismantling these socialist encroachments, even if it has to happen over time, is the right thing to do. Those willing to stand up to those who are trying to continue the erosion of our freedoms deserve our unending gratitude and thanks.

Tyranny is not easily conquered, but our Founding Fathers were able to do it, and so are we. Just remember: the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.

RWR

Leviathan and Libertarian

2005-04-22T07:30:00.000-07:00

The Indian stands free, and unconstrained in nature, is her inhabitant and not her guest,and hence wears her easily,and gracefully. But the 'civilized" man has the habits of the house. His house is his prison. There must be a posting of the guard lest he escape. And so we have the origin of government.

I put forth the premise that "he who is governed least is governed best", and that he who is truly governed best of all is not governed at all except by that celestial fire called conscience, which owes allegiance to no other authority than its own understanding of that which it calls God.I,therefore, move that all government must have its origin, and therefore its authority in and by that understanding.In other words, my right to define what I consider to be "the pursuit of happiness" comes from what I call, and understand to be "God".

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes called the institution of human government "Leviathan", which by definition is a "monster often representing evil intentions". Thus, every good intention of a truly civilized man must be to throw off any attempt by this "monster" to devour him. So, how does it become a man to behave toward this American government, this modern-day "leviathan", this usurper of the soul?

My answer to that fundamental question which will so heavily determine any future course of action is that he cannot, without disgrace, be associated with it. And as we should be men first, and subjects afterward, it is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. A man in the right constitutes a majority of one.

By definition,a libertarian is quite simply "a person who believes in liberty of thought, and action",in other words, a person who believes that his thoughts are worth putting into action,at least for him. If he is right, which I believe he will be if he allows others to do the same,he will then place himself in the best possible position to achieve the end of any definition he may have constituting the pursuit of whatever he may call happiness.Essentially,he advances the thought,and some of you may find this controversial,that freedom is the natural state of man,pure and unencumbered, without limitations, or boundaries save by that which is placed there by himself.

A prudent man will never leave that which is right to the mercy of chance, nor will he expect it to prevail through the power of any said majority. There is little of anything that can pass for truth in the action of even a democratic mass. The Declaration of Independence put forth the notion that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights,that among these are life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness". The Constitution was created to protect these rights. My take on that is that since I have decided to build the prison(house) that I am living in, it would behoove me to be the guard that keeps my gate and lock, and that I need not be subordinate to any man in this regard,and that ultimately, the degree of freedom that remains to me will be in direct proportion to that which I keep to myself.

I think the founding brothers would be smiling. I also think most of them would be Libertarians today for the same reasons that I am.Today's rendition of the Democratic and Republican parties offer only slightly different versions of similar failed,unconstitutional practices. Both of them are promoting more,and bigger government, with an ongoing assault on the remaining civil liberties at home,while pursuing a policy of entangling alliances, and unnecessary military actions abroad.It would seem the present American Left is no longer content with their usurpation of the word "liberal"which previously referred to a person who believed in "free markets and social tolerance",and is now attempting to steal the word "libertarian" to apply to classical liberals to describe themselves.

The Republican Right is no better. They project the image of defending our rights as they are guaranteed by the Constitution, while in reality quietly continuing the advance of the nanny state,conducting illegal pre-emptive military strikes,and enforcing federal mandates that are a violation of personal freedom and the privacy of individual citizens. All in direct opposition to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution which they have sworn under oath to protect. True libertarianism,simply stated,means that a man has the right to be left alone in the life he has chosen,and as such, has only the obligations that he has consented to accept.

While some may find this vague in its application, it is in effect,the ultimate "declaration of independence" from all tyranny in its many forms. To a libertarian,there isn't nearly enough difference between Democrats and Republicans to override the fact that they are both in league with the enemies of freedom, and under those circumstances neither can justify any pretensions of intellectual superiority. This is the reason that anyone who genuinely believes that freedom is a gift from God,and not a grant from man,has to be Libertarian, as there is no other choice.

The Revolution will not be televised.

Opening remarks and other thoughts from the back burner

2005-04-20T11:30:00.000-07:00

Many thanks are in order here, more than I will attempt to address at this time! Suffice it to say thank you to my creator for any skills that I have or may demonstrate in this endeavor, and to my colleague for his willingness to include me as a co-conspiritor in what I believe to be a worthwhile endeavor, that being the institute of human government in all of its erstwhile forms and functions past, present,and future. There are many reasons why we should expend energy on these considerations, and one could wax philosophic for hours of the importance of deliberation, once again, suffice it to say that I really enjoy talking about this shit, and Rocker does too, so as often as our schedules allow,we get together,and
take notes. That's the great part about the whole thing, we learn from each other! And as an educator, it don't get any better than that! The Rocker is one of the few people that I know that can walk away from the table in disagreement, and still come back the next day in friendship, and
usually with another good perspective in support of what he believes to be the truth. You gotta love anybody who loves himself that much! In the end,
that was the reason that I decided to do this blog with him. As he has already said, we share many points of communion. Our differences, I think,
are to be found in our abiding trust of human nature,and thus perhaps, in the end, our inherent faith in ourselves. As I try to be honest in all of my conversations(let them be as of God), I need the help of every honest man. It takes two to speak the truth- one to speak,and one to hear. So to all of you who take the time to read these words, may they be a light unto your path, as they have been unto mine. The Revolution will not be televised.

Welcoming "The Old Sage"

2005-04-19T14:40:00.000-07:00

Bloggers of the RWRepublic are victorious!

We have convinced "The Old Sage" to join the blogosphere!

This blog is set up so that only he and I can comment. However, I hope you will find his insight quite enlightening, regardless of whether you agree.

So who is "The Old Sage"?

Well, the name comes from a conservative mutual friend who recently returned from a tour of duty in the Middle East. I have referred to him on my blog as "Captain D", though he will be officially retiring from the military at the end of this month. I think I'll let him keep the nickname "Captain" though...

Anyway, "The Sage" and I have come to know each other through working together as teachers at a school here in NJ. He's got about 15 years of experience on me from a living standpoint, and he is a STAUNCH constitutionalist (just like I am). He is generally even less trusting of government than I am and even more conservative, as you will see now that he blogs. His influence from a writing standpoint shows clearly in my recent post, "This is Supposed to be a GOOD Thing?", over on my blog. This rant would have had a completely different flavor without his influence.

We tend to differ in a few areas, though very few. I tend to trust President Bush more than he does, though he will admit that where he disagrees, he hopes that he is wrong. He basically takes the Libertarian perspective most, if not all, of the time. So all you moonbats out there calling me a right-wing extremist are about to learn about why I'm not.

So, hopefully all will join me in welcoming The Old Sage to the blogosphere, and supporting everything he decides to do here!

RWR

Why We Have No "Constitutional Rights"

2005-04-10T10:30:00.000-07:00

This piece was written by "The Old Sage" and is a great example of why I think he should be blogging. - RWR

A few minor edits have been made to this post in the interest of readability. Sage wrote this out as a "stream of consciousness", and I thought about it and its specifics a while before actually posting it. - RWR

I recently read an article in National Geographic magazine concerning a suit brought against the government by some of the five hundred or so prisoners held by the government at the US naval station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Some of the complaints include the use of "evidence" obtained by the use of torture which their attorneys have claimed is a violation of due process. Our government's position, as stated by Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle, is that the prisoners "have no constitutional rights enforceable in this, or any other, court of law". As I read those words, my first thought was, "of course they have no constitutional rights!"

There is no such thing as "constitutional rights" in this country! Our rights are not constitutional rights. The Founding Brothers never intended them to be. This country was founded under the premise that our rights are God-given, or natural. They are not gifts from any government; they are not granted by the constitution. Now, there are constitutional rights in Canada, the UK, France, Russia, and a host of other countries around the world. In those countries, both the people and the governments consider their rights to be gifts from the government, and thus subject to government approval. The United States in the only country in all of history that was set up with the philosophy that rights are God-given, and not man-given. Nowhere does the constitution say that we are being granted any rights from any said government body. Whenever rights are mentioned, it says only that the government cannot deprive us of them. Nowhere does it say that any of our rights are particularly American, either, but rather that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" ... that, my dear friends, is the philosophical and legal basis of this country!

So ... what is the deal with the constitution and the Bill of Rights? The Federalists, Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Madison and company, didn't want one because they feared that any rights specifically not included would be denied, and the government would then begin acting as if the government itself, and the constitution in particular, would be seen as the source of rights. Thus, the rights of the people would be man-given, not God-given as was intended. On the other hand, the Democrats, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and others, wanted a Bill of Rights because they feared that without it the government would eventually assume that individual rights didn't exist and would, in effect, usurp the power of the people.

The compromise to make sure that "the unnamed rights" were not ignored was the Ninth Amendment, which states that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". The bad news is that the fears of both the Federalists and the Democrats have become reality.

Government lawyers, beaureaucrats, congressmen, presidents, and even the courts, spend an incredible amount of time (and your money) trying to circumvent the one thing that has made the United States unique in history! They have arrived at the view that:

* any right not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights doesn't exist,
* the rights that are mentioned are very pliable,
* the Ninth Amendment is dead (ignored),

and worst of all ...

* the Constitution, i.e., the government, is now the source of our rights.

That's how other countries treat rights, and in every way, we are becoming more and more like the rest of the world!

Our government claims to be fighting for freedom and democracy in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Wouldn't it, perhaps, be a better idea to finish the job at home first before we take it to the rest of the world? If the government really believes that those they hold at Guantanamo are a threat, then we must allow them their "inalienable" rights and their day in court. Make the government close what is, in essence, the same type of concentration camp in which we illegally held Japanese-Americans during World War II. Let the government make its case against those it holds in front of the American people for all the world to see. Those among the prisoners that they can prove guilty, let them be sentenced, or shot, or whatever else they deem necessary to do with them, then let the rest have their God-given rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of whatever they consider to be happiness".

It's not just the rights of those detained at Guantanamo that we're talking about here, folks, but the rights that our Founding Brothers said belong to all of us!!! If we don't wake up and smell the coffee of government abuses and usurpations perpetrated by this and previous administrations; if we don't change our mindset; if we refuse to draw a line in the sand and say, "No more," then we are going to wake up one day and find all our "God-given" rights gone. What will be left are the rights that politicians and lawyers want us to have, rights that they can rescind any time they find them inconvenient, rights that have become nothing more than privileges granted by governments like the rest of the world has - none at all! For this to happen, not one word of the Constitution, nor the Declaration of Independence, will ever have to be changed. All they will have to do is ignore them.

TOS

Let me know what you think ... post a comment on this post.
RWR