Go Ahead.. Shout “FIRE”

OK, this is one of the things that has ground my gears for years.

The famous hoary old quote trotted out whenever the libs disagree with something a libertarian or conservative says in public that ”offends them”

Immediately they say,(harumph, harumph) “Well free speech is all well and good, and we all know that there is a First Amendment.

BUT….. We all know that YOU CAN’T YELL FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER”

Then the speaker smiles smugly like the Church Lady, and sits back. The argument is over, and I win! So SHUT UP they explained.

OK, so the quote is not in any law, but was part of an introduction by Justice Holmes in a 1919 court ruling.( US. V Schenck) In that ruling they said a pamphlet against the draft that contained the phrases ‘Assert Your Rights” and ‘Do  not submit to intimidation”

Pretty mild stuff, eh?

What is even more interesting is that the entire decision was OVERTURNED IN 1969!!!
(Brandenburg v. Ohio)

The ruling reversed a previous Supreme Court decision setting a new precedent for the “clear and present danger” standard in First Amendment cases. The Court now held that a person’s words were protected as free speech as long as they did not directly incite unlawful action

Court held that all speech,including inflammatory speech, such as in this case by the KKK, is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. The link must be there, the speech MUST directly result in the violent action.

So, next time someone says

Well, we ALL know you can’t shout Fire in a theater and gives that stupid look, the best reply is:

“Oh? What about Brandenburg v. Ohio?

Boom!

More info in IRS and Income Tax

It was all a political ploy!’

According to Jay Starkman, writing in the Wall Street Journal, the Sixteenth amendment was merely a trick, employed to allow the Congress to pass an excise tax on business.

The Senate boss, Finance Committee Chairman Nelson Aldrich, together with President William Howard Taft concocted a compromise to stop the income tax bill that the House had passed. Congress would immediately pass a 1% “excise” tax on corporate income over $5,000—in effect the rich were being taxed. As a further sop to income-tax advocates, Aldrich would sponsor an income-tax constitutional amendment.

Aldrich was quite candid about his scheme to block the House bill that had been passed, declaring to the Senate: “I shall vote for the corporation tax as a means to defeat the income tax.”

But of course it was not something which those who imposed it had any desire subject themselves to :

After the tax law was passed, judges embraced it—for everyone else, just not themselves. Judges across the land proclaimed that the Constitution prohibited diminishing their salaries (and those of the president and state employees) through taxation. They emphasized the point by issuing court rulings in their own favor, excusing themselves from the tax. This lasted until the Depression, when the force of public opinion essentially shamed them into relenting. Under a law passed in 1932, Franklin Roosevelt became the first president subject to the income tax, but he refused to pay an increased rate that he helped enact in 1934. FDR insisted on paying the lower 1932 rates.

Now they just use the IRS to attack enemies and destroy those who oppose them.

Nice work.

Senator Grahamnesty Strikes Again

So, the Senate Judiciary committee has sent the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the full Senate for approval. The Wise Latina Woman ( I still wonder if it’s possible to be a wise Latina man–perhaps the lgbt crowd can dig into that one) received a single vote from a republican. Well, at least a person who serves with a letter ‘R’ after his name.  Recall when the hearings commenced one senator who said something like ” barring a total meltdown, we can expect you to be confirmed”. Senator Lindsey Graham has once more shown the way to cross the aisle and hand not just a numeric victory but a strategic victory to the leftists in power in this country.

Judge Sotomayor has said that it is at the appellate court level that legal policy is made. Of course she made joking retractions once she realized she was being recorded, but her intent is clear.  On the appeals court level, all her decisions are subject to review by the US Supreme Court, as well as being restricted by precedent. Once she is seated on the Supreme Court, there is no further review. The Congress has proved itself unwilling and incapable of exercising any Constitutional oversight of the Supreme Court. They have realized that by permitting the courts to make the calls they want made, congress can escape culpability in the eyes of the voters. This is why the makeup of the Supreme Court is so important. This is why it must be guarded. This is why it was important for Senate opponents of the policies of the current administration to stand on principles and resist , even in the face of inevitable loss, the appointment of yet another opponent of the clear and original intent of the founders to the Supreme Court.

Lindsey Graham won election to replace the late Strom Thurmond. Much can be said of ‘ Ol Strom’ but at least he harbored no expansionist views of the government.  Graham assumed his mantle, publicly identifying his campaign that way. Once in office he has followed his idol Senator John McCain in pursuing accommodation  with the opposing party in a way which could make Vichy Frenchmen proud.

For years many have said the problem in government is the incumbent crowd. Once in office, politicians simply go along, and do whatever will keep them seated in DC. Here is a clear case.  If ever there was a time for those who call themselves ‘Conservatives’ to stand firm, this is it. If ever there was a time for those who cherish the ideals of the Constitution to stand up, this is it.  If you have ever said, ” It’s time to throw the bums out!” it is clearly time to stand firm and have the courage of your convictions. Don’t hide behind party loyalty any more. Putting party first only puts the country second.

From this moment I will work and will encourage and drive and shout and cajole for Senator Lindsey Graham to be voted out of office. Regardless of the costume, I will cast a vote for whoever seems most likely to defeat him in the next vote for his seat in the United States Senate. I will seek the most likely person to uphold true and realistic Constitutional principles. But, should it come to a choice between Senator Lindsey Grahamnesty and some hack wearing a donkey suit, this time the donkey gets my vote. After all, what will be the effective difference? Graham and his deal making pals have essentially supported the Dems anyhow.

It is time for change. If you are in office, you should be turned out. Graham MUST go.

Keep the Faith

The Rev

Look Away, Ignore The Man Behind The Curtain. ( again)

There is so much smoke and mirrors, we never know where to look. When something truly important is happening, most of the people in this nation are too distracted to see what’s going on. This is by design. If the people who paid the bills knew what they were paying for,they would be outraged.

The most recent examples:

A couple of weeks ago, all media attention was focused on the ‘Michael Jackson Funeral’ seemingly the most important news on the planet. While that was covered end to end, all the 24 hour news channels wall to wall, the house slammed a  thousand page ‘climate change’ Cap and Trade bill through with barely a comment from anyone. At the last moment, a three hundred page amendment was also put in place. This contained payoff money to just enough legislators to buy their complicity in robbing their constituents.
In fact, the ‘bill’ that was voted on did not actually exist. There was no single printed version of ANYTHING. But this momentous legislation was forced through with little notice.
This week we have the glorious spectacle of ‘hearings’ into the nomination of a clearly radical jurist to the Supreme Court of the United States. We are focused on her ‘Wise Latina’ quote. All the supposed ‘right wing’ media are screaming about that. All attention is on that throw away line. With barely a few sentences this canard can be dismissed and ignored. Then the legal geniuses like Lindsay ‘Grahamnesty’ from South Carolina can agree that barring a ‘meltdown’ he will vote to confirm her. After all, she’s not really a racist or a bigot. That would be the worst possible thing we could do to the Supreme Court.

The real issue is her appeal to international law to drive the Supreme Court.  IN Roper v. Simmons, and Lawrence v. Texas:

Judge Sotomayor said, the court was using the foreign or international law to “help us understand what the concepts meant to other countries and . . . whether our understanding of our own constitutional rights fell into the mainstream of human thinking.

Another dangerous area will be Second Amendment law. Judge Sotomayor, has generally found the right to bear arms is NOT a fundamental right. Legally this view holds that such rights do not pre-exist the Constitution, and thus can be regulated. In a ruling in a NY case about martial arts weapons, her ruling displayed such views. From Volokh,  here are details:

In other words, the Second Amendment is not “a fundamental right.” The Sotomayor panel could have offered a legal explanation for why (in the panel’s opinion) nunchaku are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and therefore a mere rational basis test for nunchaku bans is appropriate. But the Sotomayor court did not do so. To the contrary, the Sotomayor per curiam opinion treats any Second Amendment claim as not involving “a fundamental right.”

broadly held internationalist theory, combined with her incredibly restrictive views on the Second Amendment it is clear the real danger is not her views on ‘wise latina’s’ but her views on the US Constitution. But we will not hear much discussion of that. Once more we are told where to look, lest we see the freight train headed our way.

As important as that is, even THIS is something of a distraction.
While we watch the dog and pony show in the Senate committee room, the house and senate are once more ramming a bill through. This time it is to alter finally and fundamentally the economic liberty of every American. The takeover of our health care system by the federal government will be a complete alteration of the political and economic system of the USA. Once the Federal Government is installed as the guarantor and arbiter of each individuals medical care, we will cease to be actual citizens, and will become subjects. The level of control which can be exerted on an individual when the government controls the payment for and allocation of all medical treatment is beyond comprehension. There is no area of life which cannot conceivably be regulated by the government in the ‘interest of controlling medical costs.’ Everything from the food you eat to the job you hold, to your after hours hobbies can affect your health. If a central federal authority is ‘paying for your health care’ it can regulate, and dictate any and all activities which impact that cost, as it is now a federal interest. By legislating mandatory participation, they can then legislate mandatory regulation.
But the news is watching the Sotomayor hearings.
Funny how that works out, isn’t it.
We are about to– no we have ALREADY run off the rails. We are not the same country I grew up in.

Keep the Faith

The Rev

Specter, The Supreme Court, and Political Parties

  

A scorpion scuttles to the bank of a stream, seeking a way across. He spies a frog and asks him to carry him across the water. The frog is doubtful, and asks the scorpion “Why would I do that? What if you sting me?”   The scorpion replies, “I would not do that, if I were to sting you, we would both drown.”  Thinking for a moment, the frog agrees. The scorpion climbs on his back and they head into the water. About half way across, the scorpion wields his tail, stinging the frog with a deadly poison. Just before they sink below the water, the frog asks the scorpion “Why…?”   To which the scorpion replies:

“It is my nature to do so”.

(From Aesop’s Fables, roughly from memory)

The political pundits are whirling and spinning, all trying to explain or excuse the move yesterday by Arlen Specter from Pa. He has returned to the Democrat party which he left in the 1960’s. He has said coyly that the Republicans ‘left him’. He felt uncomfortable in a party which would not allow for diverse views. Republicans are stunned, and media mouths are dropping in shock. I can’t understand anyone being shocked. Mr. Specter has shown his sense of political expediency outweighs his courage since he switched affiliation in 1965 to defeat a Democrat incumbent for a district attorney position. Mr. Specter has always walked the walk of political survival.  Recall his courageous vote ‘Pursuant to Scottish Law I vote Unproved’ during the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Rather than take a stand and display principle, he managed to evade accountability. He saw the poll numbers and knew there was no slam dunk with either side, so he took no side.

In the same way he saw the poll numbers and knew he might not win reelection this time, so rather than take a stand, he took a leap. Only weeks after stating flatly that he was a ‘republican, and would always be one” he jumped to the other party, ensuring that he would now have some measure of power in congress that he could not earn in the minority party.

Republicans supported Specter in the 2006 election. President Bush expended much time and effort to help reelect Specter, and he made promises to help the republicans work toward their objectives. (Why would I aid the democrats? If I do that we all lose!”)  He repaid the work and effort by giving his vote to Obama and his ‘stimulus package’ (Because, it’s my nature!”)

The Republican party was once home to bedrock conservative ideas: Small government, limited taxation, and support for the Constitution. Over the last decade or so they have drifted, becoming essentially a smaller version of the Democrat party. They agreed in principle that big government was essential, they just haggled over the exact size and goals of that government. In essence the debate was not over a controlling centralized government. It was over who should hold the reins, and in which direction the power of government would be directed. With two parties controlling things, the debate becomes one in which actions of ‘our guys’ is deemed good, and the actions of ‘those guys’ is deemed bad. As long as it’s ‘our party’ we are told to cheer for any application of government power, especially when punitively applied to the other party.

After 9/11, George W. Bush’s ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ was transformed into something sometimes referred to as ‘ American Greatness Conservatism”. This was merely a different mask on the face of an expanding State system. The thinking seemed to be that as long as the controls were in the hands of ‘the good guys’ it was not a bad thing to have Big Government.  The flaw here is that in the constitutional system set up in the U. S. those controls don’t belong to a single party for long.  And once the Democrats get hold there is no reason for them to slow the expansion of government, as they can accurately say the debate is over.  Now that the party in control is all about spending, people like Specter can go along, join them and have no fear of reprisal. They will happily spend others money and reap short term benefits. Arlen Specter moved from one party to another because control of our government is held by parties, rather than by representatives of the people.

As I was mulling all of this, one more thing came to my attention. There are now stories that Justice Souter will be leaving the US Supreme court, giving President Obama his first opportunity to show his true inclinations and philosophy. The dominance of parties will be on display here.  The leftists who now control the Democrat party will push for the appointment of someone who shares the deeply felt, but deeply hidden views of Mr. Obama.  A clear indicator of his thinking is the nominee to be legal adviser to the State Department, Harold Koh.  Mr. Koh is an ardent proponent of what he he casts as ‘Transnationalism’.  This is a political theory which, if put into practice, would literally undermine the US constitution and replace it with ill defined concepts of multi- national, or global law. Such foundational principles as our First
Amendment freedoms of speech and religion, which he regards as an obstacle to America joining with the ‘international community’ will be pushed aside.

Writing for National Review Online, Ed Whalen gives us a preview of Koh’s stunning views:

As part of his general case for what he contends to be the “more venerable strand of ‘transnationalist jurisprudence’” over the “blinkered view” of a “nationalist jurisprudence” (Koh, International Law as Part of Our Law, 98 Am. J. Int’l. L. 43, 48, 52 (2004)), Koh approvingly sets forth the transnationalist view that

 

domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law, not simply to promote American aims, but to advance the broader development of a well-functioning international judicial system.  In Justice Blackmun’s words, U.S. courts must look beyond narrow U.S. interests to the “mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime” and, whenever possible, should “consider if there is a course of action that furthers, rather than impedes, the development of an ordered international system.”

 

(98 Am. J. Int’l. L. at 53-54 (emphasis added).

In order to ‘coordinate’ like this, there is only one path. That path is to subordinate, or abandon the Constitution, and substitute some form of ‘International Law”. This is not the same thing as historically understood, and agreed upon framework such as the outlawing of piracy. This is an entanglement of regulations and rules designed and implemented by groups similar to the EU.

If we allow this, we allow the end of the United States of America.

George Washington, at the end of his time as President spoke forcefully about the dangers of Parties and the destruction they could do to the new born American nation. We see his words as prophetic now, as parties run the government for their benefit, instead of the benefit of the people who put them in place.

I think we may have a short time with an open window here. Arlen Specter’s party change exposes clearly the raw power of parties, and their strangle hold on government and our nation in general.  Perhaps we should encourage others, who have complained that they feel marginalized by the parties to leave.  Instead of switching, they should be encouraged simply to leave and follow no party at all. It seems as if the Republican party is sliding into irrelevance. Let’s see if we can prevent another ‘party’ from replacing it, and instead have the American people be represented. If we allow another party to form, we risk the fate of Aesop’s frog, for we already know what is in the nature of political parties.

 

 

EPA Regulations: A Danger To The Constitution?

On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced proposed regulations under which it will regulate Carbon Dioxide as a toxic substance. This means that without any oversight, nor legislative control, the EPA will give itself the authority to control virtually any productive activity within the United States. Any mmanufacturing, use of engines, construction of homes or commercial buildings, essentially all productive activity can thus be regulated or stopped by administrative rule of the EPA with no recourse other than expensive and lengthy legal action. And the legal action to challenge it would be likely to fail, as the EPA claims it was ‘forced to act’ by a two year old Supreme Court ruling. In  2007 ruling on Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al, in a split ruling the Supreme Court said that the EPA had violated the Clean Air act by not regulating new car emissions as a dangerous substance. Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissent even went so far as to say the majority had used ‘slight of hand to even grant Massachusetts standing to bring the suit.”

Even if we were to accept the alarmist proposition that global warming is an imminent danger, and further to grant that carbon dioxide is the ( or even the strongest) cause of global warming, the proper place for a regulation which will force action in every area of national activity lies properly with the legislative branch, not in the Supreme Court.  Once the EPA had made the originaldecision not to regulate CO2 as a hazard, the court should not have the power to compel, at the behest of a single state, executive action. So, what we now have is an activist liberal bloc of the court, conniving with liberal states to force an administrative agency of the executive branch of government to take action against its own rulings.  Massachusetts is certainly empowered to promulgate any regulations it sees fit, and regulate any activity within the state. By gaming the system, we have one state essentially forcing 49 others to follow rules it desires to enact.

Even in the press release from the EPA states that the proper place for such regulations should be with Congress. However, even while stating that, they asserted authority to control all emissions of CO2. The scope of this cannot be understated. There really is no facet of economic activity which cannot conceivably be regulated now by the EPA under this proposed regime. Even should Congress intervene, any legislation would be reviewed and managed through the EPA and it’s enforcement regulations.

With one ruling, the Federal Government has now taken a giant step toward eliminating private control of industry in the United States. Anything deemed to produce carbon emissions will now be subject to regulation, taxation or direct federal oversight.

Once more, and with little fanfare or resistance our government by constitution has become a government by regulatory fiat. At what point will Americans realize that the dream of the Founders is being crushed? Have enough of the people been given enough government cheese that they no longer care what else happens?  If you don’t contact your representatives and demand they act to rescind this, everything in our economy becomes weaker by the minute. Soon, very soon, we will become a third world nation.

Keep the Faith

The Rev

A Crack in the Facade

For months now, bloggers have been pointing to the deeds of Obama and his tools in Congress and shouting ” FOUL!” over the clearly unconstitutional behavior. The mainstream media have mostly ignored it all. Those in power seem close ranks and refuse to say the clear truth. 

Today someone with a major presence in the media has actually said the words and pointed a finger at it all. Today in the New York Post, George Will, not always the most stalwart of conservatives has dared to point out that the stimulus bill, built on a history of unconstitutional legislative actions is itself unconstitutional.

It is high time Americans heard an argument that might turn a vague national uneasiness into a vivid awareness of something going very wrong. The argument is that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) is unconstitutional.

He discusses the history of legislative delegation of powers to the executive, a history which has seldom been challenged. 

The big question now is will anyone with standing be willing to make the challenge and bring this case to court. In order for anything to be heard, a party must be recognized to ‘have standing’ to bring the issue before the Supreme Court of the United States. It seems to me that any of the several state governors who have challenged the  legality of federal money bypassing their authority should have such standing. Perhaps Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina will decide that it is time that Congressman James Clyburn be told he is a state representative to the DC government. He has no roll in state government, and has no authority to designate or describe how the state spends funds. 

Perhaps we may just have an opportunity here. Precedent and history are not in our favor. The Supreme Court refused to slap FDR’s hands when he took such steps. But, with the massive scope of this power shift, coupled with the makeup of the Roberts court, the Constitution may just have a chance. We can only wait and see.

Keep the Faith!

The Rev.

Living Constitution = Dead Letter

Over the years, and especially since the administration of Woodrow Wilson, we have seen an increasing disregard for the Constitution by successive governments of the United States.

Wilson’s disregard for liberty has been largely disregarded by those who are enamored of his internationalist agenda, and morn the eventual collapse of his League of Nations. During his time in office Wilson jailed thousands who disagreed with him. He embraced the emerging theories of the Progressives, which in effect were social Darwinism applied to government. Wilson displayed an open disdain for the founding document bordering on contempt. Writing in his writings, Mr. Wilson stated firmly: “No doubt, a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.”

He created a political force, the APL (American Protective League) to enforce his vision of the political structure of the government. Using the various legislations adopted to help him consolidate power (Sedition act of 1918, and the Espionage act of 1917) Wilson imprisoned anyone who publicly disagreed with him. Many of his political prisoners were not released until after Wilson was out of office. Yet, somehow he is looked upon as a visionary, a man of peace, who was simply ahead of his time.

FDR followed and enlarged this tradition. Again using the cover of a crisis, Roosevelt undertook to subvert and ignore the Constitution in order to expand his power and achieve his own vision of America. Once more it was vastly different than that of the founders. Much of his agenda was shut down by the Supreme Court until his threat to pack the court with pliant judges. Under this threat, the Justices surrendered, and began to rubber stamp most of the unconstitutional laws and policies he wanted.

The US congress continues to govern by committee and department rather than by direct vote, thus insulating themselves from responsibility for their actions. The Seventeenth Amendment removed one of the last barriers to centralized power in the Federal Government. The States no longer held any effective power to restrain the DC government. Combined with the virtually unrestricted ability to confiscate wealth from Americans and dispose of it at will under the Sixteenth amendment, the elimination of controlling power of the states gave Washington nearly unfettered power, along with the ability to fund it’s goals from private wealth. 

Those who claim to be legal and constitutional scholars praise a doctrine which they call “The Living Constitution”. They claim that the words written do not actually mean what they say, merely are ideas which should be adapted to changing circumstances. Thus, when the letter of the law is inconvenient, they simply say it means something other than what the words clearly indicate. They seek, and often find ‘penumbras’ or ’emanations’ withing the wording which justifies the creation or expansion of various government authorities. This, they claim gives the authority to expand government power to redress newly created violations of never before enumerated powers.

The combination of willful disregard of the clear wording of the Constitution, with amendments which have distorted the powers and scope of government beyond any nightmares of the founders has brought us to a point where the representative government in Washington, DC is at least as despotic and unresponsive as was the reign of ‘Fat George” III at the time of the Declaration of Independence. The pendulum swing of power from Republican to Democrat brings with it successive demonization of each by the other. In fact, there is a collegial disregard for the restraints the Constitution places on government. One party claims the other is evil, and then attempts to expand government to achieve its own ends when it regains power.

What is needed is simply to act to restrain ALL parties. We need to find a way to reset the clock, so to speak.

There are a growing number of Americans who are calling for a second Constitutional Convention. The idea is that the existing regime has shifted so far from the intent and design of the Founders that it is no longer recognizable as an American Government.  There are some inherent dangers with the concept with a restart. Many say that once the door is opened, there is no restraint on the changes which can be made. Recall that when the first convention was called, the intent was simply and only to modify the Articles of Confederation. Many states sent delegates with instructions which prohibited any other actions. One of the first actions the delegates took was to change from a requirement of Unanimous approval to three fourths of the States to agree to the new governmental foundation. If this precedent is followed, any convention could become a way to solidify and expand the current regime, rather than to scale back the out of control federal leviathan.

We see what can happen quickly with the steps taken by the current administration. Obama campaigned on a theme that the economy was in crisis, and tipping toward catastrophe. Once in office, the administration continued to hammer the theme, constantly talking down the American economy, and taking steps that seemed bent on discouraging Americans in a time of trouble. Quickly acting, the Obama administration has moved to take steps which contravene the Constitution, and enlarge the scope and range of federal power, and Obama’s own political control. ( US Code Title 13, ch 1) He has offered payback to his Democrat party allies by promising to sign a bill granting the District of Columbia a voting member in the House, directly disregarding constitutional requirements for such membership(article 1, sec 8). He has worked with the most radical elements in the Congress to form and push through legislation which would empower bankruptcy judges to unilaterally alter valid mortgage contracts, once again directly contravening constitutional restrictions. (Article 1, sec.10) President Obama is likely to set records for speed and scope of destruction of the founding documents of our Republic.

Neal Boortz is one voice who seems to think a convention can be called with limited authority. His idea is to remove the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments, and to install congressional term limits. These are worthy goals, and if this is possible, something to work for. I am not a scholar, but I simply cannot see how we could avoid a repeat of the complete remaking of our government which could result from a convention. While we were blessed with such brilliant minds at the time, I fear that the dolts now occupying positions of power could not accomplish anything as elegant and functional at this time.

The alternative is major disagreement and a fractioning of the entire national structure put into place since 1789. I would have to ask, just what would emerge from such a spin off? What kind of confederation could be put into place? Would it necessarily be a bad thing?  Might we then see the experimental engines of government contributing equally to a les overbearing central government?

As I see it, we have a few, limited choices.

We can continue to act as ‘good citizens’, continuing to work under the assumptions that our republic functions as it was designed. We can dutifully vote in each election, and expect that somehow the incumbents reelected will see the error of their ways and change their behavior.

We can organize to fight through media, internet, and political action and attempt to rouse the corpulent masses in the country to stand up and restrict the cancer that government has become.

We can work to call another Constitutional convention, and see what results. I am beginning to think that the risks are worth the rewards. If the ‘Progressives’ take over, there are enough Americans who will see through the plan and resist. We will then face a choice of accepting a new and even worse document or to draft an entirely new and back to basics constitution which will plug the gaps which have been torn in into it by corrupt and dangerous administrations. I believe there are many who agree. I think it may be time. I think it may be almost too late to act. But I think that something MUST be done! Inaction is no longer a viable option.

Keep the Faith!

The Rev

Permits and Tyranny: Assault on Liberty

Suppose that every time someone wanted to publish a book, or a newspaper, or give a speech, there was a requirement that anyone wishing to do so obtain a permit. Federal law required a background check, and a test to determine if the person wishing to speak, or write had ever committed a crime or been treated for certain psychological conditions.

Each member of a church, wishing to practice a religion should obtain clearance from the federal government.

 

You go to a trial, and are put under oath and questioned. You tell the interrogators that you wish not to answer, as the information may be incriminating. In order to refuse to answer, you will be required to provide a legal permit. Such permits vary from state to state, and even from city to city. Only those who have been cleared, according to state or federal regulations will be permitted to exercise such rights.

These seem pretty far fetched, don’t they? It’s flat out a violation of constitutional rights to require a legal permit to act on those rights which are plainly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, a document we Americans revere as a foundation of the liberty we so justly prize.

 

Of course, it’s all ridiculous. No way would such restrictions be permitted by the courts.

But, why then, are such restrictions not just tolerated, but encouraged by federal, state, and local governments, and by self styled ‘civil rights groups’ like the ACLU? The Second Amendment is pretty clear and very short. It grants the rights of all Americans to own and use weapons without restrictions.  The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.

There is a quote, often attributed to George Washington, which refers to firearms as “Liberty’s Teeth”. Without the ability to defend ourselves from government, there is no way to prevent government to continue to restrict and reduce liberty, the very liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Without the Second amendment, the other rights are naked and unprotected. The Founders and the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights fought to liberate themselves from a tyrannical King who imposed taxes, extracted tariffs, and gave little in return. AS they themselves had to fight for that liberty, they saw that future generations of Americans might one day need to do the same. So, they ensured that an armed citizenry would always be guaranteed the right to protect themselves against the force of government. There are numerous references to the need for citizens to be stronger than their government.

Later generations of Americans became comfortable with the idea of an all protective government. Subsequent generations have become seduced by the soft addictions of a government which guaranteed not liberty, but comfort. Rather than merely provide a protected zone within which law abiding citizens could engage in their private lives, government now began to assume the role of provider of comfort, and guarantor of basic needs for living. Governments seeing that to continue to do this would entrench a regime of dependency and growing government power hastened to expand such structures and expanded the scope and reach of government to all facets of American life. 

The idea of a self sufficient, self protected individual clashes with this vision of expansive all protective, all controlling government. Thus the demonization of those who insist on taking care of themselves. “Gun nuts”, extremists, ‘survivalists’ all are cast as a threat to order, and marginalized by ‘right thinking people’.

Lawless behavior is not categorized as the problem, rather it is the tool used that is wrong. Thus, we do not stigmatize the criminal as much as the object used to commit the crime. “Gun Crimes” becomes a rallying cry of those wishing to remove all traces of the Second Amendment. Guns are evil, a talisman, an effigy to be destroyed. In order to remove guns from American society, the Second Amendment must be twisted, and distorted. For many years this was accomplished by the myth of the ‘Militia Clause’ insisting that the second amendment exclusively was meant to apply to regular military, and not to individual rights. The fact that this would make the Second the ONLY of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights which would be a collective rather than an individual right was an inconvenient fact which was swept under the rug for many years.

Only recently, in the Heller case did the court plainly and clearly state that there is a clear and individual right to possess guns firmly placed within the bedrock principles of the founding of America. Even after a clear and decisive victory for the forces of liberty, many layers of government have refused to acknowledge the primacy of this right. We who stand for liberty are on the verge of a titanic struggle. The new regime which has taken power in Washington has made clear that they wish to expand and empower government to a level never before seen.

Watch closely and be prepared. There may not be a direct attack, but rather a disguised subversion of rights and liberty. Once they see a clear path and find excuses to begin to infringe in the Second Amendment, we will see the final stage of their assault on liberty.

We are in a dangerous time. We must watch, and prepare. We must not let the legacy bequeathed to us by the Founders fall to those who seek to reinstate tyranny here in America.

Political parties: Animal Suits and the End of the Republic

I sat in the car the other day, listening to some news announcer drone on and on about various political battles going on. In this case, apparently there is some senate or house committee in charge of something or other who want, no they DEMAND that some member of the executive branch come and sit in front of them and answer all their grandstanding questions while cameras rolled. Some lawyers from the administration, following the precedents set by so many past administrations have claimed that private conversations between various officials are confidential and privileged. Thus they are covered under the cloak of ‘executive privilege’, and thus are entitled to ignore a ‘Congressional Subpoena”. And anyone who knows anything about the Constitution (so the executives say) just KNOWS that the legislators can’t order the executive to do anything.

 Or there’s this:

The members of one party are complaining that as the majority of congress is currently held by the other party, and they have no way to obstruct them. They cry that the OTHER party, (the one in the majority) is thwarting the Constitution, by preventing “Checks and Balances”. It would seem that the political branches seem to feel that the “checks and balances” alluded to in the founding documents relate to party balance. See, if the donkeys outnumber the elephants in the legislative branch, they are required to show greater deference to the elephant party because they must have ‘checks and balances’. Imagine, they say, if one group of animals, were to get control of the legislative branch AND the executive branch, well then WHOAH it’s the end of the world!!! Because then there might no longer be any ‘checks and balances’ on the one group of animals. Thus, in order to restore the ‘balances’ the one strong group of animals is REQUIRED to do what the weak group of animals wishes. Of course none of this respects the fact that it is supposed to be the voters to whom these representatives answer, and not the big groups that dress up as donkeys or elephants.

No, none of this is actually faithful to the document to which all these animals swear allegiance. It has now become a game of checks and balances. Not for the purpose of restraining the power of the government as the founders intended. The checks and balances, like all the other games played by the zoo in DC are the games played for the cameras, to amuse the masses, while the animals take over from the zoo keepers, and run things for themselves. They have taken Mr. Lincoln’s famous description and stood it on it’s ear. We now have Government of the people, by the bureaucrats for the Party Elites. And unless something happens, it shall never perish from the face of the earth!

When the nation was founded, the House of Representatives was set up as the legislative branch to represent the will of the people. The Senate was to represent the interests of the several States. ( Article 1, Sec 3) This assured two things: First that the federal government would be restrained by the interest of and power of the states, and second there would be a brake slowing the legislative branch, preventing action out of passion or populist overreaction.

The executive branch would have restricted power, as the legislative branch(es) represented the people and states respectively. The legislative branch was divided, acting and representing different interests. The Supreme Court would resolve disputes arising between the branches, and when issues of the Constitution arose.

          The 17^th amendment, severed the ties between the Senate and the states, and established new ties to popular votes; and the nature of the Senate was altered.Direct popular vote  altered the essence of the body.  Now pandering for popular votes became a necessity. This eventually bore the monster child now known as ‘gerrymandering’ which creates virtually permanent seats by dividing districts by party affiliation. (Here come those animal suits again) Now we begin to see why the style of costume is becoming more important than the district or state represented.  If the donkeys are in control, they can draw the lines to create more and more donkeys. When the elephants are in control they do their best to stamp out grazing land for donkeys. Once your herd holds the upper hand, either legislatively, or in the executive branch, you can create grazing land for your kind. You can create lots of pet projects for your pals, or a new bunch of bureaus in the executive branch for the folks who wear your kind of coat. None of this benefits the citizens of the Republic. The Judiciary has earned life time jobs for themselves, and found it safe to defer to the legislative branch rather than the document all this is supposed to be built upon. Why risk upsetting the other two branches, who after all are responsible for appointing and confirming you to your job.

See, the problem seems to be that these elected representatives, who are voted into office by the people in various districts and sundry states have developed very strong ties to their animal suits. If one of the representatives, (or members of the multitudinous manifestations of the executive) comes under fire for doing something stupid, like say, hiding hundreds of thousands of dollars in his freezer, or attempting to rebuild his house with diverted campaign contributions, then all the animals who wear the same costume bray or trumpet and rush to defend the besmirched honor of their fellow animal. Matching animal suits take priority over almost everything else. The good of the people whom they purport to represent, or the Republic, for which they are supposed to support is ignored, except when more funds are required to keep the party going for another couple of dances. Then they screech and dance and point fingers at the other kind of animals and plead that with just a few more dollars they can keep the other animals at bay for a little while longer.