We live in a world of constitutional illiterates

Over the last couple of months I've read several editorials by several different newspaper authors decrying Arizona's disregard for a "fundamental constitutional principle" in making their own immigration law.

What is the fundamental constitutional principle commonly cited by all of these writers? That "federal law trumps State law" of course. Yeah, and "immigration is a federal issue" too. Right.

One editorial writer, Mike Jones of the Tulsa World, cites Article VI, supremacy clause, and dogmatically asserts that this provision means that federal law trumps State law without condition or circumstance, thus obliterating the meaning of the provision. Another editorialist declares that Arizona's law must not stand because it violates the constitution by usurping federal power. Hmm., let's investigate the matter for ourselves:

First, Article VI, supremacy clause declares that federal laws made in pursuance of the constitution are supreme to State and local laws. Can we agree on that?

Second, the tenth amendment declares that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States, etc. Can we agree on that?

Third, Article I, Section 8 delegates to the federal Congress authority to make an uniform rule of naturalization. Surely we can agree on that.

Fourth, since naturalization is not immigration and vice versa (we can agree on that, can't we?), and since, therefore, the constitution neither delegates authority over immigration to the federal government, nor prohibits it to the States (uh oh, this one is liable to stick in someone's crawl), and since only federal laws made pursuant to the constitution are declared by the constitution to be supreme over State and local laws,

And,...

since Arizona's law in no way infringes upon the federal government's power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,

Therefore, I can only conclude that not only is Arizona's immigration law completely constitutional, but that since it IS made in pursuance of the constitution as written, unlike federal immigration law, that Arizona's immigration law trumps federal immigration law, per Article VI, Supremacy clause and the Tenth Amendment.

Good day!

Read More

Isn't this just wonderful?!

What we have here is not a failure to communicate (which is a problem we've discussed before), it is a failure to understand or comprehend, on the parts of certain individuals so-inclined, the clear and undeniable principle that consolidation of government power into a single governing entity (per what we have now with the central controlling agency -- the so-called federal government) results, invariably (that is, no matter what angle you're coming at it from), in the destruction of freedom or liberty, and the entire basis on which this Republic was founded.

I don't need to quote founders such as Jefferson to solidify my point, it is as it is. But it's sad, and deeply demoralizing. Although I do take heart in the fact that such State Reps as Oklahoma's own Charles Key (founder of the modern Tenth Amendment movement), et al, are working tirelessly to secure the rights guaranteed to us in the written Bill of Rights per Tenth Amendment Resolutions and their offspring, nullification laws on such things as "federal health care" and "gun legislation," among others. (I know this because I've had email conversations with these legislators.)

Anyway, to those of you who cling to the idea that the fourteenth amendment is useful to securing (individual) liberty, I simply say to you this -- name for me specific incidences of how it has served to do so over the past century and a half post introduction and ratification. I rest my case. Whatever the "good intentions" of its writers, as was predicted by many at the time, it has served to enslave the general American populace to supreme rule via the central government. The history is what it is, I can't change it, and wouldn't if I could.

Read More

Should I take back what I said the other day about Social Cons?

Below is posted the content of an email I sent to Lawrence Auster just a few moments ago:

Is someone reading VFR?

Look at the email below from Tim Wildmon of AFA, particularly the first bolded sentence. Keep in mind that AFA and Dr. Dobson's groups (Focus on the Family and its political arm CitizenLink) are closely aligned, and, I think (actually I know, but I can't go dig up evidence of this right now), are in regular communication with one another.

Are we seeing some progress here amongst the Social Cons? I can't agree with the idea conveyed further in the email stating that we must attack abortion funding in the bill as a separate issue from the entire bill itself. In case the bill passes. This is all but conceding defeat. No! We must attack the bill as a whole as a clear violation of the constitution, because that's the only basis on which it can be defeated, with or without abortion funding, with or without healthcare for illegal aliens, with or without so-called 'death panels', with or without healthcare rationing, with or without criminalization for non-compliance. Etc.

But are we seeing some progress?

The AFA Action Alert email is posted in its entirety below.

Stop the Washington takeover of our health care system
Urgent: Contact your senators today!
November 17, 2009

Dear Terry,

The Senate may vote as early as Thursday to move on its version of the government takeover of health care.

At the president's urging, Democrats are expected to use a parliamentary maneuver which will enable them to strip the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment from the House bill and push through a bill that will involve the use of your taxpayer dollars and mine to pay for abortions.

It must be clear that we oppose the Democratic health care legislation under consideration with or without protections for unborn human life. The Democrats' plan will increase the cost of health care, require rationing of care to seniors, create 111 new bureaucracies, and increase the already bloated federal deficit by a staggering amount.

But we also must make our voices heard any time and every time human life is at stake. Should a health care bill unfortunately reach the president's desk, we must do everything in our power to see that it does not use taxpayer funds to kill unborn children. Conservative estimates are that taxpayer funding of abortion under the government takeover will increase the number of abortions by one-third.

Take Action

E-mail your senators today and urge them firmly but politely to oppose the Washington takeover of our health care system with or without protections for unborn human life. Please also tell them to keep the Stupak-Pitts pro-life amendment in the health care bill that will keep the government from funding abortion, should the bill pass. (bolded text in original email)

I'm pleased to see that Mr. Wildmon and AFA have taken the position above of opposition to the 'healthcare' bill whether it contains abortion funding or not. Hopefully they can influence Dr. Dobson's groups to do the same. But the bottom line for me is this, if this monstrous government take-over of healthcare in America is successfully passed and signed into law, we are left with very few peaceful means (State level nullification laws, for instance) to prevent the wholesale desruction of life, liberty, and property which we have heretofore declared to be our unalienable individual rights as human beings and as Americans, subject to and protected by a written inviolable constitution.

I ask again in the words of Patrick Henry: Is life so dear; is peace so sweet???

Read More

Why Oath Keepers?

Following up on the previous entry, where in the comments section I disapprovingly mentioned Streiff's comments under his own RedState art...hit piece, here's a sampling of what I was talking about:

Streiff writes:

[...]

The Civil War established states can’t secede from the Union contra “oath keeper” point 5.

The Civil Rights movement could not have succeeded without the direct use of federal troops without the consent of the state government, contra “oath keeper” point 4.

If you are comfortable taking the left’s point of view on Jose Padilla while taking the side of Orval Faubus on segregation and Jeff Davis on slavery feel free because that is what this group is doing.

Scare quotes AND non capitalization of proper names! Whoa!, this guy's unstoppable!

I'm sure glad that he helped to clear the fog from my head with the two points above. Otherwise I'd still be trying to see my way clear to understanding why it is that states and local governments can never have authority to protect themselves and their citizens against federal tyranny in the form of disarming American citizens contra "bill of rights" point 2; of conducting illegal searches against them contra "bill of rights" point 4, and so on.

Let's take "bill of rights" point 2, which states:

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.

Read it carefully again. Obviously the wild-eyed lunatics who wrote that were high on hemp or something. Hence federal prohibition on the farming of hemp and manufacture of hemp products. All non-lunatic, genuine Oath Keepers like Streiff know, for example, that any firearm capable of firing, and/or of being manipulated to fire, purposely or not, more than one round per trigger pull can never be safely entrusted to the care and ownership of private American citizens. Only wild-eyed, dangerous lunatics like the "oath keepers" and the hemped-up provocateurs who wrote point 2 of the "bill of rights" believe otherwise. Hence the dire need for federal gun laws contra "oath keepers" point 1; and of enforcement of federal gun laws contra "oath keepers" point 7. And etc...

After all, federal prosecution, disarming and subsequent imprisonment of David Olofson, contra "oath keepers" points 1 and 7 respectively, could never have succeeded without federal intervention. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. How about you.

Read More

Oath Keepers: Not on our watch!

Watch this moving video:



Here's the Oath Keepers website, which I'm adding to my blogroll.

You should know that there's already a fairly sizeable controversy brewing over this fledgling little organization. And not necessarily from a quarter that you'd initially suspect. That is, unless you have a pretty good understanding of the difference between small-c conservatism and large-C Conservatism. I admit that the lines of distinction between the two are sometimes difficult to discern. But by the same token they're sometimes pretty darn clear, as in the case that I'm about to present.

Now, I'm not a follower of "Red State." I've been to the site no more than two or three times, and that was at least a year ago, probably longer. I don't even recall, to be quite honest, why the site didn't appeal to me to begin with. But judging by what I read at the site earlier, I think it's safe to assume that it turned me off primarily because it is, at best, small-c conservative, which I regard as part of the problem, not the solution.

In any event, certain particulars of the forthcoming Red State article by Streiff have already been addressed by the Oath Keepers. Nonetheless, the article is copied and pasted below in its entirety. Without further comment from me. We can discuss it in the comment section if you like.

The Malignant Nature of the Oath Keeper Movement

Oath Breakers Not Oath Keepers

Posted by Streiff (Profile)

Wednesday, October 21st at 2:22PM EDT

321 Comments

Truly malignant ideas crop up in a democracy with the frequency of toadstools after a summer rain storm. Most of these ideas are dismissed by the great majority of citizens after public debate in one fashion or another. Some of the ideas hang on despite evidence to the contrary (sorry Texas was readmitted to the Union and the Income Tax was ratified by the requisite number of states) but attract no real following.

Truly pernicious ideas, however, seem benign at first glance but in truth strike at the heart of our system of government. The “Oath Keeper” movement is one of those ideas.


At first blush, who can object to the 10 orders they say they will not obey. Until you start examining each of them in detail (we’ll put aside for now the mindboggling assertion in Lexington/Concord was precipitated by an attempt to “disarm” Americans).

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

In the case of a smallpox, or similar, outbreak it would not be unreasonable for any government to direct that a municipality or geographic area be put under quarantine. I would think most everyone would agree that would be a good thing. If there was an armed insurrection in some area of the country, I’d find it hard to object to warrantless searches of homes and the disarming of persons in the area of operations. We need look no farther than the actions of Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to see the utter imbecility of the federal government waiting for a state governor to declare an emergency before intervening. The nonsense purveyed by this group would have prevented Lincoln from opposing Secession and, more recently, it would have prevented Eisenhower from integrating public schools in Little Rock.

These principles, if they deserve to be called that, are nonsense and against the American tradition of government as it has been understood since the Whiskey Rebellion was suppressed by George Washington.

Were flogging bad history the only issue at hand, I wouldn’t be writing this. I’d be encouraging them to get a degree in education and teach civics in junior high. But it isn’t. On one hand the oath these people take is meaningless as they seem to be people who aren’t currently bound by an oath anyway. But as a career infantry officer I am gravely offended that they could be encouraging some number of military members to break rather than keep their oath of office. As a conservative I am offended that anyone on my side of the political spectrum would support such un-American nonsense.

When you take the oath of office as a member of the Armed Forces you do not take on the character of a freelance constitutional scholar.

As a commissioned officer you are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate (yes, this is true for even second lieutenants), and you serve at the pleasure of the President.

Your oath reads:

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

Read the oath carefully. There is not an Obama Exception to the oath. There isn’t a proviso that this oath is subsidiary to some grander more important oath you’ve taken. You agree to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” To men of honor and integrity — which, in an ideal world, should be the minimum requirement to hold a commission — your word is your bond, if you’ve taken this oath with mental reservations about the intentions of the President, you’ve already violated your oath. So you aren’t an “oath keeper” but an “oath breaker.”

For enlisted men the rules are even more clear.

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Read it again, slowly and carefully:

I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me

You’ll note there aren’t ten exceptions here. The Uniform Code of Military Justice places a significant burden off proof on anyone who disobeys an order on the grounds that the order wasn’t lawful. And once you’ve made the effort, the system doesn’t treat full-time soldiers and part-time constitutional scholars like Michael New with great deal of respect.

As a conservative I’m truly offended by this nonsense. This type organization, seemingly equal parts Walter Mitty and the black helicopter crowd, enables the left to lump all opponents of Obama together into a lunatic fringe that will then be studiously ignored. The Tea Parties were taken seriously by lots of members of Congress precisely because they were not lunatics. Polls show we are winning people over to our ideas. Why would anyone opposed to the Obama regime think this organization is a good idea?

In 1783, we were at a critical point in our struggle for nationhood. We had won independence but the form of government which would succeed the British monarchy was clearly up for grabs. There were calls for General George Washington to lead the nation either as a monarch or military dictator. In response, Washington went before the Continental Congress on December 23, 1783 and resigned his commission. That action, captured in a painting by John Turnbull on display in the Capitol Rotunda, paved the way for our republican system of government and our tradition of the civil supremacy in civil-military relations.

My advice to the “oath keepers” is just that. Keep your oath. If you want to make political decisions about how the military and police are used in this country, resign your position and agitate to your heart’s content. If you remain in uniform your oath binds you to the government and absent clear reason to the contrary, and none of the ten reasons set forward by the Oath Keeper organization meet that standard, you have a legal and moral obligation to faithfully carry out the duties given to you.

We are in a tough fight with this administration for very high stakes. The stakes, however, do not justify us checking our brain and our sanity at the door and signing onto truly bizarre and un-American ideas like those set out by the Oath Keepers.

Read More

Call me "Mr. Nobody"

Here we have an idiotic Democrat(ic) member of Congress putting his idiocy on open display before God and everybody.

Democrat idiot on the supposed authority of Congress to force Americans to purchase health insurance:

"Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that."

Again, call me Mr. Nobody. Heavy on the Mister!

By the way, when exactly was it that Congress' (unlimited) authority on this issue became unquestionable? I must have been sick that day.

Read More

Great article today at Loyal to Liberty

Here again I jump through a couple of unnecessary hoops in order to create a direct link to Dr. Keyes's excellent article. In this case I think it's worth the extra effort.

(BTW, the reason I don't generally like doing this is because it creates a scenario in which a failure to establish the link is more likely. Which, of course, means that in the event of a failure, then it has to be done all over again. I.e., a simple waste of time and effort. And I can be very impatient about things like that. But I really should be taking this up with Dr. Keyes, shouldn't I?)

Read More

Overturning Roe

This entry is purely intended as a reminder to readers that the abortion discussion at Loyal to Liberty continues with the addition of two new lengthy comments (double posted under the thread) by Chiu Chunling.

On one side of the question we have Dr. Keyes who disparages the states' rights argument because it allows for the continuation of the legal practice of abortion in America. On the other side we have Chiu Chunling who denies the validity of the federal argument because it ... allows for the continuation of the federally mandated legal practice of abortion in America. (I hope my summation of the argument is factually correct.)

This is such an important and thought provoking discussion, and given that it has moved several posts down the page both at Loyal to Liberty and with my reference to it here, that I'm going to do that which I normally wouldn't do, which is to say I'm going to jump through a couple of unnecessary hoops in order to embed, in the following words -- a direct link to the entry in question.

End of initial entry.

Read More

Once again, Heavy on the WE

Dr. Keyes's latest Loyal to Liberty entry highlights the recent exchange between he and Chiu Chunling. We have, of course, been having a discussion on the topic here for the last several days, one-sided as it may well be. But I'm happy to report that Dr. Keyes recognizes the imortance of the exchange nonetheless.

I wrote in a comment to the post the following:

Terry Morris said...
Very good, sir! I'm personally very happy to see that you alerted your readers to this important exchange.

By the way, I used to be one of these people who demanded a strict interpretation of the constitution on a national level. I changed my attitude towards that when I realized that (abortion being one of the key issues) there was no hope left that the federal government would ever, under current conditions, reverse its position on 'a woman's right to choose,' but that several of the states, including my own, would, without flinching, via the ninth and tenth amendments, tell the feds to take a hike on this and other vital issues ('gay marriage' and so forth).

What we musn't ever forget is that the founders established a government suitable for themselves and the founding generation. "We (heavy on the WE!) hold these truths to be self-evident" doesn't necessarily apply to us, as I've attempted to point out innumerable times in the past. But it still does, in certain cases, apply to WE, as in us -- my state being one of a few examples. How long can this possibly remain so under the current (acceptable) system?

By all means, though, do take the time to read the exchange as Dr. Keyes has posted it under the new article. It is more instructive as such than otherwise posted.

(By the way, it's difficult to link to a specific article at Loyal to Liberty due to some kind of setting deal I'm not really qualified to tackle. Hence, my links to Loyal to Liberty-the site, vs. links to specific posts as with other sites. Pardon my incompetence.)

Read More

"Race war," "Civil war" -- how to equate the two

Chiu Chunling once wrote, in response to a black racist commenter at Loyal to Liberty that "if you don't want a race war, then don't start one.

I think the same principle applies with regard to civil war and the war of ideas which instigates it. As I wrote this morning at the Tenth Amendment Center,

Terry Morris Says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:45 am

Congress is doing a fine job of working out details of the healthcare bill, what???

I’ll tell you what, when Congess (or any other government entity) can show me where it (or any other government entity) has any legitimate business whatsoever involving itself in healthcare, then I’ll agree or disagree with the assertion that Congress is doing a fine job of it. As it is, the only ‘fine job’ Congress is doing is the job of overthrowing the principles of the constitution. Which too many people recognize to allow to go off without a hitch.

In other words, if Congress does not want a civil war, then it’s best advised not to start one. End of story.

Of course, I'm not at all convinced that the current Congress does not want a civil war, and am persuaded that it, somewhat like so-called "thrill-seekers" may actually think it wants one. If that's the case, then its members seem oblivious to the fact that their side cannot possibly win such a war. This ain't 1860 after all. But whatever. Most so-called "thrill seekers" do actually recognize that they're very likely to end up on the 'winning' side of things despite the danger inherent to their pursuits. Otherwise they wouldn't do it, or otherwise devise ways of making their pursuits, well, less dangerous. But what about the current Congress? Perhaps they're kind of, sort of, in-a-way something like Grizzly Man (who was violently eaten by one of the objects of his affection). Who knows.

Read More

What is America's moral responsibility to the rest of the world?

If you're not a regular follower of Dr. Keyes's blog Loyal to Liberty as I am, you may be interested in his entry The USA- A special nation with special responsibilities and the discussion that ensues.

I think Dr. Keyes is more-or-less arguing for the "proposition nation" theory of America (i.e., America is an idea), a theory of America that I personally do not wholly reject, but one which I think can very easily be taken too far as it tends to set aside or dismiss certain aspects of historic Americanism that are unique to America and its founding, namely the original overwhelming WASP majority.

I'm by no means an expert on this, nor do I claim to be (how's that for unnecessary repitition?), but I think that simple common sense will teach us that there has to be a connection between the loss of freedom in America and the dilution of that majority. Perhaps I personally make too much of it, or, perhaps not. You be the judge.

To be clear, Dr. Keyes is one of my favorite, most respected provocateurs of American idealism, but the favoritism and respect I personally afford him has little to do with my larger respect for the American Idea of Nation-making.

As I wrote in a comment to Dr. Keyes's entry:

Dr. Keyes wrote:

Those who talk about the "American" idea of freedom" have already abandoned it.

I don't think that's necessarily true, although it's probably true as a general rule. People sometimes (hesitantly) use descriptives like this in an attempt to make a finer point. But of course "freedom" is expressed and exercised differently in America than it is in other parts of the world where it exists or has existed. Taken as a whole I'm not sure that America represents no-holds-barred Randian libertarianism, although there seems to be that (growing) element.

I certainly agree that any genuine notion of liberty begins with a belief in the Sovereign God of the universe and his will for His moral creatures. But then again, that's what I would personally call the "American idea of liberty" since this nation is unique among nations in that vein. After all,

"...is it not that in the chain of human events the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked to the birthday of the Savior of the World?..."

In any event I think this is an important discussion to have, and I look forward to your next edition in the series.

And the next for that matter. In any event I'll be closely monitoring Dr. Keyes's follow-on entries. I don't particularly give two hoots about black or white Americanism, only about Americanism, black or white. On the other hand, I've opened myself up to all manner of criticism. So be it.

Read More

The (real) Spirit of '87

In a nice article posted at the Tenth Amendment Center, Timothy Baldwin (son of Chuck Baldwin) writes the following,

[T]o suggest that state sovereignty always give way to the national power is to completely do away with the line. It is in fact to destroy even the natural law of self-preservation. If you accept Corwin’s proposition of “getting back to the constitution”, you might as well throw the tenth amendment in the dump, along with the freedom it protects.

which concepts are of intense interest to me, witnessed by the fact that I've written about them numerous times at this blog including at least one entry in which I suggested (tongue in cheek, of course) that we make this false and dangerous doctrine of federal authority always trumping state authority official amending it into the constitution and settling the issue once and for all time. Indeed, we could simply scrap the entirety of the U.S. Constitution and replace it with this simple doctrine, for as I've also said before, to scrap the 9th and 10th amendments is the same thing, for all intents and purposes, as scrapping the entirety of the constitution.

In a comment directed at Mr. Baldwin's above statements, I wrote the following:

To suggest that state sovereignty always give way to the national power is to completely do away with the line.

Precisely correct! It is, in point of fact, a contradiction in terms the suggestion that state sovereignty can in any way exist alongside an all powerful central authority to which the states must always yield. One of the fundamental laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction (A cannot be non-A), which such a concept palpably violates and is therefore of no legitimate authority whatsoever, which is to say that rational people are in no way bound to observe it nor anyone who propagates such blatantly false illogical conceptions.

It is in fact to destroy even the natural law of self-preservation.

Well, the law itself cannot be destroyed. It can, however, be undermined to the extent that for all intents and purposes (governmentally speaking) it is non existent. And that’s what it invariably comes down to, now isn’t it. Indeed, the law of self-preservation applies as well to the national government as it does to the states and to the people. In asserting unlimited arbitrary power over them, the national government, in point of fact, is destroying itself and the reason for its existence. And we all know what the Declaration says about that — “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [the preservation of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it…”

In the end, and as I think Mr. Baldwin intimates further down the article, it all comes down to a clash of worldviews (doesn't it always?). Worldview A holds that there are certain inviolable principles perpetually at work in the physical universe and, acknowledging that these principles and laws exist, seeks to operate within the boundaries therein prescribed insofar as they can be dileneated, while Worldview B rejects the idea that these principles and laws really exist as anything more than the false conceptions and inventions of [lesser-evolved] minds led astray. Worldview B seeks, therefore, to ignore them, everything being to such people "relative" except, of course, the idea that "everything is relative" which is not relative but a fixed and immutable law of the universe. Setting aside the contradiction here, is this the one and only fixed and immutable law of the universe, this idea that everything is relative? I don't know, it gets a bit confusing given that such people also palpably contradict themselves in dogmatically asserting that "we can't legislate morality" while at the very same moment, and in fact in the very issue itself, pushing intensely for the ... well, ahem ... the legislation of morality.

Anyway, do read the article in full. Baldwin helpfully lists at least twelve instances in which the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution contain the same principles. Not that it really serves our purposes since the constitution establishes an all-powerful central authority designed to eventually suck all other state and local authority into its ever-growing, ever more violently destructive vortex.

Them founding fathers, they was a shifty bunch, wasn't they!

Read More

The Constitution according to Nancy

Nancy-baby (H/T: Tenth Amendment Center):

The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states… or to the people. But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited. (bolded in original).

Translation (as if you needed one):

The Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution is inoperable and meaningless, and has been for a long long time. Why this obstructionist, divisive amendment was ever added as part of the Bill of Rights is anyone's guess. Surely the founders didn't expect the states to make the mistake of ratifying it. But whatever. That was then, this is now. And the joke's on them.

Since Congress has successfully used the commerce clause to control various aspects of American life, building line upon line, precept upon precept, the sky is now the limit. Indeed, given that virtually (qualifier added as merely a matter of form) every aspect of everything done in America effects, in some way, shape, form, interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate all aspects of American life is unlimited. Challenge my authority and I'll bury your sorry constructionist, literalist, originalist, traditionalist *ss!

She forgot to mention that Congress only need "occupy the field" and "intend a complete ouster" in order to take absolute control over any subject matter. But she's clear enough methinks. The central government is [essentially] all powerful, and by its good graces alone does it allow the states and the people to retain any portion of their sovereignty and autonomy. Thus, if you care to retain what little you have left, you had better bow down before the U.S. government and its Communist power brokers and beg for its mercy and forgiveness. For has it not been written, "if the People ask bread [their government] will not give them a stone."

Read More

Et tu, Joe?

Again I ask this fundamentally critical question: What the hell, and by what legitimate authority, is the central government doing nationalizing healthcare?! Secondly, what possible usefulness is the Republican party to the preservation (or restoration, as it were) of limited Constitutional government when everything we hear from it and its acolytes concerning this healthcare business, among other things, amounts to no more than the equivalent of "we're moving too fast in the right direction."?

As I've said numerous times before, if the Republican party is not a viable vehicle for conservatism, then it is useless. Period. After all, it's a poor dog that won't wag its own tail, a poorer dog still that bites the hand that feeds it. But beyond that, and perhaps more importantly, if the Republican party and its acolytes are nothing more than liberal progressives at heart donning the specious mask of conservatism, then it and they are my avowed enemies, more dangerous even than Hussein and the openly Communist Democrats.

Which is the more dangerous enemy to a free people and their constitutional form of government -- an openly Communist Democrat or a covert Communist Republican?

Though regrettable, it's also understandable that the average Joe isn't fully aware until it's too late of how his government is systematically destroying his fundamental liberties, even as he pays obedient, patriotic tribute to it. But Joe Wilson isn't your average Joe. Joe Wilson is a Republican U.S. Congressman supposedly trying to represent the best interests of his constituents, namely South Carolinian citizens in particular and the larger U.S. citizenry in general. He knows what's going on legislatively in the U.S. government, and he knows what's been going on under other administrations. Indeed, before he was vocally against illegal alien healthcare coverage per his "You lie!" outburst last week, Kerry-like Joe Wilson was silently for it, as Ilana Mercer brings out in this WND article.

To be fair to Mr. Wilson and his Republican colleagues, it is possible, I suppose, that he has experienced a genuine change of heart or some kind of epiphany on this illegal alien question. I'll very cautiously give him the benefit of that doubt because it actually does happen, albeit I'm also quite sure that leftier-than-thou Joe Wilson is a strong proponent of the principles of absolute equality and non-discriminationism. At the same time I think it's very safe to say that Joe Wilson and most other Congressional Republicans actually agree with and advocate the principles of nationalized healthcare, they just think, as I said above, that alien-in-chief Hussein and the openly Communist Democrats are going too far too fast, which is the exact definition of the U.E., which we apply exclusively to liberals. If we're right in doing so, then what does this make Joe Wilson?

While Wilson was right to call out the alien/liar-in-chief for his blatant lies and his provocations of the opponents of 'Obamacare,' Joe Wilson and his RINO colleagues ought to be severly reprimanded for passing themselves off as conservatives, which they're clearly not. But then again, Wilson and his RINO colleagues very likely don't have a clue about what conservatism and its fountainhead is in the first place. In the unlikely event that they do understand what conservatism is, they obviously disagree with it. They have, in other words, the form of conservatism but deny the power thereof.

What, then, is the solution to this rampant problem of non-conservative, non-Republican Republicanism, which is epitomized in the former RINO Arlen Specter? To be quite honest I don't rightly know, except to say that a return to Balanced Constitutional Government, whereby destructive liberal progressivism attempting to pass itself off as something else -- conservatism -- would be more easily recognizable and thus manageable, is essential. But any genuine "conservative" position on nationalized healthcare must begin with the premise that centralized healthcare is not only constitutionally inconsistent, it is, in point of fact, self-destructive and unAmerican if the objective is in fact "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" through the creation and maintenance of a "more perfect Union." Of course, many of us know perfectly well by now that this is not the objective of Congressional Democrats OR Republicans, who are all (admitting as always the occasional exception) demagogues well versed in paying an obsequious court to the People. Meanwhile they systematically do everything in their power to destroy the Peoples' lives, their liberties and the means of their wealth.

Read More

Congress poised to criminalize Self-government and Independence

In a short column written for the Washington Post, Ezra Klein explains why the Town Halls during the Congressional break are likely not to effect the final outcome of the health care debate which he considers something of a foregone conclusion. In other words, says he, Congress is most likely going to pass the health care bill, and the alien-in-chief is, of course, going to sign it into law. This in spite of all the opposition fireworks we saw at tht Town Halls last month.

Klein's take on the matter is almost identical to my own, which I've expressed here and elsewhere a number of times over the past months since the health care debate was first initiated in Congress. My perspective on this issue is a pretty simple one -- Democrats, who currently hold a clear super majority in the House, and a not so clear but nontheless large majority in the Senate, have been chomping at the bit since they lost their majorities back in 1992, waiting for the moment they would regain power enough to push their socialist agenda through without serious opposition.

I'm not much of a candy eater myself and never have been, but I'm reminded here of when I was in basic military training. For about the first two and a half to three weeks of basic training, my comrades and I were all deprived of, among other things that before we'd taken for granted, access to any kind of candies and soda pops. When we were finally let out onto the break area for an hour one evening, well, I must have eaten about six candy bars and drank about as many pops. Again, I've never liked candy very much, but the idea that I had been denied access to it for upwards of two and half weeks drove me to injest as much of it as I could while I could for fear I might not get another chance, or that it might be long in coming. I think that's similar to what's happening here. If you give them free reign, or virtual free reign, if but for a couple of hours, so to speak, the Democrats and the RINOs in both houses of Congress are almost sure to take full advantage of it, and damn the consequences, really. Like myself at that youthful age, they're very much immature and display a real lack of self control (not to mention common sense). Indeed, I would say that our word for the 'Gamers' -- "Arrested Adolescents" -- applies in this case as well. On the other hand, Mr. Klein and I could both be completely wrong about this, not about the immaturity and hell-bent attitude on display in the U.S. Congress, but about the ultimate passage of the health care bill. I don't think so (that we're wrong), but there is that remote possibility. We shall see in due time.

Klein's article is posted beneath the fold. (H/T: VFR)

The State of Health-Care Reform

The research seems pretty convincing that impressive speeches don't do much to transform the dynamics of presidential approval. But then, tonight's speech doesn't need to do much. And it doesn't need to do much because health-care reform is in pretty good shape. Bills have now passed four of the five relevant committees. The outlier committee, the Senate Finance Committee, is circulating its outline and seems likely to pass a bill within the next week or so.

At that point, the bills will go to the floor of the House and Senate, where passage isn't certain but seems pretty likely. And once the bills pass the House and the Senate, final passage of the conference report (the merged bill) is a good bet. And the president's signature is then a sure thing.

That's the context for Obama's speech: It's sort of health-care reform's version of the State of the Union. And the State of the Process is strong: The legislative politics of health care are in considerably better shape than August would have suggested or the ongoing coverage has really articulated (in part because the Finance Committee was gummed up until this week).

Obama's job, then, isn't all that difficult: It's bringing public perceptions of the health reform process closer in line with the underlying reality. And that underlying reality is that the bills are fundamentally pretty similar, there's a fairly high level of consensus, and there are some crucial elements that need to be worked out over the next few weeks, and seem like they will be. The town halls made health-care reform seem chaotic and incomprehensible and disorderly, but at the moment, it's really anything but. In fact, it's closer to agreement than it ever has been before.

Read More

And by the way...

In connection with the preceding post, I'm not endorsing everything that Dr. Keyes says on a given subject. Particularly, in this case, his remarks concerning desegregation and school integration. But on this issue of Hussein's eligibility we're definitely on the same page.

Read More

Dr. Keyes -- a common sense approach to the eligibility issue

(H/T: LoyaltoLiberty.com)

Read More

Hussein O.'s impending impeachment

I've dealt with this several times to date, but not in an entry to this blog as I recall.

Ray Acosta Sr. writes at the Tenth Amendment Center:

Not to worry. As soon as Obama’s popularity gets low enough, he and all his cronies will be impeached.

Here's the deal in any event:

(1) You can't impeach the first black president no matter how low his approval ratings get. We live, my friends, in liberal dominated society. Get used to it, or do something about it.

(2) Even if you could, again, it isn't going to happen because those comprising the body invested with the impeachment responsibility have signed on to the Hussein agenda. Thus, if they impeached him, they'd be implicating themselves. Once again, it ain't going to happen on that basis alone.

(3) Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Hussein was re-elected in 2012 BUT that Republicans re-took the majority in both houses of Congress. Hussein still wouldn't be impeached. Why? See rule no. 1. And if that isn't enough, refer to rule no. 2.

P.S. Lindsey Grahamnesty is a jackass (i.e., a liberal) from way back. Get that through your heads.

Read More

You knew it had to come to this at some point

Hussein Obama's ineligibility is destroying the entire command structure of the United States military. It has begun.

(Note: There's an interesting discussion concerning this situation ongoing at VFR.)

Update (July 18): A federal judge, as reported in the Ledger-Enquirer, has now dismissed Major Cook's case on grounds that the military's revocation of his deployment orders also serve to revoke his standing in the case. How convenient.

Read More

On the proper role of the federal government

When you've got 52 minutes to spare, follow the link provided to the Tenth Amendment Center and listen to Michael Boldin's podcast interview with Constitutional scholar and expert Prof. Rob Natelson.

The interview is well conducted, and Mr. Natelson's answers and explanations are very informative. Also on the page are links to articles published by Mr. Natelson, as well as a link to some of his fuller length essays on subjects related to the constitution.

Read More