KrashPAD

Why I Support the TEA Party, but am still a Constiutionalist

2011-09-03T00:39:00.003-05:00

An... let's call it interesting, article sauntered across my data streams this evening. One of those nice, liberal diatribes berating the GOP and the TEA Party. Specifically denouncing them as liars, and hate-mongers. Basically, the typical Liberal reaction whenever they can't defend themselves with logical and coherent discourse.

Specifically, this article clearly denounces that the TEA Party is the enemy of America. Then goes on to speak on how small governments are "easier to take over" and that apparently the TEA Party is only about the white American males, and is utterly unconcerned about any other skin tone/color.

And from a certain point of view, that's true. If the writer of that particular article's idea of America is this socialist conglomerate, which espouses the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Because, let's face facts here, that's not the idea of America which the TEA Party is going after. I mean let's consider the Contract from America which the TEA Party has latched onto. The Contract from America contains the following 10 concepts:

Identify Constitutionality of every new law
Reject emissions trading
Demand a balanced federal budget
Simplify the tax system
Audit federal government agencies for waste and Constitutionality
Limit annual growth in federal spending
Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010
Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' energy policy
Reduce Earmarks
Reduce Taxes

So, yes, the TEA Party is the enemy of Socialist America.

To be honest, so am I. I speak out against socialist programs, and unconstitutional federal agencies to anyone that will listen. I explain the reasons why these things should not exist, and provide concise reasons from both a moral aspect, as well as a straight-forward reading of the Constitution.

But, all those things, things which I identify with as being a part of the TEA Party's platform, have little to nothing to do with the Republican Party. The Republicans are not there to limit growth in federal spending, they're not there to reduce earmarks and taxes. After all, from the recent Congressional election, not all of the Republicans running for office decided to sign up for it. Specifically, Brendan Buck (Speaker John Boehner's Communications Director for Special Legislative Initiatives) explained that the Contract from America was too narrow in focus, and not exactly what the Republican Party would include in its own top 10 list of priorities.

The Republican's answer to the Contract from America, was their Pledge to America. This pledge calls for:

Extending the Bush-era tax cuts
Tax deduction for small businesses
Hold on all unspent funds from 2009 stimulus bill &2008 TARP
Roll back on government spending to 2008 levels (but exempting "seniors, veterans and our troops")
Federal hiring freeze (except for national security agencies)
Repeal the 2010 health-care reform bill
Reform medical liability and health insurance practices
Permanent ban on any federal funds for abortion
Requirement that Congress post all bill online 3 days before a vote
Requirement that lawmakers cite the specific constitutional authority that enables the legislation
Ban on trails on U.S. soil for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay
Protecting the nation of Israel and denouncing Palestinian behavior
Defense spending boost by $5 billion
Ending the regime in Iran and North Korea

See the differences in these two lists? The Republican's aren't out to stop the Federal government from interfering with our lives and our ability to support ourselves and our family. Rather they just have a different focus on which agencies should be doing the interfering.

Sadly, the GOP has kind of hijacked the TEA Party for its own goals, and even sadder, a lot of the folks who started the TEA Parties are going along with this.

Digression aside, the other aspect of the article that really surprised me, was the following quote:

The Tea Party has proven itself the antithesis of transparency, banning First Amendment rights to Americans, passing legislation illegally, and banning Democracy through Republican martial law. Like all totalitarians, the Tea Party likes to do its dirty business behind closed doors and then present us with a fait accompli. No debate and far less any public debate. They decide, and then they tell us what they decided. No questions asked, none, because questions aren’t permitted. You’re more likely to be beat up or arrested than you are to get an answer.

I searched, but could not find a single instance of this anywhere. Sure, I found a few instances where people of spoken to the Tea Party Caucus behind closed doors, but nothing about them passing secret laws illegally. Of course, there are a number of discussions about Obama's closed-door sessions where legislation was being written (2011 budget just the latest of them).

The closet thing I could find are the recent rash of laws which states are passing saying that they're going to enforce current federal immigration laws, since the feds seem to not want to do so.

Of course, I don't see why protecting our country's sovereignty. After all, if they are willing to break our laws by entering our country illegally, what is to make us think they won't be willing to break every other law we have on our books? Amusingly, this is one of the rare areas which the Federal government doesn't have an agency tracking data on.

But all that aside, I still endorse the things which the TEA Party started out over. I support the Contract from America.

And I try my best to convince everyone I come across to join me in my support.

The Arab Spring...

2011-08-31T20:00:00.000-05:00

The spring of 2011 saw the Arab world erupt with the desire for changes of governments. Egypt's president left office, and the violence in Libya is still ongoing. Here in the Western World, we have heard how Twitter and Facebook helped drive these uprisings, and helped synchronize the actions of protestors.

Personally, I'm much more hesitant (since I understand the networks involved) in attributing these things to social media, instead consider cells and text messaging a much more likely suspect.

That said, one kind of expects countries that base their entire regimes on personal power and the crushing of what we Americans consider natural rights, to periodically stop such things as cell service going to its populace. Especially if said populace is planning on some type of protest.

But, we, here in America, don't expect that to happen on American soil. After all, we have the concept of natural rights--which are by definition rights that we're born with, and not rights given to us by some obscure civil organization. After all, we're a republic, our government is supposed to be OF THE PEOPLE and FOR THE PEOPLE.

Sadly, as in too many things in this day and age, our government has failed in this task.

The BART system in San Fransisco (which is a government agency) decided that it too can be a dictatorship and deny the citizens of this country the ability to communicate. They did this by disabling the network which allows cell service to make its way into the tunnels where the BART system runs. All because of the rumor that protests were planned for August 11th during the "busiest 15 minutes of the day."

Get that.

Government officials decided to deprive Americans of the ability to communicate--and likewise I would view it as impingement of First Amendment rights--because of the possibility of a protest that could possibly interrupt service.

Sure, the disruption of service was for only a few hours, but it's not the length of the outage that's at issue; rather its the sheer gall that the government would take steps to prevent American citizens from communicating with one another.

I have long held the belief that as more and more of the Liberal policies are enacted, that more and more of our natural rights are eroded. Consider, Liberals hate guns, thus they decide that we should not have the natural right to protect ourselves. Consider, Liberals want to buy votes, thus they decide that it is okay to take money from my pockets and distribute it out to whom they deem worthy. And now consider, a government agency has deemed a potential protest too disturbing, thus they deprive the citizenry of the ability to communicate.

This is a deep and harmful, slippery slop. Personally, I pray and hope that the BART gets ruled against, in a hefty fee-based lawsuit, and that this judgment comes down against them fast enough that no other government agency thinks that this is a good idea.

I wished, that the individuals responsible could also be held responsible (fiscally and legally) for this gross attack on our natural rights. Sadly, personal responsibility is still a tad too much to ask for from our government (at least in most cases--Florida's gun laws look promising).

Obama's Kills a Regulation or 500..

2011-08-23T16:55:00.002-05:00

Well, I can't believe it, ~~The Anointed One~~ Obama has actually done something while in office with which I agree.

The Chosen in Chief has announced plans to cut or roll back hundreds of federal regulations that affect businesses of all stripes. The Administration said that these plans include 500 regulatory reforms, with more than 100 from the Department of Transportation and over 70 from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Obama's administration claims that the lessening of their stranglehold on American businesses will (and this is an estimate!) save those self-same businesses over $10 billion over the next five years.

And let's be honest and forthright for a moment, this is a good effort at clearing up the thousands of regulations and other things with which the government does its best to stifle small and medium sized businesses.

Now, if only it was considered a good START instead of an end-all, be-all which the Obama administration seems inclined to treat it as. I mean, here after his 30-odd months in office of systematically hampering business growth, he dangles a carrot in front of the noses of those business owners in an effort to gain himself a second term. A baby carrot, but a carrot none-the-less.

And what he hopes to purchase with this baby carrot is $10 billion in savings for those self-same businesses.

Which, from one point of view, is a whole lot of money.

At least until you consider the fact that since September, 2007, the Federal Debt has grown by roughly $3.7 billion per day.

Think about that. Obama's latest efforts is a HOPED FOR* $10 billion savings over 5 years, while at the same time, the government will spend more than that every 4 days.

To put that into a really nice perspective, at the current rate of growth for the Federal government, by the time that the business community has realized these estimated $10 billion in savings, the government will have spent $6,753 billion.

This is a nice racket. I mean, imagine me telling you, that if you'll give $3.70 a day, for the next 5 years, then at the end of those 5 years, I'll give you $10. Do you think that that's a reasonable and equitable trade off? Do you think that's wise?**

But, this is The Chosen One's grand plan to help our economy recover. It's not enough to offer us a baby carrot, when you're stealing them from us by the ton.

Frankly, it's too little, too late.

*And that's even if these estimates are right! Frankly, I always have major doubts whenever the Federal government provides an estimate. In my mind, if it is something that's going to cost us (the American taxpayer) then I quadruple it as my base estimate when considering things. If it's something that is supposed to save us money, then I quarter it. It seems to be a good rule of thumb for these things.

**if you answered yes to this question, give me a quick email--and we'll also talk about some bridges I'd like to sell you).

The Terror of the Skies

2010-11-14T14:08:00.000-06:00

I'm disturbed by a lot of what I've been reading lately in regards to the airport system and most specifically in regards to the Transportation Security Administration.

Sadly, not even the fact that peadeophilists and other unsavory characters are TSA screeners is not the worst of the recent things I have read.

No, the most recent things is the new emphasis on those full body image scanners as well as the ~~sexual assaults~~ "pat downs" one will receive if one has the temerity to not want to produce porn for the cretins who take pictures of nude people for the TSA.

What's worse is that those nude pictures are not of just adults, but of children.

Think about this, we have an entire class of people (some of whom obviously have… issues with small children) whose entire job is to take nude pictures of children. Yet because these… people wear the pretty gold costume jewelry handed out by the Powers That Be, their persons are sacrosanct in their ability to produce naked pictures of actual children.

And this while some poor soul got jail time in Iowa because he had the misfortune of ordering the wrong comic book from Japan (and again, no one seems quite certain WHY the Post Master general felt the need to open said mail).

Let's look at a few examples of the types of brilliance which the TSA is inflicting.

First, there's Michael Angone. Ms. Angone is the daughter of two Chicago area police officers, and as an infant had cancer so bad that they were forced to amputate her leg. As such, she now has an artificial one. As a member of the Chicago Children's Choir, she has to travel a lot, and so she informs the TSA screeners that her prosthetic sets off their alarm. But is that enough for the TSA cretins in question? Of course not, they see a reasonably attractive post-pubescent female and feel the need to touch every part of her body. The pat downs in this case were so invasive, so humiliating, and so inappropriate that her father (again, a Chicago police officer—and the Chicago PD is another government good-boy network more known for its corruptness than its strict obedience to the law) is wondering why the TSA screeners have to grope her consistently. She describes it as being "felt up" in public by strangers.

Next, we have Meg McClain. Ms. McClain was given the oh so special privilege of getting nude pictures taken of her against her will, and when she opted out of the so-called "optional" procedure, the TSA began their usual shenanigans. When she had the temerity to question them, they then pulled out the big guns by bringing in 12 Miami cops, ripping up her ticket and ultimately expelling her from the

Then there's the 71 year old gentleman with a fake knee by the name of Robert Perry. He informed the TSA screener about said knee, and when it inevitably set off the alarm, the TSA screener pulled his pants down to his ankles. When he asked to see a supervisor, the screener proceeded to yell at him: "I have power, I have power! I have Power!" Which of course she did, her power allowed him the great dignity of standing about nude, and missing his flight to Florida with his wife so they could celebrate their fiftieth wedding anniversary.

Finally, we have a 3 year old who is molested at the security checkpoint. And we have video footage of that.

Which, as a father sickens me. If that had been my child, I would have felt the need to ensure myself a short trip to a federal penitentiary. To be clear, I would have felt the urge to punch the idiot who was touching my child in such a fashion.

What type of nation have we become, when we provide an entire subclass of people the power to molest children and the elderly as well as to take naked pictures of anyone at anytime.

And think back to Mr. Perry's story. It's not bad enough that some of the TSA gets their jollies from feeling up three year olds, but its' also a POWER thing. Ben Cramer, author of How Israel Lost wrote about a school headmaster, who was an elderly gentleman, and happened to pass the same checkpoint every morning, and every morning was forced to undress and stand naked while his students passed by.

Mr. Cramer asked a checkpoint guard why such humiliation is inflicted on the elderly, and was rewarded with this quote:

Because [of] the bad attitude – you know? If they are acting like they are good, [then] we are the bad one. Then, you must show them control.

Look at that: YOU MUST SHOW THEM CONTROL.

It's not about keeping people safe. It's about submission and control. It's a power game for the TSA. They want to see what they can do and get away with.

After all, according to federal prosecutor Tim Funnel, since TSA officers are performing a "vital function" (which really, really makes me wonder what's on his hard disk) they are "entitled to protection from assault." Which is the government's way of saying we will do whatever we want to your person, and there's squat that you can do to us for it.

Sadly, we have no one but ourselves to blame for this.

Or in the immortal worlds of Ben Franklin:

They who can give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

US District 9 and Searches

2010-10-04T21:53:00.004-05:00

Recently, the 9th District Court of Appeals ruled that it was legal for cops to place GPS units onto a vehicle parked in your driveway without the need for a warrant.

Basically, this made warrant-less GPS tracking of your vehicle legal for the whole of the 9th District (and you thought those pesky Liberals like civil liberty). I mean, this is a ruling which made Judge Koziniki state (in his dissenting comments):

The needs of law enforcement, to which my colleagues seem inclined to refuse nothing, are quickly making personal privacy a distant memory. 1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it’s here at last.

Fairly accurate summation, and logical reaction to this.

Of course, we didn't have to wait to long before these things started showing up in the wild, and we now have someone on REDDIT who has found one of these devices on their (or actually their friend's) car.

With pictures.

To the right there is a picture of the actual device which someone took from their car.

The device is a Guardian ST820, a GPS tracking unit made by a company called Cobham. Additionally, it's sales is restricted to army and law enforcement agencies.

Which sadly are not that different in this day and age.

Regardless, this is a device, whose sole purpose is to track the movements of citizens. And in the 9th District, it is perfectly legal for the government to place it on your vehicle without your knowledge.

For the record, this was found under the car, near the exhaust pipe. The image to the left there is the magnet pack which allows this thing to stay connected to your vehicle.

I kind of fear that a check for this travesty of privacy and Constitutional law needs to become part of my standard pre-drive inspections.

Polarized Politics, or How Republicans Can Earn My vote

2010-09-23T23:13:00.001-05:00

There's a blog I read, written by a one Shaun Duke, entitled "The World in the Satin Bag. It's primary focus is typically based on speculative fiction of all strips, but, on occasion, Mr. Duke steps out of that particular comfort zone and creates articles about other things. Well, he recently did just that with a post entitled Polarized Politics and How Republicans Can Earn My Vote.

In said blog post, Mr. Duke describes those things that he feels he needs, as a defined and explicit GOP platform, for the GOP to earn his vote. What I'm going to do here, is summarize Mr. Duke's list and then write out my thoughts on each bullet point.

Anyways, Mr. Duke's list (again, as summarized by yours truly) are thus:

An economic policy not involving tax cuts
Rejection of anti-gay rhetoric, and endorsement of gay marriages
Green-based environmental policy
Admitting that all those liberal "-isms" still exist and plague our society
Universal Health Care
Abandon "No Child Left Behind" style tests, and give money to schools which are "predominately non-white"
The government stating that a theory cannot be taught
A Federal law regulating religion
Promise to not lie, misinform, misdirect and to reject money from corporations (but not lobbies!)

Now, that's an interesting list, and one which I view as both misguided, and distinctly of a "Leftist" tilt. From its reading, one should automatically assume that Mr. Duke would vote GOP on the provision that they become Liberals/Leftists. It could happen after all. It wasn't that long ago, that it was the GOP which was the bastion of liberal-based policies.

Yet, it is still a fundamentally flawed list, as is typical in most Liberal screeds.

First, the economic policy. It's a great thing, to believe that the government can be some grand equalizer, sharing out wealth and handing out bags of gold and food to everyone who stops by. But, that's an unsustainable form of growth. Government can not create wealth. It cannot create jobs, and it cannot do anything but take money from those who do create wealth and jobs, and hand it out to others. Typically and traditionally, we call those who take things they have not earned thieves, and those who wait with open hands for handouts beggars, yet when Congress is involved, we call them the Taxman and Welfare Recipients. But, in a sense, he is right, in that we do not need an economic policy revolving around extending Bush-era tax cuts. After all, those did not go nearly far enough. Instead, we need to cut taxes even more, and do away with un-Constitutional programs and departments. Taxes and Government spending only removes capital resources from out economy.

Second, I actually agree with some of what he's asking for here. There should be no difference, from the Government's point of view, between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Yet, that does not mean that two men (or two women) need to be married. There is strong scientific evidence that a two-parent (male/female) nuclear family is the best form to raise children. That is the purpose for which society supports the concept of marriage, and thus two people of the same sex don't need to be in that type of recognized union. Much the same way that the government does not need to recognize when someone marries their dog.

Thirdly, there is no truly reliable data concerning global warming. There is evidence at wide-spread data tampering. There is evidence of scientists being ostracized for speaking out against the science behind global warming. There is evidence that we have fewer weather reporting stations in the data streams, and they are all from warmer climates. There is even evidence that numbers are often made up in the UN reports related to global climate change. Additionally, there is serious evidence that the environment works in cyclical natures, and we're just experiencing a truly natural upswing in the ambient temperature. Additionally, such things as the "Cap-and-trade" laws currently before Congress would do nothing but add billions in costs to our industrial base (again, killing jobs and harming the economy) while the estimated change from the law is well under statistical significance.

The fourth dealing with racism, sexism, etc…. you know, actually, I do agree with this now that I think about it. I mean it. There are still colleges out there that determine admittance based on the color of your skin not how well you did on your test scores. There are organizations, especially of the governmental variety, which grant greater higher status to certain genders and races over others. Sadly, I think I might have misread that particular point.

Anyways, the fifth point above is universal health care. First off, government run health care does not work. Look at Massachusetts out of control budget. Look at the wait times for doctors in places like France and Canada. The sad thing is that it was liberal policy which lead us into this mess in the first place. Big government programs created the hassles involving health insurance, which lead to the out-of-control costs involved with health care. Mr. Duke decries the thought that the private market will handle it, but in this case, as in most others, it is the truth. If the government would step back, the market would handle it. He's right, the private sector is not out there to be nice to people. It's out there to make money. Sadly, health care is, and always will be, a limited resource object. There's only so much time in every day for a doctor to see patients. There's only so many patients that can be tuck into various medical equipments. There are two choices to make here. We use the free market to regulate the cost, thus granting access to everyone willing to pay, or we make it a "public" controlled system, and institute rationing, where only certain people gain access. Cheap health care for all will never happen.

The sixth point is actually two fold. The first bit, about going away from test-based performance factors make sense. After all, the teachers should not be indoctrinating students, but rather helping them learn the skills necessary for them to survive in this world—which includes such things as critical thinking. The second part seems to falter on the course of the fourth point though. The fourth point, claims he wants equality, and for the government to be color-blind, yet here, he wants something different. Schools are traditionally funded based upon the property taxes collected by their districts. He's advocating that some schools be given money based solely on the number of students of a particular skin color. Instead, we should make schools accountable for the performance of students. Additionally, we should make each school have to actually earn its keep. If it cannot teach students, or provide them a decent education, then parents should be free to remove them from those schools. Of course, this only works, if parents are willing to actually involve themselves as an active participant in their child's education. Something which the generations of Mr. Duke's "predominately non-white students" since Bill Cosby was a child have apparently not been able to do.

The seventh point amuses me most of all, especially as a speculative-fiction fan. I mean, here's someone who is supposed to be a critical thinker (after all, he wants to be a spec-fic writer) who is endorsing the government to quash a scientific theory. Intelligent Design may not have the same level of support as Evolution, but that doesn't negate the fact that we can neither prove, nor disprove either. Having the government quash one, is just as bad now, as it was during the Scopes Trial.

The eighth just shows how little he knows about U.S. history, especially as it relates to the foundation of our country and Constitution. The clause that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" was actually explicitly added to the Constitution so that Congress could not get rid of the religions mandated by the given States. After all, it was a power grab by the Supreme Court in the last half of the 20th century which applied that clause to the States. I can understand not making a course on a specific religion mandatory in public schools, but there is nothing Constitutionally stating that a school district cannot offer a course on a religion (in either a pro- or con- form).

The ninth, and final point of Mr. Duke's is going on about not lying and taking money from corporations. First off, there are politicians on both sides of the aisle lie, misinform and misdirect every time they open their mouths. Sadly, those lies, misinformation and misdirections are not always purposefully or maliciously done. Sometimes they are "honest" in the sense that the politician either truly believes in what they're stating or they don't know better. Next, why single out corporations as not being an acceptable source of campaign contributions? Why not talk about other forms of businesses? Why not talk about lobbies? Why not talk about Think Tanks? Why not talk about PACs? Why not talk about Unions? Why not talk about individuals? All of those things given money to politician's campaigns for the purpose of getting specific people into power. To stop one of them, you must stop them all.

The General Welfare…

2010-08-08T14:25:00.001-05:00

The Clarion Ledger (the Jackson, MS newspaper) has a couple right/left bloggers in their employ. One of these, who is named Jere Nash has posted an entry defending the health insurance mandate found in ObamaCare.

His stance is that the mandated insurance policy isn't mandated, because "if a person choose not to purchase a policy, he or she pays a modest assessment to cover his or her freeloader status."

Which is basically this logic:

Government demands you must purchase Product A
If you do not purchase Product A (because you like Product B or don't want Product A) then Government fines/taxes you
If you do not pay fine/tax, you go to jail

So, your options if you willingly and happily don't want the government to demand you to purchase a product, is that you can pay extra money (and remember, this tax also applies to those folks who have better insurance or just don't want the government package) or go to jail.

So, this bastion of personal freedom, then questions whether or not one is willing to argue about Social Security and Medicare being un-constitutional, since they are government funded and taxed option. After all, the taxes/fines for non buying Product A are much less "onerous" than the taxes/fines which fund Social Security and Medicare.

Which is like saying, should we do away with petty theft criminal laws because it's not dealing with the taking of as much real property as grand larceny laws are concerned with.

Regardless, my response to the underlying question would have to be a hearty: YES!

The federal government does not have a Constitutional mandate for providing charity. It's the reason that we have non-profit, charitable organizations after all.

Surprise! Who would have expected a Constitutionalist to support smaller government.

Then we get to the final bit of Leftist brilliance in this post, which is found in the following quote:

And, besides, the preamble to the Constitution specifically states that the Union is formed to "promote the general welfare."

Which, for some odd reason, he's right. Those words are in the preamble of the Constitution. So, let's look at that bit of text:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Yup, right there, that fourth out of five reasons is "promote the general Welfare."

Yet, in my opinion, Mr. Nash is taking that particular phrase and running it through a blender to get it to provide a meaning not supported by its context. Mr. Nash is more or less stating that the preamble to our Constitution is concerned about the general health of individuals.

In a certain light, one can see how that is applicable. After all, general is defined as "involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole," while Welfare is defined as "the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity."

Basically, the preamble is stating that the Constitution is defined to do the following:

Form a "more perfect" Union
Establish Justice
Provide for the common defense
Promote happiness, well-being and prosperity FOR THE WHOLE
Secure the Blessings of Liberty

Sure, people read number four there, and go, "oh look! See the Constitution is all about Government providing for the welfare of people."

Unfortunately for those Socialists/Statists among us, that is basically ignoring the "general" aspect of the phrase. To qualify who the framers were discussing in this aspect, let's take a gander at the second place where the phrase is used. The first clause of Article 1, Section 8 reads:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Notice that no where in that clause is the phrase "the people" mentioned. Meanwhile, whenever the Constitution is concerned about the people it succinctly states as such (see Amendments I, II, IV, IX, X, and XVII).

Additionally, note that the "pay debts and provide" clause is attached to the common defense attribute. James Madison was of the opinion that this meant that Congress was allowed to spend money within the needs to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article 1, Section 8.

In fact in a letter to Edmund Pendleton dated January 21, 1792, Madison wrote:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.

Read that paragraph. That's James Madison, the guy that WROTE THE CONSTITUTION, basically describing what has happened to our country as more socialists/statists (and this is in regards to tax and spend Democrats and Republicans both) gather power in Washington—more importantly he describes it as a subversion of the very foundations of our Government and way of life.

Additionally, in his last act as President prior to leaving that office, Madison vetoed a bill for "internal improvements" (which included the building of roads, bridges and canals). He is on record as doing so for multiple reasons, the first and most important is because it was a violation of stats' rights.

But, he also rejected Congress' justification for the bill (which was the General Welfare provision of the Taxing and Spending Clause) by stating:

Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.

Of course, these things are what the polity in Washington want. They want Congress to have a general power of legislation rather than a defined and limited one. They want the power to control individuals prosperity—by having legal structures to remove said prosperity at whim. They want the ability to legislate morality, as they define it, up to and including how people think.

Worse, is how many of their wants have come true…

Obama's Hope & Change: Privacy Edition

2010-07-29T19:43:00.024-05:00

Obama's Hope & Change

Here is some more of the Team Obama's Hope and Change that was so often touted as being the end-all, be-all for the last Presidential Election Cycle. Apparently, the White House wishes to amend the way that National Security Letters (NSL) work.

But rather than amending these things to make them harder to use, the White House wants to expand the FBI's power by adding the phrase "electronic communication transactional records" to the list of items able to be taken according to NSL laws.

Now for those of you who don't know, the NSL is basically a search and seizure warrant which does not require a judge's approval, and is issued by any branch office of the FBI. In theory it's designed to allow the FBI limited access to data such as your phone number and address. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is what forces ISPs specifically to provide data to the government due to NSLs, but the act limits that data that can be requested to the following data types: name, address, length of service and toll billing records. Additionally, in November 2008 the Office of Legal Counsel (which is legally binding to the Executive branch of the government) drafted an opinion which called those 4 data types "exhaustive" and thus the only elements that the government can legally go after with a NSL.

Of course the White House wants everyone to think that by using the phrase "electronic communication transactional records" that they're only talking about the addresses that you're emailing or your browsing history.

The problem with this though, is the fact that the phrase "electronic communication transactional history" is not defined in the legislation, therefore, the White House would be able to describe basically anything related to electronic communication and transactions to be "electronic communication transactional history." Frankly, I don't trust the government enough to not abuse this in this way.

After all, a 2007 Inspector's General report detailed a number of violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in regards to NSLs. These violations included the FBI creating NSLs when there was not an actual investigation regarding the subject of the NSLs. Additionally, there were at least two cases when the FBI requested information which was patently illegal for them to request via NSL.

Basically, the FBI is already abusing the NSL system--only a fool would think giving them greater requisition powers in this situation would be a good thing.

But even if they do limit it to what would be considered "electronic communication transactional history" in the IT field, that's still more than just who your email is going to.

Believe me, I know.

I play with the building blocks of electronic communication transactional history every day, and it basically works like this:

Every time you type a URL into your web browser, you generate a communication transaction. That request and response has a host of information tied into it:

The page being requested
A set of cookie objects related to the page being requested
The type of request (GET/POST/HEAD)
If it is a POST request -- the values of ANY form elements on the page
If it is a GET request -- the values after the "?" in the URL

There's a LOT of information in those things, and it's all electronic communication transactional history. Every website you visit. Every online form you fill out. Every instant message or text message you receive. Additionally, this is not just on your PC, but also on your cell phone or smart phone or iPad. All of those things are "electronic communication transactional history."

And the government wants it all, because they are more concerned about getting information as quickly and efficiently as possible than they are about little things like Civil Liberties.

Am Sad

2010-03-22T19:38:00.000-05:00

It's a sad day for America. The House voted for the Senate version of the Health Care tax & spend boondoggle last night.

So, this is the bill which the benefits won't start until 2014, but the taxes and fees begin immediately (which is how they got the CBO's cost under the $1,000,0000,000 mark).

Additionally, this is the bill which the government begins saying that they have the right to force American citizens to buy products (as you will be fined, and threatened with imprisonment, if you do not purchase health care insurance).

Already there's rumors of losing about half of the medical doctors in practice today by 2014. Don't believe me? When tort reform failed to pass in Mississippi back in 2002, the state lost hundreds of doctors, leaving some small towns without one completely. Rather than lose money, those doctors either retired or left the state. We already see this same behavior with Medicare doctors and pharmacists, why do we think it will be different just because this is a new entitlement program?

Finally, this runs the risk of me losing the insurance I currently have. If my boss has to chose between keeping his employees employed without insurance or having to fire someone to keep the rest with insurance, he's going to choose to drop the insurance. Sure, he'll be fined by the Federal government for that action, but that fine may be less than the health insurance costs his business.

No matter what happens, I lose.

So, here's what I'm doing: for (at least) the next 6 years, I'm not voting for a Congressional incumbent. I'll vote in the primaries and the general election, and no matter what, I'm not voting for the incumbent.

It's time we started over.

Oh Noes! The Scary Claritan-D!

2010-02-03T07:09:00.001-06:00

I'm annoyed. I mean, really, really annoyed. Mainly at the idiots that we call state Representatives and Senators. I'll include Governor Barbour in there just for good measure.

Why am I so annoyed? What has gotten my proverbial panties in a bunch you may ask?

Well, it's like this, both the Mississippi Senate and the Mississippi House has passed a bill designed to restrict psuedoephedrine sells to require a prescription. Which means that now to continue with my daily dosage of Clariton D I will need to spend additional money to go to the doctor's office and get a prescription.

This is insane for a number of reasons, among them, and just right off the top of my head:

Medicare Costs & Doctor Rationing
Lessens Quality of Life
Unintended Economic Consequencees

None of those things make me happy, and let's look at the reasons why...

Medicare costs & Doctor Rationing. Remember, this bill will require thousands of people to go visit the doctor. Everyone who takes Claritan-D on a daily basis will need to do so. Then anyone who is allergic to phenylephrine will need to visit the doctor whenever they get sick or get a stuffy nose due to the changing season. Medicare costs associated with all these additional doctor visits will skyrocket. The Medicare/Medicaid program here in Mississippi is already taxed to the breaking point. This bill will add thousands of visits to the system per year, and we already don't have the money in our tax coffers to pay for all of the entitlement services that the State provides.

Then there is also the fact that a doctor can only see so many patients in a given day. When a doctor gets innudated with demands to see him just so people can get another year's worth of Claritan-D, that means that that same doctor has less time to see people who are truly sick.

Quality of Life. The thing is that I need this particular drug for my quality of life. If I don't have it, I'm quickly reduced to a phlegm filled monstrosity that is constantly hacking, snuffling and ultimately I have to go to the doctor for a Z-Pack because the crud in my chest and nose has turned into pneumonia. After the Z-Pack does its thing, I'm okay for two weeks, and then we repeat the process. This is how I lived for the first 18 months that I lived in Mississippi. I had more Z-Packs and shots in the posterior to combat pneumonia infections in those 18 months, than in the entire 30 year span prior to moving.

That stopped once I got myself on a daily Claritan-D regiment.

This is what the government is basically saying that they want me to go back to. It's either that or take hours out of my day to wait around at the doctors office to get them to give me a prescription.

Which leads to the third point I made up there about...

Unintended Economic Consequences. This whole thing is an effort to combat a "meth problem," and truthfully, there are areas in this state that has one. In fact in Jackson in 2009, there were more arrests concerning meth, than any other drug.

The thing is that, this is not going to change one thing, and the reason for that is the Law of Scarcity. This law is based upon two propositions:

Man has unlimited or insatiable wants, and
Resources that are used to produce goods and services are limited.

I'm not going into some huge lecture on Supply and Demand, as frankly, economics is not my specialty. I took enough courses on it in college to be able to deal with it, and know the fundamentals, but I don't particularly like it. But the basics is that the more scarce a product is, the more and higher the cost to sell. Since the production costs will not necessarily change, that means that there will be a higher profit margin for those still willing to create this particular drug.

Anyways, I want you to think about scarcity.

Think about it and especially in relation to Prohibition (or The Noble Experiment). When the government tried to limit the creation and sale of alcohol, what happened? It went underground, and was still made and sold, but the selling involved bullets, a violent black market, racketeering, corrupted law officials, and of course, high profits. The Mafia made huge profits on liquor until Prohibition was ended, and cheap, legal access to it, stripped them of their profits in that particular venue.

During Prohibition, liquor was SCARCE, therefore it could be sold at a high price despite being cheap to make, therefore it was worthwhile for those willing to break laws to produce it, to produce it.

Which sounds amazingly like the illegal drug trade here in the States today.

But I digress, by making the a single ingredient in the production of meth even more scarce, you're creating an environment, where the creation of meth becomes even more economically viable for those willing to break the law to create it.

Also, consider that pseudoephedrine is technically not a REQUIRED ingredient to meth. It's used because it's a cheap alternative, with a chemical similarity to the "actual ingredient." Additionally, the ingredients that can be used, are wide and varied. It's the reason so many people have taken to make it, the formula can use a host of different items, so long as they are chemically similar, and compatible to the end result.

So, are all these other ingredients being tracked and required a doctor's notice to purchase? Why just the one that is most useful to our health? Iodine and salt are also ingredients, why aren't those schedule 1 narcotics? Should we need a note from a licensed painter in order to purchase paint thinner (again, a meth ingredient) or acetone?

We must always remember something, every time the government acts to create new restrictions on us:

Limits on our freedoms, only works on those unwilling to break the law in the first place.

It is the same fundamental reason that "gun control" and airport "security measures" will never work. They are based on the ~~delusion~~ concept that additional laws will keep someone from breaking the law.

And life just does not work that way.

Valentine's Day Already?

2009-12-31T18:00:00.001-06:00

You know, I'm fundamentally a capitalist at heart. I like the system, and appreciate its simplicity as well as its complexities. I firmly believe that I can sell X for Y and that will make both buyer and seller happy. It's just a primal aspect of my core personality.

It's how I was raised.

I grew up working retail, and I worked retail through most of my college years, and as a Consultant, the entire concept of capitalism is at the very heart of my livelihood.

Yet, at times I have to wonder at the insanity which the system produces. We all know that it is at or near Halloween when the first of the Christmas elements start appearing in stores. We also know that it is Walmart's goal for their to be a SELLABLE Holiday in every month.

Yet, it has typically been Christmas alone which has received such huge lead times between the actual event and when the merchandise related to it has been displayed.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.

You see, the Friday BEFORE Christmas me and the Beloved Wife when to Target to pick up a few last minute doohickies. And our Target, like all others, has that seasonl/1$ section right there at the front by the buggies.

So, we stop and start looking about, seeing if we can find any cheap things for stuffing of the stockings, when I realize that I'm looking at a large assortment of PINK.

Lo and behold, it was Valentine's Day junk. Lots and lots of it.

I stared at that mass of pink and read heart shaped tidbits of money waste and felt something inside my head just bend. I literally had a hard time processing it.

Of course, my Beloved Wife took pictures, as she had a hard time believing it as well.

Now, I know that most of our holidays in the United States are secular ones, and even those which retain their religious overtones have so many insane secular concepts slathered over them that it's somewhat of a stretch to say that they are still holy days.

Yet, I find it odd that we, as a society, have taken those days that we have set aside to celebrate something (whether that be dead presidents, or document signings or even a misguided concept of romance) and built our entire tradition base upon cheap trinkets that we buy months in advance of the actual holiday.

So, here is my proposal, I don't want to buy anything related to a holiday, no more than 7 days prior to that holiday. There will be no candy or costumes for Halloween bought at the end of September. There will be no pilgrim cutouts bought in October. There will be nothing pink purchased at anytime before 2/7 and after 2/15. The steaks for Memorial Day will not be bought until the... well, those need a few days to sit and age.

But that's the idea.

Maybe this will hurt those companies that prey on the impulse buy and start pushing crap out to consumers months in advance of a holiday. After all, if merchandise isn't moving, that's square footage that they could have used to sell something.

And maybe, just maybe, more folks will remember that holidays are days of remembrance and celebration. Not just times to spend large sums on crap that is not used 95% of the year.

How Young Is Too Young To Be Tasered?

2009-12-03T18:00:00.001-06:00

The Taser is a small device, often called an "electroshock weapon." The fundamental concept is that it uses electrical current to disrupt voluntary control of muscles and in stimulation of the recipients sensory nerves. Such jolts of electricity results in sharp pain and involuntary contraction of muscle groups.

So basically, the Taser is a hand-held weapon designed to overstimulate muscles and cause pain.

Now, with that definition in mind, let me tell you a story. The Hero of our story is a sturdy man, tall and in-shape. His job is supposedly defined as dealing with the lowest of the low, and standing between the citizenry and danger--he is a ~~goon in a state-issued costume~~ police man. His name is Dustin Bradshaw.

While the villain of our piece is a ten year old, little girl.

Now, our story takes place on in Ozark Arkansas, and what occurs is that a woman calls the police because her little girl is screaming and crying and not following her mother's instructions. Basically, acting like my three-year old immediately prior to a spanking.

So, the Brave Officer Bradshaw arrives at the scene, and sees the girl who is visibly distraught over...well something. Who knows, it could be just because Mother Dearest told her to go to bed. But she's distraught and upset. So as Brave Officer Bradshaw arrives, Mother Dearest tells him that the young girl is not listening, and that Brave Officer Bradshaw needs to use his Taser on her.

After all, the proper punishment for unruly children is the swift introduction of large amounts of electricity which cause pain and muscle spasms--and possibly death.

So, Brave Officer Bradshaw picks her up and physically carries her to the living room, where he informs her that she's off to jail. After all, not listening to your mother, and throwing a temper-tantrum in your own place of residence is a criminal offense in Arkansas.

Well, as expected, the little girl did not want to go to jail--therefore she kicked and screamed, and had the gumption, gall and temerity to strike the blessed officer of the state!

So, he did as any reasonable Blessed Officer of the State would do, and Tasered her.

Does this make you upset? Does this even bother anyone?

Because I'm disgusted by it beyond belief, and if you for some reason don't think it's true... well, here's the relevant bits from the article at Arkansas Online:

The girl was on the floor of the house screaming and crying. She refused to follow her mother’s instructions and the mother told Bradshaw to use his Taser.
Bradshaw carried the girl to the living room and told her she was going to jail, according to the report.
“While she was violently kicking and verbally combative, [the girl] struck me with her legs and feet in the groin,” Bradshaw wrote in the report.
“The subject was actively resisting arrest at this time,” Bradshaw wrote. “I was having a difficult time placing the cuffs on her and administered a very, very brief drive stun to her back with my Taser. She immediately resisted and was placed in handcuffs.”

Yeah, he's a BIG man all right.

While you're pondering the insanity involved in the fact that this ~~goon~~ policeman is willing and happy to electrocute a 10 year old little girl, I want to point you to a little history from the state of Florida.

The date: January, 2005; the place: Palm Beach, Florida. Douglas Dycus was arrested and charged with felony child abuse and domestic battery for using a stun gun as a discipline device.

What is the difference? They are both electric devices designed to apply pain in measured and controlled jolts. Why is what Douglas Dycus did felony child abuse, while the exact same actions from the Brave Officer Bradshaw justifiable--despite the fact that the little girl being tortured and abused by Brave Officer Bradshaw being 4 years younger that Douglas Dycus' son?

The difference of course is that little piece of state issued jewelry which grants a mere citizen with the awesome abilities of one of the Elect!

Yes, that glorious piece of tin which means that all who the bearer surveys must adore them, and worship their numerous sacrifices to the greater good of their own elite brotherhood. It is that beautiful chunk of tin which allows them the ability to weld weapons of death, and randomly hurt people because... well they had the gall to disagree with whatever drivel the Elect emitted from their mouths.

See, that's the problem here. The Brave Officer Bradshaw was called to a house because a girl was having a temper tantrum, and instead of telling the mom that she should treat her child as a child, he attempted to arrest the girl.

At no point, are we given a reason for the Brave Officer Bradshaw to threaten this child with arrest. The only complaints filed were in conjunction with this event are related to when said 10 year old dared to defend herself against a grown man who was attempting to forcefully take her from her home.

Let us remember something, that seems to have been forgotten in our rush to affirm the Clowns of the State with powers above the mortal's keen:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

Yes, read that, and understand. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a citizen can resist arrest up to and including taking the arresting officer's life if such is necessary.

Think about this, an illegal arrest is nothing less than assault and battery (defined in State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260). as such, any person that is suffering under an illegal arrest has the same rights--and responsibilities--to protect their own persons as at any other time when repelling any other type of assault and battery.

What this officer did, was forcefully carry this young child away from her mother (read the article, he describes carrying her into the living room) and then telling her, that he's taking her to jail.

There was no crime, the only "domestic disturbance" was that the girl was not obeying her mother.

Yet, when this child attempted to protect herself from the equivalent of an assault and battery, she was electrocuted.

This is not what a police officer initially stood for!

What this is is an occupying military force which expects its orders to be instantly obeyed regardless of the legal status of said orders.

That is what our police forces have become, and worse, they are actively heading in that direction today.

And sadly, too many people, hyped up on the glories of CSI and Law and Order: Special Victims Unit believe that they don't have the rights which in truth they have--and among those is the right to resist an unlawful arrest.

Luckily, this 10 year old girl survived her electrocution.

Unfortunately, others have not always been so lucky.

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to take these deadly weapons away from those all too willing to torture and kill our children.

The Salvation Army Kettle

2009-11-26T18:00:00.001-06:00

I'm a Salvationist.

The church I attend is the Salvation Army. It's not a perfect church--as it's populated by imperfect people--but overall I joined it because I agree with the message which it embraced at its founding.

One of the most visible icons of the Salvation Army is the Red Kettle which appears throughout the world during this time of year. The Red Kettle has a long history, as it began in 1891, with the Captain Joseph McFee wanting to help the poor in San Francisco. Unfortunately, he had no funding for his desire to help the poor, then he remembered seeing a large kettle called "Simpson's Pot" during his days as a sailor while in Liverpool, England. The Simpson's Pot was basically the same thing as the Red Kettle today in that passengers of those boats docked at the port in Liverpool would toss coins into it to help the poor.

So the Captain took a pot to Oakland Ferry Landing, tossed a sign up, and was thus able to collect enough donations to have a Christmas dinner for the poor, and the Kettle has spread like wildfire both through the collective unconscious related to the Christmas season and through the Salvation Army itself as a viable means of collecting donations.

Now, you may be wondering why on earth I'm talking about these things. After all, nearly everyone has seen one, and while some may not know all that history junk up above about them, they all know that the Kettles are related to helping the poor during Christmas.

The reason I'm writing on them, is because of an article I read today about what is being called a "plastic kettle." Apparently, these were tested in Dallas and Colorado Springs last year, and this year they are enlarging the test market to 30 cities.

What this thing is, is basically your standard Red Kettle, but attached to it is a wireless credit card reader similar to the ones found on gas station pumps.

I read the linked article over on Fox News, and frankly, was dismayed.

I don't like credit cards. I'm not even that fond of my debit card and do carry cash for my lunch during the week and things like that. I firmly believe that it is too easy to over-extend ones self with either of these things, in addition to other problems associated with them.

But even above and beyond that, the Salvation Army in its primary role as a Christian Church should not be encouraging the use of debt-creation tools.

After all, Romans 13:8 states (NIV):

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.

That's Paul, telling the Romans quite clearly that they should pay off their debt as fast as possible.

I find it hard to reconcile that scripture with the preponderance of tools which are designed to make it easier to put us in debt.

Additionally, what they seem to fail to grasp (or worse, never considered) is that debt is bondage, and Galations 5:1 says (NSV):

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

There, that is Paul telling us to eschew any form of slavery--whether to debtors or drugs or alcohol or even to the legalism which the Galations were preaching in regards to the Law.

No, this is a bad move on the Salvation Army's part, as it leads directly to further bondage and debt, a state which we as Christians are supposed to be moving away from. The Bible teaches that we are supposed to live free lives, secure in the knowledge of the Grace and love of Christ.

As far as I am concerned, and as a Christian, I won't be using a plastic kettle. Ever.

Would you call 911 if the police steal your car?

2009-11-19T18:00:00.002-06:00

There's a growing problem in this country. In fact, in the Metro Detroit area, this problem has blossomed at a rate of more than 50%, and generated a price tag of at least $30.63 MILLION dollars as of 2007 (that 50% growth rate is from 2003, by the way).

What could this problem be?

Forfeitures.

For those who are not aware, a forfeiture is when the police take private property away from citizens, and either charge them money to have the property returned, or sell said property at auction. Of course, this property doesn't have to be "property" as it could just be sums of cash that they have seized.

Also notice that I never said that the property in question was utilized in a crime, nor that the people who have had their property take was ever charged with a crime. Convictions are out of the question in this process.

Why you ask? Why would the police--those individuals supposedly there to stop the forced taking of private property, be actively performing this activity?

Money of course.

Here's a quote from one Sgt. Dave Schriener, who runs Canton Township, Michigan's "forfeiture unit:"

Police departments right now are looking for ways to generate revenue, and forfeiture is a way to offset the costs of doing business.You'll find that departments are doing more forfeitures than they used to because they've got to -- they're running out of money and they've got to find it somewhere.

For the record, the Canton Township has a population of around 90,000 and their "forfeiture unit" raised $343,699 in 2008.

It's not surprising that more and more police forces are actively using forfeiture as a way to generate income. After all, the more money they bring in, the less that the legislature will hand them. Therefore, they need to seize just that much more the next year. It's an endless, destructive cycle which has lead to such things as forfeitures for gambling, minor drug possession, and even loitering near illegal activity.

Yes, you read that right, just being close by illegal activity is enough to get your private property taken away, and you not being able to get it back until you pay a fine--and again, there was no crime being committed by the person who owns the property.

This is just another of the many, many abuses by the ~~occupying military~~ police forces that is found in every corner of our nation.

And the blantant theft of private property in order to further fund the insanity involved in police military operations on our soil is just a further insanity that needs to be cleared up.

Consider this, I don't normally like the thing that comes out of the more liberal justices mouths. In fact, I cringed at some of the historical opinion/rulings from Justice Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings. But, I'm about to quote her.

Last month, the Supreme Court heard a case on six people from Chicago who sought PROMPT hearings on the seizure of their cars and money (notice that we're not even talking about getting this stuff back, but just getting the chance to say "hey, there was no crime, and that's mine" to a judge). During this, a federal attorney told the court that the government needs time to determine who owns a car and to investigate that person's connection to the criminal activity.

To this statement, Justice Sotomayor said: "I'm sorry. You take the car and then you investigate?"

If even a Leftist can see the logical fallacy in a process or statement then you've got to realize the utter lunacy which it entails.

Thought Crime Act of 2009

2009-11-12T18:00:00.001-06:00

Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.
-- Nineteen Eighty-Four

It's amazing to see how far we've come since George Orwell published his sadly prescient, dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Sadly, we have yet another example of the United States' government enacting legislation which is designed to control not just the speech and actions of the citizenry, but their very thoughts. Of course, in today's politically correct version of Newspeak, such legislation is called "Hate Crimes."

Sadly, as socialist (both the economic and social varieties) gain more and more power in this country, such concepts gain greater and greater traction and acceptance.

But back on point, The Chosen One has recently signed a new law (the law was signed on 10/28/2009) which does two things: the first is add additional money to the fiasco in Afghanistan and the second is attack the very central concepts of free speech in this country.

It's amazing how Congress can design a law which is able to do two incredibly different things, both of which inherently destroy as many lives as possible.

Anyways, the Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, henceforth known as the CrimeThink Act of 2009, expands the 1969 Federal Hate-Crime Law to:

include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability
removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity (such as voting)
gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in thought crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue
provides $10,000,000 in funding for 2008 & 2009 to help state/local agencies pay for investigating thought crimes
requires the FBI to track statistics on thought crimes against transgender people (other "protected" groups are already tracked)

Probably what amuses me the most about this rather un-Constitutional law is who it is named after. Sure, James Byrd, Jr. and Matthew Shephard were killed due to the thought crimes as described in the CrimeThink Act of 2009, additionally, those individuals responsible for killing the two in question were never charged under a thought-crime legislation.

Of course the simple fact that there was no thought crime legislation under which they could be flogged didn't stop their killers from being caught, tried and convicted.

But hey, what does that matter to those evil folks who push thought crime legislation through our governments? They care less about the fact that those responsible for killing someone were arrested, tried and convicted than they do that they weren't arrested, tried and convicted for saying things that they don't agree with.

Above all of this, heck, even above and beyond the concept of free speech, this is something which the United States Federal Government should have never brought to life. It is inherently un-Constitutional for reasons even above and beyond the free speech one.

First, there are serious repercussions regarding double jeopardy. The way this law is worded, Federal Prosecutors could charge, and convict, someone for a thought-crime, for which said person was acquitted of the actual crime.

Think about that: you could be charged and convicted because of THOUGHTS which lead to the beating/death of someone, for which you are legally (and possibly even actually) innocent of. Worse, you would receive a lengthier sentence than if you had been convicted of the actual crime of beating/killing someone.

Now think about this, our Constitution provides clear and concise limits on the power that Congress has. There are things Congress is allowed to do and things that it is not allowed to do. This concept was reaffirmed back in 1994 in United States v. Lopez. Of course, Congress has ignored the concept once again as it scrambles to draw more power to itself.

The thing is that back when the Constitution was actually relevant to our way of life, one knew that police powers were almost exclusively within the domain for the States. Additionally,it has long been understood (at least until Thought Crime legislation started making the rounds) that (and here I'm quoting the dissenting opinion of Justice Frankfurter for the case: W.Va. State Board of Educ. v. Barnette) "Law is concerned with external behavior and not with the inner life of man."

Why have we forgotten that?

Oh wait, we haven't--provided that the law in question is related to sexual deviancy, or what two consenting adults choose to do within the confines of their own home. Of course, simple things such as your thoughts and beliefs, well, you'd have better luck asking for a fire to not burn you than expect the government to not try and control what you think and believe.

And that has become a fundamental aspect of our rulers: they want to control every aspect of our lives. They expect us to bow and kowtow to their whims on everything to how we can improve our personal property to whether or not we have health care insurance.

Such tryanny used to be called such. It used to be understood in this country that totalitarian regimes were not a good thing.

Sadly, such wisdom has been lost in our leaders rush to provide us with such a thing.

What Obama Has Done....

2009-11-05T18:00:00.002-06:00

The Lefties are so up-in-arms over the (by-now) comments about Obama's lack of actions, that it's almost funny. Of course, Obama has done some things, it would be nearly impossible to be in the Presidency for 9 months and win a Nobel Peace Prize otherwise. Oh wait....

Anyways, what brings this about is an Esquire article which, in a fit of writer pique went about detailing all the wonderful things that the Chosen One has done to us. Well, such an article makes me want to respond, and point out the problems in Obama's "successes." That said, I'm not even going to address the obvious Liberal tilt in said article, but rather just look at the said list.

So, without further ado...

Bank Bailout -- A $350 BILLION dollar drain on our economy, when the system is designed to punish failing institutions with bankruptcies.
Closing of Guantanamo -- which still has not happened...
Reversing overseas funding to family planning organizations -- Obama is giving away money to other countries when our budget is already out of control with his $350,000,000,000 handout to banks
Green Light to California car-emissions standards -- which are insanely prohibitive, and have not been proven effective about the "green house" gases. And why exactly does a state need federal approval to set emissions standards? They can pass it and kill their economy if they wish, and the Feds have no say in the matter.
The Stimulus Bill -- In which another nearly $800,000,000,000 dollars was taken out of productive use and handed out via fiat/whims
America's Withdrawal from Iraq -- in which we've replaced our armed forces with scores of private contractors (and our Armed Forces are actually still there). That's not a withdrawal, plus we're still in Afghanistan and maintain a military presence in scores of other countries.
Allow federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research -- again, handing out money for something that has no proven use or need. There has never been a successful embryonic stem cell research--now adult stem cell has proven useful, but they'd rather kill human fetuses to harvest stem cells
Forced GM & Chrysler into bankruptcy -- and then forced their stakeholders to accept marginal returns on their investments, while giving the union (which is part and parcel of the reason the companies in question went under in the first place) a commanding interest far above and beyond its claimed stake. What that means is that people who invested in GM & Chrysler were told to bend over and take it, while the Union which gave money to Obama's campaign was given a pretty big carrot
Reset the "tone" of our relations with the entire Arab world -- and of course, this "reset" of the tone has stopped Arabs from tossing suicide bombers at people...oh, wait, no it hasn't. But hey, we did promise to curtail free speech in our country to appease their insane rantings
Cash for Clunkers leading to Ford's announced $1,000,000,000 profit -- and as soon as the socialist buyout of cars ended, the "gains" in car sales dried up, and we're back where we started. Except now a lot of folks have huge car loans which they probably won't be able to afford.
Sonia Sotomayor -- the Justice who is on the record as being biased against white males.
The "Obama" tax cut -- is not really a tax cut. Most of the folks getting the "tax credit" are those individuals who currently do not pay taxes already. In actuality, it is a wealth redistribution scheme as money is taken from tax payers and given (yet again) to those who do not pay. The list of reasons against this success actually existing continue here.

And that was the "Liberal" successes... the article also goes on and brings up what they call "Conservative" successes...

Appointments to Sec. of Defense and the CIA and others -- well whoop-de-doo! He has knowledgeable people from outside his "party" running aspects of his administration.
Drone attacks against Al Qaeda -- the same attacks that are randomly killing or maiming innocent Afghans?
"Tweaking" Military tribunals for Guantanamo prisoners -- and? They are still prisoners, they're still there. They still aren't U.S. citizens, and as such still aren't subject to the rights of United States citizens...
"Warrantless-Wiretaping" -- Big surprise that a Big-Government/Chicago-style-politics President would want the ability to secretly, and without Judicial oversight, listen in on people's conversations.
Sending 17,000 soldiers to Afghanistan in February, 2009 -- but sitting on the request for additional troops in August for over a month, despite the person he placed in charge stating that the troops are needed for continued support of ongoing operations. And what happened to getting out of unilateral wars?

Of course this leads me to ask the question: THESE are "Conservative" successes?

Where's the fiscal responsibility?

Where's the lessening of government strictures and structures?

Where's the return of Constitutional rule?

Where's the concept of Rule by States?

Where's the concept of a personal freedom and responsibility?

All I see are big-government/big-brother expanses of government (the "Liberal" successes) and the continuance of a "war" which was not declared according to Constitutional guidelines.

Sure, Obama has done some things. Unfortunately, none of them are good for us as a people or a country. Worse, he plans to further drag our country into debt with another unnecessary and un-Constitutional program.

There has been no successes here, and there has especially not been what I would call a Conservative success.

A Clinton That Is Right?

2009-10-29T18:00:00.003-05:00

Who knew that this day would come? Who could imagine that such a piece of Constitutionally CORRECT information would ever emerge from a politician's mouth, much less a Democrat.

What am I talking about you ask?

Well according to a News.Com.Au article, Hilary Clinton has gone on the record telling us all how bad anti-defamation legislation in regards to religion is. In fact, her exact quote said that freedom of speech and religion should be equally upheld.

Like I said, color me amazed.

Buy that digression aside, here's the quote from the news.com.au site:

"I strongly disagree. The United States will always ... stand against discrimination and persecution ... But an individual's ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others' freedom of speech," Clinton said.

"The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faith will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse," she added.

Imagine it, a politician actually interested in upholding Constitutional precepts.

Of course, I am left wondering if she got permission from the Exalted One before she spoke such specific terminology?

After all, it was only last month, that the UN Human Rights Council adopted a draft resolution submitted by Egypt and the United States which brought attention to "negative racial and religious stereotyping of religions and racial groups."

Basically, it was the United States endorsing anti-speech measures in order to stop criticism of religions based upon verifiable trends of that religion's population.

What that long sentence of dollar words means is thus: Egypt doesn't like people pointing out that Islam can't be a "religion of peace" if they refuse to condemn and try to stop suicide bombers, and the U.S. supported the concept.

Unfortunately, this is but a small step towards a more Constitutionally-correct government (opposing International "law" which erodes or outright attacks the fundamental concepts upon which our society is based), and I have no doubt that the thought of less legislation on the books attacking our freedoms left a bad taste in a host of Liberal's mouths.

In truth I'm not holding my breath hoping that Mrs. Clinton starts espousing such concepts as gun rights, small government and personal responsibility. After all, she has spent too many years as a big-government, Big-Brother advocate to see the proverbial light.

But any step is a good one...

Can Twitter Lead to Jail Time?

2009-10-22T18:00:00.001-05:00

Imagine it, the date, September 24, 2009. The place, Philadelphia during the G20 Summit. You're sitting in a hotel room, with a off-the-shelf, police-band radio scanner, and a computer. What you're doing is as police actions come over the radio, you're transcribing them to Twitter.

The before you know it, you're under arrest, and the F.B.I. is at your house, taking your books, computers, and rifling through your dirty underwear. After all, larceny in the name of protecting the government is the primary job of the F.B.I.

This is exactly what happened to Elliot Madison (aged 41). He was sitting in a hotel room, transcribing police messages to Twitter when the self-same police arrived and took him to jail. While there they charged him with the following crimes:

Let's consider these things, and remember I'm not a lawyer. What I am is an intelligent, logical human, who expects things--especially laws--to be human readable without having a lawyer immediately on hand to explain every detail.

The Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution law is fairly straightforward. It details the fact that anyone actively helping people escape prosecution (hiding criminals, etc) is guilty of it. Specifically, this clause:

warns the other of impending discovery or apprehension, except that this paragraph does not apply to a warning given in connection with an effort to bring another into compliance with law; or

What's interesting in regards to this case, is that the Prosecution would have a hard time proving a) the intent of Mr. Madison in this regard and b) the people he was actively providing this information to was actively engaging in a crime. He was sending Twitter messages to people protesting the government--I find it highly odd that the Pennsylvania State Police automatically assume that people protesting governments are engaging in criminal behavior. After all, that has to be the assumption if Mr. Madison is providing t his information to warn them of impending discovery or apprehension in regards to criminal behavior.

The second law there, only comes into bearing if the first one is relevant--or again, if the Pennsylvania State Police believe that dissent with governing bodies is the same as criminal behavior. This law only has bearing if someone commits, causes or facilitates other criminal activity with the use of the "Communication Facility," which is defined by law as:

As used in this section, the term "communication facility" means a public or private instrumentality used or useful in the transmission of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part, including, but not limited to, telephone, wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical systems or the mail. (Dec. 21, 1998, P.L.1240, No.157, eff. 60 days)

Now, what interests me is the fact that by this definition--and the Pennsylvania State Police's assumptions of inherent criminal activity on the part of protesters--the dispatch officers and officers at the scene are facilitating the same "criminal" behavior as Mr. Madison by sending the same information he did over the radio (after all, he was just transcribing radio communications onto Twitter).

And that last law is probably the most inherently unstable of the charges brought against Mr. Madison. The "authoritahs" are using the following clause to bring the charge (as the rest of the clauses refer to weapons and/or body armor):

Anything used for criminal purposes and possessed by the actor under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful uses it may have.

The problem with that is that Mr. Madison was using the tools he had at his disposal in inherently legal--and (what seems to this non-lawyer as) an appropriately lawful--manners. He was listening to a police-band radio scanner, and transmitting the information he heard on it over Twitter.

Let us not forget that the Police, as "public servants," their communication is part of the Public Domain. That chatter can legally be listened to by anyone (though transmitting on the relevant bands is legally a no-no and morally really murky).

No, the way this reads is the following concepts are in play:

(Yet another) Government Agency does not want people actively paying attention to what they are doing and/or saying about the people that they are supposedly serving
The (Pennsylvania State) police inherently feel that protesting the government and/or any form of governing body is an inherently criminal act

Both concepts scare the tar outta me.

It saddens me that the government is scared of the populace. Actually, that tells me that the government is not effectively doing its job of serving the true needs of the constituency which they are there to serve.

Worse, is the thought that this police force (and the FBI for searching Mr. Madison home for "criminal materials") believe that dissent to the government is bad.

Of course, it's not that unexpected. Time and again, the government--and by that I mean everything from the smallest of podunk towns sheriff's all the way to the Supreme Court--are less interested in serving the true nature of our country as defined by the Constitution as they are by gathering more and more power unto themselves.

No, I firmly believe that what Mr. Madison was doing was morally and legally right. He--as a taxpayer and citizen of this country--is morally obligated to keep tabs upon the ~~criminal~~ governmental agencies out to ~~fleece~~ serve him. Additionally, he is within his right to post that information he has gathered onto any bulletin board service he so desires.

In the end, it is as too often the case these days: the Police attempting to force their will upon the populace via duress.

Can I Have The Health Care Bill Please?

2009-10-15T18:00:00.003-05:00

I work a lot with documents. It's a really big part of that whole software engineering process. Things like specifications, data dictionaries, white papers, requirements, process improvement plans and the random other plan.

Some of these documents can be huge. I've seen a Systems Engineering Management Plan which took nearly 1,500 pages in MS Word before.

The thing is, that these documents, they're the key to what I'm building at any given moment. They describe functionality, interfaces, and other requirements for the software system. Without those documents....well I'm just floundering in the wind, building my "best guess" as to what the customer/client/boss wants.

In the past, I've discovered that my best guess in such situations are not always ideal. Actually, in such situations I've often built the wrong software; sure it does a task, but it's not the task that the customer wanted taken care of.

I could not imagine even attempting to do my job if the only thing I was given was the table of contents (ToC) and the Executive Summary.

No let me correct that and say that my job would be easier--and the client would get a better, more accurate for their needs, piece of software--without me getting any of these needed and necessary documents, as opposed to me getting just the ToC and the Executive Summary of these documents.

Why then... or maybe that should be HOW CAN... does our Congress think it can pass a bill when the only thing they are debating is effectively the ToC and the Executive Summary?

But that is effectively what is currently happening. The Chairman's Mark of the "America's Healthy Futures Act of 2009," henceforth called ObamaCare, is currently all that exists of the ObamaCare bill.

Basically, it's around 250 pages of descriptions on what our esteemed ~~felons~~ Congressmen believe should go in this law. Additionally, a Chairman's Mark, even if voted upon as good and valid, is not binding during the actual construction of the legislative language.

Think about that... Health Care is currently about 1/6^th of our GDP, and Congress wants us to think that they're looking out for us, when they're arguing about the content of a bill that has not been written, and is currently not scheduled to be written until the arguments are over.

This promises to be a massive disaster on the scale of (if not larger than) the TARP and any other big-government/nanny state legislation that's passed in the past 100 years.

What's worse is that they're playing dating games in order for the GAO to give it a better rating fiscally. The primary aspects of the bill won't start until JULY, 2013 (despite the fact that they're planning on raising taxes/funds beginning April, 2011) and the GAO ranks things based on a ten year plan. This evil thing doesn't even begin (except for stealing money from the citizenry) until a third of the way through the GAO's current reporting period.

No, this Chairman's Mark needs to go away, and if our esteemed leaders want to create a massive new socialist program, then they need to do so in the sunlight, and allow the populace to read the bill so we can tell them exactly where they can shove it.

And I'd like that chance before they pass a bill which would damage my ability to care for the health and welfare of my family.

I Want A Peace Prize!

2009-10-09T06:35:00.000-05:00

After all, apparently, all you must do to win one these days is tell a bunch of feel-good lies to as many gullible people as possible, and then try your best to destroy the nation that you're supposed there to protect.

Don't believe me?

Then why on earth has Obama won the stupid thing?

What exactly has he done to warrant such an honor?

Let's see....

He was elected PotUS on a platform of half-truths and outright lies
He has driven our government into billions upon billions of dollars of debt, and wants to create more debt
He has actively worked against the concept of free speech
He has actively worked to create new socialist programs which the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to have/run/do
Create a massive new tax infrastructure in order to possibly lower the temperature by an unmeasurable amount over the next fifty years

Of course none of that matters. You see, the deadline for this year's nominations was February first.

Think about that; 2/1/2009 was the absolute LATEST date that he could have been nominated.

And he was put into place on Jan. 20, 2009? We're talking 10 days here. Obama had not even had the time to rush that pork-laden (and still unread by our Senators and Representatives) TARP Act through Congress.

So, The Chosen One was nominated based entirely upon his Campaign Lies--much the same way he was Elected PotUS. But let's look at the exclamations, exhortations and general... fellatio of Obama from the Nobel Boobies:

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Uhm... and he did all of this in 10 days? I call BS!

The truth is, is that he has done NONE of the stuff described even now. In fact, we're actually having more nations in the process of creating nuclear arms (go Iran :/), we're still working alone in Afghanistan and Iraq and as stated above Obama has actively worked against one of the fundamental human rights that we as a nation believe in (Free Speech).

But you know what, I can get that Peace Prize in the same way. Here's what I'm going to do:

Give away large portions of other people's money
Grovel to anyone who threatens me, constantly backing away from having to protect my country
Apologize for things that are clearly the fault of some other country
Tell countries that they shouldn't have Nuclear Weapons--at least until they threaten me
Tell people that they can't dissent, or speak freely about things; all while claiming to be pro-Free Speech

There! I've done just as much as Obama. So, when should I get my Nobel ~~Boob~~ Peace Prize? Tell you what, I'll keep an eye on the mail over the next couple weeks.

Or maybe I'll just look in my next box of Cracker Jacks...

I Got Your Back.... We Clear?

2009-10-08T18:00:00.003-05:00

"That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back... We clear?"

Those were the words recorded by 911 operators as Anthony Arambula lay bloodied on the floor of his home, having been shot six times in the back.

"That's all right."

Such a simple phrase, one that I've repeated to my children many, many times over the past few years--whenever they've done something wrong. Whenever they've accidentally hit me. I've used it at work. I used it when I was at school. I've even used it at the restaurant a few days ago, after the waitresses ignored us for twenty minutes.

It's a shorthand for the person you're talking to, telling them that what they have done is not that bad of a thing.

And it was being used by the folks who shot Anthony Arambula in his own home.

Now, you may ask, what was Mr. Arambula doing? Who shot him in the back? What about the police?

The answer there is simple: Mr. Arambula had cornered someone breaking into his home, and had his gun trained on the burglar, as said burglar was in Mr. Arambula's son's room.

Apparently, the police heard the burglar breaking Mr. Arambula's window, and after having been told by Mr. Arambula's wife of his presence, and the burglar's presence, the police in question rushed into the house, and more or less shot the first person they came across.

And after this brilliant display of bravery and intelligence by the "Boys in Blue" they proceeded to a) describe how they were going to cover up the shooting, and blame it on Mr. Arambula, and then b) drag Mr. Arambula around by his leg and finally c) treated Mrs. Aramabula and the rest of the family as if they were the criminals here.

Were it not for the existence of those 911 tapes, the Police's description of events would remain uncontested and incontestable.

Mr. Arambula would have been blamed for the police randomly shooting him in the back.

And these are the so-called guardians of law and order in our society?

It makes me wonder--as it should you--how many times this has happened in the past, and the poor victim just unable to prove that the police willfully and maliciously shot him.

I'm disturbed by the sense of conceit which permeates the police forces in our society today. We're expected to kowtow to their every whim and demand, and they are more than willing to enforce those demands with force.

They have forgotten that they are neither above the law, nor are they the law. Rather they are just a group of people whose job it is to investigate purported breaks within said law.

Our police forces have become caught up in their own mystique--helped in this by the inane portrayals of the heroic cops on shows such as Law and Order. When in reality, most cops are closer to the ones depicted on The Shield: corrupt and/or power hunger.

After all, it takes a special type of person to be a cop.

The proverbial guard dog, to the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Of course, most of us forget, that the guard dog has much more in common with the wolf than with the sheep; and given half the chance will be just as quick to take advantage of an unwary sheep as the wolf is.

Government Mandates & You

2009-10-01T14:35:00.005-05:00

I was perusing through THOMAS earlier and discovered an interesting proposed bill. Apparently, Congress, in its infinite wisdom has decided that not nearly enough people own cars. In fact, there are some thousands upon thousands of able-bodied adults who do not own a car. So, of course, they have decided that it was time to legislate such a situation.

It's an interesting bill, and has these as the primary focuses:

The creation of a regulatory marketplace. All new cars sold will be required by law to be sold through this marketplace. Inclusion in the market place means a bunch of hefty fees are added to the car manufacturers, as well as price caps and bottoms, and an array of "standard" features which are less the what is currently standard on most new cars
Any additional features--regardless of their pre-"marketplace" standardization--can only be added as an additional cost to the car
Cars that do not meet the price caps/bottoms or feature standards will not be allowed to be sold in the United States or its territories
Every able-bodied/able-minded adult must own a car
Depending on income, the government may buy the car for you
If the adult is an illegal alien, they will not be able to get the free car
People are not allowed to check to see if an adult is an illegal alien
The population can keep their current car, only if they
1. Do not change the color of the car
2. Do not change the car's battery
3. Do not change the car's tires
4. Do not perform any exterior or interior body work
Performing any of these tasks requires you to purchase a new car
Each new car has a tax associated with it
There is a yearly fee, based on income and cost of the car, to own the car
Adults who do not own a car, must pay an annual fine
Failure to pay the fees/taxes/fines will lead to jail time

So, what do you think?

Does this sound like a fair law? Is it reasonable?

After all, those poor folks who don't have a car right this moment, why the government will buy them one! Imagine all the helpfulness that that could provide. Solid, reliable transportation for the masses.

Of course, all those folks who live in places like NYC--where it's unreasonable for them to own a vehicle--why they have to pay extra to offset the cost, or they could go to jail for failure to pay their taxes.

Can you imagine this? Can you imagine what this would do to our nation and economy?

If you've read this, and thought it perfectly reasonable. Replace the car with a bike. Or a house. Or a candy bar. If it still sounds reasonable, well, you're a hopeless socialist. Go on home.

For the rest of us, why does this sound unreasonable while doing the exact thing with Health Care sound reasonable?

Frankly, it doesn't. The description of the law, is more or less how that last Health Care bill was written. There were hefty fines and/or jail time if you did not buy the government health insurance. There was a single line detailing that no illegal aliens would receive benefits, while at the same time the law stated that no one would be able to check on the legal residence state of the individual in question. And of course, there was the fact that people would be able to keep their insurance--provided that they never needed it to change.

This is the change that Obama is trying to bring us. Pretty bitter medicine, eh?

Wonder If Other Amendments Will Be Read...

2009-09-24T18:00:00.001-05:00

I'm amazed. Flabbergasted. Utterly boondoggled. Insert other words/terms of amazed disbelief here.

Why you ask?

It's simple, a U.S. Senator has remembered that the Constitution and its associated Bill of Rights exist.

Apparently, David Kris, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division was in the the Senate's Judiciary Committee on 9/23 testifying on why the expiring portions of the Patriot Act need to be extended.

At which point Al Franken read Mr. Kris the Fourth Amendment, and asking specifically how the "roving wiretap" portion of the Patriot Act can be fulfilled while still providing American's the protection from said searches guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

Color me amazed that Mr. Franken knows the Constitution.

Oh, wait, the Constitution was just a part of his incoming paperwork as a junior Senator; but at least he read it.

Now, of course, my question becomes, will Mr. Franken read the Constitution at other times that a law that is being brought before the Senate appears to be working against the text (or the intent of the Framers) of the Constitution?

Say, will he read the First Amendment when Congress talks about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine?"

Will he read the Second Amendment when Congress talks about yet another gun law?

Will he read Article 1, Sections 8 and 9 as well as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments when Congress tries to pass something utterly outside the bounds of what they are allowed to do according to the Constitution (you know, little things like welfare programs, the national Department of Education and potential government-run health care)?

Or, as is so often the case in such things, is the Constitution only important when it discusses and approves those issues with which Liberals are concerned?

I have no doubt that Mr. Franken will never again open his copy of the Constitution (unless he needs it to attack something with which he does not agree), but I can dream can't I?

And while I'm waiting and dreaming of a Constitutional government, I have an Amendment or 10 which I can read to my kids.

Demeaning Institutions

2009-09-11T20:42:00.000-05:00

You may or may not have heard about Representative Joe Wilson's little outburst during the recent Obama speech where he was hustling for ~~yet more socialist attacks against our way of life~~ Nationalized Health Care.

Basically, when Obama got to the part of his speech where he promised (and we all know what Obama's promises are worth) that Illegal Aliens (i.e. those who should not be on our soil anyways) would not receive any of his socialist kool-aid.

Wilson shouted out "You Lie" because the bill that Obama was hawking, while it did have a clause stating that those who were not supposed to be in the Nation were not to receive benefits (which is a first for the Democrats) there is nothing in the bill which enforces that clause.

And an unenforced clause is just pretty words to appease people.

But what gets me is that now those same Liberals who are up there, demanding that we expand government, balloon our debt (which is forced inflation or more simply, inflating the money supply to rob you of more wealth), and create yet another government program which the government does not Constitutionally have the right to create, are talking about how Wilson has "demeaned" the Congress and the institution of the President.

Funny how easily people forget that both Presidents Clinton and Bush (the Second) were routinely booed during their speeches, even the Constitutionally-required State of the Union.

But, that's not my point. My point is that we have this Congressional idiots up there, all up-in-arms over someone explicitly using his First Amendment rights to inform the President what he thinks, but so few of them seem to be up-in-arms on the attacks against our (the People's) rights.

Remember, the Constitution explicitly states that any right not expressly given the Government within the Constitution belongs to the People or the States.

By allowing Congress to create these socialist Big-Government programs, we're allowing Congress to over-step it's authorized, Constitutionally-defined bounds and we're throwing away our rights.

Sure, what Representative Wilson did probably wasn't the brightest, or most respectful, move to make. That said, we should be less worried over Mr. Wilson's outburst than we our at Pelosi's and companies attacks on our rights.

And for the record, notice that while I am against States creating these state-run health insurance programs, I do not decry them as un-Constitutional, as it would be within a State's rights to create such a program. Also note that I don't live in a state with one of these programs (those states with them, are already facing record deficits, rationed health care, and other abuses of their government run health care system), and I wouldn't want to live in one.

Why I Disagree With Today's Speech

2009-09-08T06:06:00.001-05:00

I'm highly Conservative. Anyone that takes two seconds to peruse this site will quickly come to realize that. I wear my political affiliation on my sleeve for the world to see, and happily defend my positions against anyone who wishes to discuss things logically.

I of course, reserve the right to mock anyone who devolves into "It Feels Good, So That's Why" emotionalism.

So of course, when I read about the Department of Education's letter to every school in the nation, and how they provided curriculum materials to work in conjunction with Obama's speech today, I was concerned.

And then I actually read the contents of the letter and that concern quickly became anger and disgust.

Now, the Lefties would happily want everyone out there to believe that anyone who opposes Obama's speech today is a redneck, racist hick without a lick of common sense or brains. Just take a look at the political cartoons related to it.

The thing is, that it's not the speech that I have an issue with.

Frankly, that's a good object lesson in learning out to critically parse out BS from a politicians mouth. As an aside, what I usually hear when listening to a politician's (especially those with a centrist or leftist tilt) speech is thus:

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. I'm Awesome. BLAH, BLAH. Vote for me, I'll give you stuff!

No. What disturbs me was the curriculum that went alongside of it. The curriculum that was sent to every principal in the country from the Department of Education (remember this fact, it will become more important in a moment).

For the K-6 students (this is elementary kids folks) the concepts were things like writing down how they could help the president. Or answering questions on why the president is good, or why what he's saying is right, or why we should listen to him (and other elected officials).

Now, I firmly believe we should listen to elected officials, after all, that's how we know they're lying to us, but I'm less interested in listening to elected officials in the unquestioning obedience point of view.

But not only is the concepts espoused in their rather insane letter annoying, but if you want to get technical it's kind of against the law (not that that has any bearing on what the Obama Administration does, as one can read about here).

Specifically, it's 20 U.S.C. § 3403, and the important aspect of that statute involved comes into play with these sections:

(3) parents have the primary responsibility for the education
of their children, and States, localities, and private
institutions have the primary responsibility for supporting that
parental role;

(4) in our Federal system, the primary public responsibility
for education is reserved respectively to the States and the
local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States;

The thing is that that FEDERAL statute (the one which created the department in question) denies the Department of Education (which Constitutionally shouldn't exist, as it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution that Congress can create a Department of Education) any authority, right or responsibility to provide any curriculum or anything that can be "passed down" to the state.

Think about this. These are the folks who we've elected to be our leaders, and all we've gotten is broken lies, insane socialist theories and broken laws.

Of course, it is a Leftist in office so one should not be THAT surprised.

Oh wait, I can't say that can I, after all, any criticism or implications that the Chosen One isn't doing his job of protecting the Constitution might be considered racism...