If I were a government employee, I’d probably support the original $Trillion Stimulus and the $50 Billion additional that the president is now asking for. But I’m not a government employee.
The president claims that the Stimulus saved jobs and is helping the economy to recover; but this additional $50 Billion is required to keep it going. Like so much that comes out of his mouth, this too is a lie. It is doing no more than prolonging the inevitable, but in the process it also makes eventual recovery much more difficult.
Anyone who can read can see where the Stimulus money went, and it wasn’t into the private economy. Basically it was used to sustain government jobs in the face of evaporating tax bases. People without income don’t pay income taxes; and people without property don’t pay property taxes. Government jobs are 100% funded by taxes.
Therefore, no taxes, no money to pay government wages: thus the special “Stimulus” funding.
The problem with this is that funding government jobs does nothing significant to stimulate the private sector. To make matters worse, since there is nothing in the Treasury to pay for the Stimulus, it is being funded by debt. For the government to repay debt, more taxes are required. Since the existing tax base is rapidly evaporating, new taxes will be required. More taxes means less resources available for sustaining existing jobs or creating new private sector jobs.
To make matters even worse, government employees are paid much more, on average, than private sector employees; and are given much more liberal and much more costly benefits than anyone in the private sector enjoys. The average federal government employee is paid approximately $20,000 per year more than the average college-graduate private sector employee. Add to that an average benefit package worth another $20,000 a year and the gap grows to $40,000 a year: nearly double the pay and benefits of the average private sector employee.
Why the great difference? Private sector pay and benefits are determined by employers who have to balance outgo to income. They also have to be competitive in every transaction. Customers determine the selling price of products and services, so employers can only control costs to be less than the selling price, by a sufficient margin to enable the enterprise to survive.
Costs not only include rent and salaries, but also the cost to comply with energy mandates (Cap and Trade); business practice mandates (Sarbanes Oxley, et al.) environmental mandates (EPA); product safety mandates; occupational safety mandates (OSHA); work-rule mandates (Unions); financial practice mandates; local, state, and federal taxes. The reason that so many jobs leave the US is that they are moving to locales where the mandates are less demanding and therefore less costly.
Government jobs have no such compelling motivators to reduce costs. Employment levels, pay rates, pay increases are all determined by bureaucrats or politicians who have absolutely no direct responsibility to assure efficiency, efficacy, or necessity in operations, employment; or to meet payroll.
For 40 years the private sector has been forced by global competition to streamline; reduce waste; become more productive; to find more efficient, less costly methods; to demand more from every available employee. During that time bureaucrats and politicians have been expanding government at an alarming rate, unfettered by competition or common sense. Virtually no government bureaucracy is ever eliminated, even if the demand that created it no longer exists; or even if it proves totally incapable of meeting it’s charter. We now pay $24 Billion a year (and rising yearly) for a Dept. of Energy created 32 years ago when our dependence on foreign oil was 24%, to reduce our dependence which today is more than double that rate. This would never be permitted in the private economy governed by competition.
Every dollar the federal government spends is taken from the private economy. Every dollar taken out of the private economy reduces the ability of the private economy to survive; create new jobs, and prosper.
Our Founding Fathers were brilliant in their denial to the federal government of any authority to directly tax citizens. In the first place, they understood that taxation is simply a form of slavery that has been used since before recorded history to impoverish the populace. Second, they understood that such funding is used to further subjugate the people either directly through burdensome bureaucracy; or through costly wars and wasteful public works programs to expand the wealth of the privileged class or expand the un-Constitutional power of government.
We are governed by a corrupt government so confident in the power of special interests that they willfully ignore the constituents that selected them to represent them in government: politicians so dependent on the funding provided by corporate campaign contributions that they ignore the will of the people. Every government decision is subject to prior sale.
Our problems are solvable. Our Founders left us with a remarkable road map responsible for creating an environment wherein the most exceptional government in the history of man was created: The Constitution of the United States (COTUS).
If we restore limited government as clearly defined by the COTUS; if we restore the prohibition of direct taxation; if we restore the Senate as representative of the States rights; if we eliminate or correct the corruptive influence of political parties; if we honor the inalienable rights granted each citizen by his Creator we will have a federal government limited to doing only those functions delineated in the COTUS and we will restore a self-supporting and eminently self-reliant population with inherent motivation to serve others as they pursue their own dreams. That is what made America exceptional; and it can do it again. Restore the COTUS to restore America.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Big Government is not the solution
Donna Brazile has a mighty convenient way of looking at facts. Why was BP drilling through a mile of water and 3 miles of earth? Because Big Government won’t let safe shallow water and dry land sites be developed!
Obama’s administration knew enough about BPs operations that they were going to recognize them for excellence in exploration and production, while ignoring that the Obama administration failed to enforce the safety requirements that may have prevented this fiasco.
Obamas Big Government gave BP a “pass” on having the emergency resources in place, required by Bush’s Big Government regulations to deal with such an accident and would have dealt with the spill at the site rather than waiting for it to reach hundreds of miles of beach and wildlife breeding areas; or mandating the use of dispersants that make the problem worse, not better.
Big Government is the entity dragging it’s feet and doing nothing but jabbering in response to Governor Jindal’s request for sand barriers to protect the vital wetlands along his coast. By the way Brazile, Jindal doesn’t have control over federal resources, only State resources. After Katrina it was the State government that delayed response by the federal government. With this oil spill, the State has requested permission to act and it is the big federal government that is delaying the response.
Maybe if the Obama administration was more interested in solving this problem than assessing blame, more would be getting done to actually stop the problem. If there was anyone in the Obama administration with any real world experience (rather than ivory tower theorizing) they would understand that first you fix the problem and then you establish how to keep it from happening again and assess responsibility for the damage. But then Obama never has been very good at accomplishing anything.
It is elucidating that 18 months into the Obama presidency their first line of defense is to blame Bush as if that actually accomplishes anything. When will Obama start taking responsibility for a government that he’s had complete access to since the day after the election in 2008?
The failure in this instance was not the lack of regulation, but the failure of Big Government to enforce the existing regulations designed to deal with just such an event. Increasing the scope or size of government will never compensate for failure to act according to existing regulations.
Government doesn’t have to be big, only competent. Unfortunately, competence is sorely lacking in the Obama administration as is painfully evident in their failure to prevent this problem; in their slow and inept response to this problem; in their poor coordination and implementation of available resources to deal with this problem; and their lack of focus in addressing the mitigation of this problem.
Obama’s administration has lots of experience and resources dedicated controlling “spin”. They just don’t accomplish much else.
Obama’s administration knew enough about BPs operations that they were going to recognize them for excellence in exploration and production, while ignoring that the Obama administration failed to enforce the safety requirements that may have prevented this fiasco.
Obamas Big Government gave BP a “pass” on having the emergency resources in place, required by Bush’s Big Government regulations to deal with such an accident and would have dealt with the spill at the site rather than waiting for it to reach hundreds of miles of beach and wildlife breeding areas; or mandating the use of dispersants that make the problem worse, not better.
Big Government is the entity dragging it’s feet and doing nothing but jabbering in response to Governor Jindal’s request for sand barriers to protect the vital wetlands along his coast. By the way Brazile, Jindal doesn’t have control over federal resources, only State resources. After Katrina it was the State government that delayed response by the federal government. With this oil spill, the State has requested permission to act and it is the big federal government that is delaying the response.
Maybe if the Obama administration was more interested in solving this problem than assessing blame, more would be getting done to actually stop the problem. If there was anyone in the Obama administration with any real world experience (rather than ivory tower theorizing) they would understand that first you fix the problem and then you establish how to keep it from happening again and assess responsibility for the damage. But then Obama never has been very good at accomplishing anything.
It is elucidating that 18 months into the Obama presidency their first line of defense is to blame Bush as if that actually accomplishes anything. When will Obama start taking responsibility for a government that he’s had complete access to since the day after the election in 2008?
The failure in this instance was not the lack of regulation, but the failure of Big Government to enforce the existing regulations designed to deal with just such an event. Increasing the scope or size of government will never compensate for failure to act according to existing regulations.
Government doesn’t have to be big, only competent. Unfortunately, competence is sorely lacking in the Obama administration as is painfully evident in their failure to prevent this problem; in their slow and inept response to this problem; in their poor coordination and implementation of available resources to deal with this problem; and their lack of focus in addressing the mitigation of this problem.
Obama’s administration has lots of experience and resources dedicated controlling “spin”. They just don’t accomplish much else.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Souter's Harvard Commencement Speech 2010
David Souter’s commencement speech at Harvard recently is being touted by some as a profound description of the conundrum of literally interpreting the COTUS in light of changing societal values. Rather it is typical of the dithering we have come to expect from liberal justices intent on making the law conform to the vicissitudes of their decaying social standards.
Souter makes the argument that the publication of the Pentagon Papers represented a conflict between the First Amendment restriction that the federal government was denied any authority to abridge freedom of the press; and some other Constitutional conflict unnamed suggesting that the federal government can make up it’s own rules as it goes along to protect it’s right to engage in secret operations, etc. Understandably, Souter deferred to alleged clever legal arguments by Irwin Griswold, solicitor general and former dean of the Harvard Law School rather than quoting Constitutional precedent (none exists) to craft a non-existent conflict within the Constitution. Understandably because that’s what clever attorneys do: craft asinine obfuscations of the law to sell their altered realities.
Souter should realize that the COTUS was crafted to greatly restrict the power and authority of the federal government by establishing three independent branches in the expectation that each would jealously protect their delegated authorities to preclude abuse by the other two branches. Ingenious as it may have been the People would not ratify the COTUS without the addition of the Bill of Rights restricting the authority of the federal government in no uncertain terms: “…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…” Therefore, any powers assigned to the federal government in the body of the COTUS that might lead one to question the possible existence of some great federal authority by implication; is negated if it conflicts with restrictions clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights. Though the 1st 8 Amendments are powerfully restrictive, the 9th and 10th Amendments exclude any doubt about the intentions of the Founders regarding the limited authorities of the federal government.
In the context of Souter’s example, if Griswold thought that the federal government had some superior position that empowered them to ‘abridge freedom of the press’ for reasons of their choosing; it should be clear from the First Amendment that no such superior authority exists. That is the purpose of a fair reading and a constructionists approach to the COTUS: clever attorneys be damned.
In Souter’s example comparing and contrasting Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896 and Brown v. the Board of Education of 1954 he completely misrepresents why the courts interpreted “equal protection under law” differently in the two cases. In reality the differences are the result of how the equality of the litigants was defined by the courts, rather than a change in the definition of what equality means in the COTUS.
First of all, the COTUS makes no mention of “separate but equal” which is a total fabrication by the court. If the COTUS had been the standard by literal interpretation, Plessy v Ferguson could not stand. Second, in 1858 in the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that Negroes were not, and could not be citizens of the US and therefore the Constitutional protections did not apply to them. This position was eradicated by ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 giving citizenship to anyone born in the US or naturalized.
Clearly had literal interpretation of the COTUS been applied in 1896, Plessy could not stand. The problem has never been literal interpretation of the COTUS; the problem is liberal interpretations and fabrications of pseudo-legal doctrine by activist judges such as Souter who foolishly favor their own intellect (sic) over that of the Founders whose wisdom is verified across the ages.
Ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 erased any doubt that Constitutional protections extended to women in America. Nothing of consequence changed in the COTUS; all that changed was whom the courts would recognize as being under the equal protection of the COTUS.
It is not the role of the courts to adjust the meaning of the Constitution according to their continually degenerating liberal interpretations; or to facilitate the usurpation by government of authorities not delegated; or the establishment of new markets by wealthy benefactors. The role of the courts is to assure that all laws are compliant to the COTUS and that they are equally applied to all who come before the court (regardless of gender, race, creed, or life experience).
The literal interpretation of the COTUS is the single most important reason for the undeniable American Exceptionalism throughout our history. Though liberals condemn it, the COTUS comes directly from the Judeo-Christian Bible. An excellent proof of that is the example of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense; the treatise given predominant credit for fanning the flames of Independence: fully one third of which is a direct quotation from the Bible’s Book of Samuel. Historians tell us that Paine was an atheist, yet he knew, understood, and respected the truth of the Bible as it applied to the form of government being established in a fledgling America.
If the Obama presidency has demonstrated anything it is the foolishness parading as academic veracity in the ivy covered halls of what once were considered institutions of higher learning. Hopefully, Souter’s commencement address will be seen for what it is: a lame liberal justification for bastardization of the foundation of America by those who foolishly and egotistically consider themselves wiser than our Founders.
Souter makes the argument that the publication of the Pentagon Papers represented a conflict between the First Amendment restriction that the federal government was denied any authority to abridge freedom of the press; and some other Constitutional conflict unnamed suggesting that the federal government can make up it’s own rules as it goes along to protect it’s right to engage in secret operations, etc. Understandably, Souter deferred to alleged clever legal arguments by Irwin Griswold, solicitor general and former dean of the Harvard Law School rather than quoting Constitutional precedent (none exists) to craft a non-existent conflict within the Constitution. Understandably because that’s what clever attorneys do: craft asinine obfuscations of the law to sell their altered realities.
Souter should realize that the COTUS was crafted to greatly restrict the power and authority of the federal government by establishing three independent branches in the expectation that each would jealously protect their delegated authorities to preclude abuse by the other two branches. Ingenious as it may have been the People would not ratify the COTUS without the addition of the Bill of Rights restricting the authority of the federal government in no uncertain terms: “…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…” Therefore, any powers assigned to the federal government in the body of the COTUS that might lead one to question the possible existence of some great federal authority by implication; is negated if it conflicts with restrictions clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights. Though the 1st 8 Amendments are powerfully restrictive, the 9th and 10th Amendments exclude any doubt about the intentions of the Founders regarding the limited authorities of the federal government.
In the context of Souter’s example, if Griswold thought that the federal government had some superior position that empowered them to ‘abridge freedom of the press’ for reasons of their choosing; it should be clear from the First Amendment that no such superior authority exists. That is the purpose of a fair reading and a constructionists approach to the COTUS: clever attorneys be damned.
In Souter’s example comparing and contrasting Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896 and Brown v. the Board of Education of 1954 he completely misrepresents why the courts interpreted “equal protection under law” differently in the two cases. In reality the differences are the result of how the equality of the litigants was defined by the courts, rather than a change in the definition of what equality means in the COTUS.
First of all, the COTUS makes no mention of “separate but equal” which is a total fabrication by the court. If the COTUS had been the standard by literal interpretation, Plessy v Ferguson could not stand. Second, in 1858 in the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that Negroes were not, and could not be citizens of the US and therefore the Constitutional protections did not apply to them. This position was eradicated by ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 giving citizenship to anyone born in the US or naturalized.
Clearly had literal interpretation of the COTUS been applied in 1896, Plessy could not stand. The problem has never been literal interpretation of the COTUS; the problem is liberal interpretations and fabrications of pseudo-legal doctrine by activist judges such as Souter who foolishly favor their own intellect (sic) over that of the Founders whose wisdom is verified across the ages.
Ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 erased any doubt that Constitutional protections extended to women in America. Nothing of consequence changed in the COTUS; all that changed was whom the courts would recognize as being under the equal protection of the COTUS.
It is not the role of the courts to adjust the meaning of the Constitution according to their continually degenerating liberal interpretations; or to facilitate the usurpation by government of authorities not delegated; or the establishment of new markets by wealthy benefactors. The role of the courts is to assure that all laws are compliant to the COTUS and that they are equally applied to all who come before the court (regardless of gender, race, creed, or life experience).
The literal interpretation of the COTUS is the single most important reason for the undeniable American Exceptionalism throughout our history. Though liberals condemn it, the COTUS comes directly from the Judeo-Christian Bible. An excellent proof of that is the example of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense; the treatise given predominant credit for fanning the flames of Independence: fully one third of which is a direct quotation from the Bible’s Book of Samuel. Historians tell us that Paine was an atheist, yet he knew, understood, and respected the truth of the Bible as it applied to the form of government being established in a fledgling America.
If the Obama presidency has demonstrated anything it is the foolishness parading as academic veracity in the ivy covered halls of what once were considered institutions of higher learning. Hopefully, Souter’s commencement address will be seen for what it is: a lame liberal justification for bastardization of the foundation of America by those who foolishly and egotistically consider themselves wiser than our Founders.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Memorial Day 2010
Freedom isn’t free. It has always been carved out of impenetrable difficulty.
It wasn’t until America that common folk could hope for freedom; and that wasn’t assured without the investment of hundreds of years of selfless individual and communal sacrifice, endless labor; and unquenchable hope and optimism against the inevitable and unforgiving ravages of man, beast, and nature.
It wasn’t until America that a man could grasp or lose freedom based on his own effort, labor and intelligence (or lack thereof) independently of who his ancestors were or weren’t. Liberty: What a remarkable and irreplaceable gift crafted by our Founding Fathers!
Those who founded America risked everything for the right to worship God according to their own beliefs. How many of us today would do the same? How many of us would make the trip across a treacherous sea; to a wild and untamed land that offered endless challenges and no guarantees: knowing the high probability that someone we loved would not survive the passage or the establishment of a new life?
How many were driven to our shores by desperation: because neither life nor hope where they came from was sustainable? They came prepared to sacrifice and struggle knowing it was the one place on earth that afforded them the opportunity to create a better life for their children and grandchildren.
Once established our remarkable liberty faces constant threats from without and within and is too often maintained only by force of arms against those who would substitute the sovereignty of the few for the sovereignty of all: who would supplant the rule of law with the rule of a select “elite” (sic).
For more than 230 years the American citizen-soldier has answered the country’s call to quell all threats: to maintain and sustain the hope that is America: a hope forged from the belief that all men are created equal: endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is a belief that government is instituted among men and derives it’s just powers from the Sovereign Citizen.
The price of liberty is constant vigilance. On Memorial Day we honor those Americans who have answered the call of America in her times of need; and who have paid the ultimate price in answering that call. Freedom is a light for which many men have died in darkness.
For those of us who survive, it is essential that we honor the sacrifice of those who make our Liberty possible; and to teach our children that nothing is more valuable than individual Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are the sacred gifts from our Creator: subject to restriction by no man.
With the example of those who have established and maintained the Liberty that is our heritage to guide us, we must remain vigilant against all enemies of Liberty: foreign and domestic.
It wasn’t until America that common folk could hope for freedom; and that wasn’t assured without the investment of hundreds of years of selfless individual and communal sacrifice, endless labor; and unquenchable hope and optimism against the inevitable and unforgiving ravages of man, beast, and nature.
It wasn’t until America that a man could grasp or lose freedom based on his own effort, labor and intelligence (or lack thereof) independently of who his ancestors were or weren’t. Liberty: What a remarkable and irreplaceable gift crafted by our Founding Fathers!
Those who founded America risked everything for the right to worship God according to their own beliefs. How many of us today would do the same? How many of us would make the trip across a treacherous sea; to a wild and untamed land that offered endless challenges and no guarantees: knowing the high probability that someone we loved would not survive the passage or the establishment of a new life?
How many were driven to our shores by desperation: because neither life nor hope where they came from was sustainable? They came prepared to sacrifice and struggle knowing it was the one place on earth that afforded them the opportunity to create a better life for their children and grandchildren.
Once established our remarkable liberty faces constant threats from without and within and is too often maintained only by force of arms against those who would substitute the sovereignty of the few for the sovereignty of all: who would supplant the rule of law with the rule of a select “elite” (sic).
For more than 230 years the American citizen-soldier has answered the country’s call to quell all threats: to maintain and sustain the hope that is America: a hope forged from the belief that all men are created equal: endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is a belief that government is instituted among men and derives it’s just powers from the Sovereign Citizen.
The price of liberty is constant vigilance. On Memorial Day we honor those Americans who have answered the call of America in her times of need; and who have paid the ultimate price in answering that call. Freedom is a light for which many men have died in darkness.
For those of us who survive, it is essential that we honor the sacrifice of those who make our Liberty possible; and to teach our children that nothing is more valuable than individual Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are the sacred gifts from our Creator: subject to restriction by no man.
With the example of those who have established and maintained the Liberty that is our heritage to guide us, we must remain vigilant against all enemies of Liberty: foreign and domestic.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
COTUS: Love it or leave
If only posters had to demonstrate an understanding of the COTUS before posting...
I'm not a Paulista, but if Obama and Paul represent the two ends of the spectrum, I believe that America is much safer on the Paul end than the Obama end. Even if we are successful in restoring a Constitutional government in America, it will take years to undo the corruption created in little more than one brief year by Obama.
Any federal officer who fails to "preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS" as they must solemnly swear to do before being endowed with any federal authority, should be removed from office by impeachment without delay. That takes care of the president, VP, Congressional leadership (sic); at least 60 Senators; and probably 300 or more Congressmen; and at least 5 members of the SCOTUS.
The COTUS defines the limits of responsibilities and authorities of the entire federal government. There are only two kinds of people in America: those who love and honor the COTUS, and those who need to move elsewhere. The COTUS is not a living document. As crafted it defines a magnificently prescient political organization intimately mindful of immutable human nature: delegated authority will be corrupted, expanded and usurped unless vigilantly prevented from doing so.
The Bill o f Rights is a listing of inalienable rights endowed us by our Creator over which the Founders specifically and intentionally denied the federal government any authority. The president acknowledges that but doesn't accept it because it limits his omnipotence.
Isn't it amazing that the phrase: "The Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion" is somehow mongrelized to suggest that government can somehow control religious expression: a travesty that requires repudiation of both the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Isn't it amazing that the phrase: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is somehow mongrelized to suggest that government can somehow control the keeping and bearing of arms: a travesty that requires repudiation of both the 2nd and the 14th Amendments.
Isn't it amazing that the phrase: "no person shall be denied Life, Liberty or property without due process of law" is somehow mongrelized to suggest that government can sanction the murder of unborn persons without due process of law; a travesty that requires repudiation of both the 5th and 14th Amendments.
The list of inalienable rights that the federal government has usurped is almost endless, but as long as the Constitution exists, those travesties can, and must, be reversed.
For those living in America that don't accept that these are in fact mongrelizations, their only legal and moral option is to Amend the COTUS to permit such presently un-Constitutional acts. No rational person suggests that any such Amendments could ever be ratified in a free America. If not, then these deniers are destined for a miserable life here in the USA; and that makes no sense. That is why they need to move elsewhere.
The good news is that there are more than 200 countries in the world where folks can live unencumbered by the COTUS: but America isn't one of them. Another stroke of good fortune for them: most of those 200 provide all the cradle-to-grave government control they could ever hope for.
So, "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she with silent lips.
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,..."
...and we'll trade them for all the teat-sucking, liberty-fearing, elitist Liberal and Progressive freeloaders you can stand...
I'm not a Paulista, but if Obama and Paul represent the two ends of the spectrum, I believe that America is much safer on the Paul end than the Obama end. Even if we are successful in restoring a Constitutional government in America, it will take years to undo the corruption created in little more than one brief year by Obama.
Any federal officer who fails to "preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS" as they must solemnly swear to do before being endowed with any federal authority, should be removed from office by impeachment without delay. That takes care of the president, VP, Congressional leadership (sic); at least 60 Senators; and probably 300 or more Congressmen; and at least 5 members of the SCOTUS.
The COTUS defines the limits of responsibilities and authorities of the entire federal government. There are only two kinds of people in America: those who love and honor the COTUS, and those who need to move elsewhere. The COTUS is not a living document. As crafted it defines a magnificently prescient political organization intimately mindful of immutable human nature: delegated authority will be corrupted, expanded and usurped unless vigilantly prevented from doing so.
The Bill o f Rights is a listing of inalienable rights endowed us by our Creator over which the Founders specifically and intentionally denied the federal government any authority. The president acknowledges that but doesn't accept it because it limits his omnipotence.
Isn't it amazing that the phrase: "The Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion" is somehow mongrelized to suggest that government can somehow control religious expression: a travesty that requires repudiation of both the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Isn't it amazing that the phrase: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is somehow mongrelized to suggest that government can somehow control the keeping and bearing of arms: a travesty that requires repudiation of both the 2nd and the 14th Amendments.
Isn't it amazing that the phrase: "no person shall be denied Life, Liberty or property without due process of law" is somehow mongrelized to suggest that government can sanction the murder of unborn persons without due process of law; a travesty that requires repudiation of both the 5th and 14th Amendments.
The list of inalienable rights that the federal government has usurped is almost endless, but as long as the Constitution exists, those travesties can, and must, be reversed.
For those living in America that don't accept that these are in fact mongrelizations, their only legal and moral option is to Amend the COTUS to permit such presently un-Constitutional acts. No rational person suggests that any such Amendments could ever be ratified in a free America. If not, then these deniers are destined for a miserable life here in the USA; and that makes no sense. That is why they need to move elsewhere.
The good news is that there are more than 200 countries in the world where folks can live unencumbered by the COTUS: but America isn't one of them. Another stroke of good fortune for them: most of those 200 provide all the cradle-to-grave government control they could ever hope for.
So, "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she with silent lips.
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,..."
...and we'll trade them for all the teat-sucking, liberty-fearing, elitist Liberal and Progressive freeloaders you can stand...
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The COTUS is so simple!
The COTUS is such a simple document. Shorter than a college term paper it distills the recorded history of human nature to define a unique form of government designed to protect the individual rights granted to us by our Creator from the universal abuse of delegated authority.
Our Founders based the government model on a three-legged stool knowing that unless each of the three legs behaves appropriately, the stool cannot function. They so clearly understood that taxation is always used by government to subjugate citizens, without exception. For that reason they denied the federal government any authority to directly tax Citizens, a critical safeguard undone by the 16th Amendment that must be restored if America is to be restored.
Our Founders understood that those with delegated authority would always attempt to usurp powers not granted so they intentionally delineated the totality of responsibilities and authorities being delegated to the federal government created by the COTUS.
Citizens weighed-in after reading the COTUS and refused to ratify it unless even more specific exclusions were included to prevent the abuse of government authority. The result was the Bill of Rights listing specific inalienable rights for which the federal government was specifically denied any authority. Surprisingly our current president understands that the Bill of Rights is a listing of negative rights that specify what the government can’t do; he just thinks its wrong. He apparently doesn’t understand that the 9th and 10th Amendments emphasize that there is nothing else that the government is authorized to do other than those specific authorities delineated in the COTUS.
Therefore no individual officer or branch of the federal government has any authority to ‘fundamentally transform the USA’. They are only authorized to do their specifically listed responsibilities; and to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS’.
The Tea Party Movement is a grass-roots initiative to restore the COTUS. Protesting excessive, unfunded spending is the first step. Un-doing the abuses committed against the COTUS over the past 150 years will follow.
To restore America, restore the COTUS.
Our Founders based the government model on a three-legged stool knowing that unless each of the three legs behaves appropriately, the stool cannot function. They so clearly understood that taxation is always used by government to subjugate citizens, without exception. For that reason they denied the federal government any authority to directly tax Citizens, a critical safeguard undone by the 16th Amendment that must be restored if America is to be restored.
Our Founders understood that those with delegated authority would always attempt to usurp powers not granted so they intentionally delineated the totality of responsibilities and authorities being delegated to the federal government created by the COTUS.
Citizens weighed-in after reading the COTUS and refused to ratify it unless even more specific exclusions were included to prevent the abuse of government authority. The result was the Bill of Rights listing specific inalienable rights for which the federal government was specifically denied any authority. Surprisingly our current president understands that the Bill of Rights is a listing of negative rights that specify what the government can’t do; he just thinks its wrong. He apparently doesn’t understand that the 9th and 10th Amendments emphasize that there is nothing else that the government is authorized to do other than those specific authorities delineated in the COTUS.
Therefore no individual officer or branch of the federal government has any authority to ‘fundamentally transform the USA’. They are only authorized to do their specifically listed responsibilities; and to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS’.
The Tea Party Movement is a grass-roots initiative to restore the COTUS. Protesting excessive, unfunded spending is the first step. Un-doing the abuses committed against the COTUS over the past 150 years will follow.
To restore America, restore the COTUS.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
No more Liberal Justices
Geoffrey R. Stone, professor of law at the University of Chicago contributed an Op-Ed to the NYT on 14 April extolling the alleged virtues of liberal Justices. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/opinion/14stone.html?hp
The Constitution makes no mention of liberal Justices or Conservative Justices; it requires only that the judiciary assure that the laws of the US are consistent with the Constitution.
The Constitution does not “…define our most fundamental rights and protections…”. It does identify some rights, endowed to each of us by our Creator, that are superior to any government of man. It identifies individual rights over which the federal government is specifically denied any authority.
There is nothing in the Constitution about ‘separation of church and state’: what it says is that “Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion”; Congress shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of speech (no mention of people or corporations, but corporations have no ability to speak, only people do).
The 2nd Amendment denies the federal government any authority to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If ‘regulation’ in anyway infringes, the federal government has no such authority. The 14th Amendment prohibits State or local governments from any such infringement on US Citizens.
Affirmative action, aside from being a failed policy, is a violation of equal protection under law; as are hate crime laws. These laws were not instituted to solve problems, but rather to assuage the need of elitist liberals to impose their will and self-imagined moral superiority on others. These laws are more discriminatory than the behaviors they allege to eliminate.
As to gay Scoutmasters, I find nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government any authority to force gay Scoutmasters on anyone. I do know that homosexuality is specified in the Bible as “an abomination in the eyes of God”; and that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam accept that as true. Therefore it would appear that any law that denied Believers the right to apply that belief to their lives is a violation of the 1st Amendment that denies the federal government any such authority.
Apparently you have a different set of framers than the rest of us. The actual framers were adamant that America would be a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy because democracy is no more than mob rule: two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner. The actual framers deemed that America would be governed by law, not popular opinion, or worse yet, elitist dictate.
As to judicial empathy, nothing could be further from the requirement to apply law equally to all litigants. If empathy were permitted in the courtroom, Boston public schools would still be segregated. To suggest that something other than the law should be considered in any threat to Life, Liberty, or Property is an anathema to our legal system. Justice Sotomayor, a self-avowed racist and sexist was in fact a poor choice as is so clearly demonstrated by reversal of the racial terms used in her famous “Wise Latina” comment so often voiced by her over many years.
Let us see how ‘medical privacy’, key to the abomination that is Roe v. Wade, fares under challenge to ObamaCare that makes medical records nearly universally accessible.
The Constitution is not some “living document” subject to wild interpretation by activist liberal judges. The intent of the framers is clear in their insistence that the responsibility of every federal officer is to “preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS”. The COTUS was created to define the federal government based on a clear comprehension of human nature, and human nature, contrary to the fantasies of elitist liberals, never changes.
The Constitution makes no mention of liberal Justices or Conservative Justices; it requires only that the judiciary assure that the laws of the US are consistent with the Constitution.
The Constitution does not “…define our most fundamental rights and protections…”. It does identify some rights, endowed to each of us by our Creator, that are superior to any government of man. It identifies individual rights over which the federal government is specifically denied any authority.
There is nothing in the Constitution about ‘separation of church and state’: what it says is that “Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion”; Congress shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of speech (no mention of people or corporations, but corporations have no ability to speak, only people do).
The 2nd Amendment denies the federal government any authority to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If ‘regulation’ in anyway infringes, the federal government has no such authority. The 14th Amendment prohibits State or local governments from any such infringement on US Citizens.
Affirmative action, aside from being a failed policy, is a violation of equal protection under law; as are hate crime laws. These laws were not instituted to solve problems, but rather to assuage the need of elitist liberals to impose their will and self-imagined moral superiority on others. These laws are more discriminatory than the behaviors they allege to eliminate.
As to gay Scoutmasters, I find nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government any authority to force gay Scoutmasters on anyone. I do know that homosexuality is specified in the Bible as “an abomination in the eyes of God”; and that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam accept that as true. Therefore it would appear that any law that denied Believers the right to apply that belief to their lives is a violation of the 1st Amendment that denies the federal government any such authority.
Apparently you have a different set of framers than the rest of us. The actual framers were adamant that America would be a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy because democracy is no more than mob rule: two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner. The actual framers deemed that America would be governed by law, not popular opinion, or worse yet, elitist dictate.
As to judicial empathy, nothing could be further from the requirement to apply law equally to all litigants. If empathy were permitted in the courtroom, Boston public schools would still be segregated. To suggest that something other than the law should be considered in any threat to Life, Liberty, or Property is an anathema to our legal system. Justice Sotomayor, a self-avowed racist and sexist was in fact a poor choice as is so clearly demonstrated by reversal of the racial terms used in her famous “Wise Latina” comment so often voiced by her over many years.
Let us see how ‘medical privacy’, key to the abomination that is Roe v. Wade, fares under challenge to ObamaCare that makes medical records nearly universally accessible.
The Constitution is not some “living document” subject to wild interpretation by activist liberal judges. The intent of the framers is clear in their insistence that the responsibility of every federal officer is to “preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS”. The COTUS was created to define the federal government based on a clear comprehension of human nature, and human nature, contrary to the fantasies of elitist liberals, never changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
