Friday, April 30, 2010


I've always been taught that coincidences do happen, but not to expect too many of them. If they occur TOO regularly, look around you and see who's been saying what.

"You can't let a good crisis go to waste" - Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff

OK, so two weeks ago, they were all set to bring up 'financial reform' in Congress and the SEC files civil fraud charges against Goldman Sachs to whip the public up into an anti-banking industry frenzy (see my random thoughts thread for more on this, as this is only the surface motive). So WHAT was supposed to be on the agenda in Congress THIS week? Well, before the Republican Governor of Arizona passed a law making it illegal to violate existing Federal laws, they were planning to introduce Climate Control (Cap and Trade) legislation on Monday. SUPPOSED to introduce a bill that amounts to a government takeover of the energy sector, and something happens that whips up a public outcry about the need to further regulate the offshore drilling industry....hmmmm. I can't help but wonder if a saboteur might not have gotten the word that the Congressional priority had shifted and a marine oil disaster should be postponed a few weeks at least.

Think anyone will investigate all the personnel that were on that rig for any ties to Iron Rail? This WAS after all just south of Louisiana. Lot of 'all bidness' (yeah, I'm originally from Texas) takes place all around Lake Ponchartrain. I somehow doubt it. There's been alot of questions about why there was no blowout preventer, there was, but they were in the last stages of setting the well, and had a tool 'downhole' to shore up the casing just below the sea floor. I heard a humorous explanation of a blowout preventer on one news program tonight about it being a series of valves that... I also remember the LAST big Gulf Oil Spill from a Mexican rig that had the blowout preventer installed upside down. The explanation of what a blowout preventer on the news in Houston was: two steel wedges with explosive charges behind them, designed to pinch the pipe closed in the event of a disaster. This works fine, UNLESS you have a hardened steel tool downhole keeping the pipe from being pinched shut. (Just another coincidence that this happened when there was a tool downhole to shore up the casing)

Do I have any evidence of sabotage? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Will any be found if no one looks for it? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Do I have the resources to do such a search? ABSOLUTELY NOT! BUT I have this blog, and MAYBE, just MAYBE, I can motivate someone who IS in a place to do some investigating to check into the backgrounds and banking records of those (survivors and victims) of the explosion, fire and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon.

Something smells fishy in the State of Denmark! (Or is that D.C.)

Backing up and re-reading this, I feel the need to.... hypothesize a bit. I read an excellent post on by Vlad that this was most likely a tragic accident citing the cost of the rig, and the price to lease it by BP. This is all too true! Also true is the statement in the same post that the companies try to hire the best and most reliable people to operate offshore rigs due to the nature of the risky work. But suppose someone on the regular crew were ....'mugged' and they had to find a replacement, and some individual came HIGHLY recommended? Suppose that during a crucial operation this highly recommended individual were to set off the blowout preventer while a hardened steel tool was obstruction the pipe, and then set off and explosive charge to torch the platform and cover his track, possibly killing himself doing it? Once again, I have no evidence, but a deep gut suspicion, and a distrust of 'coincidence'. This is but one possible scenario that could explain the tragedy. Another is that a highly trained crew got complacent at a crucial operation, totally stopped paying attention to their gauges and readings or misinterpreted them, and allowed the well to get away from them. Are they the best of the best, or not? I think there is adequate reason to scoff at both scenarios to warrent more investigation than will probably take place. I expect that the level of investigation of the personnel on the rig will be about as in depth as the investigation of the thugs that were intimidating voters with baseball bats outside a Philly polling place was.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Current Events Thread

I am personally sickened by the way that issues get drawn into partisan politics and politicians side with one side or the other with what seems no regard to right and wrong. The Goldman Sachs scandal is a perfect case in point, and here's why. The Democrats are trying to make an example of Goldman because they want the public sentiment to pass the so called financial reform bill. There are actually about three facets to this whole issue, which I will cover in depth.
FIRST, if an institution packages financial instruments, and sells them to investors there is an implied understanding that the seller of these investments believes there is value to them, but to sell these investments, the sell them short, indeed the person who bundled them was a known short seller, is unethical at BEST and criminally fraudulent at worst. THIS is what the public in general is being let in on, and what opinion in general is being based on. The Republicans are almost falling in line to protect Goldman, just because the Democrats are trying to hammer them. This in SPITE of Goldman donating over three times to the Obama campaign what they donated to the McCain campaign.
SECOND, Wonder WHY Obamas Democrats are chasing so hard after his benefactors, instead of someone else? Contrary to popular belief, the international banking industry is NOT run by the's run by the Swiss. There are bankers who get together and set international banking standards in the city of Basil, Switzerland. First the was Basil I, which set liquidity standards, and 'best practices'. These seemed not to be stringent enough, so Basil II was enacted that strengthened liquidity requirements. There is currently or recently a new meeting setting the standards in the aftermath of the latest banking crisis. Remember the fuss that was raised last year when the federal government said that many banks in the U.S. needed to raise more cash? Same issue, but the Swiss bankers are liable to require even higher standards meaning that the large banks like Goldman Sachs would have to raise and retain enormous cash reserves to ensure liquidity. One means of dodging this would be for the federal government to step in and say "we're already policing our financial institutions, they don't NEED to comply with these tighter standards". So Goldman Sachs takes a hit in some fines, and PR, and gets some tighter regulation, and avoids having to really tighten up (not that I'm wild about the idea of foreigners dictating to our banks).
THIRD, (and this is the most Machiavellian and 'conspiracy theorist' aspect of them all, but look the facts up for yourself) There is a market called the Chicago Climate Exchange. It was started with funding funneled for the purpose from the Joyce Foundation. The founder claims that there is easily a potential for a $10 TRILLION dollar capitalization (to put this in perspective the NYSE, the Big Board, has $15 trillion capitalization) This was invested in heavily by a British based corporation that is the 5th largest stockholder in the CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange). This looked like a too big plum to pass up to a large U.S. banking firm that had some common directors on the board of the British firm, and that Bank bought up a 5% stake in the CCX themselves. Now, comes the ribbon to tie it all up, and you can't make this stuff up. The British company? Run by Al Gore. The other directors? Goldman Sachs executives. The bank that bought such a stake in the CCX? Goldman Sachs. The Director of the Joyce Foundation who ensured the start up capital was funneled to the CCX? Barack Hussein Obama. The whole thing is a vehicle to line the pockets of the Democrat elite and ensure their supply of enormous campaign contributions for a long time to come.

Wonder why all these things are coming to a head at the same time? (Immigration Reform, Financial Reform, Possible Statehood for Puerto Rico?) The progressives are throwing as much of their agenda against the wall as possible to see what, if anything, will stick.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Some Random Thoughts

The Republican Party seems to be going through a catharsis of sorts, similar to the one that gave birth to it. I forget the exact issue, but the political system used to be dominated by the Federalists (Whigs) and the Liberals (Democrats). I should take this opportunity to explain that liberal used to have a very different connotation that it does today. The Whigs supported a strong central government and the party founded by Thomas Jefferson was a staunch supporter of LIMITED governmental interference in the affairs of the citizenry. The Whigs were so soundly trounced over the issue that escapes me for the moment, that they ceased to be a viable political force, and left the federalists disenfranchised. The adherents of the political philosophy wouldn't remain that way for long, and they regrouped under the banner of "The Grand Old Party" (that is where GOP came from!). Over a hundred years later, the more thing change, the more they stay the same. Both sides infiltrated and co-opted the other and the Democrats became the champions of big, massive government, and the GOP became the champions of individual liberty. Well the Republicans have tried for so long to maintain a 'Big Tent' that they began to too closely resemble the Democrats, and once again left their constituency disenfranchised. Steele even went so far as to play the race card when he was asked about the seeming rebellion in his own party. How about we leave liberalism to the Liberal Party, and allow the conservative party to be CONSERVATIVE? Can we have room in the freaking tent for the people who put it up? Will the Republican Party die out, in favor of maybe the Libertarians? I can't say, but anyone who will represent the conservatives of America will get solid backing from the Tea Party Movement at this point, and looking at who is being appointed as counselors and advisors, and who is receiving the blessings of the party leadership even before the people have spoken at the primaries, the GOP havsn't learned much.

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." --James Madison

Before saying this, let me start out by saying that I am a member of a union. IBEW Local #1803 to be exact. I am NOT a Union basher. BUT, I DO question the candidates that the AFL-CIO backs. Without exception, they are against securing the borders. I think the United Farm Workers and the AFL-CIO went their separate way years ago, but why throw them under the bus? Think those illegal aliens line up at the local union hall and pay their dues? Last i heard, the United Mine Workers WERE still in the AFL-CIO, and if the Democrats that the AFL-CIO constantly backs have their way Cap and Trade will probably lead to the closure of many older, less efficient coal fired power plants, which would necessarily decrease the demand for coal, and cause the prices to drop. This would cause a decrease in the need for production, which in turn would lead to layoffs. Why are they throwing the UMW under the bus? If you're a member of a union, ASK these questions! They're using YOUR union dues (and mine) to support these communists!

Here's a thought, Benjamin Franklin, when asked "What is it, a Monarchy, or a Republic" as he walked out of Independence Hall in Philadelphia said "A Republic, if you can keep it!" Do we, perhaps, DESERVE the current government we have? I and the Tea Partiers think not. But many (a majority) in this country, VOTED this administration in! The polls indicate that he wouldn't get voted in today, but let us LEARN from our mistakes! If we vote for those who promise "something for nothing" or to give the world to the have nots at the expense of only the haves, we WILL be gravely disappointed!

On term limits:
I can see the need to limit terms of Congressional Representatives, but I pose a problem with that idea. If we find GOOD representatives, who will fight to roll back big government, and cut spending on social programs, why force them out in 4-6 years when the states like Massachusetts West Virginia and Pennsylvania keep sending the same old Kennedys, and Rockefellers, and Specters? Wouldn't it be far wiser to stay alert to what our representatives are doing, and elect new ones when the incumbents show signs of being 'captured by the system'? When I see and hear of the deals made in Washington, I don't think I could serve in Congress unless I took three or four showers a day, to try and combat the dirty feeling I would have dealing with people of that ilk. After some time, I imagine someone has to become inured to it in order to function. The other problem is, the location of a congressman's office, and his seating on any committees is awarded based upon his perceived Party loyalty and importance. So, the first wave of renegades who the Tea Party sends to Washington needs to go with the expectation, understanding, and acceptance that their office will be in the basement, and they will get no plum committee assignments. That is not why they are being sent. They are being sent to dismantle the nanny state and return our country to it's rightful state. As long as they remain true to that cause, why force them out? This of course requires the electorate to STAY engaged, REMAIN vigilant, and keep in mind that some things that may be beneficial to their district may not be within the Constitutional Charter that their Representative has. Getting support for the highway project, or getting that facility located in your area, may come with a too-high price in terms of having to compromise with the liberal element. This leads me to my next point.. Self Determination, and States Rights and Responsibilities.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Third Stage Step two

If for a moment you thought Third Stage step one was a call to arms, this should have the same effect as a cold shower!

OK, let's just say for a moment you WERE successful and managed to overthrow the tyrants. Then what? You need to form a provisional government to fill the vacuum. If you don't someone else WILL (as we go along consider everything I suggest could go awry, happening in THAT eventuality)
OK so now you are in charge, what do you do now? First you would need to name a new President. You would need to incarcerate all the previous members of congress so they wouldn't be able to organize a counterrevolution. Then you would need to convene a Second Constitutional Convention. Why? Because if you leave everything as it was it will soon drift back to business as usual. Here is where it would get dicey. Under the Constitution, the States have the preponderance of authority. You would have to turn the Convention over to the Governors and/or their duly appointed representatives. You COULD impose some kind of Precondition, such as the Bill of rights remains essentially unchanged, with the exception of clarification that the rights of individuals cannot be abrogated by the Federal government or any LOWER jurisdiction (the same rule that seems to be applied to every right but the right to keep and bear arms). NOW, are you going to clarify EVERY right in this manner? What about Freedom of speech? (is is protected speech to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater?) What about the Second amendment? (Should the rights to 'keep and bear' be taken from felons? What if speaking out against the government was made a felony? Before you laugh that off, Google "Alien and Sedition Act") How about if it was decided that yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater WAS considered protected, but the yeller could be held responsible for the consequences? How about if a felon with a gun were treated by the courts as a felon with a gun? Ok, maybe now we're onto something, but how could you get the representatives of 50 States (some of whom are uber-liberal themselves) to agree to that? Answer all fairness you can't, so you would be turning over our sacred birthright to a bunch who may decide to interpret it totally differently than you have. Need an example? The people who STARTED the discussion for a Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation were Federalists who WANTED a strong central government. Once they got the Convention together, (it wasn't CALLED to be a Constitution Convention originally but rather for more mundane purposes and then the need to come up with something stronger than the Articles of Confederation was brought up. The Delegates from the several States then proceeded to water down the strong central government, until they got it where the People would accept it. My, what a difference 221 years can make!
So, once the Constitution was where the Framers wanted it, they submitted it to the various States for ratification. Much debate was made over the wisdom of acceding any portion of a States sovereignty, but eventually the Constitution was ratified, and the United States came into being. NOTE: I did NOT say "the United States as we know it came into being" The United States as our Founders intended it to be was in the process of being changed into the vision of those who originally wanted a stronger centralized government over a hundred years ago. MUCH over! How so? You may ask. Consider that at the outbreak of the so-called Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had most of the State Legislature of Maryland and many on the city council of Baltimore placed under house arrest, with no charges brought, no trial, and no chargeable offenses, simply to prevent them from being able to form a quorum and potentially voting to secede! That my friends is what is meant when people say that Habeas Corpus was suspended. A Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed to force the government or police to either charge an individual, or release them, to prevent the unlawful detention of free citizens.
So it would seem that the framers of the Constitution acquiesced to ceding a portion of their sovereignty to the central (Federal) government in order to facilitate trade and commerce. The devil is in the details as they say, and here's where it gets tricky.
COMMERCE: The Department of Commerce was formed to facilitate trade between the States. How would it be if you agreed to trade 10 tons of cotton in Alabama for ten pounds of gold in Maine, only to find that either Maine's standard for a pound was the Carat ounce and pound (10 ounces to a pound, and a lighter ounce) If you tried to sue, the State the suit was brought in would try to put their State standard as the basis for their judgement. The Department of Commerce was to regulate standards of weight, measure and even time. This way, and ounce in Texas is exactly the same as an ounce in New Jersey. Likewise, it would be difficult for American industry to become as dominant as it did if other nations had to keep up with a patchwork of differing import and export laws, and tariffs. In these matters the Federal Government was assigned the States 'Power of Attorney' so to speak to act as their collective agent.
Now allow me to digress a moment and state that in many, if not most cases, and study of the Constitution needs to focus not on what the FRAMERS intended, but rather what the RATIFIERS intended. Because the Sovereignty the States signed over to the Federal Government was based of the 'Bill of Goods' THEY were presented with. If you can find an alternate interpretation for a passage of the Constitution, any interpretation other than what the States ratified would be grounds to nullify that ratification and allow the State to disassociate itself from the Union (secede). This seemed to be considered an illegal act to Abraham Lincoln, but upon passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Intolerable Acts, no less personage than Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, and one of his associates in the Kentucky legislature were actively engaged in discussion of doing just that! Hmmm, WHO do you think had a better grasp of Constitutionality? A man who suspended Habeas Corpus seventy years AFTER ratification of the Constitution, or a man who WROTE the Declaration of Independence, and sat in the legislature that RATIFIED that document? (by the way, did you know that the Unites States under the Constitution could have been killed by Virginia alone? If Virginia had chosen NOT to ratify, Virginia would have divided the northern states and the southern states, and they probably would have shelved the idea, rather than building a divided union.
Back to the subject at hand DEFENSE: Rather than each State having to build and maintain an army of it's own, and the stronger States possibly dominating the weaker ones, and the weaker ones entering into alliances with European powers to try to offset the advantages of the strong, and thus dragging us into the never ending squabbles in Europe; it was deemed that the Federal Government should provide for the common defense, with no one State being able to mobilize the army against any other State.

I could go on and on enumerating the limitations of power the Constitution places on the Federal Government, but it's only important at this point that you understand the PRINCIPLES that underlie the Foundations of our Country. In a more modern context, think of the European Union, and the individual nations that comprise it. THAT is more in keeping with what the Founders intended.

I may seem to have gotten way off track, but it's imperative that the reader understand what was created, and then follow the chain of events that ultimately led to the train jumping off the track. REMEMBER this installment was written with the assumption that things had become intolerable, and the last resort of governmental overthrow was resorted to, and against any sane analysis, succeeded. Benjamin Franklin said :"the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results". Too often we tend to throw the baby out with the bath water. The Constitution is the most wonderful foundation we could ask for to establish our homes on. Under this scenario, it is obviously not perfect (and that is still playing out, as we watch to see if the People can regain control of the monster our government has become). In our hypothetical scenario, we must therefore correct the errors that allowed us to get where we are. Therein lies the problem. The idea that the Supreme Court should exist with the Justices serving for life, upon appointment, so that they never need to be concerned with popularity, in the event that an opinion based on a legitimate interpretation of the Constitution go against the will of the people. This is the largest guarantee of prevention of tyranny of the majority over the minority.
This has led to a LONG chain of Judicial Activism that has created some precedents that often conflict with each other. In United States v. Cruikshank (Wiki.) the idea that the 2nd Amendment only limits the FEDERAL government to abrogate your Constitutional (Civil) rights was based on a trial of Ku Klux Klansmen who massacred over 60 black men who were attempting to arm themselves for self defense. THIS is the precedent that the so-called liberal champions of civil rights use to defend local and State regulation of firearms, that since the local and state laws, not being passed by the Federal government, do not constitute infringement under the Constitution. Some may feel that maybe some regulation of weapons is needed, but the primary purpose of the Second Amendment has ALREADY been circumvented as detailed in the preceding post. Further, once you allow ONE abrogation to pass, it opens the door to others. Now that the States can ban handguns, we have people insisting that for a Christian Church to say that homosexuality is a sin (Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ) is engaging in hate speech (NOTE: in NO way shape or form am I in favor of those who are protesting at servicemens funerals! Do they have a Constitutionally protected right to say what they do, YES, Does the family and friends of the fallen have the right to privacy in the mourning of their loved one? YES, the latter trumps the former- your rights stop where mine begin! As far as I'm concerned, a funeral is a private affair, and NOT a public soapbox!) But to say that any given act is unacceptable is NOT the same as condemning those who practice it. But if we adopt these standards as what constitutes 'hate speech', then it might not degenerate until stumping for a Conservative candidate is considered 'hate speech' towards liberals? Where do YOU propose to stop the slide? Draw the line? I propose not to even step onto that slippery slope. But these cases are offset by a Supreme court that has ruled that the KKK can't be held accountable, because they aren't the Federal Government, but has held that police officers who were (unjustly IMO) acquitted of murder charges could be held liable for 'civil rights violations'. Even though they were no part of the Federal government either! BUT you may say, as municipal employees, they WERE a part of SOME governmental entity. But then if that is the judicial standard, why is THAT precedent used to try and uphold a city's right to ban handguns? The High Court seems to use a sliding rule to judge what is and is not Constitutional, and this is wrong, but the same mechanism put in place to ensure that the majority couldn't intimidate the court to allow tyranny of the minority by the majority, has made them bulletproof to any for of legitimate criticism or redress of grievances. There is ZERO accountability.How do you correct one problem without causing another?
Assuming you figure that one out, how do you get the representatives of 50 States to agree on it? There were only thirteen the first time, and it was a close thing! (I'm going ahead and posting this, such as it is, but will be adding to it soon! It is NOT a finished work!)

Third Stage step one

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, February 15, 1791
" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794
"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 17:380
"I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 16:146
"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 2:178
"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 17:445
"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 15:332

If any start reading this, and think it any exhortation to violence, please read all the way to the bottom!

My apologies, I may need to see if I can change the title of the last post, that should have been Second Stage. The Third Stage is very problematic, and let me begin by saying that God help us if it were to get to that point! The Third Stage would be the reason that Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said in 1833: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." The Second Amendment has often been misrepresented by the liberals due to the preamble.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

This is a preamble, and not exclusionary of itself. Yes a well regulated militia is the aim, according to the preamble, but that is not the only reason it was included. Indeed, the Founders almost didn't include it because they thought it was such a "no brainer". Several States (including some with the most restrictive gun laws currently) would NOT ratify a Constitution until it was added. There are many Supreme Court precedents regarding the Second Amendment, most anti-gun arguments are based upon United States v. Cruikshank (1875) (Wikipedia) This was a ruling that since Ku Klux Klansmen weren't a part of the Federal government that there massacre of over sixty black men in the Colfax massacre. This is quite an unusual precedent for those who say they are the greatest arbiters of civil rights, don't you think? That the deprivation of the right to keep and bear arms by freed slaves who were massacred for having guns was ruled ok by the High Court just because they (the Klan) weren't the Federal government? Then how is the finding of police officers in Houston Texas who were exonerated in a murder trial were found guilty of a civil rights violation and sentenced to prison? (THEY weren't part of the Federal government either! This ought to put to rest forever, were there any semblance of justice in the Chief Justices the idea that ANYONE can violate your civil "Constitutional" rights!) Get the idea that Judicial Activism isn't all that new a concept? This was fine until bit by bit, the idea of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was eroded to the point that the Federal Government itself enacted the National Firearms Act of 1934. This dictated that the ownership of machine guns, sawed off shotguns, sawed off rifles (or pistols with shoulder stocks) or weapons with a bore diameter of over .50 were illegal unless the owner paid an exorbitant tax and passed a thorough law enforcement screening, and had an application signed by a chief law enforcement official (THE County Sheriff, THE Chief of Police, THE Precinct Constable, etc. a deputy or officer isn't good enough)

Back to the point I was making. A PREAMBLE is non-exclusionary. It states a purpose, but not the exclusive purpose. If the Constitutional Convention had written an Amendment requiring you to lock your door at night, it may have read thus:

"It being good to prevent the wind from blowing open the entrance to your domicile at night, your door should be kept locked"

Does that mean that keeping your door locked would prevent thievery? No. Would it exclude you door being locked from keeping a drunk from accidentally entering the wrong house at night? No. SO, then does "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." mean that only the Army or National Guard should own weapons? Well, let's see what Congress has specifically stated "the militia" IS. The initial definition of "the militia" was every white man between the ages of 18-40. THEN the definition was changed to every man between the ages of 18-40, THEN it was changed to every PERSON between the ages of 18-40 (when women started being accepted into full, regular military service). Get the idea? The Founders never forsaw a time when it would be necessary to maintain such a huge standing army, and if we ever got into such an intense conflict that the draft was reimposed, they foresaw it would be a good thing if the citizenry ALREADY knew the basics of marksmanship (they wouldn't take so long to teach to shoot). Did this preclude citizens from defending themselves against Indians, outlaws, and other evil doers? Not at all! THAT was the part that was considered a no brainer, and why it wasn't included in the first draft. Self defense was a GIVEN. Consider this.... if the POLICE were responsible for your safety and well being, then every time someone was mugged, raped, murdered or burglarized, the police could be sued by the victim or their family for not being there to protect them. See the problem? The only person that can be held responsible for your personal self defense is YOU! (There ARE a few jurisdictions that apply a "duty to escape" where if there's a means to flee you are expected to, instead of fighting back. Thank GOD I live in a State that applies the "Castle Doctrine" that says a mans home is his castle and any attack on his person within it may be met with lethal force! NOTICE TO CRIMINALS: I own a Beretta 92F 9MM and have a dozen magazines that I rotate to keep the springs from taking a 'set', loaded with 147 grain Hydra-Shok ammunition. I qualified with this weapon a dozen times while in the military. Which house do I live in? Take your chances!) So, the stated intent of a preamble does NOT restrict the application of a Constitutional Right to a specific context. Let's see, so far, we've put to rest any idea that your "civil rights' can be abrogated by ANYBODY, and that you DO have the right to defend yourself, and your family (unless you live in one of the more liberal states) Why then do you suppose the Founders INSISTED on putting the Second Amendment in place?
It was because they feared nothing more than the government they were creating! They had just thrown off the tyranny of the King of England, and they wanted to ensure that if evil men ever took control of the United States of America, the PEOPLE would have the means to rise up and throw off said tyranny. Here's the rub, and why we need to pray diligently that it never comes to that. The NFA 34' took away our easy accessibility to fully automatic weapons, an "destructive devices". Do you think for a moment that if 'the people rose up, the Federal government would hesitate to throw the Posse Commitatus Act (the law forbidding the use of the U.S. Military against civil criminals) aside and siccing the US Army against the rebels? Did they hesitate in 1863? Please remember that the South in the War between the States (I am ever more reluctant to call it a civil war) they did not hesitate, but rather the Union Generals had been planning for such an insurrection for some time, and that was one of the primary reasons Robert E. Lee resigned his commission in the U.S. Army and went home to Virginia, was because he KNEW what they planned to do to his homeland, and his brethren, and he would have no part in it. (in fact, the ONLY person I'm aware of in the Confederacy that EVER said it was about slavery was the Vice-President, and if you are going to judge a whole people by THAT then may YOU be judged by the words of Joe 'President-Roosevelt-went on-TV-in-1927' Biden!) I may do a post on "The Civil War" (I didn't name it) later but it's a MAJOR digression from my current point. The Confederacy and the Army of Northern Virginia in particular, routinely handed the Union army a humiliating series of defeats until Gettysburg. Why am I still on the War between the States you ask, I'm comparing then to now. The Confederacy had weapon on a par with the Union army. They had artillery, they had the same kind of rifles (until the union towards the end of the war fielded Henry rifles) the equipment was equivalent. However, if the people were to attempt to rise up now, and the army was called into the fray, would the armed citizenry have the equivalent of M4 rifles (the latest generation of the M16 family) would they be able to face a helicopter assault? Could the even CONTEST air superiority? No on all counts. They would have to rely on the same kind of tactics that other weaker forces have used against the U. S military, and that would get them branded as terrorists.
THAT is why we need to fervently pray that we NEVER get to the Third Stage! And why no one should ever misconstrue this blog to be advocating a violent overthrow of the government! Much better to vote the evil ones out, and try to elect people who will pledge to undo the damage! That being said remember the words of Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I used to read that, and have heard it quoted in the context of fighting against FOREIGN tyrants, such as Hitler and Tojo, but I have come to the chilling realization that most of Jefferson's writings were in the context of DOMESTIC politics. If it were to ever come to the Third Stage, the only hope Freedom would have would be for the military officers to themselves rebel, and refuse to fire on U.S. Citizens. This cannot be counted on, and is rather unlikely.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Second Stage step one

When the representatives have stopped representing.... replace them. Unfortunately, there is a confluence of problems that have never been addressed, that have now become the political equivalent of a 'perfect storm'.
Normally the two political parties would be at loggerheads on most issues most of the time and remain in gridlock, and largely leave the people alone to carry on with their affairs relatively unhindered, and only agree when an issue is so egregious that there is no dissent to the course of action, believe it or not, that IS how the founding Fathers intended it. Ours is a unique form of government that is supposed to be very close to anarchy with the government acting as a referee and stepping in only when someones hard work and performance starts to be based on depriving someone else of the opportunity to compete. It's a free country (at least it used to be) but your rights stop where mine start! You have the right to say what you wish, you do NOT have the right to force me to listen to it. This normal head butting would be effective even more, when the press exercises the Freedom of Speech to call to task the politicians on the unpopular side. The Press and the minority party would keep the majority party in check.
Now we have an unusual situation where the majority party controls both houses of Congress, and the White House, and the Press is beyond sympathetic, in spite of overwhelming evidence that the will of the majority of the American people is against the legislation being pushed through. Responsible journalism would do an analysis of the issues and present both sides in an equal light. What we have seen however is something far more sinister.
It's one thing to embrace the unpopular side of an issue, it's quite another to libelously attack the messenger and try to discredit them rather than address the points being made in open debate. The initial Tea Party movement was vilified and continues to be vilified as racist, homophobic, sexist, rednecks. WOW George Carlin said that being called a commie fag junkie was rough because it's hard to talk someone out of three things at once, try four! Tea Partiers were immediately labeled "tea-baggers" (in itself a homosexual epithet) and dismissed as a bunch of lunatic fringe crackpots. Polls are revealing that the makeup of the tea partiers, tends to be older, more educated, and more affluent than the average. This IS middle America!

**DIGRESSION ALERT************OK, all the hate, vitriol, and disparagement heaped upon Sarah Palin aside, who was the last politician that was so heavily attacked by the media? My immediate guess is Ronald Reagan. Now I'm not saying she's the next Reagan, but I think maybe the political left is afraid she is!**********************************************************

Our own PRESIDENT finally weighed in referring them as "tea baggers....waving their little tea bags around..." so much for mutual respect and legitimate debate of the issues. NOTE: if you argument won't hold up in an open debate, and you KNOW it wont hold up in an open debate, instead of attacking the argument, attack the arguer! This has turned out to be the tried and true tactic of the liberal leftists who have finally seized power in this country.
This brings me to one of the issues that has been neglected far too long. Media outlets have perpetrated character assassinations of 'the messengers' with impunity for far too long. The people in the movement need to start filing libel lawsuits, and defamation of character lawsuits. The precedents of the liberal activist judges that started perverting the meaning of the Constitution from the first Supreme Court will come back to haunt them! There needs to be some accountability in the press to accurately report the truth. The lack of this is why all the newspapers and a couple of the cable news outlets are tanking in the ratings, and many are on the verge of bankruptcy. The public no longer trusts them. They know they have degenerated into nothing more than a propaganda machine for the far left.

******DIGRESSION ALERT******** Many leftists incorrectly identify the far left as Communists and the far right as Nazis. Nothing could be further from the truth! The name of Communist Russia was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, the name of the Nazi party was National SOCIALIST Party! The reason there was such bitter rivalry between them wasn't because they were opposites, it was because they were competing for the same pool of supporters!*********************************************************************

Lets look at the Historical Record, after all I DID say that we would refer to that impartial judge in my introduction. Rahm Emmanuel said quite early on "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"
(Quoted from a Wall Street Journal article, in case you're wondering about the shift in font) WOW! sound familiar? After the Reichstag Fire (27 Feb 1933) Adolf Hitler, the newly elected Chancellor ( used this 'serious crisis to seize power and ultimately become a dictator.Am I saying that our President aspires to be a dictator? No, but I think Reichsmarshall..ooops I mean Chief of Stall Emmanuels words are somewhat unsettling. The Communists accused the Nazis of starting the fire to give them the excuse they needed to seize power. The Nazis claimed the Communists started it, and acted accordingly arresting all the communist leadership in the country including sitting elected members of the Parliament (Reichstag).

*******DIGRESSION ALERT******* Watch some leftist wag accuse me of being a Nazi since I'm quoting examples from their history*******************************************

The Nazis and Communists both shared several tactics, including trying to paint the other side in a bad light (Google "") In this day and age, police can't beat down a black man or unruly students (no, I DON'T approve of that kind of behavior) without a half dozen cellphone videos turning up of the incident, but on the day Obamacare passed, members of the Black Congressional Caucus said they were assailed by racial epithets as they walked down the street. In spite of a $100.000 reward, not ONE video of the event has surfaced. On the other hand there IS videotape of a high ranking Nevada Democratic Committee member throwing eggs at Tea Party busses in Searchlight, Nevada. He also admitted to misdirecting busses before he found out the reporter and cameraman were conservative documentarians, then, after a brief shoving match, they retired to a nearby parking lot to finish the footage where they were accosted by a police officer who said the above mentioned individual reported them as the egg throwers. The video on the camera plainly showed the Democrat with three eggs palmed in one hand, and when confronted with that evidence, the police officer arrested the mob for disorderly conduct, and filing a false report, right? NO, he just left.

So, what is a responsible citizen to do? Pay attention! LISTEN to what the people running for office say, then LOOK at their record (if one exists) of what they have voted for. Listen to what they have said in the past, and what positions they have supported. The Democrats have approved of the construction of more nuclear power plants, but already shut down Yucca Flats, which was supposed to be the new nuclear waste dump site. (Give with one hand, take with the other) How are you going to build a nuclear power plant when you have no idea what you're going to do with spent fuel rods? Early in 2008 Obama said he wouldn't stop anyone from building coal fired electrical generating plants, but anyone who built them couldn't afford to operate them under the cap and trade (cap and tax) scheme. HELLO! Has anyone told you we are the Saudi Arabia of coal? We have the most extensive coal reserves on the planet! Much better we rely on the oil market for our energy needs, after all we get very little of our oil from the Arabs, we get if from the Canadians, Mexicans, and Venezuelans, right? YES based on market prices based on what the rest of the world can buy from the Arabs for!

THEN ACT! Go to the polls and cast your vote for that person that you feel is best suited (or at least less worst suited) for the job. (I confess it sucks to vote for the 'lesser of two evils') HERE'S a thought! YOU run! Even if it's for the school board! The educational system is probably the MOST important political battlefield there is. The leftists have made substantial inroads there already! The educational system is loaded with people who push leftist propaganda into the curriculum of out children! Here's a thought, run for the school board, and slowly work to wean the school board off of Federal funding! But the main idea is to change the existing regime!

First Stage, step 2

The first line of defense of 'the governed' in the event their elected officials fail to represent them faithfully is to elect someone else in the next election cycle. In light of the current situation we find ourselves in, the litmus test must not be 'stop doing what they have been doing', but rather UNDO what they've done in our name, that we do not approve of.
Allow me to digress a bit. we all must study our Constitution, and the documents and correspondence regarding it. This is imperative because there are few, if any who have seen our Government function as it was designed to do. This is because the erosion of the Constitutional rule of law has been a slow and corrosive process spanning well over a century. Consider this: prior to the (so called) Civil War (better described as a failed second revolution) 90% of the entire Federal budget was paid for by Tariffs on imported goods. To suggest raising tariffs in this day and age would bring howls of "Protectionist Isolationist" from liberals who would rather use progressive taxation of the citizenry to redistribute wealth, rather than protect American jobs and industry.
The most blatant beginning of the erosion of the Constitutional rule of law came at the outset of the War between the States, when upon the Secession of Virginia, Washington D.C. found itself in a potentially untenable position. In addition to Virginia, and the rest of the 'Southern States' Maryland and Delaware were both States that ascribed to the 'peculiar institution' as the Southerners referred to slavery. If Maryland followed suit, the U.S. Capitol would no longer lie within the borders of the United States. Further if Maryland were prevented from seceding, Delaware would almost certainly be dissuaded for the same reasons (no common border with a non-hostile State) . Solution? Place the majority of the Maryland Legislature under house arrest, and key members of the Baltimore city government, so a Quorum could not be reached to have a vote on the issue. What was the charge? No charges, Habeas Corpus was suspended by President Lincoln (and the Liberals think George BUSH played fast and loose with the Constitution). Also at issue is the definition of 'State'. Let me begin that the United States doesn't have a "Secretary of NATION" we have a "Secretary of STATE". We have come to think of a State as a province. Not true. When King George signed the treaty ending the Revolutionary War, he signed that the war was won by the United States AND the STATE of Massachusetts, the STATE of Virginia, the STATE of New York etc, etc... A STATE then, is a sovereign nation unto itself, and the United States was and is a group of Sovereign entities that have DELEGATED a certain amount of their sovereignty to a central Government. There are prices and responsibilities that go BOTH ways once the Constitution was ratified, and that both sides (mostly the Federal Government) proceeded to ignore. The States agreed to maintain their own legal codes within the framework of the Bill of Rights (i.e: they agreed they could not pass laws restricting freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms) and the Federal government agreed to stay out of those matters that were the purview of the individual States authority. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
-- James Madison, Federal No. 45, January 26, 1788 (This is WHY it's important to balance the Constitution against what ELSE it's authors said, more on this later)
The Federal government has always used "the common good" as the justification for it's overstepping of it's Constitutional mandate. What DID our founding Fathers say about this?
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817
"We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government."
-- James Jackson, First Congress, 1st Annals of Congress, 489
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "
-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

See a pattern developing? The current crop of tyrants use "the common good" as the justification for everything they do. Freedom must include the freedom to suffer the consequences of bad decisions as well as enjoying the reward of good ones. For those of the liberal persuasion, this is called a 'learning process'. You either learn the hard way, or learn by watching someone else fall flat on their face. BUT, we have the right (nay, responsibility) of picking ourselves up, dusting ourselves off and proceeding with the new lessons learned kept in mind. Now compare what we've just studied, with the current Federal Government.

At this point, please go to: and bookmark it (there will be a test later, about the second Tuesday in November)

-- Is there anything in the Constitution granting the government authority to see to any retirement plan?

-- Is there anything in the Constitution specifically granting authority to provide medical care?

--What is the mandate for the government to legislate carbon emissions, or dictate what safety equipment be installed on automobiles?

If you as a consumer, wish to have seat belts, you'll buy a car that has them, or air bags or any other contrivance automotive engineers can come up with. If you are a cheap jerk who values your money over your family, you'll buy some striped down model with no safety equipment. This is all a part of the Darwinian process that the liberal elite insists is more valid than the Word of God isn't it? Then why circumvent it? All of this leads us to what happens when the public redress of grievences falls on deaf ears among our elected representatives?