Category Archives: Constitution Watch

Constitution Watch, Culture Wars

FDA Food Nazis at Work?

Here’s everybody’s favorite big government showing some of its true colors again.

Raw milk battle reveals FDA abandonment of basic human right to choose your food

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), an organization whose mission includes “defending the rights and broadening the freedoms of family farms and protecting consumer access to raw milk and nutrient dense foods”, recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA for its ban on interstate sales of raw milk. The suit alleges that such a restriction is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, the suit led to a surprisingly cold response from the FDA about its views on food freedom (and freedoms in general).

In a dismissal notice issued to the Iowa District Court where the suit was filed, the FDA officially made public its views on health and food freedom.

Some of the statements in the FDA’s filing are absolutely amazing. Can you say “food NAZI”?

The FDA essentially believes that nobody has the right to choose what to eat or drink. You are only “allowed” to eat or drink what the FDA gives you permission to. There is no inherent right or God-given right to consume any foods from nature without the FDA’s consent.

This is no exaggeration. It’s exactly what the FDA said in its own words.

Don’t take MY word for it, or even the words from the posting about this. Consider the following statements taken from the FDA’s court filing:

“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.” [p. 26]“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” [p.26]

There’s a lot more in the document, which primarily addresses the raw milk issue, but these statements alone clearly reveal how the FDA views the concept of health freedom. Essentially, the FDA does not believe in health freedom at all. It believes that it is the only entity granted the authority to decide for you what you are able to eat and drink.

The State, in other words, may override your food decisions and deny you free access to the foods and beverages you wish to consume. And the State may do this for completely unscientific reasons — even just political reasons — all at their whim…

This has all emerged from the debate over whether raw milk sales should be legal. But the commonsense answer seems obvious: Of course raw milk should be legal! Since when did the government have any right to criminalize a farmer milking his cow and selling the raw, unpasteurized milk to his neighbor at a mutually-agreeable price?

NOTE:  The principles apply whether or not one chooses to partake of raw milk, any particular food product.

But why is the FDA hell-bent on stopping raw milk from being sold in the first place? Think about it: What is it about this particular whole food that has regulators working overtime to make sure you don’t drink it?

Follow the money…(surprise, surprise, surprise!)

The real reason why the FDA opposes raw milk is because Big Dairy opposes raw milk. Just like Big Pharma, Big Dairy has worked very hard behind the scenes to steer FDA policy in its favor. And according to some recent reports, Big Dairy is one of the primary forces trying to eliminate raw milk because it threatens the commercial milk business.

What’s next? Will all farmer’s markets be outlawed because the veggies haven’t all been irradiated or pasteurized?

As usual, it’s all about the money, and as you follow the money trail all the way up to the federal level, you find the same thing happening everywhere: At the FDA, USDA, FTC and so on. U.S. government regulators have become monopoly market enforcers for Big Business, and they won’t let anything get in their way… not even personal health freedoms or just basic access to food.

There is a lot more detailed argument in the posting; you get the picture…but wait! As a finale the FDA outdoes itself again:
On page 27 of the dismissal, the FDA also states that Americans do not have a fundamental right to enter into private contractual agreements with one another, either.
HUH?

Buying clubs, cooperatives and community supported agriculture programs (CSAs) all rely on private contractual agreements in order to operate. People contract with each other to obtain clean, healthy food from the sources of their choice without government intrusion. But now the FDA is saying that people don’t actually have this right. To enter into such a private contract to purchase food, milk or even water is a violation of federal law, the FDA now claims.

You are just a subject of the King, you see, and you have no rights. You must eat and drink what you are told. You must behave in a way that is allowed by your King. You have no rights, no protections and no freedoms….
The “substantive due process” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, however, assures people of this right when it states that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” And being able to make personal food choices without having to obtain permission from Big Brother is definitely included under this clause.

But the FDA — aw, heck, all of Washington for that matter — doesn’t honor the U.S. Constitution in any way, shape or form. The document is little more than a tattered piece of American history according to the Nazi nut jobs running federal agencies today. They are no more likely to respect the Constitution as they are to leap from their desk job chairs and magically transform into flying elephants.

The hits just keeps on coming! (Or are the letters of the second word in the previous sentence in the wrong order? Whatever!)

Constitution Watch

A Thought at Easter

Christophobia
Anti-Christian bigotry is the last fashionable hatred

This week’s Good Friday idiocy at Davenport, Iowa illustrates the all-too prevailing trend of attempting to purge any form of Christianity from public view.
Obviously not everyone is Christian…but the Judeo-Christian view is still the underlying basis of our republic, going back to the Declaration of Independence’s attribution of the source of our rights in the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.

The following cuts to the kernal of why this is a essential to the maintenance of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers emphasized that the constitutional republic depended upon a vigorous religious society. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,” said John Adams. “It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The Founding Fathers were not secularists. On the contrary, they were devout Christians (with the exception of some Enlightenment deists like Thomas Jefferson), who feared an established church – especially, the Church of England – which persecuted dissenters. They would regard it as bizarre and repulsive were they to witness how the concept of the separation of church and state would be twisted in our time into a form of radical secularism and anti-Christian bias.

Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides the underpinnings to our constitutional government for one simple reason: It acknowledges the transcendental nature of man. Our fundamental liberties flow from God almighty – not the state. This is why individual rights – to life, liberty and property – are the essential bulwarks against government power: What God has given, no man – or regime – can take away. Once America loses its Christian identity, it will inevitably lose its freedoms.
Christophobia forms the basis of modern liberalism. Leftist progressives are determined to destroy traditional America and its seminal institutions – the Constitution, capitalism, national sovereignty and the family. This is why they have declared war on Christianity. If Christians do not rise from their apathy and man the ideological barricades, they will be driven into the catacombs once again. And with their defeat comes the end of our great republic.

Constitution Watch, Culture Wars

Lessons Unlearned

Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. – Santayana

Kansas-Nebraska Act 1854, Redux

We are now beginning to enter the Kansas-Nebraska Act stage of the socialist crisis of the Republic.

To get the significance of this, some history is in order:

At our constitutional founding, the evil of slavery had been crudely evaded. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise was enacted that prohibited the abomination north of 36/30 degrees latitude [southern boundary of Missouri, except for it’s SE “boot-heel”].

But with the western push of the frontier, a new compromise was needed. So the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 decreed that the “popular sovereignty” of each territory should decide whether they would be slave or free states. But then, adherents of both the abomination and freedom migrated to Kansas to struggle — with their bodily presence — for their respective causes. First there was politics. Then the political rhetoric turned violent. Then real violence ensued. Kansas became known as Bleeding Kansas. John Brown, most famously, applied unjustified, murderous violence for his righteous cause of ending slavery and was hanged, but the Civil War ensued…

NOT a pretty scene!

Now we enter our History’s second stage in the struggle against the abomination of socialism. Just as slavery had been contained in the South, so entitlement socialism has, until this week, been more or less contained in service to only the poor and the elderly — and even in those programs (for the elderly) on the principle of beneficiaries paying monthly premiums for the benefits they will later get (Medicare/ Social Security). Only the poor under Medicaid received benefit without premium payment.

But now, just as the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 broke through the slave state limitation to the South, the Democratic Party’s 2010 health care law has broken socialism’s boundary of being so limited. Now, the chains of socialism are to be clamped on to the able-bodied middle class — not merely the already presumed helpless poor and old who have paid their insurance premiums.

An exaggeration you say? Not so fast, according to that (understatement alert!) not exactly right wing New York Times.

Even the New York Times — after the vote — admits what the bigger goal has been all along. In Wednesday’s edition (“In Health Care Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality” by David Leonhardt), they point out: ” Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan. … Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would ‘mark a new season in America.’…. Above all, the central question that both the Reagan and Obama administrations have tried to answer — what is the proper balance between the market and the government? — remains unresolved. But the bill signed on Tuesday certainly shifts our place on that spectrum.”

I thank The New York Times for that honest statement of historic fact.

After citing some of the obnoxious aspects of what Congress and B.O. hath wrought, the piece goes on:
And just as the free states could not tolerate the spread of slavery into their midst, so, too, free middle-class America — if it still has its historic character — will not tolerate the yoke of socialism put upon our necks.

First, the unambiguous will of the majority has been defied by the vote of Congress last Sunday. Come November, we shall see whether the system can still turn the popular will into the constitutionally permissible legislative will of the majority. If it can, all will be well and the crisis will end. Rallying the vote between now and November is roughly equivalent to the early stage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act period — people started migrating to Kansas to support their convictions.

But come November, if the majority still opposes the socializing of health care delivery and the other central government intrusions, and yet the corrupt bargains and constitutional distortions of Washington deny that will its just expression — then, for the second time in our history, we enter that dangerous period where the House resolves its temporary division. Let us devoutly pray –and commit to ourselves — that this time freedom shall be reacquired … peaceably.

…and then there’s THIS one to go along with the above:

Will America break up?
Abortion threatens to split the nation like slavery

President Obama is splintering America. The passage of Obamacare was a historic victory for liberal governance. Yet, its true cost may be that it triggers the eventual breakup of the country.

Mr. Obama has achieved what his liberal predecessor…could only dream of: nationalized health care. Obamacare signifies the government take-over of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. It has dealt a mortal blow to traditional America. We are now a European-style socialist welfare state. The inevitable permanent tax hikes, massive public bureaucracy and liberal ruling elites will stifle competition and initiative.

Republicans vow to repeal Obamacare. Their past record, however, leaves many conservatives rightly skeptical….The Republican Party has been unable to roll back the tide of statism. In fact, under Richard Nixon and both George Bushes, Great Society Republicans have been complicit in erecting a nanny state.

Socialism is the road to economic ruin and fiscal bankruptcy. It subverts democracy, threatening the very future of our constitutional republic. Socialist states degenerate into some form of autocracy or technocratic neo-feudalism, whereby the productive class is taxed and exploited to sustain a growing dependent class. Factions are pitted against each other; groups vie for handouts at the expense of their fellow citizens. The bonds of economic union and national solidarity slowly dissolve.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not,” warned Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was right: Redistributionist welfare policies are undermining our democracy. The resentments in America are growing. Tea Partiers believe that their government no longer represents their interests or values. The heartland is becoming dangerously alienated from the political class, whom it feels has betrayed them.

Obamacare may be the last straw. It strips away fundamental economic liberties, empowering the federal government to de facto nationalize everyone’s body by controlling our health. Americans are compelled – upon pain of penalty and eventual imprisonment – to purchase insurance.

Moreover, the law codifies the federal funding of abortion. Taxpayer dollars will be used to subsidize the murder of innocent life. Hence, Mr. Obama has violated the social compact: He has abrogated the conscience of pro-lifers, making them tacitly complicit in the slaughter of the unborn. Obamacare is a radical assault upon fundamental religious freedoms.

The Obama revolution threatens to tear America apart. This has happened before. Slavery eventually triggered the Civil War between the industrial North and the agrarian South. Abortion is the slavery of our time – the denying of basic human rights to an entire category of people.

You may well not like this. I don’t get a warm fuzzy from it myself…but I’m not at all sure it isn’t happening anyway.

…we are going the way our Founding Fathers warned us against: increasing balkanization and sectionalism. A constitutional republic – unlike an empire – is only as strong as its national cohesion. It is based not on imperial coercion but civic consent. Mr. Obama is recklessly pulling at the strings of unity, further polarizing us.

In confronting Obamacare, state sovereignty, states’ rights and state nullification of federal laws are being asserted. This is what happened in the 1830s and 1840s. They are the signs of growing political anarchy and social frustration – people can only be pushed so far. Mr. Obama’s drive for a socialist super-state threatens America’s very existence. As Jefferson warned about slavery, it is time we start ringing the “fire bell in the night.”

“Things fall apart; the center cannot hold,” wrote William Butler Yeats. “Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”

Conservatives will not be passive in this onslaught on all our core values. Mr. Obama’s true legacy may be that he divides us deeper than ever before – unless he abandons his revolutionary project.

Once again, that most usable Warren Zevon lyric: “It ain’t that pretty at all!”

Constitution Watch

Thoughts on Constitutional Rule

The Chief knows that most have their own particular church connections, affiliations, and/or beliefs, and that is fine. This posting in no way is presented to demean anyone’s particular religious beliefs unless you are preaching some sort of anti-Constitutional “social justice” doctrines, in which case this applies to you for sure!

After the events in Washington turned this Sabbath Day into a into what IMHO constitutes a virtual Black Sabbath of unrighteous dominion, I offer the following from the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Section 98, for consideration:

5. That law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you and your brethren…in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7. And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8. I, the Lord god make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
9. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
10. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. [emphases added]

Just think about it…IMHO something to remember in November.

Constitution Watch, Obamunism

Gov’t Threatens Rights? SHOCKING!

CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens’ rights

A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree. [emphasis added]

Apparently all that change isn’t quite what was hoped for!

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken – though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what’s broken can be fixed

…like, in November!

Constitution Watch, Uncategorized

Not Exactly Revolutionary…but…

Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed

The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.

By way of comparison, at the time of the American Revolution, it has been estimated that approximately 1/3 of the people were in favor of the revolution, and 1/3 were loyal to the British crown.

However, 63% of the Political Class think the government has the consent of the governed, but only six percent (6%) of those with Mainstream views agree.

The phrase “poor situational awareness” comes to mind for the case of our government “leaders”.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors. [emphases added]

So much for change we can believe in!

Constitution Watch

Nullification Redivivus

The idea of nullification – states exercising their sovereignty to “opt out” of subjection to what they consider to be inappropriate, usurpatory, or improper acts or programs of the federal government – has been around since the late 1790’s (see: the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions).

The laws in Montana and Utah exempting intrastate manufacture, sale, and use of firearms from federal regulations, as well as the state authorizations for “medical” marijuana in contradiction to federal drug laws are current examples of the same principle being applied today.

59% Favor Letting States Opt Out of Federal Programs

Voters strongly believe that a state should have the right to avoid federal programs it doesn’t like, but they draw the line at states seceding from the union.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of likely voters say states should have the right to opt out of federal government programs they don’t agree with. Just 25% disagree, while another 15% are not sure.

Looks like a good part of the concern deals with the considerable financial burden that many federal programs shift to the states through imposition of administrative regulations and program requirements.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters also think states should have the right to opt out of federally mandated programs if the federal government doesn’t help pay for them. Seventeen percent (17%) say states should not have the right to opt out of federally mandated programs.

In this, there is a distinct partisan bias that pits a Republican and independent majority in support of the right to opt-out against a Democrat minority:

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party say states should have the right to opt out of federal programs with which they don’t agree. Just 37% of Democrats agree.

The 10th Amendment is still alive: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Constitution Watch, SD Politics

HB1277 / 1278 Statement sans Explanation

There has been a running discussion lately in the SD blogosphere relating to support or opposition to HB 1277 and HB 1278, which relate to “obtaining certain information from online content providers in slander and libel actions. ”

There have been thoughtful and thorough comments from various SD blogs. I particularly liked Ken’s comment on SD Politics hearkening back to the “ancient” (to borrow a descriptive designation from the SCOTUS decision bouncing McCain-Feingold) traditions of our early republic, and its lively, invective-filled, and often anonymous debates.

I started on a somewhat lengthy commentary from my own point of view…and finally decided that to address everything I thought about this idea, I would be writing a major thesis.  I have enough writing to do for the history master’s program I’m in, so have to pass on that one for now.

So, it’ll just have to be enough to say that these bills are NOT a good idea for a number of reasons, both technical and philosophical, many of which have been discussed elsewhere by others. The long and short of it is that I don’t see a benefit in extending the police power down to the levels that would be necessary to even attempt to enforce this.  Besides,  based on what I know of history, who would say that sometime in the future it might be considered libelous to criticise officeholders, etc.   This HAS already happened elsewhere, and elsewhen.

I know, “It can’t happen here!”  Wanna bet?  (I don’t!)

It may well be the proverbial cold day in hell since I agree with the ACLU …hmmm…the Saints won the Superbowl…maybe it really is cold down there!

Constitution Watch

1st Amendment Upheld by Supremes

1 Comment

Something else this week for the so-called “progressives” to knash their teeth about! Oh dear!

High court voids curbs on political ad spending

In a decision with profound implications for the role of money in American campaigns, the Supreme Court on Thursday gave interest groups, unions and corporations the right to pour money into issue advertising in political races – reigniting the passionate battle over the influence of cash on the electoral process.

The 5-4 decision punched a hole in the complex web of federal campaign-finance laws and rules in finding that those groups should have the same rights to spend money on political ads as any person. Direct contributions by corporations and unions to individual candidates are still forbidden.

This does NOT just affect organizations. Having access to effective political speech means having access to mass media. This means paying for advertising. If one is not a George Soros with piles of cash at hand, there is no serious way for an individual on their own to make their voice heard in the political marketplace.

However, if a group of like-minded individuals gets together, pools their resources, and enters the political fray, according to the McCain-Feingold law this was rendered illegal, since all groups were prohibited from political speech at the time of an election. Never mind that the specific reason that the 1st Amendment was enacted was to especially protect political speech!

Supporters cheered the ruling, which they said returns the country to the core free-speech precept that political speech should be protected, no matter who or what is speaking.

Critics warned that the foundations of American democracy are at stake and that big businesses will be able to spend enough money to influence elections.

…also big unions, and political action groups of all sorts. Remember, in spite of the weeping and wailing of the left, a lot of corporations’ leaders are demonstrably biased to the left. Besides, many corporations will be reluctant to be too outspoken, since a sizable part of their customer base will be partisans of the party they might oppose (which ever side is favored).

In stark language, the court acknowledged that it was overturning its own precedents, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, said the justices were now returning to “ancient First Amendment principles.”

Yes! This is critical! It’s past time to recognize once again the fundamental source of our “unalienable rights” obtained from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” as immortally stated in the Declaration of Independence. If this reasoning is removed from consideration, as it the common practice of the day in the world of political science, there is no other principle to base rights on other than the Maoist justification that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” THAT’s why they wrote the Bill of Rights in the first place, to make SURE that those unalienable rights were spelled out in more detail than the original Constitutional text itself.

“The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether,” Justice Kennedy wrote in an opinion overturning a 1990 case and part of a separate 2003 case that upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance laws, enacted in 2002.

This sounds about right, as far as it goes. The same principle now needs to be extended even further. The minority dissenting opinion accidentally highlights this need:

[Justice Stevens] said the ruling turns over power to corporations and unions at the expense of political parties, who will have a tough time fighting back because of the restrictions on their own fundraising and spending.

Use the same standards of disclosure and disclaimer for political parties as there will be for OTHER organizations…and turn THEM loose too! Here’s one Mao idea that would work, if ACTUALLY implemented: “Let 1000 flowers bloom.”

Constitution Watch

Interpol: B.O. Grants GESTAPO Powers in US

The Chief REALLY doesn’t want to post on this…the content and implications are extremely disturbing, at least to anyone concerned with maintaining the American Constitutional system.

Obama Gives Interpol Free Hand in U.S.

No presidential statement or White House press briefing was held on it. In fact, all that can be found about it on the official White House Web site is the Dec. 17 announcement and one-paragraph text of President Obama’s Executive Order 12425, with this innocuous headline: “Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities.”In fact, this new directive from Obama may be the most destructive blow ever struck against American constitutional civil liberties. No wonder the White House said as little as possible about it.

So, what’s the big deal about?

First, Obama has granted Interpol the ability to operate within the territorial limits of the United States without being subject to the same constitutional restraints that apply to all domestic law enforcement agencies such as the FBI.

Search warrents, controls on wiretaps and surveillance? “We don’t need no steenking warrants, and we sneer at your foolish Yankee ‘Bill of Rights’.”

Second, Obama has exempted Interpol’s domestic facilities — including its office within the U.S. Department of Justice — from search and seizure by U.S. authorities and from disclosure of archived documents in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by U.S. citizens.

Think very carefully about what you just read: Obama has given an international law enforcement organization that is accountable to no other national authority the ability to operate as it pleases within our own borders, and he has freed it from the most basic measure of official transparency and accountability, the FOIA. [emphasis added]

The Chief is still waiting to hear complaints from the left/lib claque that is always so quick to express their concern about some comparatively limited (albeit problematical in their own right) provisions of such laws as the Patriot Act. He suspects that this will be an infinitely long wait.

Constitution Watch

Constitution, B.O., & Nobel Prize

This is a point about B.O. being awarded the Nobel Prize that I had not thought of  before.

Keeping the Nobel Prize would violate the Constitution

Congratulations, Mr. President, but if you care about the rule of law, you’ll have to fork over the Nobel Peace Prize within 60 days of accepting it next week. Contrary to Mel Brooks’ pronouncement in “History of the World Part I,” it’s not always good to be the king. It’s impossible if you are an American president.

Article I of the Constitution states: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

Clearly, the presidency is both an office of “profit” and of “trust” and the prize package (including 1.4 million clams) is included in the terms “present” or “emolument.” Therefore, a sitting president cannot accept it from a “King, Prince or foreign State” without the consent of Congress.

While the Prize comes from the private Nobel Foundaation, Alfred Nobel left instructions in his will that winners would be selected by a “committee of five” appointed by the Parliament of Norway. There is no question that the intent of Article I and a 1966 law passed by Congress is such that this prize is “from a foreign State.”

Anybody out there want to bet whether or not B.O. will do this little Constitutional thing?

No?  Me neither. Ain’t gonna happen, although it should.

Constitution Watch

“Ministry of Truth” Proposed by Donk Cong

Here’s the latest spew of California Donkey Party Congresscritter Henry Waxman.

Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

A top Democratic lawmaker predicted on Wednesday that the government will be involved in shaping the future for struggling U.S. media organizations.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, saying quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy, said eventually government would have to help resolve the problems caused by a failing business model.

This is wrong in many ways.

Firstly, does anyone SERIOUSLY think that government is going to put itself in a position to “resolve the problems caused by a failing business model” without taking over management? The precedent is already out there with the banks, financials, and auto companies.

Diversity of opinion and free speech? Would any publication or writer dare to go against the acceptable “party line” of the government, knowing that their bread and butter comes off the government’s table? NOT BLOODY LIKELY!

Waxman, other U.S. lawmakers and regulators are looking into various options to help a newspaper industry hurt by the shift in advertising revenues to online platforms….”Eventually government is going to have to be responsible to help and resolve these issues,” Waxman told a conference hosted by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on the future of journalism.

WHY? Did the government feel it necessary to guarantee the continued survival of the telegraph, to protect and maintain the right of citizens to communicate freely? Not quite…as it turned out the telegraph services withered away due to other, faster, more direct, and cheaper technologies.

In the same way, THIS IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT! This is NOT part of the Constitution! The ONLY thing in the Constitution about the press is in Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;…” There is NOTHING there that Congress has the obligation to MAINTAIN and PROVIDE a particular form of media, in this case the daily newsprint media.

In case you hadn’t noticed, there ARE other ways to get “news and views”…you’re looking at one right now!

Constitution Watch, Glowbull Warming

A Mixed Blessing

Federal program to help company that processes Black Hills wood chips

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has selected Western Biomass Energy LLC to participate in the Biomass Crop Assistance Program. Western Biomass Energy converts wood chips from the Black Hills into renewable fuels.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., authored BCAP, which was included in the 2008 Farm Bill.

The company will use the funding to offset the feedstock cost associated with its pilot biorefinery in Upton, Wyo., that refines cellulosic ethanol from South Dakota wood chips.

One supposes that this is supposed to be good news. It is for some.

Senator Thune can claim that he brought home the bacon for SD. Sure ’nuff! A Democrat couldn’t have done it better!

The Chief worked in a lab at the SD School of Mines for 5 weeks one summer a few years ago as a science teacher. This was very informative, and very enjoyable…the project of the lab was to devise methods of looking for techniques to increase the ethanol yield from wood chip cellulosic feedstocks.

I had a chance met the entrepreneurs of this project. I was impressed by them. They are highly competent engineers and businessmen, and are doing all they can to succeed with their enterprise. The School of Mines was also doing its job well…using their grants from the company for assisting the businesspeople to be able to make use of SD products (OK, by-products) to produce a value-added commodity that can help you get your car down the road at a cheaper price.

So what’s the rub?

Firstly, one could wonder if this enterprise could continue without the continued infusion of tax money (or should it be called printing-press money these days)? Hate to say so, but probably not…otherwise there would be no need for the subsidy. (Ooops! That also could apply to the corn-based ethanol too…but we won’t go THERE!)

Some might argue that the Glowbull Warming crisis forces us to use public funds to develop alternative renewable energy. Frankly, as noted in numerous previous postings on the category of “Glowbull Warming”, the Chief isn’t a member of the Orthodox Carboniferous Church of St. AlGore so that’s not a real impressive argument hereabouts. (If you really think man-made CO2 is causing a problem…stop exhaling it with every breath!)

So, what else?…oh, yeah…Senator, could you remind me again what article and section of the Constitution addresses cellulosic biomass ethanol? Must have missed that one in my PoliSci classes.

I guess if one thinks the constitution is “a flexible living document”, allowing stuff like this, then it’s all OK?…sort of like supporting McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Political Speech Limitation Act while you were still in the House. Don’t get me wrong…I REALLY DO like you Senator, and you’re generally way ahead of most of the Senate, but you really ought to bone up on the Constitution a bit, otherwise some might think that you have leanings towards Republocratic Demicanism.

It is realized that this may not give many readers a warm fuzzy glow, (with stuff to alienate both sides of the so-called spectrum) but what’s the point of trying to develop political principles if one’s not willing to at least make the effort to be consistent with them. Easy for ME to say…knowing I’ll never be elected…but hey, it feels right anyway.

Constitution Watch

We Will FORCE You…We know better than you do!

Constitutionality of health overhaul questioned

On top of all the other obstacles facing President Obama in his quest to pass health reform is this one: Does the U.S. Constitution allow the government to require uninsured Americans to buy medical insurance or impose a tax penalty if they refuse?

Congress has never before required citizens to purchase any good or service, but that is what both House and Senate health bills would mandate.

DUH – d’ya think really? What’s the first clue.

The question of the mandate’s constitutionality “hasn’t been part of the public debate, but the legal community has been debating it. It’s been on all the legal blogs,” said Michael Cannon, director of health-policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. He said “the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to force Americans to purchase health insurance.”

In 1994, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office noted that a “mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action.”

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO said.

THINK about this: American citizens compelled at gunpoint (remember the B.O. Presidium Czar reminding us a la Lenin and Mao that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”) to purchase something in order to reside in the country without being penalized?

Hello? What is spelled by the letters: T-O-T-A-L-I-T-A-R-I-A-N?

Constitution Watch

B.O.: Who needs free speech? We don’t!

President Obama has something important in common with Edward I, aka “Longshanks”

What is this about?

It has received far less notice than it deserves, but last week the United States joined with Egypt in sponsoring a resolution appoved by the UN Human Rights Council that could blow a gaping hole in the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech and other civil liberties most of us take for granted.

The resolution encourages member nations to define as criminal “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Who defines what constitutes “national, racial or religious hatred?” Why, the government, of course. Who decides whether any given statement “constitutes incitement?” You guessed it.

In other words, if you live in a country that adopts this approach to freedom of speech, be very careful what you say about any other nation, racial group or religious faith. And you better not make anybody in power mad because you would be amazed what can be construed by governments as “incitement” to “hatred.”

If you are an American with the notion that the First Amendment will protect your right to say whatever you want whenever you want about whomever you want, be advised that this resolution embodies exactly the conceptual assumptions about law and rights that lead directly to those speech codes that restrict civil liberties on hundreds of U.S. college campuses at this very moment….

In other words, bunky, if you think the First Amendment will protect you from Obama and the UN, you’re still living in the 18th Century when people believed individual rights were theirs simply by virtue of being born under the U.S. Constitution, not as a dispensation of those in power.

So, what’s it have to do with Longshanks?

The UN resolution is quite literally medieval.

I guess this will make the Islamic world feel right at home…back to the 13th Century!

Consider the provision of Westminster I in 1275 under King Edward I in England (If you saw “Braveheart,” you will recognize him as the hated Longshanks. Trust me, he was every bit as bad as Randall Wallace’s wonderful screenplay made him). Westminster I banned the telling of “tales whereby discord or occasion of discord or slander my grow between the King and his people, or the great men of the realm.” And who defined what tales tended to sow discord? Why, the King and great men of the realm, of course.

But Westminster I was no Longshankian exception to the rule in mediavel England. Roll forward several centuries and we find Henry VIII, he of the many wives. Nobody could print a book without Henry’s permission. A law passed in 1542 proclaimed that “nothing shall be taught or mainained contrary to the King’s instructions” concerning the Bible or other religious matters. Violate that law three times and you went to the stake to be burned to death.

A century later, a 1662 statute provided the death penalty for those selling “heretical, schimatical, blasphemous, seditious and trasonable books, pamphlets and papers.” Why? Because such publications allegedly were “endangering the peace of these kingdoms and raising a disaffection to his most excellent Majesty and his government.”

That is the essential legal background from England that helped spark the English Reformation and ultimately led to the adoption of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Why on earth would anybody want to go back to that barbaric world in which you could lose your head for saying the wrong thing?

If you are interested in learning more about the bloody history that came before the First Amendment, see former University of Texas journalism professor Marvin Olasky’s “Telling the Truth” and the chapter on “a great cloud of witnesses.”

At this rate might it take the 2nd Amendment to preserve the 1st Amendment?  One can only hope not.

Constitution Watch

Church Leader Issues 1st Amendment Warning

Apostle Says Religious Freedom Is Being Threatened

It is not the usual run of affairs for higher leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) church to directly address political issues in their capacity as church leaders. When this does happen, it’s as though someone else is saying “Hey! You! Listen up! This is something REALLY serious!”

It may be worth noting that historically the LDS church knows deeply about possible problems with religious freedom, having been driven from Missouri at one point by an “Order of Extermination” issued by the state governor, and then being pushed out of Illinois after renegade militia vigilantes assassinated the Church president, Joseph Smith, and his brother. That was what led to the exodus to Utah under the leadership of Brigham Young, but I digress…

An apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said religious freedom is being threatened by societal forces intimidating those with religious points of view from having a voice in the public square. [emphasis added] (See the full text of the speech here)

Elder Dallin H. Oaks made the comments today in a major address to Brigham Young University-Idaho students on the importance of preserving the religious freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Elder Oaks has had a front-row seat in observing what he calls the “significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion” in public life. Prior to his appointment to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Oaks had an illustrious law career. He served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court, was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School and clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court.

These issues are well worth pondering;  one does not have to agree with the religious teachings of the LDS Church to be able to appreciate the civil and Constitutional issues addressed.

Anyone concerned with the maintenance of our Constitutional government in the face of continuous attacks from those who have another agenda, both inside and outside the Washington Beltway, should be concerned with this situation.

DISCLOSURE: The Chief is a active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Constitution Watch

Showdown in Arizona: DHS Blinks

Sheriff Joe Arpaio stood up straight, and essentially told the Department of Homeland Security to stuff it.

‘Toughest sheriff’ vows face-off with feds over illegals

The man who likes to call himself “America’s toughest sheriff,” Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., is planning a Friday showdown with the feds.

The sheriff has announced he will defy the U.S. Department of Homeland Security by doing a street sweep for illegal immigrants one day after the expiration of the agreement that has permitted him to conduct such operations for the past three years. The sheriff has said he expects the deal not to be extended, though federal officials have remained publicly noncommittal.

Homeland Security apparently sniffed the prevailing wind, and made their decision:

Law agencies make new pact on illegal deportation

Department of Homeland Security officials have signed new agreements authorizing nearly 70 state and local law enforcement agencies, including a contentious Arizona sheriff, to help arrest and deport illegal immigrants charged with violent or criminal acts.

Under the new agreements, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., who has come under fire for his immigration sweeps, will continue to work with federal authorities when illegal immigrants are booked into his jail. But Sheriff Arpaio’s office will not be given the power to arrest such people, as it previously had, federal officials said.

Sheriff Joe’s response?…business as usual:

As the new agreements were announced, Sheriff Arpaio launched a crime and immigration sweep Friday in northwestern metro Phoenix, according to the Associated Press.

The sheriff told the AP that he can still arrest immigrants under a state smuggling law and a federal law that gives all local police agencies more limited power to detain suspected illegal immigrants.

“It doesn’t bother me, because we are going to do the same thing,” Sheriff Arpaio said. “I am the elected sheriff. I don’t take orders from the federal government.”

That’s what the Chief considers a practical lesson to DHS in applied federalism.

Constitution Watch

Constitution? FCC Czar? Contradiction!

‘Diversity czar’ takes heat over remarks

President Obama’s diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission has spoken publicly of getting white media executives to “step down” in favor of minorities, prescribed policies to make liberal talk radio more successful, and described Hugo Chavez’s rise to power in Venezuela “an incredible revolution.”

Mark Lloyd’s provocative comments – most made during a tenure at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank – are giving fodder to critics who say Mr. Obama has appointed too many “czars” to government positions that don’t require congressional approval. They are also worrying to some conservatives who fear the FCC might use its powers to remove their competitive advantage on talk radio and television.

This stuff is particularly critical due to the attack on the First Amendment that would result from these policies.

Many of the remarks have been unearthed by conservative-leaning writers and bloggers and discussed on cable television amid a broader critique of Mr. Obama’s penchant for czars that exploded with the ouster this month of “green jobs czar” Van Jones.

In one of his more eye-opening comments, Mr. Lloyd praised Mr. Chavez during a June 2008 conference on media reform, saying the authoritarian Venezuelan president had led “really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.”

In a video clip of the conference that has been aired by Fox News personality Glenn Beck and others, Mr. Lloyd seems be siding with the anti-American leader against independent media outlets in his own country, some of which supported a short-lived coup against Mr. Chavez in 2002.

“The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him,” Mr. Lloyd said. “But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”

Doesn’t ANYBODY in the White house pay any attention to the Constitution? Never mind. We already KNOW the sad answer to that one.

Constitution Watch, Culture Wars, Obamunism

Towards a State-Controlled Media

Obama open to newspaper bailout bill

The president said he is “happy to look at” bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

Oh joy! Not only would we be subjected to the prevailing MSM tilt to the left, they would add injury to the insult by forcing us to pay for media crap that we don’t want!

They would LOVE the chance to be able to continue to indulge their political whims independent of the market pressure that is currently going through the process of rejecting their unashamedly biased stance as indicated my massive losses in advertising and subscription income.

“I haven’t seen detailed proposals yet, but I’ll be happy to look at them,” Obama told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade in an interview.

Sure he would – for the same reasons.

Obama said that good journalism is “critical to the health of our democracy,” but expressed concern toward growing tends in reporting — especially on political blogs, from which a groundswell of support for his campaign emerged during the presidential election.

Right – good journalism IS critical…but to assert that the MSM is good journalism is laughably surreal.

“I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding,” he said.

Fact checking? Hmmmm. Like CBS & Dan Rather CONTINUING to insist that a blatantly forged document provides valid information about President Bush? Or like maybe NBC using incendiary devices to set vehicles on fire in an “investigative report” on auto engineering safety?  Or how about most recently…with virtually ALL of the so-called “mainstream media” ignoring the exposure of widespread promotion of criminality by B.O.’s favorite ACORN, until the stench got so great that they were literally FORCED to take notice?

THIS is “fact checking”? This is supposed to be journalism worthy of being supported by tax dollars?

There IS a part of the Constitution that addresses free press…but it does NOT contain a clause that GUARANTEES that just because you print a newspaper that anyone will bother to read it…or, for that matter, that one is guaranteed the right to make a living at writing and publishing crap that is inaccurate, incomplete, and often offensive and directly opposed to the values and interests of the POTENTIAL readership or audience.

Let ’em join the fate of the buggy-whip manufacturers if they can’t make it on their own!

The alternative is to turn the media icons of the liberal establishment into the American equivalent of the old Soviet Isvestia and Pravda, or the Nazi Volkishcher Beobachter – dedicated solely to the service of the state.

Constitution Watch

“King of the Wild Frontier” with Words for Today

1 Comment

Perhaps the Chief is dating himself here…if so, oh well. For those who don’t remember (for any number of possible reasons) Walt Disney ran a series on their show that dramatized “Davy Crockett – King of the Wild Frontier”

It should be noted, that they took some historical liberties with the topic (hey, it was a mass TV thing aimed at kids!), but as this article illustrates, often the events of the past are directly relevant to the issues of the latter days.

In this case Congressman David (preferred by him instead of “Davy”) Crockett was called to account by a concerned constituent, and wasnot only willing to listen, but was willing to both admit his error and change his position as the result.  Not bad…especially when compared to the current crop of Congresscritters.

Charity and the good ol’ Constitution

“Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?”

It might be a question out of today’s headlines, but it isn’t.

No doubt, it could rightly be asked in the health-care debate, but it goes well beyond that. In every disaster, in every disturbance, the federal government today is ready with a checkbook at hand to help those in need. Hurricane Katrina? California fires? Montana snowstorms? They’ve all been declared disasters in order to justify federal spending to help out the victims and to speed recovery. The average number of disaster declarations reached as high as 130 during the George W. Bush administration, an increase of almost 50 percent over the Clinton era.

Of course, no one could be against helping the innocent victims of natural or manmade disasters, could they? Well, no. Not anyone in their right mind, at least. Charity is one of the highest impulses of mankind, and our desire to help and protect each other is a noble heritage that we all cherish.

But that does not answer the original question:

“Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?”

That question was asked not of President Obama nor of Sen. Max Baucus or Rep. Nancy Pelosi, but of the less well-known Tennessee congressman, David Crockett.

It was a question that Rep. Crockett was not well-prepared to answer, but his constituent wanted to know why he had voted to spend federal funds for the relief of families that had been left homeless as the result of a ravaging fire in Georgetown. Crockett had actually seen the fire and gone to help rescue women and children and to fight the flames, so he was more than happy a bill came before Congress to aid those victims further. As he himself said, “We put aside all other business, and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.”

Again, sort of reminiscent of the “rush” to pass health-care ‘reform” in the current Congress,

At this point you really need to read the account in the piece of the conversation between Cong. Crockett and constituent Horatio Bunce.

The Chief heartily endorses the conclusion:

In this day and age, the only congressman I know of who follows Crockett’s example as a born-again constitutionalist is Ron Paul, who never votes for a bill without first confirming in his own mind that Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass such a law. Most of the rest of them just ask themselves how popular the bill will be, and whether it will help or hurt their efforts to be re-elected.

Yes, the Constitution is a relatively old document, but it is not moldy, and if we think of it as quaint and irrelevant, we do so at the ultimate cost of our liberty. That would be unconscionable.

Let’s hope that this story of Rep. David Crockett and a plain old U.S. citizen who held him accountable helps to remind each and every one of us that America’s exceptional quality is partly based on the fact that we are ruled from the bottom up. It is “we the people,” not “we the governed.”

It is important also to remember that solutions to most American problems are to be found in American lore and history — if one could but be bothered to look. Although times change, human nature doesn’t, nor does the nature of our republic, as long as it stands fast and hews to the line of the Constitution.

Here’s hoping we can get a few more Crocketts for Washington.

Constitution Watch

Obamacare Waffle Kitchen at Work

A couple of alternative versions of what’s going on with this…all seems in a state of “definite maybe” with B.O. et al.

Bottom line on public insurance plan gets blurry

The Obama administration’s bottom line on a government health insurance option blurred Sunday as White House officials stressed support but stopped short of calling it a must-have part of an overhaul.

As President Barack Obama prepares for a Wednesday night speech to Congress in a risky bid to salvage his top domestic priority, no other issue is so highly charged. Obama’s liberal supporters consider the proposal for a public plan to compete with private insurers do-or-die. Republicans say it’s unacceptable. It’s doubtful the public plan can pass the Senate.

Puh-leese – let it be so!

Finally, Axelrod showed mastery of the sort of bureaucratic governmental dialog illustrated in Atlas Shrugged:

White House political adviser David Axelrod said Obama is “not walking away” from a public plan. But asked if the president would veto a bill that came to him without the option, Axelrod declined to answer.

The president “believes it should be in the plan, and he expects to be in the plan, and that’s our position,” Axelrod told The Associated Press.

Asked if that means a public plan has to be in the bill for Obama to sign it, Axelrod responded: “I’m not going to deal in hypotheticals. … He believes it’s important.”

Meanwhile…both sides in Congress are not pleased…a hopeful sign of possible failure of the whole collectivist mess.

Government Insurance ‘Trigger’ Draws Bipartisan Criticism in Health Care Debate

Conservatives and liberals alike are puncturing the latest trial balloon in the health care reform debate, finding flaws with a proposal that would keep a government-run health insurance plan on reserve in case private insurance companies don’t meet certain benchmarks.

The so-called “trigger” has been floated by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a member of the “gang of six” Senate negotiators who are trying to broker a bipartisan compromise. Under such an option, if agreed-upon goals are not met by the insurance industry, then that would pull the trigger on government-run insurance.

It’s unclear whether President Obama will address the idea when he delivers a high-stakes health care address to Congress Wednesday night. But even as the White House signals it’s open to considering alternatives to a hard-and-fast “public option,” administration officials and congressional negotiators are hard-pressed to find an alternative that could win more votes than it loses.

Keep watching. It ain’t over ’till it’s over.

Constitution Watch

I-net Now B.O. Target

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

This has so many problems that it boggles the mind.

Of course, just the power assumption here is a mind-bending expansion of the worst aspects of some of the Patriot Act stuff.

Then there’s the obvious one about having those with their hands on the net being subject ot government regulation…what was that bit about “no law…abridging freedom of speech…”?

Anyone that has have been certified as “cybersecurity professionals” and given a federal network operators license would be S.O.L. in B.O.’s Brave New World (BOBNW). The many non-degree cybergeeks with partial (and even full) degrees in other areas like physics, math, etc. could be completely frozen out…but hey, a lot of them are rather libertarianish anyway, so from the point of view of the BOBNW getting them out of the info roadway would be a positive political benefit to the Administration and it’s crypto-fascist Czars and others of that ilk.

obameinfuhrer21.jpg
Possible new control links for Obamanet!

Constitution Watch, National Insecurity

News of the Day

NKorea widens threat, limits US options

North Korea’s nuclear test makes it no likelier that the regime will actually launch a nuclear attack, but it adds a scary dimension to another threat: the defiant North as a facilitator of the atomic ambitions of others, potentially even terrorists.

It presents another major security crisis for President Barack Obama, already saddled with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a nuclear problem with Iran. He said Monday the U.S. and its allies must “stand up” to the North Koreans, but it’s far from clear what diplomatic or other action the world community will take.

So far, nothing they’ve done has worked.

THAT’s the understatement of the year!

North Korea fires sixth missile in defiance of US demands for end of aggression

North Korea has fired another short-range missile in defiance of warnings from the United States, bringing the total numbers of launches in the past three days to six.

The defiance of the North has prompted the US to warn that it will “pay the price” for continuing to ignore the international community. Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said the UN Security Council was united in its determination to punish North Korea and that Pyongyang would learn that its actions “have consequences”.

REALLY – Why would the NorKs expect anything more than another application of hot air from Washington?

(Hmmm…maybe THAT’s why B.O. et al are worried so much about CO2 and Glowbull Warming!)

So much for B.O.’s guaranteed assurance that a new spirit of willingness to talk with then will get a positive result, meanwhile, Iran is watching with interest from the wings of the world stage.

Meanwhile, back on this side of the pond…B.O. gives us a SCOTUS designee who is, based on her own words, unqualified to serve:

A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

So much for equal justice under the law. Apparently now it’s to be acceptable to judge based on ethnicity and gender, instead of evaluating each cased based on the body of the law and the Constitution. Prima facie, this is in direct contradiction to the oath of office, but apparently fits in with B.O.’s stated drive for “empathy” on the bench in apparent favoring of judgement favoring a clear bias towards the politically correct shibboleth of the moment.

Got help the United States of America!

Constitution Watch

She’s Makin a List, Checkin’ it twice…

2 Comments

Among the recent spewage from the Janet Reno Napolitano (same difference!) Department of Homeland Security is this little number:

Federal agency warns of radicals on right

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” saying the economic recession, the election of America’s first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

untitled.png
(Click on image for link to document.)

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the warning says.

According to that, if one is a supporter of either the 2nd, or 10th Amendments, or a veteran, you could be worthy of watching out for as a possible “rightwing extremist”, or sympathizer.  Even more threatening (shudder, gasp) are those who might not like President Obama for a variety of reasons.  (Admittedly, some of those reasons ARE truly rank, but hey Janet – there ARE a lot of us who dislike the B.O. regime because of policies and political differences…and we’re not all neo-Nazi racists…in spite of what you infer.

There are other categories of likely suspects for being right-wing subversives…dang!…I fit right in there in many instances, in spite of NOT being a closet Nazi, Klanner, or even a former member of the (actually innocuous) John Birch Society.  (I WAS in the 1980 SD Reagan delegation though…THAT must be it!)

Putting this together with the flap a couple of weeks ago about the Missouri State “Fusion” information office, it sort of starts to make a pattern….

“Just because I’m paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not really after me!”

Constitution Watch

B.O.’s Poor Situational Awareness, continued.

Video: radicals beat girl, 17, in Islamic stronghold of Swat, Pakistan

As the Chief noted earlier here, B.O. expressed the thought that we should be willing to negotiate with the Taliban. Good idea? NOT!. This illustrates one reason why not.

This grainy footage appears to show a 17-year-old girl being beaten by Islamic radicals in Pakistan’s northwestern region of Swat, where Sharia law was introduced after the government reached a truce with the Taleban in February.

A local Taleban commander in the militant stronghold of Matta, 25 miles from the regional capital, Mingora, ordered the girl to be flogged a week ago after accusing her of adultery, according to local reporters.

But some residents of Matta have accused the commander of ordering the beating to get revenge after the girl refused to accept his proposal of marriage, the reporters told The Times.

“Please! Enough! Enough!” the girl is heard crying in Pashtu, the language of the tribes who dominate northwestern Pakistan – now the main hub of Taleban and al-Qaeda activity. At another point, she cries: “I am repenting, my father is repenting what I have done, my grandmother is repenting what I have done…”

You can go to the article (linked above) for the video, complete with the chilling sound track of the victim’s unheeded cries for mercy. Warning: Graphically violent content.

This is Islamic Sharia Law in action. Taliban spokescritters were cited as saying that an error was committed in that the beating was done in public.

In NYT coverage it is noted that this has touched off criticism of the government for negotiating with the Taliban and effectively ceding control of the Swat Valley to these 7th Century visitors to the 21st Center.

This is a classic illustration of the Taliban caught in the act of being the Taliban….and B.O. thinks we can negotiate with these things?

Again, this is Sharia Law…favorably noted by B.O. State Department legal appointee Harold Koh in the context of transnationalist law…where foriegn law is used to establish precedent for US Court decisions.

This is acceptable to B.O….or is he so out of touch with reality that he is totally unaware of the views of those he is appointing.

The issue of negotiating with the Taliban, and favoring of alien legal systems for implementation in the U.S. by appointees both indicate B.O.’s continuing lack of situational awareness at best. At worst, we have a nightmare in the White house.

Constitution Watch

ObamaCorps: Sieg Heil to the Chief!

1 Comment

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…call it for what it is…

Expanded Americorps has an authoritarian feel

With almost no public attention, both chambers of Congress in the past week advanced an alarming expansion of the Americorps national service plan, with the number of federally funded community service job increasing from 75,000 to 250,000 at a cost of $5.7 billion. Lurking behind the feel-good rhetoric spouted by the measure’s advocates is a bill that on closer inspection reveals multiple provisions that together create a strong odor of creepy authoritarianism. The House passed the measure overwhelmingly, while only 14 senators had the sense and courage to vote against it on a key procedural motion. Every legislator who either voted for this bill or didn’t vote at all has some serious explaining to do.

…It anticipates the possibility of requiring “all individuals in the United States” to perform such service – including elementary school students. The bill also summons up unsettling memories of World War II-era paramilitary groups by saying the new program should “combine the best practices of civilian service with the best aspects of military service,” while establishing “campuses” that serve as “operational headquarters,” complete with “superintendents” and “uniforms” for all participants. It allows for the elimination of all age restrictions in order to involve Americans at all stages of life. And it calls for creation of “a permanent cadre” in a “National Community Civilian Corps.”

But that’s not all. The bill also calls for “youth engagement zones” in which “service learning” is “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.” This updated form of voluntary community service is also to be “integrated into the science, technology, engineering and mathematics curricula” at all levels of schooling. Sounds like a government curriculum for government approved “service learning,” which is nothing less than indoctrination. Now, ask yourself if congressmen who voted for this monstrosity had a clue what they were voting for. If not, they’re guilty of dereliction of duty. If yes, the implications are truly frightening.

Some further analysis of the mark-up and amendments to the bill as it slimed its way through the House was posted at the E3 Gazette, with linkages to the specific changes made as the Donk Congs and others unitedly shat it into existence:

HR 1388…is “Arbeit Macht Frei” too strong?

Check out the links on this one…read and weep!

SOUTH DAKOTA UPDATE NOTE:
Sen. John Thune was one of (sadly) only 14 Republicans who voted against this.
Donkey Party Rep.Stephanie Sandlin, and Senator Tim Johnson supported it.

Constitution Watch

B.O. Moves to Tighten the Ratchet of Power

U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president’s Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.[Emphasis added]

B.O. and company are nothing if not consistent. The overarching theme of the administration thus far has been an unrelenting series of policies and edicts aimed at increasing the arbitrary power of the executive at the expense of anyone or anything that could possibly get in their way, and to hell with the trivialities of observing the Constitution.

What adds the true touch of surrealistic quality is the accompaniment of B.O.’s best Alfred E. Neuman “What, me worry?” grin, and giggles while being interviewed on 60 Minutes (among other venues), about the continuing monetary soap opera.

Unfortunately, the joke’s on us, since we’ll get to pay for it all, one way or another.

Constitution Watch

See Ya In the “Re-education” Camp!

‘Fusion Centers’ Expand Criteria to Identify Militia Members
Do you like Ron Paul or oppose abortion? You may be a member of a militia, according to a new report by a government information collection agency.

If you’re an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican member of Congress, if you possess subversive(sic) literature, you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group.

That’s according to “The Modern Militia Movement,” a report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a government collective that identifies the warning signs of potential domestic terrorists for law enforcement communities.

“Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created,” the Feb. 20 report reads. “Unemployment rates are high, as well as costs of living expenses. Additionally, President Elect Barrack [sic] Obama is seen as tight on gun control and many extremists fear that he will enact firearms confiscations.”

This is so chilling that even the ACLU has responded with shock. It is effectively setting up rules of law-enforcement engagement that issue a license to at least harass political opposition to the ascension of the B.O. regime.

By the way, although the scary implementation is taking place with the B.O. administration, the legal framework that established the opportunity for this abuse goes back to the pseudo Conservative Bush presidency.

A curse on both parties’ houses in this case!

Dang! Wonder where I can get a Ron Paul sticker?

Constitution Watch

Congress: “We don’t need no steenkin’ Constitution!”

House passes bill taxing fat AIG and other bonuses

Denouncing a “squandering of the people’s money,” lawmakers voted decisively Thursday to impose a 90 percent tax on millions of dollars in employee bonuses paid by troubled insurance giant AIG and other bailed-out companies.

In some cases the bonuses might be taxed 100 percent leaving the recipients with nothing.

So, what’s wrong with this picture?

From TechLawJournal.com

Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.

“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply – trial by legislature.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. … The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

The Constitutional standard is clear…what’s not understandible to the Chief is the brazen disregard of that standard by a majority of the legislative lawmakers lawbreakers.

The House, and (probably soon the Senate) has pretty effectively demonstrated either their total ignorance of the Constitution (that they are allegedly sworn to uphold) or their total lack of concern for it’s provisions in the midst of their overwhelming desire to indulge in a legislative tantrum to impress the voters that they’re looking out for the little guy. The Chief isn’t sure which, if either of these, is worse than the other.  Either one is a poor commentary on the current state of our national legislooters.

Hey, I don’t like the bonus deal either…but let’s be real about this: if we really want to punish those evil executives – LET THEIR COMPANIES GO BANKRUPT! If the government didn’t give out the bailout money to start with, this whole situation would be non-existent. THAT would be a market system at work, not the fascistic pattern of government-corporate incestuous politics, favors, special interests, insider deals, etc. that has evolved over the last century

This is NOT a partisan issue. Many GOP’ers are just as bad as a lot of the Donkey Party denizens. On the other hand, there are some on both sides of the aisle (not enough these days!) that are still capable of reading the Constitution.

The Chief sends kudos to those who are still trying to uphold the Constitution, and would invoke the curses of heaven and hell upon the heads of the others.

F.E.T.E.

Constitution Watch

DC Vote in Trouble

Marvel of marvels! This is apparently such a flagrant violation of the pesky language of the Constitution that apparently even the Donks (at least some of them) can’t swallow it.

Democrats Pull D.C. Voting Rights Act

The patently unconstitutional bill to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House of Representatives was pulled off the House calendar because — according to one House Republican leadership source — they feared that the so-called Blue Dog Democrats would not support it.

The bill was patently unconstitutional because under Article 1, Section 2, only states have representatives, and D.C. isn’t a state. (That idea is reinforced by the XXIII Amendment, under which D.C. voters are allowed to vote in presidential elections, and thus appoint electors to the Electoral College, “…equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State….”)

The Blue Dogs, a group of supposedly conservative Dems who have usually marched to Speaker Pelosi’s drum, were fearful that the National Rifle Association would “score” — i.e., use the vote to determine its annual rating of gun-friendly (and unfriendly) members the vote on the rule to bring the matter to the House floor.

That same source told HUMAN EVENTS that the rule would have precluded consideration of an amendment — similar to that approved in the Senate last week — to preserve D.C. residents’ gun rights.

The gun rights aspect of this makes the whole situation even sweeter. Looks like Queen SanFran Nan soesn;t have quite the hold she thought she did over all things on the Donk side of the House.