https://www.amazon.com/Scalia-Speaks-Reflections-Faith-Lived/dp/0525573321/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1515721705&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=scalia+speaks&psc=1
If you care about ever returning to America, just want to understand why America was exceptional, have even a passing interest in the SCOTUS, or simply want to have a glimpse of a truly great man, read this book!
If you are or were a Christian, or simply know some of them, read "The Christian As Cretin" starting on page 107 ... his purpose "It has been my purpose to impart, to those already wise in Christ, the courage to have their wisdom reguarded as stupidity". He succeeded!
He makes the point expertly in a number of places that unless the written Constitution of the old United States is taken as a FIXED DOCUMENT that means what it was meant to mean when it was written, then we may as well have no Constitution at all! As he puts it on page 188; "Originalists believe that the provisions of the Constitution have a fixed meaning, which does not change: they mean today what they meant when they were adopted, nothing more and nothing less".
He makes the obvious point on page 153 that in 1920 when the 19th Amendment was ratified giving women the vote, everyone understood that adding such a new right REQUIRED a Constitutional Amendment, and so it was amended. "The Americans of 1920 understood what the Americans of 1992 seemingly do not, that the vague provisions of the Constituiton, such as the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause, are not invitations to constitutionalize our current desires from age to age, but rather bear a constant meaing that that accords with the meaning of those terms when they were adopted".
It is that fixed meaning, and the separation of powers architected by it that allowed the enumerated rights to be maintained in the old US until the Warren Court. Scalia shows a number of enumerated "rights" from the Constitution of the old USSR -- not worth the paper they were printed on because the architecture of the government of the USSR did nothing to protect them!
On page 337, he states what I have tried to state a number of times far more eloquently than I could ever hope to do: "The issue is not wether there should be provision for the poor, but rather the degree to which that provision should be made through the coercive power of the state. Christ said after all, that you should give your goods to the poor, not that you should force someone else to give his".
Readers of this blog have heard me harp on all the things that Scalia elucidates with far more skill than I can ever muster ... the critical importance of faith, the fact that our founders (even Jefferson) wanted a government that favored religion over irreligion! As he says on page 71 "What I am saying is that it is contrary to our founding principles to inisist that government be hostile to religion, or even to insist (as my court, alas, has done in word though not in deed) that government cannot favor religion over irreligion. It is not a matter of believing that God exists (though personally I believe that); it is a matter of believing, as our Founders did, that belief is very conducive to a successful republic."
There is no reason for me to keep talking here -- anyone that wants some rememberance of America to be recovered from BOistan -- even if it is just a remnant to teach to future generations, needs to read this book. It is witty, wise, and very important. It is ALSO entertaining, and HOPEFUL ... Scalia's friendship with Justice Ginsburg is a model of how things ought operate in a nation which held many things much more sacred than politics!
Thanks be to God for allowing Judge Scalia to sit on the Supreme Court! Our loss is clearly Heaven's gain!
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Thursday, January 11, 2018
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Screaming Against Speech
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446995/ann-coulter-berkeley-speech-howard-dean-dubious-legal-argument-fighting-words?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Trending%20Email%20Reoccurring-%20Monday%20to%20Thursday%202017-04-24&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
Good old "Scream Dean" is back saying that conservative speech ought to be banned. How wonderful it is of him to call out conservatives for saying what they want to say. "The Right loves to be able to say anything they like, no matter how offensive it is."
True, and so does the left -- the difference is that as in the case of offensive art and some of the things taught in public schools, the left believes that those that disagree ought to also have to pay for their speech (arts endowments), or be forced to listen to it as in the joys of gay sex for school children.
While the right has issues paying for the left's speech, or with the left forcing it into the public square, especially on minors, the left represented by Dean believes that speech the left doesn't like can be censored from being ALLOWED to be VOLUNTARILY viewed at a public institution.
Naturally, the legal precedent he quotes is as daffy as Dean himself and Geraghty covers that well in the article. Screamer would have us believe that burning a flag in the pubic square is Constitutionally protected speech, but a skinny blond woman talking in an auditorium where you can decide to attend or not attend is Constitutionally phrohibited because he doesn't like what she has to say.
Good old "Scream Dean" is back saying that conservative speech ought to be banned. How wonderful it is of him to call out conservatives for saying what they want to say. "The Right loves to be able to say anything they like, no matter how offensive it is."
True, and so does the left -- the difference is that as in the case of offensive art and some of the things taught in public schools, the left believes that those that disagree ought to also have to pay for their speech (arts endowments), or be forced to listen to it as in the joys of gay sex for school children.
While the right has issues paying for the left's speech, or with the left forcing it into the public square, especially on minors, the left represented by Dean believes that speech the left doesn't like can be censored from being ALLOWED to be VOLUNTARILY viewed at a public institution.
Naturally, the legal precedent he quotes is as daffy as Dean himself and Geraghty covers that well in the article. Screamer would have us believe that burning a flag in the pubic square is Constitutionally protected speech, but a skinny blond woman talking in an auditorium where you can decide to attend or not attend is Constitutionally phrohibited because he doesn't like what she has to say.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Trump and The Johnson Amendment
When Trump says he wants to expand religious freedom, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about - The Washington Post:
I got to listen to Mr Trump a bit on NPR the other day, a RARE opportunity to hear anything other than the specific soundbite they have selected in their unbiased fashion to BEST represent him! You KNOW you can trust NPR, they are funded by taxes and they are a 501c3 organization, meaning that they NEVER either endorse or oppose anything political!
Trump discussed removing "The Johnson Amendment" which I had never heard of, so here it is:
Here is some detail on the Johnson Amendment including why it is so good -- because it applies EQUALLY to those secular organizations and the religious ones.
"The Party" (TP-D) understands this relative to "justice" and "the law" as well. "The Johnson Amendment" (TJA) applies to exactly whom TP decides it applies to! You holding your breath for the Sierra Club or NPR to be prosecuted? I hope not, it isn't going to happen! Did you pay any attention to how the laws of the land were applied to Hildebeast? The only "law" remaining in this land is TP save for the armed populace.
That was why our founders declared in the first amendment that congress SHALL NOT pass ANY law abridging the rights of religion and speech. The IRS is one big hammer for TP punish their enemies and reward their friends. Our founders realized that government was INHERENTLY corrupt, so they wanted to LIMIT it -- that is why you see things like NO LAW and SHALL NOT!
So we have exercises in insanity like this from the WaPo linked at the top.
Did you REALLY need to see Hildebeast "cleared" explicitly because she WAS Hildebeast to realize that there is no "blind lady justice with scales" in this country? The Democratic Party (TP) **IS** the "law", and things like TJA are how they enforce it upon who they wish and fail to enforce it where they don't
My fervent hope is that Trump will KEEP TALKING -- each and every day I realize more and more of just how TP managed to destroy America and create BOistan.
I have no idea if it is remotely possible to resurrect America, but let's at least put some lights on the walls and prison guards of BOistan!
I got to listen to Mr Trump a bit on NPR the other day, a RARE opportunity to hear anything other than the specific soundbite they have selected in their unbiased fashion to BEST represent him! You KNOW you can trust NPR, they are funded by taxes and they are a 501c3 organization, meaning that they NEVER either endorse or oppose anything political!
Trump discussed removing "The Johnson Amendment" which I had never heard of, so here it is:
"in order to keep its 501(c)(3) status, a charitable organization may "not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."Simple. Churches are under exactly the same rules as NPR which is not only a 501c3, but tax funded (so even more rigorously restricted!) Universities are under exactly the same rule -- the Sierra Club is a 501c3 which makes no endorsements -- only here is their web page endorsing Hillary Clinton
Here is some detail on the Johnson Amendment including why it is so good -- because it applies EQUALLY to those secular organizations and the religious ones.
... the Johnson Amendment applies equally to religious and non-religious organizations. Secular universities and animal shelters, no less than churches, will lose their special tax status if they specifically endorse or oppose political candidates.Stalin stated the obvious relative to voting -- it is meaningless, what is important is the COUNTING, who counts the votes?
"The Party" (TP-D) understands this relative to "justice" and "the law" as well. "The Johnson Amendment" (TJA) applies to exactly whom TP decides it applies to! You holding your breath for the Sierra Club or NPR to be prosecuted? I hope not, it isn't going to happen! Did you pay any attention to how the laws of the land were applied to Hildebeast? The only "law" remaining in this land is TP save for the armed populace.
That was why our founders declared in the first amendment that congress SHALL NOT pass ANY law abridging the rights of religion and speech. The IRS is one big hammer for TP punish their enemies and reward their friends. Our founders realized that government was INHERENTLY corrupt, so they wanted to LIMIT it -- that is why you see things like NO LAW and SHALL NOT!
So we have exercises in insanity like this from the WaPo linked at the top.
... Article VI leaves no room for misunderstanding: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Anyone who cannot abide that standard has no business swearing to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution itself (Article II).So deciding that Evangelical churches ACTUALLY ought to be treated like NPR, universities, the Sierra Club, Black Churches, etc, etc is a "religious test for qualification for office"??? Hello? See, TRUMP doesn't "know what he is talking about"! Why can't organizations be tax exempt merely because they are not PROFIT MAKING? It seems to be working pretty darned well for NPR, all the major universities and all the black churches who can say any damned thing they want as long as it passes the muster of TP!
Did you REALLY need to see Hildebeast "cleared" explicitly because she WAS Hildebeast to realize that there is no "blind lady justice with scales" in this country? The Democratic Party (TP) **IS** the "law", and things like TJA are how they enforce it upon who they wish and fail to enforce it where they don't
My fervent hope is that Trump will KEEP TALKING -- each and every day I realize more and more of just how TP managed to destroy America and create BOistan.
I have no idea if it is remotely possible to resurrect America, but let's at least put some lights on the walls and prison guards of BOistan!
Monday, May 16, 2016
Congress, Not BO, Shall Appropriate
http://www.wsj.com/articles/vindicating-congresss-power-of-the-purse-1463094840
The link to the article might not work for you. The WSJ puts a code in the link so that it is a one-time access -- at least for me. When that happens however, just Google "Vindicating Congress Purse" or some such and you will get access through google for at least one read.
When I get behind on my blogging I put draft entries out that sit for awhile sometimes -- this ruling was in early May and it has NOT gotten much in the way of reporting. It is a SIGNIFICANT setback for BO, or would be if he wasn't above the law, because it says that if Congress does not appropriate money for BOcare he can't spend it -- which is what the Constitution has ALWAYS said, but is yet another place in which BO has explicitly broken his oath to support the Constitution.
"The Party" (TP-D) was 100% certain back then of "Constitutional limitations on executive power", and how CRITICAL it was to STRONGLY enforce such things against Reagan, up to and including IMPEACHMENT for transfer of money that may have been in violation of the "Boland Amendment", an attempt by a Democratic Congress to limit Reagan that they repealed before it could be tested in the SCOTUS for Constitutionality. (the President can't spend money not appropriated, but can Congress explicitly control his FOREIGN policy via controlling even "off budget" spending? It gets into things like CIA, espionage, secret programs, etc -- before you say "we don't need them", consider the "Manhattan Project" which built the bomb ...
Strangely, BO smells differently to TP and it's media propaganda arm. In the Reagan days, the House of Representatives was POWERFUL. The head of the House Ways and Means committee, Dan Rostenkowski , was one of the best known names and most powerful men in Washington until he went to prison -- like many Illinois politicians. Can you even tell me the chairman of Ways and Means? It's Kevin Brady -- I didn't know and you didn't know. The MSM doesn't talk about them because the Constitutional power of the purse no longer resides there -- it resides with BO!
Do you have any idea what the deficit is projected to be in 2016? I didn't, so I did a Google -- the MOST striking thing is how VERY few articles show up on the deficit. During the Reagan years and the W years, the deficit was one of the biggest stories going! EVERYONE knew how the "failed policies" of Reagan and Bush caused high deficits, which were VERY bad! It's supposed to be $544 B, up $104B from last year. Nobody cares!
The media is very strange on deficits, CONGRESS controls the power of the purse! Clinton gets credit for all the deficit cutting that Gingrich did, and Newt is blamed for being mean and nasty for cutting the budget. Similarly, W gets the blame for the rapid rise in budget deficits after the D's took over Congress in '06, yet once the deficits when over $1T and even to $1.6T in 2010, the deficit story simply disappears! The media however LOVES to call '09 the "Bush budget", with Nancy Pelosi running the house and Harry Reid the Senate, plus BO adding $900B of pork in March of '09 -- but hey, that is a BUSH budget!
The highest actual W budget was $413B in '04 -- when the same party is in the WH and Congress, THEN it is FINE to blame the President. The R's took back the house in 2010, and by 2013 the deficit had dropped from the $1.6T in 2010 to $679B in 2013 -- and although we no longer heard about the deficit, we DID hear about how MEAN the Republicans were!
Up until BO started spending money on BOcare unconstitutionally, CONGRESS did ALL the appropriations! Now, since we no longer follow the Constitution, such a breach as BO has committed for BOcare subsidies is barely news, but at one time during Iran - Contra it was headlines news every day!
We live in a media echo chamber and we are fed what the media wants to feed us -- all of us, me too. Sure, I run across these things and blog on them, but it is humanly impossible to not be affected by the mass of people and our day to day interactions. TP has got us under their spell -- all of us, and unless there is a miracle of some sort of a "movement", "revival", etc, we will continue to fall prey to "well, this is just the way it is".
The link to the article might not work for you. The WSJ puts a code in the link so that it is a one-time access -- at least for me. When that happens however, just Google "Vindicating Congress Purse" or some such and you will get access through google for at least one read.
When I get behind on my blogging I put draft entries out that sit for awhile sometimes -- this ruling was in early May and it has NOT gotten much in the way of reporting. It is a SIGNIFICANT setback for BO, or would be if he wasn't above the law, because it says that if Congress does not appropriate money for BOcare he can't spend it -- which is what the Constitution has ALWAYS said, but is yet another place in which BO has explicitly broken his oath to support the Constitution.
Judge Collyer takes 38 pages to eviscerate the Administration’s claim that it can infer an appropriation if Congress has merely authorized a program. Congress authorizes all sorts of programs without spending money on them in one year or another. Presidents before Mr. Obama have understood that no money can be spent without an express appropriation.This brings us to the Iran Contra debacle. The LEGAL issue at stake, and the one that TP was certain would have been impeachable had they been able to prove it, was if Reagan directed the funding of the Contras in Nicaragua when Congress had not appropriated funds -- and if Congress could control the executive movement of monies that were not directly appropriated, but in this case "black", as they came from the sale of arms to the Iranians.
"The Party" (TP-D) was 100% certain back then of "Constitutional limitations on executive power", and how CRITICAL it was to STRONGLY enforce such things against Reagan, up to and including IMPEACHMENT for transfer of money that may have been in violation of the "Boland Amendment", an attempt by a Democratic Congress to limit Reagan that they repealed before it could be tested in the SCOTUS for Constitutionality. (the President can't spend money not appropriated, but can Congress explicitly control his FOREIGN policy via controlling even "off budget" spending? It gets into things like CIA, espionage, secret programs, etc -- before you say "we don't need them", consider the "Manhattan Project" which built the bomb ...
Strangely, BO smells differently to TP and it's media propaganda arm. In the Reagan days, the House of Representatives was POWERFUL. The head of the House Ways and Means committee, Dan Rostenkowski , was one of the best known names and most powerful men in Washington until he went to prison -- like many Illinois politicians. Can you even tell me the chairman of Ways and Means? It's Kevin Brady -- I didn't know and you didn't know. The MSM doesn't talk about them because the Constitutional power of the purse no longer resides there -- it resides with BO!
Do you have any idea what the deficit is projected to be in 2016? I didn't, so I did a Google -- the MOST striking thing is how VERY few articles show up on the deficit. During the Reagan years and the W years, the deficit was one of the biggest stories going! EVERYONE knew how the "failed policies" of Reagan and Bush caused high deficits, which were VERY bad! It's supposed to be $544 B, up $104B from last year. Nobody cares!
The media is very strange on deficits, CONGRESS controls the power of the purse! Clinton gets credit for all the deficit cutting that Gingrich did, and Newt is blamed for being mean and nasty for cutting the budget. Similarly, W gets the blame for the rapid rise in budget deficits after the D's took over Congress in '06, yet once the deficits when over $1T and even to $1.6T in 2010, the deficit story simply disappears! The media however LOVES to call '09 the "Bush budget", with Nancy Pelosi running the house and Harry Reid the Senate, plus BO adding $900B of pork in March of '09 -- but hey, that is a BUSH budget!
The highest actual W budget was $413B in '04 -- when the same party is in the WH and Congress, THEN it is FINE to blame the President. The R's took back the house in 2010, and by 2013 the deficit had dropped from the $1.6T in 2010 to $679B in 2013 -- and although we no longer heard about the deficit, we DID hear about how MEAN the Republicans were!
Up until BO started spending money on BOcare unconstitutionally, CONGRESS did ALL the appropriations! Now, since we no longer follow the Constitution, such a breach as BO has committed for BOcare subsidies is barely news, but at one time during Iran - Contra it was headlines news every day!
We live in a media echo chamber and we are fed what the media wants to feed us -- all of us, me too. Sure, I run across these things and blog on them, but it is humanly impossible to not be affected by the mass of people and our day to day interactions. TP has got us under their spell -- all of us, and unless there is a miracle of some sort of a "movement", "revival", etc, we will continue to fall prey to "well, this is just the way it is".
Sunday, April 17, 2016
YOU LIE! The Take Care Clause
My guess is that if Scalia was still alive, we would all understand the "Take Care Clause" in the Constitution by the end of the summer. As it is, it most likely will be a 4 to 4 to forget about clarifying why we used to have a Democratic Republic, but now have something closer to an actual Monarchy like the one we once rebelled against.
The BO reign is loaded with examples of explicitly NOT enforcing MANY laws, with immigration just being one example. Marijuana? I'm ALL in favor of making MANY of our federal laws into state laws -- drugs, abortion, gay "marriage", gender in bathrooms, etc, but NOT "who is a citizen of the US"! But as is usually case, BO goes even father than KINGS have for a good long while.
"The Take Care Clause, found in Article II of the Constitution, the Executive Power Article, is comprised of only nine words: the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” But an understanding of those nine words requires an appreciation of their roots in English history. Like many other structural features of the United States Constitution, the Take Care Clause derives from the long struggle between Parliament and the Crown over the extent of “prerogative powers”—that is, the monarch’s asserted powers to create laws or otherwise to act unilaterally."
Things came to a head in 1215 at Runnymede. Faced with armed insurrection, John agreed to The Great Charter, which established the principle that the king is not a law unto himself; even the king must act through settled law to bind his subjects.So what BO now declares is his power to be MORE THAN A KING! Cannot ALL AMERICANS agree that if the next president is a Hillary, Trump or Cruz we DO NOT want them to be more than a king?
The President was correct in October 2010 when he recognized that only Congress can lawfully effectuate DAPA. As he said then: “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.” Indeed, even James II could not do these things by himself. The Framers adopted the Take Care Clause to ensure that the executive in this republic is likewise forbidden to make law unilaterally. That is why the duty to “take care” means so much.How many times did we hear "Bush lied people died?". In the MSM, we NEVER hear that BO lies -- though he does of course, constantly and in our faces. One primary example was at a SOTU when he lied to our faces and said that BOcare "would not apply to those that are here illegally" -- which of course is EXACTLY what BO's DAPA order enables.
Read the linked article and then decide if you believe BO or the heckler was being truthful!
Sunday, March 06, 2016
John Adams, Our Constitution
I have been devoting a good deal of time to making the 3,500+ blog posts more accessible to ME if nothing else.
Some fine day I shall write a bit on my "schemes" ... one example is using the label "AAAA" for what are either highly popular, or I believe to be critical posts for developing a transcendent world view, rooted in revelation, history, science and tradition, while remaining cognizant and sympathetic to our fallen human nature, and the needs of our fragile selves in this mortal coil.
This quote from Adams is one which I return to frequently in the present dark times.
Included here in text so I may clip it, and in a graphic form for inclusion in a more eye catching form.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (John Adams)
Some fine day I shall write a bit on my "schemes" ... one example is using the label "AAAA" for what are either highly popular, or I believe to be critical posts for developing a transcendent world view, rooted in revelation, history, science and tradition, while remaining cognizant and sympathetic to our fallen human nature, and the needs of our fragile selves in this mortal coil.
This quote from Adams is one which I return to frequently in the present dark times.
Included here in text so I may clip it, and in a graphic form for inclusion in a more eye catching form.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (John Adams)
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
BO, Shit From Shinola
Obama’s shinola | Power Line:
It's never been very clear what BO actually knows when he is off a teleprompter, but he is certainly convinced that the rest of the country's intelligence level would make "The Jerk" look like a genius in comparison.
Oh, yes, there are ALL SORTS of good reasons why BO voting for a filibuster as a Senator was not "divisive", "partisan", "obstructionist", etc. He just couldn't come up when asked without a teleprompter feed!
Hey, it was "THE PARTY (D)" doing the filibuster! Those are the GOOD GUYS!
As the article says, this act is WAY past old!
'via Blog this'
It's never been very clear what BO actually knows when he is off a teleprompter, but he is certainly convinced that the rest of the country's intelligence level would make "The Jerk" look like a genius in comparison.
Oh, yes, there are ALL SORTS of good reasons why BO voting for a filibuster as a Senator was not "divisive", "partisan", "obstructionist", etc. He just couldn't come up when asked without a teleprompter feed!
Hey, it was "THE PARTY (D)" doing the filibuster! Those are the GOOD GUYS!
But this is the Supreme Court. And it’s going to get some attention. And we have to ask ourselves as a society a fundamental question: Are we able to still make this democracy work the way it’s supposed to, the way our Founders envisioned it? And I would challenge anyone who purports to be adhering to the original intent of the Founders, anybody who believes in the Constitution, coming up with a plausible rationale as to why they would not even have a hearing for a nominee made in accordance with the Constitution by the President of the United States ,,,Ah yes, Mr "Constitution"! Let the EPA make and enforce laws over the objections of congress, shove through healthcare "reform" as a "tax", decree your own immigration policy by executive order and use the IRS to attack the Tea Party. I'm sure I'm missing some -- besides, the BO Court itself treats the Constitution as used toilet paper already!
As the article says, this act is WAY past old!
'via Blog this'
Sunday, December 06, 2015
No Right Is Safe, Or Real, "Privacy Clause"
The NY Times is all for extensive regulation of one enumerated right in the Constitution, the Second Amendment.
Abortion is a "right" that is not found in any wording in the Constitution at all -- "peculiar" or otherwise. It is said to be based on "the privacy clause" of the 14th Amendment, but alas, "privacy" is not mentioned there either. You can link off to a few pages of legalese here that define which batwing and eye of newt was thrown into the conjuring pot to find "privacy", but it real base is in the "penumbra" of the Constitution -- meaning "rights that can be inferred".
To put it in common terms -- rights that are not present in the Constitution, so they were MADE UP to suit liberal justices!
If we were reasonably law-abiding people that understood the logical and rational requirements of freedom, we would have had a Constitutional Amendment to attempt to define ACTUAL RIGHTS -- like "privacy", or "abortion", or "gay "marriage"". If they passed, we could point to what those new rights included -- and did NOT include. But we are no longer that kind of people.
In fact, we are a people so supremely inconsistent that a paper like the NY Times can do a column like this relative to the 2nd Amendment, while at the same time holding the position that no state may regulate abortion in any manner at all, and in fact, it may not even restrict FUNDING of abortion! (The fact there is a 2nd Amendment would require that you pay for my guns if the 2nd was treated like abortion!)
They can favor the killing of 60 million babies for mere convenience, yet claim that those that believe in law, reason and consistency, lack "decency" -- which after law, reason and consistency have been removed is merely "power", "popularity", or "mob rule".
The NY Times, BO and "The Party" DEFINITELY want to IMPOSE THEIR WILL, and the 2nd Amendment is an obstacle in their way.
As is covered extremely well in the video of this post, OUR MURDER PROBLEM IS CULTURAL, and it was created post 1960!!!
If you factor out our large violent cities, our murder rate is like SWITZERLAND! Our large cities have 3rd world murder rates, and our little Plano Texas like towns have murder rates like Switzerland. What is more, our crime rate precipitously went up, then down, now up again since the 1960s, and as the NY Times laments, our GUN POLICIES DIDN'T SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE!
We broke the murder rate, we can fix it, but the big problem is that what broke it is "The Party", and they have no desire that people realize that, let alone that they change their policies to save lives -- if they did, we would never have had Roe v Wade, nor the government programs that encourage single female head of household, and consign young black males to shooting each other in the streets.
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.A nation where there is such a thing as law must bow to reason if it is not to descend into violence, and reason requires CONSISTENCY, something certainly flown from our nation's discourse. How would the NY Times react to their own statement if you put "abortion" rather than "guns" in as that "no right"?
Abortion is a "right" that is not found in any wording in the Constitution at all -- "peculiar" or otherwise. It is said to be based on "the privacy clause" of the 14th Amendment, but alas, "privacy" is not mentioned there either. You can link off to a few pages of legalese here that define which batwing and eye of newt was thrown into the conjuring pot to find "privacy", but it real base is in the "penumbra" of the Constitution -- meaning "rights that can be inferred".
To put it in common terms -- rights that are not present in the Constitution, so they were MADE UP to suit liberal justices!
If we were reasonably law-abiding people that understood the logical and rational requirements of freedom, we would have had a Constitutional Amendment to attempt to define ACTUAL RIGHTS -- like "privacy", or "abortion", or "gay "marriage"". If they passed, we could point to what those new rights included -- and did NOT include. But we are no longer that kind of people.
In fact, we are a people so supremely inconsistent that a paper like the NY Times can do a column like this relative to the 2nd Amendment, while at the same time holding the position that no state may regulate abortion in any manner at all, and in fact, it may not even restrict FUNDING of abortion! (The fact there is a 2nd Amendment would require that you pay for my guns if the 2nd was treated like abortion!)
They can favor the killing of 60 million babies for mere convenience, yet claim that those that believe in law, reason and consistency, lack "decency" -- which after law, reason and consistency have been removed is merely "power", "popularity", or "mob rule".
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.As Nietzsche stated so well, once God is gone, "decency" is only a matter of WILL! Whomever can impose their will can define "decency".
What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?
The NY Times, BO and "The Party" DEFINITELY want to IMPOSE THEIR WILL, and the 2nd Amendment is an obstacle in their way.
As is covered extremely well in the video of this post, OUR MURDER PROBLEM IS CULTURAL, and it was created post 1960!!!
If you factor out our large violent cities, our murder rate is like SWITZERLAND! Our large cities have 3rd world murder rates, and our little Plano Texas like towns have murder rates like Switzerland. What is more, our crime rate precipitously went up, then down, now up again since the 1960s, and as the NY Times laments, our GUN POLICIES DIDN'T SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE!
We broke the murder rate, we can fix it, but the big problem is that what broke it is "The Party", and they have no desire that people realize that, let alone that they change their policies to save lives -- if they did, we would never have had Roe v Wade, nor the government programs that encourage single female head of household, and consign young black males to shooting each other in the streets.
Monday, September 14, 2015
CC Vs Gay "Marriage", Water and Granite
D.C. Chief of Police Won’t Issue Concealed Carry Permits… So, Why Isn’t SHE Thrown in Jail? | The PolitiStick:
The left wears away the rule of law like water wears away granite.
For YEARS we have been seeing the 2nd Amendment infringed on by government officials at all levels with no outcry from the left dominated media at all. In fact, officials who refuse to follow the LEGAL opinions of the court are treated as HEROES! I say "legal" because in Heller, the SCOTUS by a thin 5-4 margin merely upheld the plain language of the Constitution, in Obergefell vs Hodges (gay "marriage" ruling), the SCOTUS found an entirely new "right" to gay "marriage" in a Constitution that doesn't even mention marriage at all!
Creating a legal right to gay "marriage", or changing the clear text of the Constitution require Constitutional Amendments in a nation ruled by law. That is not the nation we live in.
In Heller the court merely ruled that the 2nd amendment says what everyone knew it said for 200 years. If the 2nd amendment was to actually be amended to say that "Only citizens in the US Armed Forces or official police forces may carry weapons" one could legally remove the arms from the citizenry and still have military and police forces with weapons. But if Heller had been found against the plain text of the Constitution, then any group that DID retain the right to bear arms would need special political authorization.
The OPTIMUM for the left is another SCOTUS decision overturning Heller that sets a precedent saying that citizens have no Constitutional right to bear arms, thus allowing differential treatment for "special groups" (military, police, government agencies, certain private security agencies .... ???) driven by political power.
The right wants EQUAL PROTECTION under LAW, the left wants CONTROLLED RESULTS under POLITICAL POWER because that allows them to dole out political favors which increases their political power. Our national arguments often come down to equality of opportunity and treatment under law applied to ALL, vs equality of results as mandated and determined by political POWER.
Law vs Power.
The idea of America was to radically reduce the power of politics -- allowing personal freedom, individual virtue, religion, individual work ethic, local organizations, business and entrepreneurship to thrive and create the greatest nation in the history of the world made up of individual free men. Naturally, the left, the power of tyranny, has hated the Constitution from the start -- so they attack it by all means possible, slow wearing constantly and nuclear strikes when possible.
If the left, already with very near complete control of the legal system which is no longer founded on a written Constitution can dole out the power of armament as it sees fit -- a future arm of "The Party" can issue a decree that "TP leaders in good standing can carry arms" -- but opposition would be unarmed of course. By this path a single party gains total control of a nation.
We live as boiled frogs in a TP / media thought controlled environment where MANY sheriffs / police chiefs / local bureaucrats have refused Concealed Carry permits -- a basic right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and further codified by state law. Here in MN, when the CC law passed, country and city officials finding ways to subvert the law were in very good standing with left wing media outlets like MPR.
"Consistency is not an issue" is one of the most powerful weapons of Lucifer and the left. The ability to deal in radically differential treatment depending on the issue and clouding the minds of people so they are unable to connect issues to see plain violation of any semblance of equal treatment under the law keeps the vast majority in a state of darkness.
We are still at the stage where "the truth is out there" -- it CAN be discovered, exposed, and understood, but it now takes HARD WORK. We have slipped to where this kind of reporting and writing becomes more and more rare -- when it is gone, the masses shuffle under the lash of tyrannical evil and wonder "How could this happen here?".
'via Blog this'
The left wears away the rule of law like water wears away granite.
For YEARS we have been seeing the 2nd Amendment infringed on by government officials at all levels with no outcry from the left dominated media at all. In fact, officials who refuse to follow the LEGAL opinions of the court are treated as HEROES! I say "legal" because in Heller, the SCOTUS by a thin 5-4 margin merely upheld the plain language of the Constitution, in Obergefell vs Hodges (gay "marriage" ruling), the SCOTUS found an entirely new "right" to gay "marriage" in a Constitution that doesn't even mention marriage at all!
Creating a legal right to gay "marriage", or changing the clear text of the Constitution require Constitutional Amendments in a nation ruled by law. That is not the nation we live in.
In Heller the court merely ruled that the 2nd amendment says what everyone knew it said for 200 years. If the 2nd amendment was to actually be amended to say that "Only citizens in the US Armed Forces or official police forces may carry weapons" one could legally remove the arms from the citizenry and still have military and police forces with weapons. But if Heller had been found against the plain text of the Constitution, then any group that DID retain the right to bear arms would need special political authorization.
The OPTIMUM for the left is another SCOTUS decision overturning Heller that sets a precedent saying that citizens have no Constitutional right to bear arms, thus allowing differential treatment for "special groups" (military, police, government agencies, certain private security agencies .... ???) driven by political power.
The right wants EQUAL PROTECTION under LAW, the left wants CONTROLLED RESULTS under POLITICAL POWER because that allows them to dole out political favors which increases their political power. Our national arguments often come down to equality of opportunity and treatment under law applied to ALL, vs equality of results as mandated and determined by political POWER.
Law vs Power.
The idea of America was to radically reduce the power of politics -- allowing personal freedom, individual virtue, religion, individual work ethic, local organizations, business and entrepreneurship to thrive and create the greatest nation in the history of the world made up of individual free men. Naturally, the left, the power of tyranny, has hated the Constitution from the start -- so they attack it by all means possible, slow wearing constantly and nuclear strikes when possible.
If the left, already with very near complete control of the legal system which is no longer founded on a written Constitution can dole out the power of armament as it sees fit -- a future arm of "The Party" can issue a decree that "TP leaders in good standing can carry arms" -- but opposition would be unarmed of course. By this path a single party gains total control of a nation.
We live as boiled frogs in a TP / media thought controlled environment where MANY sheriffs / police chiefs / local bureaucrats have refused Concealed Carry permits -- a basic right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and further codified by state law. Here in MN, when the CC law passed, country and city officials finding ways to subvert the law were in very good standing with left wing media outlets like MPR.
"Consistency is not an issue" is one of the most powerful weapons of Lucifer and the left. The ability to deal in radically differential treatment depending on the issue and clouding the minds of people so they are unable to connect issues to see plain violation of any semblance of equal treatment under the law keeps the vast majority in a state of darkness.
We are still at the stage where "the truth is out there" -- it CAN be discovered, exposed, and understood, but it now takes HARD WORK. We have slipped to where this kind of reporting and writing becomes more and more rare -- when it is gone, the masses shuffle under the lash of tyrannical evil and wonder "How could this happen here?".
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, September 09, 2015
Rule Of Used Toilet Paper
God vs. the Constitution in Kentucky - The New York Times:
When 5 people in robes with no authority at all (since they broke their vow to uphold the Constitution), took the formerly sacred document to the bathroom and used it to wipe their asses on Obergefell (gay "marriage"), the media and left wing applauded. The 5 judges ought to have been removed, and if any government employees were to go to jail, it ought to have been them. That would have been "rule of law" and the proper people being "under, rather than above it".
Now the media and TP --(The Party - D), but "Toilet Paper" is also a good moniker for them, feels the excrement stained piece of garbage with "Constitution" scrawled at the top ought to be "sacred" once more. As with a gay "marriage" ... "sacred" only to beelzebub!
We used to have rule of law. If the country that was America wanted to define a "right" to gay "marriage" it was very simple. Write a Constitutional Amendment, pass it through both houses with 2/3 majorities, then have 3/4 of the states ratify it. We used to understand that -- see 19th Amendment!
THEN, there would be a "Constitutional right" to gay "marriage". It would still be wrong -- because it is a crime against God and a crime against nature, but it would THEN be law!
The Kentucky clerk is not an appealing spokesperson -- which the media will naturally make the most of. She should resign her job since this is a regime that is fast making it impossible for Christians to work in its employ. The time when it is impossible for Christians to even live openly in the territory controlled by the lawless cabal is perilously close.
The next time you hear about the latest obstacle DC has put in the way of people that want to avail themselves of a firearm post Heller, or some other locality making it impossible for people to get Concealed Carry permits, think of how they treat Ms Davis vs those people! LAW either applies the TO ALL, or it isn't "law" unless you live in a totalitarian state rather than a Constitutional Republic ... hmmm, maybe we aren't paying attention?
What we "all live under" now is a fetid stew of tyranny consisting of mob rule, bureaucratic fiat, judicial whim and executive edict. We don't know the timetable or who will ultimately drive the random path to ruin -- dictator? populist mob? military? But it is very clear we have left the path of being a Constitutional Republic living under rule of law.
We seem rather ripe to be "Trumped" ... if not by Trump himself, by something.
When 5 people in robes with no authority at all (since they broke their vow to uphold the Constitution), took the formerly sacred document to the bathroom and used it to wipe their asses on Obergefell (gay "marriage"), the media and left wing applauded. The 5 judges ought to have been removed, and if any government employees were to go to jail, it ought to have been them. That would have been "rule of law" and the proper people being "under, rather than above it".
Now the media and TP --(The Party - D), but "Toilet Paper" is also a good moniker for them, feels the excrement stained piece of garbage with "Constitution" scrawled at the top ought to be "sacred" once more. As with a gay "marriage" ... "sacred" only to beelzebub!
But it’s worth repeating once again: No one is telling Ms. Davis what she may or may not believe, or how to live her own life in accord with the dictates of her conscience and her God. What they are saying is that as an employee and representative of the government, she lives under the law, not above it.Sorry, we have NO RULE OF LAW, only raw executive power, judicial conjuring and public opinion heavily influenced by noxious filth spewing orifices like the NY Times.
We used to have rule of law. If the country that was America wanted to define a "right" to gay "marriage" it was very simple. Write a Constitutional Amendment, pass it through both houses with 2/3 majorities, then have 3/4 of the states ratify it. We used to understand that -- see 19th Amendment!
THEN, there would be a "Constitutional right" to gay "marriage". It would still be wrong -- because it is a crime against God and a crime against nature, but it would THEN be law!
The Kentucky clerk is not an appealing spokesperson -- which the media will naturally make the most of. She should resign her job since this is a regime that is fast making it impossible for Christians to work in its employ. The time when it is impossible for Christians to even live openly in the territory controlled by the lawless cabal is perilously close.
The next time you hear about the latest obstacle DC has put in the way of people that want to avail themselves of a firearm post Heller, or some other locality making it impossible for people to get Concealed Carry permits, think of how they treat Ms Davis vs those people! LAW either applies the TO ALL, or it isn't "law" unless you live in a totalitarian state rather than a Constitutional Republic ... hmmm, maybe we aren't paying attention?
What we "all live under" now is a fetid stew of tyranny consisting of mob rule, bureaucratic fiat, judicial whim and executive edict. We don't know the timetable or who will ultimately drive the random path to ruin -- dictator? populist mob? military? But it is very clear we have left the path of being a Constitutional Republic living under rule of law.
We seem rather ripe to be "Trumped" ... if not by Trump himself, by something.
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
Thou Shalt Not Covet (Scalia)
In Conversation With Antonin Scalia -- New York Magazine:
The man is crazy intelligent and crazy direct. I shall not covet his gifts! (keep repeating)
It is long, but very very well worth the time. For me, his discussion on Heaven, Hell and the Devil is the best part. The reporter is shocked that an intelligent person would believe at all, let alone ADMIT that he believes. One of the benefits of lifetime appointment!
Other than that part, I loved this:
The man is crazy intelligent and crazy direct. I shall not covet his gifts! (keep repeating)
It is long, but very very well worth the time. For me, his discussion on Heaven, Hell and the Devil is the best part. The reporter is shocked that an intelligent person would believe at all, let alone ADMIT that he believes. One of the benefits of lifetime appointment!
Other than that part, I loved this:
Had you already arrived at originalism as a philosophy?
I don’t know when I came to that view. I’ve always had it, as far as I know. Words have meaning. And their meaning doesn’t change. I mean, the notion that the Constitution should simply, by decree of the Court, mean something that it didn’t mean when the people voted for it—frankly, you should ask the other side the question! How did they ever get there?Indeed, if words don't have meaning, why bother to write anything down?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)