About That Feddle Gummint “War on Drugs” Thingy

More and more my thinking on that quagmire, the so-called “War on Drugs,” gravitates in the direction articulated by Jerry Pournelle recently,

I am still looking for which Article [or] Amendment gives Congress this authority, or indeed the authority to outlaw any drug whatever. We know they can’t outlaw liquor, because they had to get the Eighteenth Amendment passed in order to implement the Volstead Act and implement Prohibition, and that Amendment was repealed. I once asked Speaker Gingrich which Article let them outlaw marijuana (federal prohibition; no one doubts that the States have that power). He couldn’t tell me, but “It’s all different now.”

Yeh, “It’s all different now,” meaning, “We don’t need no stinking Constitution”?

There’s an interesting post over at LinknZona that I’ll need a fresh infusion of my own drug of choice (coffee) to re-read, but I don’t recall anywhere in it seeing the fundamental legality of federal drug regulations entering into the discussion. It seems to me that Pournelle’s right: if we needed an amendment (since done away with) to declare ONE drug outlawed, where in the Constitution is the authority to outlaw a large number of different drugs?

Meanwhile, when are the feebies going to articulate an exit strategy from the War on Drugs?

An Argument for Going Slowly on Instituting New Legislation

Each new bill before Congress haqs the potential for expanding the bureaucracy to implement the bill and, Das Buros steht immer, that is, once a bureau or agency or arm of the “feddle gummint” is filled with bureaucraps, the shit just never seems to get hauled out (bureaucracies tend only to expand, not contract–or even disappear when the ostensible reason for their creation disappears).

That alone, it seems to me, is reason enough to proceed very, very slowly when about to create a whole new bureaucrappy, like that which would accompany “feddle gummint” illegal (unconstitutional) meddling in health care delivery.

Oh, and then there’s the whole enumerated powers thing that congresscritters seem to have (deliberately) swept under the rug. “Look over there. Don’t mind that Constitution thing we’ve hidden behind a curtain of bullshit.”

A Sidebar on the Constitution

While The 0! and his minions on both side of the Uniparty aisle continue their assault on the Constitution, I thought I might reveal choices for my Top Five Worst Presidents of All Time:

In order, from worst down, my top five are The 0!, Dhimmi Kahtah, Franklin Roosevelt, James Buchanan and… the president that resulted from Buchanan’s waffling and mishandling of the 10th Amendment issues before him, (dis)Honest Abe Lincoln.

Yes, you read me right. apart from the “winners-writing-history” aspects of Mr. Lincoln’s War” and all the Lincoln hagiography, there’s a ton of evidence that Lincoln’s quest for centralizing power in the federal government (a stated goal of his) was the first real success in bringing down the Founders’ views of a limited federal government with strictly enumerated powers, for the first time setting the U.S. firmly on the road toward the “feddle gummint” we have today. In fact, it’s popular among libtard Academia Nut Fruitcake scholars to celebrate Lincoln for his “rewriting” of the Constitution to enhance federal power in ways the Founders specifically eschewed. And it’s why folks who are aware of the damage done to the Founders’ Constitution sometimes quietly whisper, “The Constitution died at Appomattox,” though they are wrong of course; it didn’t die there. It was only dealt a mortal wound.

Can the Constitution be ressurected by a new generation of patriots influenced by The Founders’ wisdom? Maybe. But from what I saw and heard of the 9-12 rally, it doesn’t seem likely, because few there (or speaking, at least) seemed to have any clues as to the constitutionality–or lack thereof–of the issues that they addressed.

Remembering the Constitution

You know, that document that is supposedly the basis for all the “feddle gummint’s” meddling nowadays? The one that enumerates specific, limited powers for the Federal government of the States? The one largely ignored or twisted by our wonderful *spit* congresscritters, the judiciary and executive branches?

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

My recommendation would be to, on this day, the “birthday” of the Constitution, take some time out to simply READ it. Don’t pay any atention to dumbasses, liars and charlatans who say it’s written in archaic language that’s hard to understand (it isn’t, for anyone who’s moderately literate). That’s worse than the lame excuse the Medieval church gave for keeping common folk from reading the Bible, “It’s in Latin and you’re illiterate anyway, so just let us experts interpret it for you.” *feh* Academia Nut Fruitcakes, Mass MEdia Podpeople, politicians *spit* and the like would prefer you remain ignorant of its provisions so you’ll be unable to see when (every day) the establishment elite trample its protections for our liberties. Politicians especially don’t want you to really know what the Constitution says, because when you do it will lay bare the fact that approaching 100% (there are a very few holdouts) of congresscritters *spit* are in daily breach of their oaths of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Of course almost all congresscritters are in breach of their oaths; they ARE the primary enemies of the Constitution! Witness all the talk from BOTH sides of the Uniparty aisle about federal “reform” (takeover) of health care. Hint: there is NO enumerated power in the Constitution that would allow such a thing.

Read the Constitution for yourself and see: it’s true. The Federal government has no such power, legitimately, but that is not going to stop Congress from acting illegaly in this case any more than it has stopped Congress from enacting other laws it has no legitimate power to enact. Note in the Christian Science Monitor article linked above that,

Ironically, consumers today cannot freely buy health insurance from across state lines. If there’s any legitimate application of the “commerce” clause, it would be to overturn such restrictions. But the framers never gave Congress the general power to regulate industry.

“I have kept my oath; do you ever intend to keep yours?

The post title comes from a “townhall” meeting held with with U.S. Congressman Brian Baird.

In all the “health care reform” talk, I have yet to see or hear any citation of a constitutionally enumerated power that gives the “feddle gummint” any legitimate reason to be involved in such a thing. Sure, I’ve seen tortured, disingenuous or flat out lying citations of the commerce clause as justification, but nothing yet that has been at all persuasive to me. Of course, with well more than half the “feddle gummint” meddling in areas where it has no enumerated power to do so already, the challenge of the gentleman in the video I link below to “protect and defend the Constitution” resonates with me as I watch congresscritters violate their oaths of office on a quotidian basis.

http://media.causes.com/555066?p_id=60313119 (Sorry, no embedding link provided, and I haven’t dug into a way to download a facebook-only-embedded video.)

Ah, here it is from YouTube. Trust Woody to find it.

No, I am not despairing. Not as long as folks like the gentleman in the video can still speak. But Nancy “they’re un-American” Pelosi and her ilk seem to fully intend on completely gutting the First Amendment with the full cooperation of the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind.

A relevant aside: the folks at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute have a chilling presentation of American illiteracy on the subject of civics, as noted in a post below. The organization’s survey conclusions are no surprise to me or likely to any observant person with ev en rudimentary knowledge of American civics, but the information is nevertheless a disappointing confirmation of my private observations. One completeyl no-brainer observation:

“Of the 2,508 People surveyed, 164 say they have held an elected government office at least once in their life. Their average score on the civic literacy test is 44%, compared to 49% for those who have not held an elected office. Officeholders are less likely than other respondents to correctly answer 29 of the 33 test questions. This table shows the “knowledge gap” for each question: the difference between the percentage of common citizens who answered correctly and the percentage of officeholders who answered correctly.”

Just as with public school administrators, all the politicians I have ever personally known (save one U.S. Senator–and he was eventually corrupted by the political process–and one small town mayor) have been among the least qualified people for the positions they held.

I fear for the nation my grandchildren may have to live in as adults.

America’s Theme Song Under The 0!?

Bye-bye to America’s “romance” with a constitutional republic based on the rule of law…

Simon and Garfunkel did a good “Bye Bye” but for another take on the same piece, try The Everly Brothers version:

Either way, kiss the Founders’ dream goodbye while The 0! implements the CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY “for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis”.

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Now do you get the infamous Rahm Emanuel comment?

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

The 0! isn’t just not letting “a serious crisis to go to waste” but actively working to manufacture and exacerbate crisis after crisis. It’s all in the master (race) plan… By engaging both anarchy and tyranny, The 0! and his partners in crime (not all just Dhimmicraps; there are more than a few Repugnican’ts going along to get along–Juan Mexicain and Lindsay Graham are you listening? No, didn’t think so, you Repugnican’t creeps) are attempting to take the US inexorably down the road to a Marxist dictatorship of the politburo (I almost typed that “politburro”–a slip for which I’d have had to apologize to miniature asses everywhere).

For the Fourth of July

Just a reminder of one reason why the Founders established a republic, not a democracy:

“Democracy is the most vile form of government … democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”–James Madison, Often referred to in The Founders’ day as Father of the Constitution

And in speaking on how a republic differs from a democracy, Madison (in Federalist 10) makes an interesting observation, based on his own extensive knowledge of history,

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.

I rather think I know which effect Madison would observe in today’s “feddle gummint”–don’t you?

Pulling Some ACLU Razzle-Dazzle on the Left

The (in)Justice Department is trying to get a law firm and public interest group to stand down on its lawsuit claiming the AIG bailout violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.

…in December the Thomas More Law Center filed a constitutional challenge to that portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the federal government’s majority ownership in AIG. Spokesman Brian Rooney says his firm filed suit because AIG has a board that supervises insurance policies for Islamic customers so they will comply with Sharia law. That, says Rooney, violates the Establishment Clause.

The Thomas More Law Center isn’t backing down. Sauce for the goose. the ACLU (and various feddle gummint agencies through the years) have been steadily encroaching on the Free Exercise clause under the guise of enforcing the Establishment clause. Let’s see if stare decisis applies when the shoe is on the other foot.


Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

ConLaw 101

The first principle in understanding any document has to address, “What is the author attempting to communicate” What does the author understand his own words to mean?” In other words, first examine the language used, its cultural and historical context and, if possible, what the author himself (or “authors themselves”) has to say in other places about what the document means. In the case of the Constitution, none of these issues is at all unclear. We have abundant sources of the Framers themselves explaining what they meant; we also have abundant records of the cultural/historical/linguistic context.* Thus, no understanding of the Constitution that does not at least address what the Framers actually understood it to mean is worthy of acknowledgement.

Let me use one small example and illustrate a loose, casual argument that might legitimately stem from it:

Article III, Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Notice that pesky pronoun? “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them… ” Oh, dear. That rather places Mr Lincoln and others who have argued for the supremacy of the federal government (and the nullification of the ninth and tenth amendments which sought to clarify and make certain the limits already imposed on the federal government) on the wrong side of the Framers, doesn’t it?

In the aftermath of the Obscene Congress Bill (also disingenuously known as the “stimulus” bill) and Porkulous, there’re efforts afoot in several States (at least 10, although perhaps as many as 30 are expected to consider such resolutions/bills by years’ end) to further emphasize the principle of State nullification of federal action that exceeds constitutional authority.

And what, just pondering possibilities here, just what might come about if 38 (or 40) States were to do so? And what if–just what if–an increasingly overreaching “feddle gummint” were to be percieved by those States as acting in inimical fashion toward those States? After all, when 61 senators openly declare their disdain for the Constitution and for States’ rights, what can that be BUT “levying war against them”–or at least declaring war? These senators not only openly violated their oaths of office, but arguably committed acts of treason with their votes.

Sure, that may be a stretch, but it’s a reasonable stretch when their acts are in open defiance of the Constitution–acts that have negative implications for individual States and the Union as a whole. And what does it say of the supporters of these who have openly made of themselves enemies of the States? Well, if you are a supporter of any of the senators who voted to dilute the representation of the various States by including a NON-State in congressional representation, then would that not constitute “giving them aid and comfort”?

And what of a president–any president; I had my issues with GWB–who acts in ways to violate the compact that forms the union between the various States? Again, such a president makes of himself an enemy of those States, and anyone who supports such a president’s unconstitutional agenda arguably commits treason against the union of States.

And double ditto squared for judges who usurp authority and make extra-constitutional impositions upon the States and their people.

Now, this is just a small taste of what may (I hope) become one of the many areas of open argument in coming days, as the minions of Satan, urm, Dhimmicraps and other Obamabots seek to implement their overarching hybrid of socialist/communist/post-modernist Hivemind statist agenda.

See:

Constitutional Congress 2009

The Tenth Amendment Center

Tax Day Tea Party

And search on “Tenth Amendment” and “resolutions reclaiming state sovereignty” for more information, just to start.

But, just a simple reading of the Constitution, stressing just what is already and openly well-known to any literate person (as opposed to almost any pubschool “edumacated”–or more properly, brainwashed–person) of what the Framers actually said, has the potential to turn our meddling “feddle gummint” on its head and perhaps even give a bit of power back to the People.


Trackposted to The Pink Flamingo, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Leaning Straight Up, Political Byline, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.


*In biblical exegesis, this process is known as historical/literary criticism and has a long history or legitimate use–even well before the nineteenth century liberal theology brouhaha–in theological circles. Heck, in literary circles, it’s also had a long hisotry of legitimate use, though nowadays its use has been deprecated by deconstructuralists who simply want to project their own views onto a text with only the thinnest-veiled excuses (in theological circles that’s called “eisegesis” or “reading into” the text as opposed to exegesis, reading what is actually IN the text).

Is America Worth Saving?

Back in the saddle again. I’ll pick up the dropped series “Issues and Answers” next week, but meanwhile, I thought it might be profitable to ask…

Is America Worth Saving?

Consider: what is “America”? These (Dys)United States? A federal constitutional republic in which the Constitution is largely ignored or deliberately “misread” to fit the whims of its political masters? A people of whiny, “Gimme-gimme-gimme, the world owes me a luxurious life” victim classes?

What has America become that is worth saving?

OTOH, from the record (Katrina, Tsunami, etc., on down the line), individual Americans seem to also be the most generous folks on the planet. The actual documents that are supposedly “the law of the land” do still make powerful sense (even though our political masters do everything in their power to deny the actual words). And sometimes an ocassional state does act like the States that formed the original union and actually assert itself as political body actually concerned with legitimate governance. Rarely, but sometimes.

But, is America salvageable? Have things deteriorated too far to be repaired? Has our federal government proceeded too far down the path King George chose, lo these many years ago, that resulted in The People declaring,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Thereafter, of course, followed the infamous “long train of abuses” which the government of Great Britain had thrust upn the colonies.

Is the “train of abuses” from our federal government any shorter or less odious today? By a smidgeon, perhaps.

But. Are the American people of today capable of demanding good government or are we so consumed by trivialities and self-serving conflicts as to be incapable of the fortitude that was demanded of the Founders?

A recent kerfuffle from the pages of contemporary “news” and blogospherical reactions suggests to me that although America may be worth saving and our political masters do need a swift (metaphorical) kick upside their collective heads, the attention of America cannot be brought to bear upon serious issues for as long as the attention span of a gnat. We just have too many other “important” issues to deal with, like,

The “Black National Anthem” pseudo-issue.

Y’all know the story by now, no doubt. A gal was asked to sing the National Anthem for a gathering in Denver. She chose to sing the so-called “Black National Anthem” instead of the supposed “white” National Anthem.

Twittering classes erupted in the kerffufle du jour.

*Yawn*

Folks, this is NOT something worth getting our panties in a knot over. The singer showed her own poor judgement and racial bigotry. Sad for her, and sad for anyone who either endorsed her racial bigotry or overreacted against it, giving her the attention she obviously craves. (You will notice that I do not name the singer, nor do I link to any article reporting her rude racial bigotry.)

I happen to very much like, appreciate and enjoy both singing and hearing sung,

“Lift every voice and sing
Till earth and heaven ring,
Ring with the harmonies of Liberty;
Let our rejoicing rise
High as the listening skies,
Let it resound loud as the rolling sea.
Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us,
Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us,
Facing the rising sun of our new day begun
Let us march on till victory is won”

I have often scheduled it for singing in patriotic or “God and Country” meetings, etc.

But. It is not a substitute for the National Anthem, which includes the verse so infrequently sung,

“Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!”

Neither song need stand in conflict with the other. Each has its own proper place. I do regret that “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing” is somehow known as an exclusively “black” song, when its lyrics should be singable by every true American, and I regret as well the idea that the Star Spangled Banner is somehow viewed by some racist bigots (on both sides of an arbitrary skin color divide) as the “white” National anthem. That such a view persists only serves the purpose of racial bigots of any and all skin tones.

What people, standing in sight of long-desired liberty (or in our case, fast fading liberties), could not embrace the song,

“God of our weary years,
God of our silent tears,
Thou who has brought us thus far on the way;
Thou who has by Thy might
Led us into the light,
Keep us forever in the path, we pray.
Lest our feet stray from the places, Our God, where we met Thee;
Lest, our hearts drunk with the wine of the world, we forget Thee;
Shadowed beneath Thy hand,
May we forever stand.
True to our GOD,
True to our native land”

The kerffufle over some tasteless racial bigot substituting what she sees as her “national anthem” for the National Anthem she had agreed to sing is simply evidence that far, far too many Americans are unable to concentrate on real issues and are ready, willing and far, far too able (EAGER!) to be distracted by triffles.


THIS is an open trackbacks post. Link to THIS post and track back. 🙂

If you have a linkfest/open trackback post to promote OR if you simply want to promote a post via the linkfests/open trackback posts others are offering, GO TO LINKFEST HAVEN DELUXE! Just CLICK the link above or the graphic immediately below.

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis