Justice Stevens: Change the Constitution

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has written a book, as he approaches his 94th birthday.  In the book, based on his experience and knowledge as a Supreme Court Justice, and recent events in our nation's history, he proposes six changes to the United States Constitution. . . and five out of six of his proposed changes are idiotic, and very dangerous.  The other one is just not going to happen.

Among the amendments to the United States Constitution that Stevens suggests:

•Changing the Second Amendment to make clear that only a state's militia, not its citizens, has a constitutional right to bear arms.

•Changing the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" by specifically including the death penalty.

•Removing from First Amendment protection any "reasonable limits" on campaign spending enacted by Congress or the states.

•Requiring that congressional and state legislative districts be "compact and composed of contiguous territory" to stop both parties from carving out safe seats.

•Eliminating states' sovereign immunity from liability for violating the Constitution or an act of Congress, which he calls a "manifest injustice."

•Allowing Congress to require states to perform federal duties in emergencies, in order to reduce "the risk of a national catastrophe."

Let's discuss them one at a time.

1: Changing the Second Amendment to make clear that only a state's militia, not its citizens, has a constitutional right to bear arms.

Chicago and New York City are among the two strictest cities in the United States regarding gun control laws.  They also rank number one and two as the cities with the most murders in the United States year after year.  But the reason we have the right to bear arms goes beyond the ability to protect ourselves from the violent element of society.  The language of the Second Amendment itself, and definitions provided by the U.S. Code, helps explain why Justice Stevens' suggestion to change the Second Amendment is not only dangerous, but actually misses the whole point in regards to his premise regarding that God-given right.

The first error made by Justice Stevens in his suggestion comes down to definitions.  He characterizes the state's militia, and its citizens, as being two separate groups.  According to the U.S. Code, that is just not the case.

Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both "organized" and "unorganized" civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard, State Militia and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.  Citizens.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law

Chapter 13 – The Militia:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist.

Under Stevens' suggestion, only the state militia should have the right to bear arms, not the citizens, but the citizens are the unorganized militia, which makes his suggestion a contradiction.

The premise Stevens is operating under is the assumption that a "well-regulated militia" is a militia regulated by the government.  Again, Stevens misses the mark.

In reality, a "well-regulated militia" is a militia that is "in good order."

During the American Revolutionary War, the militia was comprised of a rag-tag collection of farmers, businessmen, and merchants.  They were not well trained.  They were not uniformed.  In fact, many had no shoes, or socks.  One of the wonderful things Martha Washington, wife of General George Washington, did for the revolutionaries during the war was darn socks for them.  The muskets were not the same sizes, as well.  The fighting force under General George Washington was not in good order.

In the 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary, under "regulated," the second definition, after the one about weights and measures, was the definition the founders meant by the word "regulated." The definition is: To put in good order.

The Second Amendment's "well-regulated militia" is comprised of citizens, who are acting as a militia, that is in good order.  The people need to be armed in order to populate this unorganized militia, not because we expect another invasion from Britain, but for the purpose of having a militia in good order so that it may protect the States against tyranny.  To protect the States from a potentially tyrannical federal government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How does it make sense that the entity in which we are to be armed to protect ourselves against can tell us to disarm?

Being armed, as stated in the U.S. Constitution, and as defined by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, is a natural right, a right given to us by God.  If the right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right, then only God is authorized to take away that right.  Not government.

Stevens' suggestion is based on the wrong premise, and goes against freedom, and God.

However, if Stevens got his way, then the States could simply pass their own State Constitution amendments proclaiming that all citizens are members of the State Militia, and "boom," we are right back where we started.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

2: Changing the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" by specifically including the death penalty.

The Eight Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" is not about what the punishment is by itself, but what the punishment is in relation to the crime.  In other words, the punishment must fit the crime.  The death penalty because someone stole a loaf of bread from a street vendor would be cruel and unusual.  A permanent life imprisonment because somebody ran a stop sign would be cruel and unusual.  But would being put to death for the rape and slow strangulation of a child be cruel and unusual?  How about applying the death penalty to the serial killer that craved having blood on his hands, and murdered freely, and at will?  What if that person molested your children, or killed your spouse in front of you for the joy of it?  Would it be cruel and unusual, in relation to the crime, to have that convicted killer put to death?

The Constitution refers to "capital crimes" on occasion.  The death penalty did exist, and apparently they did not believe it to be cruel and unusual under the appropriate circumstances.

What has always bothered me, and this includes pro-abortion Justice Stevens, is that the folks that call the death penalty "cruel and unusual" also support the senseless slaughter of helpless babies while they are still in the womb.  Now that is cruel and unusual.

3: Removing from First Amendment protection any "reasonable limits" on campaign spending enacted by Congress or the states.

This one is directly connected to the Citizens United case, where it was decided that corporations are people, and that their freedom of speech is exhibited through campaign spending. In Justice Stevens' dissent summary, he explains, "Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office…[t]he financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."

What was the purpose of creating corporations in the first place? Was not the idea to create a fictional "person?"  Ever heard of a "fictitious business name?"  Why is it "fictitious?"  Is it because the business is fictitious?  Of course not.  The personhood of the company is.

In the 1700s, William Blackstone wrote: “it has been found necessary, when it is for the advantage of the public” to “constitute artificial persons, who may maintain a perpetual succession, and enjoy a kind of legal immortality. These artificial persons are called ... corporations.”

Corporate personhood, therefore, exists.

Does not a corporation, as a person, hold the same rights as an individual?  A corporation has a right to own property.  It has the right to form contracts. And if anyone tries to stand in the way of either of those rights, a corporation has the right to sue in court.

Regardless of employees, leadership, or the stockholders, a company’s property is held in its own name and belongs to it, not to the investors. If the corporation breaches a contract, it’s the company, not the individual stockholders, that is responsible. If the corporation is harmed in some way, the individual investors are not allowed to sue. The corporation has to do it.

Are these not all features of personhood?

In Citizens United, despite Stevens' dissent, the court ruled that corporations enjoy the same free speech rights as ordinary individuals. As the majority commented, corporations are “associations of citizens”—and those citizens who make up the corporation have constitutional rights.

4: Requiring that congressional and state legislative districts be "compact and composed of contiguous territory" to stop both parties from carving out safe seats.

This one actually makes a little sense, though it really shouldn't be a federal authority.  The idea, here, is to eliminate gerrymandering.  A grid-style of districting may be the closest to being fair.  However, the likelihood of eliminating political and lobby monkeying with the district lines, which they do to protect incumbents that favor their agendas, would hardly be something the Congress, or any other governmental body, would undertake, or enforce.  It's sort of like that old idiom about asking the fox to guard the hen house.  It's not a good idea, and no matter how convincing the fox may be that he won't eat the chickens, we all know what will happen.

5: Eliminating states' sovereign immunity from liability for violating the Constitution or an act of Congress, which he calls a "manifest injustice."

The suggestion to limit State sovereignty is like telling parents that their authority is limited over how they can govern their children.

Oh, wait, the leftists believe in doing that, too.

To understand the Constitution is to understand State Sovereignty, and apparently Justice Stevens chooses not to support the school of thought that promotes the idea that the States are sovereign, individual, autonomous entities, or that it was the States that created the federal system to serve the States, not control them as if it is a national government.

To properly address Justice Stevens' idea that the States can't "violate the Constitution, or an act of Congress," it is important to define what he means, and what the States authorities truly are.

Stevens suggests that the federal system was created to unite and control the States, rather than unite and protect their sovereignty.  He suggests that the federal government is supreme over the States in all cases.  He suggests that if States dare come against the federal system, they must be punished for daring to be contrary to the ruling elite that run the federal system.  On all counts, he is sadly mistaken, and way off base.

Clarification resides primarily on two clauses in the United States Constitution.  The Supremacy Clause at the beginning of Article VI., and the Tenth Amendment.

It is assumed, and erroneously supported by case law, that the federal government is supreme over the States in regards to all issues, actions, and cases.  This concept was first instituted by John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the United States, appointed by John Adams in 1801, just before Thomas Jefferson took office, during an expansion of the judiciary by the Federalists where Adams appointed numerous "Midnight Judges," and an action that was called by Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans "appalling."

In Jefferson's view, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold . . . and from that battery all the works of Republicanism are to be beaten down and destroyed."

By the 1820s, the Federalists became irrelevant, and faded into history as the party became incapable of winning any elections.  But their statist idealism lived on, and still does today, in a federal court system strengthened by John Marshall, and catapulted to the top of the political food chain by misrepresentation, and a series of bullying tactics from the bench.  He was the longest serving Chief Justice in American history, giving Marshall plenty of years to orchestrate his damage to the original principles of the United States Constitution.

John Marshall repeatedly confirmed his opinion that all federal law is supreme over all State law, and redefined "The Rule of Law" to mean the same as The Rule of the Courts.

A strict examination of the Supremacy Clause, however, reveals that all federal laws are not supreme over all State laws.  Only laws "made in pursuance" of the Constitution are supreme.  If the federal law, or action, is not authorized to the federal government by the Constitution, it is an illegal law, making it null and void, and incapable of being "supreme" over any State law.

Which brings us back to State Sovereignty.  The States, represented by delegates that were trusted members of the community, during the Constitutional Convention, created the federal system as a means to serve the States, and to handle the external issues that the States independently could not take care of, like common defense, foreign trade, and to act as a mediator between the States whenever there was a dispute.

Before the United States Constitution, under the Articles of Confederation, and prior, the States enjoyed complete autonomy.  They were independent, individual states that handled all issues locally.  The States held "original authority" on all issues.  The Tenth Amendment alludes to this reality in the language that the clause uses.  It reads: "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."

The word "reserved" is our clue.

In the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, in the first definition of reserved, resides the word "retained."  When you look up "retained," the definition of "reserved," as it is meant in the Tenth Amendment, becomes apparent. It reads: "Held; kept in possession."

In other words, the powers already belonged to the States, and the ones they did not grant to the federal government was retained by the States.

In the Constitution the words "granted" and "vested" are used often, when referring to authorities granted to the federal government.  Granted, by that same dictionary from the time period shortly following the founding of this nation, is defined as, "Admitted as true; conceded; yielded; bestowed; conveyed."  Vested is explained by the dictionary with the following:

Vested legacy, in law, a legacy the right to which commences in presenti, and does not depend on a contingency, as a legacy to one, to be paid when he attains to twenty one years of age. This is a vested legacy, and if the legatee dies before the testator, his representative shall receive it.

Vested remainder, is where the estate is invariably fixed, to remain to a determinate person, after the particular estate is spent. This is called a remainder executed, by which a present interest passes to the party, though to be enjoyed in future.

In both the cases of "granted," and "vested," the ultimate meaning is "to legally transfer."

So, if powers are being granted, or vested, there must be a provider, and a recipient.  The provider would be the one establishing the agreement, and establishing the contract.  The recipient, a system created by the contract between the States, would then be bound by the agreement, and only allowed to operate within the limited authorities it receives.  So, how would it be reasonable that the federal system, created by the States, allowed to exist by the States, and given its authorities by the States in order to handle external issues, would be "authorized" to control the States that gave it life?

It is sort of like the rise of the machines (to use a "Terminator" reference), except in this case it is the rise of the federal government.  An illegal, unconstitutional rise, at that.

6:  Allowing Congress to require states to perform federal duties in emergencies, in order to reduce "the risk of a national catastrophe."

This final one is actually quite comical. Once again, the premise is wrong in the first place.

First off, the language is dangerous.  "Allowing Congress to require states to perform. . . "

Since when can the federal government "require" the States to do anything.  And if you allow the federal government to require the States to do this, what stops them from requiring the States to do other things?

Oh, wait, in the world of the liberal left, that's what the federal government is for.  To "control" the States.

Again, State Sovereignty is the key here.  Yes, I know that the liberal left thinks State Sovereignty is dangerous, because they don't believe the States should have any rights at all.  I have actually seen in forums people suggest reducing the States to territories and provinces, and doing away with State government in totality - and allowing the totalitarian of government rule to belong to the federal government.

Another word for that idea is "totalitarianism."  You know, like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao?

Bad idea.

To go deeper into this suggestion by the retired Supreme Court Justice, what Stevens is referring to is situations like Hurricane Katrina, where the State of Louisiana dropped the ball, did not evacuate people, and a whole fleet of buses that could have been used for such an action were left empty, and under water.  Meanwhile, the federal government was held back, because Bush dropped the ball (according to the democrats), and the disaster could have been avoided if Bush had moved faster (once again, according to the democrats), or if Louisiana had been authorized to do the things the federal government was going to do.

First of all, most of the "duties" that Stevens believes belongs to the federal government are unconstitutional actions.  Second, the federal government, as in the case of Bush and Katrina, cannot do anything until the State allows the federal government to move in. In the case of Katrina, the governor of Louisiana never gave the okay, and so the federal government was unable to move in.  In other words, Bush followed the Constitution, and held back until authorization by the State was given.

This all returns us to the State sovereignty thing.  The States are their own entities, and the federal government has no authority to enter the States, or operate inside the States, without the State allowing them to do so.  Remember, in the Constitution the army is limited to two years appropriation of funding at a time, because the founders feared the federal government using a standing army against the people.  The people, through the House of Representatives, hold the purse strings, so if the people felt the federal government was using the army inappropriately, they could starve the subject military operations financially.  This was a fail-safe check against the federal government to keep the federal government from acting in a tyrannical manner against the States.

With all of this in mind, the States need to act responsibly, to perform their duties, and not wait for the federal government.  The federal system is not the salvation of the States.  It is simply there to serve the States on matters the States cannot handle individually. . . like common defense, international trade, and settling disputes between the States.

Bonus:  Legalize Marijuana

Speaking with NPR’s Scott Simon, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens endorsed the legalization of marijuana and argued that the government’s decades-long fight to ban the substance will in retrospect be seen as a mistake.

There is no constitutional authority allowing the federal government to regulate drugs, therefore, it is a State authority.  In other words, it has to be up to the States.  If a constitutional amendment was proposed, and ratified, giving the federal government the authority, that would be one thing.  But in the interview, that is not what Stevens suggested.  He suggested in the interview that the federal government just legalize pot, as if they have that authority.

Which is one of the reasons why the judiciary is not technically authorized to "interpret" the Constitution as we have been taught.  The States are the final arbiters, not the courts. . . but that is for a different discussion, another day.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Justice Stevens: Make 6 Changes to the Constitution - Yahoo News

Former Justice Stevens wants to change the Constitution - USA Today

How Chicago became Chiraq - Yahoo News

The 15 Most Murderous Cities in the United States - Policy Mic

Title 10, Chapter 13, U.S. Code, Militia - U.S. Code, House.gov

Regulated: Definition - 1828 Webster's Dictionary

Citizens United, Stevens dissent summary - Patriots for Change

William Blackstone: Of Corporations - The Laws of Nature and Nature's God

Reserved: Definition - 1828 Webster's Dictionary

Retained: Definition - 1828 Webster's Dictionary

Granted: Defintion - 1828 Webster's Dictionary

Vested: Definition - 1828 Webster's Dictionary

Vesting - Wikipedia

Grant - Wiktionary

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: Legalize It! - Salon

Dangerous State Sovereignty Myth (so you can see what these "national government" folks really believe regarding state sovereignty - and notice how an extreme racist element is being applied to Voter ID Laws -- I will write an article breaking down the falsehoods of this article at a later date) - Consortium News

Why Harry Reid Is Calling Patriots "Domestic Terrorists"

by JASmius

Senate Majority Chisler "Dirty Harry" (G)Reid called the patriots who were opposed to the Bundy ranch siege "domestic terrorists." Isn't that strange? Isn't that bizarre? Well, actually, no. It makes perfect sense.

Psychological projection, my friends.  Another installment of JASmius echo syndrome.

Marijuana A Danger To Brain Cells

By Douglas V. Gibbs

We already know that smoking pot is a dangerous activity.  Spend time with a pot-head, and it doesn't take you long to determine what studies are revealing (as if they didn't know this before) regarding marijuana's damaging effects on brain cells.

The study found that casual marijuana use among younger Americans cause harm to regions of the mind related to motivation and emotion.  For a political agenda that seeks dependents upon the government, pot is right up their alley.  Who wants someone motivated enough to achieve, or even find a job?

A drug that kills motivation?  No wonder the democrats are lining up to legalize pot.

Now if only they can find a drug that makes people become disgusted when confronted with the truth.  The democrats would never lose an election, then!

Understand, like any issue the liberal left takes the wrong side of, it isn't about pot, or whether or not it is less unhealthy than tobacco.  It is all about their agenda, and buying votes.  It is about appeasing groups the liberal left believes will be more likely to vote democrat if the leftists give them their gift of pot, or whatever else a "group" wants.  They will still argue marijuana is safe, and tobacco kills, and they will still do what they can to buy votes.  That is what the Left does.

Oh, and back to the original topic, "New Flash, Researchers discover marijuana may not be good for you, hurts your brain cells, and does other stuff drugs do - because it's a [gasp!]. . . drug."

Jeeeez.

Now, that all said, let's run over to the Constitution for a moment.

There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government regarding being able to regulate drugs.  No authority granted.  Therefore, that would make all federal drug laws unconstitutional.

The Tenth Amendment clearly states that any authority not granted to the federal government, but not prohibited to the States, is an authority "reserved" to the States (after all, before the Constitution the States held ALL authorities).  Therefore, the regulation of drugs is a State issue.  Therefore, if California, or Washington, or Colorado wants to legalize pot, that is the decision of the State, and the federal government can legally do nothing about it.

"But Doug," I can hear some of you saying.  "You said that drugs are bad."

Yes, I believe so.  But the law is the law, and if I don't like my State legalizing pot, I have one of three choices.  Put up and shut up.  Fight to change the law.  Or move to a State that agrees with me.  The States are like laboratories, testing laws, and other States can then learn from those States.  If in Washington and Colorado, the two States that recently legalized pot, the unemployment rate goes up, along with the number of munchies being purchased at the local quickie-mart, the other States can probably figure out why, and make their decisions based on that data.

Whether you think smoking pot is right, or wrong, in the end, it is a State issue.

Of course, there are other ways to kill motivation. . . other than having people smoke marijuana, I mean.  Just take away the joys of achievement.  Take away incentive.  Change the whole system so that nobody loses and everybody is a winner.  Do that, and the sentiment eventually becomes, "Why compete?"

Participation trophies so as not to hurt the feelings of the losers is a liberal left mainstay.  Heck, President Barack Obama made such a declaration at the White House Easter Egg Hunt, this year.  "Everyone's a winner."

Now go home, cash your government dependency check, and live a mediocre life like a good serf.

That's a good little communist.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Casual pot use causes brain abnormalities in the young: study - Yahoo News

Obama: "Everybody's a Winner!" - The Weekly Standard

Hard Starboard Radio: The Adolescent Dictator

Court cases involving religion have a way of stopping big social legislation (continued); The Wicked Latina of the West; The tiresomely puerile rhetorical excesses of Barack Obama; Dirty Harry (G)Reid is a throwback to a type of American politics better left forgotten; Barack Obama is setting back the middle class — and the GOP needs to point this out; and Clive Bundy's foibles don't mean his stand against Obamunist tyranny isn't justified.

Shoving Dirty Harry's head up Red Barry's ass at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.  Because yes, they did want to ride this train.

Holder May Quit After Midterms?

by JASmius

Eric "The Red" quit?  Don't count on it:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder plans to stay on through November's mid-term elections and has no timeline for an exit after that, a Justice Department official told Reuters on Friday.

"The Attorney General does not plan to leave before the mid-terms. That does not mean that he is definitely leaving after the mid-terms, just that he is at least staying through that time," the official said.

Translation:  He ain't leaving.  EVER.  Any more than his big-eared boss.

Or, at the very least, he still believes his party can and will avert destruction on November 4th, as otherwise.....:

There has been speculation over when Holder, 63, might step down from the post he has held since shortly after President Barack Obama took office in 2009. Should Republicans win control of both chambers of Congress in the November elections, it may be difficult for a potential replacement for Holder to be confirmed.

If the White House had given up on at least breaking even in the midterms, and if Eric "The Red" was really inclined to retire, he'd do so now, while there still remains a nuked, rubber-stamp Senate that will confirm any piece of leftwing filth Red Barry sends up to them.  By those lights, it's fairer to say that Holder is hedging his bet, as if the Dems lose the Senate as expected, there'll still be time for Dirty Harry (G)Reid to ram through an Obamunist replacement in the post-election lame duck session.  Although really, would a Republican Senate majority really deny Barack Obama his choice of such a crucial Cabinet position as Attorney-General?  Or any Cabinet-level position?  Or any position at all?  The GOP is incapable of even recognizing hardball, no matter how many times it gets beaned.

You know what real hardball would be?  If it's true that Eric "The Red" was taken to the hospital a couple of months back with "faintness and an elevated heart rate," then the answer seems clear, and wouldn't need involve the Senate at all.  Just keep dragging Holder before House committees and shove their contempt of Congress citation in his face until he collapses.  Because I will guarantee one and all the "on his back" is the only way that Eric "The Red" Holder - the Obamunist Heinrich Himmler - will ever be separated from that kind of power.

Handing out Pocket Constitutions

By Douglas V. Gibbs

One of my favorite things to do in my life is to talk to people about the United States Constitution, to instruct and inform people about what was originally intended by the Founding Fathers, using the language of the Constitution and the writings of the people that were there when that great document was crafted during a convention in 1787.  Every opportunity I can I get into conversations with people, answering their questions, clearing up their misconceptions.  Sometimes, I would do things to seek out these opportunities.  Half a dozen times, before a recent host of medical difficulties I have encountered which have temporarily rendered me incapable of pursuing such activities, I traveled out towards Los Angeles, seeking the most liberal locations I could find, and then I would plant myself on a busy intersection, with a box of pocket constitutions, and start handing them out.

About one in ten were willing to accept the gift, and of those that would take the offering, a third of them would want to talk.  This is when the fun began.  No politics.  Just the Constitution.  Original intent.  Original plans.  Original authorities granted.  Questions and answers, from the point of view of those early Americans.

Among our most precious natural rights spelled out in the Constitution is the Freedom of Speech.  The intent was to specifically protect political speech, because that was the speech that was being denied the colonists before the original thirteen States decided to declare independence from Britain.  Freedom to speak out against tyranny, and illegal government, was considered a paramount right.  Important was, and is, the freedom to speak out against a government that over-taxes, over-regulates, and targets God-given rights that the government has no business involving itself with.

The document that spells out those freedoms, and limits the federal government against any intrusion upon those liberties, is the United States Constitution.  The Constitution is the Law of the Land, and the ultimate instrument of free speech against tyranny.  To reject the Constitution, and to quell any free speech associated with the Constitution, would be to side with tyranny, and side against freedom of speech.

Statism abhors the Constitution, because the very foundation of the document is to limit the powers of the federal government it creates, allowing the new central government to only handle external affairs in order to protect the States, and their sovereignty.  Instead, the government itself has become an enemy of the rights of the States as autonomous, sovereign, individual, and voluntary members of the union of which the federal government was created to defend and protect.

In Hawaii, students of an on-campus organization that embraces liberty at the University of Hawaii at Hilo were recently stopped from passing out Constitutions at one of their recruitment events, and they were told they could only do so in the "free speech zone," which is located in a small, muddy, frequently-flooded area on the edge of campus.  The students were told that school policies trump the Constitution, and that their freedom of speech rights do not apply on campus.

This is not the first time, and it won't be the last time.  Leftism hates the Constitution, because the Constitution, as designed, is a guard against big government.  As John Taylor, of Caroline, Virginia, wrote in his 1823 publication titled New Views of The Constitution of the United States, "each state retains its sovereignty," and are united as "free and independent states," and that ultimately the Constitutional Convention created a "federal system," rather than a "national government."

The original intent of the Constitution does not fit in with the agenda of the liberal left, and their progression towards an ever expanding central government, so they reject the concepts of individualism, state sovereignty, and original intent, and have proclaimed that the Constitution is a living and breathing document that can be molded as they see fit, as they desire, for their own power-seeking desires.  They rely on case law, the opinions of judges, rather than the actual words in the Constitution, so as to usurp the original meaning, and enable their lust for big government to be achieved.  In law school the Constitution is never opened and studied, for Constitutional Law revolves around case law, or the rulings of the judges they see fit to quote.  This is why they teach the children through public education "what to think," and why they censor any writings that oppose their agenda, including the United States Constitution.  The truth of the original intent of the United States Constitution is a danger to their agenda, and they must do all they can to silence anyone that dares support the Constitution, and if that means violating free speech rights to stop people from talking about or handing out pocket constitutions, the liberal left is willing to do so.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

ANOTHER university stops students from handing out Constitution - Daily Caller

The Penalty For Black Slavery? Universal Slavery, Of Course

by JASmius

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy on Negros - were they better off as slaves? Blacks like leadership and that is the damn problem; most damn liberals are racists and hypocrites, Bill Clinton & Robert Byrd are racist.

Who would know more about slavery than the Democrat Party?

GOP Backing Off Support For Cliven Bundy After Racist Remarks

by JASmius

And, thus, the page abruptly turns:

Republican leaders are backing off their support of Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy after he made a series of inflammatory racist remarks reported in the New York Times.

I have to wonder why Clive Bundy agreed to talk to the official house media organ of the Regime that invaded his property, stole and slaughtered his cattle, tasered his son, and made every appearance of wanting to kill him.  On the other hand, I have no doubt as to why the New York Times wanted to talk to Clive Bundy: they wanted to set him up with the easiest play in their propaganda playbook so as to change the subject from federal tyranny to the ten billion and third playing of the race card.

Mission accomplished:

The rancher, who won a showdown this month with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management over grazing rights for his herd, attacked African-Americans for their dependency on government assistance and claimed that they abort their children and end up in jail because they have no jobs.

Bundy, a registered Republican with 14 children, said to the Times, “I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

While claiming that many African-Americans are “basically on public assistance,” he added, “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton.”

Enough, already.  Clive Bundy is not a politician, and he's not media savvy.  That much is obvious, and was obvious to the Times, which is why they led him to the PR slaughter.  I would characterize Bundy's remarks as ignorant and stupid, not racist.  I can, at a great stretch, even see what he might have been trying to say - that the statist mentality that tried to take his land in jackbooted fashion is the same philosophy that has enslaved so many African-Americans in welfare dependency and family destruction, only the modern version of it is far more insidious than the cotton plantations of the antebellum South, because with the former the "slaves" don't recognize their own chains.

But, not being either politically or media savvy, Bundy was completely unable to articulate that thought, and it came out as the effortlessly exploitable mess that it did.  If Bundy had been at all politically or media savvy, he'd have declined any comment on race issues at all, since they had less than nothing to do with what the BLM tried to do to him.  But he wasn't, and he didn't, and now the page has been turned with extreme, well, prejudice.

And, naturally, Republicans are heading for the tall grass:

Nevada’s Republican Senator Dean Heller had previously claimed that Bundy’s supporters were “patriots,” but following Bundy’s hateful remarks he’s started to “backtrack,” according to Rawstory.com.

His spokesman , Chandler Smith, told the Times that the senator “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”

Senator Rand Paul, the libertarian Republican from Kentucky who may make a run for the White House in 2016, had supported Bundy’s cattle battle with the government.

But in a statement provided by a spokesman for Paul to Business Insider on Thursday, the senator denounced Bundy's comments. "His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him," Paul said.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had jumped into the controversy by stating that the BLM was planning to claim thousands of acres in the Lone Star State along the Red River, and he had made it clear that he had told the agency to back off.

But his spokeswoman Laura Bean tried to distance the Republican gubernatorial candidate from Bundy by telling the liberal newspaper that the letter Abbott wrote to the BLM “was regarding a dispute in Texas and is in no way related to the dispute in Nevada.”

See how this sets up?  When the BLM guards tank army returns to Casa Bundy, either his supporters will refrain from standing with him again for fear of being smeared as "racists," or they'll support him anyway, and that stigma will convince most, if not all, LIVs and NIVs that Bundy deserves whatever he gets, up to and including the massacre of himself, his entire family, and any "foolish" enough to stand with him.  And certainly the public policy side of this burgeoning Western range war has been cut down in its metaphorical crib, as even as erstwhile a Tea Party stalwart as Rand Paul has now conceded that Americans are not entitled to their Constitutional rights if they hold a politically incorrect view or two.

Well, bullbleep.  Kevin Williamson sums it up in the Corner today:

There is a time to break the law, and the fact that the law is against you does not mean that justice is against you. The law was against Washington and Martin Luther King Jr., too. That does not mean that what is transpiring in Nevada is the American Revolution or the civil-rights movement; it means that there is a time to break the law. As I wrote, “Cliven Bundy may very well be a nut job, but one thing is for sure: The federal government wouldn’t treat a tortoise the way it has treated him.”

Critics on the left, being an ignorant bunch, may be unaware of the fact, but the example of Mohandas Gandhi is here particularly apt, given that the great man had some pretty creepy ideas about everything from race to homosexuality, for example writing that blacks aspired to nothing more than passing their time in “indolence and nakedness,” objecting to blacks’ being housed in Indian neighborhoods, etc. Americans, many of whom seem to believe that Mr. Gandhi’s first name was “Mahatma,” generally confuse the Indian historical figure, a man whose biography contains some complexity, with the relatively straightforward character from the Richard Attenborough movie. We remember Gandhi and admire him because he was right about the thing most closely associated with him. In the same way, there is more to the life of Thomas Jefferson than his having been a slave owner. The question of standing in opposition to a domineering federal government that acts as the absentee landlord for nine-tenths of the state of Nevada is only incidentally related to Cliven Bundy’s having backward views about race. Mr. Bundy’s remarks reflect poorly on the man, not on the issue with which the man is associated....

There’s no explaining away Mr. Bundy’s remarks, and I abhor them, and am pleased  that Rich Lowry and others have taken the time to address them.

There’s no explaining away the lawlessness of the Obama administration or the crimes of the IRS, either. A nation can survive its cranks, but not a criminal government. 

Five Alarm iPad Fire

by JASmius

Alarms going off - millennials are too addicted to their mobile devices, like iPads.  Children under the age of four are experiencing difficulty lifting and playing with blocks, because their hands are too used to an iPad.

Hear Bill Whittle explain why this is an urgent, 911 call for change.

<shrug>  I don't have an iPad or a "smartphone".  My tech wonder was satiated by PCs and laptops, both of which I do possess.  I simply lack the desire to keep myself broke buying each new gadget that comes along.  And I don't consider that to be a bad thing.

What baffles me is why kids age 0-4 need iPads in the first place.  What do they use them for, anyway?  Bibs?  Teething rings?  I'm sufficiently into geezerhood that even my kids predated a lot of this technogear, but I can say with utmost confidence that had such devices been on the market when they were that young, it would never have occurred to be to so equip them, because....why burden kids down with adult toys (so to speak)?  Let 'em be kids before they have to grow up and realize that life sucks and dupes you into believing that you have to keep yourself broke buying each new gadget that comes along, and that you have to vote for Democrats, and that there's such a thing as a long, rich, and rewarding career to be had, and other rank follies.

Loud Mouth Harry

by JASmius

Harry (G)Reid is throwing verbal bombshells and setting the stage for violence against patriotic Americans.

I was with Bill right up until the part about "holding Harry (G)Reid accountable" and "investigating" him.  Not whether or not he should be, but, as always, how?  The Obama Regime simply will not do so, and even after they have control of the Senate back, Republicans won't have the power to force any such investigation, and will have so many other crises on their plate cleaning up the messes created by years and years of Donk mismanagement and abuses that bringing Dirty Harry to justice, however cathartically satisfying,  And if the GOP tried, (G)Reid would still have more than enough clout to block any and all probes.

Taking away majority control of the Senate from the Democrats will be a good start, in any case.  Perhaps Senator Pencilneck will finally scoop up his mountain of chips, get up from the table, and call it a career.  Besides, after he's slithered off into the sunset, it'll be Chucky Schumer's or Dick Durbin's turn to be Senate Democrat jackoff.  They'd be even better at it than Dirty Harry.

Governor Perry: "Not A Dare, It's A Promise" Texas Will Defy BLM Land Grab

by JASmius

I don't know if this means that Governor Perry is ordering the Texas National Guard to the southern bank of the Red River, but he's definitely backing up Attorney-General and his gubernatorial successor Greg Abbott to the hilt on Texas's showdown with the BLM:

Texas Governor Rick Perry says his state's Attorney General Greg Abbott wasn't making a dare against the federal government over a land rights dispute; it was a promise.

"He is on the right side of this issue, not just for the people of the State of Texas, he's on the right side of this issue from the private property rights standpoint," Perry said Wednesday on Fox News Channel's "Your World with Neil Cavuto."

"I don't think Americans want to see another one of these exhibitions from the federal government of them coming in with armed troops over an issue that ought to be taken care of with a little common sense," Perry told guest host Stuart Varney.

The fact of the matter is that the feds have no claim to this 90,000 acre parcel of territory, but are opportunistically attempting to exploit a Texas-Oklahoma dispute while (they think) nobody is looking:

The action stems from a dispute between Texas and Oklahoma over the two states' common border. According to the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the Red River is the border between them, but as the river's course changes so does the border.

Numerous lawsuits between the states and the federal government have arisen over the years, and the BLM wants to solve the issue by federalizing the land, Texas officials say.

"We don't have a clue why their trying to claim it, what basis they have to claim it on," Abbott told Fox News.

But the BLM issued a statement saying it "is categorically not expanding federal holdings along the Red River," Fox News reported.

Abbott said if that is true he's happy, but he added that it contradicts other statements the BLM has made.

Of course it does.  I don't know why the BLM is denying that it's trying to steal those 90,000 acres, other than that pathetic prevarication is both Regime policy and written into its collectivist DNA.  The curious part is why they're presuming to just illegally take it by force.  Couldn't they (1) seek Texas's permission and (2) make generous offers for the land in question?  It's not like these people don't like to spend other people's money or give a tinker's damn about fiscal responsibility or debt incursion.  Simply make ranchers like Ken Aderholt offers they can't refuse without the mafia overtones.

And then you remember - ranchers like Clive Bundy don't necessarily "have a price," as some believe every man does, and won't sell all or a portion of their land for any price.  And the feds want the land.  So....they simply take it, law and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 be damned.  But in this case Greg Abbott has sounded the alarm, so the BLM has beat a hasty, and temporary, retreat into dishonest denial, the same way that they called off the dogs at Casa Bundy when their Gestapo tactics there attracted too much attention.

But there, as on the Texas-Oklahoma border, they'll be back as soon as they think the coast is clear.  Which means it's the duty of Us, The People, to vigilantly make sure it never is.

Extending that vigilance to the voting booth would be nice, too, but there are only so many miracles to go around.

Death Panels: Forty Deaths Result From VA Hospital's Secret Waiting List

by JASmius

And they said death panels don't exist within government healthcare.

CNN's Drew Griffin investigates forty veteran deaths resulting from a VA hospital in Phoenix creating a secret waiting list.

I wonder why the VA kept this waiting list secret.  Do they just want to genocidally liquidate as many veterans as possible, or is it that they are desperately trying to avert handing Sarah Palin another "See, I told you so" gloating opportunity?

Eh, probably both.

Hard Starboard Radio: The Racist Latina

From the fiscal to the familial, conservatives have the right answers; Democrats are the party of inequality because their vision of government requires them to be the gatekeeper to the good life; and despite breaking even on Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Sonia Sotomayor manages to create a new euphemism for the Left's endless fixation on race.

Dr. King wept at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.  Martin Luther King, that is.

Texas AG Abbott Warns BLM On Disputed Land: 'Come & Take It'

by JASmius

The Great Obamunist-Western Range War is rapidly moving up the ol' food chain:

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has a message for the Bureau of Land Management about disputed land along the Oklahoma-Texas border: "Come and take it."

Abbott was referring to a potential land grab of 90,000 acres that belong to Texas residents. According to Breitbart Texas, the federal government is considering taking the land, which stretches 116 miles along the Red River.

"I am about ready to go to the Red River and raise a 'Come and Take It' flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas," Abbott said.

Oh my goodness.  It sounds like the next step is for A-G Abbott - did you know he's the Republican frontrunner to succeed Rick Perry as governor of Texas? - to ask Governor Perry to deploy the Texas National Guard against the Bureau of Land Management if they invade the Lone Star State, or at least pledge to do so next year when he's running the show in Austin.

Or....maybe not:

Abbott wrote a letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze about the matter, expressing his concerns about the government's interest in taking the land from Texans, who have owned it for decades.

That's it?  He wrote a letter?  Sheesh, what a pussy.  I guess we have to relegate Greg Abbott to the RINO preserve right alongside Glenn Beck, right "Patriots"?

But you really should hear him out, because you ought to like what he had to say:

"I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations," Abbott wrote in the letter.

"The BLM's newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles — including the rule of law — that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box."

Abbott expanded on the subject in an interview with Breitbart.

"What Barack Obama's BLM is doing is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state," Abbott said....

"This is the latest line of attack by the Obama administration, where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country," Abbott told Breitbart. "And now they've crossed the line quite literally by coming into the state of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the attorney general of Texas, I am not going to allow this."

A-G Abbott didn't say how he's going to stop the BLM invasion, although I'm going to guess that he won't be riding in a tank, Patton style, on the Oklahoma frontier.  I suspect what he is going to do is utilize the legal means the Constitution provides.  Who knows, maybe it'll lead to Texas's second secession from the United States.  It is "like a whole other country," after all.

Sheriff Richard Mack: Glenn Beck Is A RINO

by JASmius

Sheriff Richard Mack Calls out Glenn Beck over his Monday commentary on the Battle of Bundy Hill.

Well, now, of what does Glenn Beck have to be ashamed?  Let's take a look-see:

Conservatives on social media have blasted Glenn Beck for declaring he did not support protesters at Bundy Ranch in Nevada who seemed to want an armed confrontation with law enforcement.

Monday on his radio show, Beck said that as a fellow rancher he had sympathy for Cliven Bundy, who refuses to pay over $1 million in back fees for illegally grazing his cattle on public land. But he denounced militia members and others who threatened an armed confrontation with federal authorities over the ranch.

Well, I'd say that's overstating it a smidge.  Those who traveled to Nevada to "stand with Clive" didn't threaten a confrontation - the BLM did that quite unequivocally - but rather stood their ground and made it clear that the feds were going to have to go through them to get to Mr. Bundy.  That stand is what persuaded BLM higher-ups to back down since that would have been an unspinnable public relations disaster for the Obama Regime, which isn't yet to the point of executing its coup de tat and can't afford to let that cat out of the bag.

And if the standoff had become a twenty-first century Kent State incident, Clive Bundy and his supporters would have become martyrs that would have rallied droves to the Constitutionalist cause.  So I don't think Mr. Beck has quite grasped the full propaganda dynamic of the situation.

However, neither have his detractors, who are Jay Carney's wet dreams come true:

Many of his fans didn’t appreciate him siding with the federal “tyrants.”

“When the possibility of bloody conflict exists does Beck simply roll over and side with the oppressor, the tyrannical State?” one Facebook user wrote on the Glenn Beck fan page.

Another person commented: “Glenn, you are no longer a friend of the Patriots fighting for FREEDOM. Go away and sell some books and your false ‘Bravado’ to other traitors. Hpw about you yourself said this Tyranny was coming and did not stand up. Re-read Article 1 Bundy is a hero. Oh, thats why you are mad, they didn’t invite you to speak?”

“You are wrong Mr. Beck, the Founding Fathers didn’t pray away Tyranny….They shot the Tyrants….Sic Semper Tyrannus,” said another.

There are many things I could say at this point.  "Beck created a monster and it's gnawing on his entrails"; "The historical figure most famous for uttering, 'Sic Semper Tyrannus' is....John Wilkes Booth, and if you think the Dems wouldn't make ample use of that in campaign ad blitzes, you're autistic"; "'Patriots' won't rest until they've turned the entire country against them in 'Thelma & Louise'/'Blues Brothers' fashion".  But suffice it to say, the above is the Ted Cruz-instigated "Defund ObamaCare" intra-GOP food fight from last September writ horrifically large in volume, if not yet in footprint.  And while Beck may be overstating the violent intentions of Clive Bundy's supporters, his detractors are out and out smearing him.

And for what?  To guarantee that the Right will never win another election?  To willfully and gleefully make of themselves the cartoon caricature the Left has always claimed we are?  To so completely discredit Constitutionalism with LIVs and NIVs that the public at large will stampede back into Barack Obama's waiting arms and even applaud his coup as an act of patriotism?

Evidently, all of the above:

A number of Beck’s detractors said on his Facebook page that violence was necessary because Democrats committed voter fraud.

“Not anymore it isn’t. With so much voter fraud going on by the Democrat Party, how is that our weapon? Mounting enough votes that we have to win by an extra 8 to 10% just to pull even is our hope for the future? Hitler was voted into office. I’m all for voting, but I no longer trust it,” one user commented.

“Soon, your vote won’t matter. If you think Hilary won’t rig an election, you’ve lost your mind. it is very likely to be rigged,” another added.

“Get a grip Glenn. My vote didn’t keep Obama out of office. Our country is being destroyed and you and Obama think talk will fix it all. I am not for violence but you can’t use a sign against a fed sniper.”

"You and Obama"?  Sounds like Sebastian Shaw, doesn't he?



Gentles, I would submit to you that these people have given up on the country and everything it used to stand for precisely because with their propaganda obtuseness, they would hand whatever is left of it to Barack Obama gift-wrapped and on the proverbial silver platter.  They are certainly encouraging the BLM and other Obamunist police agencies to come back for more armed confrontations.  And maybe that was Mr. Beck's point.

Exit question: How many of Beck's denouncers would be willing to go out in a blaze of glory themselves?  Something tells me, in cattle rancher parlance, that they are far more sizzle than steak.

Charlie Crist: 'I Am Pro-Life' (But OK With Abortion)

by JASmius

Or, in plain, non-Obamunist English, Sorry Charlie is a Democrat:

Charlie Crist served as the Republican governor of Florida from 2007 to 2011, became an independent in 2010 en route to a losing bid for senator, and then joined the Democratic Party in 2012. Last fall, he announced he was running for governor — as a Democrat — in the 2014 election.

Through it all, Crist, 57, says his views on abortion have not changed — even when pressed during a recent interview with NBC affiliate WPTV in West Palm Beach, Florida.

"I am pro-life by my definition," Crist told host Michael Williams. "And what I mean by that is I'm for life. I think most of us are for life. And I think that's very important to state because even though I am pro-life, which I mean for life, doesn't mean that I want to tell a woman what to do with her body. And I never have."

Um....what?

During the interview with WPTV, Crist was forced to explain his position on abortion. He has historically gone back and forth on several issues, including gay marriage (he now supports it), the embargo with Cuba (as a Democrat, he's now against it), and abortion.

Crist disputes the latter, however.

How can you tell?

"Even as the Republican governor, I vetoed the ultrasound bill on women," said Crist, referring to a law that would have required women seeking abortions to pay for ultrasounds. "So, I'm the kind of guy being raised with three sisters that understands these are very personal decisions that women ought to be able to make on their own, and certainly not have their government injected into the discussion."

Williams continued to press the issue, saying, "On the larger issue, in the prior incarnation politically of Charlie Crist, you supported abortion restrictions. But you have changed the nuance for your view there."

"No, I haven't. That's not true," Crist shot back.

But he also insists he's "pro-life".  For life.  "By his definition".

Glad we settled that.

I'd wager Governor Rick Scott is.  The debate to which Crist has challenged him should be Pay-Per-View quality.

The Lost Margaret Sanger Newsreels

by JASmius

In this three part series Trifecta combs through old British Pathé newsreels to bring you forgotten historical footage. In part one, Trifecta unearths a reel of birth control advocate Margaret Sanger arguing for a moratorium on human births. Sound like a hoax? Find out.

"No more babies," hm?  Pity this racist, Naziesque monster's mother didn't feel that way.

BLM Seizes Texas Rancher's Land - Without Compensation

by JASmius

Of course, you know the BLM could always attack another ranch where Tea Partiers aren't standing watch.  In fact, I would bet on that being the Regime's strategy, because they're after a heckuva lot more than just Clive Bundy, and thanks to their militant police state tactics, that name has attracted far too much attention.

-Me, five days ago

And.....here we go again:

Bureau of Land Management seized Texas Rancher Tommy Henderson's land and did not pay the rancher a dime for it.

Only difference between Mr. Henderson and Mr. Bundy, it would appear, is that the Texas rancher didn't physically resist, while his Nevada counterpart did.  And we saw the difference in the BLM's responses.

It raises quite a few questions.  Is civil disobedience and passive resistance the only way to fight back against the Obama Regime's tyrannical reflexes?  How many Battles of Bundy Hill can there be before the defenders shoot first, giving the feds the propaganda narrative they so clearly seek?  Or have they learned their lesson about the efficacy of quietly bleeding ranchers dry in lieu of American Tiananmens?  And in the latter case, how can civil disobedience be mounted in such a way as to draw favorable public attention, particularly when the media is an arm of the White House?

Killing Freedom of Religion

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The progressive takeover of America has been a process, and the liberal left believes the end of that process is in sight.  They are now attacking institutions long thought to be untouchable.  They have now graduated to targeting our God-given rights in ways they have never been willing to before.

In the book, "New Views of The Constitution of the United States" by John Taylor in 1823, the first section begins, "I shall attempt to ascertain the nature of our form of government, and the existence of a project to alter it."

A project to alter it.

In the introduction, Taylor recognizes that what we have is a federal system, not a national government.  "The happiness and prosperity of the United States will be greater under a federal than under a national government."  The difference being a voluntary union of States using a federal system to accomplish the duties needed to be administered by a central government in order to protect, promote, and preserve the union, rather than a consolidated national government that exists to control and regulate the States and the people.

Further into the book by Taylor, he reminds us that the definition of union is stated in the Declaration of Independence, "That these United Colonies are, and right ought to be, free and independent states."

Taylor goes on to explain, "The word 'united' is used in conjunction with the phrase 'free and independent states,' and this association recognizes a compatibility between the sovereignty and the union of the several states."

In "Yate's Notes" on page 39 of Taylor's book, the existence of those that desired a powerful system "with its concentration in one supreme national government" was penned, recognizing the danger of such a system.  Going into the Constitutional Convention, "these gentlemen appear to have been as thoroughly convinced of the superiority of a federal, as other gentlemen were of the superiority of a monarchical or national, form of government; and both left the convention under a conviction that the latter would be established. . . Subsequently to their departure, the plan of government was changed from a national to a federal form. . . They therefore viewed the constitution under the prepossession inspired by the eagerness for a national government, displayed in the convention before they left it."

The Articles of Confederation had been too week, so a drive for a stronger government ensued, but quickly the founders realized they were only approaching an opposite extreme, and a powerful central government would surely lead to tyranny.

James Madison entered the Constitutional Convention desiring a strong national government as did Alexander Hamilton.  Hamilton exited the convention still desiring a powerful and controlling central government, but through the debates Madison had been convinced to believe more like Thomas Jefferson (who was absent from the convention) who believed that a limited government was necessary to protect the sovereignty of the people, and the States.

The new federal government needed to be one that adhered to the rule of law, and recognized the importance of natural law, as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.

In "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," John Locke laid out the importance of natural law, and how it defined out rights as sovereign individuals.  The rights of citizens are God-given, and are not for government to take away.

The Declaration of Independence calls our God-given rights, "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

These natural rights are, according to the Declaration of Independence, entitled by God, are "self-evident," and "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

In the final sentence of the Declaration of Independence the founders proclaim that the Declaration was accomplished "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."

Even Thomas Jefferson, regarded as a Unitarian that often challenged man-made versions of religion, calling the men behind these religions "religion builders", recognized the importance that our rights are natural rights not granted by government, but by the Creator. He wrote, "Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

Benjamin Franklin said, "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it?"

Whether a number of the founders had a strong aversion to "religion," it is clear that they did not have an aversion to faith, the freedom of people to worship as they wished, or the formation of a limited government that did not establish its own religious preference.

The founders recognized the importance of the concept of the freedom of religion, for it dwelt in the very foundation of the United States, going all the way back to colonization.  The primary reason for the colonization of the English Colonies, in many instances, was the desire for the freedom of religion.  From the puritans to the pilgrims, the desire was the same.  Among the natural rights, therefore, is the freedom of religion - a natural right by nature's God that cannot be legally taken away by government.

The desire to interfere with religious freedom, or to remove God from the foundations of this nation, is nothing new.  When Benjamin Franklin recommended that the delegates of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 pray before each session, Alexander Hamilton and a number of others that shared his political views, expressed their apprehensions about praying before each session of the convention. Statists tend to have apprehensions about Faith in God. Remember, it was the Democrat Party, the party of big government, that had to vote at their national convention, on whether or not to return God to their platform. And when it was deemed God would be returned, about half of the auditorium booed.

Statists tend to be anti-God. Big Government does not like competition.

After a couple centuries of manipulating language, and perpetuating a myth about the constitutionality of the idea of the separation of church and state, statists have created so much confusion that now the concept of religious freedom has become murky, and society is not sure how to define it.

Religious Freedom is now under attack, and religious freedoms are being taken away on a technicality.

Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court, in his ruling on the legality of ObamaCare's individual mandate, wrote that the mandate was no different than a tax and therefore legal. If that is true, then mandating payment for birth control as part of that health insurance cannot be viewed as a violation of religious freedom.

A Quaker legally is allowed to avoid military conflicts without violating the law. That same Quaker, however, will go to jail if he refuses to pay the taxes that fund the military. In the same vain, in any state where the government pays for birth control or abortions, individual citizens can choose to not use birth control or to have abortions. They cannot however refuse to pay taxes because these programs violate their religious beliefs.

Obamacare was not supposed to be a tax, and in the language of the law it is stated that the fines for failure to comply with the law are not a tax, yet because Justice Roberts declared it to be a tax, according to the legal world, the federal government, through the health care law, can violate the religious freedoms of business owners.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

First Amendment is Murky on Religion and Companies - Wall Street Journal

Hard Starboard Radio: Gaia's Human Sacrifices

Bogusly high enrollments offer no assurance that ObamaCare will work - so will Democrats run on it just because their demigod tells them to?; Solar can never be a reducer of carbon emissions; Geoengineering can turn our long-barren oceans into a bounty; and when your goal is to save the planet, you can’t worry about who will get hurt.

Learning to love The New Primitivism at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific, and hoping nobody notices how much it resembles a coerced version of Opposite Worlds.

Muslim Brotherhood Forming Political Party In U.S.

by JASmius

For all of you Tea Partiers who have long been all fired up about third parties, all I can say is, you should be careful what you wish for.



"Jihad from within," indeed.

Seems kind of redundant since the Democrat Party is already pursuing much of the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda, but the more splintered the Left can become, the better our chances of overthrowing them.  At worst....

Well, it's difficult to see how it could get much worse.

Study: Global Warming Boosts Growth, Health

by JASmius

So, in honor of Earth Day, let's all ingest a quart can of Van Camps pork & beans, go outside, and fart for all we're worth:

The modest increase in temperatures observed across the globe over the last century has helped to raise the standard of living of people around the world, according to a report from the National Center for Policy Analysis....

Earth's climate has shifted many times through history and prehistory, from tropical to frigid and back again. Over the preceding century and a half, average temperatures have gone up slightly, though the ongoing warming trend has apparently been on pause for the last 16-year period.

"Contrary to popular belief, climate change thus far has had positive effects, and the net benefits of warming are likely to be positive for the foreseeable future," according to the report by NCPA senior fellow H. Sterling Burnett.

The 0.8 degree Celsius (1.4 degree Fahrenheit) increase in Earth's temperature since 1880 has boosted global economic output by 1.4%, he asserts. It accomplished this by increasing agricultural production, cutting heating costs, and generating many other economic benefits.

Decreasing worldwide temperatures, on the other hand, portends upheaval and death, as they have for millions of years.

"Cooling kills, and that is what is to fear," climate expert Christopher C. Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute told Newsmax.

Amazing it is what a complete examination of the facts will turn up.  On "climate change," as anything else in life - at least outside a Roland Emmerich eco-disaster epic - it turns out that, at worst, there are pros as well as cons, to warming as well as cooling.  And it also appears from this study that it is global warming that is "progressive" in its affects on the income scale, and global cooling that is "regressive".  Which is to say, the Left is relentlessly fearmongering against the climatological direction that will most benefit the poor and disadvantaged in the name of expanding their poverty and oppression to the remainder of the planetary population outside of the ruling party elites, which will, naturally, exempt themselves from the ecological prognosis they will force on everybody else.

A self-serving, as well as self-fulfilling, prophecy.  Which does add some context to the ancient Klingon proverb, "Revenge is a dish that is best served....cold."

Montana Congressional Candidate Shoots "Drone" In Ad

by JASmius

John King, Juana Summers and Robert Costa weigh in on another congressional campaign ad, this time out of Montana.

Never mind the gunplay - many would follow Matt Rosendale's example and wind up like Clive Bundy eventually will, which is why the Obama Regime will confiscate all guns, one way or the other - what made my heart skip a beat is that GOP congressional and senatorial challengers are taking their cues from Rand Paul rather than the RNC.  I know what TPers think of the "establishment" and all, and if the Boehner/amnesty rumors prove substantiated, not without reason, but is Paulnutism really the only alternative?  Are Ronald Reagan's footsteps really that difficult to relocate?

Labeling our children with ADD and ADHD

By Douglas V. Gibbs

While waiting in a doctor's office I picked up a magazine to thumb through to give my overworked hand-held devices a long-needed break.  The magazine was "Web MD", the March/April 2012 issue.  On page 77, I came across an interesting piece titled "Mind Quiz: Does your child have ADHD?"

"My son is 6 and in first grade," mom2therescue wrote in the WebMD Parenting Community.  "He is very impulsive and doesn't focus the way everyone else thinks he should  The boy's grades aren't affected, but his behavior disrupts the class."  These are classic symptoms of ADHD.  Do you know the others?

The article then took the liberty to list the symptoms of ADHD.  "Fidgeting, squirming, or moving legs, feet, arms, hands, and fingers frequently.  Walking, running, climbing when he or she is expected to remain seated."

Every child is different, and yes, some have trouble focusing their attention more than others.  Some are more hyperactive, and some children prefer to be quiet and sit with their hands on their knees.  Each child is an individual, and requires a unique style of environment for them to best learn whatever it is they are trying to learn.  Some do well in large settings with a lot of kids, and a teacher writing on the chalkboard, and some need a one-on-one atmosphere where they receive constant attention from the instructor.

Each child is his or her own individual self, and their individualism is not symptoms of some disease, or mental handicap.  Since when must individuality need to be labeled?

It is at this point that the parents of children that have been labeled, and perhaps even drugged, come to the defense of conventional wisdom, and start to hammer on me as an ADD or ADHD denier.  I don't deny that these conditions exist, or that some children need more care and attention than others to ensure they reach their educational potential.  I get it.  ADD and ADHD exists.  But they are not conditions that we must fix, and then force our children into compliance with all of the other children.  They are conditions that must be embraced and celebrated.  They are evidence that your child is an individual, with individual needs, and individual abilities.  Every child learns differently, and it is a wonderful thing.  They don't need to be labeled, drugged, and forced to conform.  That is the way of socialism, to make everyone the same, to force them to fit into a one-size-fits-all pattern of education.  True individuality will never allow for such a thing.

Everyone is brilliant in something.  One child may suffer in a classroom, but be an Einstein in a hands-on situation.  Another may be terrible at both, but excel in a quiet space with one-on-one attention.  It is our responsibility, as parents, to recognize these things about our kids, and adjust our lifestyle to their abilities.

Now, let's pause and think about all of this for a moment.  I am advocating that when it comes to learning abilities, we must not go to some kind of extreme and require all kids to be the same.  There is always going to be a deviance in how each child learns.  There are some things that we should have standards on, or a moral compass, if you prefer.  Societal norms do exist, and we need to conform on some things, but the actual abilities of a child, or their "way to learn," should not be forced into that package.  Individuality is not a disease or a handicap.  Individuality is something that should be celebrated, understood, and worked with.

All kids fidget, daydream, bounce off the walls sometimes, squirm, or move around when they aren't supposed to.  Much of that is just them being a kid.  Some of it is their own individuality trying to make itself known.  Do we squash that individuality, and drug that individuality, or do we nurture it, care for it, and help it develop?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Tyrant That Became President

By Douglas V. Gibbs

He was heralded as if he was a messiah, and a cult-like following mustered around him, ensuring that his presidency was certain.  Everything the country knew about him up to that point was from the book he had written, detailing what he believed in, what his dreams were, and what his future goals for the country were.

A professed Christian, his policies denied biblical teachings, and he buddied up with Islamic factions and leaders.  His signature policies were health care, gun control, environmental issues, taxing the rich, the redistribution of wealth, and using fiat money to bolster the economy.

Determination to unite the nation, and create a prosperous and safer nation through increased government involvement was his campaign cries, but once in the presidency, it became clear his was an agenda driven by lies, and his own narcissism.  He blamed the rich for the woes of the country, and the redistribution of wealth became his promise.

He mocked, defied, and unilaterally changed constitutional law, acting in opposition of the constitution, and worked to render the legislature irrelevant, when he felt it necessary to act without them.  Fear emerged, and nobody was willing to expose him for what he really was, for fear of reprisal from his supporters, the press, and even from one's neighbors, spread throughout the country.

The false promises stacked up, and reality revealed them all to be failures, but the content of the promises were not the reason for their existence, but to create false hope for change that would lead to crisis and chaos so that he may fundamentally transform the country.

The propaganda through the media, politicians, the courts, businesses, educators, science, the entertainment industry, and even churches was incredible, and unstoppable.  They pushed his agenda, protected him at all costs, and even ignored the reality of the presence of his class warfare, division of the classes, and in the end, his racism.  All that mattered was silencing all of the opposition, no matter what it took to accomplish it.

The description above was of Adolf Hitler, President of Nazi Germany (August 2, 1934 - April 30, 1945).

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary