There Ought To Be A Law

When personal responsibility was a given

No phrase in the American lexicon grates on my nerves more than 'there ought to be a law'. Usually this phrase is uttered by some well meaning, yet ignorant person in response to some sort of perceived injustice. The thought process is that some law should be in place, or proposed to limit the behavior which caused the perceived injustice. The only problem is... this reasoning flies in the face of our system of government.

There are a few inherent flaws with this reasoning, and I'll show you how I came up with this.

1. The United States Constitution was designed to limit the government. It was a document to restrain government from exercising too much power and influence over our lives. The founders understood that 'men are governed best, when they are governed least'. They knew that in order for America to be a prosperous and free nation, men must be able to govern themselves responsibly without interference from some all powerful referee. In the event that man was unable to do so, a justice system was established to settle grievances. However, it was understood that the justice system was a system of last resort. Should free, self-governed men not be able to settle their disputes on their own, the final recourse was to take the matter before a justice of the peace to arbitrate the matter for them. However, by creating laws, inherently freedom is diminished, and the role and power of the government are expanded. If you take away my right to 'X', then you've removed my freedom, and expanded the government's role in policing the enforcement of that removed right.
   


2. I've read through the United States Constitution, and nowhere can I find where it limits citizens rights to, well, anything. There was the 18th Amendment which outlawed the manufacture, transport and sale of liquor, however, that was overturned by the 21st Amendment. Therein lies the beauty of our system of government. The limits were placed solely upon the governing powers and not upon the citizenry. John Adams framed it this way, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." In other words, he knew that in order for our society to exist and flourish, men had to understand that there was a universal right and wrong, and had to accept a morality superior to themselves. Without the ability to do so, the nation would dissolve into chaos and anarchy specifically because there were not (and never intended to be) laws which prohibited behavior of the citizens of the United States. Prohibition by definition is preemption, and preemption does not exist in the Constitution. Our system was set up so that men were free to do whatever they wish, but that they would have to bear the full consequences of their actions. This novel concept is known as personal responsibility. When you create a law which preempts behavior, personal responsibility is limited or removed altogether.
   

Personal responsibility demands people held accountable to their actions. In the event that someone makes a poor choice, our justice system and Judeo-Christian precepts exist to make penance for the error. Sadly, our country long ago moved away from the concept of personal responsibility and instead began to preempt the rights of the citizens. Since that time, our recognition of an absolute moral authority has diminished, and our callousness and disdain for the rights of others has increased. In our nation today, we've eliminated personal responsibility to the point that 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices recently ruled against the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. They hold the opinion, contrary to the authors of the Constitution, that in order to prevent violence, the right to hold a gun must be preempted. How far we've fallen from the nearly Utopian society which the founders designed and left to us.

Now, you may be asking yourself, why I felt the need to write this. If your curiosity is so piqued, I would point you to this column by a local newspaper associate editor which is nothing short of breathtaking ignorance on display.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Quotes From Radicals

Quotes from radicals about people, their guns and their government.

1. "Government is not reason, nor eloquence. It is force. And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master."
2. "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
3. "I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
4. “"The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men."
5. "A government of laws, and not of men."
6. "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
7. “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.”
8. "It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government."
9. "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
10. "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
11. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
12. "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
13. "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
14. "This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."
15. "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

Inspired by Bill Whittle's latest installment of 'Afterburner,' I have collected these quotes to share how the founders felt about the right to bear arms and government intrusion within our lives. Today's Tea Party Activists share these same ideals and yet are ridiculed as being out of touch with the traditional American ideal of tolerance and a reserved nature. In fact, tolerance for any government intrusion is not in accordance with any American ideal, nor is it how our founding fathers professed to believe. Our founding fathers warned against a strong central government and it's inevitable path toward tyranny. We are responsible to ourselves, our deity and to our fellow man. We are not responsible to a government. The government was initiated to be responsible to the citizens of this nation. The constitution was written to be an inhibitor of government power, not an advocacy for it. Unless people begin to understand the founding of this nation and the restrictions that were set upon the government, then we are doomed to a fate of lost liberties and the eventual loss of our republic.

The catalyst for the American Revolution was the passage of the Intolerable Acts. These acts consisted of five separate acts which reduced freedom and increased government influence in people's daily lives. Here they are listed:

• The Boston Port Act: a response to the actions of the Boston Tea Party which was a rebellion against the crown's mandate that a certain good must be purchased by an imposed vendor. The act served to close the port of Boston, handicapping the cities ability to conduct business.
  
• The Massachusetts Act: dictated local government and ruling class positions were to be decided by the King. It also restricted the ability of people to gather together in meetings.
  
• The Administration of Justice Act: gave governors the ability to relocate trials for accused officials to another colony or even to England itself if the governor felt that the official could not receive a fair trial. It served to allow government officials to get away with crimes as often the victims in the case could not take time away from work to participate in the trial.
  
• The Quartering Act: gave governors and officials increased power to mandate the location for housing soldiers. The mandate included homes of colonialists.
  
• The Quebec Act: unrelated to the Boston Tea Party, this act expanded the borders of the Canadian colony, removed mentions of the protestant faith from oaths of allegiance and expanded the practice of Roman Catholicism. It served to remove land which had belonged to the colonies and was governed by a representative legislature to a non-representative government.
  

Imposed restrictions upon the peoples ability to conduct free enterprise; the appointment of non-elected governing officials; the governing class walking away from crimes unpunished; the coerced use of private property for public/government use; increased non-representative government. Do any of these sound familiar? The founders and many colonialists found this to be tyranny, do we?

The authors of the above 'radical' quotes are listed in order below.

1. George Washington
2. George Washington
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. Samuel Adams
5. John Adams
6. Thomas Jefferson
7. George Washington
8. Alexander Hamilton
9. Thomas Paine
10. George Washington
11. Benjamin Franklin
12. George Washington
13. Thomas Jefferson
14. Benjamin Franklin
15. Thomas Paine

I'll leave you with one final and quite popular quote from the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson:

What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Inevitable End To Constitutional Abortion

The Hill has the story:

In a 222-203 vote, Democrats beat back a GOP resolution offered by Democrat-turned-Republican Rep. Parker Griffith (Ala.) that would have forced lawmakers to vote on the Senate healthcare bill separately from the series of fixes they hope to make to that legislation.

All Republican lawmakers who voted opposed the measure, which had the effect of ending the GOP's effort to force a vote. They were joined by 28 Democrats, who broke with party members on the vote.

Two hundred and twenty-two Democrats supported the measure, though — enough to proceed. Three members of either party did not vote.

Michelle Malkin has the blow by blow:

You’ll recall that House Republicans unveiled a resolution two days ago that would force a vote on the Slaughter Solution and call out the Deem-and-Pass-ocrats.

The vote on that resolution had been anticipated at around 12:30-1pm Eastern this afternoon. The time came and went.

...

Final vote 222-203 with six not voting. Remember in November.

Michelle also has a roll call of the votes.

Sounds to me as though it's time to flood congressional offices with another mail in item. Perhaps, we should send them copies of the constitution since they seem to be unfamiliar with it? Here is a website where you can order copies of the US Constitution for $1.00 or less plus shipping and handling, depending upon copies ordered. We've shut down the phone board, now it's time to clog the Congressional mail room. Make them know we are serious!

Please take the time to comment! Click the Comment Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Black Or White

And in "I'm Sorry, The President Thinks You're Retarded News..." The Justice Department has overruled the results of a local election in Kinston, North Carolina removing party affiliation from the ballot.

Of note in the Justice Department's findings were the following:

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want…

...

Black voters account for 9,702 of the city’s 15,402 registered voters but typically don’t vote at the rates whites do.

As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, "black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections."

"It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that results in enough white cross-over to allow the black community to elect a candidate of choice," she wrote…

By the way, this is what passes as 'Post Racial America.'

Obama just wants to make sure you know which candidates are from the correct party, and the gentlemen above are here to guarantee the right vote.

Be sure to read the whole thing, and keep a bucket handy as your brain is sure to run out your ears.

Please take the time to comment!

Summary: Conservatives Vs. Libertarians

Thanks to everyone who took the time to read and respond to my two posts concerning Conservatives and Libertarians. The answers ranged from the intellectually stimulating, to the comical and finally ended up somewhere in the clinically insane territory. Paul even got in on the commenting, encouraging me to eat a donut for some reason... Paul?

What I've come to realize is that even though there are countless 'issues' which separate the two ideologies, as defined by those on each side, there are far more similarities between the two, than some within the movements care to recognize.

There has been a large momentum change since the days immediately following the election, wherein libertarians and conservatives are setting aside squabbles over ideologies and uniting behind the ideal of LIMITED government, i.e. the Tea Party movement and the 9/12 march on Washington. Libertarians and Conservatives understand that they share the view of a limited government and that through working together they have the opportunity to elect a leader who can return the power of the political process from the hands of the elite in Washington to the hands of the people in the heartland.

We have to be ready to work together, but not afraid to call out fringe voices within the ideologies, lest diverted from our goal of regaining control in Washington.

As I said in the comments of a previous post; I am more than willing to have a policy debate on some of the issues that separate us into Conservative and Libertarian ideologies, once we've regained control in Washington. Until then, the focus should be singular: Limited Government, period!


Please take the time to comment!

Conservatives and Libertarians: Friends of Necessity

Together At Last!

This is certainly not an original thought, but as I've been pondering the recent political landscape one thing seems clear to me: Libertarians and Conservatives have more in common than they do not, and need each other in order for reason to once again rule Washington, DC.

It was very apparent to me shortly after iWon's inauguration that the political right had fractured into its thousand tiny little sects, each claiming had their brand of politics been adhered, the White House would never have been lost. The truth is the political right is as varied as the individuals that make it up. The reason for it's diversity is that in order to be on the right, you must be able to think for yourself. As Limbaugh is repeatedly saying, 'Conservatism is an intellectual persuit...' It takes nothing more than 'feelings' in order to be a liberal. All one must do is let their heart lead them in matters to know what being a liberal is all about. Unfortunately, what the heart desires is hardly ever what is best for anyone.

The right, naturally breaks down into multiple small interest groups congregating around which ever conservative principles they deem most important. Unfortunately, following an elector defeat, the party out of power turns inward upon itself blaming other sects of the same ideology for the defeats. Most recently I've witnessed a very bitter battle brewing between the self proclaimed 'Libertarians' and 'Neocons.' Now, as we all know, the Necons must be stopped. Libertarians, just like most other sects on the right, believe that they have the magic formula for ultimate happiness and peace and harmony and political power. Yes mom, I realize that was a run on sentence. Stick with me. As most political sects do, Libertarians have rallied around a leader which they believe best speaks for their movement. That charismatic (read loony) leader is Ron Paul. Paulnuts have targeted another conservative leader for their ire and disdain. That charismatic (read loony) leader is Glenn Beck. Hilarity ensues, or not:


By the way, the unedited, uncorrected title of that Video on YouTube is as follows:

Glenn Beck is a Neocon Not a Libertarian And he never supported Dr Ron Paul true constitutionalist Glenn is trying to infest a true grass roots people with his pretender fairytales

Now, here's the deal... Ron Paul is dead on about some things, and batshit crazy about others. Let's start with the good. I am all for (as are most on the right) returning this country to it's founding principles, and to taking a much more originalist interpretation of the Constitution. I am also all for the government staying the hell out of my personal life. He's a little off on Tax policy, advocating no income taxes what-so-ever, but I'd much rather have his tax system than our current one. However, to insinuate that the United States was somehow responsible for what happened in Manhattan on 9/11/01 makes the man certifiable. His isolationist policies make him a perfect candidate for Congress... in 1911. To somehow believe that the economic and security interests of the United States can be served, while simultaneously closing all military bases in every foriegn country is naive at best. Also, to even consider going back to the Gold Standard is novel idea, but no where near pragmatic. From the Wikipedia:

The total value of all gold ever mined would be US$4.78 trillion

Last year's GDP: $14.2 Trillion

Anyone see the problem with going back onto the gold standard? Here's a hint: $4.7 Trillion < $14.2 Trillion. Now, as to Beck... Where to begin? Beck has been right in intent and poor in execution. His recent program on Communist symbology in the artwork at the Rockefeller Plaza in New York made 9/11 truthers look sane by comparison. However, he seems to be the only 'major media figure' inquiring about corruption within the appointments of the Obama Administration. Many today would have no idea who Van Jones is, were it not for Beck's investigations, and 'asking reasonable questions.' Here's the dirty little secret, though... we all need eachother. True story. We need those on the right who advocate for originalist interpretation of the Constitution, who shed light on the inner workings (both good and bad) of the government, who understand governments place in our lives a la the founders intent. We need all these views, together. The fact is Libertarians and the rest of the Conservative movement need each other to succeed. Let's reclaim the White House, Capitol Hill, and get a Conservative bench, then we can fuss over legalizing pot, mmkay?

For the record, I consider both Ron Paul and Glenn Beck conservatives. They are both to be found on the right side of the political spectrum, however, they both self identify as Libertarians. I am not insinuating, as Paul supporters do, that Beck is a Neocon and not a Libertarian.

Ron Paul, not for President 2012.

Please take the time to comment!

Thomas Frank Model Journalist

These guys are making it too easy. Behold:

There are few things in politics more annoying than the right's utter conviction that it owns the patent on the word "freedom"...

Any increase in the size or duties of government, the right tells us, necessarily subtracts from our freedom. Government is, by its very nature, a destroyer of liberties; the Obama administration, specifically, is promising to interfere with the economy and the health-care system so profoundly that Washington will soon have us all in chains.

I'll speak slowly and use words you're sure to understand. Any time something is mandated by government, i.e. it becomes law, it is then illegal to not do what the government has mandated. For example, health insurance. If the government mandates that people must have health insurance, healthy 20-somethings like myself who are trying to save money for more important things (i.e. starting a business) are penalized. Therefore, I no longer have the freedom not to spend my money on what is important to me, I must spend it on health care, or face a fine. Follow?

That our ancestors could ever have understood freedom as something greater than the absence of the state would probably strike protesters as inconceivable. But they did. You can see it in that famous Norman Rockwell Thanksgiving painting from 1943: "Freedom from Want," an illustration of one of Franklin Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms." Strange though it might sound, this is a form of freedom that pretty much requires government to get involved in the economy in order to "secure to every nation," as Roosevelt put it, "a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants." The idea is still enshrined today in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

First off, the government wasn't nearly as involved in our ancestors life as it is today. I am referencing the same group of ancestors that the author is, the group who were around to hear Franklin Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" when he broadcast it live over the TV... Second, the UN... Really?! What you're failing to see here, is that this is an argument about constitutionality. Please point to the section of the constitution where people are guaranteed the 'freedom from want.' I'll wait.

Conservatives of the 1930s, led by an upper-crust outfit called the American Liberty League, certainly felt that way. "That Roosevelt was a dictator there was no doubt; but Liberty Leaguers were not quite sure what kind," wrote the historian George Wolfskill in "The Revolt of the Conservatives," a 1962 study of that organization. "Some thought he was a fascist, others believed him a socialist or Communist, while others, to be absolutely sure, said he was both."

I'll tell you which kind. A socialist that increased government spending higher and at a faster rate than any other president before or after until PeeBo came along. The guy who pioneered the tax our way into prosperity by taking money from the people and spending it on make work projects. How'd that work out for those in the Great Depression, by the way? It's no secret that FDR idolized his buddy, Papa Joe. The rest of us know him better as Joseph Stalin. So, I don't think the Communist nameplate is as far removed as you liberal FDR lionizers would like to believe, either.

Today, of course, we know that the right's tyranny-fears were nonsense. Most of Roosevelt's innovations have been the law of the land for 70 years now, and yet we are still a free society free enough, that is, to allow tens of thousands of protesters to gather on the National Mall and to broadcast their slogans and speeches to the world via C-SPAN.

By this definition, were every other right guaranteed in the constitution removed, we'd still be 'free.' That means; no press, no freedom of religion, no right to bear arms, no protection from search and seizure, no protection from cruel and unusual punishment, no womens voting rights, shall I continue?

Even such pits of statism as Britain and Canada remain free societies, generally speaking, despite having gone skipping blithely down the universal-health-care road to serfdom decades ago.

They're so free! Just ask Mark Steyn about freedom of speech in Canada.

For the sort of people who gathered on the Mall last weekend, however, I doubt that such observations would matter in the least.

Such observations matter in the least, because they are inherently flawed, and you're a condescending douche who just doesn't get it.

Moment of inadvertent honesty:

Government intervention equals tyranny. Liberalism is forever a form of despotism-in-waiting.

By the way, I'm still waiting...

Please take the time to comment!

Jingoistic Post of the Day

From teh ABC News:

President Obama was blasted by a top Latino ally on Monday for modifying his health-care plan in the face of conservative criticism.

The criticism was leveled in Spanish by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a Democrat from Illinois who was the first Latino member of Congress to endorse Barack Obama for president.

Referring to the Obama administration, Gutierrez said: "Those who should be our friends, our allies, are more and more giving Rep. (Joe) Wilson, R-S.C., exactly what he wants to continue with this prejudice against our community."

Two points/questions:

1. Did I miss the part during Obama's speach to the joint session of congress where Joe Wilson interrupted PeeBo and Said, 'You Lie!' Followed shortly thereafter by, 'And I hate all them damn Mexeekins, too!'?
2. There are Latinos in Chicago?
   

But Gutierrez wasn't done being a complete moron:

Gutierrez, who made his remarks in Washington, D.C., while participating in a panel discussion on immigration reform sponsored by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, was incensed by the Obama administration's announcement over the weekend that it was going to bar undocumented workers from participating in the health insurance exchange.

Wait, what? He was 'incensed' because illegals will not be able to participate in a government program in a country that they are inhabiting in violation of the laws of said country?

Huh, I think I see where he's coming from on that one...

For your collective ire, here is the text of the Congressional Oath 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.

Please take the time to comment!

The End of the Republic

Twenty years ago, with his words and actions, Reagan declared it to be morning in America. Within two short decades, by his actions, Barack Obama means to see the sun set on our Republic. Had he written the script himself, this man could not have chosen a more imbicilically willing Legislative branch, which enthusiastically skips along with his plan toward it's own obsolescence. The Congress of the United States is in dereliction of duty, and it's failure to complete its constitutional responsiblities may well have signed the death warrant for our experiment in self governance.

The Executive Branch is quietly and quickly amassing power within it's own confines which will render the Legislative Branch and the separation of powers defunct, allowing the hostile (or not so hostile) take over of this great country. The Congress has allowed it's oversight authority to be stolen away in the middle of the night. There are at least 30 czars with direct oversight of federal operations in many areas reporting directly to the President of the United States. The number is difficult to pin down, as the willing whore of the US Government, the media, has not seen fit to report on this story. These czars have the ability to influence policy and operations within these federal agencies, bypassing the Congressional role in oversight and policy direction.

Congress is also the body responsible to write legislation for our governance. No longer are they able or willing to perform this task, either. Don't believe me? Ask me then, who wrote the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? From the website, Apollo Alliance.org

"Almost all of the clean energy, good jobs programs made public today, along with the dimension of the spending called for by Congress and the new president, track closely with the ideas and proposals advanced last year by the Apollo Alliance in The New Apollo Program and the Apollo Economic Recovery Act."

So, they didn't write the legislation, and we know they sure as hell didn't read it. Let me ask this question, just what the hell is it that they do?!

Can we pull our heads out of Ted Kennedy's oversized, clammy ass long enough to ask, 'What the Hell is going on in my government?!' While the overwhelming reaction to the health care bill, which will be renamed for The Swimmer, has been outstanding, our citizenry has been distracted from the power grab happening within the Executive Branch. The latest example is the removal of power from the CIA to interrogate Terrorist suspects, and the handing of that very same responsibility to an inter-agency group, led by the FBI. You understand that the Congress has oversight of the CIA, however, this new task force does not, correct? Who then do they report to? The Intelligence Czar. I'm sorry, but who the eff, thought that assigning positions of power within the Executive Branch and naming them 'Czar' was a good idea? There is little doubt that soon, our government will be more closely aligned with that of the 19th century Czars than that of the 20th century Presidents.

Not that anyone needed any further proof, but Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are incompetent fools. Unfortunately, so are most within the Republican leadership. We must throw out those who do not understand their constitutional responsibilities and send to Washington, those who have a clear understanding of our representative republic and what it means to be an American.

Packing Heat

There seems to be an ongoing debate over whether or not it's proper to carry a fire arm to a congressional recess town hall meeting. It seems as though nearly everyone with a keyboard has weighed in on the issue, opinion requested or not. The Baltimore Sun, Right Side News, NPR, News-Journal, and unsurprisingly the New York Times' Frank Rich have all come out against the issue.

The overriding rationale against bringing guns to town hall meetings is that it makes others uncomfortable, or it makes you look like a nut, or even that someone might go off the deep end and actually use it. I've also seen and read arguments for carrying guns to town hall meetings, because 'we have 2nd Amendment rights.'

Maybe I'm all alone here, but I take a different outlook on this whole issue. There is no greater symbol of American resolve and steadfastness against tyranny than a gun. Whether libtards want to believe it or not, this is why we have a Second Amendment. So important is this symbol and right, that the only things the founders saw as more integral to our freedoms and liberties were freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble and freedom of the press. In my mind, considering what this administration, and these fools in congress are proposing be done in the American health care system, it's no wonder that the symbol which some Americans have chosen to display is the gun.

If the people who are against carrying guns to town hall meetings are skittish now, imagine how they would have been during the revolution or any part of US history up until the 1920's?! The fact is that carrying a gun has only become stigmatized within the last 60-70 years. There are certain historical events that have had some influenced this, but by and large it's been a coordinated effort by the anti-gun lobby. This lobby either foolishly misunderstands American history, or selfishly wishes to rewrite it.

When faced with tyranny, US citizens have the right and obligation to stand up against it. Even if that means reminding congress and the president with such strong symbols! What should a power grab the likes of what is being proposed by 2 of the 3 branches of this federal government be called, if not tyranny? From Dictionary.com:

"arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority."

I would encourage anyone who does not think that this move by our government is tyranny to point out where in the United States Constitution the federal government, in any capacity, has the ability to seize or claim ownership (permanent or temporary) of private enterprise for any reason. While you're at it show me where health care is outlined as a frontier of the government, and spare me your radically out of context General Welfare Clause argument.

The American Citizenry has no stronger symbol against outright tyranny, than that of a firearm. We can argue the definition of tyranny all day long, but in the end the definition lies with the citizenry. Obviously some of that citizenry has taken these overt moves on the part of the federal government as tyrannical. We bear arms, not because we can, but because against tyranny, we should! It wasn't that long ago that an overreaching government sought to impose it's will upon the citizenry outside of what its own laws allowed. Bear arms, and send a message that it wont happen again.

Recipe For Success!

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals once again proves that they are on the side of truth, justice and absolute stark-raving, barking at the moon, lunacy. WTF are these guys thinking? This is what is called States Rights FAIL. A Federal Appeals Court overriding a State's decision. I'm feeling all 10th Amendmenty, aren't you?

If you needed a reason to get the eff outta Dodge, here it is on a silver platter. I say screw releasing them, put them on death row. That'll drive down the number of repeat offenders, no?

If you're up for self torture, the PDF is here.

I'm Back! And the Latest In The Greatest Nonstory of The Bush Administration

Bane of Libtards everywhere.

Sorry for the lack of posts over the last 72 hours, I've been all over the beautiful state of Californistan, just over 650 miles in 24 hours. Anyhow, I'm back home now and jonesin for a bloggy fix! Let's dive right in, shall we?

The Washington Post recently had an article covering the new testimony from Karl Rove in closed door hearings over the 9 fired US Attorneys. Being questioned is what, if any, role did White House staffers have in the firings of the 9 US Attorneys back in 2006-2007.

The reason that the firings of the US Attorney's is because no President had ever fired a sitting US Attorney, since the founding. None except Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton, who axed all 93 soon after taking the White House. The difference, libtards claim, is that W Bush did it for political reasons and he did it in the middle of his 2nd term.

First, let's back up here and cover the appointments of US Attorneys and under what circumstances they serve. From teh Wikipedia:

"The U.S. Attorney is appointed by the President of the United States for a term of four years, with appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate. A U.S. Attorney shall continue in office, beyond the appointed term, until a successor is appointed and qualified. By law, each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President. The Attorney General has had the authority since 1986 to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys to fill a vacancy."

US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President, and 'By law, each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.'

Another claim is that W fired the attorney's for political reasons...gasp! Once again quoting from teh Wikipedia:

"By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a "political" office, and therefore they are considered to "serve at the pleasure of the President." At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted. The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President's party."

Let's see, after accepting the resignations from or firing an attorney, the President selects a new POLITICAL appointee? Huh, so then that whole 'political reasons' thing doesn't hold any water...

Okay, so we've established that W's three predecessors had removed US Attorney's from office, and that each had the constitutional authority to do so. So... that leaves Bush fired them in 'an unprecedented' middle of the [second] term. I'm sorry, but 'who cares?' Oh, that's right, the law enforcement hating left...sigh.

The reality is that Federal Prosecutors (aka US Attorneys) are in what is considered a political position and are subject to Presidential dismissal at any time, regardless of reason. This story is nothing more than the continuation of the liberal attack machine attempting to bring the Bush Administration down for: stealing the election in 2000, starting the war in Iraq, lying about WMD, stealing the election in 2004, refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol, causing global warming, creating the AIDS virus to keep the black man down, lying about man landing on the moon, Haliburton, Blackwater, Enron, ad nauseam, etc., so on and so forth, insert crackpot conspiracy theory here. Getting anyone in the executive branch, but especially in someone within the President's circle was the libtard's wet dream with Bush being at the top of the list, and Karl Rove being number two.

The facts are: The Federal Prosecutors are POLITICAL appointees. The Federal Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President, and can be terminated at his discretion. End of story, get over it and move on with your lives you bitter, defeated bastards.

Rule #5 Link Dump

Thanks to Hollywood Tuna!

It's been a long, rough day and I should apologize for not having time to blog as freely as I have within the last week. Hopefully this picture of Jenna Presley will help make up for it! I have just a couple of quick links for you to check out. Enjoy and talk amongst yourselves.

Terrorist sues PeeBo, Administration gives in...sigh

Nicaragua is killing pregnant women, or something

Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli is the douche who dropped charges against the Black Panthers in the PA voter intimidation case.

Politico article about dogs gagging...

I'm having a hard time finding foundation for being a self righteous ass to a cop as a constitutional right...

Tweet of the year

Teh End

PeeBo Cuts Aid to Honduras (UPDATED)

(UPDATE) US revokes visas of interim government officials from Honduras.

---

H/T Gateway Pundit.

Image courtesy IBD Editorials.

In another stunning display of Hopenchange, PeeBo has cut aid to Honduras in response to the ouster of (Former) President Zelaya. The Obama Regime has called for the re-installment of Zelaya after he was forcibly removed from the country earlier this year.

For a refresher, click here. In a nutshell here's what went down. First, President Zelaya, in defiance of Honduras' constitution sought a voter referendum to allow him as President to stay in office for more than one term. The Honduran Constitution explicitly states that no President can serve more than a single term, and anyone who advocates a longer term will be ineligible to serve for several years. The Supreme Court ruled his actions unconstitutional. Zelaya had Hugo Chavez, the monkey who runs Venezuela, ship ballots with the referendum to Honduras, so Zelaya could carry out the vote. The Military seized the ballots, where upon, Zelaya had ACORN break into the military installation where they were being stored, and begin to distribute the ballots. When approached by Military Commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez who informed the President that his actions were not legal, Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court then ordered Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez reinstated, yet Zelaya refused. At this point the AG announced that the referendum was illegal and anyone caught participating in the disbursement of the illegal ballots would be subject to arrest and prosecution. Zelaya did not back down, was arrested, and ultimately deported from Honduras.

It's important to note that the Honduran Constitution does not have a method in place for impeachment or removal from office of a standing president. As a result, the Honduran Congress, Supreme Court and Attorney General acted in accordance with the law available to them and had Zelaya arrested and deported. Not only was what happened in Honduras not a coup, it was the exact opposite. It was in fact, the prevention of a coup.

Now, President PeeBo has cut off military aid and is threatening to cut more aid if Zelaya is not reinstated as President in Honduras. Most of us knew PeeBo was dummer 'n a box a rocks, but isn't there someone in the federal government somewhere (like I dunno, the State Department) who understands the constitution of Honduras?! Instead we have the Clown in Chief cutting off aid to an ally for practicing, wait for it... Democracy!

Conclusion: Libtards hate Democracy!

Czar Bazaar!

Christina Jade keeps us up-to-date on the Czar count. Where exactly is czar written into the constitution, again?

Libtards For Justice... Or Something

Nicholas Stephanopoulos at the Huff'nPuff tries to put words together in order to fashion sentences, but fails miserably. In his hackneyed piece he claims that conservatives not only have adopted a non-constitutional/common law approach toward the role of the judiciary, but have embraced the french revolutionary philosophy regarding judicial constraint.

Stephanopoulos writes:

...[W]hat document said that "the courts may not directly or indirectly take any part in the exercise of the legislative power," adding that "judicial functions... will alyaws remain separate from the executive functions?" Was it a proposal by President Bush's Department of Justice? Or perhaps a bill submitted by congressional Republicans to prevent "legislating from the bench?" Actually, no. It was France's famous Law on Judicial Organization, enacted at the height of the French Revolution

Pop Quiz: What major European revolution was inspired by the American Revolution?
Bonus Question: Which country did Thomas Jefferson assist in writing their 'Declaration of the Rights of Man?'

That's right, FRANCE.
You see, the French were not always douche bags, like they are now. At one time, they understood that rights were a gift from G_d and inalienable, just like a few pretty famous Americans. The french, after helping the United States in it's own Revolution, soon launched their own and leaders from the new Democratic Republics shared philosophies and ideals on where rights came from and how man was to be governed. All this to say, the revolutionary french shared constitutional ideologies (including judicial philosophy) with the United States. So, to insinuate that the quotes above are completely foreign to our way of governing or judicial philosophy is ignorant.

Stephanopoulos then goes on to claim that the common law method allows for judges to interpret law and legislate, or "...consult non-textual sources and take policy considerations into account in their decisions." Small problem

The problem with this claim is that the 'common law method' although practiced in the United States today is no where to be found in the enumerated powers of the Judicial Branch within United States Constitution. The Constitution is clear, the Legislative Branch is the body which proposes new law and the Judicial Branch interprets those laws.

The other flaw in this theory is that there are somehow documents crucial to the rule of law in the US which lie outside of our legal founding documents... I'm not even going to waste my breath on that one

Verdict: Huff'nPuff, FAIL again!