Who said torture doesn’t work? Did you know that Federal judges have dungeons where they perform all forms of torture on the Constitution in order to get it to tell them what they want to hear? They then bring forth such declarations given under duress, and call them interpretations—newly found authorities that never existed, and that would make the Framers and Ratifiers squeal for mercy from their graves. Under such torture, the Constitution has provided many more authorities under the Commerce Clause than the founders supplied. The Commerce Clause gave Congress very limited authority over commerce, with the primary purpose being to keep commerce flowing smoothly from state to state, and to prevent import and export tariffs from state to state. It didn’t give Congress the authority to force citizens to purchase a product, as we know with the Boston Tea Party, or the authority to regulate something that affected interstate commerce, or something that affected something that affected interstate commerce. Very simply, only the act of commerce could be regulated by Congress. We know the founders didn’t think much of being told what tea to buy, and they certainly wouldn’t have cottoned to the idea that the new federal government would have the authority to mandate construction standards for boats or wagons because the use of those would affect interstate commerce. Visualize that argument being made in the 1790’s. It’s very simple to understand. If the usurpations committed by the federal government of today, had been authorities included in the drafting of the original Constitution, the Constitution would have never made it out of the Convention, and if it did by some stretch, it would have never been ratified.
Since the very beginning of this great republic there have been those who have desired to transfer as much power as possible from the states and individuals to federal politicians and judges. Starting all the way back to Hamilton’s unconstitutional bank where he made the argument to Washington that the new federal government had the authority to regulate the economy, making the bank constitutional, when in fact no such authority existed. Washington then consulted Jefferson about the bank idea. Jefferson stated that the bank was not an enumerated power, nor was it necessary and proper to carry out any of the enumerated powers, so therefore was unconstitutional. Jefferson’s understanding of the constitution was spot on, while Hamilton’s was wrought with amnesia, for he had completely forgotten all about that war of independence thing a few years earlier and the reasons for it.
It’s very, very disturbing to me to hear so-called constitutional thinkers talk about the constitution in such haphazard and even reckless ways. They, just like those before them have turned the Constitution into a mishmash of mangled words where up means down and left means right. They have reduced the Constitution to a handful of meaningless phrases that completely distort the meaning of various parts of the constitution. Phrases such as the “general welfare ” clause, which is not a clause about general welfare, but instead a clause about taxation, how taxes are raised and what they can be spent on. Another distortion is the term “necessary and proper” also known as the “elastic” clause. which many seem to think this clause is there as some kind of catch-all. This clause, however only allows congress to do those things that are necessary and proper to carry into action powers that are listed in the Constitution such as purchasing battle ships for the navy. The navy is a listed power, but buying battleships is not. Another famous distortion is the “Supremacy Clause” and the notion that all federal laws are supreme…….this could not be further from the truth. Two very important words that are never mentioned in the abbreviated version are “pursuant to”. In order for any federal law or ruling by the Supreme Court to be the supreme law of the land, it must be made pursuant to the constitution, which means it must be constitutional.
Another “Supreme” distortion is the doctrine of incorporation by which it has been contrived that the Bill of Rights applies not only to the federal government, but state and local governments, public schools and anything else the courts wish to apply them to. The United States Constitution applies only as described therein, and the state constitutions apply to the state governments and the other government entities such as counties, cities, and towns.
The United States Constitution does not require a law degree to understand, although it does require several readings and some research. The only correct reading of the Constitution is a literal reading for it actually requires very little “interpretation.” A literal reading of it, however, presents one major problem to those with devious motives toward it. It will give them few, to no avenues for such efforts.
God save the United States Constitution!!!!
No, you haven’t entered the twilight zone. Contrary to what many believe, the United States Constitution was not created to provide equality. It was created to delineate authorities in two ways that the Framers and Ratifiers considered essential to maintaining freedom for the people. One was to delineate authorities between the three branches of the National Government which included the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial–we regularly hear that spoken of as the separation of powers. The second, which has been ignored in many ways, and is certainly under constant attack by the freedom robbing Left, was to delineate the authorities between the National, and State governments and the people. There are those who want to control the lives of others…liberals, who will twist and distort the Constitution in any manner possible in order to sodomize the American people with their brand of tyranny cloaked in compassion. Then there are those who want us to believe that they are a lot smarter than what they actually are….lawyers, therefore they are the only ones capable of understanding and interpreting the Constitution.
The Constitution really isn’t difficult to understand, it requires no elaborate education or sleepless nights reading the tangled web of constitutional case law, so it is very important to ignore liberals and lawyers in this respect. The most important thing to study in order to understand the Constitution are the tensions between the Colonies and England that caused secession, the debate and discussions during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, and more importantly the debate and discussions during the State Ratification Conventions. It does take a little time, but, you will be amazed at how enlightened you will become by doing so. I would say that it comes down to a very simple question when considering if something is constitutional or not….”What would be the response of the Founders and Ratifiers?” We know how they would react to being told that they had to buy something such as health insurance…they would throw it into Boston Harbor. The authorities granted to the new national government codified by the new Constitution were limited, very limited, and defined, with the remainder of the authorities left to the States and the people as detailed in the Tenth Amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution is the national level of government granted the authority to indulge itself in any particular social program. The only way the National Government can do so, is only if the authority has first been created by an amendment to the Constitution….no, the Commerce Clause or the so called General Welfare clause provide no such authority. The politicians and justices at the national level do not have the authority to simply create authorities out of thin air…there is a process.
The Supreme Court has no authority to rule on marriage, so this ruling should be considered null, void, and ignored by the States that decided marriage is between one man and one woman. It is past time for State governments to assert their authorities protected by the Constitution, and to protect their citizens from the tyrannies of the federal government……yes, nullification is the remedy. State officials take the same oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as do those in the federal government who wish to abuse their power, so it is the responsibility of the State officials to protect and defend the Constitution and their citizens in the way they see fit when such a patently unconstitutional ruling comes down from the federal courts. I can hear the left wing federal government worshipers now, invoking racism, slavery, Jim Crow, etc, etc as if nullification actually had anything to do with those things. It is their typical shallow minded response designed to immediately put those who suggest such a thing on the defensive. Well, let’s not let it work. Nullification has been used throughout the history of this great country. Nullification was suggested as early as 1798 and 1799 because of the Alien and Sedition Acts signed into law by John Adams which made it illegal to speak out against the General Government. Nullification was also used by non-slave states when they refused to enforce fugitive slave laws, and it has been used to this day by states that have legalized marijuana in spite of federal laws that make it illegal. Nullification, however, should not only be used in this instance, but in all instances when any branch or bureaucracy of the federal government becomes tyrannical. As much as the freedom thieves of the federal government may believe they can do whatever they want, they can, but only if we allow it. Nullification is time tested, legal, and sometimes the only remedy states have against a tyrannical federal government.
The main problem with race relations is that guilty whites, racist blacks, and Racists of the Highest Order want to frame the argument that racism is a one way road. These racists want everyone else to believe that racism flows only from whites with the minority races being victimized by it. It is said by these clowns that only whites can be racist because of the white power structure and white privilege. As I stated in my post Can Blacks be Racists? They want to argue that the giant white blob is beating up on the much smaller black blob, and then assign all of the traits of each blob to their individual members respectively. So, according to their theory, poor whites possess power over powerful blacks such as Barack Obama, and that individual blacks can’t be racist, because the black blob has no power – isn’t this stupid. They in essence are saying that all whites are perps and all blacks are victims, but do you see what is actually going on here. They are trying to remove any and all responsibility in race relations from blacks so they can be assigned no blame for poor race relations. I have heard several black persons say that the most racist persons they know are other blacks, so it must be true. The racists of the Race Machinery are like the boy who cried wolf too many times. Their constant and never ending allegations of racism devalue the meaning of the word, and more importantly trivialize the experiences of those who were true victims of racism. For Pete’s sake, I heard Joy Behar suggest that it was racist to call Black Friday…Black Friday. Left wing loons like to consider themselves to be scientific, rational and fact based thinkers. They really are very simply butterballs of emotion incapable of anything like they consider themselves. Maybe this all could have been diffused by simply calling the killings at the Charleston church….Churchplace Violence.
I woke up this morning and saw on the news about the Charleston Church Shooting, and nearly all of the internet searches I did had “hate crime” in the lead. I read on to learn that nobody knows anything about the suspect other than his name, the car he was driving and his personal appearance. They don’t know if it was a hate crime, if he just woke up with a bad case of heartburn, or was mentally ill. The mayor according to ABC news, said “The only reason someone would walk into church and shoot people is hate.” He doesn’t know that. Might he be laying the groundwork for the race machinery and racists of the highest order to step in do their thing, because this whole hate crime designation, which was pushed by the left is very simply a tool of the race machinery to assist in making whites, whether guilty or not of anything, to feel guilty about the so-called hate crime of the day. Has there ever been an instance when black on white crime was so quickly designated as a hate crime if at all. Murder is illegal regardless of the reason for it, but I think we can rest assured that the race machinery will be in high gear.
It’s interesting that two posts ago I commented about how white guilt is a necessity for the race machine, and then up pops Rachel Dolezal. The question commonly posed is, why? Well it’s very simple. Rachel Dolezal clearly suffers from a severe case of white guilt. She is a hopeless basket case, but others should not allow themselves to be cowered by the left’s race machinery. Nobody has a reason to feel guilty about the various pathologies that exist among blacks. All of the problems that exist among blacks are caused by blacks, and whitey or bigger government can’t fix that. Black lives matter, but they apparently don’t matter to blacks.
I bet the title of this piece is raising an eyebrow or two, or has set some liberal off like a stick of dynamite. Think about it a moment. Are you still wondering exactly what I could mean by such an inflammatory statement? Well, I didn’t call them Nazis, so I still have a little room left before I can be partitioned off into right wing loony land.
Liberals are statists. Socialists and communists are statists. They all believe in and want the same thing – a powerful national government that erects a multitude of government offices and sends hither swarms of officers to harass the people, and eat out their substance. (Look for a variation of the previous sentence in the Declaration of Independence) The only difference is the level of power that exists that can be used to achieve that ends.
Communists simply murder or jail their political enemies with impunity and it’s for the common good believe it or not. Socialists, for the common good, steal your personal property and do with it as they please, and you also, if you object too much. Liberals are somewhat more restricted in what they can do to make you a compliant little soldier – they do it through regulations, laws, and coercive bureaucracies. They can’t kill you, so they beset the IRS upon you. This is also for the common good.
Liberals, socialists and communists use basically the same buzz words, phrases, and other tactics – workers of the world unite, fairness, equality of outcome, rich vs poor, common good, etc, etc. It all sounds nice, and warm and fuzzy, but is devious to its core. They lure people by taking advantage of two emotions, one insidious, and one virtuous. The first is jealously! The same emotion that caused a cave man who had only one wheel to beat another to death who had two wheels. The other emotion is compassion. The emotion that caused a cave man with two wheels to give one to a cave man who had none. This one two punch includes nearly everyone in some degree, and so it makes it much easier for the statists to convince the people to subject themselves to tyranny.
The federal government we have now is actually more of a national government, because it acts upon the individual in ways that are not authorized by the United States Constitution, and commits other acts that are flat out tyrannical. Former Congressman Pete Stark of California once said that the federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants. He was partly correct, it can’t constitutionally, but it can tyrannically if good people stand by and subject themselves to it. Lastly, To Bernie Sanders who calls himself a Democratic Socialist….that is an oxymoron.
Is it possible for anyone to miss how the race machine has been in high gear since Obama’s first election to President? This race machinery is driven and operated by those I characterized as “Racists of the Highest Order” in a previous post. It is not only designed to create an army of black racists, but is also designed to evoke guilt on the part of conservatives since liberals already wreak of this guilt and benefit politically from it.
There was a time, when the separate water fountains were still fresh on everyone’s mind that it wasn’t very difficult to make whites feel guilty about how blacks were treated. This is explained very nicely by Shelby Steele in a couple of his books, White Guilt and Shame, which I highly recommend. The problem that these racists have now though is that today’s America isn’t Jim Crow’s America. As much as they try to make everyone believe that things racial haven’t changed since that time, Americans today just aren’t feeling it. Older generations have been and are being replaced with younger generations who only know of separate water fountains because of history books. So, what next?
Well, Racists of the Highest Order must convince those who are not racist that they in fact are, and that those who possess no guilt for injustices they did not perpetrate in fact are guilty. There are many techniques and phrases they use to facilitate this conversion, but the important thing for those who are the target of this attack is to recognize what is occurring, and not let it have the desired effect. They bring up slavery all the time, and tell whites that “you enslaved us” or that “we were slaves” in order to send the message that you are a racist and should feel guilty, so just sit in the corner and shut up. When I hear these stupid rationalizations it makes me think that they must have some kind of a Green Mile thing going on. Maybe they have a very old mouse in their pocket, and they were slaves 150+ years ago, but I was nowhere around. Furthermore, I have never held slaves, and I can’t be made to feel guilty about something I had no part in.
What exactly is a racist of the highest order? Well simply put, it is a person who doesn’t actually have to be a racist as it is commonly understood, but is a person who benefits from racism, and knows no limits on what can be said or done in order to maximize such benefits. These benefits come in various forms. Some include financial gain, but all include political power. So this person does all possible to create hatred between the races to achieve such benefits. A perfect analogy would be a drug dealer who isn’t a user, but does all he can to promote usage of his product. Hillary Clinton is this drug dealer, but she isn’t the only one.
It used to be that these racists were mainly in the communist wing of the democrat party, but the democrat party has become so extreme, that the communist wing has become the whole bird nearly, and it is now mainstream democrat policy to stoke racial hatred for the gain of political power. They do all they can to generate seething racial hatred on the part of minorities, direct that hatred toward whites generally and republicans specifically, and then take delight in the rioting, looting, and killings with the full expectation that these minorities will head to the polls come election day and vote….democrat.
Hillary Clinton and others just like her claim to care about minorities and proclaim themselves to be their saviors, but very simply are patronizing minorities. Hillary Clinton and her ilk couldn’t care less about minorities, but she and they couldn’t care more about political power, and hence, the minority vote, and they will say absolutely anything to get that vote. They will continue to make promises to minorities that can’t be kept, or that will make no difference in their lives, and all will be said with a smile and a comforting hand on the shoulder with a knife at the ready for their backs. One day, maybe, minorities will figure that out.