Tag Archives: freedom

Is Cliven Bundy A Racist

I don’t know if he is or isn’t. What I do know is that what he said wasn’t racist – he was factually incorrect. Any person who knows anything about the family life of slaves knows that there was none. Slave families were torn apart with no more thought than was given to taking a calve from its mother. Bundy’s comparison of the two eras of black families would not work even if slave families were as he stated.  The overriding point Bundy was trying to make was not about the slave family, but about how far too many black families today have become slaves of the government. That was the correct side of his point.

In the end, this doesn’t change how tyrannical the federalies response was to his disobedience in regards to his refusal to pay them for grazing rights. He said he will gladly pay the state of Nevada for the rights, just not the federalies. I did hear on Hannity’s radio show one Nevada state legislator say that the county where all of this occurred actually purchased the grazing rights from the federalies in the 90′s.

 

 

 

The Truth About The Supremacy Clause

The so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution like the Elastic Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Commerce Clause has come to mean something entirely incoherent with what it is suppose to mean. Every clause of the Constitution that has been reduced to a hand full of meaningless words has become exactly that, meaningless. As with all of the other abbreviated clauses there are other words in Article VI of the Constitution which includes the Supremacy Clause that have significant meaning. What exactly are those words that nearly everyone ignores? Article VI of the Constitution states,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

The most important words of this clause are “pursuance thereof.” Very simply, in order for a federal law to be the supreme law of the land the law it must be in pursuance of the Constitution which means it must be constitutional. Does anybody who has any knowledge of the founding of this nation and the reasons for our separation from England believe that the founders and ratifiers intended for those in the new federal government to be the sole deciders-in-chief of the extent of the power they could wield over the American people. Was it their intentions to fight a war in order to free themselves from the tyranny of the king in order to give that same power to a handful of individuals in the new federal government? The answer to that question is patently obvious—absolutely not.

California Representative Pete Stark no so long ago said that the federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants. The problem with this formulation is that it is not the federal government doing it, it is instead a group of individuals using the power of the federal government to force themselves upon the masses. Unfortunately, those in the federal government do have the power to do pretty much whatever they want, but, they do not have the authority, in particular the constitutional authority to do whatever they want, which brings us back to “Pursuance thereof.”  What should be done when those with the backing of the power of the federal government make laws or in the case of those in the judiciary interpret laws in a manner that is clearly not in pursuance thereof? The very simple answer is to ignore such unconstitutional acts by those in the federal government, ah yes, nullify them. Yikes!!!

If we have learned nothing else, we have learned that those individuals in all three branches of the federal government will seize for themselves all of the power that we, the American citizens will allow them to seize. While we have sat idly by the last several decades all three branches of the federal government have intruded into areas they have absolutely no authority to be involved in. Those individuals in all three branches have shown nothing but a pure disregard for the Constitution when it comes to restricting their power over the people. It is now time for us, the American citizens as individuals and collectively in our States to tell those in the federal government to go jump in the lake. We as individuals and our States should nullify all unconstitutional acts by the federal government, because that is the only way to force these traitors to the constitution back to a more constitutional form of government.

I can hear it now. How can we endeavor to sanction such mutinous and anarchic activity? I guess that depends on where you think the mutinous and anarchic activity began. It is my contention that it begins with the unconstitutional acts of those in the federal government. Why should it be left to those in the power circles of the federal government to determine among themselves’ the extent of the power they exert over the populace, and then invoke the supremacy clause. The liberal loons who worship the federal government are already screaming slavery or something to do with the civil war as if nullification by osmosis means support for slavery. These folks will do all kinds of contortions to get any argument back to slavery somehow.

Nullification has occurred everywhere and always in some form or fashion. California recently nullified federal drug laws by allowing marijuana for medical use. Presidents since its inception have nullified the War Powers Act, because they don’t believe congress has the authority to restrict the president’s authority as commander in chief. Abraham Lincoln nullified the constitution when he launched a war that killed a half million Americans, crippled countless others, left homes, families, and property in ruins in order to force the southern states back into the union. Secession was constitutional, while preventing secession through war was not. Enough said.

 

The Ground Zero Mosque Is Not A Constitutional Matter

I was listening to an interview on the O’Reilly Factor where the Muslim being interviewed kept repeating that the mosque was a constitutional issue. He is not the the first to make this claim which makes him not the first to be wrong. The owners of that property have no constitutional right to be protected from the anger of those who oppose the mosque. The owners have a constitutional right to not be interfered with by Congress per the U.S. Constitution, and most certainly from interference from the State government per the State Constitution. There are no such protections from their fellow citizens who oppose the mosque. Those who oppose have every right to oppose the mosque within the law. They can protest, they can picket, they can right letters, and they can appear on television.

It seems that those who want the mosque built have taken a page from the black race baiting industry. Just call those who oppose the mosque, bigots, racists, yadda, yadda, yadda. Those who support open borders have taken this same tact also. These race baiting tactics no longer work the way they once did, but that won’t keep them from trying. I think these tactics actually are on their last leg, because nobody seems to be cowering away when accused of such nonsense as they once did. Lastly, ignorance of the U.S. Constitution is rampant. Not only among the average citizen, but also among members of Congress such as California Representative Pete Stark who believes that the United States Government can do whatever it wants. I guess when members of Congress have no clue, we shouldn’t be too hard on the average citizen.

The Truth About The Establishment Clause

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” To understand the First Amendment with an accurate reading of it is to understand the limits of its authority. The Constitution and the attached amendments are a contract that should be read like any other contract, by reading the actual words, and it is clear that the founders did not want the federal government to establish a religion or restrict freedom of religion, but, to say that the First Amendment says that church and state should be separate, that there should be a wall of separation is to say something the First Amendment just does not say.

There are many examples of how this incorrect interpretation has resulted in misguided restrictions and even used by those hostile to religion. One example is the cross that was erected in 1934 by VFW members on federal land in California honoring WWI veterans. This cross was ruled unconstitutional by a California district court on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment. In order for that to be true, the cross would have to have been placed there as a result of the federal government establishing a religion, which it was not, or it would have to somehow restricted freedom of religion, which it didn’t. It is clear that the amendment had not been violated, but the district court ruled otherwise—they just made it up.

Another good example is school vouchers. If a parent receives government money to send a child to a private school and then decides to send that child to a Catholic school, it is not a violation of the First Amendment. The parent was not forced to use the religious school by government decree, they chose to use it. Nor does it restrict their or anybody’s freedom of religion. The examples of how the First Amendment has been incorrectly invoked to restrict freedoms are too numerous to cover here, but we need to remember only one thing when evaluating whether or not this amendment has been violated. Is the activity in question the result of Congress passing a law establishing or restricting religion. One point I think should be made is that the First Amendment guarantees to all of us a secular government, not a secular nation. Some seem to think it guarantees us a secular nation.

The reason I am making such an issue about this is that this is not the only portion of the Constitution that is being warped into something never intended. For instance, the commerce clause which states Congress can regulate commerce among the states has been twisted into saying that congress can force us to participate in insurance programs, and that they can control other aspects of our lives. The Takings Clause which says private property can be stolen for public use such as schools, roads, public buildings and the like now means that private property can be stolen for public benefit such as increased tax revenues that can be reaped by transferring the property to another private entity to be used for private purposes not public use. Congress and the President believe there is no limit to their authorities, and the day will come when we ask, “Where have all of our rights gone?”

The Tortured Commerce Clause

“The Congress shall have the power…: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Did you notice what it doesn’t say. It doesn’t say that Congress can participate in interstate commerce. It doesn’t say that Congress can regulate an activity of an individual citizen who is producing something for his own use, even though others produce that very same thing for sales across state lines, which has happened. Lastly, It doesn’t say that Congress can force citizens to participate in interstate commerce or any other type of commerce.

The Commerce Clause really is a very simple and straight forward enumerated power. An enumerated power that has been stretched, twisted and tortured in order to do one thing, and that one thing is, to give the federal government powers not authorized by the Constitution. Politicians, starting in the 1930′s supported by their accessories in the judiciary, have unconstitutionally intruded into the lives of the American citizens, and are now poised to rob even more freedoms with the just passed health care fiasco.

The Commerce Clause has been invoked lately as authority to force citizens to participate in commerce, but the most common reasoning is that the government makes Americans buy auto insurance. Well, the first thing we must do is determine which government we are talking about, because different levels of government have different authorities and responsibilities. Those who make this auto insurance argument are trying to justify an unconstitutional federal activity by conflating it with a constitutional state activity. The 10th Amendment gives this authority to the States, not the United States government.

What Do Republicans Need To Do?

There has been a lot of discussion lately about what the Republicans need to do to start winning again. Some say that they need to become more inclusive and others says they need to moderate their tone on social issues or even drop them completely. It has also been said that Republicans can’t be successful only as the party of old white men. First—the source of most of these suggestions are liberals, and a few spineless Republicans, which begs the question – do you really think those liberals have the best interests of the Republican Party in mind?—I think not. They, however, would love it if Republicans became more like them as some suggest. I have a few suggestions of my own

First:  The Republicans don’t need to panic as some are doing. Republicans have been out of power before, and it was only  a few years ago that everyone was talking about a permanent Republican majority. Even though there has been a huge swing in control of Congress the last couple of years, the losses the Republicans suffered on a race by race basis in the 06 mid-terms and 08 were close losses, not blowouts. Just a few thousands votes gave the Democrats control of the Senate in 06, and the 08 elections were decided by war weariness and the economy.

Second: The Republicans need to stop letting the Liberals establish the rules of engagement. For example, during the campaign Barack Obama decided that lobbyists were the scourge of the Earth, and that he would have nothing to do with them, and any who did were equally contemptuous, and when Obama hit this ball into the Republican court, the Republicans fumbled it, and kicked it around instead of hitting it right back into his court. It could have been hit right back into his court very simply by pointing out that most lobbyists are Americans – they are known as citizens, constituents, businesses, organizations, bureaucrats, governors, etc, etc, and none of them can pass legislation – all they can do is suggest. If politicians pass bad legislation regardless of the nature of the influence or those who exert it, it is the fault of the politicians not the so-called lobbyists, and if Barack Obama wants to ignore and vilify these people, he is ignoring and vilifying Americans—Americans who have every right to petition their government for redress.

Third:  The Republicans must stop being cowards—I do mean COWARDS, and come to the realization that the Liberals are at war with them, which means that they must go to war with the Liberals. If you are going to defeat your enemy, you must go to where your enemy is. You can’t bomb them from 30,000 feet, and you can’t be nicey nice, or appease them – if they are in the gutter, you must go into the gutter after them. There is a saying in basketball that the teams who apply the full court press don’t like having it applied to them, which means the Republicans must start applying the press to the Liberals in the same way that they have been applying it to Republicans.

Fourth: Republicans must go on the attack. For instance, they should never apologize when called racist—they should instead attack by pointing out how the Democrat Party is and has been the party of racism, and that the Democrat Party has done more than any other in keeping down minorities, and in particular, blacks. When called uncaring by the Liberals, the Republicans should attack by pointing out the fact that Liberal policies have done more to impoverish, and to keep impoverished, a huge segment of the citizens of this country, most of whom are black. The Republicans should attack attack attack – they should never, I repeat, never go on the defensive – for if you are on the defensive in politics—you are losing.

Fifth:  Ignore the party pacifists. Yes there actually are Republicans when it comes to politics who believe in the policy of appeasement and pacifism. This policy weakens the party in the very same way that Democrat policy of appeasement and pacifism weakens America on the world stage. These spineless Republicans can be heard everywhere – they include but are certainly not limited to—Jeb Bush, Michael Medved, Joe Scarborough, Tom Ridge, etc, etc, etc. Republicans such as these are embarrassed by conservatives who are willing to take the fight to the Liberals, and they discourage such efforts.  They do not possess what it takes, if you know what I mean, to attack liberalism, and they will end up taking us to the same place that liberals want to take us, only slower. Republicans must not see Liberal policies as the reason for their success and emulate that, but should instead emulate the fervor and intensify in which Liberals promote their ideas.

Sixth: Republicans must stigmatize Liberals as bad for the country. Liberals, primarily since the 30′s have done a very good job of stigmatizing Republicans as heartless, uncaring, racists, bigots, homophobes, and right now are trying to label Republicans as the party of “no”, and they have actually convinced Americans that they are better on the economy—only incompetent boobs could allow this to happen, because Liberal policies are terrible for the economy. The Liberals accomplished this very simply by repeating the same lies over and over and over, all the while, Republicans made no meaningful or concerted efforts to counteract such propaganda, and the result in the end was that it stuck.

Seventh: Republicans need to make people understand that life on the government dole or under government tyranny is no life whatsoever. Being a Liberal is very simple minded approach to politics—just promise everything and then say “don’t forget me when you vote.” It is, however, a much more difficult proposition to convince people that their first duty is to take care of themselves, to not leach on others, and certainly to not rely on others through the federal government—this is where far too many Republicans fall short. Liberals go into politics planning to give away the farm to get votes, and Republicans go along with it because they don’t want to lose votes.