Archive for the ‘Contemporary Quotes’ Category

The average American commits about three federal felonies per day

October 25, 2009

A few years ago I posted about all the laws that keep going on the books. I posited then, and still do that laws are rarely, if ever removed. Scare tactics are bread and butter for politicians irrespective of party affiliation.

Prosecutors and police have a vast array of statutes with which to send you off to the poky for an extended stay. Use of government power as a social engineering tool has a rather long and sordid history. From the racist based gun control laws to laws designed by better then thous to protect you from yourself they just keep piling them on. Political correctness, as embodied in various new laws that push agenda after agenda throttle freedom and liberty while supposedly protecting the same. Sexism, racism, and matters of equality seem to be the ticket to framing most of the newer tools of oppression, and don’t forget “acceptable” religion.

Framing certain unacceptable behavior’s as misdemeanors is a tactic often employed as of late. Along with attached felony penalties of course. Please note, that in most, if not all states, you can get a pardon for felony crimes if you clean your act up. However, for infractions and misdemeanors the situation is different. You are stuck with those penalties for life. Even when there is a mechanism in place for what is basically a pardon, it is most often at the whim of the prosecutors and court that convicted the person. Fat chance of that happening. They want the feathers in their war bonnets. While at the same time exposing their social cowardice for not having actually taken the person to task by convicting them of a felony.

“There’s no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

Ayn Rand

To that end Reason magazine has an article up that is, for the most part pretty accurate. Aside from their illogical comment on illegal immigration. Read that in it’s entirety HERE.

Another “Top” list

January 12, 2009

I just knew that there had to be more top (ten) lists. Either for this past year, or for the new year. I found another one, and it is great!

2008 in review: Top questions Barack Obama did not answer

By Mark Alexander

Perhaps you’ve noticed an abundance of “Top Ten” lists in recent weeks. As usual, the mainstream media has churned out a variety of year-in-review pieces of late. Two events vied for top billing on all those lists — the financial meltdown and the presidential election. At present, it isn’t clear which of those debacles presents the greater threat to our nation.

The factors leading up to the economic collapse in the last two quarters are clear (see Economics 101). What is not clear, however, is whether we can limit the damage to a mere recession.

On the other hand, we have learned that Barack Hussein Obama (as he prefers to be named for his oath of office) is a charismatic master of deception and deflection. What we haven’t learned, therefore, are the answers to a plethora of questions about his citizenship, his mentors, his faith, his worldview, and his tragic childhood — a childhood which gave rise to the pathological narcissism that launched his political career and guides him to this day.

Not that many of those questions weren’t asked. Plenty of them were posed in our profiles of Obama but were met with obfuscation, prevarication and equivocation.

Who is this guy?

So, who is this guy?

In one sense he answered that question in his political autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope”: “I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

That explains who he is in the glassy eyes of his messianic following, but who is he really? Who is Barack Hussein Obama, the president-elect of the United States of America?

In pursuit of an answer, I have compiled a list of some important questions directed at BHO that he did not answer in 2008.

Where to start … how about the beginning: Are you a natural-born citizen, as constitutionally prescribed in Article II, Section 1 and Amendment XX, Section 3, for the office of president?

When the question of citizenship came up a year ago, I presumed that this issue was a “straw man” — that your strategy was to send some adversaries on a rabbit trail to nowhere, only to release your official birth certificate just prior to the election. But you didn’t do that.

I believe that you were born in Honolulu, but I have been to the hospital where you were, ostensibly, born, and they could not produce any birth records or tell me who the attending OB might have been. Of course, 1961 is many years past.

Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle has sealed your on-file birth records, making them unavailable for verification. You refuse to request that the documents in question be made available for examination by dispassionate analysts.

To obtain a driver’s license, one has to provide some proof of citizenship — so why did you not comply as a presidential candidate? Surely you can influence the state of Hawaii to release your original birth certificate for public inspection, so this lingering question can be put to rest before your inauguration.

We know that you hold constitutional rule of law in contempt, but in the unlikely event that it is revealed sometime after your inauguration that you are not a natural-born citizen, we would be faced with a serious constitutional crisis. When do you plan to release your original birth certificate?

Moving on, given your strange childhood and broken family (similar to that of Bill Clinton, the last unmitigated narcissist to occupy the White House), you indicated that your primary childhood mentor was a communist, Frank Marshall Davis.

How did his mentorship shape your understanding of the role of government and economics?

You claim that you never heard any of the anti-American and black-supremacist rants of your mentoring pastor, Jeremiah Wright. However, you spent 20 years in Wright’s church, he officiated at your marriage and the baptism of your children, and you identified him as a “father” figure.

Is it possible that you have been so steeped in his racist rhetoric and hatred for America that you failed to recognize it for what it was?

You claim that terrorist William Ayers was “just a guy in my neighborhood,” and that you were “just eight years old when he was a terrorist.” However, you were 34 when Ayers used his radical celebrity to launch your political career from his living room. You were 40 when this unrepentant terrorist was featured in a New York Times article (on the morning of September 11, 2001) and quoted in the opening paragraph proclaiming, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers added, “America makes me want to puke.” You were working on your second major “philanthropic” project with Ayers at that time, and when interviewed for your first Senate run, you claimed that your primary qualification for public office was your role with the ultra-Leftist Annenberg Foundation — an appointment that you received from Ayers.

So, what is the real nature of your relationship with Ayers?

Regarding your ties to the Socialist New Party, the ACORN crowd, Rod Blagojevich, Tony Rezko, Saul Alinsky, Father Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Kwame Kilpatrick, Louis Farrakhan, Rashid Khalidi, Raila Odinga and other haters, hard Leftists and convicted felons, are we to assume these were just “guys in your neighborhood”?

If you were a Civil Service Employee, could you pass a background check to receive a basic “Secret” clearance? If not, why should the American people trust you as the steward of their security? (OK, I know the answer. “No.”)

When you turned 18 years of age, did you register with the Selective Service System as required by law?

Regarding your “realtor” friend Rezko, how do the unusual circumstances surrounding the purchase of your Chicago mansion differ from the purchase made by former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA) of his California house — a purchase that ended with his arrest and conviction?

George Bernard Shaw once wrote, “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” All committed Socialists understand this principle. In 100 words or less, can you compare and contrast Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations with Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto? In 50 words or less, can you describe any significant difference between International Communism and National Socialism?

Whom do you hold accountable for the economic fiasco, and what is your plan to ensure it doesn’t recur? What is your plan to halt the imminent inflation resulting from the Fed’s printing of money to fund TARP and all the additional handouts?

Why do you think government can provide better and more efficient health care than the private sector? Keep in mind, yours is the same party that was regulating the housing market when it became the first economic domino to fall.

Can you explain how excessively taxing large corporations (which, in turn, pass these “fees” on to the consumer) provides economic “stimulus,” or how this makes lower- and middle-income Americans wealthier?

The motto of your campaign was “change,” but you have never specified what that change means — change from what to what? Based on the goals you have spoken about, it appears that you (and your handlers) would like to change our country from a democratic republic to a socialist/Marxist one. Would you please disabuse me of this notion?

You campaigned about needing “new blood” in Washington. Given this, how do you explain your selection of so many people from the Clinton and Carter administrations?

Our national debt stands at $10 trillion, and rises at a rate of roughly $75 million per hour each day. Do you see any problem with such large numbers, and if so, do you have a plan to fix it?

What is your plan to rein in congressional spending?

Define “rich.” As in “taxing the rich.” The amount appears to have varied depending upon which speech you and Joe Biden made during the campaign. $250,000? $200,000? $150,000? None of these pre-income tax amounts would qualify anyone as being rich, and yet, you voted to increase taxes on the “rich” at the $40,000 level.

During Bill Clinton’s administration, he raised taxes and government revenue collections decreased. George W. Bush reduced taxes and revenue collections increased. Why?

What yardstick will you use to determine when our troops should return home from OIF and/or OEF? How will you measure success? Given that the surge strategy in Iraq has, without question, worked, why is it that you cannot simply admit you were wrong?

What is it about leaders of states who sponsor terrorism and harbor terrorists that makes you believe peace is negotiable with them? What makes you think that Iran, Syria and terrorist entities such as Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah will adhere to anything they might “agree” to in a signed document?

What is your position on amnesty for illegal immigrants? What is your vision for immigration reform, generally?

Vice president-elect Joe Biden said, “Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama. … Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he’s gonna need help. … He’s gonna need you … to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

What in heaven’s name was he ranting about?

In regard to your so-called “National Service Plan” you stated, “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military].” That sounds like a force of like-minded socialists, young pioneers, brown shirts, Obama youth, ready to trade brooms for guns.

What were you talking about?

On the subject of guns, you said of the Second Amendment (the palladium of all other rights), “I believe in the Second Amendment. Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven’t indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word.” However, your nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, reaffirmed in the recent Heller case his long-held position that the Second Amendment confers no rights of individual gun possession by private citizens.

Can we still take you at your word?

What is your position on the Enumerated Powers Act (H.R. 1359), which would require all legislation introduced in Congress to “contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority” empowering Congress to enact it?

And on the subject of constitutional authority, on 20 January, you will be taking this constitutionally prescribed oath: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Exactly what Constitution are you swearing to “preserve, protect and defend” — that which was written by our forefathers and defended by the blood of Patriots for generations since, or its vestigial remains, the so-called “Living Constitution” as amended by Leftist judicial diktat? After all, you said you would nominate Supreme Court Justices who met your ideological test rather than those who were impartial jurists.

If the latter, should anyone take your role as commander in chief seriously?

And a final question: At a Florida rally four days before the presidential election, you asserted: “[W]e want to do this, change our tax code (a.k.a. ‘redistribute the wealth’). … John McCain [calls] this socialistic. You know I, I, I don’t know when, when, uh, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

For the record, when you were an adolescent (by your own account, smoking dope and snorting coke) John McCain was a POW in Hanoi. Despite being a Naval Academy graduate and the son of a high-ranking admiral, McCain had requested combat duty and was assigned to the USS Forrestal. He was on the flight deck of the Forrestal during the inferno that killed 134 of his fellow sailors. He was flying his 23rd mission as part of Operation Rolling Thunder over Vietnam when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi. He was subjected to more than five years of horrific torture by the Communist NVA, including two years of solitary confinement.

You claim that John McCain has made “a virtue out of selfishness.” When will you issue a public apology for that odious remark?


2008 Liberal Media Awards

December 26, 2008

I spent a little more than thirty years living in the Denver area, and one of the things that I most enjoyed while there was listening to the blowtorch of the Rockies, 850 KOA Radio.

The entire line up is great, and they certainly do have the best trafic reports. What follows is commentary, and awards by Mike Rosen. Enjoy!

ROSEN: 2008 liberal media awards

It’s time for the 21st annual Media Research Center’s awards for the most biased, manipulative or downright goofy quotes from liberals in the “mainstream” media. I’m honored to serve, once again, on MRC’s distinguished panel of conservatively-biased judges. Here are some of the lowlights from among the winners and runners- up of Best Notable Quotables of 2008:

* Quote of the Year: Co-anchor Chris Matthews: “I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My – I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.”

Co-anchor Keith Olbermann: “Steady.”

Matthews: “No, seriously. It’s a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.” (Exchange during MSNBC’s coverage of the Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., primaries, Feb 12)

* Barbra Streisand Political IQ Award for Celebrity Vapidity: “If you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don’t, then you’ve got the Army, Iraq, I don’t know, something like that. It’s not as bright.” (Novelist Stephen King at an April 4 Library of Congress Event for high schoolers, later carried by C-SPAN2)

* The John Murtha Award for Painting America as Racist: “What do you think the bigger obstacle is for you becoming president, the Clinton campaign machine or America’s inherent racism?” (ABC’s Chris Cuomo to Barack Obama in a Dec. 20, 2007, interview on Good Morning America)

* Half-Baked Alaska Award for Pummeling Palin

“You know the one thing that I don’t think anybody’s said yet is that she’s very mean to animals, this woman. Why does she have it in for these poor polar bears and caribou, and she aerial-kills wolves? That’s a very mean thing to do. I think that that’s an important point.” (ABC’s The View co-host Joy Behar on CNN’s Larry King Live, Sept. 9)

* Let Us Fluff Your Pillow Award for Soft & Cuddly Interviews

“What of the attacks has busted through to you? What makes you angriest at John McCain, the Republicans? What’s being said about your husband that you want to shout from the mountaintops isn’t true?” (NBC’s Brian Williams to Michele Obama in a taped interview shown on the Aug. 27 Nightly News)

* The Irrelevant Rev. Wright Award

“He was assassinated by sound bites . . . His whole career was being summed up in sound bites that added up to no more than 20 seconds, endlessly played through the media grinder of our national press. He was angry about that . . . he was like a man who goes out and picks up the morning newspaper and gets hit by a cyclone!” ( PBS’s Bill Moyers talking about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show on May 13.

* The ‘Pay up, You Patriots’ Award

“It’s early April, which means these are the few days of the year when Americans of almost any political stripe unite in a perennial ritual: complaining about taxes. Count me out. I’m happy to pay my fair share to the government. It’s part of my patriotic duty – and it’s a heckuva bargain . . . There seems to be an inconsistency about people who insist on wearing flag pins in their lapels, but who grumble about paying taxes . . . Genuine patriots don’t complain about their patriotic obligations . . . Pay up and be grateful.” ( Former ABC and CNN reporter Walter Rodgers writing in the Christian Science Monitor, April 2)

* Politics of Meaninglessness Award for the Silliest Analysis

“Media bias largely unseen in U.S. presidential race” ( Headline over Nov. 6 Reuters dispatch claiming no liberal tilt in favor of Barack Obama)

If your stomach is strong enough to handle the complete awards list, you can get it online at

Mike Rosen’s radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at

Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley, Jr.

March 31, 2008

I have been struggling to come up with what both of these men meant to me, and what their passing means for America. The following is by Mike Rosen, follow the link for the full story;

ROSEN: Two irreplaceable minds

Friday, March 28, 2008

It may be true that no one is indispensable. That is, people come and go, and the world goes on. Perhaps irreplaceable, then, is a better word. Individuals whose unique persona, contributions and impact on events make them one of a kind.

In the past several months, we’ve seen the passing of two such people, both of whom were my intellectual heroes and mentors. In November, Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman died, and earlier this month we lost William F. Buckley, Jr. Friedman described himself as a libertarian; Buckley was a conservative. Friedman was Jewish; Buckley, Catholic. They had different specialties, different agendas and different styles but had much in common and often overlapped on matters of policy and politics.

I read and was greatly influenced by their writings and ideas, and I had the distinct privilege of knowing them personally. They were kind enough to appear on my radio show on several occasions. Those interviews were always a treat. Friedman restored respectability and stature to free-market economics and had a rare gift for explaining economics in common-sense terms that laymen could understand. (My copy of Free to Choose has the unique distinction of being autographed by Milton and his wife and co-author, Rose).

From the comments about that article:

All thinking persons will miss the late Milton Friedman and William Buckley, Jr.

Great minds come by too infrequently and too many average minds pass as great minds because they offer utopian pipe dreams. Neither Friedman nor Buckley can be said to have offered uptopian pipe dreams.

“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.”

“I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”

“I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”

“Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.”

“Life can’t be all bad when for ten dollars you can buy all the Beethoven sonatas and listen to them for ten years.”

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

Warfront with Jihadistan: Justice served

February 15, 2008

From: The Patriot Post

“You can run, but you can’t hide.” So said President Ronald Reagan to terrorists nearly 20 years ago. This week, one jihadi who had been running was finally found, and let’s just say he won’t be in the terror business anymore. Senior Hizballah planner and operative Imad Mugniyah, wanted for more than 25 years, was killed Tuesday in Damascus by a car bomb, a fitting end for the man who pioneered vehicle bombings as an act of terror. Mugniyah was behind some of the most significant acts of terrorist violence ever perpetrated against Americans, including the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, and the 1985 murder of U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem during an airline hijacking. However, he had virtually disappeared since the early 1990s. Syrian, Iranian and Hizballah spokesmen immediately blamed Israel and the United States for the car bomb, a charge Israel promptly denied. The authors of this bombing will likely never be known, but the end result is the same: justice served at long last to a terrorist with the blood of hundreds on his hands.

Turning to the ongoing terrorist threat, two documents recently recovered by U.S. forces in Iraq offer insight into the current state of mind of al-Qa’ida in Iraq: gloom and doom. Citing the sweeping changes that have taken place since the U.S. troop surge began, one captured document’s author laments, “[T]he Islamic State of Iraq is faced with an extraordinary crisis, especially in al-Anbar.” Patriot readers will no doubt remember that just 18 months ago the Marines’ top intelligence officer judged that “there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation [in Anbar].” While these documents represent the views of only two individuals, the enemy’s own words are the clearest possible indication of what effect the surge and the Sunni Awakening have had in Iraq, no matter how many times Harry Reid (D-nial) and Nancy Pelosi (D-featist) tell us it isn’t so.

“The gains [in Iraq] have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure! The troops have succeeded. God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude, the sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage, and to their families as well. This is a disaster, and we cannot perpetuate it.” —House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who, uh, supports the troops, God bless them!

Finally, justice for 9/11 may be served. On Monday, the Pentagon formally charged six jihadi suspects held at Guantanamo Bay with murder and war crimes related to the September 11th attacks, with Pentagon officials saying they will seek the death penalty should the suspects be convicted. Among the six is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, suspected mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Brigadier General Thomas Hartmann, legal adviser to the U.S. military-tribunal system, said of the 169 charges to be brought against the suspects, “These charges allege a long-term, highly sophisticated, organized plan by al-Qa’ida to attack the United States of America.” The other five jihadis include Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged 20th hijacker; Ramzi Binalshibh, liaison between the hijackers and al-Qa’ida; Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali (a.k.a. Ammar al-Baluchi), a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and lieutenant for operations; Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, one of al-Baluchi’s assistants; and Waleed bin Attash, who selected and trained some of the 9/11 hijackers. Needless to say, they are as fine a group as any to kick off the first capital trial under the military’s tribunal system.

Of course, the usual cadre of leftists, pacifists and dimwits (but we repeat ourselves) started howling that the indicted jihadis had been tortured and denied due process. We are not entirely clear on how making the Pentagon jump though years of legal hoops and modify its tribunal rules is not due process. As for torture, waterboarding may or may not be torture, but that has no bearing on the jihadis’ involvement in 9/11. We may soon see the Jihadi 6 sent to meet their 72 virgins.

Last week, we reported that the city of Berkeley, California, had resolved that the United States Marine Corps was not welcome to continue recruiting there. If they continued, it would be as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders.” It seems that news raised the ire of many a patriotic American, forcing the city council to reconsider—now they will not send their hateful letter to the USMC. Not only that, but they issued a statement saying they “deeply respect and support” the men and women who serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. Something makes us doubt their sincerity. Maybe it’s the fact that the angry anti-war group Code Pink still has a special parking space reserved outside the recruiting office.

In Congress, Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) responded by introducing the Semper Fi Act, which would strip Berkeley of all federal earmarks for fiscal year 2008, instead giving the money to the United States Marines for recruiting.

Apparently, the mayor of Toledo, Ohio, hadn’t seen this news as he ordered 200 members of Company A, 1st Battalion, 24th Marines to turn around and leave rather than engage in urban-patrol exercises in the downtown area. Despite the fact that Toledo police knew about the exercise days in advance and the Marines have held exercises there before, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner (yes, that’s his real name) “asked them to leave because they frighten people,” according to a spokesman. “I wish they would have told us this four hours ago,” Staff Sgt. Andre Davis said. Indeed, the aborted exercise—busing the Marines from Grand Rapids, Michigan—cost roughly $10,000.


NewsMax soars in web ratings « Stiff Right Jab

February 14, 2008

NewsMax soars in web ratings « Stiff Right Jab

Congradulations NewsMax, well done!

Ron Paul got only five percent

February 14, 2008

“Republican Party candidate Ron Paul got only five percent of the votes [Super] Tuesday for his message of less government, lower taxes and following the Constitution. The American people have spoken. Five percent of the voters are for freedom, and 95 percent are for free stuff.” —Argus Hamilton
from Patriot Post

I have commented on Ron Paul enough elsewhere on this blog. However, isn’t the above quotation a bit frightening?

Letter to the New York Times on HIV and Gay Youth Editorial « Kenyon Farrow

January 22, 2008

Letter to the New York Times on HIV and Gay Youth Editorial « Kenyon Farrow
Young gay men are not to blame for the profound failure of government to provide comprehensive HIV prevention—nor for the media’s continued ignorance of the root causes of HIV.

That statement “Young gay men are not to blame for the profound failure of government to provide comprehensive HIV prevention—nor for the media’s continued ignorance of the root causes of HIV.”

Young gay men are in their situation precisely because of choices that they have made. There has been ample media coverage about HIV/AIDS, it’s treatment and prevention for decades. Why should the government be responsible for the research? It has all become a blind hole and money pit. Spending more good money after bad makes no sense. Especially when these young gay men are so irresponsible that they make the choices that they do.

D.C. Court of Appeals Blocks Reckless Lawsuit

January 13, 2008

D.C. Court of Appeals Blocks Reckless Lawsuit On January 10, the District Columbia Court of Appeals found that the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” (PLCAA) blocked lawsuits under D.C.’s “Strict Liability Act.”  

D.C. Files Brief in Heller Case:  On January 4, the District of Columbia filed its brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The District is appealing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s ruling that found D.C.’s bans on handguns, on having any gun assembled for use within the home, and on carrying a firearm within the home without a permit, violate the Second Amendment. 

NRA-ILA Investigating Citigroup Issues:  In late December, 2007, a large and well-known firearms dealer was informed by a company called First Data — which operates as Citi Merchant Services under license from Citigroup, Inc. — that it would no longer handle the dealer’s credit card processing business.   

California Appeals Court Strikes Down San Francisco Handgun Ban!  On January 9, the California Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court ruling that struck down San Francisco’s handgun ban as a violation of California’s state preemption law.  The ruling was in response to an NRA-led challenge to the ban.   

Outrage of the Week:  This week’s outrage comes courtesy of columnist Bernd Debusmann of Reuters News Service, and an article he recently penned.  This story, masquerading as a legitimate news article, might as well be an anti-gun organization’s press release.   

The battle for liberty is alive, and well.

“To secure these rights…”

December 17, 2007

Often, there are those that think that they are wiser than the Founders of this nation. They tend to be well educated, and think of themselves as the elite of society. They believe in freedom of expression. Just so long as it is in line with their thinking. Mark Alexander writes yet another fine piece about this in the Patriot Post. Well done Mark. It is reprinted here in the hope that it, and Mark, get even more exposure.

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” —Alexander Hamilton


“To secure these rights…”

By Mark Alexander

Saturday, 15 December, is the 216th anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to our Constitution, as ratified in 1791.

The Bill of Rights was inspired by three remarkable documents: John Locke’s 1689 thesis, Two Treatises of Government, regarding the protection of “property” (in the Latin context, proprius, or one’s own “life, liberty and estate”); in part from the Virginia Declaration of Rights authored by George Mason in 1776 as part of that state’s Constitution; and, of course, in part from our Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson.

James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights as amendments to our Constitution in 1789, but many of our Founders objected to listing the Bill of Rights at all, much less as “amendments.” Their rationale was that such rights might then be construed as malleable rather than unalienable, as amendable rather than “endowed by our Creator” as noted in the Constitution’s supreme guidance, the Declaration of Independence.

Alexander Hamilton argued this point in The Federalist Papers, the most comprehensive explication of our Constitution: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous… For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” (Federalist No. 84)

George Mason was one of 55 who authored the U.S. Constitution, but one of 16 who refused to sign it because it did not adequately address limitations on what the central government had “no power to do.” He worked with Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams against the Constitution’s ratification for that reason.

As a result of Mason’s insistence, ten limitations were put on the Federal Government by the first session of Congress, for the reasons outlined by the Bill of Rights Preamble: “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution…”

Read in context, the Bill of Rights is both an affirmation of innate individual rights (as noted by Thomas Jefferson: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time…”), and a clear delineation on constraints upon the central government.

However, as Jefferson warned repeatedly, the greatest threat to such limitations on the central government was an unbridled judiciary: “Over the Judiciary department, the Constitution [has] deprived [the people] of their control… The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will… It is a misnomer to call a government republican in which a branch of the supreme power [the judiciary] is independent of the nation… The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

In Federalist No. 81 Alexander Hamilton wrote, “[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.”

That admonition notwithstanding, the federal judiciary has become “a despotic branch.”

Indeed, since the middle of the last century, judicial despots have grossly devitalized the Bill of Rights, asserting errantly that our Founders created a “Living Constitution” amendable by judicial diktat.

For example, the Leftjudiciary has “interpreted” the First Amendment as placing all manner of constraint upon the exercise of religion by way of the so-called “establishment clause” and based on the phony “Wall of Separation” argument. At the same time, the courts have asserted that all manner of expression constitutes “speech.”

The judiciary and legislatures have undermined the strength of the Second Amendment, a right of which James Madison’s appointee, Justice Joseph Story, referred to as “…the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers…”

Equally derelict is the manner in which the Tenth Amendment has been eroded by judicial interpretation.

In Federalist No. 45, Madison outlines the clear limits on central government power established in the Constitution: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Alexander Hamilton added in Federalist No. 81 “…the plan of the [Constitutional] convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.”

There was a very bloody War Between the States fought over offense to the Constitution’s assurance of States’ Rights.

All is not lost, however.

Sunday, 16 December, is the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (1773). The “radicals” from Marlborough, Massachusetts, who threw 342 chests of tea from a British East India Company ship into the Boston Harbor in protest of tyrannical rule, did so noting, “Death is more eligible than slavery. A free-born people are not required by the religion of Christ to submit to tyranny, but may make use of such power as God has given them to recover and support their… liberties.”

Three years later, this rebellion had grown to such extent that our Founders were willing to give up their fortunes and lives, attaching their signatures to a document that declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Judicial and political despots, take note

%d bloggers like this: