The Original "Party of No"

The Bill of Rights:

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law . . ..

Second Amendment: . . . the right . . . shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment: No soldier shall . . ..

Fourth Amendment: The right . . . shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue . . ..

Fifth Amendment: No person shall . . ., nor shall any person be subject . . ., nor shall be compelled . . ., nor be deprived . . ., nor shall private property . . ..

Seventh Amendment: . . . no fact tried . . . shall . . ..

Eighth Amendment: . . . shall not be required . . . nor . . . imposed . . . nor . . . inflicted.

Ninth Amendment: . . . shall not be construed . . ..

Eleventh Amendment: . . . shall not be construed . . ..

Twelfth Amendment: But no person . . . ineligible . . . shall be eligible . . ..

No doubt written by "nattering nabobs of negativism".

One For Every Man, Woman and Child

"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

-- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Health Bills Fail Five Constitutionality Tests

ObamaCare vs. the Constitution

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY January 6, 2010

The health bills in Congress rob you of your constitutional rights. Here are five provisions (of many) that fail the constitutionality test and reveal Congress's disrespect for the public:

* Section 3403 of the Senate health bill, establishing a commission to cut Medicare spending, says the law can't be changed or repealed in the future. This whopper shows that Congress thinks its work should be set in stone. Wrong. The people always have the right to elect a new Congress to change or repeal what a previous Congress has done.

* A Senate health-bill amendment mysteriously allocates $100 million to an unnamed facility that "shall be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States that contains a state's sole public academic medical and dental school" (Sec. 10502, p. 328-329). Why not name the facility?

This pork deal was arranged by Sen. Chris Dodd for the University of Connecticut Health Center, although 11 hospitals in the nation technically meet these specifications. If Congress wrote the provision in Polish or Russian to keep the public in the dark, it would be unconstitutional. The language is a deception. The fact that legislators commonly do this makes it more damaging, not less so.

* The bills require you to enroll in a "qualified health plan," whether you want it or not. Forcing people to buy insurance obviously reduces the number of uninsured. But Congress doesn't have the authority to force people to buy a product.

Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Nev.) said on the Senate floor, "If Congress may require individuals to purchase a particular good or service . . . We could simply require that Americans buy certain cars . . . for that matter, we could attack the problem of obesity by requiring Americans to buy fruits and vegetables."

Some Congress members claim the "general welfare clause" of the Constitution empowers them to impose a mandate. But they're taking the phrase out of context. The Constitution gives Congress power to tax and spend for the general welfare, but not to make other kinds of laws for the general welfare.

The Senate bill (pages 320-324) claims the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution gives Congress this authority. But for half a century, states have regulated health insurance. In fact, individuals are barred from buying insurance in any state except where they live, the antithesis of interstate commerce.

Congressional majorities have frequently resorted to the commerce clause to justify their lawmaking. In FDR's first term, Congress cited it to pass the National Industrial Recovery Act, which gave the federal government power to micromanage local businesses, setting wages and hours and even barring customers from selecting their live chickens at the butcher. Two Brooklyn brothers, owners of Schechter Poultry Corp., a kosher chicken business, challenged that interference. In 1935, the US Supreme Court ruled the NIRA unconstitutional.

In 1995, the high court again admonished Congress against using the commerce clause as a basis for expanded lawmaking, even when the purpose is as worthy as keeping handguns out of a school zone (US v. Lopez). The court ruled that Congress must stick to its enumerated powers and leave states to police school zones (and, perhaps, mandate health insurance).

* Never before has the federal government intruded into decisions made by doctors for privately insured patients, except on narrow issues such as drug safety. Nothing in the Constitution permits it. But the Senate bill makes you enroll in a plan and then says that only doctors who do what the government dictates can be paid by your plan.

"Qualified plans" can contract only with a doctor who "implements such mechanisms to improve health-care quality as the [current or future] secretary [of Health and Human Services] may by regulation require" (Sec. 1311, p. 148-49). That covers all of medicine, from heart care to child birth, stents to mammograms.

* Finally, the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment bars government from taking your property without compensation. It should protect everyone, no matter how unpopular -- even insurance companies, but Congress ignored it in writing the health bill. The Senate version goes beyond reining in insurance-company abuses, a just cause, and actually caps insurance-company profit margins at well below current levels, robbing shareholders.

Next year, Congress could impose similar caps on profit margins of bodegas, pizzerias and grocers, by arguing that food -- also a necessity -- is too expensive. Your business could be next.

In 2010, ordinary citizens will have to stand up for their constitutional rights, just as the Schechter brothers did 75 years ago. Congress members swear to uphold the Constitution, but it appears many are ignorant of what it says. They should be mandated to take a course, as pilots and doctors are. Congress needs to be reminded that the Constitution defines and limits its powers.

Betsy McCaughey, a former New York lieutenant governor, is author of "Government by Choice: Inventing the United States Constitution."

Visit the source here.

More Guns, Less Crime

FBI Reports Huge Decrease In Murders As Firearm, Ammunition And “Large” Magazine Sales Soar

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Last week, the FBI issued its preliminary 2009 crime report, showing that the number of murders in the first half of 2009 decreased 10 percent compared to the first half of 2008. If the trend holds for the remainder of 2009, it will be the single greatest one-year decrease in the number of murders since at least 1960, the earliest year for which national data are available through the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Also, the per capita murder rate for 2009 will be 51 percent lower than the all-time high recorded in 1991, and it will be the lowest rate since 1963—a 46-year low. Final figures for 2009 will be released by the FBI next year.

According to gun control supporter dogma—“more guns means more crime”—the number of privately owned firearms must have decreased 10 percent in 2009. To the contrary, however, the number rose between 1.5 and 2 percent, to an all-time high. For the better part of the last 15 months, firearms, ammunition, and “large” ammunition magazines have been sold in what appear to be record quantities. And, the firearms that were most commonly purchased in 2009 are those that gun control supporters most want to be banned—AR-15s, similar semi-automatic rifles, and handguns designed for defense. The National Shooting Sports Foundation already estimates record ammunition sales in 2009, dominated by .223 Remington, 7.62x39mm, 9mm and other calibers widely favored for defensive purposes.

Also indicative of the upward trend in firearm sales, the number of national instant check transactions rose 24.5 percent in the first six months of 2009 compared to the first six months in 2008, the greatest increase since NICS’ inception in 1998. Through the end of October, NICS transactions rose 18 percent, compared to the same period in 2008.

More Guns Means More Crime? Hardly. In 2009, more guns meant less crime, in a very, very big way.

Find this item here.

Steve Lee: "I Like Guns"

Ye Haw!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU

Palin Was Wrong on the Most Important Issue of 2008, and She Still Is

Now that Sarah Palin is out with her book, I think it's crystal clear she hasn't learned anything in the last year about the terrible precedent set by the TARP bailout, nor about why she and John McCain lost. She should have taken another year to think about it, but even that probably would not have helped. The only thing that could help Sarah is to have been reading about conservative political philosophy and policy for the last twenty years. You don't suddenly become a marksman by joining the National Rifle Association.

Americans were looking for a clear choice in the presidential race in the face of an unprecedented crisis, and John McCain utterly failed to give them one. No surprise there: he never has. The instincts of the Republican rank and file in the Congress were correct about TARP. President Bush failed them and the American people. It's too bad we still don't have national Republican leadership which recognizes this. And until we do, the voters will keep electing anyone else.

Recall this from Palin as reported on September 30th of 2008:

Gov. Palin: Th..the alt.. as I say inaction is not an option we have got to shore up our economy. This is crisis moment for America. Really the rest of the world also. Looking to see what the impacts will be if America were to choose not to shore up what has happened on Wall Street because of the…the ultimate adverse effects on Main Street and then how that effects this globalisation that we’re a part of on… in our world. So the rest of the world really is looking at John McCain - the leadership that he’s gonna provide through this and if those provisions in the proposal can be implemented and make this proposal better make it make more sense to taxpayers than again, John McCain is gonna prove his leadership.

…

But ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy um helping the… oh - its gotta be all about job creation too - shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans and trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity not as competitive um scary thing but one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today we we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity - all those things under the umbrella of job creation - this bailout is a part of that.

And now fast forward to today from page 270 of "Going Rogue," as reported here:

[T]he House of Representatives rejected a Bush-backed economic bailout plan in a vote in which two-thirds of Republicans voted no. The impression this made on the electorate was not helpful to our cause. Millions of Americans were poised to go bankrupt or lose their savings, and the perception was that Republicans had failed to respond.

No, what was not helpful was the way Republican leadership never made the case nationally that the taxpayer is not responsible to pay for someone else's failing mortgage, failing insurance company, failing bank, failing car company, failing public school, failing pension plan, failing Social Security, failing Medicare . . . you get the idea.

The whole damn country is stuck on stupid, which is why Sarah Palin is the news of the moment.

At least Hitler got the Olympics to come to his country.

Posted by Gags over at Evaluation:

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Obama Jokes

Q: What’s the main problem with Barack Obama jokes?

A: His followers don’t think they’re funny and everyone else doesn’t think they’re jokes.

Q: Why does Barack Obama oppose the Second Amendment?

A: It stands between him and the First.

Q: What’s the difference between Rahm Emanuel and a carp?

A: One is a scum sucking bottom feeder and the other is a fish.

Q: What’s the difference between Greta Van Susteren and Barack Obama?

A: Greta only talks out of one side of her mouth.

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?

A: A fund raiser.

Q: What’s the difference between Obama’s cabinet and a penitentiary?

A: One’s full of tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The other is for prisoners.

Q: What’s the difference between a large pizza and the typical Obama backer?

A: The pizza can feed a family of four.

Q: What’s the difference between a zoo and the White House?

A: A zoo has an African lion and the White House has a lyin’ African.

Q: If Pelosi and Obama were in a boat and it started to sink, who would be saved?

A: America!

Q: What do you call the US after four years of Obama and the Liberal congress?

A: An Obama-nation.

Q: What’s the difference between Obama and Hitler?

A: Hitler wrote his own book.

Q: What’s another difference between Obama and Hitler?

A: Hitler got the Olympics to come to his country.

Q: Why doesn’t Obama pray?

A: It’s impossible to read the teleprompter with your eyes closed.

Liberal Projection Syndrome

ABC News is reporting that President Obama is warning people not to jump to conclusions about the Ft. Hood shooter:

President Obama warned today against "jumping to conclusions" regarding the motive for the shooting and ordered flags to be flown at half staff until Veteran's Day, saying that the "entire nation is grieving."

You mean like you calling a police officer "stupid"?

Just another case of Liberal Projection Syndrome: accusing others of that which thou doest thyself.

The Myth of the Obama Mandate 2008

The supporters of Barack Obama like to point to his 9.5 million vote margin of victory over John McCain in last year's election as evidence of his mandate for change. But viewed from the perspective of the percentage of the popular vote he won, the rookie will have to do a whole lot better in office than he has to date to move into the "mandate" ranks with Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Eisenhower, and FDR. In the only poll that counts, Obama has no more claim to a mandate than Carter in '76, GW Bush in 2004, nor Reagan in 1980.

1964 Johnson 61.05

1972 Nixon 60.67

1984 Reagan 58.77

1956 Eisenhower 57.37

1952 Eisenhower 55.18

1944 Roosevelt 53.39

1988 GHW Bush 53.37

2008 Obama 52.87

1980 Reagan 50.75

2004 GW Bush 50.73

1976 Carter 50.08

1960 Kennedy 49.72

1948 Truman 49.55

1996 Clinton 49.23

2000 GW Bush 47.87

(Gore) (48.38)

1968 Nixon 43.42

1992 Clinton 43.01

Perhaps more to the point, however, is the fact that John McCain would be president today but for 1,383,540 more votes properly apportioned in the nine formerly red states which went to W in 2004. Mandates don't hang in the balance of so few votes out of over 30 million cast. The cracker thin margins of victory for Obama in those states for 2008 are as follows (rounded to the nearest thousand):

Colorado 215,000

Florida 236,000

Indiana 28,000

Iowa 147,000

Nevada 121,000

New Mexico 126,000

North Carolina 14,000

Ohio 262,000

Virginia 235,000.

These handfuls of people made all the difference for Obama, but he had to outperform his predecessor John Kerry in those states by 3,036,289 votes to get them while his opponent McCain had to underperform his predecessor Bush by 191,852 votes at the same time. Neither eventuality is likely next time. The Republican candidate in 2012 won't have a record of alienating the base as a maverick and won't take four weeks to cash a check, nor another four to allocate it correctly, because she won't be McCain. And the Democrat candidate will not be able to run on a platform of change because we'll all have had plenty enough of that already. And staying the course won't work either because large numbers of chronically unemployed people who've lost their homes won't find that prospect very appealing.

There's a reason sales of firearms and ammunition are up over 30% since Obama got elected. There's a reason the normally undemonstrative and silent majority recently marched on Washington. There's a reason town hall meetings this summer witnessed excessive hyperventilating. And "mandate" isn't one of them.

"The Sons of Liberty and Nullification of State Power"

The nullification of the power of the British state during the American "Revolution" actually prevented a revolution as far as the founders were concerned. The only thing revolutionary going on was Britain's attempt to deny the colonies their chartered rights as Englishmen.

(Click here for the source)

In 1765 the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act. This act was applicable to Britain's North American colonies. The act called for a one cent tax on all newspapers, wills, codicils, manifests, contracts, paper, glass, lead and paint. The act was part of a larger plan of the British government to tighten its hold on its American colonies after the Seven Years War with France, which ended in 1763. The object of this essay is to give a history lesson. This lesson has been lost, but provides an excellent example of what an oppressed and determined people can do to resist tyrannical government power and actions.

What did the colonists do? They did two very important things. They formed into secret organizations like the Sons of Liberty, and they forcibly resisted and nullified the Stamp Act. Yes, I said "nullify". This word makes statists the world over gasp with trepidation. Through the actions of the Sons of Liberty, protests, mass meetings, inflammatory news articles, and sometimes violence were employed to thoroughly disable and nullify the act. Many conspiracy theorists will also gasp and fret that the birth of the American Revolution was started by a secret society. Yes, the Sons eventually came out publicly, but even today we do not know their full membership. Let's examine some of their tactics.

Secret Meetings

In Boston, Newport, New York, New Haven, Ct, Savannah, Ga, Philadelphia and Charleston men calling themselves "Sons of Liberty" (after the name given to the colonists by Colonel Issac Barre in the British Parliament) organized themselves to resist the hated Stamp Act. Many of these men came from the upper classes, but a large section of them came from the colonial middle and lower classes. In these meetings they vowed to oppose the Stamp Act and prevent it from being enforced in America, effectively nullifying it. Stamp collectors were threatened, beaten, tarred and feathered, harrassed, and in some cases had their property destroyed. Many were made to sign pledges to refuse to collect the tax, and were threatened to be labeled "enemies to their country" if they didn't reject their new positions. Many Marxist historians, while praising the resistance of the Sons of Liberty, condemn them as rich white men who only cared about their own liberty. Of course in any mass movement there will be people who are myopic and concerned only with their own interests. To broadly paint the leaders of these secret societies as selfish only furthers the Marxist myth of class warfare. The fact is, no revolution can survive without leadership. This leadership generally comes from the upper and middle classes, and all revolutions up to our day have proven this. What revolutionary leaders cannot do is continue any revolution without the mass support of the populace. Let's examine this further.

Support of the Masses

When one truly examines the American Revolution it is apparent that it was a mass movement of the colonial population. Murray Rothbard, in his four volume history of the American colonies, Conceived in Liberty, details this in full. Men in the Sons of Liberty, Masonic Lodges, and colonial churches lead the charge, but it was the people who made the Revolution possible. From 1765 through 1776 the American people were subjected to increasing tyranny from the British establishment in America. Higher taxes, impressment of sailors, nepotism in the colonial governments, dual officeholding, enforcement of mercantilist laws, like the Navigation Acts, suspension of several legislatures, particularly New York and Massachusetts, and the keeping of a standing military in the midst of the civilian population all contributed to the restiveness of the colonial population. The Boston Tea Party, the burning of the British warship Gaspee in Rhode Island, tarring and feathering of royal officials, threats and protests against Stamp agents, are just a few examples of the actions of the people. The people were lead by men like Samuel Adams, Charles Thomson, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Warren, John Adams, most of whom were members of secret societies like the Masons and Sons of Liberty. These men lead the populace in nullifying the power of the British government in America.

The Nullification of British Power

Throughout the period of the American Revolution, royal governors and officials routinely complained about the violence of the populace and how their authority was threatened by the revolutionaries. They recognized that their power was slowly evaporating. They saw laws like the Stamp Act repealed due to pressure and threats, the Townshend duties resisted by nonimportation agreements, mass meetings in defiance of law, and confrontations with soliders, like the Boston Massacre, and colonial assemblies asserting their power. This nullification movement was lead by secret societies like the Sons of Liberty, behind closed doors. Masonic lodges met and developed plans and agreements for their members to utilize for resistance. Leaders met in taverns and coffeehouses to discuss resistance measures and plot, yes plot, future actions. These combinations effectively nullified and eviscerated British power. We could learn from their examples. Americans should use non violent means to resist the following:

1) Any attempt to submerge the USA into a North American Union with Canada and Mexico

2) A war with Iran

3) Increased power for the UN or WTO

4) Continued abuse of eminent domain

5) Fascistic measures destroying American liberties

6) Any gun control legislation

7) Any attempt to increase the power of the federal government

8)Any attempt to institute a draft or civilian conscription

9) Any law or act that further restricts liberty

10)Any attempt by the federal government to suppress a secession movement within the USA

11) Further evisceration of our constitutional rights and liberties (particularly the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments). The Bush Administration's attack on attorney-client privilege is particularly appalling.

I am in no way advocating any violence. I do not believe that we are at that stage. Non violent protest and action should always be a first step.

The New Stasi

The Stasi was the feared and ruthless secret police of the German Democratic Republic, or more appropriately, Communist East Germany. In America today the neocon rightwing and leftist groups are building a new despotism in our nation of liberty. In the growing power of the Federal government are the building blocks of a new Stasi, so to speak. The FBI, DIA, ATF, and DOJ are amassing great power through laws like the PATRIOT Act, The Real ID Act, and the definition of some American prisoners as "enemy combatants". People may laugh, joke or wave my comments aside as paranoia, but the building of this massive power structure is real. A new "Sons of Liberty" type movement is needed.

Liberty and freedom are not free. Both are typically destroyed by the overpowering hand of the state. It doesn't matter if you are rightwing, leftwing or libertarian. Our freedoms are ours to have, not government's to grant.

POSTED BY DL AT 7:58 AM

FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 2008