Seperated families and conflating with NAZIs

 In the debate over separating children from their families at the Southern Border, Democrats seem comfortable that while President Obama locked up hundred of thousands of unaccompanied minors in sordid conditions, he did not separate most them from their families. What the Democrats want you to ignore is the fact every unaccompanied minor is the result of separated family and the flood of unaccompanied minors that showed up on the Southern border was the result of President Obama policy of giving unaccompanied minors a pass into the country.  The Democrats also bemoan the  lasting affects of children being separated from their families; how is this different from what unaccompanied minors have been through, where they were no only separated from their families but had to travel unaccompanied an extremely dangerous trip of near 2000 miles, where many of the unaccompanied minors  had to endure attacks, robberies and the females rape. Certainly this will also have a lasting affect on their psyche

At least the media is covering what is going on and President Trump is trying to change a poorly thought out policy. Now the left is accusing President Trump of suspension of due process. The immigration policies have been broken for decades, and now the left expects President Trump to fix it with just a phone and a pin; something of course that is the suspension of due process.

"Donald Trump likes to divide families when they first cross the U.S.-Mexico border; Barack Obama preferred to let them get settled in the interior and then send ICE agents to arrest mommy or daddy at home or work, leaving the children behind...During the Obama years, more than 40,000 U.S.-born kids whose parents had been deported were dumped into foster care." https://www.oregonlive.com/... This compared to the 2000 family separations that occurred under President Trump at the border.
President Obama also caged over 90,000 unaccompanied minors in a tidal wave of foreign nation children that flocked to the border are President Obama said they would get a pass into the country. So the fact is President Obama forced the separation of families with his unaccompanied minors policy. This is much like the Democrats separating fathers from black families when they offered much more welfare money to single mothers, then families still living in poverty.  

The term fascists defines a type of totalitarian collective government that eliminates indivual rights in the name of security, often using reactive violence to quite dissent;  but to the left it means any action they don't like, even though the left is renown for using fascists tactics to crate fear from the puplic and forward their political worldview.  Here is a little education, fascism excludes any president that advocates indivual rights and liberty, as fascists rule is by governmental fiat through more and more suffocating regulations. President Obama increased the power of the government by implementing a slew of regulations all intent on controlling the means of production and trying to create a collective that would kowtow to world governance. President Obama also ignored court orders, while President Trump has adhered to all the court orders from activist judges that have interfered with President Trumps Constitution powers; he complained but he followed them and waited for a Supreme court ruling that have found on his side every time. A fascist regime is also against the will of the people because the powers that be know better. This is exemplified by the left making up allegations and forcing a fishing expedition without any predicate crime; which has never happened before in the history of the DOJ; all to overturn a legal election.

The left has also become a apologist for NAZI tactics, as they trivialize the horrors the victims when they conflate the detention of illegal foreign Nationals, to NAZI death camps and other atrocities. The end result is many are ignorant the level of debauchery by the NAZIs. Some of this ignorance comes from the fear of microaggressions (in the case of learning about NAZI atrocities there is nothing "micro") by snowflakes. There are many that would be so traumatized just by reading about the NAZI death camps, they would rather be ignorant of the horrid reality and assume it was no worse that ICE separating families that illegally crossed the border. There is simply nothing that the illegal foreign nationals have experienced that is in any way comparable to being marched into gas chambers. As someone said, the moment one mentions NAZI they have lost the argument.

The US Constitution is not a living document

Regardless of what you have been by the liberal mantra, the Constitution is not a living document, nor is the verbiage of the Constitution evolving. The US Constitution is a legal document that is very specific as to rights and restrictions of the Federal Government, the rights of human beings and the meaning has not changed in 200 years. That fact is there is an American culture based on theses beliefs and that sacrifice and hard work will reap rewards, while being lazy reaps nothing. That there is a god that is bigger than any or all of us, and he tells us to take care of each other and love your fellow man. The American world view is based on the many of our founding documents, one of the most defining is Thomas Jefferson explaining the rights of man and the purpose of government in the Declaration of Independence.

"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"*
*I am reminded how Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan stated during her conformation that there is no place in her legal world view for such a belief system as Jefferson described..

The left has tried to create a government that controls and oppresses the people; a country where the power comes not from the people but from the government.The left has always pushed for less indivual rights so they can institute a collective society, where the government controls the actions of the people and where indivual rights are a threat.. More laws, more regulations, and a slipping of constitutional rights have all led in the direction of less rights and more governmental control. When Democrats loose, they talk about too much Democracy and too much freedom. When voices are raised against their agenda, they scream, too much free speech and as they create a small army of terrorists to try and silence those they have not been able to bring under their influence and/or control.

The US Constitution is as relevant today with it's amendments, with the same meanings to the same words as the day they where written. What many might not understand is that freedom and limited government is a balance. Change one part and it is thrown out of balance. It is entertaining to watch the fits of the left as their undoing of American culture is snapping back under Trump. You will hear the same hollow rhetoric of racism, hatred, xenophobia and their unending identity politics. Rather keeping the people united, they try to delegitimatize and separate people and then play them against each other. But the people have seen this for too long and they know the game. The people want to take their country back. One of Trumps primary weapons is the rule of law. The left is now taking the stance that enforcing the law is unconstitutional; you couldn't make something like this up and have it be believable.

What Trump said no where near reaches the level of a criminal threat

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people—maybe there is, I don’t know." Donald Trump

The Democrats and Hillary Clinton are obviously scared. Expect more firestorms based on throw away lines by Trump. Trump was talking about Clinton picking judges that will infringe on the 2nd Amendment (something prohibited). Then he says the 2nd Amendment people (which is really the citizenry of the US) may be able to do something about it.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So who exactly are the 2nd Amendment people? I would say they are those that believe the right of the people to bear arms are necessary for a free state.

What Trump said no where near reaches the level of a criminal threat; as a matter of fact, unless you believe that a call for 2nd Amendment advocates to vote against Hillary Clinton is a threat, what Trump said was not a threat at all) Below is the Corpus of CA 422 PC criminal threats.

"Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made 
is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
safety".

BTW the Secret Service has pretty much ignored Trumps remarks, assuming it is just political rhetoric (contrary to CNN's reporting Trump has not been contacted by the Secret Service). As this former Secret Service explains to Hillary supporter Don Lemon of CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

So here you have CNN trumping up an off the cuff remark by lying this issue is so important the Secret Service has contacted Trump, then Lemon of CNN completely losing his mind when someone with experience in such matters, calls the idea that Trump had made a threat of violence against Hillary, laughable (which it is).

Historically Fascism was Derived from the Left and Socialism

Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Totalitarianism, all fall under the heading of collectivism; big government viewing the citizenry as a single entity and providing for the collective with what the Intelligentsia decides their common wants and needs without any consideration for the individual, and whereby taking care of the collective by controlling everything in their lives. This is opposed to a government of the people, by the people and for the people; remembering by definition the protection of individual rights is a protection from government. The concept of fascism was developed by Benito Mussolini, considered by historians as being one of the most influential socialists of the 20th Century. Fascism was designed to address what he saw as the weaknesses in socialism, and that when the socialists nationalize businesses, the socialists in charge actually know very little about running them. So fascism is the government pairing with business, kept in government control by overseers and strict regulations, to maintain the production rates prior to government nationalization. Further like socialism, there is no one kind of fascism, it is a robust system as was seen in it's various in Spain under Franco, Italy and Germany; one thing they all share is the abolition of Democracy. The point being that the left champions collectivism, which is based on the belief that individual rights need to be done away with in the name of saving and preserving the collective; that the government needs to control the citizenry for their own good..

The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to mitigate collectivism by protecting individual rights, but even our founding fathers recognized, that no matter what restrictions are put on government, it was doubtful their new country would last more than 200 years as the progression of government tyranny is just to difficult to to withstand.

The Rule of Law is a Tradition?

In a recent speech President Obama made the following statement regarding why he can't change immigration law without congress, "But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition." Obama To Heckler Calling For Him To Stop Deportations. But saying the rule of law is a tradition in the US, is akin to the President believing the separation of powers is a good idea when it works out for him. Yes, we  have traditions that are unique to America, like celebrating Thanksgiving and the Forth of July, but the rule of law defines our country; John Adams famous quote is," We are a nation of laws, not men". No, Mr President, the rule of law is not a tradition, it is the bedrock principle of our nation and central to ordered liberty; funny as a Constitutional scholar I would have thought President Obama would know that.

Tenche Coxe, founding father, defines a militia.

 As far as the definition of a militia, it is the armed citizenry independent of hegemony by any state or federal control. A similar description by Tenche Coxe ,1789 (delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

The left has been trying to redefine the meaning of the 2nd Amendment for decades, so it's no surprise that most of the letters seem astonished at most pro-gun arguments; let's see if we can cut through the bull and find out what our founding fathers were talking about. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Many are confused as to the meaning of a "militia". The meaning in context is quite clear. Our finding fathers were concerned that a strong leader would emerge and enslave the United States citizenry, using the nations own standing army . They decided however, the American citizenry would be deemed an armed militia, not controlled by the state or federal government, would be able to stand up to any army. Now read the second amendment and see if it makes more sense. This also addresses the "they meant muskets" and  "you don't need a 20 round clip to kill Bambi" arguments; so the arms in the 2nd Amendment were to arm the citizenry to defeat an Army, not to go hunting.

Here are some examples of those letters from those confused and ignorant of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 Recent rhetoric from the NRA tries to make the case that we should be focusing our efforts on addressing the causes (i.e. crazy people) instead of treating the symptoms (i.e. banning automatic assault weapons designed with only one purpose -- to kill people). Living in a culture in which people with access to guns routinely commit massacres makes people crazy. And why are we allowing ourselves to be bullied by the NRA, anyway? They're not elected officials. Let's put this issue to a national vote and see what the rest of the country thinks. And by the way, the Second Amendment ensures a well-armed militia. We have one of those. It's called the National Guard.
Jayme Kelly Curtis, Felton

My response:  
Jayme Kelly Curtis, you sound like from the Huffington Post. #1 the NRA has a membership and 4.3 million and represent over 100 million gun owners. As a member I give them permission to bully you or anyone else that seeks to mitigate gun ownership. Further the idea that gun massacres are routine is absurd and just another attempt by the left re-define reality to fit their agenda. According to the FBI's own statistics, gun crimes in the last 10 years have gone down 49% while ownership has increased 25-30% in the same time period; how does that jive with your world view of cause and effect of gun violence?

As far as the definition of a militia, it is the armed citizenry independent of hegemony by any state or federal control. A similar description by Tenche Coxe ,1789 (delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Then there was a bogger name "Will Sharp" who was a walking talking point from the Huffington Post (or similar left wing information media).  True the nra is only interested in protecting gun profits period. They and their followers have nothing to do with freedom and many are unbalanced extremists who are out of touch with what the vast majority of real Americans want common sense laws that protect our society. At the end of the day we will get those laws eventually because the gun violence will contunue and the public will demand it. Gun nuts can spout off about the constitution that they barely understand all they want the solution is obvious less guns on the street period. Will Sharp



My response;
Will Sharp, here is a statement by another gun nut on the 2nd Amendment, Tenche Coxe, a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress at the time of the ratification and implementation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights 1788-1789; "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Things change with time as does the the constitution. In fact the second ammendment (sic) is just that an ammendment (sic) or change. I think the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" trumps gun fanatics right to menace the vast majority of real Americans. And it's a matter of time before these same extremists abuse the second amendment and it's amended. Will Sharp

My response:
Will Sharp appears to be a typical liberal the continually accuses those he disagrees with his own shortcomings. While "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" is not in the Constitution, it is implied; the original 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights was meant to innumerate those rights under specific circumstances (they were not meant to change the US Constitution in any way). A bill of rights was actually quite contentious at the time, as historically a bill of rights was a concession by a monarch and the belief was if a Monarch could grant rights he could also take them away. The Declaration of Independence defined individual rights as not given by man but endowed by their Creator, therefore all the rights enumerated in the original 10 amendments of Bill of Rights are also "unalienable Rights" that were "endowed by our creator". The right to bear arms is a necessary component of the right to, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, the second amendment simply articulated that the right to bear arms would also be protected by law.

The Fallacy of "If Only One Life is Saved"

In the typical twisted logic of a progressive, President Obama recently said of increased gun control, "if there's one life we can save, we've got an obligation to try." This is simply a collectivist idiom designed to make giving up ones rights sound noble. Millions of Americans sacrificed their lives for the freedoms we now enjoy, but President Obama would have us believe that if a freedom might lead to the injury of some  innocent person, than that freedom should be mitigated or excised away; it's government saying, you are not smart enough to make the decisions that rule your life, so the government must step in and do it for you; it is the road to self enslavement. The collectivist will always take some tragedy and drive up the hysteria ("never let an emergency go to waste"), then explain that unfortunately some individual rights will need to be given up for the greater good and there is no tragedy that can not be politicized by the left; it is not out of the realm of possibilities that Gabrielle Giffords injured brain was unable to even understand her anti-gun speech given recently in a congressional hearing ). The reasoning of "If only one life is saved," is collectivist rhetoric that  will never accomplish it's stated purpose of saving lives, or like gun bans, the regulations will only be symbolic at the time, but will morph into into the call for more restrictive regulations in the future. Even worse, we give up our freedoms because we are told, every individual right taken away may have the consequence of saving a life). The collectivist politician(s) continue to promise not only what they can never deliver, but what the have no intention on delivering. The purpose behind such actions are described by Thomas Sowell ;

 "The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists -- which is to say, to take away our freedom. Freedom is seldom destroyed all at once. More often it is eroded, bit by bit, until it is gone. This can happen so gradually that there is no sudden change that would alert people to the danger. By the time everybody realizes what has happened, it can be too late, because their freedom is gone". Obama's Rhetoric

In a society with individual rights, regulations and laws are a governmental request for voluntary compliance. But with a concentration of power and a loss of individual rights (history has shown that collectivist societies breed totalitarian and oppressive regimes) there is no need voluntary compliance. Collectivists like President Obama like to use the same terminology as our founding documents but give them a collectivist meaning. A perfect example is the "general welfare" clause in the US Constitution. Any person who has spent any time reading the Federalist Papers, know that far from being a social mandate, " promoting the general welfare"  was  the end result of the Constitution, and it's guarantee of individual rights and limited government. Finally lets look at the gun problem logically. There hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and only a handful of nut-jobs that may want to slaughter the our children in the schools. Do we ban future sales of certain weapons that are rarely used in this slaughter, or do we guard the children? I have a son starting High School next year and I know what I want..and it's not a symbolic gesture.

Gun Control; the Australian model

 Below is a letter to the Editor espousing the Australian model of buying back guns. It is a straw man argument that still requires rebuttal.

Mentally unstable males are being blamed for many of the killing sprees. OK, but is everyone overlooking the obvious? A mentally unstable person cannot go out and kill 10, 20, 30 people without the aid of semi-automatic handguns and military style assault rifles. It's the guns stupid! Stay on message. And people keep saying there are no easy answers to gun violence. Wrong again! Australia is an excellent example of what can be done to stop mass murder with guns. In 1996, a lone gunman killed 32 people with semi-automatic guns. Within weeks, the Australian government was working on gun reform laws that banned assault weapons, tightened licensing laws and financed gun buyback programs. Since the laws were enacted in 1996 there has been a reduction of gun violence and no more mass murder rampages. Yes, something can be done. Ron Lowe


Before I discuss the Austrian buy back model, lets look at your statement  "A mentally unstable person cannot go out and kill 10, 20, 30 people without the aid of semi-automatic handguns and military style assault rifles." Perhaps you forget that terrorists currently and throughout history use bombs to commit mass causality slaughter. While an assault weapon is deadly, bombs are cheaper and are capable of much more destruction and death.

The Australian buy back is another strawman argument buy the left. The Australian mandated buy back program resulted in 650,000 firearms being turned in. While the result was a reduction in gun violence,  non-firearm violent crime increased; so the end result was a wash in violent crime. Australia has a population of about 20million; the US has a population of 300 million. For every 100 Australian, 20 owned guns; for every 100 Americans 80 own guns. Australia has not bill of rights or a constitutional right to own a firearm; the US has both; the right to bear arms in Australia has no where near the significance than it does in the US. There is also nothing in the Australian constitution that guarantees human rights, only five explicit individual rights in the Constitution. They are the right to vote (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117). Australia also has a limited separation of powers, so the government can pretty much dictate whatever it wants and the citizenry is expected to obey. The national laws of other countries are not created in a vacuum, a fact conveniently not brought up by the Left; remember how Obama praised China, "Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are all vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business … you're starting to think, "Beijing looks like a pretty good option." Why aren't we doing the same thing?." If Ron Lowe thinks the US should model Australia, he best go to Australia, because it ain't happening here!

They Thought They Were Free; The Obama Legacy

The current battle over the 2nd amendment is simply a continuation of the left's attempt to do away with individual rights. Our forefathers founded the United states on individual rights and personal freedom, which is the diametrically opposed by the left; or to be more accurate the collectivists. The collectivists believe that to achieve a safe and fair government, individual rights and personal freedoms must disappear; and in it's place will be forced equality. But most Americans would not agree to give up their personnel freedoms, so the collectivists hide their true in intentions and try to steer society incrementally toward collectivism.

Below is a statement made by Barrack Obama before his first election; every word speaks of need for collectivist government (the collectivists have been trying to back peddle these comments from the day they were made public). 

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

When Obama calls the Constitution a charter of negative liberties, while not really redefining the meaning, but he is bemoaning that the Constitutions restricts government from forcing collective policies on the citizenry and making it sound negative liberties are bad; Erich Fromm, a humanistic philosopher praised negative freedom, saying it marks the beginning of humanity as a species conscious of its own existence free from base instinct; doesn't sound bad to me. The collectivist have taken the General Welfare clause of the constitution and redefined it when they say individual rights must be given up for the general welfare of society, or the need for Social Justice, which has become a collectivist metaphor for the redistribution of wealth. Other collectivist speak is the need to sacrifice for the "greater good" and the rich needing to pay a little more in taxes. President Obama's only economical plan seems to be a 3% marginal increase for those that make over $250,000, and it's well known that this plan will have no real effect on the debt and is symbolic at best; that is symbolic of a collectivist stoking the fires of class warfare and the need for the intervention of government for the purpose of the redistribution of wealth.

This is a small portion from a book about the rise of fascism (a form of collectivism) from the prospective of the German citizenry; book is called "They Thought They Were Free"; I have included this in an earlier blog but it bears repeating.

 "What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it."

 "This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter." 

 "To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, "regretted," that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head."

Thank's to VP Joe Biden for Making Guns Cool Again

The one saving grace of an over reaching government is the constant misreading of the citizenry. It should be obvious to any thinking person that with over 300 million firearms already in circulation a gun ban of newly purchased firearms will have no effect on gun crimes at all. But what it does do is make  guns really cool again and the thing to have. Before Prohibition, many Americans seemed satisfied that if they could buy a drink, it didn't really matter if they had one or not; but with a pending gun ban led by VP Joe Biden and the anti-gun lobby,  we now see Americans scrambling to buy firearms and ammunition at a here before unheard of rate, much the way the citizenry during Prohibition pursued a speakeasy. And it's not because of Zombies; it's because Americans do not like being told what they can and can not have.  The state has thrown out the straw man arguments, such as assault weapons are not designed for hunting, as if there is something in the second amendment that says the right to bear arms is for hunting. When a person that actually understands the Constitution explains the reason for the right to bare arms is to protect the citizenry from an over reaching and tyrannical government, the main stream media treats this like an extremist belief, as if our forefathers vision of a government built on the foundation of individual rights was also the act of extremists. But somewhere in the sole of every American is the belief in freedom and Liberty; one of the most common replies by Americans is, "Hey, its a free country".

I heard a British journalists that is a member  of the US media, refer to the Constitution as a book; and said during a debate that he debated the second amendment many times and he knows what is says. The reason that this journalist is so ignorant is because, while he may had read the Constitution he has never lived it. He doesn't understand that while Britain has already given up it's individual freedoms and sovereignty, partly due to the Britain's lack of a Constitution with a guarantee of individual rights, however in America our Constitution is still alive and still guarantees that America is a free country. The reason we want our guns is not just for hunting; and not just for personal protection; and even not just to fight off a tyrannical government; it's because it's is our Constitutional right to own them. Something an non-American will never understand.So thank you VP Biden, for as long the citizenry believed guns were available, gun ownership really wasn't an issue. But now your just not hip (or a true patriot) unless you are armed. VP Biden says part of his gun control program is to confiscate all unregistered firearms. How's that working out for you Joe? Found any unregistered firearms yet?

Revisionists Hide the Truth Behind Constitution's 3/5ths Compromise

When one listens to Al Sharpon it is sometimes difficult to determine if he is just ignorant, or if his worldview is so narrow that all things can only be viewed through the prism of race victimization. Case and point is his view that the Constitution is a racist document due to its defining black slaves as three-fifths human. This is such an absurd mischaracterization one has to wonder if he has actually even read the Constitution.

The three-fifths clause, aka the three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution and states as follows;

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

The three-fifths compromise first showed up when the Articles of Confederation were being debated. The confederation wanted the South to include their slaves in their population count, which was to be used to determine the amount of taxes paid. The South objected since in some slave states, slaves outnumbered free men by 60% (very close to three fifths) and including them would have over doubled the amount of taxes they would have to pay. “After proposed compromises of 1⁄2 by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and 3⁄4 by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the 3⁄5 ratio proposed by James Madison. But this amendment ultimately failed, falling two states short of the unanimous approval required for amending the Articles of Confederation (only New Hampshire and New York were opposed).” Wikipedia

The three-fifths compromise was resurrected in the Constitution but for an entirely different reason. Rather than counting black slaves as three fifths a person, the Constitution determined that three fifth’s of the slaves would be counted when determining Congressional representatives, which was based on population. The North did not want to allow the Southern slave states to include their slaves for the representative count, since they were not free men and by definition not represented by congress, they viewed counting the southern slaves as free men as a corruption of the constitutional process; but the South argued that unless their slaves were counted, their representation would be far too few for them to sign on to the Constitution; hence there was a compromise.

If Al Sharpton would have look at the three-fifths compromise in a rational manner, rather than his knee jerk reaction, he would have realized, that rather than him wanting the Constitution to recognize black slaves the same as a free man, it would have been to the slaves best interest that they not be counted at all. This would have reduced the control the Southern slave states had even when counting only 3/5’s of the slaves; the “… result (was) southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.” Wikipedia

What you also find is the same revisionists that want to brand the Constitution as racist, also ignore the abolitionist movement as the main causation of the Civil War. It is commonly believed by Historians that there were 5 primary reasons for the Civil War; but these "reasons" are still based in the use of slaves and the abolition movement. #1 The invention of the Cottin Gin; which evolved the South to a one crop economy dependent on slavery. #2 State Rights; even here you find slavery to be the center of this political movement. John C Calhoun is often identified as one of the strongest voices toward limited government and states rights; yet you find his strongest arguments were for the protection of white minority rule and the defense of slavery. #3 The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents; again you the slave states recognizing that the fewer new slave states, the less pro-slavery representation there would be in Congress. When Kansas and Nebraska became territories a federal act allowed the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. This resulted in wide spread violence in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. #4 Growth of the Abolition Movement; one of the key turning points in this movement was the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott had far reaching implications as it voided the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act (described above) challenging state sovereignty in the area of slavery. #5 The election of Abraham Lincoln; it was so strongly believed that Lincoln was an abolitionist that South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas seceded from the Union even prior to his inauguration.

So just as with the three-fifths compromise, the revisionists want to re-define the causes of the Civil War, as anything other than the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of men and women to put an end of slavery. The single theme to the Civil was the abolition of slavery and the white men that were in charge that deemed it so important they were willing to sacrifice their lives and tear the United States apart, before they would allow it to continue.

As You See It; Obama, the Constitution, George Bush, Fascism and the Party of "No"

Well it was a rousing couple of days responding to the Santa Cruz Sentential "As You See It" response forum. It starts with an printed article of mine (September 2) pared down from a longer blog article titled "Not Quite the Truth"; following are some responses and my follow-up responses. Next on September 4, starts with my responding to a Party of "No" criticism of the Republicans, then bounced around from George Bush, to Constitutional Rights and fascism. This ends with another pared down letter I sent to the Sentential which may or may not be published.

September 2, 2010

Not quite the truth

The red herring being thrown out by the progressive left about the ground zero mosque is that this is all about the First Amendment and religious freedom; this could not be further from the truth. The reason is the Bill of Rights protects the citizenry from government, but does not restrain the citizenry. If we all agree that government has no say about building the mosque, then whatever the citizens say or demonstrate about has no attachment to the Constitution's protection against government intrusion. The citizenry is therefore protected by the First Amendment to protest the mosque; you can't claim one right to the exclusion of another. Thomas Jefferson said, "As long as you don't pick my pocket or kick me in the leg, I don't care what else you do."
Brad *******, Santa Cruz

Bradish wrote:
There is no link to progressives with any of mosque rights or appropriateness. Well, not until Brad admits the sin of professing WMDs resulted in the death and wounding of United States soldiers, as well as many thousands of innocent people. Thanks for personally bankrupting the USA, Brad.

brad responded;
Here again is the Progressive left trying to re-frame the argument. Like all progressives, you try to re-write history to fit your world view. Even without WMD's Iraq had consistently violated UN resolutions for weapons inspections and the decision to go to war was unilateral, including the UN and the vast majority of both sides of Congress. Congress also had all the intelligence information that Bush and Cheney had including Israel, Briton and Egypt. What was later determined was Iraq was in shambles and Saddam Hussein was afraid he was going to be attacked from Iran, which they share a 518k common border (remember they had a little war that lasted 8 years and was fought to a bloody draw). Hussein did not even consider the US would invade, as they did not with Bush41, but that was not the case with Iran. The false information of WMD's in Iraq, was an intelligence operation by Iraq to the purpose of which was to convince Iran not to invade. This is not to say that Cheney and the other Hawks in Washington were not looking for a reason to invade and did not question the universally consistent intelligence which should have been suspect, but it was hardly "Bush lied and people died". If this was true, why did not Cheney and Halleburton go bury some WMD's in the Iraqi desert for the military to find? This would have made Bush the hero. Your progressive narrative just doesn't make sense.

Give me a break responded:
Brad, The constitution binds us all, not just the government. It DOES empower the people to change the constitution, but not to ignore it.
On purpose, it's not easy to change ... otherwise passions of the moment would result in chaos ... the chaos that you are proposing.
I thank the forefathers for having the presence of mind to protect the country from the likes of you. I love America and will defend it from the radicals on either side!

brad responded;
It is a shame you are so ignorant of your own freedoms. The people are constrained by the rule of law, not the Constitutional restrictions from government intrusion. The first Amendment starts with, "Congress will make no law," there is no reference to the restricting the rights of the people. If you believe you have been wronged by the tyranny of the majority, an individual or corporation (if the violation does not raise to the level of a criminal statue), your redress is in Civil court, not the Constitutional constraints of the Federal Government. Please read the Federalist papers written by our founding fathers before you spout out on what the intent of our founding fathers were. Madison imagined a collection of self-governing states held together loosely by Federalism. The Constitution defined the powers and restrictions of this Federal government and it's interaction with the states. It was not until the 14th Amendment that these federal restrictions were transferred to the states (it's still an ongoing process) and Constitutional rights were applied to the citizenry. Regardless, our Constitutional rights protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government and these restrictions were never and have never been applied to the citizenry. The 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." How do you read that the citizenry's right to free speech and peaceably assemble is constrained by freedom of religion? Like I said before, you can't claim one right to the exclusion of the other.

September 4, 2010

Anne Marie Sorcenelli wrote:
The fact that our government is paralyzed by the tea party and the Party of No is unbelievable and unacceptable. The media is monopolized with lies, innuendo and bigoted spiels. I'm tired of being squeezed as a middle-class citizen. Health-care reform doesn't translate to any real protection from predatory practices. My health insurance was increased 40 percent September 2009 and it was increased another 13 percent yesterday. I, and many other self-employed citizens, am having trouble believing that we'll survive this mess. Our state and federal representatives have compensation and medical benefits for life. There's no real incentive to help the middle class except to benefit from their endorsements, campaign contributions and hence, their re-election. We keep hoping for change. Since industry sponsors write bills and our representatives shill them into law, our government has become a servant of industry. Most have lost faith. How do we change this system?

brad responded;
If the President were governing according to the will of the people than any party of "no" would be in the minority. The fact the Republicans popularity numbers are so high, even amongst those that are not aware of the Republicans bills that have been brought forth, can only be explained by the fact that the majority of the citizenry want to stop the Obama Juggernaut at all costs. Nancy Pelosi’s, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” And now Health and Human Services Secretary, Nancy Sebelius saying ,“So, we have a lot of reeducation to do,”(As the citizenry discovers the truth and lies of healthcare reform) has made the American people wondering who is actually writing these bills. The President told us what his healthcare plan would look like and later we find out it looks nothing like he said it would, which seems consistent with most his policies and promises and proving the Democrat’s are voting on bills they know nothing about. When at anytime has re-education and re-distribution of wealth became common subjects in the American lexicon and freely discussed using positive rhetoric by the President of the United States? And yes, “The media is monopolized with lies, innuendo and bigoted spiels,” but primarily from the partisan left, which continually tells us to disagree with any left leaning policy is racism. It has become so partisan the many have started to look back at Bush 43 for guidance on how he managed a war against Islamic Terrorism, while using both terms so the world understood where our fight was and still defend the Muslin religion as peaceful and accepting. Before we can reform Washington we need to stop the bleeding, for now that means saying “no” until we can throw the bums out.

Doug Urbanus wrote:
Regarding Bill McCoy's letter, our federal Constitution is a mix of precise rules and abstract moral principles. The minimum age of our representatives is an example of a rule. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is an expression of abstract moral principle. Justice Elena Kagan in her Senate confirmation testimony considering the authors' intention said, "They didn't mean to constitutionalize all of their practices in 1868. They meant to set forth a principle of equality that would be applied over time." No matter one's politics, how the abstract moral clauses should be applied is a matter of interpretation. To complain that enacting a law to establish health insurance or indeed any law is constitutionally impermissible because it is not explicitly etched in the Constitution, reduces the Constitution to a document of dos and don'ts. Fortunately, even textualists, such as Justice Scalia, reject such a view.

brad responded;
What a bunch of Progressive pulp. Read the 10th Amendment carefully. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." As much as you want to talk about the Constitution as a living, breathing document, it is nothing of the kind. It is a legal document whose precepts are to be used to weigh the formulation of new laws. The concept that Congress can force the citizenry, for the “privilege,” of living in the United States, to buy a private service is by definition fascist. The overreaching of an activist court’s use of Commerce clause, has allowed the federal government to influence practically every aspect of our lives, which is consistent with Hilaire Belloc, “The control of the production of wealth is the control of human life itself.” The Healthcare reform bill has now been declared a tax in the federal court cases now being heard in the various states that oppose it, because it would have been unconstitutional otherwise; but what tax demands that the citizenry again buy a private service (and note here that auto insurance is an aspect of the privilege to drive, not the right of federal residency). The Constitutional is not a document of Do’s and Don’ts; it is a document of the rights of the individual and restrictions on the Federal Government. The 9th Amendment says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” or the people have more rights than have been expressed in the Constitution, while the 10th Amendment says the only powers the Federal Government has are those specifically given by the Constitution and all other rights and powers are with the people. Nothing could be clearer.

rebel wrote:
Two years! That should have been plenty of time to fix all the problems generated by the abuse of the last eight! Those lazy democrats!

brad responded;
I'm still waiting to hear what we need to change that occurred during the 8 years of Bush. Is it deficits and debt? No way. Is it more regulation for Fannie and Freddie, nope, not in the Frank/ Dodd financial reform bill. Oh I know, it's the sub prime mortgages derivatives; nope still there. Is it ending a politically controlled war? Certainly not. Hey what about that nasty Patriot Act? no, still there. Oh, Oh, is it political corruption? Yeah, right.. How about the government right to assassinate American citizens any where in the world without a trail? Actually that is an Obama policy, even Bush didn't go that far. Maybe it's the sky high CEO wages and bonuses? no, pretty much the same . How about transparency and honesty in government, that's really all we want; no, still wanting. I've got it! It's 7% unemployment; that nasty President Bush just didn't care about the little guy. The truth is Presidents come and go but the entrenched policies of greed and corruption rarely change, and certainly not with Obama.

Government responded:
Brad said "The concept that Congress can force the citizenry, for the “privilege,” of living in the United States, to buy a private service is the definition of fascism. "
I don't think Brad has studied fascist governments, let alone ever lived under one. In my view, in the 20th century fascism rose in countries where the empowered few felt truly threatened by a coming revolutionary change in the power structure of their countries; and to turn back this change (socialism) they harnessed and promoted popular discontent and channeled it into powerful government/corporate alliance that, once entrenched, completely disempowered the individuals that they had harnessed to support it.
One can certainly dislike the idea that one might be required to buy private insurance - one can argue its propriety (or even its constitutionality) but tying it to "fascism" is so out of the blue!!!!!
Wacky!

brad responded;
If this is truly your understanding of fascism, then this forum does not allow enough room to explain what little you know about it (sorry, but your progressive revisionist history about the rise of fascism is frustrating. In Italy the Socialist refused to take power after 1920 "occupation of the factories" by the workers, for fear they would not be able to fulfill their Utopian promises in the post war chaos; this left the door open for Mussolini's Fascist party to take control two years later); 20th Century fascism was the revolutionary change, supposedly resulting from failed lassie fare Capitalism and a refusal of the Socialist to take power. Mussolini described his form of fascism as corporate government;it is a form of government that swallows up labor unions and any other impediments to production and creates state sponsored industries. Fascism is government run like a corporation where the economy is planned and truth is relative to the State’s perceived needs of the collective. Ron Paul has rightly described Obama as a corporatist. FDR had a fascination with fascism and particularly an admiration for Mussolini. “Comparisons are drawn between the cartelisation of Italian industry by Mussolini and the 'cartelisation' of American industry by Roosevelt under the National Recovery Act. Most fascist governments adopted economic policies favorable to big business”(Wiki); tell me how this is not the same as Obama's taking control of 2/3 of the American auto industry. There is also his back room deals with Big Pharma, Healthcare insurance companies and Medicare providers. In no other form of government besides fascism do you have forced consumption from a private entity; in socialism these entities are the government (they only exception to this was a short period of time under Lenin when he embraced a more corporate view until all industry was eventually nationalized; this blending of Marxism and fascism is sometimes referred to as neo-Leninism). The Healthcare reform system creates a defacto collective, under the guise of equal care and the elimination of competitiveness. In regards to your original concept that fascism was a reaction to socialism and not a form of socialism, I’ll leave you with the words of F. A. Hayek, “There is a great deal of truth that in the often heard statement that fascism and National Socialism are a sort of middle-class socialism- only that in Italy and Germany the supporters of these new movements were hardly in the middle class any longer. It was to a large extent a revolt of the new underprivileged class against the labor aristocracy, which the industrial labor movement had created.”

brad wrote:
If the President were governing according to the will of the people than any party of "no" would be in the minority.

uh Clem responded
Exactly. The "Party of No" will be the Party of November

You belcha responded:
right after you produce them WMDs.

brad responded;
We found the WMDs, apparently they were hiding in Obama's stimulus plan.

Letter to the Editor

Where are the Bridges and Dams?

What ever happened to the Presidents stimulus plan? You know the plan that was going to fund those shovel ready projects. Well, it turned out the stimulus wasn’t really a stimulus at all. Rather the stimulus was written by the ultra-left Apollo Alliance (a project of George Soros’ Tides Center, with Van Jones on the steering committee) to fund those areas of the economy that met with their political agenda. Even Paul Krugman had to agree, “..for all the talk of a failed stimulus, if you look at government spending as a whole you see hardly any stimulus at all.” No bridges, no dams, no highways and no jobs; apparently it was more important for the Apollo Alliance to fund its progressive agenda, than to create jobs and improve the economy, which makes this the coming attraction for Cap and Trade.

The Ground Zero Mosque and Civics 101

Recently I had an ongoing conversation on a forum for the Santa Cruz Sentinel about the ground zero mosque. I have decided to repeat some of it because it has become obvious the much of the American citizenry don't understand their Constitution and Bill of Rights. The first blog demonstrated the most common mistake, once you get past that the issue is not whether the builders have the right to build the mosque, this lack of understanding takes front stage.

"Like most emotional subjects, mosque controversy is producing more heat than light. When the anger and fear are stripped away, this is a simple question: Do the owners of this property have the right to build a community center that will contain a Muslim mosque? The answer clearly is yes. The arguments raised by the opponents are irrational and fear-based. Our Constitution specifically protects this freedom and prohibits its infringement. I am saddened by the entire controversy. It is not a proud day for our country."
&
"You can't say you believe in the 1st Amendment, then turn around and say, "But they should build somewhere else."

The red herring being thrown out by the progressive left about the ground zero mosque is this is all about the First Amendment and religious freedom; this could not be further from the truth. The reason is the Bill of Rights protects the citizenry from government, but does not restrain the citizenry. If we all agree that government has no say so about building the mosque, then whatever the citizens say or demonstrate about has no attachment to the Constitution's protection against government intrusion. The citizenry is therefore protected by the First Amendment to protest the mosque; you can't claim one right to the exclusion of another. The fact that citizens want to uphold the mosque's Constitutional right to be built and can still say the disagree where it is being built should be applauded as it demonstrates the Constitutions protection of free speech. Thomas Jefferson said, as long as you don't pick my pocket or kick me in the leg, I don't care what else you do.

The Constitution also protects the minority from being trampled over by the majority. You aren't allowed to lynch Muslims simply because some sick majority has gotten their fever up and thinks they have a right ... simply because they are the majority. And I use the term "majority" lightly. Just because a group makes the most noise, it doesn't mean they are the majority.

Your are right as far as you go. The Constitution does protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority, but only if the trampling (or tyranny) is done through or by GOVERNMENT. If a majority of the citizenry attempts tyranny over a minority or individual (which does not rise to the level of criminal action), then the minority's redress is in Civil Court, where there are civil penalties, not criminal penalties. Lynching is primarily a violation of the criminal codes of kidnapping and murder, not a federal constitutional violation. There have been exceptions, but mostly when the federal governments believes the state GOVERNMENT violated the victim's rights. There are also are also so called “hate crimes” which are generally described as a person violating the “civil (or Constitutional rights) of another. However, these civil rights violations are actually enhancements to state statute law violation and not federal Constitutional rights, and do not come into play unless a criminal violation has first occurred. Further, most hate crimes enhancements are a violation state constitutional rights, not federal constitutional rights. In the mind of many, it is the State overreaching, wanting a perpetrator to be punished not just for his crime, not for his intentions, but the thought process behind his intentions; in essence it' s a thought crime. It's a shame that our citizenry is not taught basic civics in school. The only penalty a citizen can pay for tyranny (short of a criminal violation) is that which can be calculated monetarily. That's why there are so many damn lawyers..