Property Rights No Longer Exist -- In the United States?!

Illegitimate means illegal. Against the law. Nobody in charge cares, and nobody who cares has the power to do anything about it. This is the most frightening time in my entire life. I have never seen anything like it. 

A Better Pledge of Allegiance

I have always objected to the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. A flag is a graven image. It represents something, but it doesn't define anything. I think the Constitution of the United States is the thing that all Americans, not just politicians, in their all too soon forgotten oath of office, should be pledging allegiance to, and pledging to uphold and defend. We can still stand and salute the flag while we're saying it, but here's what I think we should say:

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America. And to the republic, which it defines: One nation, with individual liberty, natural rights, and equal justice for all.

I deliberately omitted the words "indivisible" and "under God".

I omitted indivisible, because the Constitution does not deny states the right to secede if they believe the federal republic is destructive to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness (including property rights) of the citizens of those states.

I omitted "under God" in favor of "natural rights", which has the same meaning to everyone, regardless of faith. Natural rights come from nature, or nature's God, and not from government. Government cannot grant rights; it can only protect them. Government cannot create new rights; they already exist. They're natural. "Under God" means "natural rights" to Christians, but not everyone else "gets it".

Also notice that I changed "justice for all" to "equal justice for all", to distinguish it from "social justice". Social justice is a form of social engineering that uses the government to redistribute wealth according to how a select few think it should be distributed. Equal justice means everyone is treated the same under the law, and it is up to individual citizens to decide how best to care for one another.

The Constitution cannot uphold and defend itself. We the People must demand it. Repeating the pledge of allegiance to the Constitution at every public gathering would go a long way towards reminding people to demand it, and our public servants to heed it.

The United States Jumps the Shark

The United States of America, "Inauguration Day",  Monday, January 21, 2013 (check local listings for time)

repeat (cc)

According to Wikipedia,

Jumping the shark is an idiom created by Jon Hein that is used to describe the moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality that is beyond recovery. The phrase is also used to refer to a particular scene, episode, or aspect of a show in which the writers use some type of "gimmick" in a desperate attempt to keep viewers' interest.

That script, which aired September 20, 1977, was identified as the beginning of the end of the TV sitcom Happy Days. 

In this episode of The United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama will be sworn in for his second term as President of The United States. This script is believed to have been in production since 1848, originally created by German humorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels with the working title Das Kommunistische Manifest. 

That episode originally aired first in Russia (starring Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, among others) under the title Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). It ran for a staggering 69 years, from 1922 ~ 1991. The episode collapsed under its own weight after spreading a wake of unprecedented poverty and oppression. It ended in tears with 20 million dead.

The episode aired in Germany (The Third Reich, starring Adolph Hitler) with some modifications under the title Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party -- Nazi for short). This version ran for twelve years, from 1933 ~ 1945. It ended with a bang (sometimes called World War II, but The Third Reich was the central character), but not before spreading a wake of unprecedented poverty, destruction and oppression. It ended in tears with 50 to 70 million dead, depending on which critics you read.

The United States has been slow to pick up the story line, given that the third episode (The United States Constitution) was so popular and successful (the first, British Colonial Rule was largely panned as a failure, and Articles of Confederation were deemed too weak). "The Constitution" episode has been on the air continuously since its premiere in 1787. It has had its twists and turns, including abolishing slavery (which predated The Constitution) and the Civil War, but The Constitution emerged intact, and some say stronger following that historical correction. But some plot complications began to emerge that would have profoundly disturbed the original authors. 

In 1913, mid season replacement Woodrow Wilson from the progressive acting school, took his role in a disturbing direction. Some distasteful plot twists include the creation of the income tax, including one of the most oppressive collection agencies in human history, The IRS. During this era, congress vacated its responsibility for regulating the currency, and the crony-capitalist Federal Reserve was created. This is in addition to a whole slew of new bureaucracies the likes of which the original authors would be most skeptical, not being mentioned in, nor suggested by the Constitutional script.

Despite these setbacks, things continued pretty much along the original plot line until a new character, Franklin Delano Roosevelt joined the cast for an unprecedented run from 1933 ~ 1945. In a stunning departure from the original plot line, this renegade gave us Social Security and a whole New Deal, not to mention packing The Supreme Court, all of which undoubtedly had the original authors spinning in their graves. The problem with these plot developments is that viewers become hooked on them, and it is well-nigh impossible to retire them. This is a continuing theme, as we shall see. To prevent future actors from nearly becoming emperor and totally screwing up the script, term limits were introduced. 

Harry S. Truman introduced a new twist, starting a war without a formal declaration by congress. The Korean War was the first of several unauthorized wars, and a serious departure from the original script. No surprise, the United Nations was a player here. Nobody seemed to care. Still numb from WWII, they seemed to overlook it.

In more recent times, we have had a string of bad actors come through the scene. Dwight Eisenhower brought the Interstate Highway System, though which appealing and nice to have, an earlier actor, James Madison (also one of the principal original authors) deleted a very similar scene 144 years earlier. John F. Kennedy went off the rails with the first (undeclared) involvement in the Vietnam War. He also introduced the Moon Shot. It was an exciting premise, but certainly not part of the original plot. The writers would not have supported this, even if it had been technically possible in their time. They would have suggested the private sector do that, assuming We The People really wanted it.

From this point on, the script has been veering completely out of control. Some say that it is because the viewers have no idea what the original script was all about. In addition to escalating the US involvement in the Vietnam War (again, with the UN's help and no formal congressional declaration), Lyndon Baines Johnson declared war on poverty, which grew government entitlements, but 40 years later, poverty still exists in roughly the same amount. The only difference is, the biggest health problem by the modern poor is obesity instead of starvation. Maybe that is an improvement. Oh, and the illegitimacy rate has grown to 51%. More than half of the children born in this country are bastards. That's a prurient plot twist that only Hollywood could love. 

Richard Nixon creates The EPA, one of the most oppressive, unconstrained and out-of-control bureaucracies of all time. OSHA is another departure from the original script. It seems nice to have until you realize that there just isn't any story line backing it up, and as usual, bureaucracies invariably exceed their original scope, and take over the whole plot. The two Bush presidencies (H. W. and W) brought us two more unauthorized wars.

Enter stage left, Barack Hussein Obama. A relative unknown (I mean really, we know practically nothing about this man -- his background is carefully sealed), this actor absolutely hates the original script, saying it "reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day". While this was taken out of context,  the fact is, he believes The Constitution was, and is flawed, in that it provides only "negative rights" -- limited government, but no entitlements. Duh! That's the whole point! Oh well. Although a knowledgeable audience would have rejected that story line, they renewed him for another season, even after he pushed through an economic "stimulus", ObamaCare, both staggering usurpations of the enumerated powers, and a whole litany of other plot lines that defies audience suspension of disbelief. 

So the original script is simply being ignored, to be replaced without any official action or fanfare, with the Marx story line. It happened so gradually that nobody really noticed. The original authors and the original audience are long gone, and the rest of us just haven't been paying attention. The United States actually jumped the shark on November 6, 2012, when the viewers officially changed the channel to the new story line. 

There are now more takers than makers in our viewing audience. There are more people who believe it's okay to take someone else's earnings without their consent, and give it to someone who hasn't earned it. Taking something from someone without their consent is called "theft" unless you're the government. Taxation for constitutionally authorized services is one thing. You get what you pay for. But it's quite another thing when government does more than We the People agreed to when we ratified The Constitution.

Government makes the laws, so somehow it's exempt from them. It would be different if it followed The Constitution. Why is theft considered illegal? Because property represents irreplaceable time from a person's life that it took to obtain it. Taking their property equates to fractional murder. On the other hand, generosity is giving your time and property willingly, freely. We do not have a Great Society, we have a sick society, consisting of a bunch of people who think they are entitled simply to take without asking, a part of someone else's life. 

Barack Obama isn't the problem, but he's a really nasty symptom, the tragic hero in this farce. The real villain is the viewing audience, who selected him as the American Idol. Jumping the shark is usually the marker for the time when something begins its final death spiral. I hope I'm wrong about that. We can change it, but it will require  the re-education of a large number of citizens about lib-classic and constitutional principles. Studying The Federalist Papers. It could take generations. In the meantime, hang on tight. It's going to be a bumpy ride. 

Toys for Boys, or Tools for Patriots?

Amendment II -- 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.

There are a lot of people saying that we're about to cross a line here, to which I have to ask, "what part of infringed do you not understand?" The word means weaken, destroy, violate, encroach. Folks, we crossed that line a long time ago!

Here's my concern: I have always said that The Constitution of the United States is still the official specification for the US government; the binding contract between We the People and our government. Any regime that distorts, deconstructs or disregards it is untrustworthy and dangerous. If we crossed that line a long time ago, what does that say about the regime? What does that say about We the People, for tolerating it?

By the way, it isn't just the second amendment at risk here. In 1913, congress abrogated its responsibility to regulate the money supply, and created The Federal Reserve System. We did nothing. In 1935, the regime imposed a mandatory retirement plan called Social Security. We did nothing. In 1965, the regime imposed a mandatory health care plan called Medicare. We did nothing. In 2011, the regime imposed a mandatory health care plan called ObamaCare. We re-elected them! It may be debatable whether these are great services, but they are "feature creep" -- grotesque usurpations of power, to name just a few, but we tolerate them. So, what does that say about us, indeed?

Dear reader, this is where the rubber hits the road: are we going to allow our government to infringe on our constitutionally guaranteed rights, or not? If not, what are we going to do about it? This is a scary question that separates the men from the boys. It's a deadly serious question. It isn't a radical question; it is the most conservative, liberal (in the truest sense of the words), question there is. Think carefully.

An article entitled, If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? has gone viral on the web. It's the kind of stuff that gets people labeled as extremists. But is it extreme to demand that government live by its own rules? If government won't, isn't it up to We the People to force it to? The author makes some provocative arguments. You should go read it. I'll wait here.

The Constitution has been so effective at constraining government for the first 150 or so years, that we have become too complacent, too trusting of our government. As a culture, we have forgotten how easy it is to lose our freedom. Thomas Jefferson noted in The Declaration of Independence, 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Our government has the might to take, or control our guns any time it wants. It can do it illegally, as it is doing now, or it can do it legally. If there wasn't a danger that government would abuse its power, we wouldn't need the Bill of Rights -- the first ten amendments to The Constitution. But We the People can decide as a nation that the second amendment is obsolete, and repeal it. Then it would be legal for government to attempt to regulate guns out of existence, if anyone really believes that is possible. However, before we throw the baby out with the bath water, we should note that freedom is very empowering. But with great power, comes great responsibility. Freedom is risky. 

For example, the founders put the freedom of speech in the first amendment, to prevent government from persecuting people who discuss politics openly and question the authority of government. That is the benefit. The risk is that people will be irresponsible, and abuse that right. Pornography is a result. Shouting, "fire" in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) is a result. 

Similarly, the second amendment exists for a variety of reasons: hunting, self-defense against wild animals (including humans), and not to put too fine a point on it, to give would-be tyrants and oppressors something to think about. That's the benefit. The risk is that people will be irresponsible, and abuse that right. Gun related crime is a result. Opening fire in a crowded theater (when there are no oppressors) is a result. 

I know that gun ownership isn't for everyone. People focus on the lives lost to gun violence, but can't account for all of the violence that doesn't happen because the bad guys have to guess which good people carry. Responsible gun owners can protect those who choose not to be -- in the vast majority of cases, with nary a gun in sight, nor a shot being fired. 

The illusion is that we can live in a world without risk. The illusion is that government can provide security without abusing the power it would need to provide it. Responsibly equipped, I'd rather take my chances with a few deranged individuals, than I would with a renegade regime that distorts or disregards its constitution in order to provide the illusion of protection and the reality of oppression.

Inalienable Rights

It was pointed out to me that some people might have no idea what inalienable rights are. Inalienable rights are the rights that we are born with (among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Thomas Jefferson cites three important examples in the Declaration of Independence, but the actual number is indefinite.

The word inalienable means "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred". From this we know:

• Government cannot grant rights: We the People retain our inalienable rights (by definition!), and with those, we voluntarily grant specific authority to government. We did that when we ratified The Constitution of the United States, and subsequently, the state constitutions, and county and city charters. The only way that government can legally and morally assume more authority is through the informed consent of the governed; that is, by constitutional amendment.
• Government cannot create rights: We do not have a right to food, clothing, shelter or health care. We have a right (and a responsibility) to obtain those things by honest labor, but to demand that someone provide them for us, would infringe on their right to keep what they earned -- it is called theft. We have a moral obligation to help those who are down on their luck, and unable to provide for themselves -- this is called charity. However, government hasn't the authority to compel us to provide for anyone -- not even ourselves -- that is called slavery.

SOPA Support Crumbles under Pressure

A few days ago, I posted a letter I sent to my representatives in Washington, D.C. Apparently, it (and millions like it, as well as Google blacking out their logo, and Wikipedia going completely dark) got their attention. Heritage Action for America reports:

This week, controversial legislation that could result in government censorship of the internet and stifle innovation came under fire. Supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), which claim to crack down on online piracy overseas, started peeling off the bills.

A day before any popular websites launched protests on Wednesday, Heritage Action released its key vote against SOPA and PIPA. It was picked up around the country, and thanks to dedicated conservatives taking action, made a big difference in Congress: (Continue reading...)

Keep slogging, anti-kakistocrats! It's an uphill battle. The natural progress of things is to deteriorate without maintenance. Our liberty requires maintenance.

Don't Censor the Net -- Success!

It looks as if SOPA/PIPA have been killed "in their present form". Red State Advocacy says:

On Wednesday, RedState joined sites around the Internet, including Wikipedia and Google, in a global protest against the deceptively named Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). It was an historic occasion for Americans to stand up to out-of-touch Washington politicians. (Continue reading...)

We cannot let our guard down. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." The bills were killed in their present form, but they can always shape-shift into a different form, and be just as dangerous. We need to keep our eyes on "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade" (OPEN) Act (S. 2029). It might be better; it might not. Some of the supporters of SOPA/PIPA (Hollywood) are agin it, so it has that going for it.

Ferndale Oath of Office

On Tuesday, January 3, I witnessed the new members of the Ferndale City Council being sworn in. Here's what they promised, in front of God and everybody:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the office of [Title of Appointed Official] in and for the County of Whatcom, State of Washington, according to law and to the best of my ability, so help me God.

It is important to note that The Constitution of the United States and the State of Washington are included therein. The question I intend to ask (whenever necessary) is, "Which article of The Constitution gives government the authority to do that?"

This isn't some kind of "gotcha" moment. I simply believe that this is a fundamentally important question to ask. We the People are sovereign; government derives its just power from the consent of the governed. Those powers (and no more) are enumerated in The Constitution(s) and the City of Ferndale charter, as granted to government on our behalf by our forebears when they ratified or amended those documents.

You're the 99%? What's the Problem?

Dude, if you're the 99%, then what in blazes is your major malfunction? Are you telling me that one percent of the population has you and all of the world's power and wealth cornered? Tell me another!

I certainly do not support corporatocracy (or union-ocracy) but if it weren't for the kakistocracy, we wouldn't be in this mess. An activist government is a fraud magnet. When government goes around trying to make the world "nice" by choosing winners and losers, and regulating everyone "for the good of the planet" or "for the good of society", that's when the special interests selfishly begin lobbying government to make their lives easier. If everyone had equal justice instead of social justice, then everyone could duke it out in the real world of good luck, bad luck, and the school of hard knocks and real work, on a truly level playing field -- not a government mandated one that gives special advantages to arbitrarily chosen "victim" groups, species and planets.

Here's life's first lesson: life ain't fair. I don't expect it to be. You shouldn't either. Government cannot make it so. Any government that governs against natural law is bound to fail. It is our individual duty -- not government's -- to help those less fortunate among us, including nature. True, some people are greedy, heartless bastards. But using government to force them to "play nice" (who gets to define "nice"?) always has, and always will, backfire.

Hear me now, and believe me later: to make the world a better place, the founders gave us the First Amendment. It's a great tool; you should try it. You can convince people to follow your lead -- voluntarily. You can convince people to join your church -- voluntarily. But the non-establishment clause says that you cannot make it mandatory.

If our politicians would follow The Constitution that they all take an oath to uphold and defend, the problems that we are facing today would be far less severe. Bailouts to large banks? Unauthorized. Take-over of the automobile industry? Unauthorized. Fraudulent grants to "green" industries? Unauthorized. The enumerated powers are very short, but the list of shame goes on.

"Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem

This video is amusing and informative:

What Do We Do Now?

We have just witnessed the most dramatic election of our lives, if not the history of our Republic. The worst thing we could do now is hit the snooze button and go back to sleep. The people that we just elected to replace the current regime will not behave if we do not watch them like hawks.

I would like to suggest that we contact our public servants early and often, on every issue that concerns us. Please remember to ask, "Where in the Constitution did We the People give you the authority to do that? " For local officials, substitute the word "constitution" with "charter". Encourage everyone you know to ask the same question. Encourage bloggers, and reporters in the mainstream media to ask the same question. Write letters to the editor asking the same question. I want this question to "go viral" nationwide.

If more and more people start asking this question, I think most of our worst political problems, in all branches and all levels of government would go away by themselves, almost overnight. When a reporter asked Nancy Pelosi that question about the healthcare bill, her deer-in-the-headlights response was, "Are you serious?" Well, we are serious, and politicians should be afraid to step out of their offices without a credible answer to that question. That is the only "litmus test" that we need.

It really takes so little effort, that it is at least worth a try. The beauty of it is, this really should appeal to honest people from anywhere on the political spectrum.

Arguing With Idiots -- For Dummies II

Never argue politics with anyone without first asking, "Where in the US Constitution do you find the authority for the proposed policy?" If they can find it, then argue. Otherwise, end of discussion.

Oppressive Government

A few weeks ago I was having a discussion with a woman about politics. I mentioned that I felt that government was too oppressive. She replied, "I don't think our government is oppressive". I had to wonder what she thought real oppression would feel like.
Here is a quick run-down:

1. Government is in my wallet.
2. Government is in my paycheck.
3. Government is in my employer's HR department.
4. Government is in my glove compartment.
5. Government is in my car's engine compartment.
6. Government is in my steering wheel and door panels.
7. Government controls owns my car's manufacturer.
8. Government is in my gasoline.
9. Government is in my medicine cabinet.
10. Government is in my toilet.
11. Government is in my shampoo.
12. Government is in my washing machine.
13. Government is in my light sockets.
14. Government controls my power company.
15. Government controls my gas company.
16. Government is in my television set.
17. Government controls my television station.
18. Government is in my radio.
19. Government controls my radio station.
20. Government is in my telephone.
21. Government controls my telephone company.
22. Government is in my computer.
23. Government is trying to control controls my internet.
24. Government is in my liquor cabinet.
25. Government is in my gun cabinet.
26. Government is in my ammo locker.
27. Government is in my air.
28. Government is in my water.
29. Government is in my back yard.
30. Government is in my lawn mower.
31. Government is in my garden supplies.
32. Government is in my food supply.
33. Government is in my grocery store.
34. Government is in my refrigerator.
35. Government is in my pants.
36. Government is trying to control controls my diet.
37. Government controls my doctor's office.
38. Government controls my hospital.
39. Government controls my medical insurance.
40. Government controls my charities.
41. Government runs my retirement fund.
42. Government controls my parenting.
43. Government is in my kids' school.
44. Government controls my kids' college financing.
45. Government is trying to get into my kids' minds.

From the moment I get up in the morning to the moment I close my eyes at night, practically nothing I use, or touch, or love, is immune from government regulations, mandates and taxes. I can see my liberty diminish by the day. With very few exceptions, only the most trivial decisions are left up to me anymore. After having taken from me all my life, and not being content with spending my kids' future now, they will make sure my kids don't get most of whatever I happen to have left when I die. How is that not oppressive?
There is practically nothing that the government controls or regulates that we do not already have the tools in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to handle on our own.
Send me your suggestions and we'll keep adding them to this list.

Things Could Get Pretty Messy

A friend sent me this article from the Wall Street Journal:

'Look, we know we screwed up when we were in the majority. We fell in love with power. We spent way too much money—especially on earmarks. There was too much corruption when we ran this place. We were guilty. And that's why we lost."

That's the confession of Eric Cantor, the 47-year old congressman from Richmond, Va. If Republicans win back the House in November's elections, Mr. Cantor would be the next majority leader—the second most powerful post in that chamber behind the speaker. And he could be Barack Obama's worst nightmare. (Continue reading...)

In this article, I hear a lot of conservative policy talk, but not any 'preservative' founding principles talk. Conservative values without adherence to the founding principles, as embodied in the US Constitution, won't hold up. We found that after Reagan, and after the Republican revolution in 1994.

I make a distinction between "conservatives" and what I like to call "preservatives". Conservatives are merely fiscally responsible, and optionally, socially conservative policy wonks. "Preservatives" are people who want to preserve the founding principles, and our nation's political heritage for future generations. And the US Constitution backs us up.

Conservatives constantly have to argue each and every policy with the 'progressives'. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. Sometimes they lose their will. Sometimes they lose their way. Sometimes they compromise. Preservatives, on the other hand, simply have to ask, "Which enumerated power in the US Constitution authorizes the proposed action?" If it isn't constitutional, it isn't constitutional. End of discussion. It doesn't matter if it's a Republican initiative or a Democrat initiative.

There are some who try to make the US Constitution into a rubber ruler (activists on the US Supreme Court). But we have the founding documents, written in plain English: The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and of course, the US Constitution. It isn't hard to keep people honest if we know our stuff, and pay attention. In the article, Cantor complains about the Obama regime being ideologues. We preservatives are, and need to remain, ideologues! The founding principles are an ideology with proven merit. They also still happen to be the law of the land!

Nancy Are You Kidding?

This story has evidently been around a while, but it only came to my full attention a few days ago. Funny, I would have expected our objective media to make the big deal about it that it deserves. But noooo ...

In a nutshell: when asked where the Constitution authorizes congress to order Americans to buy health insurance, the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi said: "Are You Serious?"

I'll pause for a moment to let you reflect on just how dangerous this is. I can only think of two scenarios to explain this -- neither of them good:

1. Best case, the speaker of the house is simply a constitutional illiterate, and she doesn't understand the principle of enumerated powers.
2. Or worse, she might think the enumerated powers have become anachronistic, and somehow just don't apply to congress anymore.

In either case, I would say

[kachack!] Ms. Speaker! Move! Away! From the controls! You're tyrannizing people! ... I know you think you're helping ... somehow ... but this is tyranny! Now stand down, before I have to send in the S.W.A.T. team! [kachack!]

No Nancy, we are not kidding. We the People are deadly serious. The US Constitution is still our only defense against tyranny, it is still in force, and we demand that you obey it. If our republic survives this regime, I hope that "Are you serious?" will go down in history as Nancy Pelosi's "Let them eat cake" moment.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ~ C. S. Lewis

Whitelisting and Blacklisting

In the field of computer security, we have the concepts of whitelisting and blacklisting. When deciding whether to accept data from an untrusted source, we have to figure out a way to determine whether the data is safe or not. There are two ways to do this: We can make a list of all the unsafe data, and reject it when we recognize it, or we can make a list of all the safe data, and reject everything else. Which approach to take depends on the kind of problems we are trying to solve, and which list is more manageable.

A whitelist is like a guest list. If you're having a party, you don't list everyone in the world who is not allowed -- a blacklist isn't feasible -- rather, you make a list of the people you want to attend.

Firewalls work on the whitelist principle. No service requests are allowed except for services we know are safe. Virus scanners work on the blacklist principle. They scan all files, looking for characteristics that are on the blacklist. Blacklists are usually difficult to maintain, and even if they're up to date, it is possible to miss a heretofore unrecognized new threat. That's why virus scanners constantly have to update their profiles at great expense, and even then, some viruses get through.

Which brings us to the constitutional principle of enumerated powers. James Madison, the constitution's primary architect, recognized that our rights come from nature, not from government, and that listing all of them is not feasible. Madison also realized that power is dangerous, and government is risky. Therefore, his design provided for a whitelist: the enumerated powers -- about 26 in all. These are the few powers that We the People agreed to cede to government to exercise on our behalf. Everything else is off limits.

When it came time to ratify the Constitution, the states were concerned about the federal government usurping their sovereignty. Some people were concerned about specific rights. It is apparent that these people did not fully understand the principle of whitelisting, and they were demanding a blacklist: The Bill of Rights ("congress shall make no law..."). Madison at first resisted this lobby, because it was contrary to his vision for the Constitution. He was concerned that people would concentrate on the blacklist, and ignore the whitelist. He eventually relented. Even so, the last two articles in the Bill of Rights, the ninth and tenth amendments, still attempt to whitelist government power:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
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.

Now, 223 years later, we find our government completely oblivious to Madison's principle of enumerated powers, and We the People are fighting just to defend the scraps remaining in the Bill of Rights.

James Madison was bloody well right!

Obfuscation and PC Lexicon

The "progressives" like to characterize "illegal aliens" as "undocumented workers". But that takes us two levels away from the truth.

An alien is someone who is not a citizen of this country. An alien who is in this country legally is an alien. An alien who entered this country legally, but whose visa expired might be called an "illegal alien". However, someone who entered this country without permission is an invader.

Therefore, most "undocumented workers" are invaders. A few are "illegal aliens". Most of what is happening along the border with Mexico is invasion, and protecting the United States from invasion is one of the few legitimate powers of the federal government.

James Madison on the General Welfare Clause

The "progressive" justification for practically every statist program is the "General Welfare" clause in the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

It goes on to list the enumerated powers to which this introductory statement refers. Here's what James Madison, widely believed to be the father of the Constitution, had to say about it:

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

You are now equipped to argue with "progressives" on the enumerated powers. Now, go forth and rage against the kakistocracy.

The RNC Called Today... Wanted Money

I told them no. I told them that I would send my hard-earned post-tax dollars to the first major political party that would agressively recruit and support candidates who would swear to uphold the Constitution, and then do it!

• Candidates who will remember that the Constitution is the specification for the US Government.
• Candidates who will remember that the Constitution is a binding contract between We the People and the US Government.
• Candidates who will remember that, if it isn't in the enumerated powers, it isn't authorized.
• Candidates who will remember that the founders never intended the "general welfare" clause as some sort of blank check to buy votes.
• Candidates who understand that not every "good idea" needs to be a law.
• Candidates who believe in the Bill of Rights -- all ten of them, including the second and the tenth -- and the enduring reasons why each one is still vitally important.
• Candidates who will remember that any regime that distorts or disregards the Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous.
• Candidates who can't be bought with bribes from the party bosses to send my tax dollars to their state or district to advance the party agenda.
• Candidates who will remember that my money -- my property -- represents hours from my life that it took to earn it, and they had better spend my life sparingly and wisely, because it isn't theirs to take, and it isn't theirs to waste!

That party will get my donation for the mid-term elections. Those are my terms. Now, let's make this checklist go viral on the Internet.

Global Warming, or Climate Change?

Well, I don't care if it rains or freezes, long as I got my plastic Jesus riding on the dashboard of my car...

It don't matter if it warms or cools, long as we've got elected fools taxing us before we drive too far...

"Climate change" is the new name for this largest of all frauds ever perpetrated on the susceptible inhabitants of Earth, empowering tyrants worldwide. The climate has always been changing. Now the statists have secured fraudulent scientific justification to tax us for it.

My God, I wish I was a liberal right now. I'd be so damned happy. I could just sit and grin stupidly at my TV set, "knowing" that everything would be just fine...