The Need To Do Our Duty.

The Tea Party and many others continue to push for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In theory, this amendment is necessary to further restrain the powers of a government that is becoming more Tyrannical every day. In practice a balanced budget amendment, no matter how well written, would be only as good as the paper it is written on. The federal government is and has been usurping powers not delegated it by the states via the contract that created the federal government, The Constitution of the United States, for decades. The Democrats and Republicans have equally violated the Constitution and usurped powers. For too long we the people have sat back and done nothing to stop the Tyranny. In general, the Democrats want to steal from those that are willing to work to give to those that aren't willing to work. In general, the Republicans want to limit the freedoms of one group based on the morals of another group. Both of these are forms of infringement on freedom and liberty and therefore in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. Both sides should be condemned for such behavior.

Before the original states would ratify the Constitution they required that the first ten amendments be adopted. These amendments are also known as the Bill of Rights. These codified rights are bestowed on every person by their Creator. They existed long before governments were instituted and they will exist long after governments have gone. It is obvious since these rights are unalienable and existed before government that these rights, including those not codified but just as real, are free from state abuse as well. There would be no reason for the founding fathers to codify the right to free speech if they believe this right could then be removed by each and every state.

The Bill of Rights has a preamble which is often excluded from copies of the document. Once you read the preamble you will understand why it is often left off. The preamble reads as follows: “THE conventions of a number of States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” This preamble is clear and unambiguous. Even so, the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government have violated all of the Constitution at one time or another for decades if not a century or more.

The Congress has made laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It has made laws abridging the freedom of speech, press and peaceable assembly. It was not passed laws but unless you have millions of dollars there is little process for petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances. All in violation of the very first amendment to the Constitution,

The Congress has violated the second amendment as well. It has not only made laws infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, it has created an agency, the ATF, whose sole purpose is to enforce those infringements and even increase those infringements through “regulation.” I quote regulation because a regulation is a law because a violation of that regulation results in punishment of some kind. The Constitution delegates the power to create law only to the Congress and its duly elected members. Congress can't delegate the power to create law without an properly ratified amendment to the Constitution. Yet Congress has done this in many areas.

To my knowledge Congress has not yet violated the third amendment which is about quartering soldiers.

The Congress has violated the fourth amendment, most recently with legislation known as the Patriot Act. It's strange how the titles of the legislation are usually the exact opposite of the intent of the legislation. Even the federal courts, including the supreme court, have violated this amendment. We are no longer secure in our persons, houses and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Congress and States have violated the fifth amendment. The federal government violates the “double jeopardy” clause by trying defendants for civil rights violations after the defendant has been acquitted in the state for the underlying crime that caused the supposed civil rights violation. I admit that my opinion is arguable. The states violate the same clause with third strike laws. In these cases, the defendants are being held accountable from crimes already committed and punished.

The Judicial of both state and federal governments violate the sixth amendment by restricting who may or may not be a witness or what evidence may or may not be presented. Both also violate the speedy part this amendment.

The Judicial of both state and federal governments violate the seventh amendments. That amendment says: “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trail by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise be reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.” Again, when a state acquits a defendant and the federal government tries the defendant for the same basic underlying crime, this is a violation. States do similar things.

The judicial of both state and federal governments violate the eighth amendment. Excessive bail happens and worse yet, no bail happens. Also, with the three strikes laws, cruel and unusual punishment is inflicted often. Recently, Alex Trebek's hotel room was burglarized. The defendant is facing life in prison for that burglary. While I certainly don't condone burglary nor repeat offenders, I do believe that life in prison for a burglary is cruel and unusual.

The Congress and the Judicial of the federal government regularly violates the ninth amendment. The Constitution delegates no authority to the federal government to regulate any kind of plant, food or other similar product. The Congress and the Courts claim that the commerce clause gives them the power to regulate these things. If indeed, the commerce clause did this, there would be no need for the rest of the Constitution because the Congress could control everything. Regulate in this case means to make regular. In other words, one state can't trade a product to one state at one price and to another state at another price or to one state but to no other. The Congress has abused this clause for to long and the courts have assisted in this Tyranny. The violation of the amendment occurs when people are put in prison for federal drug laws for which the government has no authority to create and enforce such laws. America accounts for about 5% of the world population yet it locks up more than 20%
. A vast majority of these prisoners are for non-violent drug offenses. This is absurd and has created a vast, highly profitable business in housing and feeding these prisoners and also by fighting the war on some drugs. A war that, on the federal level, is completely unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

The Congress regularly violates the tenth amendment, the drug war is just one example of many.

Article one, Section eight of the Constitution enumerates the powers that Congress has been delegated. The final part of Section 8 says that Congress can make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Many Congressmen and others that want ever bigger government usually stop that sentence after “necessary and proper.” Again, if the sentence stopped there, there would be no need for the rest of the Constitution because this would give them broad discretion on what is necessary and proper. It is clear that necessary and proper refers only to the powers delegated them by the Constitution.

In Federalist Paper number 45, James Madison says “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” What we have today is the exact opposite of that. The federal government is usurping powers not delegated it by the States and the state governments have grown so dependent on federal handouts that they refuse to stand against the leviathan that we have allowed to grow. Only when we are willing to do our duties to stand against Tyranny will we be able to return to the limited federal government that our founders created for us. The states entered into the contract that created the federal government with the expectation that such government would honor its side of the contract. The contract of course is the Constitution of the United States. Our founders also knew that men, given power, would become corrupt and Tyrannical. That is why they put the control of the government in the hands of the people. However, they also knew that the Republic created by the Constitution could only remain as long as the people were diligent in doing their duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. How can we expect the government to care about our liberty and freedom if we are not willing to stand against those that would wish to destroy that liberty and freedom?

The End Of The Line

I recently read an article about two wounded veterans from Texas being harassed at an airport because of the shrapnel they had in their bodies. I've seen stories of the TSA feeling up infants, children, the elderly and even copping a really good feel of a beauty queen. I still see long lines of sheeple at the airports. I've read of Phil Mocek, the brave American who refused to show his ID to a TSA agent and was arrested by the Albuquerque New Mexico police. Mr. Mocek was acquitted of all charges. I still see long lines of sheeple at the airports with their ID's out like good little useful idiots should. It really wouldn't take much to change the useless behavior of our government. If only half of the sheeple would refuse to fly for a month or two, the airlines would feel the pain in their bottom line and force a change or go bankrupt. It's a shame that we can't get a few, let alone half, of the people to stop flying. They've been convinced that they are safer but when you ask for a single instance of the draconian behavior of the TSA stopping a single incident, they can't provide one. They end up saying that they just “feel safer.” If feeling safer were a right I may fell sympathy for them but it's not.

Soon, the lines we are all standing in will end at the entrance to a box car. Rather than being alarmed or outraged, we'll simply ask what movie or ball game we are going to see and march forward.

The Hypocrisy of the Left

The list below is of things those on the left have said about those on the right. It's surely not an complete list but it show the rhetoric on the left is just as vile as that on the right. I don't understand how the left can honestly say that only the right says things like this.

The Discovery Channel shooter said he experienced an “awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore's documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38968317/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ Nobody on the left denounced Mr. Gore's rhetoric, which was been proven to be lies. That have not asked him to stop the rhetoric either.

Hollywood and the record industry are the two major groups who put out violent, hateful imagery as a product to make money from. Both industries have vehemently denied that their products cause people to cause violence. It's not lost on the author that the vast majority of those in the movie and record industries are far left in their ideology. The say they words and images do not cause violence while at the same time saying that words and images used by the left cause violence. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

I do not believe that the words of the movie and music industries cause people to commit violence. I also don't believe the words of politicians on the left or right cause people to commit violence. The blood was not dry on the pavement and the left, including The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, were dancing in the blood. Johnathan Alter of Newsweek said '“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman.' Read the entire article at http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/10/the-impact-on-obama-s-presidency.html and judge for yourself if Mr. Alter cares for life or cares for the impact that it can have on Obama's Presidency. There will be no outcry from the left over Mr. Alter's callous comments.



Abort Sarah Palin bumper sticker: http://www.cafepress.com/+abort_palin_bumper_sticker,305510100

Actor Alec Baldwin: “If we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together,all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death!”: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/1998/cyb19981215.asp

Bill Maher: Sorry the assassination attempt on Dick Cheney failed: http://newsbusters.org/node/11169

Daily Kos: Should we mourn Tony Snow?: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/12/113616/867/661/550555

Hollywod movie: Death of a President: “assassination of President George W. Bush”: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/

Death Threats Against Bristol Palin & Mark Ballas during “dancing with the stars”: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6061268/death_threats_against_bristol_palin.html

Van Jones compares President Bush to a 'crackhead': http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/57373-jones-likens-bush-to-a-crackhead-in-latest-video-gaffe?page=1

During a concert, Madonna threatens to kick Sarah Palin's ass: http://www.buzzfeed.com/laurencook/madonna-ill-kick-sarah-palins-ass-nv

President Obama: “If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun.”: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

Daily Kos article on Gabrielle Giffords just two days before assassination attempt; repeated the use of word “dead” in relation to Giffords. “My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!”

Daily Kos put “bulls eye” on Gabrielle Giffords back in June 2008

Daily Kos scrubbed their web site but screen shots can be found at: http://hillbuzz.org/?s=daily+kos+target This site also contains a screen shot of a common Democrat political graphic using “bulls eye” targets.

yelp.com:“Who else hopes 'The' Dick Cheney Dies?”:http://www.yelp.com/topic/chicago-who-else-hopes-the-dick-cheney-dies

Can We Fix Our Election Process?

I don't see our Federal political process getting any better until we take the money out of campaigning. It has become obvious that donations are nothing more than bribes or at the very least the appearance of bribes. Just the appearance of a bribe can get an Government employee fired. Candidates for public office should be required to avoid all appearances of taking bribes so they should not be able to take money from their party, individuals or corporations. I feel the Supreme Court made a huge mistake in their decision to give corporations rights. People are the only entities that have rights. Rights are endowed on the people by their Creator. Governments can't bestow or remove rights.

One way to take part of the money out of the elections process would be to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This would return the process of electing Senators to the Legislatures of the States. Repealing the Twelfth Amendment would return the election of the President back to the electors appointed by the State Legislature. Both of these actions would reduce the number of people who could unduly effect these elections so it would be easier to tell if any corruption had taken place. We are then left with the election of our Representatives. Because the districts in the states from which our Representatives are elect are relatively small, I think any corruption can be easily detected.

A wider solution to the influence of money problem would be to remove all campaign contributions. Because such contributions can and do give the appearance of bribes, I don't feel to deny them would violate the Constitution of the United States. These are current of hopeful public officials under article one of the Constitution and therefore don't have the right to freedom of speech. Government officials don't have rights, they only have powers delegated to them by the states and the people. Candidates must be able to get their message out in a reasonable manner. To do so, I think each candidate should get equal time on all media. We should only hear from the candidates themselves and all claims must be honest and verifiable. If a claim is proven to be dishonest the candidate should be removed from consideration for office.

Because government is controlled by corporations, I'm under no illusion that this proposal would ever come close to being implemented in our current form of governance. Because there are so many citizens waking up to the corruption and abuse of our elected officials, I do hope this can start a debate about how we can return to a Constitutional Republic.

Hard To Understand

I was listening to Rusty Humphries on Monday night. He was talking about the alleged terrorist Mohamed Osman Mohamud. He was trying to personalize what might have happened. He first started talking about being in Washington for the holidays. It was cold so they were talking about going to the Christmas Tree lighting at Pioneer Square in Portland. The weather evidently warmed up and they stayed in Washington. He said if something would have happened at Pioneer Square, he and his family could have been there and been hurt. Latter in the show, after calling Mohamud a “punk ass kid” a dozen or so times, he was saying he was supposed to have been at Pioneer Square that day. He went from talking about going to Pioneer Square because of cold weather to supposed to have been there. Do people re-write events to make things seem like they could have been much worse?

During the show Humphries kept berating Mohamed. He kept saying that he was so important that he was named twice. I must assume that Humphries thinks that Mohamed and Mohamud are the same name. As I stated in “Terrorist Or Propaganda?” below, I don't think Mohamud is innocent but more questions of the FBI need to be asked and answered.

I don't know what good it does for people like Humphries to call names and try to belittle the alleged bomber. It doesn't help get us any closer to the truth and it makes Humprhies less than credible in anything else he says. I guess it could give Humphries a feeling of superiority. I usually only hear or read this type of name calling from Liberals when they don't have any facts to back up their arguments but even then they don't do it so many times during their rant. Don't get me wrong, I'm not perfect. I've probably called people names in the past but I try to base by discussions on facts provided and informed opinion.

During the show, Humphries opined that Mohamud should be put in jail for life after he is convicted. He didn't think he should be put to death because he had not killed anybody. It's Humphries opinon that Pfc. Bradley Manning, the person who allegedly leaked classified documents to Wikileaks, should be put to death because the leaks have caused deaths. What is interesting is that there have not been any alleged, let alone proven, deaths related to the leaks.

Terrorist Or Propaganda?

Mohamed Osman Mohamud was arrested in Portland. He had just dialed a cell phone that he allegedly believed would kill or maim hundreds of innocent people. This story doesn't pass the smell test. Mohamud likely had no contact with anyone other than FBI agents. There could be one other person he was in contact with if you believe the FBI's story of an unindicted associate overseas? With the FBI's record of deceit, I for one don't believe their story. FBI agents provided the plan, the van and the supposed explosives. The FBI also used illegal explosives in the presence of Mohamud. Mohamud dialed the cell phone twice so he is by no means innocent but I doubt he would have done any of this had he not been approached by the FBI in the first place.

It is worrisome that the public is not asking more questions about the FBI's role in this incident. I believe that the FBI is out of control in it's effort to find terrorists. They're not finding many so they've resorted to creating them. I wonder how far citizens will let this country proceed towards a police state before they call for a halt? I just hope we ask our government to rein them in before it is to late to stop them.

Where Is Justice?

David Olofson is in jail for thirty months because he happened to own a firearm that was defective and would sometimes fire more then one round for each pull of the trigger. This made it an unregistered machine gun to the ATF. A government agency that had to use several types of ammunition to duplicate the problem. The job of any law enforcement agency should be to find truth and justice, not to rack up convictions. The defense firearms expert was not allowed to physically inspect or test the rifle. This article is not specifically about Mr. Olofson, it's about the abuse and selective application of the laws of the country.

An Congressional ethics committee document indicates that Representative Charles Rangel owed The IRS $16,775 as of 1990, but he has paid some of the back taxes. It's important to understand that Representative Rangel was the Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means committee which writes the nations tax laws. Mr. Rangel was convicted of 12 ethics violations. Many of these violations would be considered crimes for we lowly serfs and we would be charged with crimes. One of the violations was “Violating Ethics in Government Act and House Rule26: Mr. Rangel submitted incomplete and inaccurate financial disclosure statements, and failt to report or erroneously reported items he was required to disclose under the Ethics in Government Act from 1998 through 2008. In particular, Mr. Rangel amended certain financial disclosure statements only after a House committee began investigating his reporting of income from his Dominican villa.” How many of us would still be free if we filed a fraudulent government document?

In late 2003, former national security adviser to President Clinton, Samuel Berger, stashed highly classified documents under a trailer in downtown Washington in order to evade detection by the National Archives personnel. He then removed and destroyed them. Many, if not all, of the documents were originals so there is no way to know the extent of Mr. Berger's crime. What was Mr. Berger's punishment? He agreed to pay a $10,00 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance. Would you or I get such lenient punishment for mishandling, actually out right stealing, classified data?

The CIA learned that in 1996, John Deutch, former director, had mishandled classified materials by keeping them on several unsecured home and office computers. These internet connected computers were also used by Mr. Deutch's children. The CIA didn't report this security breach to the Justice Department until March 1998. Congress was not notified until June of 1998. In April of 1999, the DOJ found that Mr. Deutch's actions, while sloppy, where not criminal. His security clearance was revoked in July of 1999, 3 months after his friends in high places let him off the hook. I'm sure we would get such treatment. Mr. Deutch's case was reopened shortly after Wen Ho Lee, who didn't have friends in high places, was railroaded through the system by Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and others. Mr. Deutch was eventually convicted of mishandling classified information. President Clinton later pardoned him but not Wen Ho Lee.

With such massive willful abuse of authority it's easy to understand why such a large percentage of people distrust the government. What is not so easy to understand is why that percentage is not 100? I guess the families of the corrupt are forced to agree with them.