Cheshire Cat

What is it with that goofy smile that McCain flashes at the most inappropriate times? It's freaky.

Sit Down John!

Sit down John,
Sit down John,
For God's sake John, sit down!

John you're a bore,
We've heard this before;
Now for God's sake John,
Sit Down!

(1776)

Bite of the Night

The best sound bite from the candidates' comments after last night's Florida Republican primary came from Mitt Romney: "We won't change Washington by sending the same people back just to sit in different chairs."

The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg

A bill under consideration in Colorado would compel religious non-profit organizations that accept State funds to comply with State non-discriminatory hiring practices. This would of course conflict with the tenets of many religious organizations on matters such as homosexuality and couples living together in sin, to name a few. With regard to the specific question in this bill, organizations must realize that the Golden Rule applies; whoever provides the gold makes the rules. No government largess comes without strings attached. Since any government financial gift is really the accumulated tax dollars of all of the citizens of the State, some money given to say a Catholic charity is coming from die hard atheists.
The solution is two-pronged. First, why should governments be in the business of giving tax dollar subsidies to such private organizations? These governments lament that they are chronically short of funds and many run regular deficits. Why not cut out these gifts? Secondly, I believe that private organizations should seriously consider refusing any government handouts. They should live within the means provided privately by citizens who truly support their causes, not those coerced into 'donating' their tax dollars by the government. Furthermore, why should non-profit organizations operate in a tax-free status with regard to say property and sales taxes? Again, along with such gifts can come undesirable constraints imposed by those bestowing the gifts. If we did away with the tax breaks and government subsidies perhaps taxes could be lowered for all thus giving people more money in their wallets to then donate to the charities that they personally support. It would also be a much simpler and more direct system, providing more net funds to the receiving organizations. When government collects taxes and then doles out gifts there is a steep administrative cost that reduces the amount that is ultimately handed out. Cut out the middleman!
The principle at issue here is a launching pad for a much broader discussion of how and why governments treat people and organizations differently. In a nation founded on the idea that all men are created equal, we have certainly come to a place where some men are treated more equally than others. We have government dictated hiring practices that require special consideration be given to certain sexes and ethnic groups. People with different income levels are taxed at different rates. Some businesses and industries are given government subsidies, tax breaks and protection from imports. People who commit 'hate crimes' are treated more harshly than people who merely commit what I suppose are 'love crimes.' And the list goes on. Doesn't the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee all U.S. citizens the equal protection of the laws? Apparently not.

It's mine, no it's mine. No, Mine. MINE!

So who does the Constitution belong to? The federal government? No. The President? No. The Congress? No. The Supreme Court? No. It belongs to the people. The people, acting through their States wrote the Constitution which created all of these federal entities. The thing that is created cannot own the thing that created it. The creator is always greater than that which is created. Think about it. God and Man. The people giveth and the people can taketh away.
The people can amend the Constitution; not the President, not the Supreme Court (though heaven knows they in essence have), not the Congress alone. The people created the federal governement and set the constraints, the boundaries within which it must operate and not stray beyond. The people hold all of the power and granted the federal government a small, limited slice of that power for the collective good of all people. They then set a fence around the federal government. Power does not flow from Washington to the people, but rather from the people to Washington.
The rights of the people set out and protected in the Constitution came from God and the natural state of human freedom, not from the federal government. It is not the role of government to confer rights upon people but rather to protect the rights that the people already enjoy. It is the people who tell the federal government what rights it has, not the reverse. And the people can change those rights bestowed upon the government, but the government cannot alter the inalienable rights of the people.
It is not the role of the federal government to interpret the meaning of the Constitution to the people. The people, who wrote the Constitution can interpret it for themselves and to the government. No government entity, particularly the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says and means.
The challenge for the people is enforcing the Constitution upon the federal government. The various branches and institutions have shown that they clearly have no compunction about flagrantly violating the letter and intent of it. Sadly though, while brazenly ignoring and violating the fundamental and supreme law of the land the very same government expects the people to obey every obscure and obtuse rule and regulation that it promulgates. And beyond the lengthy and difficult amendment process, the people have precious little power to force the government into compliance. After all, the government is the police power, not to mention the tax and spend power. If we try to sue the government we wind up in courts and before judges that are essentially representatives of the people that we are bringing suit against. They are all complicit and in league together, thus enabling and providing cover for the other branches of government. Where is justice?
The people need a sheriff.

Sanity is not Statistical

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
--Anatole France

Frosty the Snowman

It was six degrees below zero with a windchill of 24 degrees below zero this morning in Colorado Springs. I propose that we bring Algore up here, strip him down to his undies, chain him to a light pole and make him chant all night, "I do believe in global warming, I do believe in global warming." Let's see if that keeps his hiney warm!

Last Person to Leave Please Turn Out the Lights

Mercury light bulbs. Government remote-controlled thermostats. When are the good, hard-working people of California going to tell the Hollywood nut crowd to jump in the ocean and swim? Pretty soon, I think. Speaking of Hollywood, has anyone really missed the writers? I don't think so. The world is still revolving on its axis. No one is really missing those pitiful shows.

Constitutional Amendments

"Article. V. - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Let's see, can the President amend the Constitution by Executive Order? No.
Can the Congress amend the Constitution by simple legislation? No.
Can the U.S. Supreme Court amend the Constitution? No.
Then who can amend the Constitution? Well what do you know, it's the States. I wonder why that might be...

Department of Education Responds

--- Original message ---
From: "Freid, Steve"
To: Subject: Response to Inquiry
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:42:15 -0500
Dear Sir:
This is in response to your recent electronic message to the Secretary of Education. In your message, you write that "there is no authorizing language in the Constitution for a federal Department of Education, and thus [the Department] is truly illegal" and should be abolished. You further state that "[e]ducation is truly a local function." Thank you for writing to us.
This Department's web site at http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html contains an overview of the Federal role in education, which recognizes that "[e]ducation is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States" and that "[i]t is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish and schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation." Because education is primarily the responsibility of State and local governments, the law establishing the Department of Education generally prohibits the Department from interpreting the laws it administers in a manner that would result in exercising "any direction, supervision, or control" over matters such as curriculum and the program of instruction in public elementary and secondary schools. 20 U.S.C. 3403(b).
The Department's web site also notes that the Department's current mission is to "promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access." The Department carries out this mission in two major ways--by playing "a leadership role in the ongoing national dialogue over how to improve the results of our education system for all students" and by administering Federal education programs. As you suggest in your message, there is no one provision in the Constitution that specifically authorizes the establishment of the Department of Education (or any other Federal Department for that matter). However, the Constitution does give Congress the power to lay and collect taxes and provide for the "general Welfare of the United States" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1) and "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" the other powers enumerated in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18). These provisions of the Constitution are consistent with the creation and role of the Department. I hope that this information is responsive to your concerns. Sincerely, Stephen H. Freid Assistant General Counsel Division of Elementary, Secondary and Adult Education Office of the General Counsel U.S. Department of Education

Greetings Mr. Freid,
Your explanation in the last paragraph of your note is clever but unconvincing. By your logic there is virtually nothing that the federal government cannot engage in. This is in direct conflict with the intent and words of the Founders in the Constitution. If a duty is not specifically authorized in the Constitution then the federal government is prohibited from engaging in that duty short of an actual amendment. That duty is then reserved to the States. Unfortunately the incorrect and expansive power that you cite has been growing exponentially over the last many decades and has led to a huge, bloated and dangerous federal behemoth. If the people cannot enforce the Constitution upon the federal government we are indeed doomed. The authorized powers of the federal government are specific and yes, quite limited. The true power resides with the States, which created the federal government in the first place. Our current federal government rules by fiat and fear, and is quite illegal and unconstitutional in most actions.
God save the people.
Warmest regards,
December 28, 2007

"Who says A must say B." --WFB,Jr.

The best way to defeat someone in a debate is to force them down the path of their own argument.

Constitutional Fundamentalists?

It seems that every time the press gets the Republican presidential candidates together they ask them if they believe every word in the Bible. I think that we need to ask the Democrat candidates if they believe every word in the Constitution.

Broken Promises

The Constitution is the document which created our federal government and supposedly empowers and constrains it. It is a covenant between the Government and the People. A fixed point of reference. Changes occur through the intentionally slow, difficult process of amendment. That is the only evolutionary process permitted. There are no penumbras or emanations. Announcements of the Supreme Court or legislation do not alter its fundamental fabric. Or at least, they are not supposed to. These bodies are creations of the Constitution and subordinate to it. That which is created is never greater than the creator. Everything the federal government does is supposed to be directly traceable to specific empowering language in Article 2, Section 8, or one of the amendments. Not some vague, ambiguous Supreme Court interpretation of the infamous Commerce Clause. Without a fixed point of reference we the People have no guarantee of our freedoms and liberties. If the federal government is not constrained by the Constitution then it is really constrained by nothing other than the capricious whims of maniacal politicians. That makes one shudder. Anarchy and tyranny by any other name would smell just as foul. I contend that the federal government has broken its covenant with the American People. It has jettisoned the Constitution and much of what it now engages in is de facto extra-constitutional; thus unauthorized and illegal. Sadly, anyone who points this out is laughed at and dismissed as a throw-back hick. I doubt the Framers what have appreciated such a label.
For example, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings was recently interviewed by Human Events reporter Terence Jeffrey, as reported in the November, 2007 edition of Imprimis. “ Mr. Jeffrey asked her is she could ‘point to language in the Constitution that authorized the federal government to have a Department of Education.’ Her reply shows that she knew the bearing of the inquiry: ‘I think we had come to an understanding, at least, of the reality of Washington and the flat world, if you will, that the Department of Education was not going to be abolished, and we were going to invest in our nation’s neediest students.’ Mr. Jeffrey persisted: ‘It is one thing to say that the political reality is we are not going to abolish the federal Department of Education, but can you seriously point to where the Framers actually intended the Constitution to authorize a Department of Education?’ The Secretary replied: ‘I can’t point to it one way or the other. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I’ll look into it for you, Terry.’ Mr. Jeffrey reports that he did not get his answer. This is the Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, sworn to uphold the Constitution in the exercise of her office.”
Well, I’m no constitutional scholar either, but I can read it. The beauty of the document is that it is written so that nearly anyone can read and understand it. It means exactly what it says. Let me help you Madam Secretary, there is no authorizing language in the Constitution for a federal Department of Education, and thus your department is truly illegal, short of an amendment. And yes, it may some day be abolished, as it should. Education is truly a local function.
So, if the federal government is not required to abide by the letter of the Constitution are we the people required to abide by laws of the federal government when they exceed its constitutional authority? What power do we have to enforce the Constitution upon the federal government? All three branches are in it together. We can’t elect enough good people fast enough to make any substantive changes.
One if by land, two if by sea.

Follow the Yellow Brick Road

So the Aussies finally drank the kool-aid and took the hard-left turn. Frankly, I’m surprised it took them this long.
Taking the liberal tack is really the effortless, gutless choice. It requires no intellectual heavy lifting. As long as it feels right and you think that you are helping out the facts are irrelevant. Good intentions, not results are the yardstick for success. Just look at the War on Poverty beginning in the 1960's in the U.S.A. Before this war most black families were intact and pillars of family and faith. With progressive welfare policies and trillions of dollars we succeeded in decimating black society. Thousands of young black men have died in their youth, lying in pools of their own blood on inner-city streets. Millions of babies have been aborted and millions born into impoverished single-mother 'families.' Generations have been locked into this cycle of poverty, misery and death. But these facts don't sway the liberal mind. They meant to help and thought that they were, so they feel oh so good about themselves. The actual results be hanged. Maybe we just need more money and more time. Liberalism is so easy. As Ronald Reagan remarked, it's born of a good heart and a misguided mind. The liberal looks so glamorous in the beginning, but the conservative is not vindicated until the end when no one is watching and no one remembers the liberal way back at the start. The liberal has since moved on to the next popular issue.
So, signing the Kyoto Protocols on global warming and pulling out of Iraq are now the top issues defining the Australian political scene. Well, that puts them in line with all of the other clueless, non-productive countries of the West. If the United States takes that tack next year who will be left to pull our collective chestnuts out of the fire when the insane Muslim throat slashers start pouring over our non-existent borders? Stalin couldn’t have hoped to pull this off so well. Without a shot being fired we go out with a whimper not a bang. Something about giving us enough rope. Ah well, just listen to the wizard and everything will be OK.

I Spy

Illegal alien and spy Nada Prouty got 6-12 months for stealing FBI and CIA secrets and passing them on to God knows who. Don't we execute spies? Our Federal Government is going to get all of our throats sliced. We must secure our borders and kick out these illegal infiltrators. We must replace our elected representatives and judges with people who understand the threat that we face and are willing to deal harshly with it. It is not pretty work, but the consequences of doing virtually nothing are nothing short of national suicide.

Money for Nothin' and Chicks for Free

Liberals will always have an easier time garnering undecided and new voters because they offer something for nothing. Conservatives won't typically do that. This appeal is particularly seductive to the lower socio-economic classes and those with less education. Just look at the LOTTO mentality in this country. Lotteries are steep regressive taxes on the lower classes. The sad eventuality is that the siren song of the liberals actually turns out to be nothing for something.

Clinton Kitty Caper

All eyes on Fort Marcy Park for the carcass of Socks the cat, a victim of apparent suicide by catnip overdose.

All Heil Harry (Reid)

Using the power of the Federal Government against a private citizen and directing a citizen’s private employer to take certain disciplinary actions is nothing short of Fascist. The senators who signed the Clear Channel Communications letter on official U. S. Senate stationery regarding their misunderstanding of Rush Limbaugh’s comments are acting as nothing short of Nazis. We must never forget this and never let them forget either. They will hear from us. Oh yes.

Dear Doctor Dobson

As a fundamentalist Christian living in Colorado I have visited Focus on the Family several times and deeply appreciate the contributions that Dr. James Dobson has made to the cause of family values. On the issue of who to support in the 2008 Presidential contest I must however diverge from Dr. Dobson and many other Christian leaders. While I am not greatly enamored with the current field of Republican candidates, the prospects from the Democrats are downright frightful. I am constantly reminding my friends that electing government officials is not tantamount to selecting pastors and popes. We are selecting people to run our secular public institutions. Politics is the art of the possible not the perfect. I doubt any candidate will ever suit me completely (unless of course I run, not). My goal in deciding on whom to cast my vote comes down to who is the best possible choice on my side that has a chance of getting elected and keeping the much worse choice from the other side from being elected. The progress of political success is usually gained in many small steps with many small setbacks over a long period of time, not in one grand fell swoop. If my stand on principle predictably results in my opponent getting elected then I really have no principles. I have merely been a willing participant in making life worse for all. Sadly, politics is many times choosing the lesser of two evils. But the keyword is lesser. I know that the current consternation in Christian camps hinges on abortion. And I believe that there is a fear amongst many that voting for someone who is not unabashedly pro-life may truly invoke the personal judgment and wrath of God. But if your opponent is solidly pro-abortion and by your action of sitting out an election or supporting a third-party candidate (who has no chance of getting elected and merely siphons votes from your party’s candidate) with the result in either case being that the pro-abortion candidate is elected; then in my view you are complicit in that eventuality. Do you suppose that might be how God would see it? Have you served God and served your cause and the public or have you only served your selfish viewpoint? The truth is the President has little to do with abortion policy save appointing judges. So what we should be evaluating is who potential candidates might appoint to the bench and what the judicial temperament of a potential judge is. The real rub is that under our Constitution questions of abortion policy have no place in federal courts. The U.S. Supreme court has no jurisdiction in those questions since they are not addressed in the Constitution. The proper forums for those debates and policies are the States. So to my friends on the Christian right I beseech you to get some perspective on what we are really engaged in here. Washington, D.C is not heaven and politicians are not angels. We’re doing the best we can with what we have. Remember, progress not perfection is the goal. Let’s do some good today in order to avoid a really big bad tomorrow.

With Liberty and Health Care For All

In her letter of 10/9/07, 'Gotcha Covered' (The Gazette, Colorado Springs), Kathy Verlo wonders why ‘socialized’ is a derogatory term and she makes the point that under a federal government single-payer health care insurance system, ‘everyone pays and everyone benefits.’
Well, first the simple truth. The elephant in the room that no one will notice is that under our Constitutional Republic (not the ‘true democracy’ to which she defers) the federal government has no constitutional power or authority to enact any federal health care or insurance system, mandatory or voluntary. No current Congressman, Senator or prospective Presidential candidate to whom I have made this point has been able to refute it. Short of a Constitutional Amendment such a program is a State prerogative. If our State’s constitution permits such a program then it should be proposed and debated in Denver, not D.C.
Second, socialism is just another name for collectivism which has been foisted upon the world in various forms including communism and fascism. It has never worked. It did not work that first harsh winter in Jamestown and it doesn’t work anywhere today. Socialism is merely the equal sharing of misery. Does she really want us to be more like decrepit, decaying Europe which produces nothing really, except laziness? The fact is most people of means who need specialized medical care come to the U.S.A from Mexico, Canada, Great Britain and most of the world. Most medications and medical treatments are the product of American research and development.
Finally, which successful federal government social program does she want to model this one after? You can hear the pin drop. There really aren’t any. These programs rapidly become bloated, inefficient and counter-productive to their original intent. Let’s leave the federal government to its true responsibilities of defending the borders, coining the money and building the roads on which to deliver the mail. I agree that we can make improvements in our health care delivery and insurance systems, but not the way that she has proposed.