Finding a thread of commonality among apparently vastly differing groups of people is remarkable. That’s all it is if we are considering mere trivialities. But when we are dealing with matters of life and death the remarkable becomes profoundly serious. The commonality I present can hardly be called a thread; it is more of a rope or steel cable. Here it is presented as a question.

What do the following groups have in common?
Slave owners of the antebellum South?
The Turk empire of the early 1900’s?
The Khmer Rouge of Cambodia?
The Weimar Republic of Germany?

   Admittedly, there may be many things shared in common between these groups but what if we add one more group to the list, say…American Liberals and Progressives?
The disturbing commonality of these diverse groups is their dedication to disarming the citizen.

   This is objectively verifiable fact and is disturbing because of what resulted in the cases where citizens were actually disarmed: Genocide and wholesale murder! Consider the following;
One million Armenian men, women and children were slaughtered by the Turks.
Two million Cambodians were butchered by the Khmer Rouge.
Six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis.
Slavery inflicted untold human suffering in America.

   Please note that no causality is here implied. I merely make the observation that an unarmed population presents little deterrent to the tyrannical, the maniacal, the evil-doer. That is the only conclusion I wish to point out here.

   Americans who believe that the right to defend themselves is God-given and, therefore, inalienable and that the second amendment to the Constitution is an instrument guaranteeing that right are not on the lunatic fringe. They are, in point of fact, on solid logical, philosophical and moral ground.

   So…rather than jump to conclusions about why Liberals and Progressives try to somehow interpret this individual right collectively let’s let them explain for themselves.
Why do you support the abridgement of the fundamental right of every person to self defense?

Thanks for reading!

You can safely infer two things from the above: First, the goodies are indeed good! Second, my resolute resistance is, well, pretty much irresolute. Don’t laugh…you couldn’t resist either! But if we fail to resist baked goodies with frightening regularity, what about governmental goodies?

Our system of Representative government was established to safeguard our political, economic and personal freedom. That’s the way it was designed to function. But now we send men and women to Congress to “get our fair share of the pie.” Completely understandable given the existence of such a “pie” but that’s just the problem.

It Should Not Exist!

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” – Alexis de Tocqueville.

Do you and I have the courage to follow truth to logical conclusions? Certainly the politicians don’t. And we can’t really blame them for doing what we ask them to do, that is, getting our “fair share” of pork and entitlements. Such waste of money is absolutely shocking! (In someone else’s state.) The real issue is the pie. If it’s there we will eat it.

The stated goals of many governmental initiatives are good and desirable, at least to someone. But these goals must be philanthropic rather than governmental or they degenerate into political tools. The existence of the pie changes everything including motives and behavior. The pie causes us to lose sight of the long term best in favor of the short term good. The pie makes us believe we really can have something for nothing.

The conclusions are inescapable. The Federal government must stop all programs not specifically mandated (enumerated) by the Constitution. Yes, that means social security too. See what I mean about courage? The only alternative is slavery and tyranny just as de Tocqueville (and so many others) predicted.

Let’s have the courage to at least start the conversation and conduct it in civility.

Thanks for reading.

The results, although slow to be noticed, were none the less devastating. The base of the residence became a breeding ground for mold, mildew and who knows what else. The very foundation of the home was “living” and changing. Only a tremendous effort saved the structure from total collapse. The really sad news? A simple inspection followed by some low-skilled maintenance and the whole ugly, costly episode could have been avoided.

The moral of the story is A FOUNDATION THAT IS “LIVING” DESTROYS THE HOUSE.

Don’t you find it alarming that people claiming the Constitution of the United States to be a “living” document are everywhere trying to kill it? I believe this is the defining thread pulling various groups on the Right together. Give us back our Constitutional government! Let this be the rally cry of Libertarian, conservative and Tea-Bagger alike.

Let’s not kid ourselves; we are past the point where a simple inspection and a little maintenance will do. We have to do difficult things that are going to be painful. Perhaps most difficult of all will be to admit we were wrong. The truly “Great Society” provides equal opportunity, not redistribution. Redistribution is only a disguise for slavery and tyranny. No more “New Deals” it was a lemon, just give us back Old Ironsides.

Through neglect, we the people have seen our foundation become infected with a disease called Progressivism. Make no mistake, Progressivism means to progress beyond the Constitution. Those who trumpet this tune mean to completely change America. The infection has spread, our foundation is crumbling, and our civil society is on the brink of collapse.

We can still vote the bums out. The question is, will we?

Thanks for reading.

Well, they missed it again today.

Here’s today’s logo:

The logo depicts the banner of Esparanto, an artificial language developed by LL Zamenhof. Who would have been 150 today.

Here’s a better inspiration for Google’s logo:

Today the Bill of Rights turns 218. Ironic, considering without the latter, there would be no former – Google, that is.

Regardless, it’s a good piece revealing the state of mind of those supporting ObamaCare and the individual mandate.

When CNSNews.com asked whether the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make Americans buy health insurance, Sen. Akaka said: “I’m not aware of that; let me put it that way. But what we’re trying to do is to provide for people who have needs, and that’s where the accessibility comes in, and one of the goals that we’re trying to present here is to make it accessible.”

Oh, so it’s about accessibility. Using that defense, Congress should make everyone who is eligible by a car, so those who can’t (or won’t) drive, can ride the bus. I know, it doesn’t make sense to me either

When asked if there was a specific part of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to make people buy health insurance, Akaka said: “Not in particular with health insurance. It’s not covered in that respect. But in ways to help citizens in our country to live a good life, let me say it that way, is what we’re trying to do, and in this case, we’re trying to help them with their health.”.

Wait, what, so it’s about health then. Okay, so everyone should be forced to buy a gym membership, so those who don’t want to work out, can go sit in the sauna at the Y. Again, doesn’t make sense to me either.

“It’s an idea of making it possible for people and this is what it’s all about,” he said. “I don’t look upon that as a penalty but as a way of getting help with health insurance.”

Um, uh, hmmm, what?

In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan proposed by then-President Clinton that included a mandate that all individuals purchase health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the issue and discovered that the federal government had never in the history of the United States mandated that individuals purchase any good or service.

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” said the CBO. “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

In an analysis published this July, the CBO said that an attempt to justify a mandate that people buy health insurance by using the Commerce Clause—which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce “among the several states”—raises a “novel issue.”

Not a “novel issue,” a Constitutional issue.

See the whole interview here.

Of Thee I Sing has posted a great article on the current statist crossroads where we sit, well worth the read.

Today, a new paradigm for America is being imposed upon us. New for America, but old, tattered and largely discarded where it has been imposed by repressive regimes elsewhere. Its basic premise is that everyone will produce and contribute to society to their full ability and will accept as the fruit of their labor only the earnings the government allows them to retain. It is, essentially, a redistributive philosophy of governance, whereby the government decides what you can keep of what you earn. Of course, one could argue, correctly, that a progressive income tax, which Americans have long accepted, does exactly that. But in America, when citizens acquiesce to such progressive forms of taxation they do so with the unwritten understanding that government will be responsible in limiting its appetite for funding, and will observe the powers reserved to the states and the people under the Constitution.

When government overreaches and establishes programs that require a modern form of tax farming that makes an art of taxing everything that national, state and local governments think they can get away with in order to impose state mandates to replace the free choice of its citizens, the people get restive and angry. And that state of mind leads them inevitably to use the one weapon that has always been available to them to curb government gluttony…the ballot box. Sadly, by that time, any damage done by this Congress will already be the law of the land.

According to Steve Groves of the Heritage Foundation, the resolution is nothing more than a crackdown on criticizing Muslims.

The U.S. government has spoken out strongly against the “defamation of religions” effort at the United Nations. The next U.S. Administration should oppose the further promulgation of “defamation of religions” at the U.N. and must resist any attempt to legitimize the concept within the United States. Given the penchant of some federal judges—including jus­tices on the U.S. Supreme Court—to rely on the deci­sions and opinions of international courts and organizations, the “defamation of religions” effort at the United Nations must be confronted.

From National Journal

It was nice to hear Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say on October 26, “I strongly disagree” with Islamic countries seeking to censor free speech worldwide by making defamation of religion a crime under international law.

But watch what the Obama administration does, not just what it says. I’m not talking about its attacks on Fox News. I’m talking about a little-publicized October 2 resolution in which Clinton’s own State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.

The ambiguously worded United Nations Human Rights Council resolution could plausibly be read as encouraging or even obliging the U.S. to make it a crime to engage in hate speech, or, perhaps, in mere “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” This despite decades of First Amendment case law protecting such speech.

H/T: Clarice Feldman

We are legally required to where a seatbelt while driving, we can’t talk on the phone, and my four-year-old son must now be in a booster seat until he’s eight. Okay, perhaps those laws are for my safety, but isn’t my safety my business. How about this, in some areas we can’t fly our own flag, we can’t speak our minds, we can’t where a particular shirt, because we might offend someone. Oh, I’m sorry, but isn’t being offended a personal thing. When was “unless found to be offensive” added to the First Amendment?! Aren’t I entitled to my opinion? No, not anymore; being offensive is a matter of interpretation, but it’s also apparently illegal.

James Madison said, “It is the reason alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government.“ Do we control the government?

We are being force fed a healthcare bill that at the least is unwanted by the majority of Americans, and at the most unconstitutional; we will be required to carry health insurance or pay a tax! Isn’t that my choice? I seem to remember another tax many years ago that taxed my choice – the poll tax! Oh, but the government cares, it wants to help us, it’s its duty to provide for the “general Welfare of the United States.” Remember Hillary Clinton’s, “it takes a village to raise a child.” Truthfully, it takes a family to raise a child, and a village to raise a village idiot. Government doesn’t want to help us; it wants to rob us. Alright, yes we elect our representatives every so often, and they campaign proposing to represent the electorate, but after taking the oath, it’s not about constituents anymore, it’s about staying in office. We don’t control the government, it controls us!   

Thomas Jefferson said, “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

Wow, would Tommy be mad now. “Spending money to be paid by posterity” is the standard operating procedure for Congress today; everything has a ten or 20 year plan. How does the bill affect the deficit in 10 years; we will balance the budget by 2012; whatever. The problem is that each new session of Congress extends the “posterity.” The national debt is approaching $12 trillion; I would say we’ve been swindled on a large scale. What did Jefferson mean? Borrow it today, pay it back before the next election; anything is else is crooked accounting. Hmmm, I wonder if anyone is serving time for crooked accounting.

Thomas Jefferson also said, “On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them?” I wonder where the “angry [tea party] mob’; the “manufactured outrage” at town hall meetings, and Take Back American got their ideas? And, yet our rise in rebellion was squashed, silenced, or at least ignored by our representation.

John Adams said, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” It’s obvious to me we don’t live in a republic any more, and the democracy (majority rule) is only in DC. We can all hope that suicide transpires on November 2, 2010.

crossposted at ConservativeNC.

According to Fox New’s Andrew Napolitano, who suggested that illegals will be covered because of the Constitution’s “equal protection” clause. “The last time the Supreme Court looked at this,” Napolitano said, “is when Texas tried to prevent municipalities from educating the children of illegals. The Supreme Court said the government can’t do that because the Constitution doesn’t distinguish between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ when it comes to education or health care. The court will invalidate any provision that tries to punish people.” Constitutional attorney Shannon Goessling agreed with Napolitano’s, and said, “Here you have the President of the United States, a graduate of Harvard Law School, suggesting that he doesn’t know the consequences of the public option. President Obama is playing politics and the public should be forewarned.” Obama… playing politics? Imagine that…

For what it’s worth Constitution didn’t distinguish between “slave and free” until 1865.

Fox News – Bill O’Reilly