Tag Archives: US Constitution

Concentrating My Efforts

I will not likely be blogging much here for a while as I need to put more effort into my other more focused blog, which really needs my attention.  I may cross post some of my better posts from this site to the other one, but I intend to get some more quality content written very soon for The War On Socialism.

Please check out that other blog:

The War On Socialism

It’s on, my friends.  Join us in the fight.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Advertisements

Man of the Year 2009: Mark Levin

Though the egregiously biased and transparently liberal Time Magazine picks their Man of the Year based upon sheer newsworthiness without regard to whether the recipient had a positive or negative impact, I do not share their lack of concern for the results.  My Man of the Year nomination can only go to someone who has made positive contributions to my country.

Every conservative in America should be familiar with Mark Levin.  If you do not know him you are missing out on perhaps the sharpest mind in conservatism, and you are doing a disservice to yourself by not taking advantage of his knowledge and deep intellect.  The more you listen to “the Great One”, as his good friend Hannity calls him, the more prepared you will be to intellectually battle those on the left who seek to make us all slaves to the State.

Before early 2009 my exposure to Mark was limited to seeing him once or twice on Hannity & Colmes and hearing him call into Hannity’s radio show a few times.  To be completely honest, though it was obvious that he is brilliant, I considered him a little obnoxious.  Then last January, after the inauguration of the least qualified president in US History, I discovered the Mark Levin Radio Show podcast and started listening to it on my Zune whenever I was driving.  Being from the Atlanta area, I grew up listening to Neal Boortz, and I went through periods of listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Martha Zoeller, but with a demanding job as a software developer I could not sit around and listen to their shows live.  My job simply requires too much concentration.  Additionally, coming from the libertarian side of conservatism I had little patience for GOP talking points and defense of their watered-down conservatism.

Unlike most of the rest of the syndicated conservative radio hosts, however, Mark Levin provides his radio show in podcast form for free.  In fact, it is almost always posted on his web site within 30-45 minutes of the end of the show, which runs live from 6-9pm eastern time.  Free access to his radio show in podcast form allows people like me to listen to his show when convenient, and I typically listen to the previous evening’s show the next morning while commuting.  In addition to clearly articulating the positions that I have been espousing for years, to a certain extent he has also restored my faith in my fellow Americans.  On his Friday show he closes with Ray Charles’ incredible version of America, and though I would initially skip it to get to those last three minutes of his show, now I listen to it and take strength from it.

In the spring of 2009, Mark released the most significant political book written in my lifetime.  The book, Liberty and Tyranny, is simply brilliant.  In one rather short book he very cogently brings together the most important concepts and historical perspectives of conservatism and American liberty that I have ever seen, and I have been reading the works of thinkers like Friedman and Hayek, as well as our founding documents and the Federalist Papers, for 20 years.  The fact of the matter is that if you are conservative and have not read Liberty and Tyranny, you are truly doing yourself a disservice.  Carefully reading this book will arm you for philosophical exchanges around the water cooler, or your favorite blog, like nothing else can.  To gain the insights that you will get from Liberty and Tyranny, you would have to read dozens of other books, but Mark has pulled together the most important concepts and historical examples into this one short book.  Furthermore, it is a remarkably good read, which is more than one can say for most political books by conservatives.

Libertarian leaning conservatives like me have been quoting the founding fathers and the US Constitution from memory for a couple of decades, but thanks to Mark Levin’s book and his radio show regular people are now doing the same thing.  They are actually reading the text of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and even the Federalist Papers.  They are learning more about the history of their country, the greatest nation in the history of mankind, and are gaining more depth and perspective to fight this battle against statism, a word that Levin has pushed back into the lexicon.  Mark Levin has made that happen through his great book, his entertaining radio show, and the force of his honest and direct personality.  Mark also shares my feelings of respect for our country and the people who serve her, giving a shout out to the military, police, and firefighters at the close of each show.

It is unlikely that I will ever be fortunate enough to meet Mark and express my gratitude and respect, but he is and will always be a brother.  One need only listen to Mark for 10 minutes to realize that what he says and the positions that he takes are based upon a deeply held love for America and what it stands for.  His show is not just entertainment; it is full of deep philosophical thought and reverence for the greatest country in history.

God bless you, Mark Levin.  You are the man of the year in my book.

Now let’s kick ass and take names in 2010.

Is Nullification in the Air?

Lew Rockwell, whose work I have followed for years over at the Ludwig von Mises Institute , had an interesting conversation with Judge Andrew Napolitano on the subject of states’ rights and nullification.  The gist of the discussion was about the legitimacy (and history) of the states in effect vetoing unconstitutional laws enacted by the federal government, ignoring them and in some cases preventing the feds from enforcing them.

A good example of this are California’s medical marijuana laws.  Anyone with an intellectual interest in the US Constitution has pondered the fact that back in 1919 the congress was honest enough to admit that they had no power to regulate alcohol and therefore needed to pass the 18th amendment to grant themselves that power.  Given that there has never been a consitutional amendment passed granting the federal government the power to regulate hemp, California is completely correct when it thumbs its nose at the federal government.

This video is seven minutes long but fairly interesting, Judge Napolitano is always fun to watch:

Senate Bill Allows President to Shut Down Internet!

FoxNews is reporting that the new Cybersecurity Act of 2009 would grant the president powers to shut down the internet or portions thereof.

A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a “kill switch” to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks — a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties.

Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 emerged late Thursday, months after an initial version authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., was blasted in Silicon Valley as dangerous government intrusion.

“In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a ‘cyber-emergency,’ which they didn’t define,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry.

“We think it’s a very bad idea … to put in legislation,” he told FOXNews.com.

I expect every single person who ever contemptuously uttered the phrase “Patriot Act” to come out loudly against this egregious anti-privacy bill, just as I expect them to oppose the almost certain attempt by the Obama administration to institute the Fairness Doctrine to attack media outlets that are not in the administration’s back pocket.

No, I do not really expect that.  I have observed the Left for too many years to believe that they will apply their righteous indignation in the direction of their messiah President.

Marine Vet tears Rep Baird a new one

Watch this short video.  This man is my kind of American.

Semper Fi, brother.

Why people have Roe v. Wade completely backwards

Row v. Wade gets spun this way: there is some hidden and unwritten right to privacy in the US Constitution that says that a woman has the right to terminate an inconvenient pregnancy.  An entire philosophy has sprung up around the disgusting idea that unfettered abortion rights are the pinnacle of American constitutional rights, the metaphorical canary in the coal mine of individual liberties.  Let me destroy that repugnant myth right now by providing another perspective on what that decision really means.

Anyone who pays attention knows that the majority pretty much reverse engineered that decision: they personally believed in abortion rights and they contorted the constitution as much as it took to ensure that their own agenda got “constitutionalized”.  Since this vacuous “right to privacy” only applies to women vacuuming out inconvenient babies it is pretty obvious that this is not a high minded vindication of individual rights but instead just another case of the statists using the courts to implement their own agenda on the rest of us, having failed to do so via the legitimate process of democracy.

Contrary to claims that Roe v Wade was a breakthrough decision that increased the rights of Americans, I submit that rather than granting rights to Americans this decision is more correctly described as one where the US Supreme Court stepped well over their constitutional powers in usurping states rights and implemented a new tyranny that chooses to dictate rather than allow democracy.  Roe v. Wade represents the Supremes elevating themselves to the status of gods who answer to nothing, not even the constitution, and they handed down a decision with no constitutional basis simply because it fit their agenda.  I like what William Rhenquist said in his dissent:

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.[

This is why judges who ignore the Constitution, like Sonia Sotomayor, should never be allowed on the highest court in the land.  She thinks that foreign law is relevant – but if her job is to judge laws against the US Constitution then foreign law is as relevant as fictional Klingon laws.  She thinks that race is relevant to her judgement of the constitution and most damningly she thinks that policy should be made in the courts.  She is a dangerous black-robed tyrant set on running every aspect of your life.  They cannot get their statist agenda through the messiness of representative democracy and have turned to the courts to implement their self-congratulatory tyranny.

Hands off Sotomayor? Remember Estrada?

The GOP is being warned that if they go after Sonia Sotomayor, TOTUS’ judicial activist nominee, that they will face ruin with hispanic voters.  The Left is demonstrating a (typical) massive and endemic bigotry about hispanics, thinking that they all vote in a block based upon race.  But of course the Left only sees people as members of a group.  They can never see individuals.

Not only are they being bigoted, they are being hypocrites (par for the course, right?).  Does the name Miguel Estrada ring a bell?

Highly qualified nominee Miguel Estrada

Highly qualified nominee Miguel Estrada

From The Heritage Foundation:

Do you remember Miguel Estrada? Back in 2001, Miguel Estrada was a nominee for the United Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Unfortunately, Miguel Estrada never became a judge. His crime? He was a Latino Republican who liberals believed was on the fast-track for the Supreme Court

By the twisted (and bigoted) logic of the Sotomayor supporters the Democrats should never have opposed Estrada because the monolithic and unthinking hispanic voting bloc (their position, NOT MINE) would begin to vote against Democrats simply because they opposed an hispanic.  Of course, this did not happen because hispanics are not an unthinking, ethnicity-obsessed voting bloc.  And not only did the Democrats oppose him, they filibustered him, demonstrating that it is not about qualifications at all, it is about his Originalist philosophy (meaning: he has read and follows the text of the US Constitution).  For the Left the end always justifies the means.

The article continues:

Despite graduating Magna Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School and serving as the Assistant U.S. Attorney and Deputy Chief of the Appellate Section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miguel Estrada’s nomination to the United Court of Appeals was effectively killed. Then in the minority, Senate Democrats mounted a successful filibuster under Minority Leader Tom Daschle preventing Miguel Estrada from even getting the courtesy of receiving a simple up or down vote.

The minority party was well aware that Miguel Estrada would have the votes necessary to gain confirmation. Why stop him? It was later revealed in internal Memos (warning PDF) addressed to Minority Whip Dick Durbin that liberal activist groups pressured Democrats to prevent the confirmation of Estrada whom they viewed as “especially dangerous” because “he is a Latino, and the [Bush] White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” In other words, they sought to stop him in order to prevent Bush from nominating a Latino to the Supreme Court. Subsequent memos suggested that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and leadership agreed to filibuster because Estrada was “likely to be a Supreme Court nominee” and “[t]he Democratic base is particularly energized over this issue.”

Apparently, attacking Hispanic conservatives is perfectly understandable and all part of due-diligence. But if conservatives examine the record of a liberal judge for the highest court in the land, it’s racism?

I am so very grateful that my parents taught me not to sterotype/label races or ethnicities.  That is one of the reasons that I could never be a liberal/progressive: I believe in the individual and I loathe shallow group identities based upon ethnicity, race, or religion.

Ironically, Ms Sotymayor’s own words show that she is in the fact the bigot in this scenario:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

How could anyone who thinks like that not be a liberal?  And what in the hell does her alleged richness of experiences (growing up in NYC) have to do with the law or the Constitution anyway?  Nothing.