Ruth Bader Ginsberg and her lack of respect for our constitution

For those interested in a postscript to one of the most dangerous times of our Republic, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Obama administration were prepared to sell out America to world government. Her view of our constitution should be a warning of what the coming election could bring us. More Supremes of her persuasion, and a government that has lost its respect for our constitution. From an earlier post:

Recall Justice Ginsburg has fired the latest salvo in the ongoing debate about the Court’s use of foreign and international law sources in constitutional adjudication.   On Friday, she gave a speech to the International Academy of Comparative Law at American University, entitled “A decent respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind”: The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication.  Not surprisingly given her earlier opinions, Justice Ginsburg comes out strongly in favor of the Court’s use of foreign and international law materials to interpret U.S. law, including the Constitution.

She begins with an historical defense:

From the birth of the United States as a nation, foreign and international law influenced legal reasoning and judicial decision making.  Founding fathers, most notably, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, were familiar with leading international law treatises, the law merchant, and English constitutional law.  And they used that learning as advocates in legal contests . . . . The law of nations, Chief Justice Marshall famously said in 1815, is part of the law of our land.  Decisions of the courts of other countries, Marshall explained, show how the law of nations is understood elsewhere, and will be considered in determining the rule which is to prevail here.  Those decisions, he clarified, while not binding authority for U. S. courts, merit respectful attention for their potential persuasive value.

After quoting from Paquete Habana, Ginsburg turns her attention to the hostility to both foreign and international law on display in the U.S. Senate during Elena Kagan’s recent confirmation hearings (e.g., including the Senator who indicated he was “troubled” that Kagan “believes we can turn to foreign law to get good ideas”).  She contrasts these exchanges with The Federalist’s use of the law of nations and both positive and negative examples from abroad to defend the Constitution.

In terms of her own views, Justice Ginsberg did not mince words:

On judicial review for constitutionality, my own view is simply this:  If U.S. experience and decisions may be instructive to systems that have more recently instituted or invigorated judicial review for constitutionality, so too can we learn from others now engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against fundamental instruments of government and charters securing basic rights. . . . The U.S. judicial system will be the poorer, I have urged, if we do not both share our experience with, and learn from, legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own.

And the rest of the speech continues in a similar vein, with Justice Ginsberg raising and then contesting the views of foreign/international law opponents (including Justice Scalia, Judge Richard Posner, and Professors Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule) while citing a series of “examples” of recent cases where the Court reached a decision with the aid of foreign and international law sources (e.g., Atkins v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and, of course, Roper v. Simmons).

The most interesting part of the speech was Justice Ginsburg’s list of other sources besides foreign and international law that are appropriate for constitutional adjudication:

Judges in the United States, after all, are free to consult all manner of commentary — Restatements, Treatises, what law professors or even law students write copiously in law reviews, and, in the internet age, any number of legal blogs.  If we can consult those sources, why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained, for example, in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights?

Read more

For more see an earlier post as well:

Washington Examiner:

Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

“If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states’ rights to regulate abortion,” she told the Washington Examiner.

Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.

That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.

“The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers,” Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.

“The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.

In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing “an absurd proposition” that “could be used as a backdoor way to undermine” Second Amendment rights, among other things.

Keep reading…

From an earlier post done in October, 2013

Ted Cruz: DOJ argues that International Treaties can trump Constitution

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

De Blasio appoints wife head of coronavirus racial inequality task force

 

Not going to slow down NYC de Blasio from promoting his wife to another cash cow. Reparations coming my dear, so said the wolf and lots of goodies for her friends. Better yet she is itching for a political office apparently. What could go wrong?

 

The happy couple

Mayor de Blasio isn’t letting the controversy surrounding his wife’s embattled billion-dollar mental-health initiative stop him from appointing her to head a new coronavirus recovery task force.

Citing her work with the ThriveNYC initiative, de Blasio revealed on Sunday that First Lady Chirlane McCray, a rumored contender for Brooklyn borough president, would co-chair a Task Force on Racial Inclusion and Equity as the city plans its eventual reopening.

Chirlane McCray, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s wife, was entrusted in 2015 with running a new initiative in the city called ThriveNYC, a program that attempted to address issues of homelessness, substance use, depression and suicide, all centered around mental health and with a price tag of $250 million per year in tax payer dollars.

Now, four years later, there are serious concerns and calls for official inquiries into the program because no one can determine if it’s actually been successful. What’s more, due to a general opaqueness when it comes to the program’s budget, ThriveNYC has apparently left that nearly $900 million unaccounted for.

 

“Chirlane doesn’t have an impressive track record running task forces or agencies,” said Councilman Joe Borelli (R-SI), who has jousted with City Hall over Thrive’s alleged lack of help for the NYPD amid a spate of suicides by cops.

“This is too serious an issue to use it as profile raiser,” he added, referring to her potential political aspirations.

Councilman Robert Holden said the appointment reeks of political calculation by the mayor to up McCray’s visibility ahead of a widely rumored run for Beep.

“This is political. I wish de Blasio would stop doing this,” said the Queens Democrat. “Let her win the Brooklyn borough presidency on her own merits.

“Her track record on Thrive and the statue commission hasn’t been so good,” he added, referring to another of McCray’s questionable forays into the spotlight.

Read more

Earlier post:

NYC Mayor’s wife choses ‘Drag Queens’ for Statues over Saints

The real heroines for de Blasio’s wife are drag queens and abortion rights activists. How many tax payer bucks are going to supposedly ‘equalize’ the number of male statues to female statues in the city? Who is going to create these statues since the mayor’s wife doesn’t have exactly a good track record. De Blasio’s wife and the case of missing 850 million in taxpayers money

She will make a wonderful first lady don’t you think?-

Chirlane McCray, the mayor’s wife, launched a “She Built NYC” program and invited the public to vote on the names of women they want the city to recognize with a statue. Mother Cabrini got more votes than any other woman , yet McCray’s panel rejected the public’s choice.

Mother Cabrini

Francesca Xavier Cabrini and other female icons were denied honorary statues after a group controlled by First Lady Chirlane McCray tossed out the revered Catholic sister in favor of more women of color and a drag queen-turned-LGBTQ activist.

She was America’s first saint, a tireless advocate who founded an upstate orphanage, a school for girls in Washington Heights and 67 organizations for the needy in the late 1880s.
But she wasn’t good enough to be named one of New York’s seven most important women.

This despite Cabrini getting the most votes in a poll of New Yorkers on who should be included.

Also denied were poll leaders Emily Warren Roebling, who led the completion of the Brooklyn Bridge, and Manhattan Music School founder Janet Schenck.

Instead, they selected abortion rights activist Dr. Helen Rodriguez Trías and drag queens Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson, among others, making clear what their criteria were.

Drag Queen Marsha P. Johnson
Everett Collection

 

The reaction from New Yorkers had been predictably swift and fierce. But apparently it wasn’t fierce enough to slow down de blasio.

All is well in the swamp. That is for sure.

Is America’s Ship of State Floundering?

 

Is America’s Ship of State Floundering?

by Mustang

The “ship of state” is an oft-cited metaphor that first appeared in Book IV of Plato’s Republic.  Plato (424-347 BC) likened the governance of the state to the command of a ship.  He argued that the only men fit to captain this ship are members of the intelligentsia, who vested with absolute power, will act magnanimously and this in turn will create a better society.

America has become a ship of state in the sense of Plato’s ideal Republic, only rather than being controlled by benevolent philosopher kings, the American people are under the thumb of unelected bureaucrats who regard themselves as a political elite class; men and women who know better than we do about the things to affect our lives, our families, and our communities.

Rather than one beneficent dictator, we are today governed by hundreds of little dictators, all of whom, individually and collectively, exercise absolute power over us.  Whenever one of these little dictators goes away, for whatever reason, they are quickly replaced by another just like him (or her).

There are 18 million people working in government —more people than work in all the factories in the United States.  Of these, around 15 million work for state and local government with the balance working for the federal government.

Eighteen million people who depend on American taxpayers for their salaries, their retirement benefits, their medical care, so it makes sense that these employees largely support Democrats because they benefit from the tax and spend policies of Democrat politicians at every level of government.

People always vote in their own perceived interests.  The more money there is to spend, the more money there is for salaries and benefits.  In the federal government, the largest nest of these snakes resides within the State Department; in second place the Postal Department.

That’s the situation in America today.  How we arrived at our present condition involves several significant events occurring in the 1960s —each one contributing to the division of the American people and their Republic, which seems to have been the primary goal of the Democratic Party since its inception in 1828.

  1. In 1940, only one American male in fifty attended college or university, so it was not a major consideration in granting college/university students deferments from military service.  Twenty to twenty-five years later, the number of young men attending college was close to half of the male population.  Within the US population, young men who attended college were deferred from mandatory military service in the Vietnam War.  If one happened to be a mechanic, a grocery clerk, an electrician, a plumber, or a bulldozer operator —those who either couldn’t afford to attend college, or had no interest in doing so, went conscripted and shipped off to war.  This completely unfair system created the notion that wealthy people (those who could afford college) were better than those who toiled in the trades.  These wealthy people internalized this, and people of less means resented it.  Psychologically, it set into motion the now-frequent mantra of rich vs. poor, us vs. them in the United States.
  1. During Jack Kennedy’s presidency, women were essentially united in their womanhood.  Most women believed that the ideal age for marriage was around 27-years of age.  No one back then thought that “never” was the correct answer.  In 1960, only 15% of married women, and 16% of single women believed that it was “okay” to have an extramarital affair.  But then the feminist movement evolved, and women were placed into two categories: married women (believing in the traditional role of womanhood), and unmarried women (having no interest in long-term relationships with men).
  1. In 1964-65, President Lyndon Johnson badgered members of Congress into passing two acts: the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965).  On their face, there is nothing untoward about equal rights under the law.  But the result of these acts was the emergence of bureaucracies that usurped the United States Constitution and redefined democratic republicanism.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  The effects of civil rights legislation were several, of course, but its result was the concentration of power inside Washington, D. C., handing to bureaucrats the authority to create new laws, and enforce these laws through federal prosecution.  Bureaucrats created new crimes, making discrimination (for example) illegal in almost every aspect of American society.

They revoked our Constitutional right of association and free speech.  The Supreme Court ruled that all speech is protected, particularly offensive speech, but bureaucrats overturned case law by defining “hate speech” and then making it a federal crime.  New agencies were created to hunt down American law breakers, haul them into court, and demand retribution in the form of prison sentences or heavy fines.

The enlightened philosopher-dictators gave us the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, a massive expansion of the Civil Rights Commission.  It spread like a cancer so that within a short time, each agency of the government had its own branch of the EEOC.

It placed the federal bureaucracy in the position of dictating to all other government agencies, federal, state, or local, as well as to private enterprises with more than fifteen employees, how they would hire, reprimand, or terminate employees.  To help facilitate this, elitist agency heads —those who know better than everyone else— helped disgruntled employees file federal lawsuits.  America’s judges fell into line, of course.

The effect of this usurpation of our constitutional rights was that it changed how Americans made decisions affecting their “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.”

The Voting Rights Act, in seeking to give equal voting rights to all Americans, actually created different rights for citizens depending upon where one happened to live in the United States.  The spirit of the law was to shame southern states (at the time mostly run by Democrats) into compliance with laws imposed by northern Democrats.  Lyndon Johnson pushed hard for this legislation; he needed blacks voting Democratic and he succeeded.

In any case, most of America had no problem with desegregation; it was a problem in the south, not in Michigan.  What the people of Michigan didn’t know was that the laws written to address southern issues would soon affect them as well.

When racial segregation was halted, federal power was not suspended —it was increased.  For example, in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there was no mention of racial quotas for public schools.  That came later —at the direction of a bureaucrat.  Busing children wasn’t in the original legislation, either.  It came about because school districts could not fulfill their federally mandated racial quota.  Judges decided this issue, not the people.

And then government dictators demanded affirmative action, a program where exceptionally qualified candidates for educational programs were denied entry in order that remarkably unqualified applicants could gain admission.  Even when the courts sided with exceptionally qualified complainants, they never got around to changing what has evolved as one of the United States’ more idiotic demands.

But affirmative action was working well enough to feed the irrational extremism of the federal bureaucracy.  Suddenly, civil rights legislation was feeding the never-satiated demands of immigration advocates.  The American people never voted for bilingual education at their expense, Congress never included it in the original legislation, but the Supreme Court upheld some bureaucrat’s decision in 1974.  What was this bureaucrat’s name?  No one knows.

Civil rights policy even came to overrule legislation that had nothing to do with civil rights law.  The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is an example of this … intended to become the foundation upon which modern immigration policy would evolve.

Three million illegal immigrants from northern Mexico were granted amnesty and citizenship, but to ensure that immigration never again got out of hand, strict laws and harsh penalties would force employers to avoid hiring non-citizens.  It was a sham, however, because civil rights law prohibited employers from asking potential employees, who looked Hispanic, their place of birth or immigration status; there was, as a practical matter, no bar to illegal immigration.

In time, the bureaucrats took over; the people no longer control their own destinies through elected representatives.  Johnson’s civil rights laws have replaced the U. S. Constitution; it gave administrators and judges the power to override the normal course of constitutional democracy.

It gave them the power to declare national emergency on the basis of morality, rather than defensive exigency —which is to say, usurping the power of the American people on humanitarian grounds rather than on enemies gathered at the gate.

But before this was possible, bureaucrats had to create a class of officially recognized scoundrels.  It is by now a well-established pattern, widely adopted by federal bureaucracies, to guarantee a future demand for their continued services

We began this journey intending to ensure that black Americans enjoyed the same rights and privileges of citizenship as every other citizen, but where we are now extends that noble cause into other areas of American life, insisting that citizens with no other sin than in believing the same things they did ten or twenty years ago conform to the demands of progressive bureaucrats who, as always, know better than the rest of us about everything.

Now, other groups are enabled to advance their cause by bureaucratic fiat-accompli and judicial decree, and this enables these disparate groups to form coalitions or electoral majorities.  It is indeed possible because anyone who is not a white heterosexual can benefit from civil rights laws in some way.

It then becomes a matter of figuring out how to climb aboard the progressive band wagon.  One clever ploy was the invention of the term “people of color,” a coalition organized against either non-people of color or people of non-color, with the intention of ensuring that white society gets a smaller share of America’s bounty.

We have two primary political parties in the United States (and an occasional assortment of others that have no political power at all beyond upsetting one of the two main groups).  The parties consist of (a) individuals who perceive that they have benefitted from the Constitution (conservatives), and (b) individuals who perceive that they have been harmed by the Constitution (progressives).  Conservatives insist that the federal government follow the law (Constitution), whereas progressives insist that the Constitution of 1787 is void and that we must instead throw our lot behind bureaucracies to achieve social justice.

But what have the bureaucracies given us beyond a floundering ship?  What have they stolen?  What must we do to right the ship?

____________

That which is not good for the beehive cannot be good for the bees.  —Marcus Aurelius

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Flashback Hillary: ‘If I were President I would obliterate Iran’

 

A trip down memory lane with our savants during the halcyon days of the Obama tenure. First a couple of tweets from Hillary to set the stage for some laughs and giggles. As painful as it is to review the statements of these characters that were running our country, it explains why Trump had and has such a mess on his hands.

You betcha Hillary – cheat? Oh not you!

Interference? Here is a story worth a read…..

Clinton’s interference in Russian election – Putin’s payback

 

 

Iran? Here is how Hillary would roll as President. Apparently just as she did in Libya. They are worried about Trump???

Position of Hillary Clinton on Iran

 

 

Ho, Ho, Ho…. a real knee slapper… Congressional approval? What Congressional approval? Just asking.

Now Libya is a failed State where terrorists sell human beings in open air slave markets, thanks to Hillary and the Obama/Biden intervention.

 

 

Bonus: Iran is no threat to us…. it is a tiny country. Just give them 150 Billion dollars and all will be well.

 

Our savant Biden:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government,” said Biden.

“I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.”

In 2010, Biden Predicted Iraq Would Be “One Of The Great Achievements Of This Administration”

 

Other than that, all is well in the swamp.

For the best in conservative news

 

Evanston ILL will funnel tax revenue to reparations fund

 

The irony of it all. Reparations funds coming from drug taxation by the government. We might ask how this whole thing is legal. After watching endless hours of impeachment hearings why bother. Here we go:

Evanston City Council passed a measure last month that will funnel the city’s tax revenue generated from the sale of recreational marijuana to a local reparations fund. The move has attracted attention from national and regional groups that have long advocated for investment in black communities through reparations.

(Stock Photo) …

The event, which was promoted but not sponsored by the city, was designed as a celebration of Evanston’s reparations initiative and the start of a continuing dialogue. The fund will be capped at $10 million and officials say it will be used to help the city’s black community with economic development, education and housing, among other issues. The fund will be paid for with a 3% sales tax on adult recreational marijuana, which becomes legal in Illinois Jan. 1.

White residents still earn significantly more money, on average, than Evanston’s black residents, said Ald. Robin Rue Simmons (5th Ward), who spearheaded the reparations effort. That fact, along with declining black homeownership and a declining number of black residents in town, pushed Simmons to propose the fund.

Evanston’s reparations measure was passed in an 8-1 vote. No one spoke out against the effort at the meeting where it was passed. A Reparations Subcommittee has been formed to determine the exact ways in which the fund’s proceeds will be used and distributed.

Read more

Bonus:

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

Welcome readers from whatfinger news!

For the best in conservative news push the button.

 

Denver City Council winner promised to usher in Communism ‘by any means necessary’

 

Newly elected far far-left Denver City Council member Candi CdeBaca has stated that she is “excited to usher” in communism “by any means necessary.” She was elected in a run-off. Congratulations Denver. We have been tip toeing around the topic with euphemisms.

euphemism is a polite expression used in place of words or phrases that might otherwise be considered harsh or unpleasant.

Social Democrats such as the likes of Bernie Sanders is a euphemism that comes to mind. AOCortex comes to mind as well.

“Any means necessary?” Try the slaughter of tens of millions of people. Thats sounds like a phrase wouldn’t you say?

In the end, it is Communism that they all wish for and they have been working at it for decades to bring it to our shores. Indoctrinating our young.

 

 

I don’t believe our current economic system actually works. Um, capitalism by design is extractive and in order to generate profit in a capitalist system, something has to be exploited, that’s land, labor or resources.

And I think that we’re in late phase capitalism and we know it doesn’t work and we have to move into something new. And I believe in community ownership of land, labor, resources, and distribution of those resources.

And I think that we’re in late phase capitalism and we know it doesn’t work and we have to move into something new. And I believe in community ownership of land, labor, resources, and distribution of those resources.

 

 

WhatFingerNews  A great site for all the news.

More Taxation Please

 

 

More Taxation Please

by Mustang   (Our man on the beat in the U.K.)

 

Taxes pay for the government (local, state, federal) and common use infrastructure, such as highways and bridges.  We all know this, of course, and can appreciate why these taxes must be paid.  Infrastructure supports commerce, and commerce fuels the economy.  So far, so good.  But there are other reasons for taxes that many of us find objectionable.  Here are a few of these:

  • Foreign aid, macro-organized welfare programs, and offering free education and medical care for illegal aliens might top the list, but then liberal politicians make no bones about the fact that taxation allows for the redistribution of income.  Robbery, some would say … stealing from Peter to pay Paul.
  • We must also pay the salaries of government employees.  There are literally millions of local, state, and federal employees, such that after a while, we might wonder … is government ever big enough to administer all government’s programs?  Apparently not, and depending on where these employees work, their salaries can be quite hefty.  How does any rational person justify the salaries of members of Congress (as high as $190,000.00 annually)?  Do they really earn this kind of money in terms of the services they provide?  And of course, the more employees there are, the more buildings we need to house them, the higher the cost of their benefits, and the longer-term retirement program obligations.

But there are other reasons to tax the crap out of people.  Enforcement of rules and regulations is one of these, and punishment for behaving in a certain way.  Sin taxes come to mind —and seat-belt laws that are less about public safety than they are about collecting revenues.

Here in England, one community has decided that punishment is a good reason for taxes … no, not fines, but an actual increase in taxes.

So, you own a home.  You want to sell it, but the market isn’t quite right.  Or perhaps, you might want to rent it out, but you need a minimum amount of rent in order to meet your mortgage payment obligations.  Maybe you inherited the property and it needs substantial repairs; you can’t afford that right now.  No matter.

The Wychavon (pronounced Witch Haven) district council has decided that if you are the owner of an unoccupied home, and if the property has been unoccupied for more than two years, your county taxes will be doubled.  Yes, that’s right —doubled.  If you happen not to like this arrangement, then either move into the property, sell it, or rent it … but until you do one of these two things, thou shalt bepunished.  The council complains that there are 148 homes in their district that have been unoccupied for more than two years; half of those for more than five years.  Something has to be done.

District council spokesperson Vic Allison explained: “The intention of this revised legislation is to encourage and bring back empty homes into use.  We have a shortage of housing and leaving properties empty is not helping that.”  He was joined by councilman Gerry O’Donnell, who said, “Anything that is a disincentive to having empty houses is to be welcomed in my view and this is one way of doing itthat has a bonus of income.”

Of course, the civic logic of this decision makes little sense: Punish people for having unoccupied properties?  Who leaves a property unoccupied just for the fun of it?  Perhaps Vic and Gerry aren’t making enough money as councilmen, and so to increase revenues, they’re happy to punish home-owners.  This conclusion may seem a bit disingenuous, but the increase in annual revenues will exceed £120,000.  Easily enough to be able to afford a new car for council members, maybe several suites of new office furniture, an upgrade to office computers —a more robust happy hour at the end of the month.

I suspect that council or board meetings here in England are much like those back home.  Have you ever attended one?  There are rules to be followed, of course, and not everyone is entitled to speak to council members unless certain requirement have been met.  These may include (but are not limited to) a demand that your stated concerns are pre-approved for public meetings, that your remarks are limited to a certain amount of time, and that you promise not to lose your temper or threaten council members.

 

Then, whenever speakers are allowed to address the council, such an address must take place after the regular business meeting.  People have actually died from boredom during these council meetings.  This is one of the reason people try NOT to attend them.  School board meetings are like this, too.  This is how boards and councils are able to pass so much idiotic rules and regulations without public outcry … no one wants to sit through these meetings.

This tirade won’t change the way things are done … neither here, nor back home.  It only underscores the arrogance of “elected officials,” illustrates how these minor despots are able to get away with so much, and points to how easily citizen’s rights are legally thwarted by bureaucrats and minor officials.  It is a world-wide phenomenon.  Government is a curse to humanity, but then I suspect it has always been thus.

I feel better now … sort of.

Congressional Dishonesty

 

Congressional Dishonesty

by Mustang

Whenever someone violates an oath or a vow, either by swearing to what is untrue, or through omission (concealing truth), intentional or otherwise, or to fail to do what has been promised under oath, they are guilty of false swearing.  In our judicial system, we call this perjury.

 

 

It is a felony, punishable by fines or imprisonment.  We’ve even seen where high-ranking officials have been sent to jail for lying to federal law enforcement officers.  As an aside, the prefix per– in Latin means “harmful,” so whenever someone perjures themselves, they do harm to the truth.  Not all lying is perjury —only lying under oath or lying to a member of the FBI.  Now, of course, a person may avoid perjury by refusing to make an oath, or in law enforcement or judicial matters (including testimony in congress) by claiming his or her right against self-incrimination.

What brought me to this discussion was the post of a few days back about the recently elected and seated member of Congress, Rashida Tlaib.  The oath she took reads as follows:

“I, (State your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

This oath, by the way, is required:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” — U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3

Not everyone back then agreed.  During the Constitutional Convention, the question arose, should an oath be required at all in a free country?  James Wilson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, said that oaths only provided “left-handed security.”  A good government, he argued, did not need an oath, and a bad government ought not be supported at all.  Noah Webster agreed with Wilson when he said that oaths were instruments of slavery and a badge of folly.

People would be naturally inclined to support just government, so oaths were unnecessary.  Wilson served in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, so I suppose to a man who committed treason against his king may not be inclined to offer an oath of allegiance.  The Supreme Court finally got around to addressing this issue in 1833, when Justice Joseph Story opined that requiring officials to take an oath “would seem to be a proposition too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it.”

All of this happened before there were Moslems in America working to undermine Republican Democracy.  A politically incorrect person, such as I, might observe that these Moslems are really no more than wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing.

In any case, researching back to the Clinton administration, I could find only one member of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch convicted of perjury.  Judge Thomas Porteous (D) (a Clinton appointee) for the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas was convicted of perjury in 2010.

Now a quick word about Taqiyya (spelled in several ways).  It is a practice emphasized in Shia Islam whereby adherents are permitted to conceal their true religious purposes to avoid persecution, prosecution, or compulsion.  It has been politically legitimized among Moslems in order to maintain unity and fraternity among Moslems of all sects.  One Moslem scholar (teaching at Columbia) explained, “Taqiyya is an Islamic judicial term whose shifting meaning relates to when a Moslem is allowed, under Sharia Law, to lie.  It is a concept whose meaning has varied significantly among Islamic sects, scholars, countries, and political regimes, and it has become a key term used by anti-Moslem polemicists.”  Imagine a judicial system that allows dishonesty …

We could all agree that whenever a member of Congress takes the oath of office and then violates that oath, then that person has committed perjury.  They lied.  They either lied overtly or through omission, and for intentions that act against the interests of the United States Constitution and the citizens of the United States.

Yet, over the past three decades, people in power routinely ignore the lies told by others —especially within their own party or administration, because who wants to admit publicly that they support telling lies, or misstatements, or concealing the truth?  Where we are today is in a land called word-play.  Lying has become “mis-speaking,” or “spin.”  But a lie is a lie, and concealing the truth is a lie.  A lie is unacceptable under any scenario, but apparently, only if one is actually able to utter the word, “lie.”  If not, then “spin” is perfectly acceptable —to people who lie.

Rashida Tlaib at the Islamic Society of North America

Now to the issue of Rashida Tlaib: she took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States (not defend it, of course).  No sooner had she taken that oath, she turned around and threatened an innocent man with congressional impeachment, adding in a bit of profanity unacceptable under any circumstances, and in so doing, given her position as a member of Congress, assumed the guilt of a man who under the law of the land is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

None of this may matter, though … since even if we had an honest and forthright House of Representatives, there are no real punishments for lying to Congress if you happen to be a member of Congress.  The only sanctions offered by the House Ethics Committee are censure, reprimand, and expulsion.  In the entire history of the Congress, only five members have been expelled, all of whom were Democrats: three were expelled during the Civil War for violating their oaths to the US Constitution by joining the Confederacy, and two after being convicted of bribery during judicial proceedings (1980, 2002).  This is not to say that members haven’t been “reprimanded,” but nothing more drastic as punishment than having to write an essay and pay back the money you stole.

I’m not happy with people, particularly Moslems, who become members of our government and then begin to work against the interests of the American people.  They take oaths, then violate them, and no one ever holds them to account.  Since there are no real punishment for lying in Congress, it is no surprise to find so much dishonesty in that body.  No wonder the American people have such disdain for the Congress of the United States.  They’re liars.

 

A Self-Reliant America

 

A Self-reliant America

By Mustang

Are Americans self-reliant? My guess is that no more than half of our population think of themselves as such; the rest have given themselves up to the good graces of the government. But of those who think that they are self-reliant, how many actually are? A self-reliant American might look something like this:

  • One who rejects conformity in favor of individuality
  • One who believes that he or she alone controls his/her own destiny
  • One who understands his or her civic duty and can be trusted to do it
  • One who understands that he or she bears responsibility for government
  • One who realizes that personal enlightenment is achieved only through individual effort
  • One who reasons that our only source of truth is our morality
  • One who will pursue right because it is rightThe notion of self-reliance has been predominant in American social development from our colonial period —until only recently, when politicians realized that self-reliance hindered the success of politicians. Upon this realization, beginning after the Civil War, politicians began to formulate programs that were designed to transform self-reliant individuals into government dependencies. Some examples:
  • Enslaving Americans to government entitlement programs: individual welfare, farming subsidies, small business loans, and tax breaks for small-to-medium sized corporations of every description (banking, finance, industry, agriculture, and services) (Politicians maintained control over the largest corporations for their own benefit)
  • Creating educational programs guaranteed to destroy a person’s ability to think for themselves
  • Formulating and instituting policies certain to stifle individuality by rewarding group-think
  • Creating environments guaranteed to prevent individuals from reaching their full potential
  • Convincing an entire class of citizens that they could never succeed without government help and guidance; institutionalizing the bigotry of low-expectations.There are two sources of citizenship: natural birth or naturalization. No matter how one becomes a citizen, he or she becomes entitled to certain rights, but also incurs certain obligations. We call these two things the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. What rights? We find these within the Constitution of the United States and its amendments. The duties of American citizenship are these:
  • Understand one’s rights, take advantage of them with wisdom, forbearance, and an analytical mind.
  • Demonstrate good faith and loyalty to one’s family, community, state, and the nation. Obey the law, peacefully participate in the political process, respect the rights of neighbors by granting to them the same amity we seek for ourselves.
  • Strive to live honorably; cheerfully serve on juries, satisfy tax obligations.
  • Work toward self-improvement, be a good steward of the environment, participate in community affairsWe all read the news; we are all aware that if you believe the news reports, the numbers of self-reliant citizens, which is to say good citizens, is in steep decline. On the other hand, can we really believe what the news agencies tell us? And could it be that if Americans are no longer self-reliant good citizens that news agencies are partly responsible? Do they not constantly remind us that we are not an exceptional people, that we are incapable of goodness without a strong (government) hand to keep us on the straight and narrow path?The population of the United States (and all of its communities) is growing at a rapid rate. Within large populations we (always) find an increase in crime, even if the percentage of crime per capita remains constant. To err is human … we will never end crimes against persons or property. No matter, we should still attempt to understand why people ignore their duties as citizens.

    For myself, I believe that part of this is that too many people are no longer “self-reliant.” They allow others to control their thoughts and ultimately, their bad deeds. Government, in seeking to sustain itself, allows bad behavior by contriving ad nauseam excuses for unacceptable conduct. Why should anyone hold him or herself responsible if,as the government elitists argue,it was all the fault of their parents? Or society? Or rich people?

    To this end, we should consider government’s role in such areas as substance abuse. If government was all-knowing and all-seeing, wouldn’t our drug abuse problem be already solved? How many murders, rapes, kidnappings, assaults, and robberies could the all-knowing government have prevented had it solved the drug problem in America?

    Self-reliant men do not abandon their wives and children; self-reliant women do not abandon their husbands or children. Self-reliant men and women do not intentionally put themselves in harm’s way; they avoid such things as sexual assault by refusing to put themselves into unenviable positions; they are watchful and aware of their surroundings.

    Self-reliant men and women are prepared and willing to defend themselves and their loved ones. Self-reliant men and women do not abuse one another, or their children. Everyone has problems, but self-reliant men and women find ways to solve their problems without causing disruption to their neighbors or communities. Self-reliant men and women in committed relationships always look out for one another.

    Suddenly, then, we find self-reliance, more than being some ambiguous or fictional notion of Americana, has a practical application to our ever-increasingly complex society.

Are Americans self-reliant? If not, can we ever get it back?

Is America in the Twilight Zone?

 

By Mustang

In his book How America Lost Its Mind, Kurt Andersen assures us that we Americans “… have passed through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole.  America has mutated into Fantasyland.”

He continues …

“Each of us is on a spectrum somewhere between the poles of rational and irrational. We all have hunches we can’t prove and superstitions that make no sense. Some of my best friends are very religious, and others believe in dubious conspiracy theories.  What’s problematic is going overboard —letting the subjective entirely override the objective; thinking and acting as if opinions and feelings are just as true as facts.

Hmmm.  So, with slight modification from its original airing, the lead-in to the popular television show Twilight Zone might look like this today …

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between reality and fantasy, between science and superstition, and it lies between man’s manic depression and the summit of his inadequate knowledge.  This is the dimension of moral relativism; it is an area which we call America’s Twilight Zone.

Andersen offers an interesting proposition, but then he falls into the rabbit hole himself.  The problem, as he sees it, is that “we’re Americans.”  We can’t help ourselves.  You see, our colonial-period adoption of enlightened ideas has led us to an absurd society where people are allowed to believe whatever they want —no matter how outlandish those beliefs are.  And, because most of us believe in God, we’ve come to think of ourselves as God’s chosen people; we’ve been called upon to help create a customized utopia —a place where we can believe epic dreams and fantasies; where we can indulge ourselves in magical thinking.  Andersen argues that Americans are prone to believe silly ideas because we’ve evolved into a mindless society.

Yet, if we were to agree that our society is unable to make a distinction between fact and opinion, or if our Americans do tend to believe the most outlandish claims found on the internet, or texted to them on an iPhone, then we ought to develop some curiosity about how we arrived in bizarre world, but we do not make much headway in our investigation if we confine our investigation to the enlightenment period.  There was certainly nothing inexplicable about our founding fathers.

It is true that there exists on the internet dozens —maybe even hundreds or thousands— of websites that offer nothing but spoofed events, unbalanced opinions presented as factual news, poorly crafted conspiracy theories, character assassinations, and blatant lies about things that might have happened 35 or 40 years ago, but which lack any corroboration.  And, in spite of what we all know about these hoax sites, people believe them anyway.  Why?

Perhaps we should begin our examination with our public education system —which I believe is (with first-hand knowledge) a misnomer for what is actually going on in our schools.  It isn’t learning that being poured into our children’s brains: it’s brain-washing —with toxic bleach.

America’s public schools, grades K through 12 are tax-payer-funded incubators where dedicated Marxist teachers (hereafter referred to as educationalists) use instruction in the social sciences, English literature, and geography to indoctrinate students in cultural collectivism.  It is a place where young people are taught to “group think,” and where at a very early age they are admonished never to challenge anything their teachers tell them.  Like all good communist systems, the penalty for challenging an educationalist is shouting, public ridicule, and labeling challengers as intolerant racist trouble-makers.

Public funded brain-washing centers are where our children are introduced to moral relativism.  Considering philosophical points of view is fine —if we are talking about a classroom filled with thirty-somethings, but we are talking about adolescents and teenagers whose brains, according to developmental psychologists, will not be fully formed until they reach their mid-twenties.  The brain-washing of under-developed persons, who because of their inexperience are incapable of thinking in the abstract is not just objectionable —it’s downright disgusting.  Teachers, whom we trust (and pay nice salaries to) to provide our children with essential learning in public schools, are abusing under-developed children for their own political purposes.

Where is the public outcry?

Kurt Andersen claims that Americans suffer from national paranoia.  For example, we are afraid of the so-called deep state.  But if Americans are worried about such things, is it really paranoia?  The clinical definition of paranoia is that someone imagines that someone or something is out to harm them.

On the other hand, when we are able to detect the existence of affiliated policies and programs that are actually designed to destroy our society, or harm us professionally, personally, or physically, then we aren’t paranoid —and we should recall that the National Security Agency is actually monitoring our telephone conversations, people are being arrested on warrants issued by secret courts on the sole affirmations of government investigators, dossiers are actually being conspiratorially manufactured against political rivals, nuclear material really is being sold under the table to foreign entities, and people who are guilty of breaching national security are actually being let off the hook simply because they are part of the political elite.

We do not imagine that there are two sets of laws in this country —there really are: those that apply to you and me … and those that pertain to members of the privileged class.  To my way of thinking, these are not examples of paranoia; there are plenty of reasons for America’s uncertainty about its future.

Awful things are going on in our country today, and much of this is political.  While I have disdain for America’s political system, one party in particular goes out of its way to shower Americans with false and misleading information.  I think it was Vladimir Lenin who once said that a lie told often enough eventually becomes a verifiable truth.

A reasonably thoughtful person should conclude that there is a purpose to inculcating our children with moral and cultural relativism, for flooding our society with false and misleading information: to fool and manipulate the not-so-bright among us (the beneficiaries of brain-washing centers).  This purpose is to strengthen a Marxist agenda, which includes duping voters into supporting closet Marxists for political office.

Again, I wonder … where is the public outcry?

%d bloggers like this: