archives

Constitution

This tag is associated with 48 posts

The Social Contract – Endgame

lockeThose of you who have read (political) History are familiar with John Locke, and his concept of the Social Contract(?)  You remember, the idea that ‘We The People’ make a Contract with those we ‘choose’ to govern us(?)

The basis for The Declaration of Independence.

Well, here is a prime (negative) example.

(courtesy of Joel)

Hey, remember last month when Virginia’s Attorney General threw CCW holders under the bus?

Well, good news, everyone! Governor Terry McAuliffe and “republican leaders” have concluded a series of backroom agreements that restores reciprocity, sort of, and all the repubs and the NRA had to give away was any hope of Virginia gun owners ever feeling safe from the state…

In exchange, Republicans softened their stances on issues that have long been non-starters in the GOP-controlled General Assembly. Under the deal, the state would take guns away from anyone who was under a two-year protective order for domestic-violence offenses. And State Police would have to attend all gun shows to provide background checks for private sellers if they requested the service.

So everything’s cool, Virginia, except that you better never get your wife mad at you and there’ll be armed goons looking over your shoulder any time you think it might be fun to pop into a gun show. But other than that, yay! Say hey for the beauties of compromise, I guess…

Of course, there’s that pesky (federal) Lautenberg Amendment thing, too.

When we make a contract with government, there is ALWAYS the other side to the contract.  Their codicil spelling out our duties and responsibilities under the ‘agreement’.

Because they never just give us anything – not when they can use a hook!

New World Order?

YES, WE ARE ALMOST DONE.
JUST ONE ELECTION DECIDES OUR FATE….
ALMOST THERE


There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to
create a socialist/communist State.  The first is the most important.

5 OF THE 8 ARE DONE – THE LAST 3 ARE ALMOST THERE???

1.  Healthcare:  “Control Healthcare and you control the People.”  DONE!!!
2.  Poverty:  “Increase the Poverty level as high as possible.”  Poor
People are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing
everything for them to live.  DONE!!!
3.  Debt:  “Increase the National Debt to an unsustainable level.”  That
way you are able to increase Taxes, and this will produce more Poverty.
DONE!!!
4.  Gun Control:  “Remove the ability to defend themselves from the
Government.”  That way you are able to create a Police State – total local
control.  ALMOST THERE!!!
5.  Welfare:  “Take control of every aspect of their lives” (Food, Livestock, Housing, and Income).  DONE!!!
6.  Education:  “Take control of what People read & listen to take control of what Children learn in School.”  ALMOST THERE!!!
7.  Religion “Remove faith in God from the Government and School.” ALMOST THERE!!!
8.  Class Warfare:  “Divide the People into the Wealthy against the Poor.
Racially divide.”  This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to Tax the Wealthy with full support of the voting Poor.  DONE!!!

 The bases are all covered!  We are ripe for the New World Order.

I’ve no idea where this list originated.  I’ve seen similar lists for many years, even before the existence of the Internet.  Some purporting to be born of the Communist Party of the United States after WWI (?!)

Regardless, it does appear to be a suitable group of steps necessary for fundamental change from this Constitutional Republic to something progressing past it.

Fundamental change – where have I heard that before?

h/t Boyd & Donna

Today Is Bill Of Rights Day!

(As posted on Cato.org)

Today Is Bill of Rights Day

Today is Bill of Rights Day. So it’s an appropriate time to consider the state of our constitutional safeguards.

Let’s consider each amendment in turn.

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Government officials, however, have insisted that they can gag recipients of “national security letters” and censor broadcast ads in the name of campaign finance reformand arrest people for simply distributing pamphlets on a sidewalk.

The Second Amendment says the people have the right “to keep and bear arms.” Government officials, however, make it difficult to keep a gun in the home and make it a crime for a citizen to carry a gun for self-protection.

The Third Amendment says soldiers may not be quartered in our homes without the consent of the owners. This safeguard is one of the few that is in fine shape – so we can pause here for a laugh.

The Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Government officials, however, insist that they can conductcommando-style raids on our homes and treat airline travelers like prison inmates by conducting virtual strip searches.

The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken “for public use without just compensation.” Government officials, however, insist that they can use eminent domain to take away our property and give it to other private parties who covet it.

The Sixth Amendment says that in criminal prosecutions, the person accused is guaranteed a right to trial by jury. Government officials, however, insist that they can punish people who want to have a trial—“throwing the book” at those who refuse to plead guilty—which explains why 95 percent of the criminal cases never go to trial.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases where the controversy “shall exceed twenty dollars.” Government officials, however, insist that they can impose draconian fines on people without jury trials.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Government officials, however, insist that a life sentence for a nonviolent drug offense is not cruel.

The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others “retained by the people.” Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what rights, if any, will beretained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people. Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what powers they possess, and have extended federal control over health care, crime, education, and other matters the Constitution reserves to the states and the people.

It’s a disturbing snapshot, to be sure, but not one the Framers of the Constitution would have found altogether surprising. They would sometimes refer to written constitutions as mere “parchment barriers,” or what we call “paper tigers.” They nevertheless concluded that having a written constitution was better than having nothing at all.

The key point is this: A free society does not just “happen.” It has to be deliberately created and deliberately maintained. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. To remind our fellow citizens of their responsibility in that regard, the Cato Institute has distributed more than six million copies of our pocket Constitution. At this time of year, it’ll make a great stocking stuffer.

Let’s enjoy the holidays (and remember many of the positive trends that are underway) but let’s also resolve to be more vigilant about defending our Constitution. To learn more about Cato’s work in defense of the Constitution, go here. To support the work of Cato, go here.

Presidential Proclamation — Bill of Rights Day, 2015  (Link – NOT posted here)

Why, you might ask, did I not post it here?

Well, the President fails to mention any of the First Ten Amendments specifically, but does mention The Civil Rights movement, LGBT rights, equality and ‘fairness’.

No mention of no-knock warrants, secret prisons, ‘enhanced’ interrogations or wholesale privacy erosions.

Or firearms.

You can go an read it for yourself, if you like.

How to celebrate the day?  I’d suggest reading the entire Bill of Rights aloud, then going shooting!  :-)

AH! The Virtues Of A Higher Education!

Via Bill

Freedom of Speech and all that…

Bet Che’ t-shirts aren’t banned…because it’s for the children!

I love how Lenin’s useful idiots clamor for freedom of speech, and protection from other’s speech simultaneously.  Not realizing that if the agenda they so love comes into power they will no longer have that freedom!

MAROONS!

h/t Brock Townsend

 

Three-Fifths Of An Idea

by Walter Williams  (Human Events)

Many of my columns speak highly of the wisdom of our nation’s founders. Every once in a while, I receive an ugly letter sarcastically asking what do I think of their wisdom declaring blacks “three-fifths of a human.” It’s difficult to tell whether such a question is prompted by ignorance or is the fruit of an ongoing agenda to undermine American greatness. Let’s examine some facts about our founders and slavery.

At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, slaves were 40 percent of the population of southern colonies. Apportionment in the House of Representatives and the number of electoral votes each state would have in presidential elections would be based upon population. Southern colonies wanted slaves to be counted as one person. Northern delegates to the convention, and those opposed to slavery, wanted to count only free persons of each state for the purposes of apportionment in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The compromise reached was that each slave would be counted as only three-fifths of a person.

If the convention delegates had not reached this compromise, the Constitution would have not been ratified and there would not have been a Union. My questions to those who criticize the three-fifths clause are twofold. Would it have been preferable for the southern states to be able to count slaves as whole persons, thereby giving southern states more political power? Would blacks have been better off without constitutional ratification and a Union made possible by the three-fifths compromise? In other words, would blacks have been better off with northern states having gone their way and southern states having gone theirs and, as a consequence, no U.S. Constitution and no Union? Abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood the compromise, saying that the three-fifths clause was “a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states” that deprived them of “two-fifths of their natural basis of representation.”

Patrick Henry expressed the reality of the three-fifths compromise, saying, “As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition.” With union, Congress at least had the power to abolish slave trade in 1808. According to delegate James Wilson, many believed the anti-slave-trade clause laid “the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country.”

Many founders openly condemned slavery. George Washington said, “There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.” John Adams: “Every measure of prudence … ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. … I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in … abhorrence.” James Madison: “We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” Benjamin Franklin: “Slavery is … an atrocious debasement of human nature.” Franklin, after visiting a black school, said, “I … have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race than I had ever before entertained.” Alexander Hamilton’s judgment was the same: “Their natural faculties are probably as good as ours.” John Jay wrote: “It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.”

Completely ignored in most discussions of slavery is the fact that slavery was mankind’s standard fare throughout history. Centuries before blacks were enslaved Europeans were enslaved. The word slavery comes from Slavs, referring to the Slavic people, who were early slaves. What distinguishes the West, namely Britain and the U.S., from other nations are the extraordinary measures they took to abolish slavery.

The Founders knew without the South’s vote, they wouldn’t survive as a Republic.  And in their genius put this together.

And now, they are being beaten-up for having done so, by people who don’t know history.

Or people who do…

Because forcing that political view is in the anti-constitutional, anti-Republic agenda.

Believe it.

The Tipping Point

(I remember a sign on the wall of Phoenix’s long-defunct Ed Debevic’s restaurant “Tipping is NOT a city in China!”) (Sorry – had to insert a little humor here before the serious post – Guffaw)

https://i2.wp.com/cdn2.americancivilwar.com/americancivilwar-cdn/authors/Joseph_Ryan/150-Year-Anniversary/April-1861/Housetops-Charleston-Sumner.jpg

Fort Sumter Was Owned By South Carolina    

PA: At what point is it legitimate to take up arms against this illegitimate government? I think that armed resistance might be legitimate as a defensive act if several states secede. Just war theory requires a reasonable chance of success? Without secession of multiple states, can armed defense be legitimate?

AB: Well, isn’t that the question du jour? I always snicker at Dennis Miller’s old joke that George Washington started blowing people’s heads off for taxing his breakfast beverage… and it wasn’t even coffee. First, as we discussed earlier, the whole American paradigm was and is deeply, deeply flawed and contained in itself from the beginning the seeds of its own inevitable collapse and destruction as John Adams himself was sure to point out, so we must be careful when citing the American Revolution as a positive example. But, those of us still capable of nuanced thought can tease out useful information from even a Diest-Freemasonic construct.

So, when exactly IS The Tipping Point?  Or When?  Or as phrased by Brock – HOW do we resist?
(attn Government – this is just a theoretical exercise.  Nothing sedition or treasonous should be construed by any writings herein.  And the fact I even have to write this caveat in a ‘free’ society says something…)
h/t Brock Townsend

Inequality Is Not Poverty

from Bayou Renaissance Man (in part):

The Telegraph’s observation bears repeating.  Inequality is not poverty.  Furthermore, equality does not consist of, and cannot be measured against, economic factors alone.  What the framers of our Constitution sought was equality of opportunity.  What the progressive left seeks is equality of outcomes – and they’ll impose that on us by legislative fiat if they can, regardless of its (lack of) truth and the failure of every society in history to accomplish anything of the sort by direction.

It’s a frightening prospect to consider how much damage social justice warriors can do at the helm of every administrative department in the government.  That’s yet another reason to reduce the size of that government to the necessary minimum, and ensure that its bureaucrats are aware that they serve in accordance with the Constitution and are subordinate to its requirements.  They don’t have the authority, or the right, to ignore it and/or reinterpret it according to their whims.

You should seriously go and read all of Peter’s essay at this link.

And, to all you Social Justice Warriors out there –

KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OTHER PEOPLE’S STUFF!

(Remembering originally The Declaration of Independence read Life, Liberty and PROPERTY!)

 

The Supreme Court Stands…

for nothing, apparently.

The supreme court refused to hearJackson v. City and County of San Francisco. After Heller and McDonald, they don’t seem very willing to take on many more gun rights cases. It’s curious to me why that is. Pre-Heller, it was speculated that the court wouldn’t take gun cases because they weren’t convinced the decision would go the right way. But Sandy resigned. I wonder who the hold out is now?

Too bad the Founding Fathers didn’t see that oath taking would be viewed largely as ceremonial fal-de-ral with no meaning as the nation progressed…

In ALL federal offices requiring it!

Perhaps I should have spelled it fed-er-al…

h/t Say Uncle

Kids Off The Grid

This story came across my radar yesterday.  Having had and raised a child (until age 12, when she passed) any report of possible child abuse, or unwanted children just makes me sick.

So does government abuse of power.

On May 6th, 2015, Breckinridge Co. Sheriff’s officers came to their home, acting on an anonymous tip, and entered their property and home without a warrant and without probable cause. Nicole was at home with the two oldest children, while Joe was away with the others. When the officers left the home, they attempted to block the access road to the family property. Nicole and the two boys got in their car to leave the family property. The got only a short way down the road before the officers pulled Nicole over.

During this stop, sheriffs deputies took their two oldest boys from Nicole’s custody, providing her no justification or documentation to support their action. Nicole was able to contact Joe briefly by telephone, but only for a short period of time, because she needed to use her phone to record the events.

At that point, Nicole had been taken into custody for disorderly conduct (for not passively allowing the Sheriff to take her boys) and resisting arrest. Even though she is 5 months pregnant, she was slammed belly first into the cop car and bruised and scraped on both arms.

Obviously these people loved their children.  But THE STATE decided it knew better how to raise them.

Hitlerjungen comes to mind…

Disgusting…

h/t Zerohedge, Freedom Writer’s Publishing

Say WHAT?

aka ¿Que?

Federal Judge Says No Second Amendment Right To Own Firearms

Federal Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, an Obama appointee, said in a decision on Thursday that the Second Amendment does not apply to firearms.

You should really go and read the whole thing.  Bring your airsick bag.

The judge is an Obama appointee.

Quelle surprise.

Let’s see…The President of The United States, who was previously titled as a ‘Constitutional Law Professor’ (spits at the incredulity), appoints a like-minded sycophant to the bench, who doles out ridiculous tripe like this to further the progressive agenda of civilian disarmament.

I know The President’s school records are sealed.  (This from the most open administration, ever!)  Have any of his former students come forward to explain that while he was left-of-center, he taught about Separation of Powers, limitations on the Executive, and reverence for the U.S. Constitution?

Or was he so good that he produced 100% sycophancy?

I wonder how this judge ever made it through grade school, much less college and law school!

h/t  Maddened Fowl

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 394 other followers