Category: Constitution

Well, the democrat propaganda machine is in high gear following the Day of Love protest in Washington D.C. in which the Capitol building was trespassed by protesters. Every one of our leftist pals are calling it an insurrection, an act of sedition carried out by domestic terrorists. I have to say, that if it was, it had to be the weirdest act of sedition and insurrection to have ever occurred. First off, there are videos showing the so-called terrorists milling around like they were tourists, they were destroying nothing. Then there is the video of Capitol Hill police opening the doors and letting the trespassers in, but are they trespassers when they are let in. There is yet another video of Capitol Hill police opening barriers and allowing the trespassers to be make their way to the Capitol Building. Were the Capitol Police officers directed to stand down and allow and even abet this trespass, or were they just not worried about Trump supporters ransacking the place? There just did not seem to be the typical tensions between the authorities and the protesters that you see in any typical riot.

When Ashli Babbitt was killed by a Capitol Hill Security officer, there were Capitol Hill police officers standing right behind her in full tactical gear. The officer closest to her even pointed his weapon in the direction of the officer who had just shot Ashli, and yelled something at him. This appears to have been a complete overreaction by that officer. It should be investigated fairly for him and Ashli, and should not be swept under the rug just because Ashli was a Trump supporter. One final point on this. You should never kill someone to protect inanimate objects. You should only kill in self-defense or in defense of others if harm is imminent. This applies to law enforcement officers and private citizens, because Ashli Babbitt appears to have been a threat to nobody.

Now, for the most important ingredient of this entire episode. I have seen a lot of Trump rallies, and I have seen none of his supporters at any of his rallies wearing all black, with helmets, backpacks, walkie-talkies and conducting themselves in a coordinated fashion as video evidence shows, and eyewitness accounts have detailed about what happened in D.C. I have however, as you have too, seen these types at every riot carried out by antifa and blm….hmm. We know that blm and antifa have infiltrated Trump rallies to do things such as holding up racist signs in order to paint Trump and his supporters as racists. This is a typical Russian disinformation tactic. Isn’t it ironic that with all of their fake indignation about Russian collusion, it is leftists who use communist tactics? There also is a video of a Trump supporter taking down a person who was clearly an antifa instigator who was trying to break out a window. There is another video of Trump supporters who were protecting the police by standing between them and those attempting to attack them. One could say this was unbelievable, but it wasn’t for me knowing Trump supporters.

Now for the Democrat Propaganda Ministry and leftists in general. I don’t think I’ll be taking any lessons from them on patriotism, or how we should respond to what happened at the Capitol building, because other than those who died, I am not troubled at all about what happened at the Capitol building, because what happened at the Capitol building was an attack on tyranny, while the attacks by antifa and blm were attacks on freedom. The Capitol building is not hallowed ground, and should not be worshipped. Our freedoms are hallowed ground that should receive all of the worship that we can provide, and that are being slowly destroyed by those who work in that building. While antifa and blm were murdering police officers, private citizens, and destroying private and public property, it was described by leftists as a summer of love, peaceful protests, and even justified by an often used quote by Martin Luther King, “Riots are the language of the unheard.” Antifa and blm attacked those who had absolutely nothing to do with their beef which made their treacheries true acts of terrorism and sedition. The Trump protesters took their beef directly to those who were responsible for it and could do something about it. That makes them patriots….unheard patriots. These patriots were attempting to uphold and defend the Constitution, and were trying to get those who are supposed represent us and be on our side to do the same.

Yes, the Trump supporters who attended the event in Washington D.C. are patriots and had, and still do have every right to protest our federal government. And President Trump had, and has every right to speak to his supporters at such events. I listened to Trump’s every word that night, he incited nothing, he did nothing wrong. All of the outrage coming from the Left has nothing to do with actual indignation. It instead has everything to do with a maniacal fear of Trump, and most importantly his supporters. President Trump has created a movement that will not and should not go away, and it scares the hell out of them. That’s why we must persist to protect our freedoms with every fiber of our being, because I guarantee you that our Leftist pals will try to take away all of our freedoms with every fiber of their being.

In case you haven’t heard it, there is an effort by some Californians for the State to secede from the United States. It’s really funny, this new found constitutionalism by the Left. All they could do up to the election of President Trump was squeal about how secession, nullification, and all that other freedom preserving stuff was illegal, immoral and unconstitutional, at least until their ox got gored. This follows the rule that the constitutionality of something is determined by whether or not you like it. It’s pretty simple.

I really do wish Californians good luck with secession though, for it is constitutional and their right of self-determination. This country was founded on an act of secession….the Revolutionary War. Not many persons look at it that way. England certainly didn’t. They considered it an act of treason. So, was it an act of treason or self-determination? It’s just a matter of perspective. What it really comes down to, is which party has the means to force its desires upon the other if force is needed.

Secession is a political act that is always available to parties of a political union. No party is required to adhere to an agreement that no longer serves its best interest. The United States Constitution is completely silent on the subject of secession. It is not a power forbidden to the States, and the Framers would have never suggested that it be, nor would the Ratifiers have put their seal of approval on an agreement that would have forever bound them to a system that turned tyrannical.

Since the very beginning of this great republic there have been those who have desired to transfer as much power as possible from the states and individuals to the Federal government. Starting all the way back to Hamilton’s unconstitutional bank where he made the argument to Washington that the new federal government had the authority to regulate the economy, making the bank constitutional, when in fact no such authority existed.

Washington then consulted Jefferson about the bank idea. Jefferson stated that the bank was not an enumerated power, nor was it necessary and proper to carry out any of the enumerated powers, so therefore was unconstitutional. Jefferson’s understanding of the constitution was spot on, while Hamilton’s was wrought with amnesia, for he had completely forgotten all about that War of Independence thing a few years earlier and the reasons for it.

It’s very, very disturbing to me to hear so-called constitutional thinkers talk about the constitution in haphazard and even reckless ways. They, just like those before them have turned the Constitution into a mishmash of mangled words in which up means down and left means right. They have reduced the Constitution to a handful of meaningless phrases that completely distort the meaning of various parts of the Constitution. Phrases such as the General Welfare Clause, which is not a clause about general welfare, but instead a clause about taxation, how taxes are raised and what they can be spent on.

Another distortion is that of the Necessary and Proper clause aka the Elastic Clause, which many believe is there as some kind of catch-all authority. The Necessary and Proper Clause, however, only allows Congress to do those things that are necessary and proper to carry into action powers that are listed in the Constitution such as purchasing battle ships for the navy. Maintaining a navy is a listed power, but buying ships is not. This clause was added to prevent distortions such as Hamilton’s…..it hasn’t worked very well.

Another famous distortion is the “Supremacy Clause” and the notion that all federal laws are supreme…….this could not be further from the truth. Two very important words that are never mentioned in the abbreviated version are “pursuant to”. In order for any federal law to be the supreme law of the land, it must be made pursuant to the Constitution, which means it must be constitutional.

Another “Supreme” distortion is the doctrine of incorporation by which it has been contrived that the Bill of Rights applies not only to the federal government, but state and local governments, public schools and anything else the courts wish to apply them to. The United States Constitution applies only as described therein, and the state constitutions apply to the state governments and the other government entities such as counties, cities, and towns.

The United States Constitution does not require a law degree to understand, although it does require several readings and some research. The only correct reading of the Constitution is a literal reading for it actually requires very little “interpretation.” A literal reading of it, however, presents one major problem to those with devious motives toward it. It will give them few, to no avenues for such efforts.

God save the United States Constitution!!!!

C.S. Lewis put it perfectly…. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

No, you haven’t entered the twilight zone. Contrary to what many believe, the United States Constitution was not created to provide equality. It was created to delineate authorities in two ways that the Framers and Ratifiers considered essential to maintaining freedom for the people. One was to delineate authorities between the three branches of the National Government which included the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial–we regularly hear that spoken of as the separation of powers.

The second, which has been ignored in many ways, and is certainly under constant attack by the freedom robbing Left, was to delineate the authorities between the National, and State governments and the people.  There are those who want to control the lives of others…liberals, who will twist and distort the Constitution in any manner possible in order to sodomize the American people with their brand of tyranny cloaked in compassion. Then there are those who want us to believe that they are a lot smarter than what they actually are….lawyers, therefore they are the only ones capable of understanding and interpreting the Constitution.

  The Constitution really isn’t difficult to understand, it requires no elaborate education or sleepless nights reading the tangled web of constitutional case law, so it is very important to ignore liberals and lawyers in this respect. The most important thing to study in order to understand the Constitution are the tensions between the Colonies and England that caused secession, the debate and discussions during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, and more importantly the debate and discussions during the State Ratification Conventions. It does take a little time, but, you will be amazed at how enlightened you will become by doing so.

I would say that it comes down to a very simple question when considering if something is constitutional or not….”What would be the response of the Founders and Ratifiers?” We know how they would react to being told that they had to buy something such as health insurance…they would throw it into Boston Harbor.

The authorities granted to the new national government codified by the new Constitution were limited, very limited, and defined, with the remainder of the authorities left to the States and the people as detailed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Nowhere in the Constitution is the national level of government granted the authority to indulge itself in any particular social program. The only way the National Government can do so, is only if the authority has first been created by an amendment to the Constitution….no, the Commerce Clause or the so called General Welfare clause provide no such authority. The politicians and justices at the national level do not have the authority to simply create authorities out of thin air…there is a process.

There was a group of guys one day trying to figure out how to put a square peg in a round hole. They called an engineer who unfortunately told them that it was impossible. They called a Nobel Prize winner who just laughed and hung up. They then called a brain surgeon who responded by saying, “I’m not a magician boys.”

They thought and they thought. Who could figure it out? While pondering, a neighbor walked up to borrow a shovel who happened to be a constitutional lawyer who noticed the befuddled looks, and asked what was going on. The guys told him what they were trying to do to which he replied that he could indeed put a square peg in a round hole.

He proceeded to pick up the round peg and stuck it in the round hole, and said, “see there, done.” The guys made glancing looks at each other kinda grinning trying not to insult a man of such esteemed education. Then one said, “but you put a round peg in a round hole.” We wanted you to put a square peg in a round hole.” The constitutional lawyer said, “I did.” He continued, “This is how we do it in constitutional law, pretend it is something that it isn’t, then run with it.”

Isn’t it interesting to listen to all of the uproar about President Trump possibly firing Rosenstein or Mueller, or maybe even both? Left wing loons and even some cowardly Republicans have proclaimed that a Constitutional crisis will ensue if he does just that. The problem with that argument is that those on the Left are the ones who have already created a Constitutional crisis.

They have done this starting with the implementation of Obamacare followed by using the power of the Federal Government via the I.R.S. to stifle conservative opposition. The Left has used the power of the Federal Government to go after journalists such as James Rosen of Fox News and Sharyl Attkinson.

The Left has used the power of the Federal Government to spy on members of Congress. The Left has used the power of the Federal Government to create propaganda to be taken to what appears to be a willing accomplice FISA court judge in order spy on the Trump campaign, and after he was elected, they used it to create a special counsel with unlimited authority whose sole purpose is to get President Trump.

It is time to stop the pretense that the Mueller investigation is anything other than what it is, an attack on the American people by attempting to overthrow an American election. Those Republicans who insist that the Mueller investigation is legitimate and should continue are inept and weak cowards who will fight for absolutely nothing.

It is important to know when a Constitutional crisis begins so that you will understand that responses to said crisis are not allowed to be mischaracterized by the Left as the original crisis. If President Trump fires Mueller or Rosenstein, it won’t be the start of a Constitutional crisis, but the ending of one.

The Framers of the Constitution created a system of government that delineated the powers horizontally between the three branches of the new General government so that no one branch could become tyrannical. That design intentionally made it difficult to “get things done.” The new system also delineated powers vertically between the General government, the State governments, and the People. The power of the new General government was restricted by giving it only a handful of enumerated powers, with all other powers lying with the ultimate sovereigns….the People and their elected State representatives.

From the very beginning when the new Constitution was but a twinkle in Madison’s eye, there were those, including Madison, who wanted the new General government to have veto power over all State actions. All such suggestions went down in flames however, because those with better sense had not forgotten the reason behind the whole War of Independence thing……tyranny! The People were to be the deciders-in-chief when it came to self-governance, not another King George.

It is extremely important to know the thoughts that went into framing the Constitution, but it is even more important to understand what the Ratifiers were thinking, because creating an idea, the Constitution, was a much simpler proposition than actually implementing the idea. And because of this the Constitution was not guaranteed ratification…it was uncertain at best.

There were many complaints that various clauses would be widely interpreted in order to expand the power of the new General government, in effect giving it unlimited power over time. The Framers and Ratifiers understood human nature much better than the policy makers of today can ever dream of understanding. Some of the clauses that drew great skepticism were the General Welfare, Necessary and Proper, and Supremacy, and those clauses have been widely abused by politicians and Judges…….were the Founders prescient or what?

Many wanted a Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution before its ratification in order to protect the People from the tyrannies that King George visited upon them. Those opposed to a Bill of Rights correctly stated that the new General government had only the authorities listed in the Constitution and that a Bill of Rights was not needed, and that it would actually be harmful to list certain protections because it would infer that the new General government had power over all other things not listed.

Much debate went into creating the Bill of Rights until the final product ended with ten amendments. The main argument against ratifying the Constitution, a tyrannical General government, was addressed in the two most important amendments…the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, aka, the ignored amendments.

The Ninth Amendment which reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This amendment removed the inferred power theory by making it clear that just because certain rights and protections were listed in the Bill of Rights, the General government did not have the authority to act on things not listed. It isn’t as difficult to understand this amendment as those who want to ignore this amendment want us to believe. It was a grave restriction on federal power.

The Tenth Amendment reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This amendment was added to make it clear that the new General government had only those authorities listed in the Constitution.

An amendment process was provided in the Constitution which made it a living breathing document. However, this amendment process was also intentionally made very difficult by demanding that changes to the Nation’s governing document should receive overwhelming support. This amendment process, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were the roadblocks standing squarely in the way of tyranny. Unfortunately, the Constitution is merely ink on parchment which requires the good faith of those who take a solemn oath to uphold and defend it, good faith which has been in rare existence just as the Founders had feared.

Now, those with tyrannical impulses had to determine a way usurp those pesky little roadblocks. Well first, in the case of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, you just ignore them, and claim they are too difficult to understand. In the case of the Article V amendment process, you simply use a piecemeal and subdued unconstitutional amendment process known as constitutional case law.

Case law is the process of judges reviewing previous cases to glean information that may help resolve the case at hand, and also to hopefully provide regularity in decision making. The problem with constitutional case law in our case is that since the beginning it has been one lie laid upon another, altering the written Constitution step by step, with the purpose of consolidating power at the national level. This has all but eliminated the entire purpose of the Constitution, making it nearly irrelevant. Case law is fine for all law not pertaining to the Constitution, but all cases pertaining to the Constitution should be weighed against the Constitution for it is the ultimate case law and precedent.

These usurpations are perpetrated largely by judges who read between the lines, under the lines, on the back of the document by spreading a little lemon juice and huffing warm breath on it, who then declare that something new has been found that clearly doesn’t exist. The Constitution really should receive Geneva Convention protections for the torture it has had to endure in order for it to admit to things that clearly do not exist.

The result of this has been that Presidents, Congress’ and bureaucrats believe there is no limit to their authorities……just visualize something in the Constitution that isn’t there, then do it. I remember a few years ago when Pete Stark, a California Representative said that the Federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants. Have you listened to the democrat candidates lately? The Constitutional ignorance of all politicians is disheartening, but the ignorance of the democrat candidates is frightening. I’m sure the Founders and Ratifiers have knots on their foreheads from trying to sit up in their graves at the utterances of the democrat candidates.

Constitutional lawyers, scholars and the like want everyone else to believe that the Constitution is too difficult for us simple minded peons to understand. They think in deference to their exalted knowledge that we should submit and leave our freedom in their hands, but actually it is they who do not understand. They have spent so much time immersing themselves in professorial discussions about the tangled maze of case law, of Dis vs Dat or Ding vs Dong, that they simply do not understand or worse yet ignore history. Understanding the Constitution is simple….understand history. If you know history, you will know the Constitution, and you will know that those who claim to know by virtue of their lengthy and useless education, really don’t know.

Article 1, Section 8 which is also known as the General Welfare Clause, could just as easily be known as the Debts Clause or the Common Defense Clause. It is in fact, a clause about taxation and what those tax dollars can be spent on, and reads as follows: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Section 8 includes not only this paragraph, but also a list of sixteen clauses of enumerated powers on which tax dollars can be spent, and at the end of this list is what is known as the Necessary and Proper clause which gives the government the authority to make laws that are of necessity in order to carry into action the enumerated powers. As such, the Necessary and Proper clause is not an open ended clause that provides unlimited authorities. It is another set of words that explicitly limit the power of the Federal government.

In other words, Congress does not have unlimited authority to tax and spend, as many believe, including Chief Justice John Roberts. Congress only has the authority to tax in support of enumerated powers. Congress does not have the authority to create a tax to fund an unconstitutional activity. If the activity is unconstitutional, so is the tax.

According to James Madison, who is known as the Father of the Constitution, the opening paragraph cites a general power about what the Congress can collect taxes for, and the 17 particulars that follow are the particular powers authorized by that general power. Madison also said that if the first paragraph was meant to be used as an unlimited authority for spending, then why include the list of particulars that follow.

As Madison had stated in Federalist Paper 41, “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.” This explanation of Article 1, Section 8 by Madison was his attempt to alleviate the fears of many who said that this clause would be abused as an open ended power…..again, prescience on the part of those it has been concluded had no idea what was in store for the future. I can see those who attended the Philadelphia Convention stumbling out the door laughing at the notion that the new General government would have unlimited authority to tax and spend.

In the end, this means very clearly that most of what the Federal government spends money for, which includes all social programs, is unconstitutional. All social programs are unconstitutional because the authority to operate such programs is not an authority enumerated in the original Constitution nor was it added with a subsequent amendment.

Compassion is not a consideration when determining the constitutionality of an activity. The power to tax and spend, and the authority to tax and spend are two very different things. Federal politicians have the power to do whatever they want as long as there is no resistance, and they have used that power, along with their willing accomplices in the judiciary, to exceed the limitations placed on them by the Constitution. Everyone must remember that the Constitution was constructed to limit the power of the General Government while leaving all other powers to the People and the States.

We hear talk all the time about how Federal law is supreme, or that when Federal and State laws conflict that Federal law prevails. The Supremacy Clause, like the Elastic Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Commerce Clause has come to mean something entirely incoherent with what it really means. As with all of the abbreviated descriptions of other clauses of the Constitution, there are other words in the Supremacy Clause that have significant meaning, and in fact restrict the power of the Federal Government…let’s study it.

The Supremacy Clause reads: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” What exactly are the words, indeed the most important words in the Supremacy Clause that are completely ignored, and that restrict the power of the Federal government?  Those words are “In Pursuance Thereof.” This means that in order for any action by any branch of the Federal government to be the supreme law of the land, it must be constitutional. There are no exceptions. The belief that the tyrants who populate the Federal government can make any law they please, or that Judges can puke up any edict they desire and that such law or edict is to be followed without question is one based on historical ignorance at best, or tyrannical motives at worst.

We have come to a point in this great Republic that federal politicians and judges believe they can do anything they want. Why shouldn’t they? The American people are largely ignorant of how our federated representative republic is supposed to work, and all of those who are tasked with running the various levels of government come from that pool. Federal politicians with no authority have determined they can force citizens to purchase a product or face a fine, and federal judges have taken on the role of legislators. Now we have a federal judge who has declared that President Trump can’t block people on twitter…….HA! I would tell that judge what she can do with that ruling.

But what is to be done when any branch of the Federal government tries to impose an unconstitutional action on another branch of the Federal government or on the States or the People? The aggrieved party should ignore it. As Thomas Jefferson once stated: “Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” Furthermore, credibility should not be lent to these unconstitutional actions by appealing them to a higher court…simply ignore them. There is no need to panic, for this has occurred since the beginning of this republic, and this federated republic has endured just fine. A noisy free society at times is much preferable to a peaceful tyranny.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to replace the very weak Articles of Confederation that did not provide the authorities needed to operate a fully functioning General government, because the States obeyed or ignored the Articles at their pleasure. The Supremacy Clause was added to make it clear to the States that they had a duty to obey the legitimate, legitimate that is, laws of the Federal government, but the addition of “in pursuance thereof,” also made it clear that the new Federal government did not have the authority to make any law desired. The United States Constitution was constructed and worded so that all those who populate the Federal government could not vote themselves a raise in power, and “in pursuance thereof” was another roadblock to that tyranny.