Wednesday, July 1, 2015

The Last Rebels: 25 Things We Did as Kids That Would Get Someone Arrested Today

LBJ Ordered the Death of US Servicemen

Monday, June 29, 2015

SCOTUScare, SCOTUSsexuality, and SCOTUSocracy

Misapplying the U.S. Constitution is one thing.  Usurping the constitutional powers of the federal legislature is altogether another.
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has done plenty of the former during the last century.  So far in this century, however, it has brazenly embarked on the latter.  After its Obamacare and homosexual marriage decisions, Americans must now realize they no longer live in a democracy.  They now live in a SCOTUSocracy.   They are now governed by judicial rather than political decision-making.
In both its Obamacare decisions, SCOTUS rewrote federal law.  In its homosexual marriage decision, however, it went even farther and actually wrote de novo federal law.  SCOTUS has no constitutional power to write or rewrite federal law.  In fact, SCOTUS has no constitutional power even to judicially review the constitutionality of federal law.
The net effect is this: not only has SCOTUS usurped the constitutional powers of the federal legislature, but it has now also denied Americans their most basic constitutional right – the right to democratically govern themselves through their political representatives.
You see, Americans elect their political representatives every two, four, or six years.  Thus do Americans, through their political representatives, democratically make and execute their own laws.  If Americans don’t like the way their legislators make their laws, they can elect new legislators who will make laws they do like.  If Americans don’t like the way their executives execute their laws, they can elect new executives who will execute their laws the way they do like.  That’s how the governing will of sovereign people democratically expresses itself in a Republic. 
The very word “Republic” says it all.  The word derives from “res publica.”  That literally means “the public thing.”  The American Republic is a form of government (the thing) in which the American people (the public) are – by the land’s supreme law – sovereign.   
But Americans don’t elect federal judges every two, four, or six years.  In fact, federal judges aren’t elected at all – ever.  Instead, they’re appointed, for the duration of their entire lives.  If Americans don’t like the way their judges adjudicate, they can’t elect new judges who will adjudicate the way they do like.  Americans can only endure judges until they resign or die.  Or else impeach them.
Most Americans probably don’t realize that SCOTUS has no constitutional power to judicially review the constitutionality of federal law.  That it has done so for 212 long years stems simply from its unilateral judicial assumption of that unconstitutional power in an 1803 case involving William Marbury’s dispute with James Madison over the delivery of a justice of the peace commission to which John Adams had appointed Marbury.  Thus, the power of the majority of unelected lifetime judges to have recently forced Americans to purchase something they didn’t want to purchase (Obamacare) and to accept something they didn’t want to accept (homosexual marriage) is an artifact of a mere justice of the peace commission 212 years ago.  From little acorns do great trees grow.
But for Marbury’s insignificant commission and John Marshal’s 1803 usurpation of judicial review power, the constitutionality of federal legislation would have been left exactly where it should have remained all along – with the sovereign American people rather than with (as now) nine unelected lifetime judges who are as likely to exercise their own personal political prejudices as they are to strictly construe the Constitution (putatively the land’s supreme law).  Then, if the American people, in their sovereignty, had thought the acts of their political representatives unconstitutional, they could have elected other political representatives who could have, by opposing acts, remedied their predecessors’ unconstitutionality.     
Chief Justice John Roberts, in his Obamacare decisions, has in effect twice now rewritten federal legislation – once to transform an unconstitutional penalty into a putatively constitutional tax and once to include in a phrase what the phrase itself excluded.  In both cases, this was despite the plain language of federal legislation.  The effective result is that the federal government’s ruinous takeover of the nation’s private health care system is a judicial fiat imposed on the American people rather than a political decision made by the American people’s political representatives.  If the legislature “inartfully” drafted Obamacare, then the proper constitutional remedy should have been the legislature itself more “artfully” drafting a legislative amendment.   Roberts should be impeached.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his homosexual marriage decision, has in effect now written federal legislation derationalizing one of the foremost of all mores governing human association since time immemorial.  This was despite the plain language of, in this case, biological legislation.  The effective result is that sexual deviancy’s takeover of the nation’s conjugal tradition is a judicial fiat imposed on the American people rather than a political decision made by the American people’s political representatives.  If the states’ same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional, then the proper constitutional remedy should have been the legislature itself proscribing them.  Kennedy should be impeached. 
Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer should also be impeached, but Kennedy was the balance of SCOTUS power that resulted in constitutionally denying the states and the American people their right to limit marriage to persons of the opposite sex.  Besides, Ginsburg and Kagan should have recused themselves after having both, previously and prejudicially, officiated at same-sex marriages.  That would have left only Sotomayor and Breyer to fruitlessly fob off their personal political prejudices on the states and the American people.  Anyway, neither Sotomayor nor Kagan has – by inclination or circumstance – heretofore displayed much personal interest in marriage (either heterosexual or homosexual); Ginsburg has displayed more interest in the feminist movement and the ACLU than she has in the Constitution; and Breyer...well, he’s the administrative law mouse Bill Clinton let loose in SCOTUS.
Everyone knows there’s zero chance of this occurring, but here’s what should, in a more adult America, occur.  The people’s representatives should either impeach six of the nine SCOTUS justices or else legislatively override Marshall’s 1803 unilateral assumption of judicial review.  Either would be fully consistent with the legislature’s express constitutional powers.  Alternatively, the people should replace their political representatives until they have political representatives who will do one or the other.  In fact, this should have happened half a century or more ago.
The only possible conclusion is that the American people are too immature to preserve either their sovereignty or their Republic.
They have traded their democracy for what now amounts to a mere SCOTUSocracy.

Dissolving America

The instant media consensus is in: the Confederate flag atop the South Carolina statehouse has got to go.  The battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, we are told, just doesn’t represent who we are as a nation anymore.
But if we are going to take the Confederate flag down because it no longer represents us, then there is no reason why we shouldn’t take the American flag down, too.  Not just from the government buildings in South Carolina, but from every home, ship, office, and church throughout the entire American territory.  Because neither flag has anything to do with who we are anymore.  Old Glory is now just as much a meaningless relic as the republic that created it -- as obsolete as the Stars and Bars became in April of 1865.
Cohesion based on any form of natural community -- the sine qua non for a political grouping of any size -- is rendered impossible by our radical rootlessness.  We move so easily from one identity to the next that the past, whether our own or our nation’s, can have no possible meaning.  Who or what we might have been yesterday has no bearing on our self of today.  If a flag represents some form of shared memory, some kind of conscious decision to belong to and remain in a particular place, then all the flags throughout the continent -- with the exception of the rainbow flag that once stood for God’s merciful covenant but now mocks the idea of ordered creation itself -- should be cast down into the dust.
We are entering a phase, now, of diachronic civilizational lysis.  The borders that give us identities are dissolving, just as the histories that stabilize us as a people have been rejected.  We are a mutually antagonistic anti-herd of Proteuses, shape-shifting through the hours and coming increasingly to hate everyone who bears allegiance to anything other than violent revolution.  The only permanent thing left to the American people is outrage, but even that is not content to dwell in any one place for more than a day or two at a time.
Although we take our nation-state for granted, it is good to remember that a nation-state is not an organic creature.  It does not form naturally from its constituent parts.  A nation-state is very much a mass fiction, held together largely by a history, a language, a set of values, a religion, a common project, an economic system, a cultural heritage, a political arrangement, and a shared regard among its members.  The Southern states whose leaders and symbols are now roundly despised seceded from the still fledgling American nation-state not one hundred years after its birth.  But those Southern states had more in common with the North than any of us have in common with one another now.  The nation-state forged in civil war is crumbling around us in pre-civilizational recrudescence.
The great catalyst of this out-of-control dissolution is the demiurge of equality.  The Southern states seceded mainly over distinctions and hierarchies.  As glad as we may be to see slavery expired, the excess of equality that eventually resulted has had a cost.  Equality, if pursued to its logical conclusion, is the guaranteed death of the nation-state.
Why is equality the hemlock of the national polity?  Because if everyone is equal, then everything is permitted.  (Who are you, after all, to judge?)  And if everything is permitted, then there can be commonalities that bind together the people who are supposed to make up the nation-state.
Let us say, for instance, that a floodtide of people begin to enter the nation-state who refuse to learn its common language.  Or who abide by a religion that advocates the enthusiastic murder of infidels.  Or who find that religion itself is toxic, and crusade as an army of nihilists.  Or who prefer an economic system utterly antithetical to the one on which the nation-state has been constructed.  Or who find the nation-state’s history to be a conspiracy against one’s own chosen associates.  Or who feel that hedonism is better than shared sacrifice, mutual consideration, and the slow, laborious work of building a livable home.  If all things are equal, then none of these things can be forbidden.  The nation-state will lose its cohesion as its constituent parts increase in entropy.  Eventually, each individual will be so riddled with conflicting identity claims -- varying from one day to the next, driven by the desire to achieve ever greater distinction, but frustrated in that desire by the iron law of “equality” -- that the nation-state will become unrecognizable mush. It is not that the center will not hold.  It is that there is nothing of sufficient inertia or mass to seek a center in the first place.
If we really want to be honest with ourselves, we will display other symbols in our public squares.  Down with the Confederate flag, symbol of a once-proud patrimony and reminder, too, of the suffering of so many who worked thanklessly to sustain it and died to defend it.  Down with the American flag, too, symbol of oppression and injustice to those who live in the highest level of material comfort ever achieved by mankind.  A white flag of cultural surrender might be better, a kind of semaphore to our enemies to invade and take over.  But it would also be redundant.  Our enemies already know of our surrender, and they are long since living among us, spinning their Gramscian webs.
Instead, if we wish to be honest with ourselves about what we value as a people, we should fly sheets of food stamps and fiat currency from our flagpoles.  Or long strips of condoms.  Or posters of Miley Cyrus with her lesbian lover.  Or the cover of Vanity Fair featuring a lost, mutilated man silently confessing that he finds himself utterly unlovable.  Or Hugh Hefner’s robe, perhaps.
Or, perhaps best of all, we should run up our flagpoles, in grisly succession, the dismembered remains of the thousands of children whom we have deemed unworthy of membership in our current “inclusive” utopia.  One tiny limb, one severed head at a time, let us hoist on the flagpoles of our nation-state the ultimate symbol of its conception of unity, diversity, and justice.
If the argument is that no one identifies as a Confederate anymore, then the counter-argument must be that no one could possibly identify as an American.  What was glorious about us is just as dead as Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln alike.  The invaders and anarchists who run wild in our streets are now in control, and they have made it clear that whatever the United States of America used to be -- whatever its citizens once held dear, which in turn held them together -- is worthy only of contempt.
Take down all the flags, for there is nothing left that makes us a nation.
Jason Morgan is a PhD candidate in history at the University of Wisconsin. His work has appeared in venues such as Modern Age, Crisis, and Public Discourse.

It is time for another American Revolution to overthrow oppressors

Today’s US Supreme Court ruling against the understanding for millennia that marriage can naturally only be the union of one man and one woman, although expected, is nevertheless a shocker. It is a shocker because of what we now understand are grave implications of the decision.
The concept of law is now further in shambles. It is ridiculed, gutted, and trashed by these judges who consider themselves to be a unilaterally declared new power over the American people.
They have made it very clear that they are an enemy of the American Republic and its original declarations and ideals.
Allan Parker, president of the Justice Foundation stated today, “The Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage shows written law is meaningless today in the United States.”
The decision affirms once again, as have a growing number of activist court decisions, that reason must not be allowed to overrule the particular biases and desires of a majority of the justices and those urging them to be as creative as necessary to arrive at demanded outcomes.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, stated today that what the majority of the court “has done is simply invent a constitutional right to same-sex 'marriage' out of thin air."
The decision is also seen as only the beginning of a next stage of efforts to radically change American society by forcing citizens, using this legal decision, to comply with the new social order.
Brown says the rogue justices “have put in the crosshairs for persecution every American and group that believes in the truth of marriage.” “Indeed”, he says,
Justice Roberts noted that "ominously" the majority of the Court has not spoken to the right of people to exercise dissent from support for same-sex 'marriage.' Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas all worry aloud – rightly so – that it will not be long before cases will be brought involving punishment of people and groups by the government for not agreeing to go along with the new orthodoxy of marriage.
Brown further warns,
Already a top Obama lawyer has hinted that Christian schools and other nonprofit and charitable groups that refuse to go along might lose their tax exempt status. But it won't stop there. Soon, any lever of power the government can wield will be used to force compliance – whether that be the tax code, revocation of government contracts, new provisions in employment law, denial of access to services and benefits, etc. – whatever the federal government has at its disposal to force individuals and organizations to comply will be utilized.
Perhaps now many more Americans, especially the youth of the nation, will begin to comprehend that this same-sex “marriage” push is not at all what it has been presented to be. It is not about “equality”, “justice,” or preventing “hate.” It is instead revealing itself as a tool to destroy the concept of America and all the freedoms and strengths of the original Republic.
Quite frankly, the United States, with this decision may have entered into a new kind of civil war. Not a violent one, at least not yet by the opponents of America in America, but a brutal, destructive one nevertheless.
It is time for another American Revolution to overthrow oppressors.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

States lose big this week

By James Longstreet
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.
See anything in the Constitution about defining marriage?  See anything there about being forced to establish a health insurance exchange?
Those are two items of state determination that fell by the wayside last week. 
First, states, according to the bill as written, had the option of participation in the Affordable Care Act by deciding whether or not to establish a “state exchange,” thus qualifying the citizens of that state for federal subsidies. 
Second, the 16 states that did not honor same-sex marriage are now instructed by the federal government to do so.
Finally, the third blow to States and in another vein, we had it driven home that the War between the States was never, ever about “states’ rights.”  It was only about slavery, damn it!
Disregard the testimony of those who fought and died for the South who declared that their motivation was “states’ rights.”  Disregard that there actually was a Confederate general named States Rights Gist from South Carolina.  (Must have been a mistake.)  Disregard that Jefferson Davis’s February 1861 inaugural speech, prior to any bloodshed or shots fired, provided a litany of states’ rights concerns and constitutional issues yet never mentioned slavery.
Disregard that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas did not secede with the Deep South states, states that did indeed declare their concern over slavery issues, but were pushed to secession by Lincoln’s call to those states to make war on the Deep South.
And disregard Lincoln saying he had no right to interfere in slavery where it already existed (First Inaugural).  And finally, disregard the Johnson Crittenden Resolution, passed by Congress after the war began, which explicitly said the recent conflict was not about slavery.  Forget that.
Confederate general Patrick Cleburne saw the rewriting of history coming.  His prescient comment was this.
Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.
Flags were lowered, banners dropped, and history began to be forgotten as the politically correct politicians protected their positions at the expense of the Southern states’ heritage.
Yes, it was a bad week for the states.  From control over federal health insurance programs to gay marriage to heritage preservation.  And the absurdity that a branch of the federal government (judicial) can measure and determine the power of that same federal government over the states becomes brutally evident. 
Is there no remedy or recourse for the states?  For our federal system is established with a balance between the two, but the one has the perpetual upper hand, at least since 1865.  Ever since the federal income tax, a system in which the people of the states send money to the federal government, then elect politicians to beg for it back, the threat of cutting off those monies returning to the states is the big federal stick inhibiting states’ resistance to federal power.  Nullification becomes a tack with remote chances of success, sadly.

Sen. Ted Cruz on Washington, Congress and "The Age of Cronyism"

Genevieve Wood

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, sat down for an exclusive interview with The Daily Signal to talk about what he describes as the “age of cronyism” in Washington.
From the backroom deals being made to push through President Obama’s trade agenda to the fight over the Export-Import Bank, sugar subsidies and the ongoing battle to repeal Obamacare, Cruz says it’s time to expose who really benefits when big government and special interests get together.
You can see his answers to specific questions by referring to the time codes below:
  • 00:17 Who is he referring to when he talks about the Washington cartel?
  • 3:03 Why did he change his position on supporting Trade Promotion Authority?
  • 4:12 What does he make of Republican leaders coming down hard on conservative members in their party, removing them from leadership posts simply because they don’t vote in lock step with GOP leadership?
  • 5:41 What does he believe Republicans in Congress should do if the Supreme Court rules in King v. Burwell that the Affordable Care Act does not allow Americans to receive health care subsidies through the federal exchange?  What happens to the millions of people currently receiving such subsidies?