Why Government Doesn't Work

Government doesn't work because it was never meant to work the way liberal statists want it to work

The founders never envisioned 535 men and women, teamed with an imperial president and his coterie of unelected czars and a multi-million man bureaucratic army dictating rules on how the rest of us should live and arguing over how to split the loot.

Like mercy, the quality of liberty is not strained

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (US Constitution, 9th Amendment)

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. (US Constitution, 10th Amendment)

They didn't put those amendments in there for the hell of it. The larger the collective, the more difficult it is to find solutions that satisfy everyone. Coercion and unhappiness will logically follow.

Western Hero - US Constitution

Multi-Failure

The federal government has attempted to be all things to everyone, and as a result it has become damn near useless to everyone, except the political class and the narrow interest groups they service

Do you own a Leatherman, a Gerber multi-tool or some other all-in-one gadget? They're pretty handy, especially when you're in the back forty and the carburetor needs an emergency adjustment, or you're out checking up on some remote equipment and end up having to fix something unexpectedly.

The pliers can double as a wrench, but you usually end up rounding off the bolt a little. The screwdriver will work in a pinch, so long as it doesn't fold up on you and pinch your finger or wreck the screw head because it's not exactly the right size... And the knife cuts pretty good while the rest of the tool cuts into your hand as you use it, and same for the file, saws, awls, openers and other gadgets these tools have incorporated into themselves.

Federal Government:  Multi-Tool Failure

Over the past half-century, Washington has insinuated itself into a thousand-and-one decisions that individuals or local governments are more than capable of making for themselves.

Which medicines can you buy? How efficient should your light bulbs be? Can your children’s school day begin with a prayer? Who qualifies for a mortgage? When do unemployment benefits run out? Can you pay an employee $5 an hour if that’s what his labor is worth? Should abortions be restricted? Is health insurance optional? Do artists or farmers or broadcasters require subsidies? Are you in charge of your retirement income? (Jeff Jacoby)

Mentioning the Enumerated Powers elicits titters among the sophisticated class, and that's too bad. Toqueville admired our ability to order our own lives at the local and personal level without the aid of an overweening government at every turn.

In Federalist No. 45, James Madison emphasized that, under the Constitution, the powers of the federal government “are few and defined,’’ while those left to state and local communities “are numerous and indefinite.’’ For the first 150 years or so of US history that was largely the case. But New Deal and Great Society liberalism has turned the framers’ careful arrangement inside out. Today, there is almost nothing in American life that Washington does not consider itself fit to regulate, control, ban, tax, or mandate. (Jeff Jacoby)

The Federal Government has gone from a beautiful, narrowly-focused instrument into a horribly bulky multi-use tool with 10 bajillion gadgets that tears your pockets open, injures you every time you try to use it, and is so damned bulky it cannot be employed for its intended purpose.

Clarence Thomas: Constitutional Hero

Clarence Thomas could end up destroying progressive statism

Walter Russell Mead writes that the left has gone from declaring Clarence Thomas a dunce to ringing all-hands-on-deck alarm bells over the horrible realization that this justice has been patiently sapping the very foundations of New Deal statism for over 20 years.  Shock and horror, ladies and gentlemen:  The left has finally realized, hopefully too late, that Justice Clarence Thomas is a brilliant constitutional scholar of formidable intellect.

What we didn’t know, and what the world at large didn’t know until very recently, was that the New Deal constitution was not as permanent or unalterable as it looked.  Intellectually its foundations were shaky, and after two decades of a Clarence Thomas-led assault, the constitutional doctrines that permitted the rise of the powerful federal government could be close to collapse.  (New Blue Nightmare:  Clarence Thomas)

The Sun Also Sets

In the case of the Second Amendment, the collapse has already come.  Back in my Pundit High days, anyone who dared to suggest that the Bill of Rights gave individuals the right to bear arms would have been laughed out of the class as an ignorant yahoo.  These days, that is the accepted view of the US Supreme Court and most of the legal profession.  The resurrection of the Second Amendment proves that the “dead letter” clauses of the Constitution can come back to life — and suggests that Clarence Thomas understands how this can be done.

Justice Thomas is the intellectual firepower that will eventually blow the Obamacare Battlestar Gallactica out of the sky...

...which is why liberals are screaming for him to recuse himself on such a flimsy premise:  His wife, instead of being an angry feminist footsoldier in progressivism's long march, instead has become a tea party activist.  Liberals hate how conservative male chauvenist pigs control their women, but hate it more when they don't.

The next topic for Constitutional revisionism is the expansive reading of the commerce clause that the New Deal judges used to justify the Roosevelt administration’s ambitious economic programs.  The Obamacare health reform depends on that kind of reading of the commerce clause; the penumbras must stretch pretty far for the Constitution to give Congress the right to require all Americans to buy private health insurance.  And if the commerce clause can be stretched this far, one must ask whether there is anything that the Constitution blocks Congress from doing.

The terrified left realizes that this is not the end of Thomas' efforts, but rather just the beginning...

The Second Amendment was a constitutional landmine for the left; the Tenth is a nuclear bomb.

A strict reading of the 10th Amendment would invalidate many expensive and expansive federal programs.  Thomas's cogent arguments in a few key cases could restore personal liberty to its rightful primacy and return us to a serious reading of the enumerated powers, finally arresting the progressives of all parties who have hijacked the ship of state.

Taken seriously today, that approach to the Constitution would change the way Washington does business.  Radically.  The list of enumerated powers is short and does not include, for example, health care, education, agricultural subsidies, assistance to the hungry or old age pensions.  Most of the New Deal and Great Society (with the interesting exception of civil rights laws which enforce the Civil War era amendments) would be struck down.  Whole cabinet departments would close.

Mead tempers expectations, saying none of this will happen tomorrow, if at all.  But it is the single greatest threat the all-encompassing progressive state has ever faced.  Even if nothing dramatic transpires, Justice Thomas has moved the intellectual football and advanced the cause of liberty, actually changing scholarly legal thought, and that will redound to our good for decades to come.

I've only given you a taste of this erudite and entertaining writer's article.  I recommend you go read the whole thing.  It will lift your spirits while enlightening you.  He couches this entire article in a Lord of the Rings theme, making the reading of such weighty matters an absolute delight.  

All quotes from:  New Blue Nightmare:  Clarence Thomas

Please go read the original Jeffrey Toobin article, Partners.  You will gain a great appreciation of just how badly Justice Thomas and his brilliant wife frighten the left.

Your Rights on a Jury

You have more power than a bad law... or even the Judge himself!

Our system of government was designed as one of checks and balances. One of those checks was the jury system, the right to be tried by an impartial jury.

The idea was that if the ballot box didn't work, (i.e. bad laws were passed and then enforced), the jury box could right the wrongs created. This was done to avoid the upheavals caused by reaching for another box – the ammo box.

The current judicial system holds jury’s rights in contempt, or in their words, “jury lawlessness”. The idea that one jury member could nullify a bad prosecution, (or should I say “persecution”?) sticks in the craw of statists in black robes. It wasn’t always like that.

Originally, the concept of a jury of your peers was a group of twelve local men who knew you in life. They were the ones who judged you, based upon lifelong experiences with you and the facts in the case. They also judged the law, its application and even the morality of the law itself. They judged the facts and the law.

They did not elevate a mere man in a black robe to God-like status. They believed that their trial decision would be judged at the end of their life by the eternal Judge himself.

In time a doctrine evolved here in the United States whereupon juries were given strict instructions to only judge the facts in a case and regardless of the morality of the law – higher minds and the elite would determine if laws were Constitutional. This flies in the face of the original intent of juries!

Weeding out Jury Members Who Know About Jury Nullification

Expect to be asked if you believe juries can disregard laws they believe are wrong if you are called to jury duty in a criminal trial. If you are selected, expect a stern judge to order you to judge only the facts in the case.

Personally, I would not admit knowledge of my rights. Let me tell you why.

“‘Tis no crime to lie to a liar.” Corrupt lawyers and judges have distorted the real reason we have juries – and privately, many would prefer the institution of juries to go away permanently, as is beginning in England.

That being said, if your wife and daughter were downstairs in the basement when an armed rapist breaks into your house, are you going to answer truthfully when the thug asks where the womenfolk are? Of course not.

In a similar way I don’t have a twinge of conscience when it comes to not being forthright to a prosecutor looking to weed out “lawless jury members”. In fact, I would consider it a badge of honor to derail a dirty prosecution for someone accused of violating one of our gun control laws innocently or a host of other federal laws that violate the Constitution.

I believe I will have to give account one day. If I was involved in sending someone to prison for violating an evil law, that will be held against me.

And what is a judge? An unholy hybrid of a politician and a lawyer. Tell me what is honorable about that, your Honor!

What can you do?

Get educated on the Fully Informed Jury. Spread the truth to your family and friends.

With the existing heap of federal and state laws, you most likely have committed (unknowingly) some felony. Perhaps even today. Who knows, some investigator with a quota to fill could get you thrown into jail – your only hope then is someone on the jury who knows his rights and has the guts to do the right thing.

Be the change you hope to see. Exercise your rights on a jury. Wisely. Spread the word – the life you may save may be your own.

- Hugh Farnham

Is Bobby Jindal Eligible to be President of The United States of America?

Bobby Jindal released his birth certificate a few weeks back, and I'm surprised it didn't get more press.

He was born in Louisiana, so he is a citizen by birth.  His parents were immigrants here on green cards.  Is he natural born?  It's an important question since Jindal is regarded as a potential future candidate for President of The United States.

Like President Obama, I'm no legal scholar.  I do know that despite the insistence of Obama haters who TYPE IN ALL CAPS, the issue is neither simple nor settled.

I have four presumably unbiased links below and all are inconclusive, because such a case has never been decided in a US court of law.  The US Constitution does not define "natural born citizen."

If anyone has some authoritative references, please share them in the comments section. 

Links:
US Constitution - Citizenship
FindLaw.com - Qualifications
Eugene Volokh - Natural Born Citizen Clause
Eugene Volokh - Correction about Natural Born Citizen Law

Why Obamacare is Unconstitutional

Progressives and their Democrat Party handmaidens have it upside down

We The People are sovereign over our own lives; government is the servant, not the master. 


The US Constitution does not give us rights; it protects those unalienable rights given to us by God.  The Federal Government is not the "boss" of the states or the people.  The US Constitution is the instruction manual that the Federal Government must follow, and it was dictated by We The People and the several states.

Ron DeSantis and Adam Laxalt have written an excellent article on why Obamacare is unconstitutional.  It is chock full of quotes from the founders talking about how the federal powers are few and defined, not indefinite.  They succinctly lay out their case using the words of the founders... 

As Madison famously explained inThe Federalist No. 45, the "powers delegated by theproposed Constitution to the federal government are few anddefined." 

As a congressman, Madison warned against constructions ofthe Constitution that rendered the government "no longer a limitedone, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subjectto particular exceptions." 

If inactivity can be characterized ascommercial activity, then virtually anything is ripe for federalsupervision, converting the Constitution into an "unlimitedgovernment," which is precisely what theFounding Fathers tried to prevent.  (American Spectator)

Such ideas embodied in our constitution are anathema to progressives and subversive to their cause.

Sacred Constitution

Another day, another lefty smear...

We on the right do not believe the constitution is "sacred," we do not have a constitution "fetish" and we do not revere the founding fathers as gods sitting upon Mount Olympus. God did not carve the articles with lightning bolts, and George Washington did not carry them down from Mt Vernon, beard turned white from the encounter. We also know our history and understand the great debates and compromises that went into crafting the document.

"Constitutionalism" Blocks the Progressive Agendas of All Parties
We also don't believe that the constitution should not be changed. We merely believe it stands as written and currently amended, and should not be violated. If you want to do something that contravenes it, you must follow the amendment process. Proto-progressives understood this, hence amendments to ban alcohol and institute an income tax. Nowadays, these pseudo-intellectual busybodies are too arrogant to debate with the grubby hoi polloi, so they use raw bureaucratic power to ram through their progressive projects.

The overblown rhetoric and ridicule is meant to diminish the conservative cause and mask the progressive's dangerous disdain for our foundational principles.

Michael Lind is just one of the legion of goosestepping foot soldiers who has written one more stupid article on the subject.  He follows the lefty catechism by first smearing everybody to the right of himself (which is now, tee hee hee, an expanding majority)...

"Now that the Republican Party, founded as a northern party opposed to the extension of slavery, is disproportionately a party of white Southern reactionaries"

He must have been out of the country, or out of his mind high on hopium this last election. It's entertaining and encouraging that the craven, clutching, shriveled band of leftists think over 60% of the country are toothless, racist hicks. That's a sure way to bring people to your side, Michael! Keep it up.

A "Living" Constitution
He then tiredly employs the boilerplate liberal arguments about how we worship the founders and their documents.  Ho hum. Charles Krauthammer gets to the heart of the matter. This is really a fight over what the constitution means:

"Originalism has grown to become the major challenger to the liberal "living Constitution" school, under which high courts are channelers of the spirit of the age, free to create new constitutional principles accordingly."

Progressives hate a strict interpretation of the constitution because it stands in their way, and that is exactly what the document is supposed to do. Democrats and Republicans have been violating the document for over 100 years, with the consent of black-robed mullas. Imagine if it were merely treated as a notional ideal; we would be living in a much less free and less prosperous nation.

The Constitution is predicated on the belief that we are all free people with God-given rights, and no other man, nor government may violate them. The statists have it ass-backwards, thinking our rights come from the government. The ink stained propagandists, like their partners in government, are frustrated to no end that "the experts" cannot twist and knead public policy to herd us like cattle and goosestep us all into a brighter progressive future.

Clarity over Agreement

This concentrated attack on conservatives by the liberal press is instructive. The press is not neutral; it is biased. They are now reduced to strawman arguments and comparing the Republicans choosing to not read the superseded parts of the constitution with the editor that has censored Twain's Huckleberry Finn.

“You’re not supposed to worship your Constitution,” (Democratic Congressman Jerrold) Nadler huffed. “You are supposed to govern your government by it.” (Quoted in Human Events)

Govern the government by the constitution? We'd settle for that! We drop the "worship," and government actually starts governing by the constitution. That's a deal liberty-lovers can live with!

We are winning, my fellow tea partiers. Indignant howls from the liberal press are our victory trumpets.

Progressives Hate the US Constitution

Progressives hate the tea parties and they hate the constitution.  These are the two principle impediments preventing them from finishing what Woodrow Wilson and FDR started.

"The Constitution was not made to fit us like a straitjacket. In its elasticity lies its chief greatness."

-- Woodrow Wilson

Liberal Propaganda Deconstructed

The liberal propagandists in the press tried branding us racists, but such blatant attacks don't work anymore, so they have adopted more subtle tactics.  EJ Dionne is the latest to deploy a deft combination I call the non-sequitur straw man.  Follow me as I deconstruct a piece of progressive propaganda.

Unlike God, the founders left us an amendment process

Dionne's neat rhetorical trick asserts that we tea partiers equate the US Constitution with the Holy Bible.  This is a neat trick because yes, we believe the constitution must be followed just as The Bible must be.  His unstated non-sequitur avers that since we equate the constitution with The Bible, we must also equate the founders with God Almighty.  This sets up the straw man argument that we worship the constitution and the founders.  It's a straw man because unlike God, the founders left us an amendment process.

Dionne starts out with an innocuous statement...

I offer the Republicans two cheers for their fealty to their professed ideals. We badly need a full-scale debate over what the Constitution is, means and allows -- and how Americans have argued about these questions since the beginning of the republic. This provision should be the springboard for a discussion all of us should join.

He plants a few little seeds of doubt there, but so far so good.  Next comes the premise for the non-sequitur straw man...

From its inception, the tea party movement has treated the nation's great founding document not as the collection of shrewd political compromises that it is, but as the equivalent of sacred scripture.

Note that this statement contains two elements, the first is plainly stated, the second one tacitly follows:  1) The constitution is a document like The Bible that government must obey; 2) Unstated:  If the constitution is the equivalent of sacred scripture, then the founders are the equivalent of an infallible God. 

Number 2 is the strawman that does not follow from the first statement.  Since EJ cannot argue with statement #1, he invents the non-sequitur strawman, statement #2, and then knocks it down: 

Yet as Gordon Wood, the widely admired historian of the Revolutionary era has noted, we "can recognize the extraordinary character of the Founding Fathers while also knowing that those 18th-century political leaders were not outside history. ... They were as enmeshed in historical circumstances as we are, they had no special divine insight into politics, and their thinking was certainly not free of passion, ignorance, and foolishness."

See how he sets up the straw man so he can knock down those crazy rightwingers who want to tea party like it's 1776?  EJ Dionne is too smart to really believe that we deify the founders, so all I can conclude is that he is engaging in a deliberate propaganda smear.   

Progressives are not out to destroy the tea parties; they have bigger fish to fry:

An examination of the Constitution that views it as something other than the books of Genesis or Leviticus would be good for the country.

Yes, let's knock that dusty bit of outmoded parchment off its pedestal.  Good progressives like EJ Dionne and Ezra Klein are just following in the footsteps of Progressivism's great grand daddy, Woodrow Wilson.  They can’t quite muster the intellectual starch of this racist scholar and failed statesman, but it’s just the right pitch for the MSNBC crowd.  It's neo-progressivism reduced to valley girl vapidity:

"The constitution is, like, so old, and full of, like, so many old words that are, like, spelled funny.  Bogus!  It's like totally irrelevant, totally!"

They want a living, breathing constitution, to which Dr. Walter E. Williams has the perfect riposte:

How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be "living"? Depending on "evolving standards," maybe my two pair could beat your flush.

Indeed.  Those who crave power and control must have "living rules."  Oh, and they also want to hold the book, because some animals are more equal than others.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/03/celebrating_the_new_gop_majority_108404.html