America's Domestic Enemies: Marxists In and Out of Government

Monsters of Socialism: Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, and Adolph Hitler

By Eddie Howell


A good brief analysis of socialism, by Ayn Rand:

• The social theory of ethics substitutes “society” for God—and although it claims that its chief concern is life on earth, it is not the life of man, not the life of an individual, but the life of a disembodied entity, the collective, which, in relation to every individual, consists of everybody except himself. As far as the individual is concerned, his ethical duty is to be the selfless, voiceless, rightless slave of any need, claim or demand asserted by others. The motto “dog eat dog”—which is not applicable to capitalism nor to dogs—is applicable to the social theory of ethics. The existential monuments to this theory are Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.*

At the risk of beating the same drum and repeating certain points, I’m posting yet another article on this topic. (Other topics will follow, such as the vicious land theft by the communist ANC in South Africa and the continuing implosion of American higher education thanks to Marxist teachers and money-grabbing administrators who care little for actual education.)

The radical left, as many have observed, are involved in a frenzied effort to bring down the presidency of Donald Trump. Beyond this, the goal is to bring down the United States as a sovereign and free nation and also establish socialism (thereby destroying the U.S. Constitution), and help create a Marxist world government.

Whether you call Marxism socialism or communism**, it is an inherently and historically evil, lawless, and very murderous system. If socialism were established in the United States, it would be preceded by leftist atrocities, and violence would continue long afterward, leaving many dead. Freedom would be a thing of the past. The cost of the “free stuff” would be great in lives, property, dignity, and liberty.

No one in China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran is a greater threat to America than the socialist and communist leaders in the United States, in or out of our government. The “blue wave” the leftists hope to create would be a step toward implementing soul-crushing communism.

No matter how much they talk about “democratic” socialism, it is democratic only in the sense that the leftists would like to get into office through democratic elections, then, when the timing is right, to seize power violently to overthrow capitalism, and continue with violence in order to silence and suppress those who oppose them.

There are probably 60 to 80 members of Congress who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and many work closely with the Communist Party USA, which is very closely associated with the DSA, as are other far-left organizations. The members of Congress could not pass a routine FBI background check, yet they are often found on sensitive Congressional committees. They are not loyal citizens of America, but domestic enemies.

The leftists have convinced a large number of naive, ignorant young people, after years of leftist indoctrination in schools and colleges, that socialism is something to be desired. With the evil and destructive postmodern ideas promoted in our educational system (at the cost of much actual education), people think socialism will lead to Scandinavian-style welfare and a happier nation.

They fail to see that as an economic system it is based on no rational theory, and planned economy is never going to produce prosperity or equity. The Scandinavian countries have turned to more free-market ways because a centrally-planned economy is entirely arbitrary, and the planners truly do not know how to plan, and are usually at odds with each other.

The political side of socialism is the worst. Under the guise of good intentions, socialist leaders exploit the working class and the poor for votes and political gain, and then fail to deliver the promised utopia. Under socialism, the most clever criminals are very soon in control, and many who led the revolution are summarily murdered. Since constitutional protections cease to exist, as they assuredly will, the people are defenseless against the suffering meted out at the leaders' whims.

There is no possibility of doing Marxism “right,” as evidenced by its brutal and bloody history. It inevitably creates a dictatorship and terror police state. The secret police cannot be avoided. As suggested by the anti-Christian attitude among leftists today, religion is punished. Worship of the Dear Leader is preferred, that is until the Dear Leader gets shot in the back of the head and another takes over, who may even claim his predecessor was a counter-revolutionary and had to be removed. That is, until the new ruler suffers the same fate or until one ruler is able to consolidate power for a long time.

Socialist leaders are like the serpent in the Garden of Eden. He put doubts about the quality of life Adam and Eve were experiencing, and made the temptation sound very good. The result was that their paradise was destroyed. The U.S. is a paradise compared to just about any country in the world. But socialists would turn it into a Third World type hell-hole of poverty, murder, and strife.

“Progressives” have already been wreaking destruction in many of our major cities. Their goal seems to be to turn our country into a larger-scale Venezuela, create chaos through senseless violence, do everything they can to bring down the Trump presidency, and with it the Constitution. Their tactics and poisonous results are becoming known to more and more voters, who see through their communist propaganda, and reject it. To preserve America as a sovereign and free nation, free from Marxism, is a cause worth fighting and, if necessary, dying for, defending our nation against enemies foreign and domestic.

Violence should always be the last resort, and this struggle can, and likely will be won without civil war, but in this titanic struggle, we must not lose. As Ronald Reagan said, “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.”

*Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness
** Nazism is not Marxism, but it is socialism.

The Electoral College: Comments on Its Importance and Value

By Eddie Howell

There are some very important issues related to the Electoral College today, and arguments over whether it should be maintained or abolished. There is an effort by some of the losing side of the presidential election to persuade electors pledged to Donald Trump to change their votes to Hillary Clinton. This, in my view is a subversive effort to undermine the Constitution.

Some articles by and some linked, along with videos, by The Lexington Libertarian are quite helpful. I will also add my own comments.

The following is a video explaining the function of, and some of the reasons for, the Electoral College, which seems to be the least-understood aspect of our presidential election system:

And an even more serious effort is underway for states to pass laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate with the highest number of popular votes in the nation, regardless of the vote in their own states. This would completely negate the provisions of the Constitution on this matter and disenfranchise the voters of the states.

This is an underhanded effort to undermine the national electorate, and probably constitutes treason. It is illegal to interfere with someone's legal vote. In my state, Texas, for example, Trump was the winner, but under this law, Texas would have to cast all its electoral votes for Clinton, assuming she won the popular vote. Ridiculous, but people are seriously pressing for this law, which would go into effect when the states passing it have the required 270 electoral votes or more, circumventing the Constitution.

It is patently unconstitutional, but a liberal court might OK it if it were challenged. Dick Morris ably explains the law, which has passed one house of the legislature in several states, and also the urgency of stopping it before it can go into effect:

(Videos via The Lexington Libertarian)

Mark Newman of the Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan has provided several maps illustrating the results of the 2016 presidential election. I will refer to two of them, the results by state, and by county. The county map shows that only a small fraction of counties in the U.S. had Democratic majorities, and the rest had Republican majorities. Also, as shown by the state map, significantly more states voted GOP than Democratic.

The Electoral College is supposed to represent the states. It was set up, very wisely, by the founders, because the fact that the U.S. consists of united states is important. States are nor simply units of the Federal government, but, as the Declaration of Independence describes it,

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. [Emphasis added]

Quite a Declaration! The states subsequently established the U.S. Constitution, and delegated certain powers to the Federal government, which were considered advantageous to their people, carefully enumerating the powers so delegated. The Electoral College was designed to preserve a measure of state power while recognizing the differences in population. To abolish the Electoral College would eliminate the influence of most states in the presidential election. The states with the most large cities would determine the winner, and less-populated states would have no influence. The Electoral College exists because the states are important. Without it, the major cities would dictate policies for everyone, whether or not they would be of any benefit to other parts of the country.

The Electoral College should be preserved as a vital part of our political system, and changes to it should be done only by constitutional amendment. A change which would be beneficial, in my view, would be a requirement that electors vote according to their pledges, not using secret ballot but a public vote, and face severe penalties for not doing so. Or, perhaps, create a mechanism to automatically award electoral votes to candidates according to the state-by-state results.

You may sign the petition Dick Morris referred to here.

Further reading: Electoral College website

Related articles

• 4 Maps Show America Still Needs The US Constitution - Whether It's President Obama or President Trump
• US House Should Reassert Its Constitutional Authority

Either Freedom or the Establishment: Has It Come to This?

George Soros

By Eddie Howell              (Photos: Wikipedia)


America is scheduled to have a general election in November that is nothing if not momentous. Assuming Obama does not declare martial law and attempt to stay in office, we will elect either a successful businessman, who appears to have repented of some of his establishment beliefs, and wants to “make America great again,” or a relic from the past, Hillary Clinton, whose biggest accomplishment is getting away with serious crimes. Her record in statesmanship consists of a world set aflame, largely through her decisions and ineptness, which seems consistent with her “extreme carelessness” in handling sensitive information. Her proposals promise what I would call “more of the same, only worse,” building on the “achievements” of Barack Obama. Obama's record would be better if he had spent his entire two terms taking vacations and playing golf instead of trying to do anything serious. But he is a member, with George Soros, of the elites of the world, who view ordinary people as beneath contempt and large institutions as their piggy banks and servants.

Hillary, like Obama, has no problem receiving any kind of financial contributions from foreign powers and suspect domestic entities. She will do nothing that Wall Street wouldn't like, or that might slow down dangerous “refugee” immigration. She is for open borders, and would continue Obama's come-one-come-all immigration policies. Whatever decent or constructive impulses she possesses are completely overshadowed by her dangerous and destructive policies. Her support for Planned Parenthood, which was founded with the deliberate aim of wiping out the black population, is just one example of her death-dealing political views. For some others, see the Middle East.

The so-called “Free World” we have enjoyed for lo these many years is in its greatest danger since the Cold War and the beginning of the Iron Curtain. The establishment elites know this and are either orchestrating the trouble or else they are pathologically stupid. My belief is that they are not on the side of liberty, and are deliberately out to destroy what's left of Western civilization as we have known it. Enough billionaires seem to be planning some kind of apocalyptic retreat of safety (maybe even on another planet), that it makes one wonder about their overall state of mind.

The elite trend setters of Hollywood and elsewhere are doing all they can to destroy traditional morality and religion and put the focus on pleasure, government dependency and “free stuff.” Political Correctness exists in order to stifle opposition and try to shame people who might oppose the demonic destruction of the West. Muslims must be protected from “Islamophobia,” homosexuals from “homophobia,” and Christians presented as ignorant bigots and therefore fair game for whatever abuse the elites think they can get away with.

The “populist” anti-establishment movement, exemplified by the Donald Trump presidential campaign and Britain's “Brexit” vote stem from real and valid concerns.

The American Declaration of Independence includes the following statement:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” (Emphasis added)

 

To “throw off such government” should, ideally, happen through elections. That seems to be the goal of the world populist anti-establishment movement. We'll see where it leads. But there must be some important changes, and fairly soon.

The present U.S. Administration seems to regard the Founding Fathers as radical extremists who should have never encouraged the Revolution. In fact, the Founders were extraordinarily brilliant, talented and courageous men of strong moral fiber and foresight, who were willing to risk everything for liberty. There aren't too many people like that around today.

Benito Mussolini

The liberal elites (“progressives”) have tried and to a considerable extent succeeded in selling the notion that “America” is supposed to provide everyone with all they need, and freedom must be curtailed if it gets in the way of the Progressives' great program, which includes everyone, “for their own good.” Progressivism is simply thinly veiled fascism, a la Mussolini, with a strong dose of Marxism mixed in. Crony “capitalism,” with big corporations colluding with government to wipe out competition and rule the marketplace, is actually the very opposite of a free market economy. The favored few will benefit, at the expense of everyone else. Obama might not be able to destroy our economy entirely in eight years and replace it altogether with fascism, but he is making a lot of “progress.” The end result would be massive poverty, a third world economy, and banana-republic politics. Freedom as we have known it will be a distant memory.

To listen to the misguided speakers (some of whom are well-intentioned) at the Democrat convention is a gut-wrenching experience for anyone who is devoted to the American ideal of freedom. The liberals want to make everything they don't like illegal (guns, for example) and everything they like (free college, for instance) mandatory. The underlying theory, of course, is that people are too stupid to decide things for themselves and must be guided by a faraway firm hand at the top. Any reasonable study of socialism will show that it is not sustainable. Experience shows that eventually the worst people are in charge, and dissenters are put to death. Before that, an economy like Venezuela comes about, and government micromanagement like Communist East Germany is installed. All leftist government flies in the face of American tradition, economic reality, and human freedom. The natural rights of human beings are sacrificed on the altar of dictatorial tyranny.

The top levels of government in the United States are characterized by extreme, widespread cynicism, greed, and lust for power and money. If the entire top echelons of the Executive Branch, and much of Congress and the federal judiciary were to resign and leave America today, it would be a great improvement.

If the anti-establishment forces don't have substantial success in the next few years, we will see Europe overrun by Islamic violence and America in turmoil over terrorism, violent crime, and liberal attempts to take away guns, and to establish mandatory political correctness and shred the Constitution. We are witnessing in these days, if not the emergence of the Antichrist, at least a look at how he is likely to come to power.

Vote as though your vote were the most important of all. It may be one of our last meaningful elections.

A Case for American Liberty: Rand Paul's CPAC Speech

Senator Rand Paul at CPAC: "[President Obama]’s got a pen, he’s got a phone, he doesn’t care what the law is. A tyranny will ensue, and we must stop this President."

As Rand Paul points out in his outstanding CPAC 2014 speech, our liberties are not respected by the Obama Administration, and their lawless actions must be stopped. Senator Paul (R-KY) fired up the CPAC audience, not simply by his speaking ability (which is considerable), but by the compelling content of his speech. It is one that should not be missed or overlooked by Americans who value liberty. The speech  deserves a hearing. Whoever you support for president or whatever your political affiliation, if you are someone who values our liberty, please listen.

Related articles

• Rand Paul Wows CPAC, Blasts NSA: What You Do on Your Cellphone 'Is None of Their Damned Business!'
• Rand Paul wins much-watched CPAC presidential poll

Rand Paul's Warning: Orwell's "1984" Is in America

Decrees of the Obama Administration and various laws passed by the U.S. Congress seriously threaten our individual liberty. By the Patriot Act, the NDAA, NSA surveillance, TSA, etc., government shows less and less concern about liberty or the Constitution, and greater and greater willingness to violate these rights in the name of “security.”


Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Those who can give up essential Liberty. to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Is this beginning to describe our country?


It is said that freedom, once lost, is not easily regained.


By the way, many of today's younger people have barely heard of, let alone read, George Orwell's 1984. I would urge everyone to read it. In my opinion, it may be the most important book of the twentieth century. At least three feature films of it have been released. The latest has John Hurt as Winston Smith and Richard Burton as Inner Party member O'Brien.

Senator Rand Paul is one of the too-few legislators who believes in the U.S. Constitution. We are allowing our protections to erode. When voting for Senators and Congressmen, we must pay attention to their voting records on important issues and choose accordingly. The liberty issue is one that overrides the temporary political controversies of the day. It can be seen that serious votes and events are taking place which the mainstream media will not report on, or, if they do, it's with a minimum of mention. How many of the issues Senator Paul speaks of have been covered significantly in the MSM?





The trends are clear. Big Brother is already watching!

Related articles

• Rand: Advanced Technology Makes '1984'-Type Surveillance Possible
• Rand Paul: The President Doesn't Get To Write Legislation, It's Illegal And Unconstitutional

Rand Paul and His GOP Critics: Who Are the Real “Wacko Birds”?

Senator Rand Paul (official portrait)

Rand Paul’s heroic filibuster against the nomination of  John Brennan as CIA Director, and the objections voiced by Senators McCain and Graham have done much to illustrate the problems of the Republican Party. 

The New York Times reported,

But [Senator Rand Paul] was assailed by two of his party’s most prominent national security hawks, Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. They took to the floor on Thursday to defend President Obama’s aggressive use of drones against Al Qaeda and its affiliates and to suggest that Mr. Paul and his backers had engaged in scaremongering.

“We’ve done, I think, a disservice to a lot of Americans by making them think that somehow they’re in danger from their government,” Mr. McCain said. “They’re not. But we are in danger from a dedicated, longstanding, easily replaceable-leadership enemy that is hellbent on our destruction.”

Mr. Paul won particular support from two other Tea Party-backed Republicans, Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah. The three spelled one another during the filibuster on Wednesday afternoon and evening, drawing in part from a huge positive response on Twitter to their efforts.

 The establishment (RINO) wing of the party will always be content to remain in the minority and offer only token opposition (if any at all) to the Marxist/Fascist administration now in Washington. Only upon receiving significant pressure from conservative colleagues and constituents are they likely to behave in anything close to a conservative manner.

Usually, this passivity seems to be because the establishment Republicans in Congress currently, and for some decades, have been of the mindset that what the GOP must do the win elections and serve the public good is to strive for common ground with Democrats, demonstrate bipartisanship, and avoid rocking the boat. So this is not so much an issue of character or intentions as it is of inertia.

Election results have shown that “moderate” Republicans do not usually win national elections (e.g., Dole, McCain, Romney), the exceptions being the Bush family. G. H. W. Bush rode the coattails of Reagan, and G. W. Bush beat inferior candidates Al Gore and John Kerry. Although he barely squeezed out a victory over Al Gore (Gore has since been shown to be an example of real political weirdness), his victory over the radical Kerry was more decisive. But when actual conservatives and libertarians come along and talk about reducing the size and scope of government, it sounds like a foreign language to the entrenched establishment of both parties.

While GOP accommodation of Obamaism is somewhat understandable, if not acceptable, sometimes it’s downright offensive. Case in point: Senators McCain and Graham’s harsh criticism of Rand Paul’s filibuster, with McCain even calling Paul, and Senators Cruz “Wacko Birds.” Not funny, Senator. Apparently, neither McCain nor Graham would have the courage to actually criticize the Obama Administration in any such dramatic way. Paul’s filibuster forced the Attorney General Eric Holder to declare that the president indeed does not have the authority to order drone strikes on Americans in America, who are not at the time engaged in battle against America. This is what it took to get such an admission in answer to a very simple and appropriate question.

While establishment GOP members of Congress seem ready to be swayed by Obama’s wining and dining them, it is offensive that McCain and Graham would criticize Rand as they did while just having partaken of Obama’s “charm offensive.” The real question, as I see it, is whether the RINOs can comprehend the threat to civil liberties posed by the issue of drone strikes on Americans in this country. It runs absolutely counter to the Constitutional due process protections (as does the claimed ability to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial or the right of habeas corpus).  

It’s not difficult to see that Rand Paul connected with many people, even of differing political views. He addressed an issue of the basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and stood against an arrogant, stubborn, and lawless administration that otherwise would have never said that Obama didn’t have the right to put on his kill list anyone he pleased and act on it at any time, and anywhere. For those not familiar with civics or the Constitution, these things violate the most basic protections citizens are supposed to have, and they smack of tyranny, which is very much a part of what the Obama Administration is all about.

An interesting read is the transcript of Senator Paul’s conversation with Rush Limbaugh, when he called in to Limbaugh’s show on March 7.  Besides the concern over drone strikes in the U.S., Paul also expressed concern over the administration’s general attitude of suspicion of American citizens.

PAUL: Well, the Bureau of Justice has come forward with some criterion for people you need to report on if you know these people. These are people with missing fingers, stains on their clothes, people who like to pay in cash, people who have weatherized ammunition, and more than seven days of food. These are people who are potential terrorists. And if that's the list, I know a lot of people on that list. I'm a little concerned that they ought to get a trial before they get a drone strike ordered.

          RUSH: I'm on that list! ….

And, concerning Senators McCain and Graham’s response:

PAUL:  You know, I think we've struck a nerve, and there is a little bit of a difference within the Republican caucus and a growing sort of division on some of these issues.  Their side believes that the battlefield is everywhere.  And this is what John Brennan believes here.  He says there's no geographic limitation to the battlefield.  And that means that if the battlefield is America also, then the people, you know, like Senator McCain and Graham, they believe that the laws of war apply.  The problem is that the laws of war don't involve due process.  And I understand when you're in war, you don't get due process.  So in the battlefield you don't ask your opponent, you know, for Miranda rights, you don't present them with warrants.  You shoot your opponent.

I strongly recommend reading the entire transcript, where he elaborates on the reasoning behind his actions. Overall, Senator Paul keeps a courteous and civil tone, states that his filibuster is not about individuals but issues, and gives a reasoned and convincing explanation for what he did.

I am happy to see it demonstrated thus that it’s possible to criticize the policies of the Obama Administration and even to see some results. Unless there is effective pressure on them, we will continue to see an unabated effort to marginalize civil liberties and to threaten Americans who disagree.

The delaying of the Administration’s answer to Senator Paul’s question suggests that they are not far from being OK with murdering American citizens on American soil, without trial, whom they deem to be somehow affiliated with terrorists. As noted previously, they would act as policeman, judge, jury and executioner, operating in secret. Chilling, and worth attention.

Further Reading:

“A Word or Three on John McCain and Lindsey Graham,” Ooobie on Everything, 03/09/2013. An excellent article on one of the very best blogs out there.

Gary North, “Dumb and Dumber: McCain and Graham Attack Rand Paul’s Filibuster,” 03/08/2013.

“McCain Calls Rand, Cruz, Amash, etc. ‘Wacko Birds,’ The republican Mother, 03/08/2013.

Related articles

• Tweeters stand with Rand, mock McCain
• RINO Senators McCain, Graham Charge At Paul
• McCain: Are You a "Wacko Bird" Like Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Ted Cruz?
• Rand Paul: 'I Treat Sen. McCain With Respect. I Don't Think I Always Get The Same In Return'
• IT'S WAR: John McCain And Lindsey Graham Are Tearing Into Rand Paul Right Now On The Senate Floor

Constitution Wins in Judge Vinson’s Decision

Image via Wikipedia

President's signature on Health Care bill

The Obama Administration has introduced numerous measures which are unconstitutional or constitutionally questionable: Cap and Trade, restrictive regulations, shutting down offshore oil drilling, etc., but none more blatantly outside constitutional limits than Obamacare. The majority of states have legal action against this law currently going on in Federal courts.

The most damaging decision to the socialized medicine law is a decision by a federal judge in Florida. This story is fairly familiar by now, but as it fades from the news cycle, it needs to be pointed out that this ongoing legal battle very well could (and should) result in the end of Obamacare.

The decision should remind the elites in charge in Washington that we still have a constitution, and that they are obligated to follow it.

In Pensacola, Florida, on Monday, January 31, 2011, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled the Obama health care reform law unconstitutional. According to his ruling, the mandate to purchase insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, and is not severable from the rest of the law. Therefore, the entire law is invalid. In his ruling, the judge sided with 26 states, which, along with the National Federation of Independent Business, brought the lawsuit. [1]

This ruling (found here) is a serious blow to the health care law, and apparently ends it, unless the decision is overturned by a higher court. The judge rejected the administration’s argument that the case should be dismissed because the states did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.


One refreshing thing about the decision is that it shows respect for what the Constitution actually says, and is not simply an act of bench legislation. If the individual mandate is allowed to stand, what can’t the government require? But our Constitution establishes a federal system and a central government with limited and enumerated powers.

Meanwhile, in Congress, following the House’s vote to repeal the act, the Senate voted on February 2, by a 51-47 majority, on a strict party line vote, against repeal. The Democrats are determined to protect the law, regardless of the facts that (a) the majority of the states are suing to have it overturned, (b) the majority of American voters disapprove of the law, and (c) a federal judge has ruled it unconstitutional.

According to the ruling (Page 42 of 78)

It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting --- as was done in the Act --- that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power”[Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only.

From Page 75 of 78 of the ruling:

(5) Injunction
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [citations]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” …..Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.
[Emphasis added]

It might seem that the Administration would give this decision its due, but the Administration has chosen to ignore it as far as implementation is concerned, even for the 26 states involved in the lawsuit.

According to Heritage legal expert Robert Alt, Judge Vinson’s declaratory judgment binds the parties to the suit, which includes 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and the federal government. This means that, absent a court-issued stay, Obamacare cannot be further implemented as it pertains to these 26 states. So the White House now faces a simple choice: Will President Obama abide by a valid decision by a federal district court, or will he unilaterally ignore the rule of law? If the past is any indicator, the rule of law is in for a continued beating. [2]

According to Bill Wilson at IBD Editorials,

[Wisconsin Attorney General J.B.] Van Hollen has taken the proper step of following the law, which now says that ObamaCare is unconstitutional in its entirety, relieving Wisconsin of any obligation to follow it.

It is the responsibility of every state attorney general in the nation to follow Van Hollen's lead, and halt any actions to implement this unconstitutional law. To do otherwise will open states up to legal liability. [3]

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said that the Obama Administration should enforce the law regardless of the court’s decision:

Given the judge’s ruling, CNSNews.com asked Durbin on Wednesday whether he thinks the Obama administration should stop implementing the health care law.

Durbin, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said, “Personally, I don’t, because the judge was asked for an injunction, and he didn’t rule that there would be one. So he hasn’t enjoined any conduct or activity. At this point, we have 16 courts that have considered this case. [4]

As mentioned in the judge’s ruling, an injunction was considered unnecessary because of the presumption that the government would honor the ruling.

Obama apparently will continue to ignore this until the Supreme Court rules on it. Then what? The Administration has already been held in contempt of court by another federal judge.

As reported by Joe Newby of The Examiner, the Obama is ignoring another court order. The Administration has been found to be in contempt of court for defying an order to end the deepwater drilling moratorium. [5]

Newby quotes from Bloomberg’s article on the decision:

Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.

“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling. [6]

So, does anyone notice a pattern developing? Apparently, the Administration is all for the rule of law when it suits their purposes. Otherwise, not so much.

[1] Melissa Nelson, Associated Press, “Florida Judge Strikes Down Obamacare, Says Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional,” 01/31/2011, via CNS News.


[2] Conn Carroll, “Morning Bell: The Obamacare Assault on the Rule of Law,” 02/03/2011, The Foundry, The Heritage Foundation.


[3] Bill Wilson, “Obama Invites Crisis If He Ignores Ruling,” 02/02/2011, IBD Editorials.


[4] Nicholas Ballasy, “Durbin: Obama Administration Should Enforce Obamacare Even Though Judge Ruled It Unconstitutional,” 02/03/2011, CNS News.com.


[5] Joe Newby, “Obama Administration found in contempt of court over drilling moratotium,” The Examiner (Spokane), 02/04/2011.


[6] Ibid.

Photo: President's signature on health care bill. Public domain.

The FCC Wants More Control of Broadcast Media

Image via WikipediaMichael Copps’ speech (PDF here) was on December 2, 2010, but the issue remains open for discussion. Conservatives should target this for fierce debate.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps says that American journalism is in bad way, and that it’s up to the federal government, specifically the Federal Communications Commission, to fix it. Of course, to the current powers that be in the Executive Branch and Democratic leaders in Congress, it’s the federal government’s duty to define and fix everything they imagine to be wrong, and to assign blame to conservatives.

Copps wants to spruce up traditional media by requiring a “public value test” for licensing, and reducing time between renewals from eight years to four years. How he longs for the days when the FCC could closely control or influence content, based on the fact that spectrum was scarce, and as a public resource, could be controlled to a great extent by government.



If that line of argument ever had merit, it has next to none now. There is no lack of “diversity” (which government claims to want but doesn’t want to allow), as there are innumerable sources of information available to anyone who has cable or satellite TV and the Internet. The only diversity the government wants is ethnic diversity and male-female diversity, and not diversity of ideas that may stray from the liberal-socialist-fascist mold.

Copps’ “enhanced disclosure,” especially in regard to political advertising, serves no real purpose except to place onerous restrictions and red tape on broadcasters.

As reported by CNS News.com, concerning Copps’ speech at Columbia:

Copps said the FCC and Congress in the future will need to examine the rules governing the structure of media ownership. And he advocated increasing support for public broadcasting, which he described as “the jewel of our media landscape.” [1]

Apparently, he’d like all broadcasting to be more like NPR and PBS. Ghastly thought!

The problem with all this is that it seriously would violate the First Amendment. But liberals are a lot less interested in the Constitution and Bill of Rights than they are in silencing their opposition. Where is it written that the federal government shall control public discourse? Not in the Constitution. It is a document which prescribes a government that is strong where it needs to be, but strictly limited in its powers.

As Michael Hurd points out in Capitalism Magazine.com,

Obama undoubtedly realizes that his greatest enemy is dissent. The apparatus is in place for impairing if not crushing dissent, and it’s known as the FCC. It's probably true that no prior President could have gotten away with it. This one might, not because he's widely respected or wildly popular (he's neither). But America, especially in the last few years, has been in a downward spiral of what psychology calls, “learned helplessness.” The more the government takes away our freedoms, the more helpless too many of us feel – leaving the government in a position to take away still more powers. It's a vicious cycle that ends with totalitarianism. [2]

According to Adweek.com,

In a Dec. 6 letter to Copps, [Rep. Joe] Barton [R-TX] asked Copps to explain in more detail what he meant by imposing a public-value test on broadcast news every four years as a contingency of license renewal.

“I hope...that you do not mean to suggest that it is the job of the federal government, through the FCC, to determine the content that is available for Americans to consume,” said Barton.

“Although your concern for providing American citizens information they need to ‘make intelligent decisions about the full direction of their country’ may stem from the very best of intentions, increasing the federal government’s role in the composition of the information Americans have at their disposal—in an information marketplace that is bigger and more easily accessible than ever before—is unwise policy and raises serious questions of constitutionality.” [3]

I would urge the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, as they prepare to defund Obamacare, to also defund NPR, PBS, and the FCC. And while they’re at it, the EPA and a several other government agencies.

When we have officials such as Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) calling for restructuring the boundaries of free speech, and Michael Copps advocating such federal control of broadcasting, along with the FCC’s other initiatives to censor the internet, we are in danger of losing constitutional freedoms. It doesn’t have to happen. Conservatives in government now have enough power to stop it. I hope they have the courage to do so.


[1] Susan Jones, “FCC Commissioner Wants to Test the ‘Public Value’ of Every Broadcast Station,” 12/03/2010, CNS News.com.


[2] Michael Hurd, “FCC’s ‘Public Value Test’: An Essential Step to Dictatorship,” 12/10/2010, Capitalism Magazine.com.


[3] Katy Bachman, “GOPer Pounds Proposed ‘Public Value Test,’” 12/06/2010, Adweek.com.


Photo: Portrait of FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. Public Domain.

New TSA Procedures = Stupidity Itself

Image via WikipediaIt’s a good thing we have the Tea Party and citizens’ groups unafraid to take on our too-often ridiculous federal government over outrageous insults to our people. Look for more well-deserved protests over the Transportation Safety Administration’s nude body scans and “enhanced” pat-downs. I predict that these unreasonable procedures won’t hold up for long.

Things like this make it harder to have proper respect for government, particularly some of the more contemptible and pathetic features of the Obama Administration. It’s not enough to spend our country into financial oblivion and take over major industries, now they have crossed yet another line that should never be crossed, for reasons which, like the “climate change” nonsense, bear little resemblance to reality.

Under the phony guise of “safety” they treat people (as Ron Paul described) “like cattle,” and some people are willing to meekly accept it. Rep. Paul (R-TX) has introduced legislation to fix the problem. You may have seen this video before, but it’s worth another look:



If the authorities are really interested in protecting anyone, they should adopt Israel’s policy of putting people into a booth that will detonate any explosives they’re carrying. That would solve the problem.

But instead, the Porn and Pervert Department (TSA) is going to feel up passengers, child or adult, in ways that would constitute a sex crime if done by anyone else. An exception would possibly be Muslim women in burquas, since they are members of a special favored group these days. Or else, passengers must be run through a nude body scanner that will give the bureaucratic pervs something to chuckle over. What total nonsense. Americans simply can’t, and, I believe, won’t put up with this patently offensive and unconstitutional procedure.

Meanwhile George Soros and former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff stand to make a lot of money on the equipment used for this demeaning and sorry process. I predict they’ll be called to testify in a House investigation in 2011. Someone should be investigating the TSA and firing Janet Napolitano. She should demonstrate her approval of the TSA process by receiving a pat-down, joined by members of Congress, like Ron Paul suggested.

As for Chertoff, according to the Washington Examiner,

After the undie-bomber attempt on Christmas 2009, Chertoff went on a media tour promoting the use of these scanners, without disclosing that he was getting paid by Rapiscan, one of the two companies currently contracted by TSA to take a nude picture of you at the airport…

Chertoff was quickly reamed for not disclosing how he had monetized his public service.

The whole situation is depressing for two reasons:
1) It’s tawdry how much our “public servants” use their government jobs as meal tickets.2) It’s sad how much companies set up their businesses to depend on government, and thus lobbyists. [1]

George Soros?

As for the company’s other political connections, it also appears that none other than George Soros, the billionaire funder of the country’s liberal political infrastructure, owns 11,300 shares of OSI Systems Inc., the company that owns Rapiscan. Not surprisingly, OSI’s stock has appreciated considerably over the course of the year. Soros certainly is a savvy investor. [2]

Maybe not illegal, but bad form anyway. Whatever the means that led to the acquisition of these devices, the real offense is in their use.

Fortunately (I suppose), not every passenger is being subjected to this insufferable (I’m running out of adjectives here) treatment, which makes it look even more stupid. So Big Brother has yet another way to intrude into our private (and I mean private) lives. If this is allowed to continue, I hate to contemplate what the next step might be. Between this and Obamacare, your government appears to think that your body belongs to them.

The concerns over this outrageous procedure include possibly harmful radiation from the scans. TechNewsDaily reports that a lawsuit has been filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., seeking suspension of the scanning process until health concerns are addressed:

Radiation acts as a multiplier of natural cancer rates, Brenner said. There are 800,000 cases of basal cell carcinoma diagnosed in the United States each year, which is one of the most common cancers associated with X-ray exposure…

“There is no good reason why [TSA] scans the head and neck, especially since you can’t hide explosives there,” [David] Brenner [of Columbia University] said. [3]

Back to privacy concerns, the article reports,

The EPIC lawsuit states that the program run by the DHS violates the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. It also alleges that the systems violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, referencing religious laws about modesty.

“It violates modesty for many religions,” McCall said. “We’ve seen Catholics, Orthodox Jews and Muslims all upset by the invasive scanning technologies. It’s a violation of their religious freedom.” [4]

Not simply stating the problem, the article discusses a better alternative that doesn’t have the most objectionable features of the Rapiscan process. [5]

TSA procedures have been duly objected to by George Will and Charles Krauthammer, brilliant and eloquent columnists I greatly respect. You’ve probably read several things about this, but I thought I needed to toss in my two cents.

Full disclosure: I haven’t flown in several years, and I probably won’t again. But these government attacks on human dignity and liberty threaten everyone and make me angry. I admire John Tyner for voicing his famous objection. He is facing a possible large fine for his trouble.


[1] Timothy P. Carney, “Bush’s Homeland Security Secretary flacking for nudie-scanners, too,” 11/14/10, The Washington Examiner.


[2] Mark Hemingway, “George Soros also profiting off controversial new TSA scanners,”
11/14/2010, The Washington Examiner.


[3] Samantha Murphy, “Lawsuit Filed Over Airport Scanner Privacy, Health Concerns,” 08/06/2010, TechNewsDaily.

[4] and [5] Ibid.

Related articles

• Revolt in Full Force against Full Body Scanners, Enhanced Pat-Downs and TSA (pumabydesign001.wordpress.com)
• Travelers, lawmakers up in arms over airport security measures - Christian Science Monitor (news.google.com)
• "TSA Threatens Fines and Arrests for Those Who Refuse a Scan or Pat-down" and related posts (hotair.com)

“Pledge to America” Looks Like a Winner

House GOP Leader John Boehner

According to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the “Pledge to America,” unveiled September 23, 2010 by House Republican Leader John Boehner and other GOP Congressional leaders, is a non-exhaustive list of items that represent the first things that should be done if the GOP gains a majority in Congress. As he points out, the whole conservative agenda could not be accomplished while Barack Obama is president, but many things could be done.



I see the “Pledge to America” as a strong positive statement that GOP members of Congress should be evaluated by, and to which its supporters must be held accountable. For all the possible criticisms of it, it represents something far, far superior to the Obama agenda, and, if adhered to faithfully, it should save our country from a lot of misery and loss, and correct some glaring problems.

The document represents a governing philosophy that is very much different from that of the current Administration. It honors the words of the founding documents, and recognizes such common-sense things as the need to control spending and to stop tax increases.

From a draft of the document, found here, I have quoted from it (in bold) and made some comments (not in bold).

America is an inspiration to those who yearn to be free and have the ability and the dignity to determine their own destiny.


Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.


These first principles were proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, enshrined in the Constitution, and have endured through hard sacrifice and commitment by generations of Americans.


In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.

It should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention that the current regime is consciously ruling contrary to the wishes of the American people in many policies, notably proposed tax increases and Obamacare, as well as a foreign policy that disrespects America’s past and panders to dictatorial regimes that wish us no good.


An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many….


The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people cannot be overstated.

The situation is serious and getting worse daily. The so-called recovery has led to very little economic growth or job growth, and a second dip appears probable. Meanwhile, our Federal government is aggressively pursuing European-style socialist policies that will result in permanent double-digit unemployment and a poorer, weaker nation. However, the ruling elites will fit in better with their international counterparts.

A plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive must be the first and most urgent domestic priority of our government. So first, we offer a plan to get people working again. We will end the attack on free enterprise by repealing job-killing policies and taking steps to assure current businesses and future entrepreneurs that the government will not stifle their ability to compete in the global marketplace.


By permanently stopping job-killing tax hikes, families will be able to keep more of their hard-earned money and small businesses will have the stability they need to invest in our economy and help grow our workforce. We will further encourage small businesses to create jobs by allowing them to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income.

Americans view the economic issues as most urgent. The GOP could do a lot to get government out of the way and let the markets solve the problem. At any rate, the government must promote private sector economic activity. The Keynesian approach of recent years has grown government, deficits and debt on a massive scale, but that’s about all. Even that phony growth is bound for collapse unless fundamental changes are made.

We offer a plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care with common-sense solutions focused on lowering costs and protecting American jobs. We will enact real medical liability reform; allow Americans to purchase health coverage across state lines; empower small businesses with greater purchasing power; and create new incentives to save for future health needs. We will protect the doctor-patient relationship, and ensure that those with pre-existing conditions gain access to the coverage they need. We will permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and codify the Hyde Amendment.

The GOP could do a lot, if in the majority, to repeal or at least de-fund the hated Obamacare program. The steps listed for replacing it are meritorious, but even doing nothing would have been better than Obamacare. While the document is not strong on details about social issues, it certainly represents a strong step in the right direction from the anti-life positions of Obama and company.

Why the Pledge Is Important
The “Pledge to America” stakes out positions and principles showing great contrast with the Obama agenda. This includes the idea of self-government as opposed to central planning. It promotes the responsibility of Congress, as the people’s representatives, to act as needed without having legislative powers usurped by the president and executive agencies.

Just these changes of philosophy -- limited government, more freedom, and low taxes, are light years from Obama’s ultimate design.

Some Responses
Michelle Malkin offered her thoughts on the “Pledge” on Fox News:



Politico reports:

In confronting Obama, Republicans make clear that a takeover of the House could lead to a contentious two years, and possibly gridlock, if both sides aren’t willing to compromise. Most of the ideas have little chance of becoming law in a divided government, but the “Pledge to America” is aimed at defining an agenda for a party that has been accused of not having one in the Obama era. [1]

Divided government is very likely, but that would be immensely preferable to an authoritarian president supported by a rubber-stamp Congress that's even more radical than himself, if that's possible. Too bad we didn't have enough gridlock to prevent Obamacare and other unread thousand-plus-page bills from being passed.

 The editors of National Review see the “Pledge” as a favorable development:

…The inevitable question will be: Is the pledge as bold as the Contract?

The answer is: The pledge is bolder. The Contract with America merely promised to hold votes on popular bills that had been bottled up during decades of Democratic control of the House. The pledge commits Republicans to working toward a broad conservative agenda that, if implemented, would make the federal government significantly smaller, Congress more accountable, and America more prosperous…. [2]

Eric Erickson of RedState ridicules the document as something that will very soon be forgotten by the GOP and everyone else.

There is no call for a Spending Limitation Amendment or a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is just meaningless stuff the Democrats can easily undo and that ultimately the Senate GOP will even turn its nose up at.

The entirety of this Promise is laughable. Why? It is an illusion that fixates on stuff the GOP already should be doing while not daring to touch on stuff that will have any meaningful longterm effects on the size and scope of the federal government. [3]

For me, the issue is not the document so much as the GOP maintaining a commitment to its content. Paul Ryan says there is specific legislation relating to the stated positions. The Pledge recognizes that Republicans have often failed to limit government and spending while they were in power.

It’s true that some enacted or became what they had campaigned against. That would demonstrate a problem with integrity, not with their stated goals. The dizzying cocktail-party circuit of the Beltway is said to pull people in, who then compromise their principles in order to gain popularity and maintain social standing. That represents human weakness, not weakness of the principles that had been claimed, then abandoned.

Conclusion
If the GOP would like to actually stay in power once they have gained it, they need to embrace their inner conservative and get on board with the Tea Party. Act boldly to fundamentally change the government’s attitude and the abuses in the way Congress operates. Place principle above self-promotion. Have more respect for the founding documents than for the New York Times’ latest comments.

Otherwise, after a short while in power, there’ll be another fascist-socialist-Marxist like Obama who will get his own party in power. The thing about liberals is that they never quit. They’re always there, ready to challenge. They must be held in check for the good of the country. With liberals in power, there will be no end of excessive spending until the currency is worthless, and no end to finding more “rights” and “victims” that taxpayers must support against their will.

But for now the “Pledge” appears to me to be a positive, timely, and possibly brilliant idea from the unfairly-maligned Republican Party. I hope it leads to a lot of success. Republicans need to regain power soon because our country is headed in exactly the wrong direction in too many ways. Democrats don’t have and won’t get the answers.

[1] Richard E. Cohen, Jake Sherman, and Jonathan Allen, “‘Pledge to America’ promises fight, gridlock” 09/23/2010, Politico.

[2] The Editors, “We’ll Take the Pledge,” 09/22/2010, National Review Online.

[3] Eric Erickson, “Perhaps the Most Ridiculous Thing to Come Out of Washington Since George McClellan,” 09/22/2010, RedState.com.

Photo: House Republican Leader John Boehner, official portrait, via Wikipedia.