Archive for the ‘Free Speech’ Category

Yes, folks, there’s blood in the water, the sharks are circling, and there’s talk of IMPEACHMENT! Don’t ya know. High crimes and misdemeanors. All manner of gross malfeasance and treasonous machinations. A threat to our very Republic he is. So. Let’s take a look at: The Case Against Trump.

1) Trump Said Mean Things About Obama

According to PoliticsUSA, Pres. Trump may have committed an impeachable offense by claiming that Obama wire-tapped him. Apparently this violates some legal precept not actually named in the article, but clearly, making a “false” claim about a previous President is the next best thing to selling secrets to Wikileaks. Except…

As it turns out, Pres Obama didn’t have to order the surveillance of Donald Trump and his election team, because he knew it was already ongoing. So, as President, all the honorable Mr. Obama had to do was request the intercepts of illegal NSA spying on American citizens, and get anything that had “Trump” meta-tagged on it. So, yes, while technically correct that then Pres. Obama did not “order the wire-tapping” of the Trump transition team, it’s a simple, demonstrable fact that he acquired surveillance information on them. So, yes, please, let’s talk about the impeachability of impugning the reputation of a former President, while completely ignoring the fact that the NSA, operating under the Obama administration, conducted illegal surveillance on US citizens, and then “unmasked” said citizens names in violation of both precedent and federal law. NONE of which, but the way, was related to Russia.

Impeachment Score: Weeeeak.

2) Chinese Trademark Keffuffle

And again, our friends from across the pond, with their keen and insightful grasp of US Constitutional law, insist that, after a 10-year legal battle, the Chinese finally granting a contentious trademark decision to Trump, Inc. within days of Trump becoming President is impeachable. Like, totally, dude. As a side note, this same article suggests that being mean to the media is an impeachable offense because it violates the 1st Amendment. Or something. You know what, I’m not even going to talk about this ridiculous smear of yellow journalism anymore. Ptooie.

A slightly more credible source (no, seriously, read this article, it’s incredibly informative and well-balanced) highlights the fact that the this potential conflict of interest could potentially violate the Emoluments Clause which, “prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress.(Wikipedia)”  HOWEVER!

This arguably deals with the practice of naming an US government official as an officer, noble, or other binding title to a foreign nation, thus engendering a conflicting loyalty or claim to a foreign power. The question then becomes, is the granting of a trademark equivalent to the awarding of a Duchy? Or perhaps more germane, was the granting of this trademark intended as a “gift” to the President? Was it intended as a bribe to curry favor? In order to make this an impeachable offense, one would, I suggest, have to provide compelling evidence of both the former and the latter. Neither of which has, to date, been presented.

The other question I would propose, in my role as a woefully uneducated layman, is what would Pres. Trump’s detractors have him do in this situation? Trump Enterprises is an ongoing concern. Management of this enterprise has been transferred to his son. Is it the expectation that if a business man becomes President for four years, he must divest himself of all business-related holdings acquired over a lifetime? Should Pres. Trump have rejected the Chinese government’s approval of the trademark after a ten year legal fight? How do you “not accept” a trademark decision like this in your favor? The simple reality is that while there may be a suggestion of impropriety here, it may also be completely circumstantial. If there was a compelling case to be made, would it not have already BEEN made? More importantly, can it be proven that Donald J. Trump used the influence of his Office to influence the Chinese in order to secure these trademarks? If so, such evidence has yet to surface. The fact that Trump turned right around and played nice with Taiwan thereby stretching and bending China’s long-standing “One China” policy suggests otherwise.

Impeachment Score: Really Weak.

3) President Trump’s “Travel Ban” Was Unconstitutional. Or something.

So, to state the painfully obvious, let’s at least get the terms and conditions straight here. It was not a Muslim ban. It was not a travel ban. It was 120-day moratorium on travel (Click it. No, really. Have you actually read the thing? Didn’t think so.) from seven specific countries that bleed jihadists like a hemophiliac Imam. So, to review: Ban = permanent, i.e. – a revocation. Moratorium = temporary, i.e. – a suspension. Any questions? No? Good.

Just a taste:

“In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.  The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.  In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including ‘honor’ killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”(emphasis mine)

But wait. TRUMP MYSOGONIST RACIST HOMOPHOBE GURGLE CHOKE FROTH!! Right?!  Ooooops.

The chest beaters on this one imply that it was either, a) a violation of the First Amendment, to whit, the free exercise of religion (yes, it hurts my brain, too), or b) Pres. Trump “exceeded his Constitutional Authority (yes, it’s those UK Constitutional scholars again).  Well, for starters, the travel moratorium did not identify a specific religion. Because the restriction dealt with predominantly Muslim countries, it was heralded as a “Muslim Ban!11!!11!” Except that, there are upwards of 50 Muslim-majority countries, and this travel restriction deals with only…seven.

Immigration and travel restrictions are nothing new. And while it can certain be argued that Pres. Trump blocking existing green card holders was both ill-considered and incredibly poorly implemented, is it really outside the power of the President? Is it really a violation of the President’s Constitutional authority? No. While potentially distasteful, it is not illegal.

Newsflash folks: As a sovereign nation, we get to decide who can come in.

Impeachment Score: I can’t even.

4) Comey Over.

And, of course, mean ol’ D.J. fired FBI Director Comey right before he was ready to drop the hammer on the Trump administration with a full-blown investigation into collusion with Russian meddling in the election. So, let ring forth the calls for a Special Prosecutor to…uh…uh…find out some stuff!

The move to fire the sitting FBI Director during a contentious period where investigations into the Trump-Russia connection were actually underway, but had revealed no actual evidence of collusion, is seen as a “Constitutional crisis.” Except, (insert money quote):

But neither thinks that the Comey firing counts, since there’s absolutely no dispute over Trump’s legal authority to remove Comey from his position. “This is not (yet) a constitutional crisis, since there’s no doubt about his authority to fire Comey,” Levinson told Politico.

Oops. Would appear not to be impeachable. Damnit.

But wait! That paragon of objective journalism (trigger warning) Think Progress, lets us know that it can be both legal AND impeachable! Somehow.

“Constitutional law experts say that while President Donald Trump’s decision to fire Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey was legal, it appears to be an abuse of power that could constitute an impeachable offense.”

The problem I have with this approach is two-fold. One, Pres. Trump did not disband the FBI. He did not place a gag-order or any other restrictions on agents within the FBI from conducting or continuing any investigation into any potential “Russian Connection©.” Moreover, less than a year ago the same Democrats who are now calling for Trump’s head over Comey’s firing, were calling for Comey’s head over his release of Hillary Clinton emails just prior to election day. So, Director Comey effectively outed himself as both partisan and politicized. Despite his arguable competence, he had lost the confidence of those both within and without his organization as to his objectivity. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a Very Bad Thing when it comes to the top law enforcement official in the land.

And, oh by the way, President William Jefferson Clinton fired FBI Director William Sessions in 1993 for what he felt to be “ethical lapses” in his conduct. So this is not “unprecedented.” Strangely, there were no cries for impeachment then.

All that said, the FBI Director is a political appointee, and serves, “at the pleasure of the President.” So, despite the long-standing precedent that the Director serves his 10-year terms, the President, legally, doesn’t need a reason at all to fire him.

Impeachment Score: Close, but no cigar.

In Conclusion:

Every bit of research  I made into this post was rife with hypotheticals and technicalities. A lot of “mights” and “coulds” and “feasiblies.” I searched news sites, blogs, academic analyses, wikis and archives. The simple fact is this: as much as you may want it to be true, as much as you NEED it to be true, President Donald J. Trump, however morally corrupt or bankrupt you find him, however distasteful you find his policies and politics, however much you long to see him strung up from the yardarm or boiled in oil, simply hasn’t done anything (yet) that’s truly impeachable. He’s walking a fine line, and we can only wonder what tomorrow will bring, but from what I can so, so far it’s a lot of reaching and innuendo without any prosecutable evidence.

Buy hey, keep trying. Never know, you might get lucky yet.

So, apparently, under the Obama Administration, it’s more important to placate xenophobic islamicist temper tantrums than the defend one of the foundational tenets of our political system and way of life known as “free speech.”

Can we impeach him NOW?!?!

Is it just me, or does the political rhetoric and milquetoast responses we seem to be getting out of the current administration in response to current events unfolding in the Middle East seem almost like the responses of a battered spouse?  An angry mob storms our embassy and desecrates our flag, and our embassador apologizes?

I can’t help but picture some drunk, ill-bred mouth breather in a sweat stained t-shirt who rolls in after a particularly bad bender and just lays into his poor wife, beating her and throwing her around.  “WHY do you MAKE me DO this?!” he screams, with blow after blow.  “You JUST. DON’T. LISTEN!!!!”

She cowers in a corner, covering her face, and sobs out, “I know, I know.  I’m sorry. It’s my fault.  I’ll try harder. I promise!  Just…please…don’t hit me again.”

Time and again radical islamic terrorists attack our people, our facilities, our country’s honor, and “we” opt for a “measured response.”  We don’t want to make them angry.  We strike a conciliatory tone, hoping to “defuse” the tension and forestall another confrontation.

Which only ensures that there WILL be another confrontation, because, really, what’s to stop them? Time and again we prove that we won’t fight back, that we won’t respond with the kind of overwhelming, crushing force which would actually serve as a deterrent.

In other words, we act like a victim.  Hoping to placate our attackers so they won’t hurt us.  Or at least, won’t hurt us as often, maybe.  Or, you know, as bad.  If we just make sure to say the right things, to do the right things, to make sure we make his dinner just like he likes it, and don’t dare talk to him during his football game, because we know how angry he gets when we forget our place.

Me, on the other hand, I’m thinking it’s time for a little “Burning Bed” action instead.

The always engaging Sobek has a brilliant post up over at Innocent Bystanders that pretty much says it all.  Highly recommended reading!

Well, I sorta “missed” the Fourth of July this year.  It just doesn’t have the same verve when you are living in a foreign country.  Folks here in Germany do New Years better than the Chinese by far, but the Fourth of July just doesn’t seem to be on their radar for some reason.  So, we had a bar-b-cue, drank American Beer, and called it good.

I’ve spent today kinda cruising through my blogroll, and reading everybody else’s FOJ posts.  The one that really struck home to me was Michelle Malkin’s.  She put the text of the Declaration of Independence out there, and encouraged, nay, even demanded that people read it.  It made me realize how long it’s been since I actually read it myself.  And it got me to thinking.

Can you imagine if someone published this text today?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 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.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government

Look at it. Look at it in light of the DHS report on “right wing extremism” and the almost formally-sanctioned modern view that supporting States rights or a limited and constrained form of government qualifies as subversion bordering on domestic terrorism.

Our Founding Fathers UNDERSTOOD the dangers of a large and corpulent government populated by an entrenched ruling class severely removed from the experience of the common man.   A system into which our once noble Experiment has unfortunately devolved in modern times.  It is almost as if we have come full circle.  And yet, what now is our recourse?  Where I to publish a text simliar to the Declaration of Independence, and call it my “manifesto,” I would undoubtedly be placed on numerous watch lists as a fringe extremist!

Our Founding Fathers put into place mechanisms whereby the PEOPLE — you, me, us — could take direct and effective steps to curb the abuses of an entrenched, nepotistic ruling body that had become unaccountable to the electorate.  Measures designed to PREVENT the need for violence.

We. Are.Not. Using. Them!

Impeachment. Recall Elections. Notices of Censure.   I propose that “term limits” were assumed to be self-evident to the framers of our Constitution.  The idea that one man (or woman) would remain as his or her state’s representative for 10, 15, 20 years would have likely seemed not only ridiculous, but dangerously counter-intuitive. 

Our Framer’s wanted no kings, no dukes or earls, and no kingdoms or feifdoms.  Our modern view seems to have shifted to the point where we see ourselves serving at the mercy of Congress and the President, not them serving at OUR discretion!

We are losing our independence.  It is not being taken by force, but rather, lost through inaction, lethargy, and simple ignorant confusion. 

If our government has ceased to meet our needs, if our elected representatives have ceased to represent our interests, then WE, The People, need to take the legal, Constitutionally MANDATED actions to correct the situation.  We need to rise up from our morose, incontinent stupidity and begin kicking people out of office!  Don’t just wait for the next election, can them NOW.  Impeach judges who legislate from the bench, and who reinterpret the clear meanings of our Constitution in any other context than that intended by the Framers!

Our country was founded as a loose confederation of independent and in many ways autonomous states, with the Federal government being intended to provide only those things the states themselves could not.  Having the Federal Government dictate policy at the state level, to include what may or may not be on a state seal, or what may or may not hang on the wall of the state capitol or Supreme Court, is a VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

To whit, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution:

Amendment 10: 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.

The Federal Government has ONLY those powers specifically granted it by the Constitution. EVERYTHING ELSE is meant to be handled at the state level!  The EXPECTATION is that people are the best judges of what is for their “general welfare,” not a bushel of overpaid career bureacrats with a vested interest in preserving their own power.

Remember:  Our country is not a democracy.  Pure democracy is actually antithetical to our system of government! We are a Representative Republic, which is at best a “democracy by proxy.”  We trust our representative to defend and stand for our states’ interests in the national Congress, to include preventing undue federal interference in matters of state government.  This is quite simply no longer happening in most instances.

So, this Fourth, rather than waxing poetic about a bid for independence 233 years ago, I suggest we would be better served focusing on how our liberties and independence are being threatened today.

As Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787:

Q: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

A:  “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Benjamin Franklin seems to have known the dangers of the new system, dangers we seem to have forgotten.  They had best be remembered, or we will lose that for which so many have paid so dearly.

In betwixt and between all the impassioned outcrys both from within and without Iran regarding their most recent “election,” I find that all the intensity and furor suddenly begs the question:

Why all of a sudden do we see such a fervor from the voting public in Iran?

More importantly, why are we HEARING about it, from within what has traditionally been a country with a very tight hold on not only its media, but its people?

My personal opinion is that this is the result of the very kind of “domino theory” that Iran and the other countries of the Middle East feared would result from a successful Iraq.

There was more at stake than meets the eye for Iran, Syria, Jordan, and yes, even our “ally” Saudi Arabia.  There was a reason that a large (disproportionately so) number of the “insurgents’ we were capturing or killing in Iraq were from these countries.   They saw very clearly the threat posed in the Middle East by a stable, US-friendly democracy.  And it wasn’t because of the oil.

As Pres. Bush and his advisors correctly surmised, in the context of the “Long War” perhaps the best way to defeat the violence of militant Islamic extremists — despite the hardships we might face in the relative short term — was to establish a country where freedom, not fear, ruled the day.  To show that the “Great Experiment” could even work within the context of Islam. (more…)

Listening to the radio on the way to work this morning, I heard something that chilled me to my very core.  I literally got a chill down my spine.  I quite literally spoke out loud, “Oh, shit.”

It was a “top of the hour” news blurb about how the push for Hate Crimes legislation is gaining steam, being pushed through Congress to bring harsher penalties to those who commit crimes motivated by hate.  You know, rather than the much nobler greed, anger, disinterest, or predatory exploitation.  It’s HATE that we have to watch out for, right?  I mean, in addition to all those “love crimes” we’ve got on the books.  But I digress.

What really rocked me back on my heels was one sentence that came across towards the end of the sound bite.  Some mouthpiece promoting the legislation spoke of trying to keep better track of “bias motivated events.”

Bias. Motivated. Events.  Think about that fer just a sec.

In one swift and subtle movement, we knocked the edges off the definition of “hate crime” and squishy-coated it down into “bias motivated events.”

Can you see the inherent, insidious danger here?

If someone mugs a pedestrian, say, man dressed up in women’s clothes, does this constitute a hate crime?  What is the burden of proof to say that the alleged criminal  didn’t target this person because of their “lifestyle”.  What if the crook took the dude’s predilections for frills and lace to suggest he might be an easy target.  Not because the crook hated the tranny, but because he figured he/she might be an easy mark.  Too effeminate to fight back, who knows?

Instead of 6 months, suspended, for attempted robbery, our felon gets 5 years because it’s a “hate crime.”

But wait.  This goes back to prosecuting intent, rather than actions.  If I further dumb this down to say that any “bias-motivated event” can be prosecuted, ANYTHING I DO that is motivated by my personal bias or worldview, can now become prosecutable.

Anything.

Say a church decides that since Sally has decided to become Sam, that maybe we don’t want him/her teaching Sunday School anymore.  Is that my right as a private institution, or is it now a hate crime, because it was motivated by a religious bias against Transgendereds?  Not that we hate them, but just that we don’t want them teaching our sunday school class.  That’s not hate, it’s bias.  Instead of just being unfaaaaaaaair, is it now also a hate crime?

If I choose not to rent to a couple of guys because they look, act, and sound like belligerent gang bangers, can I be prosecuted for my “bias” against thugs who will likely wreck my rental?

If a pastor speaks out against men preying on boys for sexual exploitation, can I be prosecuted for a hate crime because of my BIAS?

This is an incredibly dangerous area, a slippery slope that, in the name of protecting rights, will end up destroying them.  I mean, short of a diary, a blog post, or a text message, etc., how can you prove INTENT behind an individual’s action?  Do gays, or blacks, or hispanics have special protections against crimes that others don’t?  Shouldn’t all be equal under the law?

Robbery, murder, rape, arson.  They are crimes.  They are illegal.  They shouldn’t be MORE illegal because of who the victim is.  WHY I committed the crime might make me an asshole, a reporbate, a truly descpicable human being.  Sadly, or thankfully, there’s no law (yet) against being an asshole.  It is only the CRIME I commit which makes me a criminal, regardless of my motivations for it.

Isn’t that what this trend in hate crimes suggests?  That eventually, what you THINK about a situation will have as much legal weight as what you actually DID about it?

Scary stuff.  Beyond even 1984.  Madness.

Whoa, I got a somebody-a-lanche on my Media coverage post.  Don’t know who linked me, but thanks!

Other Opinings:

~  I’ve never understood people who can’t bring themselves to believe in God, but will readily profess that they think The Universe has a plan for them, or that the Universe is trying to tell them something.  I’m sorry, but if thinking that God talks to you means you are a loony, what does thinking that the Universe is talking to you say about your mental stability?

~ This is perhaps the best, most succinct summation of my problems with much of traditional thoughts on evolution in a comment to a post by Professor Bob over at Mitchieville:

Never understood this kind of anthropomorphizing when it comes to evolution:

Evolution is nature’s mechanism for modifying a species over time to suit the local environment.

You should be capitalizing Nature in this sentence, as your are treating is as a proper noun. Nature, in “her” wisdom, “uses” evolution to “modify” species based on her perception of their needs relative to their environment?

Nature is truly a maginifcent engineer, designer and programmer! Wait…I thought this stuff was all random and unguided by anything but happenstance? Selection by reduction and elimination, not by optimized adaptation.

Also, sentient trees?

to whom it provides, deliberately,

How does a tree “deliberately” provide food and shelter to ants? Are you suggesting that it is “aware” of its ant protectors, and conciously makes “efforts” to ensure that they are well-provided for? Where does TreeBeard fall in all this? Or the Forestalls?

I often challenge evolutionists to defend their viewpoints without resulting to anthropomorphic language. Species cannot “adapt themselves” to the environment, unless they can somehow perceive changes in their environment and then encode changes into their DNA based on this input. To date, no mechanism for such a step has been identified.

If an environmental variable changes enough to result in attrition of a species, only those members who, by whatever random mutation have those traits necessary to survive already resident in their DNA will prevail.

For pure evolution to work, Nature cannot “adapt” a species to survive…it will survive merely by the luck of the draw.

Or it isn’t evolution.

I can adapt to my surroundings. If it is cold, I put on a coat. If it is hot, I drink extra water and change to flip flops and hawaiian shirts.   If an animal’s primary food supply suddenly becomes available, it must find something else to eat.  Only those within the species that can already metabolize the new food source will survive.  The others will die off.  Thus, no NEW information is introduced into the DNA, but rather, merely utilization of that which was already there, if dormant.  This is optimization, not evolution.  Survival of the fittest merely optimizes an existing genus, it cannot account for the introduction of a NEW species.

It’s not like the hapless lizard or ocelot, when suddenly faced with a new environmental variable, goes: 

“Hmm, no more catus pears.  Only pomegranates.  Noted.  Got it.  Stand-by.

{{nnnuuugghhhhh…hhhrrrmmmmm…eeeerrrrrrrgggghhh..{{whirl, clank, beep, KA-CHING!}}}}

There!  I am now able to eat pomegranates where before I could only eat cactus pears.  SOUPS ON, HOGS!”

~ Lastly, and completely unrelated to anything previous in this post, I continue to be amazed at the alacrity with which broad swaths of the Prog culture have managed to forget the last eight years of insanely partisan protests charged with high dudgeon and frothingly caustic rhetoric condeming the Bush administration for all manner of crimes against humanity, to include planning and conducting the attacks of 9/11, replete with inflammatory and violent images calling for Bush and Cheney’s respective heads.

Such that now, somehow markedly less strident if not less fervent protests against economic policies which most sane minds would agree will prove our nation’s undoing are greeted with fear, condemnation and clucking reproof by the media and prog commentators.  When the progs do it, no matter how hyperbolic or bellicose, it’s speaking the truth to power, free speech, and standing up for what you believe in!  When anybody else does it….it’s DANGEROUS insurrection which needs to be watched with the utmost suspicion and prudence.

Remember, the only acceptable form of revolution is a Marxist revolution.

There’s a front-page report on the DHS report highlighting the dangers of “right-wing extremists” in today’s Stars & Stripes,  yet strangely I can find nothing about it on their web site.  I wonder if that was an editorial decision to bury the story?  You can’t unprint newspapers, but you can easily delete a link.

There was some speculation that this report was some sort of clever and complex hoax, but Michelle Malkin confirmed it, and the Stars & Stripes has it front page of their print edition, at least here in Germany.

I think this comes under the heading of “boiling the frog slowly.”  They don’t even mention any “credible threat” in the report.  Just a vague sort of “sense” that economic conditions and a black president “might” foment discord by disgruntled right-wingers and disaffected miliatary veterans.

In other words, there are dangerous points of view out there, against which we must be vigilant.   Viewpoints like, illegal immigration is bad, abortion is wrong, or that the President of the United States shouldn’t be running our civilian corporations or determining what content on the Internet is permissible.

What exactly is it that the Left is so afraid of?  So afraid that they have to villify, marginalize, even criminalize conservative viewpoints?  And more importantly, why are we letting them get away with it?

I think I lived in Coeur d’Alene long enough to legitimately claim status as an “Idahoan.”  My oldest son spent the first four years of his life there, and I worked and payed taxes and lived there.  Went to the Fourth of July Parade every year for almost eight years running, even after I moved across the border to Spokane.    But more than residency, that place just got into my blood.  It will always be “home” to me, no matter where else I happen to live at the moment.  I WILL move back there someday, even if it’s only to retire.  But this has led me to now, and forever, when people ask where I’m from, to only give the answer “Idaho!”

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 4
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the First Regular Session of
the Sixtieth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, that the state of Idaho hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this serves as notice and demand to the federal gov2
ernment, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states
to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions, or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives be,
and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, and the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States.

That’s what we call silk-lined ass-whuppin.  Or, in more genteel terms, “Reminding the Federal Government Just Who Exactly It Is They Work For.”

We The People are not pleased, and will be heard.  Bitches.

Found Via Four Right Wing Wackos.

Well, how goes the Inaugural afterglow?  Has your Obamagasm left you feeling spent, a little weak in the knees?  Me, I’m feeling that sort of bitter, dirty regret you feel when you wake up after a big kegger and realize that you probably cheated on your girlfriend last night with some ugly, fat chick, but you’re not really sure, because it all gets a little hazy after the third Jeager-and-Red-Bull shot. It’s probably a good bet, though, considering that she’s still lying in your bed, snoring heavily, and is wearing your underwear.

Yeah, it’s kind of like that.  I’ve even changed the theme of my blog to reflect that I’m officially in mourning.  The death of innocence, or some such.

As a tribute to the departing President Bush, I’d like to briefly recap some of his more significant failures.  These are things that a fairly significant portion of the American populace expected of him, on which he completely failed to step up or follow through:

  • The Constitution wasn’t suspended, scheduled elections weren’t postponed, and he didn’t declare himself Emperor For Life.
  • A theocracy wasn’t established, Christianity did not become the official state religion, and prayer wasn’t made mandatory in schools.  Atheism wasn’t outlawed, and Michael Newdow wasn’t assassinated by a CIA hit team. Damnit.  No wiccans were burned at the stake in the public square.
  • Large swaths of the GLBT crowd weren’t rounded up and sent to re-education camps to cure them of Teh Gey.  Homosexuality was not outlawed, there was no fatwah or Kristalnacht smashing out the windows of hair salons and designer boutiques.
  • He didn’t force the Supreme Court didn’t overturn Roe v. Wade, thus condemning women to endure another reproductive Dark Age.
  • Liberal bloggers were not rounded up and imprisoned for daring to question the ruling junta.  Although, I might mention that several conservative commentators were threatened with fines or jail for alleged “hate speech.”

On a more serious note, despite the vitriolic lambasting by the Progs and the Gay caballeros, George W. Bush has probably done more for AIDS research, global AIDS awareness, and funding for AIDS prevention in Africa than any other President.  But you don’t hear about that much.  You hear about the 4,000+ plus that died in Iraq, but there are no stats on the number of lives he may have saved through his efforts to combat AIDS in underpriviledged countries.

There are a great many things on which I might disagree with Pres. Bush, things I didn’t like, such as his stand (or lack thereof) on immigration, and his just flat stupid approach to economic “recovery,” but the fact remains that he has persevered through eight hard years, dealt with a number of severe crisis in a more than adequate fashion, and, whether you agree with the specific methods or not, prevented another terrorist attack on U.S. soil for the entire tenure of his presidency.  Through his efforts, numerous attacks have been prevented in OTHER countries as well.

It will be interesting to see if Pres. Obama will be able to claim the same thing at the end of his tour.

It will be interesting to watch as the months and years progress, how long the dopey school-girl crush between the media and Prog pundits and O-Ba-MA! lasts?  I wonder how long it will be before the feral, demanding special interest groups begin to savage B.O. for his “failures” to live up to all the hype and promises.  Until they start using words like ‘betrayal” and “sell-out” if he doesn’t bring sweeping special rights and privileges to gays and other minorities, or if he fails to trim the military down to the size of the Coast Guard in four years.

I, for one, am going to do my best not to become a victim of ODS and scream bloody murder every time He does something liberalish.  Besides, as a government service employee and a member of the Reserves, I’ve got to keep my bile in check since he’s actually the Commander in Chief now, and not just some marxist looney running for office.  That doesn’t mean that I won’t be checking the list of Presidential Executive Orders almost daily to see what kind of wacky shit he’s trying to slide in under the radar.

All that said, blogging will be light to non-existent over the next couple of weeks as I try to get out from under a couple of big projects.   So, all 12 of you can spend your time doing other, more important things, like scraping your Bush/Cheney ’04 bumperstickers off, and replacing them with O! stickers.  I know I have.