Terrorism vs Political Violence vs Civil Disobedience vs Free Speech
There is a lot of talk these days about the growth of hate speech and hate groups that avow harm to the US and to the President. Unfortunately, our media leans left and they are all too happy to blur the lines between Terrorism, Political Violence, Civil Disobedience and Free Speech. Or, in other words if your free speech is targeted at the left "the media" will upgrade you to Civil Disobedience. If your message is communicated via Civil Disobedience you could be labeled Politically Violent. And of course if you practice Political Violence against the left you will certainly be labeled a Terrorist.
Free Speech is one of our Constitutional rights. It does have limitations. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater or take over an official public meeting (town council meeting or legislative session). Order, and to a lesser extent decorum, must still be maintained. Often there is a fallacy used by both sides of an argument that somehow there is a right to be heard. There is none. No one can be compelled to listen to someone's free speech. This is a standard tactic for the Liberal Left and they have almost perfected it. In town hall meetings people are getting angry at politicians because they give canned answers to questions, talk around an issue or just plain lie. Politicians are not familiar with this treatment. Rather, they expect the treatment they get from the Sunday morning talk shows that give them a podium for their views with very little question or debate. Certainly no one raises their voice and points at them and yells "Judas"! As a tactic for rebuttal politicians pronounce that their right to be heard has been infringed upon. Of course there is no right to be heard. The people who freely gathered at the town hall have every right to speak louder and more direct than the politician.
Civil Disobedience is when you move beyond free speech into disorderly conduct, vandalism or being a public menace. When your voice or actions clearly and consistently makes it impossible for others to enjoy their rights you have moved to Civil Disobedience. Most often Civil Disobedience is planned theater. Just like terrorism. The additional aspect of your actions being illegal can become a boost to your cause. While your immediate audience might have been 120 people gathered at a Town Hall meeting, the fact that you were arrested and forcibly removed and that was carried on CNN multiplies the reach of your message and cause. Because offenses of Civil Disobedience generally carry minor fines without any long term consequences the use of this tactic is generally accepted as "fair play" as long as no one is injured. Watching the Liberal Left whine and cry about the Conservative Right using this tactic is just plain funny. The Left perfected these tactics.
Political Violence is violence directed at ones political enemies OR at the government by the people. This is not terrorism per se. All terrorism is political violence, but not all political violence is terrorism. Political violence that does not terrorize the people can not, by definition, be terrorism. So political violence from the people inflicted on the government is not terrorism. Political Violence from one political faction on to another can be terrorism and usually is. Political Violence is almost always unacceptable. Its use in self-determination and revolution is often historically justified but never surrounding its immediate use.
Terrorism is a difficult action to pin down. Two necessary but individually insufficient parts of terrorism are usually the best indicators. First that the violence be politically motivated and second that the intent of the violence is to terrorise the public (non government). Motivation and intent are often difficult to judge, in those cases the target of the political violence is a good third indicator. Was it a public/private target or was it a government/military target? Malls, nightclubs and transportation are usually indicators of terrorism. Government offices, military installations are less clear but can certainly be targets of terrorism. Terrorism is never acceptable. It is not a tool of the weak it is a tool of the desperate. It is wholly unjustifiable.
With all the Nazi, Swastika, Thug and Goon talk swirling around the "town hall" these days it won't be long before those of us who dare speak truth to power will be labeled "terrorists," "racists" and other hyperbolic over-statements. Now you know where your actions actually fall.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Now It's Personal!
Now It's Personal!
Liberals are now wanting to tax fatty foods as well as sodas and other delicious items. This is all in an effort to reduce the cost of healthcare. Someone might say it's to motivate me to be thin and healthy... but that is just a lie. Here is one you might not see coming... I agree the obese are too expensive to publicly insure and something must be done!
I agree that fattys put an undue strain on public healthcare and that the morbidly obese are probably expensive to maintain medically. But, the answer is not to tax the fat or sugar it is to stop trying to publicly insure them with things like the old Hillary-care and now Obama-care. If I want two pork chops and not one, it is no ones business. If I die with a turkey leg in my hand it was ultimately my choice. No one is obligated to pay for me. My poor lifestyle choices are just that... my choice. I choose not to smoke, not drink too often, reduce stress and get plenty of rest. I also choose to add bacon and extra cheese. It is no ones concern but mine.
What this boils down to is another attempt to micro manage my/your/our personal lives. Liberals think that you are quite incapable. And... if they are right, that it is the governments duty to manage your life for you. I, and conservatives, disagree. If you want to participate in risky behavior I would no sooner stop you from Super-Sizing those fries than I would stop you from parachuting from a plane. Both more risk than is necessary, both add some flavor to our lives.
I have never advocated the violent overthrow of our government, but if Obama et al think they can waltz down here and take that Beth's Country Kitchen Friday afternoon pork chop from my hands...well... If I might takes some liberties with Charlton Heston. "They can have my pork chop when the pry it from my cold dead hands!"
Liberals are now wanting to tax fatty foods as well as sodas and other delicious items. This is all in an effort to reduce the cost of healthcare. Someone might say it's to motivate me to be thin and healthy... but that is just a lie. Here is one you might not see coming... I agree the obese are too expensive to publicly insure and something must be done!
I agree that fattys put an undue strain on public healthcare and that the morbidly obese are probably expensive to maintain medically. But, the answer is not to tax the fat or sugar it is to stop trying to publicly insure them with things like the old Hillary-care and now Obama-care. If I want two pork chops and not one, it is no ones business. If I die with a turkey leg in my hand it was ultimately my choice. No one is obligated to pay for me. My poor lifestyle choices are just that... my choice. I choose not to smoke, not drink too often, reduce stress and get plenty of rest. I also choose to add bacon and extra cheese. It is no ones concern but mine.
What this boils down to is another attempt to micro manage my/your/our personal lives. Liberals think that you are quite incapable. And... if they are right, that it is the governments duty to manage your life for you. I, and conservatives, disagree. If you want to participate in risky behavior I would no sooner stop you from Super-Sizing those fries than I would stop you from parachuting from a plane. Both more risk than is necessary, both add some flavor to our lives.
I have never advocated the violent overthrow of our government, but if Obama et al think they can waltz down here and take that Beth's Country Kitchen Friday afternoon pork chop from my hands...well... If I might takes some liberties with Charlton Heston. "They can have my pork chop when the pry it from my cold dead hands!"
Friday, July 24, 2009
Where does the Federal Government der...
Where does the Federal Government derive so much power and influence? Constitutional Originalists like me think they either steal it or derive it from smoke and mirrors. Those in power would point to two places in the Constitution, the "Commerce Clause" and the "Necessary and Proper Clause". Those in power would of course be wrong.
The Commerce Clause in the Originalists opinion gives Congress authority to regulate trade, when necessary, "among the several states". Not within, but "among". Also, authority doesn't suppose reason. Congress still needs a good reason to use its Constitutional authority. Further, nothing is said about trade among the people. The Constitution takes great pains to differ between Federal, State and Individual. Had, the Founders wanted Congressional authority over the individual it would have clearly stated it. In fact, even the briefest study of our Founders shows that almost all of their efforts were to LIMIT governmental authority over individuals.
The legal community still debates to this day what the word "commerce" meant in the 18th century. A liberal generally thinks it to mean every interaction among men. As ridicules as that sounds, that is what some well respected scholars maintain. A more Conservative and researched view points to commerce meaning trade among business and industry. Again, leaving out the individual. While I am a huge proponent of fancy-book-learnin' I freely admit that a lot of "study" is the product of boredom and an attempt to look busy to ones peers. Anyone who surmises that "commerce" has ever meant, in any way shape or form, all interactions among men is surely after some end other than the truth!
The Necessary and Proper Clause or the "Basket Clause" is called such because to a liberal mind it gives the Congress the authority to enact any law it sees and necessary and proper, all that is needed is political will. A Conservative view, a researched view, understands that the Founders meant that Congress could enact laws it found necessary and proper to uphold the Constitution. Or "The congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the forgoing powers ,
and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." OR... that this "necessary and proper" authority is incidental to the rest of the Constitution, more particularly the enumerated powers. For example, you can't over-ride another part of the Constitution, say... Freedom of the Press, with a law enacted under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Or more relevant, California should be able to regulate marijuana as a drug as long as that drug stays in California. Congress enacting/enforcing a non-enumerated law or a law it sees as "necessary and proper" must be junior to an enumerated law like the 10th Amendment (State's Rights).
Confusing? Yeah, it was meant to be. Our Founders did not make the Constitution all encompassing. It could have been hundreds of pages long and much easier to interpret. But, they new that the more they wrote, the more we would interpret and mis-interpret. Brevity was their most precious gift. The Constitution was written by men and is interpreted by men, therefore it is imperfect. But, it is quite sufficient and has been the standard barer for freedom ever since its inscription. It is completely sufficient in the case of over reaching Federal power. Sadly, it requires sufficient executors and adjudicators as well (Congress and the Supreme Court). These government officials are the crux of the problem. Too long have we sent fools to Washington expecting the impossible. The only way forward I see is for the individual States to assert their power and stand up to the Federal system. Hard to do if you are a state that is beholdin' to the Federal apparatus for education, roads, health-care, credit, etc.
The Commerce Clause in the Originalists opinion gives Congress authority to regulate trade, when necessary, "among the several states". Not within, but "among". Also, authority doesn't suppose reason. Congress still needs a good reason to use its Constitutional authority. Further, nothing is said about trade among the people. The Constitution takes great pains to differ between Federal, State and Individual. Had, the Founders wanted Congressional authority over the individual it would have clearly stated it. In fact, even the briefest study of our Founders shows that almost all of their efforts were to LIMIT governmental authority over individuals.
The legal community still debates to this day what the word "commerce" meant in the 18th century. A liberal generally thinks it to mean every interaction among men. As ridicules as that sounds, that is what some well respected scholars maintain. A more Conservative and researched view points to commerce meaning trade among business and industry. Again, leaving out the individual. While I am a huge proponent of fancy-book-learnin' I freely admit that a lot of "study" is the product of boredom and an attempt to look busy to ones peers. Anyone who surmises that "commerce" has ever meant, in any way shape or form, all interactions among men is surely after some end other than the truth!
The Necessary and Proper Clause or the "Basket Clause" is called such because to a liberal mind it gives the Congress the authority to enact any law it sees and necessary and proper, all that is needed is political will. A Conservative view, a researched view, understands that the Founders meant that Congress could enact laws it found necessary and proper to uphold the Constitution. Or "The congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the forgoing powers ,
and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." OR... that this "necessary and proper" authority is incidental to the rest of the Constitution, more particularly the enumerated powers. For example, you can't over-ride another part of the Constitution, say... Freedom of the Press, with a law enacted under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Or more relevant, California should be able to regulate marijuana as a drug as long as that drug stays in California. Congress enacting/enforcing a non-enumerated law or a law it sees as "necessary and proper" must be junior to an enumerated law like the 10th Amendment (State's Rights).
Confusing? Yeah, it was meant to be. Our Founders did not make the Constitution all encompassing. It could have been hundreds of pages long and much easier to interpret. But, they new that the more they wrote, the more we would interpret and mis-interpret. Brevity was their most precious gift. The Constitution was written by men and is interpreted by men, therefore it is imperfect. But, it is quite sufficient and has been the standard barer for freedom ever since its inscription. It is completely sufficient in the case of over reaching Federal power. Sadly, it requires sufficient executors and adjudicators as well (Congress and the Supreme Court). These government officials are the crux of the problem. Too long have we sent fools to Washington expecting the impossible. The only way forward I see is for the individual States to assert their power and stand up to the Federal system. Hard to do if you are a state that is beholdin' to the Federal apparatus for education, roads, health-care, credit, etc.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Before I get into my normal bloviate ...
Before I get into my normal ruminations, let me first congratulate the Pageland Chamber, Town of Pageland, Pageland Police Department, the Sheriff's Department and so many others that contributed to making the Watermelon Festival a success. I was part of a booth next to the music. All those with me had a great time! I am currently in Hawiian Ice and Sausage Dog withdrawal.
On everyone's mind these days is healthcare. Yes, it is expensive, and yes it is getting MORE expensive, but here is a news flash... YOU are not entitled to it. There is no "right" to healthcare. The plain and simple truth is that the Constitution enumerates no power for healthcare. What we have now, given to us by Lyndon Johnson and others, is already Unconstitutional. Medicare and the unfunded state mandate Medicaid are failed concepts. Governments are ill suited to provide for us on an individual basis. It takes a pretty thick and one-sided bias to look at previous Federal government attempts to provide social services and think that they are equipped to provide something as important and personal as healthcare on the scale they attempt now, much less on the scale Obama is proposing.
What is the Federal Government known for? Wasteful spending, unfunded mandates to the states (most unconstitutional), lining pockets of special interests, sweetheart deals, etc. So, even if you think that Universal Socialized Obama-Care is a good idea, you have to be blind to think that the Federal Government is capable of providing it.
We have test cases all over the world and at home. Several states have tried to provide some form of complete care for all citizens. None have been successful. Many nations have tried it and the news if full of stories about the deficits the programs run, the lengthy waits for services, and the long line of Canadians finding care at our facilities because their socialized healthcare system is failing them.
All of this should be moot because our Founders in their wisdom limited the scope and reach of the Federal Government. Sadly, over time, presidents, congresses, and judicial rulings have all but ruined the original plan of a Union of Sovereign states that mostly looked out for themselves on domestic issues. Instead, we have a Nanny State trying to be all things to all people. It is impossible... not difficult... but, impossible for any government to provide effective and efficient social services like our Federal apparatus tries to provide us. What Obama and many Socialists like him want just will not work, even if their intentions are noble.
On everyone's mind these days is healthcare. Yes, it is expensive, and yes it is getting MORE expensive, but here is a news flash... YOU are not entitled to it. There is no "right" to healthcare. The plain and simple truth is that the Constitution enumerates no power for healthcare. What we have now, given to us by Lyndon Johnson and others, is already Unconstitutional. Medicare and the unfunded state mandate Medicaid are failed concepts. Governments are ill suited to provide for us on an individual basis. It takes a pretty thick and one-sided bias to look at previous Federal government attempts to provide social services and think that they are equipped to provide something as important and personal as healthcare on the scale they attempt now, much less on the scale Obama is proposing.
What is the Federal Government known for? Wasteful spending, unfunded mandates to the states (most unconstitutional), lining pockets of special interests, sweetheart deals, etc. So, even if you think that Universal Socialized Obama-Care is a good idea, you have to be blind to think that the Federal Government is capable of providing it.
We have test cases all over the world and at home. Several states have tried to provide some form of complete care for all citizens. None have been successful. Many nations have tried it and the news if full of stories about the deficits the programs run, the lengthy waits for services, and the long line of Canadians finding care at our facilities because their socialized healthcare system is failing them.
All of this should be moot because our Founders in their wisdom limited the scope and reach of the Federal Government. Sadly, over time, presidents, congresses, and judicial rulings have all but ruined the original plan of a Union of Sovereign states that mostly looked out for themselves on domestic issues. Instead, we have a Nanny State trying to be all things to all people. It is impossible... not difficult... but, impossible for any government to provide effective and efficient social services like our Federal apparatus tries to provide us. What Obama and many Socialists like him want just will not work, even if their intentions are noble.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The "King" rewards his loyal subjects...
By Brad Heath, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election.
That aid — about $17 billion — is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.
More Here
WASHINGTON — Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election.
That aid — about $17 billion — is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.
More Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
