Savage Republican

I notice my fellow blogger, Lady logician, has hit upon one of my favorite areas, the Constitution. I’d even go further than her and saying it not only ignorance, but also a terribly flawed and dangerously wrong understanding of what the Constitution means.
It’s supposed to be a federal, not a national constitution. Also, it ‘s supposed to guarantee your freedoms via the government, not privately (if your employer doesn’t want you to talk politics at work, as the company is his private property, he has every right, under the constitution to fire you for talking politics. How’s that for an application? Dangerous to the staus quo,ehh? And don’t even get me started on sexual harassment laws!). And as for law, there are Executive Orders that have the force of law unless specifically vacated by Congress within a certain amount of time (and if you ever want your blood to run cold, go here to read what power the office of President has ceded to itself with executive orders http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1999/may99/psrmay99.html and here for a history http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html . Though these articles were written during the Clinton administration, all presidents since Washington have issued executive orders).
I remember a radio program back in 2002. I was on my way to Duluth for a rally that Charlton Heston was going to be attending. CCRN (the organization that sponsored and lobbied for the shall issue bill) was organizing the event with the NRA. The guest on the show was Gail Marks Jarvis, business reporter for the Pioneer Press. The discussion started out about Social Security and economics. The talk was around how Social Security is a disaster, what returns that money would make if privately invested, the incredible private economic growth that would have resulted, etc. As the discussion progressed, the show’s host made one of the more insightful comments I’ve heard in a long time. The comment was “If basic economics were taught in high school, there would be a tremendous revolution in the voting booth!” I looked at the radio and said “You got that right, white boy!” And if basic history were taught, along with real,not Kenseyian economics, and a good legitimate discourse on the Constitution, there would be another revolution in the voting booth.
Ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of economics,ignorance of history, failure of the courts. All based on ignorance.
And always remember, this has all been done in our names. We, the people do have the power.We can take it back. All we have to do is exercise it.

Ignorance (of the Constitution at least) is running rampant in this country. Between mis-intrepretations of the 2nd Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) and the way people forget the 10th Amendment (rights not specificaly given to the Federal government in the Constitution reverting to the states) even exists, ignorance of the Constitution is daily on display. Sadly the majority of the cases seem to come from places where you least expect it – like our elected representatives and the main stream media.

The latest show of ignorance of the Constitution comes from the Minneapolis Star Tribune (or Pravda on the Mississippi as my friend Amendment X calls it) and Senator Charles Schumer. The Strib, in a recent editorial, implied that judges make laws when it calls for President Bush to pick a “moderate” to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Senator Schumer, in a recent press conference, stated that the President needed to be cautious in who he choose because this person would have 30+ years on the bench to “make law” (I am still looking for an online reference to this quote).

ATTENTION SENATOR SCHUMER AND THE STAR TRIBUNE EDITORS!!!!! The Legislature is the only body, out of our three branches of government, that is given the job of making laws. The President can not make law anymore than the Legislature can adjudicate legal cases. Fifth graders in Minnesota know that and I am appalled that a sitting US Senator apparently needs to be reminded of that basic Constitutional fact of life.

Just when you thought that the critics of the Administration couldn’t possibly sink any lower, comes this.

In reaction to the selection of John Roberts to the Supreme Court come these intelligent reactions. John Roberts is “obviously” gay because he a)went to a boys boarding school where he studied Latin, participated in drama and choir and (gasp) was a wrestler! Plus he wore plaid pants as a teen in the ’60s (didn’t we all I hate to admit) and if that weren’t damning enough, his children are adopted! He is unacceptable because his wife has “strong” opinions on abortion and she dressed the kids “funny“ for the press announcement.

This is all coming out of the same faction of the Democratic Party that thought that “outing” Mary Cheney during the campaign would somehow “hurt” the President. However, aren’t these the same people who demand that we accept gays when it comes to issues such as gay marriage?

When did it become ok to attack the families of candidates and appointees? Has the “loyal opposition” sunk so low that they are fine with this? Do they realize what they are opening themselves up to when it is their turn to appoint judges? Do they really want to go down this road?

I have not seen this getting much coverage so I think I will chime in.

The Weekly Standard has recently run a couple of really good stories summing up the overwhelming preponderance of evidence of the links between Saddam and al Qaeda that were run in the MSM during the Clinton administration. The author, Mr. Stephen Hayes, has related in this series of articles just how cozy Osama and Saddam were in the days leading up to 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens, in a recent appearance on MSNBC’s Connected program, schooled host Ron Reagan on the numerous connections between Saddam and terrorists like Abu Nidal. Claudia Rosette (of UN Oil-For-Food fame) reminds us in a recent Wall Street Journal column that, thanks to unprecedented access to the regimes files (I guess Saddam was a worse paperwork pack-rat than I am and that takes a lot of doing), we are just beginning to see how deeply intertwined the two (OBL and Saddam) really were.

You can read Mr. Hayes’ articles here and here. In addition, the Standard has this enlightening article from Mr. Dan Darling.

When you sift through the gathered research, a large portion coming from European MSM sources (like Le Mond of all places) a logical person can not help but wonder why the willfull blindness of the alphabet soup media (ABC, CBS, MSNBC et al) to the facts. Some of the same sources that today loudly proclaim that there were “NO CONNECTIONS” between Saddam and al Qaeda are the same ones that 10 years ago were forwarning us that Saddam and bin Laden were indeed working together toward the same goal – the destruction of America – the Great Satan.

Ronald Reagan said the nine most terrifying words anyone can hear are “I’m from the government and I’m hear to help.” I’d like to amend that to “I’m from the government and you can trust me.” The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) which is one of the biggest wastes of time and money, decided to illegally gather information on us, Stasi style (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050723/D8BGR5L80.html ) . Now, TSA is the Keystone Cops of security ( www.reason.com/0402/fe.jb.dominate.shtml ) . Even my commercial pilot friends say that we are no safer now than we were 9-11-01.
Don’t ever trust anyone from the government. Ever!

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
–George Washington

I just sent this email off to a friend of mine (I got the link from another friend):

Reeve-

You had a friend at Jeremy’s party who was opposed to the Iraqi war. I had mentioned an article on Fox called “What We’ve Accomplished”. He had never heard of any of what we’d accomplished in Iraq from that article and asked me why he hadn’t heard any of this. I returned the question to him.

Please send the following to him.

The bold italicized emphasis is mine.

From Powerline:

July 22, 2005

Iraqis Stand Against Terrorism

Haider Ajina sends us this translation of an article in yesterday’s Kululiraq, an Iraqi newspaper:

Iraqis stood for three minutes of silence yesterday in commemoration of the lives lost in the two attacks in Baghdad Aljadedah and Almusaiyab, which claimed 105 martyrs, 32 of whom were children, and 128 wounded of whom 31 were children.

Traffic of thousand of cars stopped in the Allawi & Tahrier area (central Baghdad) as children (from “Baghdad Aljadedah” area) entered “Tahrier” square (with some of the wounded children) carrying Iraqi flags and displaying victory signs in defiance of the terrorists. These children also stood silent for three minutes to commemorate their relatives and friends who died in the homicide bombing attack last week.

Iraqi Prime Minister Dr. Ibrahiem Aljaafary said in a speech regarding this incident: “We will not sway from our path and we will not kneel to those who commit these crimes.” He added, ”We are confident that all nations of this world stand beside us, because to day terrorism does not only affect us Iraqis but the whole world. We Iraqis have the honor of being in the front line in the fight against terrorism.”

Haider comments:

Tens of thousands of Iraqis stood silent for three minutes in over 130 Fahrenheit heat to commemorate victims of terror and in a sign of unified defiance of terrorism and I have not seen a single report on this. I waited all day Wednesday and all day today and nothing. The news reported the small anti America demonstration by Alsadar and some Baathists in April but some how missed the whole Iraqi nation standing still in defiance of terrorism.

When was the last time you heard an Arab leader say that his nation was honored to be in the front lines fighting terrorism?

Good question. The terrorists know that Iraq is the front line in the battle against terrorism; the Iraqis agree. Now if only we could convince the Democrats.

Posted by John at 01:53 PM | Permalink

The London Telegraph reports that by 2020 there will be 23,000,000 Chinese men that will be unable to find wives as Chinese parents regularly abort unborn female babies ( news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/22/wchina22.xml ).
So, we have “choice” going on, and I wonder what the National Organization of Women would say about this exercise of “choice”?

Proving again that he’s a REAL, not a fake, conservative, Governor Pawlenty is in Washington urging Congress to up ethanol standards ( www.startribune.com/stories/587/5518990.html ) . After all, there is no ethanol market without the government mandating it. He also ignores the fact that ethanol is a horrible fuel for combustion engines, costs much more than petroleum, and is a disaster that requires the government to force us to use it after it forces us to subsidize it.
“This doesn’t just benefit farmers,” he said. “It’s good for rural and economic development. It’s good environmental policy, and it’s good national security policy.” And who would know better than a guy who can’t wait to get to the other side of the Potomac? But, of course, this flies in the face of facts ( www.taxpayersleague.org/issues/legislative_issues_2005.php and scroll down to Ethanol Mandates and Subsidies. The study by Pimentel at Cornell calls ethanol “subsidized food burning” www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/Pimentel-ethanol.html ) And yet the Governor goes merrily along extolling ethanol. And always remember, it was state government that brought you the final and fully convincing reason that they should never ever be trusted with decisions involving business: Excelsior-Henderson Motorcycle Company ( http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/00-01/opinion.cfm .As you read the article, keep substituting “Twins Stadium”) .
Crimeny Governor, haven’t you done enough damage to your Republican credentials yet?

John Roberts…who? I’m still not convinced. I agree with Ann Coulter in her special column today titled “Souter in Roberts Clothing” ( www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi ).
Here is someone who has a few cases under his belt. And not much else. I also agree with Ann that as we are being told to “trust Roberts” we were also told that we could trust Souter.
Ann goes on to say ” If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!
We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections ,— seven of the last ten! We’re the Harlem Globetrotters now – why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week? Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we’’re ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork . . . and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot. .“
Even Fred Barnes, last night on Fox News Special Report, said that Roberts is NOT a Scalia or Thomas type justice (as Bush promised us during the election) but rather closer to Rehnquist.
Ann finishes her column with ” The Democrats’ own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block “judges who would roll back civil rights.” Borking is over. And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground – substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives. Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’’t. The Supreme Court shouldn’t be a game of Russian roulette.“
I’m going to find out what Robert Bork and Andrew Napolitano have to say on this one.
I trust them.

And so we hear that we are days,perhaps hours away from a Supreme Court nominee. I came across this from the Joseph Sobran archives of May, 2000:

"Those of us who urge conservatives to leave the
Republican Party are often charged with ensuring the election
of Al Gore and especially with helping see to it that Gore
will name the next few Supreme Court justices. But recent
Republican nominees to the Court -- Souter, Kennedy, and
O'Connor -- have saved Roe v. Wade; worse yet, Republicans in
the Senate have voted overwhelmingly to confirm Clinton's
nominees, Ginzburg and Breyer, and would no doubt do the same
for Gore's picks. Both parties show approximately equal
respect for constitutional law. That is, approximately none.
Put otherwise, both parties -- and both candidates -- would
support a continuation of lawless government. A moment of
peace and prosperity is the ideal time to build a new party."
And I reflect on this leaving the Republican Party  when we have a "conservative" governor who
supports spending still more, not eliminating a single program or giving a tax cut in the face of rising revenues,
talks about what a good idea it is that only Hennepin County  pay for a stadium for billionaires
so millionaires can play baseball and then is stunned that there's wrinkle called  a "referendum" that would
kill the stadium deal (note to the Guv: Trust me, if there is a referendum on the stadium  in Hennepin county,
there ain't no deal to kill as there won't be a stadium. Get it?)
Any how, just a few thoughts as we wait.