Psychotic Breaks, Pot and the Gabby Giffords Shooting

You’re laughing, aren’t you? “Reefer Madness” quelled all these fears beneath it’s hilarity seventy-five years ago! What about Cheech and Chong’s “A Child’s Garden of Grass“? Surely, that ended ALL debate. Marijuana and madness? What a hoot. We ALL smoked grass in college. It’s a right of passage. If you can’t roll a joint, you can’t rush a fraternity .

If you’re even grinning, for about ten minutes try believing something other than a Hollywood stereotype. Here are a few facts from the sad story of Jared Loughner’s crazed shooting of United State Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

At sixteen, Jared Loughner was described by Kelsey Hawkes, his girlfriend from 2005, as “gentle” and “kind.” He seemed to Kelsey to really be a normal young man.

Hawkes continues that her ex-boyfriend was “you know a little bit quiet, but altogether a pretty great guy.” What changed this young man to clean cut college student with a sad, far-away look ?

As he began college, even as late as 2007, his friends had begun to describe him as “quirky.” Then he changed even more. What changed Jared into the hooded young man chronically dangling a head phone and flashing the deranged grin? That grin… that look. It’s odd, but that’s your neighbor. We feel bad for that kid we all know, but the truth is we all know what’s going on with our neighbor. Likewise, we know happened to Jared.

He became a stoner. And that’s also plain from the record.

To be certain, the Loughner family’s interaction with police is odd. Still, the key year seems to have been 2007. In September of 2007 Loughner was arrested for possession of a controlled substance (a roach and pipe residue) and drug paraphernalia. Then, in December of 2007, he first attended the “Congress on your Corner” at Pima Community College. There, according to friends, he asked a “typical Jared” question of then State Representative Gabrielle Giffords, one fixated on language with the logic of what Cheech and Chong affectionately called a pothead’s “divine revelation.” Finally, a year later, in December of 2008, Loughner was unable to enlist in the army because he freely admitted using marijuana “hundreds of times.”  Did Loughner complete a drug treatment program in 2008? It sounds like he either made no mention of his rehabilitation or had ignored or avoided the mandatory program.

Certainly Loughner’s rantings sound like those of someone so stoned that he thinks lunacy is genius:

“You don’t allow the government to control your grammar structure, listener? The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. What’s government if words don’t have meaning?”

While other ravings about a lime green bird sound more like the result of  a hallucinogenic drug (perhaps salvia), much of his disconnected ramblings are described in medical literature, such Web MD, as “magical” or “random thinking” (“Psychological Effects“).

As an alcoholic denies he has a problem, so also many deny that marijuana poses any personal or social issues. This is absolutely incorrect. Studies have shown that there is as much as a five fold (that’s 500%) increase in reports of depression among daily users of cannabis.  In fact, benign as legalization advocates claim marijuana is, it “has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia.” When confronted with such studies, marijuana users will claim, with the authority of anecdotal evidence, that cannabis only brings out such illness in people. Inevitably, they will then follow this first claim with this second one: “They themselves aren’t ‘like that’; therefore, they aren’t at risk.” This is classic substance abuse denial. Indeed, while “over thirty different studies have documented marijuana’s link with symptoms of schizophrenia,” they also demonstrate that cannabis “is an independent risk factor (my emphasis) for schizophrenia.” A study of fifty thousand Swiss soldiers show that heavy users of marijuana at age 18 had a 600% increased of schizophrenia later in life.”

Perhaps because of our ignorance, but just as likely because of our national inclination towards moral relativism, we let people sick with denial, delude themselves and others as they ramble on about health benefits of marijuana.

What ultimately changed Loughner into the personification of evil seen in the mug shot RELEASED by the Phoenix police?

In hindsight Loughner’s tragic rampage was complete with warning signs, including his depraved dependency on illegal and legal mind altering drugs. The dangers of marijuana and hallucinogenic drugs should be the national outcry here, not more relativistic political views replete with the varnish of supposed gun control fewer than 200 miles from the automatic weapons of cartel infested Mexico.

Despite loud denials, every drug addict knows what is happening to him. Even chain smokers know what they are doing to their bodies. Perhaps Loughner wanted to alter his mind. That’s why he used mind-altering drugs. Loughner knew what he was turning into, just like every pothead knows. Perhaps, unlike many people, Loughner simply caved in. He turned his mind over to the abyss, and it became a whorehouse for every evil thought. Perhaps Loughner freely chose to release his inner demons on the world.

The Defamation of Marriage and the Rise of Totalitarianism

To abandon celebrating the self-evident truths of what a marriage is, is to abandon reason itself, for reason tells us that the oaths of marriage are abiding in their humanity. The abiding meaning of these oaths to the human spirit flow from their relationship to the commitment to others demanded by every biological union of man and Cer4F0TWQAEspsJwoman. The oaths of marriage are not for self.  The oaths of marriage begin with self, but they are in exchange for something higher in people than their personal desire. The exchange of vows is about far more than joint financial agreements that mutually benefit each ‘partner.’ Marriage oaths are selfless commitments made because of each individual’s honesty with reality.

In all of this “marriage equality” legalese is a kind of bitterness, a jealously that requires the defamation of marriage from personal spite. Only the strain-at-a-gnat, most superficial things that can, by arcane, nonsensical sophistry be associated with marriage, are of interest to modern “justice.” Under the guise of the misguided pursuit of the jurisprudence of equal outcomes as justice, the courts claim the state has no interest in the human part of marriage. Such courts and such laws must ignore liberty because liberty is a human thing. Only human hearts can see the bars that hold living things in prisons for what they truly are. 

It’s a hardness of heart, not justice, that shuts out human concerns, loves, and, finally, liberty in the name of equality.

Cer4FzQXEAQh1eDNo rational system of law can survive an arrogance so blinding it cannot see the purpose of the sacred promises of marriage, vows that are far above a desire for financial and social advantage or “equality.” No civilization can endure a foolishness so malignant that it would deny the reality, reason, and the nature of these vows. The alternatives are the savagery of totalitarian tyranny and mob rule. Vows like those that are part of marriage bring out the best, most humane in mankind. A nation that would ignore these values is inhuman and very dangerous.

Consider as an example of our national vulgarity, the legal corruption surrounding the trial of California’s Proposition 8, a trial that ended a voter initiated amendment to California’s constitution defining marriage. The definition of marriage the voters chose was, obviously, the definition of marriage already embodied in California’s constitution and family law.

Because the monkey trial atmosphere surrounding California’s Proposition 8 so reeked of corruption, it marriageis very difficult to tell from the edited version of the “Proponents Defense of Proposition 8″ (Walker’s ruling p. 6) how well defended that crazy California proposition that marriage is between a man and a woman. For instance, Proposition 8 is, first about preserving the definition of marriage in our laws. A marriage is a marriage and always will be a marriage despite the judicial travesty of putting marriage on trial for inequality. However, in protecting the definition of marriage, Proposition 8 is foremost a defense of the ‘right to marry’ enshrined in federal and state law. Neither the plaintiffs, the majority of voters, nor the judiciary have any authority to infringe upon this natural right of a man and a woman to join in marriage. Tragically, it has been the courts that have led the charge, not to preserve the right to marry, but to deprive the people of the legal recognition of this right. This is prima facie evidence that the bow of our constitutional government is sinking, and, like the stern of the Titanic, an American totalitarianism rises.

What was born in the darkness of California’s corrupt judicial proceedings, proceedings that showed a profound hatred of our constitutional law, can only bring deep evil to our society and culture.

Plainly some of’s arguments sounded like they were the wrong ones for this particular California judge. For instance, arguing that “We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our own kids that gay marriage is ok…” (p. 7) is like arguing natural rights before a hereditary monarch. This is the blindness that passes for light in the dim and reeking recesses of our national “jurisprudence.”

Judge Walker sought to undermine a sound premise argued by ProtectMarriage. Judge Walker’s summary of this part of the argument reads, “…If the gay marriage ruling [of the California Supreme Court] is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage” (p.7). Walker emphasized “could” to emphasize that the gay community repeatedly denied that teaching gay marriage to kindergartners was on the agenda. Apparently, the good judge felt it was time to refight the campaign, not in the public square where the brainless, dirty masses have the right and power to disagree. Instead, he chose to bolster its wijudgesdom by refighting the campaign in the sanctity of his safely elite, intellectually pure, courtroom. He didn’t argue the law. He argued words spoken in campaign literature. About this though, he was, as about everything else, wrong and deceitfully wrong. California history has shown conclusively that now that the Supreme Court of the United States has made dehumanized marriage the law of the land, our government schools will immediately become sexual “reeducation camps” from the earliest years.

Additionally, based on Judge Walker’s conclusion that asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman “targets gay and lesbians specifically due to sex (p.120),” he seems to have surprised everyone by taking the words “no difference” to mean no “qualitative” difference. In other words, he indicated that all who say that marriage is between a man and a woman intend to teach that same sex couples cannot be successful parents or that their commitment to each other is in some way inferior to that of heterosexual couples. He took, apparently without asking clear follow up questions, the plaintiff’s position that those who espouse the outrageous claim that marriage is between a man and a woman do so to intentionally disparage same sex couples. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Everyone recognizes that the differences that sane people wish to preserve between same sex unions and marriage are factual, biological, and historic.  If there is scientific evidence that children raised by same sex couples do not fare well, that is a matter for science and law. Courts have no more business legislating this that they do in devising the means of conducting open heart surgery.

ProtectMarriage explained that the plaintiffs give no alternative definition of marriage and send, therefore, every branch of family law into an endless morass of absurdity. Their words fell on deaf, callous ears.

It is, nevertheless, apparent that ProtectMarriage made a sound and vigorous defense of the benefits of kidsmarriage to children and for the state’s profound interest in the weakest among us. This is a sound argument, and in happier days such words would never have fallen unheeded to the ground. But these are perilous times. These are the days of a social obsession with an equality of outcomes so complete and total that no aspect of civil life is spared it’s intrusion. Instead of showing the natural compassion for the weak that must be part of a judicial temperament, Judge Walker fixated on bizarre celestial visions of equal protection. Instead of erring on the side of caution, Judge Walker put the state’s interest in assuring the will of the people with regards to the welfare of their children aside. As a result, one who seems unfit for the judgments of law has set himself up as the final authority and arbiter of the benefits of family to children. Judge Walker accepted novel studies over the proven wisdom of the ages. He did this because, in American society today, this is true enlightenment.

The defamation of marriage is the consequence of an idolatrous blindness and an ascending American totalitarianism.

These are the days of the leveling of our land. There can be no excellence because there can be no failure. It does not matter whether you study hard and become an outstanding physician who is able to help people in ways no one had ever thought about before; your outcome must be the same as your neighbor’s. It does not matter whether you’ve chosen to do drugs all through high school, the state must provide for your college education and the best health care that everyone else’s money can buy. Likewise, if you are a homosexual it is just not fair that you can’t be married like everyone else, even though it is physically impossible.

We have been making excuses for everyone in society.  It is not compassion but an obsessive craving for a self-deceptive, idolatrous ideal that thrives on its own relativistic madness. A fear of the truth, like the Tower of Babel, is being, block by block, lifted from the cheering masses of smug, useless “intellectuals” that populate the sterile hopeless corridors of our universities. Only the rise of a totalitarian state could defy the natural light of liberty completely enough to satisfy craving for self importance.

Most of the working people in America could care less about this new religion of egalitarianism. However, the elite of our educational institutions know this idol and have bowed before its golden horns.the-golden-calf

Western society’s “new” ideology, its “new” religion, is one so psychotic it can tolerate none other. Its first creed is that “all truth is relative.” Hence its others: “all choices are virtue,” “all choices are equal,” and, therefore “no choice has a consequence.” This is not a happy time in California where the merit of the family is not in the state interest. This is not a happy time in the United States when “equal protection” is exalted above sanity in a farce beyond historic parallel. The notion that some choices are a blessing to the individual and to his country is a notion that can no longer be tolerated. Such a conclusion is unacceptable, so no fact that leads to such conclusions can, ipso facto, be valid. Today we are closer to the days of the monkey-courts of the French Revolution than we were last week. An American totalitarianism is rising.

Santorum was Right on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Perhaps the last muted and strangled reference to the classic arguments against homosexuals serving in the military santorumwas made on a national stage by Rick Santorum during the 2011 GOP presidential primary. After being cut off in the debate itself by a moderator and then being basically mugged by Chris Wallace on the following Fox New Sunday, the classic discussion was ignored. Ultimately, Obama and a lame duck congress, in a last minute midnight deal, simply changed the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That’s it; the debate’s over. No one will ever be taught the other side of the argument. The main stream media will behave like gays have always served openly in the military and social change, irrational and unevaluated, will become Americana of the future. That’s why this blog.

Perhaps Rick Santorum was planning to say that homosexuality is not a race, religion, or gender and, therefore, is not a protected constitutional class anymore than the obesity, the alcoholism, or those with flat feet. If he was, with seven other candidates speaking in thirty second intervals, he had no chance. Instead, he had a chance to make incomplete arguments that were easily demagogued by a heckling press and an unscrupulous journalist on a wallacesupposedly right leaning network. He may have meant to conclude, as a condition that disrupts the military’s mission, homosexuality should not be tolerated.

Santorum did get off a few salvos that Sunday in what now seems, culturally, a millennium ago. Santorum did contrast the passive qualities of constitutionally protected classes with homosexuality which, he claimed, is defined by active behavior. This is, ultimately, an unsatisfactory argument since homosexuality is, even biblically, defined by its passions not its actions.  Santorum’s argument is further flawed because one of the constitutionally protected classes is religion. Religion itself is utterly active and may, in it’s outgoing quality, disrupt, temporarily, the flow of military order. In this way, while Santorum protested that Wallace’s rhetorical trap was based on a flawed analogy about racial integration, the argument he had time to make made little sense.

If Rick Santorum had given the classic argument made in Clinton’s days by Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, General Schwarzkopf and others, an argument that was part of the volunteer army’s recruitment policy until the Clinton administration, he would have noted that the unprotected class of homosexuals, like that of flat feet, has the potential to disrupt the military. This disruption is not based on the reaction of others to the disability, but by the consequences of the disability alone. In other words, the temptation of homosexuality poses grave risks that are not based on an intellectual acceptance or rejection of homosexuality by others in the military, but is a risk that is, instead, based on the potential consequences of such behavior in the barracks, showers, and foxholes.

Even after the lawyers of the Clinton era postulated a celibate homosexual, forever in the closet, who was such a pillar of homosexual virtue that he was too pure to lie on his application; even after this imagined homosexual saint was permitted to avoid questions about sexual orientation as part of the application for service, the idea that homosexuality was forbidden in the military continued.

However, when Rick Santorum said during the Fox debate that, “Any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military,” his sound bite abbreviated a valid point. Obviously, men and women in the military marry and have children. Santorum’s point is that all of this takes place outside the military workplace.

Santorum went on to assert further, “The fact that they’re making a point to include it (sexual activity) as a provision within the military — that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege in removing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ I think tries to inject social policy into the military.”

Here it seems he was trying to make some of the classic argument. This includes:

1) Whether male or female, heterosexuality does not belong in the military workplace. The service of the nation normancomes first.

2) With the removal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” homosexual soldiers are allowed to insinuate sexuality into the barracks, the fox hole, and the submarine. Rather than forcing homosexuals to ignore their sexuality, as is the case with heterosexuals, men and women working a post together, the military is giving this homosexuality a higher, protected status.

Proposition 1 is not difficult to defend (See “Three Reasons Gays Should Not Serve Openly in the Military”).  Therefore, proposition 2 is axiomatic. However, buried within proposition 2 are two more self-evident propositions:

3) Homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality.

4) Therefore, a homosexual’s speech about his or her homosexuality is not the same as heterosexual’s speech his or her heterosexuality.

Although Proposition 4 is self-evident based on deductive logic, consider the empirical evidence. For instance, under DADT, heterosexual soldiers can talk about their loved ones and put pictures of them on their desks; however, gay soldiers cannot. This is because having a picture of a wife on one’s desk is different than bringing a girl into the barracks. In the first instance, the soldier’s speech is not work related. In the event of homosexual speech, the workplace is directly impacted.

Even if every member of the barracks is homosexual, the work environment is directly impacted by homosexuals speaking about their orientation. Once a homosexual has announced his intention of having sex with those of the same gender, he has bought a woman into the barracks, and a guy into the girls’ shower. The soldier’s intention does not matter. He or she may fully intend to confine his or her homosexual interactions to areas beyond the workplace, but homosexual speech injects sexuality into the workplace in a way heterosexuality does not.

This is because heterosexuality is not the same as homosexuality. One area of speech is like crying fire in a crowded theater. The other is not. The two types of speech are NOT equivalent. This is the core of the real debate in our culture. Saying that homosexuality is the same as or equal to heterosexaulity is a lie. It’s a lie in our military. It’s a lie in our courts. It’s a lie.

Ultimately, there will be those who say that the threat to military discipline by active homosexuals is unimportant. Some will say there’s not problem worth talking about. Like Obamacare, executive amnesty, and eighteen trillion dollars in national debt, the problem of active homosexuals in the military is just no big deal. Anyone who says otherwise, is, you know, just not Hollywood cool.

Three Reasons Gays Should Not Serve “Openly” in the Military

We all know a straight guy on a three month submarine tour would rather hot bunk with a co-ed, but for the glory of his country or the promise of seeing the world, he’s taken a deal he doesn’t like much: he’s bunking, in shifts, with subdozens of smelly guys he’d rather only play poker with. As folks grow older and wiser, they look back and can’t even understand how they managed to live with their fraternity brothers in the “good old days.” This resiliency of youth should be guarded and protected. This resiliency, the ability to live as brethren with those who are nearly strangers, is, among other things, an ability to ignore sexuality, whether it’s gay sexuality or heterosexual sexuality. Those that want gay rights in the military would force sexuality into every inch of these dormitories of patriotic celibacy. However, we are to believe the those who want gays to serve openly in the military are selfless, kind, caring and good. I guess gay rights are more important than the rights of our young patriots to the last vestiges of their personal privacy.

Homosexuality is about expressing rather than ignoring sexuality. The esprit d’corps critical to military service, especially where heterosexual men and women serve together, is about ignoring sexuality. There is no reason for it to be a “gay right” to inject sexuality into that mix. If it is a need for individual homosexuals to do this, they shouldn’t serve. This is as it is for heterosexuals as well. Heterosexuals who cannot contain themselves, who must overtly express sexual intentions in the workplace, end up out of today’s military also. The sacrifice of our youth in the service of our nation is heroic fox holeenough. Their unit cohesion depends on brotherhood and trust. That brotherhood (and, where applicable, sisterhood) depends, to a great extent, on the ability to overcome the need to make overt one’s sexuality and sexual intentions. Making “gay rights” an issue by injecting sexuality into dormitories, showers, and foxholes is not in the best interests of the military.

There are many areas of life and society in which America willingly chooses to help those who are, in any way, limited by the conditions or birth or nature. We willingly place wheel chair ramps for the handicapped and provide braille for the blind in public education. We are a kind and magnanimous people. We consider the effects of poverty on educational development and seek to compensate so that the playing field is level for all. We even allow for mental disease to mitigate in our judgments of criminal offenses. However, in the military and in emergency services, ability, and only ability, should be the criteria for service. Weakness, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should not be enshrined in the military codes as “protected” in any way.

A domestic partner is not the same thing as a spouse. If an entire branch of government wants to open up the flood gates of the “government treasury” (what’s the national debt –18 debttrillion?) and allow people to freely sign up for benefits with any single friend they know, the tax payers have a right to know about it and vote on it. It is a matter of somebody’s rights. It is a matter of the right of taxpayers to their property.

Nor is demanding gays openly serve in the military like integrating blacks and whites. To insist that it is, is racist. Insisting on such an analogy, when the comparison is unmasked and shown for what it is, is to say that being black is a disability.

A Declaration of Independence from Judicial Tyranny

c2dc1f723d791ab0369b9fdaec38e810When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for the people to reform the political institutions which have sought to enslave them and to resume, among the Branches of government, the free and independent station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions the electorate requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to effect this great reformation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

  • That all men are created equal in their access to Supreme justice,
    • That in this equality they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
      • that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (a state of wise and self adequate independence from servitude to any).
      • That to secure these rights (from murderers, oppressors, and tyranny) Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
      • That whenever any Form of Government, including an oligarchy of the judiciary, becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right and the Duty of the People to alter, or reform it, and to institute such reforms, on such principles and to reorganize 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; however, a the courts’ encroachment upon liberty is less than a century old and should not be called long established. However experience still shows, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Nevertheless, 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 5577442_f260reinstitute the ancient Guards of their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of the citizens of the United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains her to alter and restore their Systems of Government to their previous glory. The history of the federal judiciary since the Warren Court is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the rights of citizens to defend their lives from enemies foreign and domestic, over their exercise of conscience in religious liberty, and over of the free disposition of their own property.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid electorate:.

  • The federal judiciary has refused its Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good, finding imaginary rights for gay marriage inCalifornia.
  • The federal judiciary has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, such as California Proposition 187, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
  • The federal judiciary has refused to recognize other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, insisting that those people relinquish the right of Representation in their civil, state, and federal Legislatures, refusing them the right to prayer in public places, and the right to join, despite religion, in reading of a common Bible, these rights to representation and community deliberation on matters of conscience for their childrens welfare are rights inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
  • The federal judiciary has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of allowing minority elitist groups such as the ACLU to fatigue the people into compliance with their measures that seek toremove crosses and memorials to the ten commandments from public view.
  • The federal judiciary has repeatedly disparaged and politically threatened the Representative Houses of state legislators, for opposing with manly firmness its invasions of the rights of the people to assure security in their elections, their public institutions, and their persons from foreign peoples and powers.
  • The federal judiciary has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to permit the tentative enforcement of such laws written by the people; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
  • The federal judiciary has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; by removing the authority over abortion from the people and bybelittling the natural communication within the nuclear family; and by raising the conditions for parental consent for abortions.
  • The federal judiciary has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by removing from the people its right to Assent to clear evidence for establishing the guilt and punishment of predatory criminals.
  • The federal judiciary has made law enforcement dependent on its Will alone, for the definition of their offices, and the requirements of their services.
  • The federal judiciary has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.
  • The federal judiciary has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies of federal agents without the Consent of our legislatures.
  • The federal judiciary has affected to render itself independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
  • The federal judiciary has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its Assent to its own Acts of legislation:
    • For quartering large bodies of federal agents among us:
    • For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any injustice which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    • For cutting off our Trade by pernicious regulation from all parts of the world:
    • For imposing costs on us without our Consent:
    • For depriving us, in many tax cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    • For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
    • For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    • For overturning our Constitutions, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    • For suspending the works of our Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
  • The federal judiciary has abdicated Government here, by declaring us as unworthy of Protection under our own laws and actively waging War against them.
  • The federal judiciary has plundered our seas denying the states its riches, ravaged our Coasts through the commerce clause, burnt our towns over Delta Smelt, and destroyed the lives of our people.
  • The federal judiciary is at this time permitted to consider transporting large armies of foreign forces of law by way which it may overturn DOMA, demand that homosexuals and homosexuals alone be permitted to inject sexuality into the military and civilian workplace, and to insist that oureducational systems teach that heterosexuals dare not distinguish their institutions and lifestyles from that which is in kind, origin, and consequence utterly different. In this way it will have compleated the works of libertys death, and reduced these citizens to the desolation of tyranny, in which words and contracts have no meaning, in which we will become entirely subject to the whims and circumstances of arbitrary Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the judiciary of a civilized nation.
  • The federal judiciary has expanded ancient and settled law to constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive through their own errors to push theirpersonal liabilities against their own employees, and to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren.
  • The federal judiciary has encouraged domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the members of our military, merciless and idolatrous savages, whose known rule of conduct, is an undisguised barbarity towards those of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress according to the unspoken rules of Mulberry vs. Chase: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Judiciary, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.

Nor have We been wanting in attention to our Democratic brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their appointees to extend an unconstitutional jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the contractual nature of our constitution and representation of contractual obligation according to intent. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably corrupt the rule of law and, hence, our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as they hold us, Enemies in Politics, but in personal liberty, Friends.

cartoonWe, therefore, the citizens of the United States of America, in general outrage, Assembled, and online, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these United States, solemnly publish and declare, That the legislative and executive institutions of these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent branches; that each is Absolved from all elements of Judicial Supremacy, and that all political decisions hitherto outlined as based on the federal judiciary as the Supreme Arbiter of the constitution between is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent citizens, we the people have the full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which and Independent people 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 (before taxes) and our sacred Honor.


Some may consider this work itself to be a form of flag desecration. Pass a law, but it is not the business of the courts. The idea that our nation needs to get so energized about our national symbol that we would pass a constitutional amendment to protect our flag seems absurd. Yet that is exactly the point. The courts have left us no choice or an absurd choice. This has happened in every category of American life. Enough.

Likewise, while many of the above links are to well-known examples of judicial overreach and activism, many will favor a variety of the outcomes. However, it is the right of the people to self-government that is at stake. The ends dont justify the means. An unbridled judicial tyranny can never set a nation at liberty.

Nuke ANY Filibuster Protecting An Imperial President

McConnell’s Senate’s new rule should be, in essence: “ANY Senate Filibuster Aimed at Protecting ANY Imperial Presidency is unconstitutional.” This ends the current crisis, restricts presidential overreach, and keeps legislative filibusters alive for the sentimental.

McConnell has, now,  a clear way to separate the filibuster of this legislation from all other sorts of legislation the Senate may take up in the future. As of February 16, 2015, a federal judge put a temporary injunction on the very executive actions the House and Senate bill addresses. McConnell can generate a very specific rule on very specific pieces of legislation that involve specific kinds of executive overreach.

On February 11th, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell said that because the House legislation to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was “stuck” in the Senate, the only alternative was for timperial-obama-decreehe House to amend the bill in ways that exclude language overruling President Obama’s illegal executive actions on immigration.

By ‘stuck’ McConnell meant that the Senate Democrats, despite the Department of Homeland Security’s need for the funding of its lawful activities, filibustered the bill. Don’t worry none of the 100 senators are suffering through endless diatribes led by Harry Reid or Barbara Boxer. (In fact it is unlikely that either ancient senator could muster much more than a fifteen minute speech.) This isn’t the Cruz style, Rand Paul style, common man’s talk-till-you-drop filibuster. No, this is the push-button filibuster that our gentrified political elite most love.  Harry Reid puts his magic kabosh on a bill and, whamo! That’s it. It’s dead unless the GOP can muster 60 votes.

On February 12th, House Representatives Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) and Rep. src.adapt.960.high.unaccompanied-minors_us_border_01a.1403194763483Mick Mulvaney called on McConnell to rewrite the Senate’s rules and bypass the filibuster that is holding up the Senate legislation. That’s not as simple as it may sound. When Harry Reid ended the filibuster for judicial appointments, it passed because the Senate Democrats voted that such a filibuster was “unconstitutional.”

On February 13th, the Senate fired back. Sen. James Lankford  said, “It’s one thing to change the filibuster on nominations, it’s another to change it on legislative action.” His point is that it once you declare the filibuster unconstitutional for one legislative action, the filibuster is ended for all legislative action.

Along these lines, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, responded with the worn out rhetorical question, “We should change 200 years of precedent?” In these circumstances, such a response is infuriating. The executive overreach by the President and his Department of Homeland Security is likewise unprecedented! Do something!

Besides, the Senate, despite all their elitist longings, is not the Supreme Court of the United States. They aren’t bound by precedent at all. They are to legislate. The filibuster has so weakened congress over the last half of the twentieth century that it is no wonder they are sitting ducks for both the executive and the legislative branches. However, that the organ of the people’s will has become so docile it begs the question of each senator’s allegiance to his or her constitutional responsibilities. DO SOMETHING!

Some believe that the push-button filibuster should be ended entirely, and that it does little but drive up the price of pork paid to individual senators when big corporations seek passage of crony legislation. Still, that doesn’t mean specific Department of Homeland Security bills would not be so much like other legislation that the push-button filibuster cannot be ended in tmr smithhis situation without being ended entirely.

The solution is plain. Declare any filibuster of any bill that contains language that overturns executive actions, orders, or regulations unconstitutional. Then let all other legislation proceed in it’s own ordinary byzantine and ludicrous manner through the twisted corridors of Senatorial power. Mr. Smith could still go to Washington, or at least the Senate could continue to pretend that the cloture procedure still has something to do with Jimmy Stewart’s immortal role.

A filibuster specifically aimed at legislation meant to thwart executive regulatory actions, actions not first envisioned or framed by a congressional law, should be declared unconstitutional. Such a filibuster strikes at the very core of a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Such a filibuster is shameless arrogance.

It’s been months. The funding for the Department of Homeland Security has passed. The case for halting the illegal executive actions has been so weakened that DHS has begun flying illegal border kids into the United States, literally right over the heads of the Texas National Guard surge, all on the taxpayer’s dollar. Once again the executive branch has picked the congressional purse in broad daylight. Congress must do something. They must kill the filibuster in whole or in part.

Three Hundred Marines Stand Against a Persian Army

Three hundred marines stand against a Persian army. Like those original Spartans, if they aren’t airportbetrayed, they will win.

Those first marines from Sparta died to the last man for a divided Greek world because it was their duty. They changed the history of Western Civilization.

Today three hundred marines, surrounded by mad Muslim suicide bombers, hailing from what was once called Persia, have put their lives on the line because it’s their duty. According to Olie North, today’s brave three hundred have the enemy just where they want them. Truthfully, with the correct support, Olie is probably right. The entire army of ISIS has no chance against three hundred properly supplied US marines. History is just waiting to be written.

According to legend, the original brave 300 would have stopped Xerxes if they had not been betrayed by one Ephialtes, the son of Eurydemus, a man of Malis.Map-of-persia-2

Sadly, though, because of Mogadishu, and then Benghazi, and because of the recent shocking snub of Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East, no one can assume that these marines will receive the ammunition, air support, or supplies they need.

In a final committed act of heroism, the betrayed 300 of Thermopylae died to a man and unified Greece. The high tide of Persian arms receded before the resolute West. This is not how history should be repeated. Indeed, it is not how history can be repeated. If the United States allows its internal enemies to betray these 300 Marines, it is because we are weak, cowardly, and decadent to the core of our national consciousness. That’s a history we need not see written.

Should our President go golfing or to a Vegas fund raiser this time, our military, as a unified force, had better well follow thewoods example of Tyron Woods, no matter what the personal cost. They better not stand down this time.

America would do better to fear lawless obedience to treacherous orders than the military’s courage to do what it knows to be its duty. America does not need to fear its Pattons and McCarthys any more than it needed to fear that General Washington would make himself a king. Those men were patriots.  On the other hand, America would do well to note the rise of those like Ephialtes: Benedict Arnolds, generals, and leaders who bow before foreign powers.

Update February 17, 2015

Former Navy SEAL and author of Lone Survivor Marcus Luttrell tells Fox and Friends that 300 Marines are enough to retake Iraq and rid the world of ISIS. No argument here.

Update May 6, 2015

Marcus was not specifically saying that he meant the 300 marines at Ain al-Asad were the ones that would take out ISIS. He meant any 300 marines. In context, Marcus was speaking of a private military company of about 300 that he could organize to do the job:

no i didn’t say that…i said i could put together an Army of PMC’s to take out ISIS

Update March 1, 2015

Fighting continues around al-Bagdadi, the small strategic city about 10 miles east of the Ain al-Asad air base. The town itself is surrounded, but air strikes and local troops continue to contest the city itself.

Update April 17, 2015

As Islamic State radicals attacked, thousands fled Ramadi, a larger city about 70 miles southeast of the Ain al-Asad air base. There are currently no plans to remove the hundreds of marines stationed there. Ramadi itself has become a ghost town.

Obama Use of Force Request Protects ISIS

As of May 23, as of the fall of Ramadi, the President of the United States and the Liberals of his party are hiding from the responsibility the United States has to their allies in the Middle East. This they do by attempting to claim that the GOP is holding up the United States’ response by failing to give Obama his requested Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

This is all absurd, bizarre theater for the consumption of an easily manipulated American media. The truth is that Obama’s request for an authorization of the use of force against the Islamic State is actually pledge to protect ISIS.

On February 11th President Obama formally asked congress for a three-year authorization for the use of force against ISIS. This AUMF actually a deauthorizes his ability to use military force in the fight against terrorism.

President Obama has already said he has no need of further authorization to continue the air offensive against ISIS epaor to fight terrorism and terrorist organizations. The President has already been granted wide ranging executive power to fight terrorism by way of the virtual carte blanche congress granted former President Bush over a decade ago. But, apparently, ISIS is now classified by the EPA as an endangered species of some sort, for, instead of using the force he is already authorized to use, Obama’s proposed legislation would do away with the Bush Authorization of Military Force.

Were the GOP Senate and House of Representatives to “grant” this new authorization of force, the new AUMF would supersede the old. Because the new authorization virtually forbids the use of boots on the ground, President Obama would no longer have the authority to launch an extended ground campaign against ISIS. The President is asking the Republican run congress to handcuff him, so that he speciescannot be forced by the American public opinion to launch a once and for all war of annihilation against the radical terrorist state.

ABC news claims that it is “ironic” that Obama has relied on the 2002 Bush Authorization for the Use of Military Force since he has said he is in favor of limiting and then repealing this AUMF.  What is truly ironic is that Obama is endeavoring to limit and then repeal the 2002 AUMF under the guise of requesting authority to defeat ISIS. That’s the opposite of what anyone expects. It’s deceitful, Orwellian, and worthy of a tyrant. The American people support the President’s request for authorization by 54% precisely because they don’t understand that the President is asking to limit his authority, not increase it. It is doubly ironic that the President has chosen this historic moment, a moment in which the clear and present danger of Islamic terrorism is far more obvious than it was leading up to 9-11-2001,  to seek to limit America’s authority to defend itself. The President of the United States’ request for an authorization of military force is a Trojan horse. It is really a Pledge of Protection for the Islamic State.

Whyisismark does the president need a set of handcuffs to protect him against a surge of public opinion suddenly in favor of a massive military operation in the fragile Middle East? Perhaps he realizes as much as the rest of us how precarious the safety of the United States is in the midst of this administration’s catastrophic foreign policy.

UPDATE 2/15/15

Senator John McCain, vocal proponent of the President Bush’s Iraq surge strategy, widely credited with winning the war in Anbar province, said Sunday that congress should not limit the president by tying his hands in accordance with President Obama’s own authorization of the use of military force agreement.

UPDATE 2/14/15

Orin Hatch and even some Democrats agree that Obama is not asking for more force. He’s doing the orrin-hatch-ap-640x480opposite. He’s tying not only his own hands but those of a future president.

UPDATE 5/23/2015

This is the week that witnessed the fall of Ramadi in large part due directly to the failure of the President’s limited use of air support. During this week’s discussion of a serious revision of Middle Eastern policy, Speaker Bohner’s commented that the President’s request for the AUMF is so useless that the president ought to rescind it. The comments arose because the President’s Liberal allies are, of all things, trying to use this pathetic excuse to duck President Obama’s complete foreign policy failure.  Starring in the charade, Representative Pelosi took the Orwellian position that Congress needed to act on a use of force agreement because of the fall of Ramadi. It’s an utterly absurd position, beyond laughable because it suggests that medication may be necessary. The President can act on the military suggestions of the generals at any time with the complete legal support of the congress. Pelosi’s comments are right up there next to President Obama’s suggestion that global warming led to the rioting of the Arab Spring in Syria.

Yes, the Liberals are very, very desperate to have rationale this weak, but will the American media call them on it? Not a chance.

Once again: “The fight could be extended to any ‘closely related successor entity’ to the Islamic State extremists, but the measure does not authorize large-scale ground operations.” The current AUMF allows the expansion of operations to fight terrorism wherever terrorist bases arise and places no qualifications on the use of ground troops. Obviously, Pelosi and her Liberal allies seek to deflect criticism of the President who has every legal resource to do what is ethically required to end the reign of terror, the genocide and ethnic cleansing taking place under ISIS.

The Dread Justice Roberts Relabeled Botulism a Tax

After brilliantly producing a false analogy between the penalty for not participating in a government approved health care insurance program and the decapitation tax once contemplated by the founding fathers (see Part I), the Dread Pirate robertsRoberts’ second point seems, remarkably enough, even more inane. Thus Roberts ruminates: if the taxes for choosing not to participate in the majority’s life-style choices get so high that they “destroy,” the court will surely step in (42). Tax me more if I’m not comforted by this!

The Dread Pirate Roberts’ third justification for labeling a penalty a tax adds the bizarre to the absurd; however, it is a more practical analysis. The dread pirate argues that taxes aren’t as bad as penalties. In other words, the legal trouble folks can get into for not paying a penalty is far worse than the trouble they might find in not paying their taxes. Tell it to Capone–talk about bananas!

Roberts has simply relabeled a jar of Constitutional botulism. If he had upheld the exploitation of the commerce clause, the people would be forced to write a constitutional amendment. Now that Roberts has invented this new, broader power of taxation, the people must rewrite dread piratethe constitution. Indeed, the new constitution must exclude judicial fiat by some mechanism. Perhaps by by defining natural rights and limiting Supreme Court Justices to a veto power based solely on these natural liberties, these elitists law school escapees could be properly caged. Furthermore, the new constitution will have to invent a penalty worthy of The Dread Roberts himself. For instance, if any Supreme Court Judge decides or comments on any matter not within the scope of natural rights, they shall not be sentenced to death by taxation, (a cruel and unusual penalty). Instead, he or she shall be penalized, not to the death, but to the pain. For every right thing the so sentenced justice omits doing in his or her daily life, said justice will pay the IRS one thousandth of their gross income, not as a tax, but as a penalty. In addition, the reprobate justice will be in a perpetual yearly audit of omitted virtues. This audit will be published online, and any taxpaying Obamacare participant may suggest a virtuous act the failed justice didn’t consider. Each suggestion, would, of course, require the audit and penalties to begin afresh. If this sounds unfair, it is simply the slippery slope of the twisted logic to which the Dread Justice Roberts has subjected us all.

There are 3-2 pitches, bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, that are called strikes even though they’re well off the plate. That’s one thing. It’s another when strike three is over the umpire’s head and whacks a little kid in the stands. Bananas.

Banana Mandates and the Beloved Justice Roberts

Having discovered that Brian Williams has been a pathological liar for years  and that the unemployment rate for full time workers is now, perhaps, the worst it’s been at any time in American history, I decided to do some light reading 575x287xunemployment-obama-575x287.png.pagespeed.ic.ysYQl7Ti3QKdIfCHkEPvto lift my spirits. I wasn’t disappointed. Did you know that that good ole Justice Roberts totally understands me? Sure, listen to this from page 41 of his decision:

“There may, however, be a more fundamental objection to a tax on those who lack health insurance. Even if only a tax, the payment under §5000A(b) remains a burden that the Federal Government imposes for an omission, not an act. If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something” (41)

When I read this, I about jumped off the couch and yelled: “That’s almost exactly what I wrote in my recent article on this same issue,” (see “When a Tax is not a Tax…”.) I couldn’t believe it. Someone actually read one of my articles! Then I remembered that Roberts wrote this before I penned my piece because, well, I wrote the article responding to Roberts’ Banana Republic logic.roberts

Anyhow my mood lifted as I continued reading Robert’s opinion: “Three considerations allay this concern…”  Oh, I thought, that wise Supreme, he not only understood my concerns, but he was working hard to allay my fears. Then I read:

“First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that every-one must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution (41)…”

I belly laughed. I felt much better. Roberts himself had stopped helping, but he had got me following through on his logic, and that was wild enough to take the edge off the economy’s new normal.

First, the mandate’s penalty is not like the capitation tax mentioned in Article One of the Constitution. A capitation tax (or decapitation tax as some like to think of it), was not a tax based on a choice not to act. As Roberts recognizes, everyone who could be counted had to pay the tax. The choice not to be born doesn’t come into play at all. (Although some have suggested informing the fetus about Obamacare could be used as a sort of late term abortion technique, little actual scientific progress has been made along these lines.)

Roberts has made a constitutional precedent that allows a class of people to be taxed because they don’t live the way the majority feels they should. The decapitation tax applied to everyone. If you had a head, you were counted. The new Roberts’ tax, (and it is his…For say what you will, the Liberals themselves were not crazy enough to propose such a “tax” except as a desperate defense for their absurd bill) is a tax on what is exactly at the core of our natural right to pursue our own happiness.

banannas2Then I saw Justice Roberts’ wisdom. Who needs happiness? It’s far overrated. As long as the government is happy, I feel we should just tough it out. For instance, Justice Roberts has just found new revenue streams for the federal government. With its 18 trillion dollar deficit, congress could certainly use that. But forget congress. Its probably legal now if the various federal agencies just began mainlining our revenue. For instance, if we don’t use an approved NSA-correct anti-virus software, we should certainly be taxed. Furthermore, if we don’t have solar panels on our homes or participate is other green initiatives, we absolutely deserve to be taxed into extinction. So who needs congress? The NSA and the EPA know what’s best for us. They’re experts. If there are not already non-participation taxes for rectal screenings in the Affordable Care Act, I say, “Why not?”

But what I really want to know is whether or not the IRS will visit our high schools with bananas? And what if, what if we banannasrefuse to put their pale yellow fruit on our low cholesterol cereal? Will my wife and children get a tax write-off for squealing? Will the participating spouse always get custody? I think they should. Again, since the IRS has proven very trustworthy over the years, why wait for congress to act? If the IRS gets squeamish about its new role as  Obamacare’s thug enforcement, Michelle Obama as food czar can certainly make these calls, and she should.