Wednesday, November 30, 2005
YEAH, SOME ANTI-WAR PEOPLE REALLY SUPPORT THE TROOPS:
It's too bad they have no idea what an AMerican soldier looks like.
Hat tip: Hugh "Make Me Feel Like Dancing" Hewitt.
(Inside joke. When Hugh Hewitt was on KFI 640AM, Los Angeles many many years ago, he followed popular weekend host Mr. KFI ("First name Mmm, middle name Ster, last name KFI from a long line of KFIs). During their cross talk, it was found out that Mr. Hewitt does not have a middle name. Hence, Mr. KFI proceeded to give him middle names, such as Hugh "Hefner" Hewitt. Well, I, being a fan of Mr. KFI, and some other friends proceeded to give our own middle names for him to Mr. KFI, which Mr. KFI read on the air to Mr. Hewitt. Some I remember:
Hugh "Make Me Feel Like a Natural Woman" Hewitt
"I Got" Hugh "Babe" Hewitt
Hugh "Are the Sunshine of My Life" Hewitt (a woman on his show really liked this one)
Hugh "Can Take This Job and" Hewitt.
Although KFI is still a great radio station, *that* was the true glory days of KFI, having Joe Crummey, Mr. KFI, Tammy Bruce...the good ol' days.)
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
WELCOME TO LOWE'S
Where only the Spanish-speaking get a "Christmas."
(Hat tip: Tammy Bruce)
Monday, November 28, 2005
HEY REP. MURTHA
this guy speaking for himself? Is he lying when he says, "I am here to tell you that everyday we are winning over the hearts of the people of Iraq. If you could see the smiling faces that I have seen you would know that we are making a difference in this country. I volunteered for the military, no one made me sign on that dotted line. Let me stay here and finish what we have started Mr. Murtha"?
(Hat tip: The Ugly American via California Conservative)
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
MORE STRANGE PARANOIA
Rep. Murtha is an odd fellow. A couple of things he's said, however, should really be taken with a grain of salt.
For instacne, Rep. Murtha brought up a poll result that, if true, would make the Iraqi's hate the troops there. He seemed to be alluding to this poll. But, darn it, that statistician in me just doesn't allow me to trust polls. There are some things that should make us question polls in general, but this poll in particular. One, it doesn't tell the sample size. Two, how far outside the security zone did these people go? We know the reporters never seem to go beyond the safe zones. Three, and this is a big one, Iraqis are not monolithic. Like the US, its people are a diverse group. What makes this especially different, though, is that one group are..um, for lack of a better word...really, really upset. Why are they upset? Because these invaders, as I'm sure they'll call them, kicked them out of the power they had. Of course, I'm talking about the people who were part of the Ba'ath Party and Hussein supporters and sympathizers (and I believe the Shia Muslims)
Here's the problem: what percentage of these people were of the sample? Furthermore, granting that the results from these group will obviously be extremely skewed against the troops, should that not be taken into account? All the anecdotal stories I've seen on military blogs were of those glad Iraqis because they are no longer threatened by Hussein. So, how representative is this data?
Remember, the Los Angeles Times got in trouble because in its poll during the recall, they oversampled some minority groups, who as a block, a good majority opposed the recall. This, then, led to some very different results than other polls. Whereas the LA Times had the recall losing, every other poll had it winning handily. Could this be the case in this poll? I think so. I'd like to know how many Kurds were asked.
Finally, Rep. Murtha's insult to the Vice President is childish. Of course, when Rep. Jean Schmidt relays a message from an active Marine to Murtha..oh boy, you'd have thought Katrina came back for another shot at New Orleans.
Democrats sure can dish it out, but they can't take it.
Friday, November 18, 2005
THOUGHTFUL WAR QUOTE
"People blame the military for the wars we are asked to fight; but it is people like you, Major, who will be the death of us all."
"Face of the Enemy," Stardate 46519.1
Star Trek: The Next Generation, Episode 6.14
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
I wonder if this guy has ever read the Constitution. Let's even grant that his premises are true. I have news for him, but the Constitution does give the Congress the power to suspend the writ of habeus corpus. We may not agree with it when it happens, but it is there. I don't agree that the writ should be discarded during this time, and I further believe that the Administration is charting another unconstitutional course with creating military tribunals since the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to create inferior courts. However, this article is just sick paranoia.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
WOW, BUSH IS A GENIUS PAR EXCELLENCE
He has to be. I mean, he managed to dupe this guy about Iraq's WMD program---2 years before he took office.
Again, defending Bush from the "he lied" tale does not mean I endorse the reasons for the war. The WMDs, which Hussein did have (anyone want to ask the Kurds about their 1988 gassing...while the US notably said nothing) were the catalyst (and yet a priority) for the biggest objective: to spread "peace and freedom" in the Middle East, and to do it through force. That is the fatal flaw. True freedom is spread through the blood atonement of one man at the cross 2000 years ago, not at the sacrfice of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED
Being a statistician on my off time, I was wondering what the percentage would be if the people who administered this poll had asked: Prior to the indictments, did you know who "Scooter" Libby was, and what position he held in the Administration?
Just a guess. 0% - Yes; 100% - No
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Yes, there is some truth that the Bush Administration is undermining some American values, but I don't think the person who should be criticizing this is someone who neglected the most important American value of all: defending American citizens from attack. Oh yes, Mr. President, because of you, Amrican citizens were held 444 days against their will by terrorists. I'm reminded of the words that Tommy Lee Jones said in the movie "Rules of Engagement." That land was American soil, and was nmuch a part of the United States as the continental states and Alaksa and Hawaii. Attacking and overrunning the embassy was the same as an enemy army coming ashore and capturing Savannah, Ga. Please, just go away.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, USMC
230 years and still coutning...
From the halls of Montezuma
to the shores of Tripoli.
We fight our country's battles
in the air, on land, and sea.
First to fight for right and freedom,
and to keep our honor clean.
We are proud to claim the title
of United States Marines.
Our flags unfurl'd to every breeze
from dawn to setting sun.
We have fought in every clime and place
where we could take a gun.
In the snow of far off northern lands
and in sunny tropic scenes
you will always find us on the job---
The United States Marines.
Here's health to you and to our Corps,
which we are proud to serve.
In many a strife we fought for life
and never lost our nerve.
If the Army or Navy
ever gaze on heaven's scene,
they will find the streets are guarded
by United States Marines.
"For the mission's sake, our country's sake and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battles -- who fought for life and never lost their nerve -- carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world there is 'No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy' than a United States Marine."
---Maj. Gen. JN Mattis, CG, 1st MarDiv-Iraq
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
I was reading Josh's blog, in particular, this post, about the worst Presidents of all time. I then clicked on the link to the original article.
First of all, I have to say that Josh gave some very good arguments showing why Lincoln is the worst President. I echoed some of those thoughts in a term paper I wrote for my Civil War class a few years ago, especially noting that Lincoln set the stage for modern unconsitutional warfare of the Presidents Bush and President Clinton. I don't need to say any other reasons why. Furthermore, his rebuttal to Fayattenam is essentially irrefutable. I think Josh should be Worldnet Daily's teen pundit than this kid. The paleo-conservatie view is sorely needed.
However, what struck me was the remark by Lord Boromir. It is clear that he doesn't truly understand the Supremacy Clause if he thinks touting it is the end all to South Carolina's attempt at nullification. The key phrase is "Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land."
It is that bold clause that refuted Lord Boromir's (aka Craig) position. Without that clause, then there is an unquestioned supremacy in federal laws. Any federal law, on this position, is supreme to state laws simply because it is a federal law. But the bold clause does something to the federal government. It limits which laws are supreme. Constitutionally, federal laws that are made within the boundaries of the Constitution, are inherently supreme because they have a legal foundation because they are made in pursuance (etymologically: to follow forward) thereof (of that or it). WHat does that mean about federal laws that are made outside the boundaries of the Constitution? As Justice Marshall pointed out in Marbury v. Madison, they are null and void. But again, the Supreme Court is the federal government. What happens when that Court does something unconstitutional? Necessarily, if our Constitution means anything, it must be null and void.
Therefore, Craig's assertion that "[t]he idea that South Carolina could nullify a federal law is rediculous [sic]" is without merit. This doesn't mean that South Carolina on its own could nullify a law (although there is precedent. Virginia, after much deliberation in its judicial system, declared the Supreme Court's decision in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee unconstitutional.) Given the nature of the Constitution, it is the States as a unit that could declare a federal law unconstitutional. As THomas Jefferson wrote:
"That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
South Carolina and Virginia on its own cannot declare federal laws unconstitutional, but the parties of the compact...in today's world all 50 states, can discuss and declare, and if need be, leave the Union.
Furthermore, yes it was Lincoln's fault that some of the South seceded. Yes, the deep South states had already declared their independence from the United States, but the border states, especially Virginia, had not followed suit until when? Until Lincoln called up the militia, which according to the Constitution only Congress has the power to do. When a government ignores its own laws, it ceases to be a lawful government and instead becomes a government based on despotism. Just read "Enemy of the State," and the Chief Justice Taney's decision in Ex Parte Merryman to see this.
To say "In fact, the only "states' right" Lincoln abolished was the "right" to secede, which in the opinion of many was not a right, and today definetly isn't." only shows that the United States is truly not free. The Federal Government has since 1861 overextended its bounds and put itself in places that are so beyond the constututional limits of its power that out Founding Fathers would shutter at what this country has become. This country rebelled against Britian for far less than what we go through today. If a State loses its right to leave, and is left in place by threat of force of a superior power, then are you really free? As I wrote regarding the Kelo decision, the Supreme Court...the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...graciously extended the 5th Amendment to apply it to the States without constitutional warrant. However, what one graciously gives, one can also take away, and if there are no rules that govern this, then can you really complain when the federal government reasserts itself and says that your land really belongs to the states, and they can do as they see fit? Yet, I see the utter hypocracy when we pledge to defend Taiwan if China attacks, yet this country, by force, attacked its own people to keep them in place.
I end with the words of the Rev. Steve Wilkins of Monroe, Louisiana, who ended his talk with these words:
"People ask me, "Do you want the South to rise again?" And I reply, "That might not be a bad idea." But what I really desire to see is not only the South but our entire country rise again. I want to see the day come when this entire country cares more about the glory of God and true liberty than it does about its own well-being or what the stock market did today or who won the Super Bowl or whether or not Seinfeld is ever going to come back on the air. God's glory and true liberty were what guided the majority of Southerners in the last century and that is what I want to see again.
With the defeat of the South, true liberty, liberty in the historic and Biblical sense, was lost to this land. James McPherson has remarked, ‘the Civil War changed the United States as thoroughly as the French Revolution changed that country. . . The United States went to war in 1861 to preserve the Union; it emerged from war in 1865 having created a nation.’ (Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution, p. viii) The War for Southern Independence was indeed the American equivalent of the French Revolution.
It is little wonder that a young man named Karl Marx who was living in London at the time working as a correspondent for the New York Tribune, followed the War with great interest and excitement. He saw the implications of the War for the world and wrote gleefully to his friend Friedrich Engels that the War would be the beginning of a ‘world transforming . . . revolutionary movement.’ He was correct.
Slavery, so far from being the cause of the war, was merely the pretext for revolution. As Prussian military theorist, Carl Von Clausewitz once stated, ‘War is the pursuit of political goals by other means.’ There was seldom a more successful revolution. The old Constitutional Republic was destroyed and an octopus?like centralized government that wants to be the nanny of all and the friend of none took its place.
James McPherson has noted, ‘The war marked the transition of the United States to a singular noun. The ‘Union' became the nation, and Americans now rarely speak of their Union except in an historical sense.’ This is a significant change. Our speech reflects this. Before 1865 the accepted usage was ‘The United States are,’ but since that time it has been ‘The United States is.’ We are no longer a union of confederated states, but a nation where the individual integrity and political sovereignty of the states is denied.
Thus, the old federal republic in which the national government rarely touched the average citizen except through the post?office is now dead and has been replaced by centralized bureaucracy which seeks to control every action. What we call liberty, our forefathers called slavery.
This was precisely what Dr James H. Thornwell and others had feared. In a tract entitled ‘Our Danger and Our Duty’ Dr Thornwell stated in regard to the consequences of a Northern victory, ‘If they prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and, instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States for ever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. . . The avowed end of the present War is, to make the Government a government of force.’ which is exactly what we have.
The 14th amendment was particularly notorious in this regard. It has been interpreted so as to apply the Bill of Rights to the individual States. Section 1 says, ‘No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. . .’ This has had the effect of changing the nature of our government in two ways:
1) It changed the intent of the Bill of Rights which were originally intended to limit the Federal government's powers, to restrictions upon the particular states. Thus, whereas before this amendment, the states had protection against the intrusions of the Federal government, now the Federal government has become the watch?dog of the states. The states became ‘subsidiaries’ of the nation rather than ‘parties’ to the Union. The central government became the master rather than the servant of the states.
2) This shift has transferred immense power to the Federal government to restrict the internal actions of states. Senator Lot Morrill of Maine stated quite bluntly the purpose of the 14th amendment: ‘We must see to it, that hereafter, personal liberty and personal rights are placed in the keeping of the nation...against State authority and State interpretations...The great object of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guaranties.’ (Abraham Lincoln and The Second American Revolution, p. 143)
Within five years after its ratification, the Supreme Court in the Slaughter?House cases began to redefine ‘privileges and immunities.’ The Court rejected the historic view of these things as biblically or religiously based and declared that privileges and immunities owed their existence to the grace of the Federal Government. Liberty in short, did not come from God, but was a gift of the Federal Government.
By this definition, the Federal Government has taken the place of God. It has arrogated to itself the privilege of defining what is right and wrong, good and evil. When God is not acknowledged, man becomes the sovereign. When man becomes the definer of liberty, liberty is lost.
Thus we find that we have lost what our forefathers called liberty. We have grown up in a world where no one truly ‘owns’ property (you may think you own it, but try not paying your property taxes one year and you will see who really owns your land).
Further, we do not have liberty to use our property in lawful ways. ‘Environmental’ laws limit the freedom of use as well. We can kill our unborn children, but are forbidden to cut down a tree on our own property without a permit. The Federal Government as if it was God, asserts a pre?eminent claim on the earth and the fullness thereof. One peculiarly blatant expression of this is ‘eminent domain.’ Whatever and whenever the Government desires the use of your land, it claims the prerogative to it. God destroyed Ahab for doing what the modern Government does every year.
We are no longer free to exercise our gifts and talents. More and more the Federal Government limits how and when and where we may labour. Licensing laws, labour regulations, minimum wage legislation, unemployment taxes, social security taxes, union standards, federal health and safety regulations, racial quotas, anti?discrimination legislation, environmental regulations, and a well?nigh endless host of others laws, fees, prohibitions, limitations, regulations, and specifications, severely restrict the exercise of God?given gifts and abilities.
Need I mention that by means of the income tax, the Federal Government has claimed the right to the fruit of our labours. By it, the Federal government exalts itself over God (by claiming more than God does in the tithe).
We have seen how this is in fact a claim on all the livelihood of an individual. Tax exemptions are now viewed as ‘subsidies.’ The argument is, to be granted a tax exemption is the same as being given a subsidy. The implication is that all your income belongs to the National Government and the Government could take it all should it so desire, but by means of tax exemptions, it graciously allows you to keep some of your earnings.
In education: certification, accreditation, and educational standards set by Federal bureaucrats continue to limit educational freedom. The Government continues to view the children as belonging to itself by asserting a ‘compelling interest’ in this or that aspect of our children's upbringing.
Freedom of religion has come to mean ‘freedom to believe whatever you want, so long as you do not act in a way contrary to public policy.’ Practically this means, our freedom of religion has been confined to the space between our ears.
We have now lived to see what our Founding Fathers thought impossible in this land. The Congress regularly legislates immorality, lines its own pockets, makes decisions based upon self? interest rather than upon what is right and best and then brags about its public?spirited generosity and compassion.
We live in a country where the Constitution has no more real authority than the Royal Family in England. We like to be able to refer to it and trot it out on patriotic occasions, but we have no desire to take it seriously and find those who would suggest that we should, fearfully flatheaded.
We live in a land in which the people expect the government to protect them and provide for them and secure their futures. We have not freed the slaves, we have simply extended the plantation. Now, we are all slaves, captives to our liberators.
We think we are free only because we have never known true freedom. Like it or not, all this is the legacy of the South's defeat. Thus, the question of who was right in the old struggle is not so hard to answer after all. Look around you. Do you like what you see? If not, you have answered the question in my favor.
Alexander H. Stephens, in speaking about the future for this nation and the consequences of the Reconstruction policies, once said that the only hope for our country was that the people would one day realize what had happened to them as a result of this war and that a cry would go up akin to that which filled the land prior to the first War for Independence (the cry then was ‘The cause of Boston is the cause of us all’). Now, said Stephens, the only hope left for the preservation and maintenance [of Constitutional liberty] on this continent is, that another like cry shall hereafter be raised, and go forth from hill?top to valley, from the Coast to the Lakes, from the Atlantic to the Pacific: ‘The Cause of the South is the Cause of us all!' I appeal to you to consider afresh the consequences of the War for Southern Independence. The defeat of the South spelled the defeat of constitutional liberty in our land.
If you long for constitutional order, legislative integrity, limited government, and true freedom under law — then you, my friend, agree with me that the South was right.
The time is passed due for us to think for ourselves and quit allowing the media and the educational establishment and the current orthodoxy to do our thinking for us. It is time to repent of our sins and beg for God's mercy. It is time, in short, to take up afresh the cause of the South."
SO WHO IS LYING ABOUT IRAQ?
This article does a good job in refuting the allegations that the Administration lied or deliberately misled regarding the reasons for attacking Iraq. I've written on the subject too, but no matter how many times this is refuted, like a hydra, it keeps coming back.
However, please note:
1. This does not justify a war that, to this day, is still unconstitutional. Bush has talked about interpreting the Constitution. How about this clause: "The Congress shall have Power [...] To declare War."
2. This does not excuse the military heirarchy, who have, despite the troops best efforts, run this war disasterously.
3. This does not justify one of the underlying reasons for going to war: to spread "democracy and freedom" in the Middle East. I agree that strategically it would make sense, but the problem is that Bush and the neocons underestimate, and continue to underestimate, Islam and un-Christianized Muslims. For instance, to call Islam a "religion of peace" makes some people, like this guy, laugh a hearty laugh.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
HENCE, THE ETHICAL QUAGMIRE
Read it all, especially the last letter. This is why all skirmishes, especially against a country, should be declared wars by Congress.