Big Girl Pants

a restoration project is in order...

 got this from my dad via email this morning.  i'm not sure if it originated with him or not, but the words were of too high a caliber not to pass along...

A few weeks ago I read a joke ... It said all the politicians running for president are promising change to the American people ... We send them billions and billions of tax dollars and they  send us the change.  Funny?  Not really; there is too much truth in it to be funny.

That got me to thinking...... They all promise change.  How about if they run on a promise of restoration rather than change.  A restoration that would take us back in time to a place where things ran better, smoother and life was more enjoyable.  Change?  That, in truth, is what they have been giving us all along.

We used to have a strong dollar ........ Politicians changed that.

Life used to be sacred ........ Politicians changed that.

We used to be respected around the world ....... Politicians changed that.

We used to have a strong manufacturing economy ........ Politicians changed that.

We used to have lower tax structures ....... Politicians changed that.

We used to enjoy more freedoms ........ Politicians changed that.

We used to be a large exporter of American made goods ....... Politicians changed that.

We used to be an openly Christian nation ....... Politicians changed that.

We used to teach patriotism in schools ....... Politicians changed that.

We used to educate children in schools ....... Politicians changed that.

We used to enjoy freedom of speech ........ Politicians changed that.

We used to have affordable food and gas prices ........ Politicians changed that, too.

....and one could go on and on with this list. What hasn't been changed, politicians are promising to change that as well if you will elect them.

When, oh when, is America going to sit back with open eyes and look at what we once were and where we have come and say, 'Enough is enough.'?

The trouble is, America's youthful voters today don't know of the great America that existed forty and fifty years ago. They see the world as if it has always existed as it is now.

When will we wake up? Tomorrow may be too late. When will America realize ...... Politicians are what is wrong with America?

as we approach the 4th of july holiday celebrating the birth of our great nation, i can't help but contemplate how disappointed our founding fathers would be in the current state of our once great republic.  what do you think?

he doesn't have a clue

listening to rush today i heard mark davis (from dallas, filling in for rush) talking about a video where obama comes right and says he's going to disarm our military.  i had actually seen this video before when a link to it was sent to me at the end of february - i guess i wasn't paying real good attention at that point in time.

watching the video again, and apparently being awake for it this time, really got me thinking about everything obama says in the video.  the video is actually nearly eight months old, but it's still something we shouldn't let slide by.  here is the video i am speaking of:

he starts by promising to "...end misguided defense policies" and "...fight[ing] special interests in washington".  what misguided defense policies? what special interests in washington?  hmm, not really clear on the specifics, but he does give us the list of things he's going to do:

1. stop spending $9b per month in iraq; [as the only major candidate who opposed the war from the beginning] end the war.
2. cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending
   1. cut investments in "unproven" missile defense systems; not weaponize space
   2. slow the development of future combat systems
   3. establish "independent board" to oversee defense spending so unnecessary money isn't spent on defense
3. set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons
   1.  u.s. will develop no new nuclear weapons
   2. seek a global ban on production of fissile material
   3. negotiate with russia to remove icbms from "hair trigger alert" and achieve "deep cuts" in our nuclear arsenals
4. we know where he stands
   1. fought for open, ethical and accountable government his "entire life"
   2. doesn't switch positions
   3. doesn't make promises that cannot be kept
   4. doesn't posture on defense policy
   5. doesn't take money from federal lobbyists for "powerful defense contractors"
5. as president his "sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the american people."

now don't you feel better?

let's examine his statements, shall we?

obama keeps claiming to be the only major candidate who opposed the war from the beginning, but so what?  unless i'm mistaken, he wasn't a u.s. senator on 22 october 2002 when the vote pertaining to the use of force was rendered in the senate.  you can verify this information here if you doubt me.   additionally, according to sourcewatch, while obama was running for the u.s. senate in 2004 (although he gave a public speech against the war a few days after the vote in 2002) he told the new york times that he "was not sure whether he would have voted against the resolution had he been in the [u.s.] senate."  how convenient that he forgets that waffling now.

obama is going to cut the wasteful spending of defense.  he's going to cut back on unproven missile defense spending, but advocate the spending of tax payers' dollars on unproven embryonic stem cell research.  apparently he hasn't considered that if we abandon our defense systems - whether yet proven or not - we are not going to be able to defend ourselves.  this includes obama's naivety (stupidness?) in deciding to slow our development of future combat systems and ties right into his goals about nuclear weapons.

has anyone pointed out to this chuckle head that just because we abandon defense mechanisms or slow our defense developments that the rest of the world is NOT going to follow suit?  despots and dictators are not going to say "hey, the new guy at the u.s. is stepping back from being able to defend his country, so we probably ought to abandon our pursuit of weapons advanced enough to attack them."

can't you just picture ahmadinajad and kim jung il and others saying "oh, obama is reducing his nuclear arsenal and doesn't want us to have fissile materials, so we'll stop now."  and can you picture putin from saying "yeah sure, barry, we'll dump some (most?) of our weapons and get rid of our hair trigger - we trust you to do the same, thanks for trusting us!"?

and his "independent" review board to ensure there is no unnecessary defense spending?  just how the heck is he going to pull that one off?  the only way to make it truly independent is to make certain that there are equal numbers of conservatives (not rinos) and liberals on it and to put it purely in an advisory position.  but you and i both know that if the recommendation doesn't match his beliefs he won't act on it.  and if his support of welfare, global health care and other items (including stem cell and abortion funding) he simply cannot be trusted with my tax dollars.

btw, i recall the common defense of the country being a constitutional item, but not medical research.

as for his final grouping, first and foremost, he has taken money from defense contractors in campaign donations - sure it's about 40% of the amount that mccain received, but nearly equal to what hillary received from the same group.  big whoop.  how about all the money he takes in pork for his constituents versus what mccain has taken?

in the 2008 FY obama grabbed $97.4m in pork spending for 53 projects.  projects like $1.6m for the shedd aquarium in chicago.  of course clinton was ranked much higher than obama's number 70 ranking, but mccain has zero projects and zero dollars in pork allocations for his constituents.

i'm also trying to figure out when, prior to running for the state senate in illinois, did obama have anything whatsoever to do with government.  let alone the continuous fighting for open, ethical and accountable government he speaks of in his advertisement.  we all know his infractions in judgment as to who are appropriate "friends" or "mentors".  given the duplicitnous of the individuals he has surrounded himself with his entire life is there anyone out there who believes he's for open, ethical or accountable ANYTHING??

long story short, i don't want his promises - we can't afford them from a financial standpoint.  from a defensive standpoint or from a moral standpoint.  we can't afford anything about obama.

i pledge allegience...

...to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

how many times have we heard those words?  how many of you have any question as to what the straightforward words mean?  how many of you have trained your sons and daughters as to the meaning of the words and how to give proper respect to our flag and our country?

i thought about posting on flag day and time simply got away from me - so consider this my belated flag day post.

yesterday, mr. j and i went to the new kansas city power and light district to see the new sights and grab a bite to eat.  we live in the city, only about three miles from downtown and the new sprint center but this is the first opportunity we've had to just go down and stroll around.

we parked nigel, my mini cooper, and began our walk.  as we rounded our first corner at 13th and walnut we could hear loud, driving music.  then we started noticing the hundreds of harleys and the wide assortment of tattooed and pierced people (mostly youngish guys) wandering around.

we weren't really sure what was going on with the music, but it was obviously a free concert in the square - turns our miller lite was sponsoring a group called "say anything".  it's not the worst music i've heard and mostly it's pretty inoffensive in terms of lyrics.

but this post isn't about them, it's about a t-shirt i saw out of the corner of my eye as we were walking.  i was shocked by what i thought it said and i had to stop and turn around just to be certain (and hoping against hope that i was wrong) i had seen what i thought i had seen.  i still didn't have time to read the whole thing, so this morning i googled it.  and unfortunatey, i found it.

it is apparently lyrics from another band called "nofx" fron their 1999 album "the decline" called "i pledge a grievance to the flag of the united states of A and the blah blah blah..."  let me tell you, these guys are just a real class act. i wasn't able to find all of the lyrics for the song (apparently it's 18 minutes long) but from the t-shirt:

I pledge a grievance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republicans whom I can't stand
One nation under smog indispicable [sic]
WITH LIBERTY
FOR JUST US NOT ALL

and from what i found, this isn't the worst of their lyrics.  these guys in the band are all from san francisco - big shock there - and nearly all of their songs excoriate america and religion.  if you're looking for something to turn your stomach, i highly recommend heading over to youtube and searching out all 33 of the videos posted there.  it's a real hate fest.

anyway, during my research, i came across this story [for children] at the portland independent media center's site.  it's from portland oregon, not maine, but that matters little.  it is written by stephen devoy who lists a link to his webiste on that page but the link is invalid.  at reading this "story" everything in me wanted to explode - i swear, if this guy had been anywhere near me i may have felt the need to beat him senslessly.  but it probably wouldn't have done any good, he is so far gone.

Every morning Elizabeth joined her classmates in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. She never thought about what it meant, she just followed through with the other students repeating the words which came out like one very long run-on sentence. It was a mechanical exercise.

Today was different. A new girl, Amy, had transferred to her school from a school in another city. When the time came for the Pledge of Allegiance, she remained sitting, drawing on her notebook. No one ever gave much thought to the process before, until that day, but it was as if someone had scraped their fingernails on the chalkboard. Everyone felt very uncomfortable and they knew it was because one student was not reciting the pledge but they did not know why this bothered them.

The students began scanning each other, looking out the corners of their eyes, with an expression of incredulity. Never, in all their years, had they seen someone sit down and draw during the pledge. Amy seemed completely unaware of the tension and happily drew upon her notebook.

As they finished, the teacher looked over towards the class and was shocked to see Amy sitting there, drawing, rather than joining in the ritual.

"Amy!" said the teacher. "Why didn't you stand up with the rest of us and say the pledge?"

Amy's head raised up from the notebook. She looked at the teacher and said, "I don't say the Pledge of Allegiance. I never have and I never will."

"Amy, you are required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in this school," the teacher stressed sternly with an intense glare.

"Actually," said Amy, very calm and content, "this school is within the United States and I am not required to say anything."

Amy had done nothing. It was her doing nothing that was in question. Nevertheless, the teacher became angry and took Amy's true and sincere statement as a challenge to her authority.

"Amy, you will stay after school," she ordered.

This incident made Elizabeth feel very torn. On the one hand, Amy seemed disruptive by not saying the pledge but on the other hand, she had done nothing - literally. How could one be punished for doing nothing?

Elizabeth decided to wait in the playground after school. She wanted to talk with Amy when Amy got out of detention. She sat on a swing and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, only this time she took the time to notice what the words were and what they meant. She found the words strange and it left her with some questions.

At about 3:30, the side door of the school opened and Amy came walking out. She turned towards the road and continued walking, not noticing Elizabeth on the swings. Elizabeth ran to catch up to Amy. A few yards before reaching her, she slowed down and then stopped.

"Hi," she said. "I'm Elizabeth. I'm in your class."

Amy turned and smiled. "Hi, Elizabeth. I'm Amy. Did you wait here for me to come out of detention?"

Elizabeth blushed, "Well, um, yeah, I was, well I was wondering about, you know, the pledge and why you didn't say it."

Amy looked down and then raised her head to Elizabeth and replied, "I'm happy to meet you and everything, but really I don't think it is anyone's business why I choose not to say the Pledge of Allegiance. It's my own business and I don't need to explain it to anyone."

"You don't have to explain it to me," said Elizabeth. "I was just hoping you would because I never met anyone before who wouldn't say it. I don't even really understand the Pledge of Allegiance. I was hoping that talking with you about it would help me learn something."

The two were silent. They began walking down the street. It was fall and the leaves were turning gold and red. A dog started following them from a distance. No one knew who he belonged to, he just showed up now and then and tagged along.

"Elizabeth," said Amy. "Do you know what flags are for?"

"I haven't really thought about it," she answered, "but I was really hoping you'd tell me about the pledge."

"I am telling you about the pledge. The pledge is a pledge to a flag and that's where we should start, with the flag." Amy became animated. She was beginning to enjoy the idea of talking about it. Her reluctance was not caused by shame, it was caused by her belief that she, as an individual, has the right to make her own personal decisions without anyone having the right to demand an explanation. In this case, she saw that it would benefit Elizabeth. Since there was a reason other than a demand for an explanation, she didn't mind sharing her thoughts.

"Flags are about war," she continued. "Flags are about blindly rallying to the call of murder. My father blindly rallied to the call of murder, behind that very flag, and now he's dead. I won't let them program me in to following like a lemming over the cliff."

She was silent for a time.

Elizabeth thought about what Amy had said. She had thought she was pledging allegiance to her country, but now that she thought about the words "I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag," she could see that Amy was right.

"What about 'to the Republic for which It Stands'," asked Elizabeth.

"Whose republic?" replied Amy? Do you vote?

"No, I'm too young, but one day I will," said Elizabeth.

"Let talk about that," Amy said with a heated voice. "First of all, they are forcing you to pledge allegiance to a republic and they don't let you vote. That smacks of slavery. Later you will vote, but for whom will you vote? Two political parties have a lock on the electoral process and both represent the same class - the rich. Are you rich, Elizabeth?"

"Well, now, I'm not rich, but I'm not poor," she replied.

"The difference between you and the rich is much bigger than the difference between you and the poor, Elizabeth. The rich don't have to worry about working. The rich have complete access to the legal system. The rich can get away with things that you cannot get away with. The rich do not go off and die in wars to protect their republic, they send the poor and they send you."

Elizabeth thought about Amy's words. She was right. Her parents were always worried about their jobs. They were stressed. They feared becoming poor but they had no expectation of ever become rich. Amy was onto something.

Amy continued, "Look at the President. Are his daughters fighting in the war? Have you heard of the son or daughter of any wealthy corporate man that has died in the war? Have you seen any soldiers living well and enjoying the things the rich enjoy? You haven't because they are not rich. The republic belongs to the rich and it is paid for with the blood of the poor. It is not your republic and pledging allegiance to it is like a slave pledging allegiance to her master or a rape victim pledging allegiance to her rapist.

"Have you ever wondered why they make you repeat that pledge, every day? When someone takes an oath of office, they do it once. They don't do it every day. Pledges are meant to be taken once. When someone has you recite something, over and over, every day of your life, they seek to program you. I bet you never thought about the words of the Pledge of Allegiance before, have you?"

"No, I haven't. I say it like it's one long word..."

"Exactly. It is a program, not a pledge. The daily recital of that pledge is indoctrination. The Nazis used indoctrination. The Soviets used indoctrination. Cults use indoctrination. Do you want to be a robot, Elizabeth?"

"No, I don't want to be a robot," she replied.

"Then think about what you let them do to you. When the call to die for the republic of the rich goes out, do you want to march blindly off like a good little robot to die in the rich man's war or do you want to have the spine to stand up and say, 'No Way!'"?

A twig falling from a tree could have broken the silence, but none fell. The two walked in silence for twenty minutes. As they passed an apartment building Amy said, "This is where I get off. I'll see you tomorrow."

Elizabeth continued walking. She reached her housing track and looked at the rows of identical houses. Something had changed within her. She felt a sense of self.

The next day in class all of the children stood up to say the pledge, except for Elizabeth and Amy. The teacher glared at the two and said, "Do we have to go through this again?"

"Yes," Elizabeth replied, "I pledge allegiance to no one."

it is amazing to me, but the responses to this post are gushing over how wonderful this story is, but in my opinion it should be nothing more than fodder for the fireplace.  seriously folks, this is the kind of crap that the liberals in the education system are teaching our children. 

however, i'll let you (my gentle readers) decide what you think on your own.

gotta love the marines...

i'm going to preface this by saying that i have no way to prove that this was written by a real marine.  i have checked snopes and they have nothing on it, but i am posting it regardless.

Message from a Recon Marine in Afghanistan
 

7 April 2008
 
It's (expletive) freezing here. I'm sitting on hard, cold dirt between rocks and shrubs at the base of the Hindu Kush mountains along the Dar 'yoi Pomir River watching a hole that leads to a tunnel that leads to a cave.  Stake out, my friend, and no pizza delivery for thousands of miles.  I also glance at the area around my a$$ every ten to fifteen seconds to avoid another scorpion sting.  I've actually given up battling the chiggers and sand fleas, but them (expletive) scorpions give a jolt like a cattle prod. Hurts like a ba$tard.  The antidote tastes like transmission fluid, but God bless the Marine Corps for the five vials of it in my pack.
 
The one truth the Taliban cannot escape is that, believe it or not, they are human beings, which means they have to eat food and drink water.  That requires couriers and that's where an old bounty hunter like me comes in handy.  I track the couriers, locate the tunnel entrances and storage facilities, type the info into the handheld, shoot the coordinates up to the satellite link that tells the air commanders where to drop the hardware, we bash some heads for a while, then I track and record the new movement.  It's all about intelligence.  We haven't even brought in the snipers yet.  These scurrying rats have no idea what they're in for.  We are but days away from cutting off supply lines and allowing the eradication to begin.
 
I dream of bin Laden waking up to find me standing over him with my boot on his throat as I spit a bloody ear into his face and plunge my nickel plated Bowie knife through his frontal lobe.  But you know me, I'm a romantic!  I've said it before and Ill say it again: This country blows, man.  It's not even a country.  There are no roads, there's no infrastructure, there's no government.  This is an inhospitable, rockpit (expletive) ruled by eleventh century warring tribes.  There are no jobs here like we know jobs.  Afghanistan offers two ways for a man to support his family: join the opium trade or join the army That's it.  Those are your options.

Oh, I forgot, you can also live in a refugee camp and eat plum-sweetened, crushed beetle paste and squirt mud like a goose with stomach flu if that's your idea of a party.  But the smell alone of those "tent cities of the walking dead" is enough to hurl you into the poppy fields to cheerfully scrape bulbs for eighteen hours a day.  And let me tell you something else. I've been living with these Tajiks and Uzbek's and Turkmen and even a couple of Pushtins for over a month and a half now and this much I can say for sure: These guys, all of 'em, are Huns.... actual, living Huns!

They LIVE to fight. It's what they do.  Its ALL they do.  They have no respect for anything, not for their families or for each other or for themselves.  They claw at one another as a way of life.  They play polo with dead calves and force their five-year-old sons into human cockfights to defend the family honor.  Huns, roaming packs of savage, heartless beasts who feed on each other's barbarism.  (Expletive) cavemen with AK 47's.  Then again, maybe I'm just cranky.
 
I'm freezing my (expletive) off on this stupid (expletive) hill because my lap warmer is running out of juice and I can't recharge it until the sun comes up in a few hours. 

Oh yeah! You like to write letters, right?  Do me a favor, write a letter to CNN and tell Judy and Bernie and that awful, sneering, pompous Aaron Brown to stop calling the Taliban "smart."  They are not smart.  I suggest CNN invest in a dictionary because the word they are looking for is "cunning."

The Taliban are cunning, like jackals and hyenas and wolverines.  They are sneaky and ruthless and, when confronted, cowardly.  They are hateful, malevolent parasites who create nothing and destroy everything else. Smart. Pfft.  Yeah, they're real smart.  They've spent their entire lives reading only one book (and not a very good one, as books go) and consider hygiene and indoor plumbing to be products of the devil.  They're still figuring out how to work a Bic lighter.  Talking to a Taliban warrior about improving his quality of life is like trying to teach an ape how to hold a pen; eventually he just gets frustrated and sticks you in the eye with it.  OK, enough.  Snuffle will be up soon so I have to get back to my hole.  Covering my tracks in the snow takes a lot of practice but I'm good at it.
 
Please tell my fellow Americans to turn off their TV sets and move on with their lives.  The story line you are getting from CNN is utter (expletive) and designed not to deliver truth, but rather to keep you glued to the screen through the commercials.  We've got this one under control.  The worst thing you guys can do right now is sit around analyzing what we're doing over here because you have no idea what we' re doing and, really, you don't want to know.  We are your military and we are doing what you sent us here to do.

You wanna help?  Buy some (expletive) stocks, America!

i posted this message because it's important, and from the guys i've known who have been there it fits with their thinking and experiences.  i believe it is also all the more timely because of whom our choices are between for the next potus.

i hope you enjoyed reading this and that you'll help to spread the message.

part 3 of a much needed history lesson

sorry for the long break - my clients are just NOT cooperative with allowing me time to blog as i would like!  oh, goat, please let me know if the type is large enough for you now...

when last i wrote, we left off just prior to the last two paragraphs of section 3 article 1 of the u.s. constitution.  the second to the last paragraph reads as such:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

but what does it mean???

in federalist paper #65, alexander hamilton speaks about the dangers of an elected body determining the veracity of the charges against the official.  he says:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

and then:

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

in other words, the members of the constitutional convention gave this task to the senate because the senate was not an elected body.  the members' appointment by the legislature of each state meant that this body was less likely to be beholden to whims of political factions and more likely to adhere to the guidelines of the law, deeming it "sufficiently independent":

Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

______________________________________________________________________________

sidebar

_____________________________________________________________

recently there is an email recently circulating titled "how long does the usa have?" and it basically says that because we were founded as a democracy we are bound to commit suicide as a nation soon.  i've seen other versions of it in the past, but here's the current incarnation of it:

Download how_long_does_the_usa_have.pdf

the whole premise of this argument is flawed in that we were not founded as a democracy as this whole series is pointing out.  but it is interesting in what it shows in the stats for the 2000 u.s. presidential elections.

___________________________________________________________

end sidebar

____________________________________________________________

you see, our founding fathers recognized the tinder box that could be ignited if there were a perceived (let alone actual) bias in the execution of the trial of impeachment.  for this reason alone, they wanted a large number of persons deciding the fate of the accused and they did not want this to fall to the supreme court with hamilton stating that "...the supreme court would have been an improper substitute for the senate, as a court of impeachments."

the last paragraph of section 3 is as follows:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

huh? 

it's like this: the founding fathers KNEW the person who had been impeached would find him (or her) self ostracized for all eternity and so did not want to officially punish the impeached more than to remove him (or her) from office.  it is important to note that the impeached would still be punishable for the crime committed to be impeached and so if the judicial branch were to be involved it may prejudice the judges against the impeached.

mr. hamilton gives further explanation in federalist paper #66 and i certainly encourage all of you to read it for yourself.  however, other than to quote the following from the last paragraph:

So far as might concern the misbehavior of the Executive in perverting the instructions or contravening the views of the Senate, we need not be apprehensive of the want of a disposition in that body to punish the abuse of their confidence or to vindicate their own authority. We may thus far count upon their pride, if not upon their virtue.

too bad the senators responsible with the impeachment of bill clinton didn't know these thoughts...

section 4.  very succinct. 

essentially the state legislatures will determine the times and places for elections and appointments of senators and representatives.  the u.s. congress may at some point in time make a ruling as to the regulations of the elections, but not the appointing of senators.

further, congress must meet at least once per year on the first monday in december unless they appoint a different day by law. 

that's all for today's lesson.  lesson four will cover sections 5-7 and will be published before week's end (sunday).

please feel free to share your thoughts and questions.

don't bemoan the low taxes, pay more!!!

yesterday, representative john campbell (r, ca) introduced the "put your money where you mouth is" act.

a recognized fiscal leader in congress (and from california no less!) representative campbell says he introduced this legislation to allow individuals to make voluntary donations to the federal government over their taxes due by adding a line to the IRS tax form to more easily facilitate the making of donations.

recently when her and hubby's earnings came to light, hillary said "We didn't ask for George Bush's tax cuts. We didn't want them, and we didn't need them."  indeed. 

on monday the opinion pages of the wsj had this to say in response:

"With friends like Mr. Burkle, clearly they didn't. But her higher tax rates wouldn't merely hit those who make $109 million; they'd soak middle-class families that make $100,000 or $200,000 a year and hardly feel "rich." If the former first lady feels so strongly that she should pay more taxes, we suggest she lay off the middle class and instead write a personal check to the U.S. Treasury for the difference between the Clinton and Bush tax rates. She and her husband can afford it."

this proposed act seems to be the perfect solution, then, doesn't it?

today, in review and outlook the journal seems to agree.  in a small piece on the proposed legislation, they quote rep. campbell saying in regards to the likes of the clintons, babs and warren buffet (there is just NO funny name to call that guy that would be immediately recognizable) "It's a great injustice that citizens wishing to fulfill their dream of paying more taxes cannot simply check a box on their 1040 form to make a donation." 

so now the libs live guilt free AND help to pay down the national debt.  what a country!

the irs already accepts donations and yet last year the total take of donations was only 2.6 million dollars.  apparently these people only want to pay more if the goverment tells them they have to.  seems like even the leftards want to hold onto their own money rather than give it to the government.

in a press release from the council for citizens against government waste (ccagw), yesterday:

"According to a 2007 Harris Interactive survey conducted on behalf of the Tax Foundation, only 2 percent of respondents claimed the amount of federal income tax they pay is too low, compared 58 percent of respondents who said that their taxes were too high.

Citizens already have an opportunity to contribute to a fund within the Department of the Treasury to reduce the federal debt. According to the Treasury, the lowest amount sent to the government was $744,675.06 in 2004, and the most was last year, a whopping $2,624,862.42."

hey, maybe the line on the tax return that they just have to fill in will make it more enticing.  i mean with the current system they have to write out a whole separate check and take it to the post office and they probably won't have a stamp and the machine will be broken (or they won't have the change) and they'll have to stand in line.  sheesh!  i can understand why they don't donate now, it's just not convenient enough.  yeah, that's the ticket!

it would be interesting to me to see the breakdown of the donations given to the irs.  my guess is the vast majority of the money does not come from uber-rich liberals.

btw, i had some great photos for this post, but typepad's being retarded and won't let me insert any pictures.  meanies!

i love this guy's thought process.  put your money where your mouth is, indeed.

part 2 of the much needed history lesson

as we learned in my previous post, in 1788 the u.s. constitution, sans the bill of rights, became the law of the land.  nine of the 13 states had banded together to become the united states of america.  in november of 1789 north carolina joined the union with rhode island making it complete in may of 1790.

there had been much blood, sweat and tears shed to get to this point.  it was truly amazing that 13 states had VOLUNTARILY joined together to form this union.  i say voluntarily because that was the intention of the founders and the federalists - you know those people who were promoting the constitution?

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."

-- James Madison (Federalist No. 39, 1788)

so just what did our ancestors in those 13 states agree to with their ratification of the constitution?  let's look, shall we?

to prove the point (made by goat and jess and others) that the constitution is a support document for the declaration of independence, let's start there.  in the doi, jefferson penned (and it was unamimously adopted by the delegates):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

and then in closing in the doi:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States 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 and our sacred Honor.

now look at the opening (preamble) to the constiution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

there are other things in the grievances list put forth in the doi that are borne out in the constitution as well.  i may or may not touch on those specifics as i go through the document.  but i hope that you can see that the preamble to the u.s. constitution addresses both the opening and closing of the doi.

article 1.  this article (through it's subsequent sections) sets up and organizes the legislative branch of our federal government.  in fact section 1 is pretty susinct:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

nothing to question there, but what are these people going to do?!?!?

section 2 is a little more involved.  it defines how the population of citizens shall be counted for purposes of manning the house of representatives as well as how "direct taxes" will be levied to the individual states.  it says that the electors (those who elect) for the u.s. congress must meet the minimum requirements for voting in the state's "most numerous branch of the state legislature" - essentially leaving it up to each state what the voting requirements were even for federal elections.

as an aside, this is also where the federal population count is mandated.  it is required to be done every 10 years, thus the reason it is called the "census".

it also defines the rules for a "person" becoming a representative.  one must be 25 years old by the time they take office, have been a citizen for seven years and be an inhabitant (doesn't state recognized citizen) of "the state in which he shall be chosen."  each state's executive will set special elections should vacancies arise outside of the normal election cycle.

additionally, the house of representatives is responsible for selecting its own speaker and other officers.  additionally it is stated in the last line of this section that the house of representatives "...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

section 3 pertains to the senate.  how many of you knew that u.s. senators were never intended to "run" for election?  it's true:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

it was meant to balance out the contest of the directly elected members of the house and to link the states' governments to the federal government.  it is explained by alexander hamiltn or james madison (we're not sure which) in federalist #62:

II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

this served to guard against democracy which is not a stable sort of government.  our founders had some pretty strong views on why they chose a representative republic rather than a democracy.  in federalist #10 (titled the same subject continued: the union as a safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection) madison wrote:

...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. ...politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

this is perhaps my most favorite federalist article, combined with #9, of course.  it gives a wonderful contrast and comparison between a democracy and a republic.  i highly recommend that everyone read it, if not all of the federalist papers.

but i digress...

section 3 of article 1 of the constitutions says that the senators will be appointed by the states' legislature and that each term will last six years.  each senator must be 30 years old and have been a u.s. citizen for at least 9 years when he takes office and he must be an inhabitant of the state for which  he is elected.

there are two more paragraphs in the third section than in the second section, but oh so much more to dissect.  i think we'll leave off here for today and i'll complete this section next.

questions?  comments?  please leave them all.

not sure how to thank some people.

before i get into the lesson (next post, i promise), i want to take a few minutes and recognize a few people. 

yesterday, uncle joe over at grandma is an idiot honored me with his blog of the week award.  i have long been a fan of webb sloane, grandma and uncle joe as this is a big deal for me.  for those of you unfamiliar with the family, stop on by and check out his site.  it's perhaps the best satirical postings you'll find; be certain you are not trying to swallow any liquids while reading over there.

on saturday, fu manchu dad found my site - still not sure how - and (in a comment on my scalia post) said:

You have no idea how awesome it is to find a well-informed right winger like yourself. You are now my favorite right up there with Michelle Malkin. And that's saying something. Keep it up and I've blogrolled ya'.....Totally!

i have blogrolled him, too, but that's not the point. through his site i have been introduced to just scads of people - not all to my liking, but all are nice and genuine.

my blog is just a little thing and mostly it's just for my venting.  it warms me beyond words to be considered as someone who is an enjoyable read.

thank you to all of you who visit and especially to those of you who comment.  i am in awe of all of you.

a much needed history lesson - part 1

approximately 220 years ago, our founders presented to the citizens of our infant nation perhaps the greatest man-written document ever created.  that's right, it was in 1787 that our ancestors read, for the first time, the united states constitution.

this document has been a rallying thought for people around the world in want of liberty and self-government.  it has also been a sore in the thumb of many who are indebted to us and who wish us ill.  much the same as our flag, eh?

our educational system (or socialist indoctrination process, as my hubby calls it) is in such a poor state that our children - and several of the past generations' children - have no clue as to what the document actually says.  cripes, they think we live in a democracy for pete's sake!

well, while i am no constitutional scholar, i can read and i have fairly good comprehension.  and besides, i believe justice scalia when he says that it means what it says and it's just not that difficult.  so this is my attempt to start a discussion pertaining to where we are and where the document give us permission to be...

in a comment to my previous post, my good friend goat makes a great point:

"The simplicity and depth of the words the Founders used in writing our Constitution should never be taken lightly or changed to fit the whims of an uninformed mob rule mentality or activist jurists. It however is not our defining document, The Declaration of Independence is and the Constitution just set down the rules and limits of governance."

goat is precisely right and it amazes me the number of people who try to discount the doi and say that it isn't what defines us.  and while it isn't the "law of the land", it is the basis for the law of the land.  further, if i'm not mistaken, when a legal decision is made, all supporting documentation for the law or contract is taken in to consideration.

in the case of the constitution, that would have to include the declaration of independence, the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers and, perhaps, even the articles of confederation.  so a i embark on this first lesson i will use all of these to support and contrast.

i'm starting with the proceedings of the constitutional convention and will (through additional parts) get through the writing of all of the amendments.  i truly hope to get people thinking and talking.

on 25 may 1787 george washington was elected president of the constitutional convention in philadelphia.  after the failures of the previous six years of governance under the articles of confederation, washington held out little hope that THIS convention would turn out anything of consequence.  36-year old james madison, hoped differently.

after receiving a letter from george washington, where washington had written "Wisdom and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm." james madison put forth the notion of a strong central government stating: "Let it be tried then, whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority," furthering that state power would be maintained only when "subordinately useful."  madison sought to establish a government in this mold.

in 1786 james madison and john tyler, both of virginia, made a proposal that the continental congress be giving authority over the the regulation of commerce throughout the confederation.  in september 1786 several states attended a convention in annapolis, md to discuss commercial problems.  at the end of this convention, james madison and alexander hamilton (new york) wrote a report on the convention and calling for delegates from all of the states to participate in a convention set upon "revising" the articles of confederation.  a decree from congress (although the decree was not favorably viewed by most citizens) made the proposal a reality. 

74 delegates were named to the convention; 55 attended.  there were delegates from every state except for rhode island; she refused to send any as the leaders of that state viewed the convention as a conspiracy to overthrow established government.  i should point out that rhode island was led by men who were in support of paper currency, low taxes and a popularly elected government - funny how things change, isn't it??

anyhow, although several "leaders" of the young country were not present - patrick henry refused to attend saying that he "smelt a rat" - the convention started with the 55 men who were there, including giants such as george washington, benjamin franklin, george mason and james wilson.  the proceedings were understated at times and quite vocal at other times, but in the end they were the beginning of this great experiment we call the united states of america.

put forth in this convention were three basic plans:  the virginia plan; the new jersey plan; the hamilton plan.  the descriptions i offer to you of each, here, come from the patriot post's historical documents resources:

The Virginia Plan

On Tuesday morning, May 29, Edmund Randolph, the tall, 34-year- old governor of Virginia, opened the debate with a long speech decrying the evils that had befallen the country under the Articles of Confederation and stressing the need for creating a strong national government. Randolph then outlined a broad plan that he and his Virginia compatriots had, through long sessions at the Indian Queen tavern, put together in the days preceding the convention. James Madison had such a plan on his mind for years. The proposed government had three branches--legislative, executive, and judicial--each branch structured to check the other. Highly centralized, the government would have veto power over laws enacted by state legislatures. The plan, Randolph confessed, "meant a strong consolidated union in which the idea of states should be nearly annihilated." This was, indeed, the rat so offensive to Patrick Henry.

The introduction of the so-called Virginia Plan at the beginning of the convention was a tactical coup. The Virginians had forced the debate into their own frame of reference and in their own terms.

For 10 days the members of the convention discussed the sweeping and, to many delegates, startling Virginia resolutions. The critical issue, described succinctly by Gouverneur Morris on May 30, was the distinction between a federation and a national government, the "former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation." Morris favored the latter, a "supreme power" capable of exercising necessary authority not merely a shadow government, fragmented and hopelessly ineffective.

The New Jersey Plan

This nationalist position revolted many delegates who cringed at the vision of a central government swallowing state sovereignty. On June 13 delegates from smaller states rallied around proposals offered by New Jersey delegate William Paterson. Railing against efforts to throw the states into "hotchpot," Paterson proposed a "union of the States merely federal." The "New Jersey resolutions" called only for a revision of the articles to enable the Congress more easily to raise revenues and regulate commerce. It also provided that acts of Congress and ratified treaties be "the supreme law of the States."

For 3 days the convention debated Paterson's plan, finally voting for rejection. With the defeat of the New Jersey resolutions, the convention was moving toward creation of a new government, much to the dismay of many small-state delegates. The nationalists, led by Madison, appeared to have the proceedings in their grip. In addition, they were able to persuade the members that any new constitution should be ratified through conventions of the people and not by the Congress and the state legislatures- -another tactical coup. Madison and his allies believed that the constitution they had in mind would likely be scuttled in the legislatures, where many state political leaders stood to lose power. The nationalists wanted to bring the issue before "the people," where ratification was more likely.

Hamilton's Plan

On June 18 Alexander Hamilton presented his own ideal plan of government. Erudite and polished, the speech, nevertheless, failed to win a following. It went too far. Calling the British government "the best in the world," Hamilton proposed a model strikingly similar an executive to serve during good behavior or life with veto power over all laws; a senate with members serving during good behavior; the legislature to have power to pass "all laws whatsoever." Hamilton later wrote to Washington that the people were now willing to accept "something not very remote from that which they have lately quitted." What the people had "lately quitted," of course, was monarchy. Some members of the convention fully expected the country to turn in this direction. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, a wealthy physician, declared that it was "pretty certain . . . that we should at some time or other have a king." Newspaper accounts appeared in the summer of 1787 alleging that a plot was under way to invite the second son of George III, Frederick, Duke of York, the secular bishop of Osnaburgh in Prussia, to become "king of the United States."

Strongly militating against any serious attempt to establish monarchy was the enmity so prevalent in the revolutionary period toward royalty and the privileged classes. Some state constitutions had even prohibited titles of nobility. In the same year as the Philadelphia convention, Royall Tyler, a revolutionary war veteran, in his play The Contract, gave his own jaundiced view of the upper classes:

Exult each patriot heart! this night is shewn
A piece, which we may fairly call our own;
Where the proud titles of "My Lord!" "Your Grace!"
To humble Mr. and plain Sir give place.

Most delegates were well aware that there were too many Royall Tylers in the country, with too many memories of British rule and too many ties to a recent bloody war, to accept a king. As the debate moved into the specifics of the new government, Alexander Hamilton and others of his persuasion would have to accept something less.

throughout the summer arguments were made and orators orated.  it appeared at times that no one would prevail with even a modicum of happiness.  washington was sad he was a part of it.  franklin called for prayer after prayer that the "Father of lights . . . illuminate our understandings."  and when, on 29 june 1787, the decision to establish state population as the basis for representation in the house of representatives all hell broke loose.  perhaps the mood of the moment of the small states is best summed up by the words of luther martin (delegate from maryland) "The States have a right to an equality of representation. This is secured to us by our present articles of confederation; we are in possession of this privilege."

there was more compromise to come, but finally, on 06 august of that same year came the first draft of our beloved constitution.  it was the article-by-article basis from which the final draft would come just a short five weeks later.  but the controversy was not yet over.

after much haggling about slavery, regulation of commerce, regulation of navigation and the like, on 31 august 1787 george mason wrote to his son that he "would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands."  further worrying about the lack of a personal "bill of rights" included in the constitution, mason called for a new convention to reconsider the whole notion of the formation of a new government.  he was voted down.

several more revisions, debates and compromises later, the document written, primarily, by governor morris the constitution was turned back over to the convention for a final round.  mason (joined by edmund randolph and elbridge gerry) called for amendments once again - soundly rebuffed, the vote on 15 september 1787 resulted in the return of an "aye" vote from every state in attendance.  by 4pm on 17 september 1787, all members of the convention had dutifully set their hand to the document. 

the matter was done - well sort of.

this when the fun really started.  the process of ratification.  i should note, that alexander hamilton thought there was a better than average chance that the document would NOT be ratified.

just 12 days after the convention ended, pennsylvania called for a ratifying convention for the state.  in the previous weeks, the writings of the federalists and anti-federalists of that state were reprinted in newspapers far and wide.  on the 29th, short by two of the count required to make a quorum for the ratify convention, a mob of citizens supporting the federalist viewpoint dragged two anti-federalist members from their homes and forced them to stay at the convention until the votes had been cast.  hows that for a participating citizenry?!?

throughout the fall the battle waged - in every state - with the anti-federalists denouncing the proposed  government and the federalists defending.  by and large the federalists were much more organized than the anti-federalists, even so, the af's made their presence - and their dissatisfaction - well known. 

it is at this time, in response to a series of essays by "cato", alexander hamilton and john jay wrote their 85 essays now known as the "federalist papers."  thomas jefferson later called this group of essays the "best commentary on the principles of government ever written." 

by 09 january 1788 only five of the require nine states had ratified the constitution - delaware, pennsylvania, new jersey, georgia, and connecticut.  the outcome in massachusetts, new york and virginia were pivotal and uncertain.  only after the state federalists agreed to recommend a list of amendments to be a "bill of rights" did massachusetts ratify the proposed document.  the recommendation was a huge victory for the anti-federalists and soon after six other states made similar recommendations

after ratification failed in new hampshire and then rhode island (10 to 1 against the ratification) all eyes turned to the ratification convention in maryland.  on 28 april 1788, with a vote of 63 to 11 the maryland convention accepted the tenets of the constitution.  in july of that same year new hampshire reconvened and ratified the constitution and the ratification in south carolina made it nine.

over the course of the next two months, new york and virginia ratified the document and a congressionally appointed committee was busy "putting the said constitution to work."  it is important to note that in most states, the margin for ratification was extremely close.  hamilton deduced that the majority of the PEOPLE in the country were probably opposed to the constitution and it was only the promise of a "bill of rights" that had ensured the federalists' victory

yes, that's right people, the constitution of the united states of america became the law of the land BEFORE the first ten amendments to the constitution had even been written.  we'll cover those later, but the limits of the government weren't delineated and excepted by a majority of states until 15 december 1791!

tomorrow, we'll begin to review the actual document.  any comments thus far?

"i'm here to talk about constitutional law...

"...and it's not a difficult subject"

and with those words justice antonin scalia opened his speech (lecture?) at the university of central missouri last night.  already some 1200+ miles away (in the atlanta airport waiting for the flight that will take me to my friend in new jersey) and the wisdom he imparted is still with me...

justice scalia has long been on my 'most favorite people' list - i rank him right up there with james madison, thomas jefferson, teddy roosevelt, ronald reagan and william buckley (just to name a few).  when president reagan appointed him to the federal appeals court is when scalia first popped on my radar. 

i was still [mostly] in southern maryland at that point in my life and was well in tune to the happenings in d.c. long before anything [other than the presidential elections] on the national scene caught my attention.  heck, it was 1982 and i hadn't even voted in a presidential election yet!

any how, back to last night.  through a contact of dee's she was able to get highly unavailable tickets for herself, two personal friends of her and me.  her first take on the whole evening is posted here and i'll try real hard to not rehash what she has written - or will write tomorrow - or the next day.

nearly 72 years on this earth (and nearly 50 years of marriage to the same woman) have shaped justice scalia into what he presented last night.  i wonder, when he came from what most would think to be the most liberal of liberal areas (new york city) in this country, why he became known as one of the most conservative judges to make up the supremes.

there doesn't seem to be anything really 'telling' in his background that i can see.  he has started life as the son of an immigrant who attended a jesuit high school in queens, went on to georgetown university, switzerland's university of fribourg, and ending his education with the magna cum laude graduation from harvard law school in the spring of 1960.

from there he went on to work as a practicing attorney in ohio and a law professor at another of the seven sisters (university of virginia) before entering public service during the nixon administration.  after ford and until reagan he went back to teaching law - at the university of chicago, georgetown and stanford.

justice antonin scalia is a constitutional constructionist - or an originalist as he refers to himself.  i have long maintained that one of that ilk (of which i count myself one) is neither conservative nor liberal as a matter of course and i was thrilled to hear justice scalia give voice to that same sentiment.  another thing i have in common with the esteemed justice is that we are both social conservatives - i know, who would have believed that?!?!

but let's go back to the why of it, shall we?

currently EVERYONE discusses activist judges and EVERYONE believes that they are the bane of our society.  only thing is, both sides have a differing viewpoint as to what and activist judge is.

those who believe in a "living constitution" think that originalists are the activist judges because they want to interpret the constitution in a fashion limited by what it says - or the dead constitution, as justice scalia called it.  originalists believe that anyone who rules on constitutional issues with the idea that constitution means whatever they want it to mean today rather than on what it (and the supporting documentation for the constitution) SAYS is an activist judge.

seems to me that the latter, rather than the former, definition is more accurate.  how can you be an activist if you are using the constitution as written.  how can you be an activist if you're NOT trying to change anything in the constitution?!?  how can you be an activist if you're not trying to legislate from the bench but rather only rule on those things that apply to the constitution (or is it to which the constitution applies?)?

during the course of his speech, scalia said that when he was coming up through the system, growing up and even before, the norm was that most everyone was a constructionist.  he stated that it wasn't until the warren led supremes (1953-1969) when the tide started turning and the supremes started down the merry path of creating the living constitution.  and based on what i know about u.s. history, i'd have to say that his viewpoint is an accurate one - big shocker there!!!

in talking with my friends on the left they often comment that the u.s. constitution MUST be a living document in order to make it flexible to the changes that happen as mankind evolves.  i have long wrestled with an appropriate response to that argument and, thankfully, justice scalia handed one to those of us in attendance last night.

he put for the the notion that the u.s. constitution, as written, offers our citizens the MOST flexible of scenarios imaginable.  further, he reminded all of us that it is the final word on what is to be the "law of the land".  further, that no matter how stupid somethings are, they just aren't in the province of the constitution (he even joked that he wanted a stamp & ink pad that says "STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL").

as for being flexible he offered the following arguments:

you think abortion should be legal?  then get all of your fellow state citizens to agree with you and pass a law to ensure that it's legal.  don't think it should be legal and it is?  convince your fellow state citizens to agree with you and repeal the law in place.  same thing goes for the death penalty - the supremes have no business ruling on either of these items; i agree.

james staab wrote a great book, The Political Thought of Justice Antonin Scalia: A Hamiltonian on the Supreme Court that i recently read.  it's a great read even if i'm not sure i agree with all of staab's conclusions - to me scalia is more like thomas jefferson in that he believes in social conservatism (or liberalism in jefferson's day) so long as it "doesn't contradict the words the words in the constitution."

often times, justice scalia has gone with the side that is thought of as the "liberal reading" of the constitution; he hasn't gone "liberal" he is simply acting in concert with the words of the constitution.  he has angered social conservatives with some of his votes - he mentioned flag burning (he vote it was allowed under the first amendment), for the confrontation clause (under the 4th amendment) and some others, that i can't remember right now.

all in all, i sit in awe of this man who thinks so fast on his feet, but makes no decisions without considering the full weight of the constitution and the tradition and history that surround the original words.  i think the most important thing he said last night (and i paraphrase here) was that it is important to remember that those who believe in the living constitution seek not only to ADD rights but in some cases to remove them as well...

been contemplating my navel a lot, lately...

so two weeks ago i had my appendix removed.  it was no big deal accept that i'm not as young as i once was and it sure is taking a much longer time to heal than in days past.

i know some thought that i had abandoned this cathartic exercise because of my being upset over mccain's inevitability as orchestrated by the msm and the neo-cons.  not true.  just was up to my ass in alligators, had surgery and then was really up to my ass in alligators.  i have them at bay now and am once more among the world of those not my family and clients.

so much has happened since my last post and, predictably, so little all at the same time.  it seems that we as a people just don't learn from the past and it's hindering our ability to have influence (of any reasonable sort) with our children.  that's our collective children.

on friday we arrived in vail for a bit of fun and relaxation.  well i don't get to have much fun - see previous comment about having my appendix removed, so i'm pretty much enjoying the same role here as at home...  three days before we left, a guy whom we know from our work and his wife sort of invited themselves to join us for this weekend as the house was "big enough".  needless to say it was a bit unnerving to have some invite themselves to our family vacation, but we decided to make the best of it.

these are "nice" people.  they are pseudo parents - they get his only son for a few weeks of every year and have no children together.  they "believe in making a difference" in this world.  and they took every opportunity to insert themselves between my wonderful husband and our children - they thought we weren't being nice enough towards the two teen-aged boys we have with us.  apparently we'd have more success with our children if we "recognized them as friends rather than as something else".

whatever.

look, i don't profess to be the best parent in the world.  and i sincerely hope that i will be able to count my children as my friends at some point later on in life.  that that time is not now.

i don't believe it is my job to make them feel good about themselves at all times.  it is important for me to give them atta-boys (or girls) when they have done something right.  it is not my job to make excuses for them when they have messed up.  i believe it's ok for me to say something to the effect of "so do you know where you went wrong" and/or "have you learned from it to move forward?"  but - aside from teaching them right from wrong and how to make logical decisions to begin with that's pretty much it.

to save me some typing, i'll just call these guys "ted" and "lisa". 

ted has long professed to be a "conservative republican".  i learned this weekend that this equates, to believing "abortion is a woman's right guaranteed by the constitution" and "the economy has been bad for the past [at least] seven years and is getting worse" and finally "homeschooling and private schools should be illegal because the government can't ensure the children are REALLY getting an education."

having never met lisa before, i had no idea what her politics were, but i quickly found out that she "has no politics".  then she proceeded to tell me "there is no right or wrong except a person's perspective" and "there is no way to know what the intent of the words in the constitution were because we weren't the writers so we should just go with what the majority thinks" and still "all war is evil so we should never engage an anything but approved 'u.n. peace-keeping missions'."

so apparently this is like bi-partisanship.  if we do everything the way the dems want us to we have a bi-partisan endeavor.  so, too, if you are a leftist you "have no politics".  glad we've finally cleared that  up.

watching and listening this couple over the past four days has given me a better understanding of what's going on with society in general.

for instance, we KNOW that bullies won't simply go away and leave us alone if we're nice to them.  you learn this in kindergarten - or maybe even before.  when i was a kid, my father told me "you better not touch (push, hit, etc.) someone else first, but if they touch (push, hit, etc.) you, you make sure you touch (push, hit, etc.) them last."  this was good advice and you only had to make good on your promise to hit back once.  after that every bully within walking distance knew you weren't someone they could mess with.

but this is not taught to the kids any more.  kids are now taught how to get around a system of right and wrong - well the bad ones are, any how.  just look at all the killing/maiming being done by the sickos in the "gun free zones".  these people are, in my opinion, nothing more than bullies.

i'm so sick