President-Elect Trump

Congratulations to President-elect Donald J. Trump.  His is not just a personal victory; it’s a victory for conservatives who are tired of a socialist agenda, it’s a victory for middle USA voters, and it’s a victory for freedom.  Hillary would have continued President Obama’s assault on the Bill of Rights and Soros’ globalist agenda.  Now we will have a president who will stand up for our sovereignty and put our citizens first.  We will have a president who wants to strengthen our weakened military, modernize our aging infrastructure, revitalize industry, and restore global respect to our nation.

I’ll admit I was skeptical at times, particularly when his poll numbers were climbing and then he’d say something that would rally the liberal media against him, but in the end Hillary’s own dishonesty and corruption defeated her.  After eight years of a liberal politician in the White House it will be good to give a businessman a chance at running the country.

The Electoral College system worked as it should too, giving those middle USA voters a voice that’s long been suppressed by high-population left-wing states.  California “values” aren’t everyone’s values and shouldn’t be forced on everyone.  Anyone who wants to live in California, aka Mexifornia, is free to do so.  Personally I don’t think of Che Guevera or Chairman Mao as heroes nor do I consider the former Soviet Union to be the ideal model for a state.

Those who say that Trump threatens civil rights are ignoring the fact that we have civil rights laws that a president can’t override.  No president can direct that women be paid less than men or that Blacks must sit at the back of the bus.  What he can do is rescind previous executive orders that did override existing laws and tell agencies like Immigration to do their jobs.  He and his Supreme Court appointees can also uphold the Bill of Rights, something that liberals see as an obstacle to their socialist agenda.  Maybe he could even end the leftist indoctrination in public schools that has young children frightened and holding protest signs that they don’t even understand.  Should we be training the next generation to accept serfdom?

Liberalism is socialism and socialism is total control of people and their property.

Repeal the Bill of Rights?

In “The Freedom Triangle” I explained how freedom is defined by three components: democracy, rights, and responsibilities.  Our basic inalienable rights are found in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights.  Every one of them is important.  Every one was included because the authors of the Constitution, in their wisdom, had seen how authoritarian governments had abused their subjects and sought to protect us.  In fact the Constitution doesn’t talk about “subjects”, it talks about “We the People”.

Now the Constitution can be changed by the deliberately cumbersome process of amendment.  It’s long and tedious and the outcome is uncertain, but in this case that’s a protection, not an inefficiency.  Democrats, socialists, and other progressives, however, have found ways to weaken our rights by DE FACTO means.  That term simply means “that’s how it is”.  If you don’t like a law but can’t easily change it, find ways to circumvent it.  These tactics might be unofficial, like intimidation, or official, through restrictions or taxation.   In this article I’ll look at how several amendments are being attacked.

First Amendment:

Intimidation (aka Bullying):  At this time intimidation is the primary weapon against free speech.  It began with political correctness, a crybaby concept that has grown from a minor nuisance into a state religion.  We see intimidation on college campuses where students complain about “micro-aggression”, demand “safe spaces”, and are even told to call police if they hear something “offensive”.  Now that’s intimidation.  On a larger scale, political correctness stifles communication to a point where serious issues can’t even be discussed.

Intimidation also threatens religious freedom by erasing religious equality.  When Christian churches remove exterior crosses so they don’t “offend” Muslim immigrants they’re not accommodating newcomers, they’re surrendering their right to exist as a public entity; doing exactly what is required in Muslim countries.  From a Christian point of view they’re denying Christ just as Peter did.  When a restaurant owner is bullied into removing a sign advertising bacon for breakfast his free speech is suspended.  Jews don’t eat pork either but they’ve never tried to impose their dietary rules on others.

Legal Action:  Can the USA have laws against free speech beyond the “don’t yell fire in a theater if there isn’t one” and “don’t threaten violence”?  Maybe, because it’s happening in European countries that guarantee free speech.  In Germany a comedian has been arrested for insulting the president of Turkey, and In Sweden people can be arrested for ethnic slurs.  Some in the US are saying that “climate change deniers” should be arrested and oil companies should be sued because they “knew” their products would cause climate change.

Second Amendment:

Propaganda:   No amendment is under heavier public attack than this amendment, even though self defense it a fundamental human right.  It’s in common law because historically only the un-free (prisoners, serfs, slaves) were denied the right to protect themselves and their families.  We hear anti-gun propaganda everywhere, much of it funded by billionaires who are surrounded by armed bodyguards.  Their message: “be rich or be dead”.  They blame the NRA for Chicago violence, not the gang members doing the shooting.  They make their case with bogus logic that anyone who has learned how to think can spot as invalid.  Any criminal act is the act of a person, not an object.

Legal Action:  In addition to funding propaganda campaigns, billionaire Mike Bloomberg spends millions to buy local elections for anti-gun candidates who will then enact restrictive laws.  The result is a confusing patchwork system of laws that turn honest people into criminals while doing nothing to stop crime.  Liberal San Francisco’s laws are so tough that the last legal gun shop had to close, yet they did nothing to stop an illegal immigrant with a stolen gun from murdering an innocent young woman.  Chicago’s tough gun laws can’t stop the endless gang wars that have made it the murder capital of the US. The latest effort to drive gun makers out of business is to attempt to sue them for gun violence.  No company has ever been held liable for criminal use of their products because the company has no control over the consumer.

Taxation:   Everyone has heard Chief Justice Marshall’s statement that “The power to tax is the power to destroy” and liberals know punitive taxes can be used to deny “little people” their rights while preserving “billionaire rights”.  Seattle has a $25 tax on guns, a US territory has a $1000 tax per gun, and Hillary wants a 25% tax on guns (all for more money to squander).  What part of “right” don’t they understand?

Health care:  President Obama and his British-born Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy want to draft doctors into their war on legal gun ownership.  They have decreed that “gun violence” is a public health problem (but gang violence isn’t) so doctors should question patients about gun ownership, presumably to then evaluate their mental fitness to own a firearm while simultaneously creating a national gun registry in those digitized medical records.  Since doctors don’t get “gun violence” training (they don’t get knife or fist violence training either) they’ll be fed the far left agenda and sent out on a mission to declare as many people “mentally unfit” as possible (it’s already happening at the VA).  That won’t work on doctors who are also hunters but it will on many.  The answer is “no”.

Intimidation:  I discuss the DOJ’s “Operation Choke Point” under the Fifth Amendment.

SCOTUS:  In the case “D.C. vs. Heller” the Supreme Court upheld the right of honest people to own a firearm for self defense.  Progressives would love to get this ruling overturned.  That would effectively repeal the Second Amendment.

Fourth and Fifth Amendments:

Legal Action:  The fourth Amendment protects private property from unreasonable search and seizure without due process.  The fifth Amendment protects individuals from being deprived of “life, liberty, and property” without due process.  Government departments are using often dubious tactics to deprive people of their property without adjudication.  Here are two of them.

The IRS can seize bank assets of individuals or businesses if they suspect small deposits are being “structured” to avoid reporting requirements of amounts in excess of $10,000.  They don’t need any evidence of criminal activity, indictment, trial, or conviction to proceed.  Victims are often small businesses that deposit money regularly just to avoid being a robbery target.  Even innocent people must file an expensive lawsuit to get their money released.

Police can seize property under “civil asset forfeiture” if they suspect criminal activity, and that includes “untainted” assets, i.e., those not associated with the suspected activity.  Again the word is “suspected”; no indictment, trial, or conviction required.  Asset seizure can make it difficult for an accused person to hire attorneys and prepare a defense; a right guaranteed by  the Fifth Amendment.

Eminent Domain:  Eminent domain was included in the Constitution to allow governments at all levels to take private land, with compensation, for public projects that would benefit the community.  The intent was to support construction of roads, bridges, schools, and other public facilities.  That concept has unfortunately been expanded to allow taking of private property for private developments under the guise that they will expand the local tax base.  This “public good ” is nothing but a gift for wealthy developers at the expense of the people.

Intimidation:  The DOJ has initiated a process of intimidation not supported by any law called “Choke Point” to cut off “high risk” businesses from having bank accounts and obtaining credit.  Basically banks are threatened with legal action so they cancel the accounts of many honest businesses that pay taxes and wages.,  High risk businesses include firearms dealers, short term lenders, used car dealers, and adult entertainment.  So, what constitutes “high risk” is determined by politically motivated bureaucrats, not the law.  Congress has been urged to outlaw this practice but liberals support it because it furthers their agenda of control of the people.

Ninth Amendment:

Legal Action:  This amendment protects “unenumerated rights” of the people, i.e., those not specifically guaranteed by the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights.  The most important right that has been asserted under this amendment is the right of privacy.  As the Federal government demands more an more tracking of peoples’ lives privacy is being lost, often in the name of the “common good”.  That is collectivism, the antithesis of what the Constitution stands for.  To make the situation even worse, neither the government nor various private data collection agencies can adequately secure their data against hacking or insider misuse.

Tenth Amendment:

Congress:  This amendment says that all responsibilities not specifically assigned to the Federal government by the Constitution remain with the states or the people.  Congress has been more than happy to de facto repeal this amendment with “one-size-fits-all” programs.  Nothing in the Constitution allows the Federal government to control public schools yet Congress created the Department of Education and has given it unlimited power over the states and parents.  This has allowed billionaire Bill Gates to fund development of Common Core, his vision of an ideal system, and coax the government to enforce it.  Nothing in the Constitution allows the Federal government to use the IRS to enforce health insurance yet it approved the ACA.  All the promises associated with this program were lies: costs will go down, you can keep your doctor, etc.  Even the insurers are losing money on this one.  Rising health care costs are a problem but the ACA does nothing to solve it.

Intimidation:  The Department of Education uses threats of withholding education money from school districts that refuse to comply with it’s directives.  Simply put, it uses our tax dollars against us.

So, that’s the picture, and it isn’t a good one if you value freedom because without rights you are not free.  Can the Bill of Rights be saved?  Yes, but time is running out.  The 2016 elections will pretty much determine whether your children will stand in freedom or kneel in servitude.

 

If you like your rights you can keep them… NOT.

SCOTUS Focus

The unfortunate death of Justice Scalia has brought election year turmoil to the process of selecting a replacement.  Democrats demand prompt action while Republicans advocate for “wait until next year” even though they know they may not win.  The Constitution doesn’t specify a number of justices for the Court, which began with 6 and has had as many as 10, so this really isn’t a constitutional argument; it’s a political one.  The Supreme Court, with it’s authority to review laws for constitutionality, was supposed to serve as a somewhat independent check on overreaches of power by either the executive or legislative branches.  Instead it has become  a pawn of partisan conflict.

When a president appoints a justice solely to advance a party agenda, overturn previous rulings, or “legislate from the bench” the court becomes an arm of the executive branch with influence much longer than the president’s term of office.   That isn’t what the authors of the Constitution intended.  In it’s pursuit of collectivism the far left sees the Court as a means to nullify the individual rights granted by Bill of Rights.  The Court has no authority to amend the Constitution or repeal its amendments.  Justice Scalia understood that.  There’s a procedure for amending the Constitution that requires more than a court decision.

Freedom: it’s easy to lose and almost impossible to get back.

Justinian’s Code, a History Lesson.

Back in the 6th century, Justinian, emperor of the eastern half of the Roman Empire that we now call Byzantium, decided that the Roman law code had become too, well… byzantine.  He ordered a recodification to consolidate the laws, to resolve conflicts among laws, and to eliminate laws no longer needed.  It was a herculean task back then when everything was hand written.  It would be impossible to do with our law code, even with computers, as we have millions of laws, but wouldn’t it be great if we could eliminate laws that are unconstitutional or no longer in use and resolve conflicts among our laws on a proactive basis?  While it couldn’t be done as one effort, the situation could be improved incrementally.  Why not establish a central database where courts or law firms could report questionable or conflicting laws, and have those laws periodically reviewed by legislators for resolution?

We should also ask why we keep writing more laws about the same thing.  How many laws does it take to say “Thou shalt not kill”?  There are thousands of them, and people still want more.  Doesn’t anyone understand that if 1000 laws don’t prevent a crime, number 1001 probably won’t either because criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law?

The Supreme Court: Gavel or Hammer?

The Supreme Court gets it’s gavel from Article III of the Constitution, which establishes it and authorizes Congress to create the lower federal court system.  The Supreme Court’s job is to determine the constitutionality of laws and presidential actions, theoretically preventing excesses from the other two branches.  Lower Federal courts can make constitutional rulings too but they’re appealable to the Supreme Court.   Alexander Hamilton considered the Supreme Court to be the “least dangerous” branch of government because it lacked executive or legislative powers, but that hasn’t proven true.  Using Judicial Review it can overturn the actions of our elected officials.  An “activist” court can effectively legislate. That’s awesome power for a panel of judges who are appointed for life by the president and out of the reach of the voting booth, and it’s a powerful reason for maintaining presidential term limits.  It’s naive to think that judges are totally impartial and nonpartisan.  A judge appointed by the president will probably have similar opinions on how things should be in the USA.  We often hear about the “conservative/liberal” balance in the court.  Typically conservatives use the gavel to uphold the Constitution while liberals use it as a hammer to chip away at the Bill of Rights. Have some recent court rulings been about the Constitution or about a political agenda?  If they have it’s time to consider a 12 to 18 year term limit for Supreme Court justices along with a mandatory retirement age.