Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /home/johnblog/public_html/wp-settings.php on line 18
Constitution « JohnSeilerBlogs.com

Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

“Red County” Republicans vs. Greenhut

Friday, July 10th, 2009

Nowadays we shouldn’t expect much from Republicans but amusement. At least they’re not running the central government, still ruining everything, having left that task to Democrats.

A post on the Red County blog doesn’t disappoint. It’s by Chip Hanlon, a local GOP activist. “Red County” gets its name because in the 2004 election Orange County had the biggest margin of victory for the Republican candidate for president, although it didn’t in 2008.

Chip critiques a column over the Independence Day weekend by Steven Greenhut, my former O.C. Register colleague, “Declarations on Independence,” about how America isn’t exactly the land of the free the Founders fought and died for way back in 1776. Greenhut’s subhead: “Try to relax and enjoy the holiday devoted to America’s revolt against oppression, at least as much as the government lets you enjoy it.”

Greenhut’s responses are here and here.

Hanlon writes:

Here, Greenhut shows how, like many Libertarians, he has become a prisoner of his own supposed philosophy.

Why “supposed philosophy”? Anyone who has read Greenhut’s articles over the years knows that, agree or disagree with it, he has an actual philosophy that’s well thought out.

Military supremacy

Hanlon writes:

However, one passage in particular gives a valuable glimpse into the mind of the extreme Libertarian:

Fourth, try attending one of the many military displays, where you can honor those agencies that have protected your freedoms by invading countries that you previously had never heard of. While you’re at it, try appreciating every one of the $500 billion-plus spent by the Pentagon this year, along with the additional billions spent by the nation’s intelligence officials to protect your freedoms in ways so important that they must be kept secret from you.

One of the few functions of government someone like Greenhut would acknowledge as appropriate is its duty to protect its citizens– via both the military for national defense and via a law enforcement/court system. Apparently, though, according to Steve those intelligence agencies and their “secrecy” have no place in a national defense scheme. And you can just hear the disdain he holds for those in our military in the very first line in that paragraph.

It’s funny, but I attended military parades in the 1960s and 1970s  that weren’t nearly as martial as those today, even though veterans marched from World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, which combined had 100 times as many war dead as have the Iraq and Afghan Wars. They were just parades honoring our friends and relatives who had served, and in some cases died, not displays of war whooping like modern parades.

A free Republic, which America is supposed to be, is modest about its military. Only empires act as if the military were the paramount element in society.

Hanlon:

One of the few functions of government someone like Greenhut would acknowledge as appropriate is its duty to protect its citizens — via both the military for national defense and via a law enforcement/court system.

“Protect,” yes — but we’re way beyond that into total government domination of our lives.

“PATRIOT Act” Tyranny

Hanlon writes:

Is it legitimate to question laws like the Patriot Act or the size and scope of our military spending and engagements? Undoubtedly, but Libertarians don’t stop on any reasonable ground in these areas.

Actually, any real American patriot is outraged by the misnamed “USA PATRIOT” Act, which should be called the USSR Traitors’ Act. As 9/11 was America’s Reichstag Fire, so the “PATRIOT” Act is America’s Enabling Act, in each case — 1933 or 2001 — giving a central tyranny the authority to destroy our liberties on the excuse of “protecting” us.

Hanlon is a smart fellow. But he needs to wake up to what’s really happening. He, like so many Republicans, didn’t heed the warning of the late Paul Weyrich, who said, “Never give your friend a weapon your enemy, once he’s back in power, could use against you.”

How does it feel now, Chip, that Homeland Security Gauleiter Janet Napolitano has a conservative enemies list?

As the song asks, “What ya gonna do when they come for you?”

Intrusions and “conspiracies”

Hanlon writes:

And it’s why a guy like Steve will take inane examples of government “intrusions” and turn them into full-blown conspiracies.

It’s not a conspiracy, but a law! It’s the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. According to the Wikipedia article the law, among other things:

  • Permits the government not to keep records of searches, and destroy existing records (it requires them to keep the records for a period of 10 years).
  • Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for “‘past or future cooperation’ with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists.”
  • Removes requirements for detailed descriptions of the nature of information or property targeted by the surveillance.
  • Increased the time allowed for warrantless surveillance to continue from 48 hours to 7 days.

Then there’s the REAL ID Act, a national ID card, that Republicans have tried to foist on us, and Obama now is reviving.

Your paperz pleasze?

If it looks like the KGB and quacks like the KGB, it is the KGB.

Police riots

Hanlon brings up Greenhut’s reference to “a rare instance of excessive police force.” Actually, these instances are getting not only common, but routine, as detalied on William Norman Grigg’s blog.

And let’s not forget an example right here Red County, involving one of the top Republicans.  Corrupt Orange County Republican Sheriff Mike Carona, now a felon in prison, allowed conditions in his jail so bad that an inmate was killed. Greenhut wrote in May:

the Carona jail system gained the reputation as something of a torture chamber. The beating death of inmate John Chamberlain (deputies regularly watched TV, slept and played videogames) was the epitome of the Carona management system. A grand jury report revealed various departmental cover-ups of that brutal event, as deputies perjured themselves, tampered with witnesses (see a pattern here?) and abused the inmates under their care.

No “conspiracy” there. Just the facts, ma’am, as Sgt. Joe Friday used to say.

And Carona’s replacement as sheriff, appointed by the GOP-dominated board of supervisors, is an anti-gun fanatic.

An Empire, Not a Republic

Hanlon:

In their bizarre [libertarian] ideology, it is better to passively watch all the events of the world and take literally no hand in shaping it to meet our American interests nor the those of individual liberty around the globe. Some belief system.

Actually, America’s Founders favored an America First foreign policy, and opposed foreign adventurism. President Washington laid it out for us in his Farewell Address of 1786:

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible….The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.

Moreover, the Constitution, whose drafting Washington presided over, included nothing about taking a hand in shaping the world “to meet our American interests” and those “of individual liberty around the globe.”

We were to shape the world only by our example as a free country, something we no longer do because we’re no longer free.

For one thing, we’re learning what the Founders knew from their study of the Athenian Empire and the Roman Empire: that global engagement means the end of a free republic and the imposition of a tyrannical empire.

For another, the Constitution grants the power to declare war only to the U.S. Congress, yet our last declared war was World War II. All the rest of the wars since then, including the Iraq and Afghan and Pakistan wars, have been unconstitutional. The presidents who began them should have been impeached and removed from office.
Fiscal Follies
Hanlon:

Sadly, because the GOP failed so miserably on fiscal responsibility while in the majority, many on the right are being enticed by the little they know about Libertarians — their commitment to fiscal restraint.

And why did they “fail so miserably on fiscal responsibility”? It was mainly because of the unconstitutional  wars. The Iraq War alone is going to cost us up to $5 trillion. That’s $5,000,000,000,000.00.
Not only that, but to run a war, you need to bribe domestic constituencies with porkbarrel spending — guns and butter, just like LBJ, another spendthrift warmonger Texan, did in the 1960s. As former Reagan Treasury official Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s policy of Great Society spending and Vietnam War is credited with the rising American inflation that persisted until checked by President Reagan’s supply-side policy.

In Johnson’s time the American economy and the US dollar were strong, and there was no current account deficit. Yet, LBJ’s policy of guns and butter did long-term harm.

The Bush/Obama 21st century policy of guns and butter makes LBJ look like a piker. The 2009 and 2010 federal budget deficits will be monstrous even without guns.  But Obama is exiting (apparently) the Iraq War in order to start two, possibly three, more wars.

Inflation, debt, depression

And it was Republican President Bush and Republican Fed Chairman Greenspan who, after 9/11, panicked and inflated the dollar, thus tripling the gold price, even as they lowered interest rates — the combined effect being the real estate bubble that crashed later in the decade.

Another way Bush panicked after 9/11 was that, instead of going just after bin Laden and the other terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attack, he tried to turn both Afghanistan and Iraq into model “democracies” — an impossible task given the tribal nature of both societies. The result was the endless quagmires in which we’re now stuck, and all the woes of empire for America.

Wild spending on war, wild domestic spending, inflation, artificially low interest rates, record deficits, record debt — no wonder in September 2008 the economy careened into the Bush Depression. Republicans — including the GOP Congress in power until 2006 — bear most of the blame, although Democrats bear much of the blame, too. For one thing, both the Democratic Congress of 2006 and Obama in 2008 were elected to end the Iraq War, yet they have not done so. Obama is making everything worse, not better.

But let’s never cease blaming Republicans as the primary culprits in our economic misery. They should have known better.

Reagan, after all, whatever his faults, presided over the correct formula: no foreign quagmires (he pulled out of Lebanon after the Marines were blown up in 1983), a stable currency, sensible interest rates, and tax cuts that lasted (instead of Bush’s, which expire next year).

Jumped the shark?

Finally, and maybe most hilariously, Hanlon jumbles the “jump the shark” analogy. He writes:

Just like when Fonzie jumped the shark, marking the moment when Happy Days lost its relevance as a show, Steven Greenhut just had one of those moments, giving all of us a glimpse into the extremist he seems to have become due to his frustration with the Republican party.

Actually, “jump the shark” doesn’t mean when something “lost its relevance,” but as Wikipedia explains, has “passed [its] peak.” And in fact, “Happy Days” lasted another seven of its 11 seasons, or about 2/3 of the show’s run, after it “jumped the shark.”

So, given that Steven has been at the Register since 1998, he’ll be there another 22 years, by this analogy. Although I should add that he hasn’t “passed his peak” but has just begun it.

It’s also ironic that Hanlon brands Greenhut an “extremist,” given that’s usually the label leftists use against sensible conservatives and libertarians — which, of course, is what Steven really is.

Update, July 14, 2009, 8:35 p.m. PST. Steven Greenhut has another reply to the Red County Republicans:

The good Republican folks at Red County have published a post accusing libertarians of being extremists and suggesting that we hate America, believe Lincoln to have been one of the world’s biggest war criminals and other such nonsense based on the unidentified statements. Yet one prominent writer at the blog, and someone who has zealously joined in the “libertarians are extremists” commenting has long ties to Christian Reconstructionism, a form of fundamentalist Christianity that seeks to impose Old Testament law on society. Would it be fair, then, to suggest that Red County is in league with those views, which I believe are somewhat outside the mainstream?

Click here for more…

Why Bush really may have been the worst president

Saturday, January 24th, 2009

I don’t know if Bush was America’s worst president. We’ve had so many terrible ones. If you’re old enough, remember LBJ and Nixon?

But Bush very well may have been the worst.

That’ s because what makes America unique in the annals of human history isn’t our prosperity (gone now anyway), the Super Bowl, or rock and roll. It’s the U.S. Constitution, which protects our liberties by wrapping hoops of steel around government.

Bush, more than any president since at least FDR, ripped off those hoops of steel and made a massive assault on our liberties. After him, there’s not much left of the Constitution. In the name of “protecting” us, he shredded our real protector: the Constitution.

All the vast new totalitarian powers Bush seized, last week he bequeathed to Obama.

I’ve written about this for 8 years. But a good summary comes from Christopher Manion:

Fact: Bin Laden spent half a million on 9-11, with the audacity of hope that Bush’s response would bankrupt America. It did.

Fact: 9-11 was not the most catastrophic event of the past eight years. Nor was the politically-derived collapse of our economy.

Fact: The most catastrophic event of the past eight years was the evisceration of the U.S. Constitution by a bipartisan gang of thieves and egomaniacs who show no remorse or regret for their crimes.

Fact: Bush did everything he could to destroy the fabric of comity among nations; now his spear-carriers spurn the option of their humble, honorable exit and instead fiendishly prepare to blame Obama for the consequences of Bush’s travesties.

Fact: Obama will create enough travesties of his own, thank you.

Fact: The same bipartisan peanut gallery that propounds fear of another 9-11 actually celebrates the 600,000 unnecessary deaths of the Civil War. Like Madeline Albright cheering the deaths of half a million Iraqi children **before** 9-11, these fanatics think those 600,000 deaths were “worth it.”

Fact: Our long national nightmare is not over, because the fulcrum upon which we must rely to leverage a recovery of our liberties — the Constitution — is ignored. All that is left is schoolyard taunts and mindless legacy-building.

McCain adviser: Der President ist ein Führer

Monday, June 2nd, 2008

McCain just hired a new adviser: Michael Goldfarb, a staffer at the Neocon rag The Weekly Reader.

As quoted by the indispensable Glen Greenwald, here’s what Goldfarb insists the president’s powers entail:

[Sen. George] Mitchell’s less than persuasive answer [to whether withdrawal timetables "somehow infringe on the president's powers as commander in chief?"]: “Congress is a coequal branch of government…the framers did not want to have one branch in charge of the government.”

True enough, but they sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war. So no, the Constitution does not put Congress on an equal footing with the executive in matters of national security.

Yeah, sure. And the Constitution also mandates a stiff-armed salute to Der Führer.

Actually, of course, the Constitution set up the president as a rather modest position of “presiding” over the government. The president is only the “commander in chief” of the armed forces — that is, the top general.

It’s Congress that really runs foreign policy, through its treaty-making powers, and war.

On treaties, Article 2, Section 2 states:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….

A treaty means nothing unless the Senate approves it. The Senate also can change the treaty’s wording and add amendments.

As to war, Article 1, Section 8, makes clear:

The Congress shall have Power…

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress….

That McCain would hire such a power-centralizing ideologue as Goldfarb shows McCain himself is unfit for the highest office in the land. He wasn’t want to be president, but Napoleon on horseback.

napoleon

Actually, we need bigger government and higher taxes

Tuesday, April 1st, 2008

democracyI’ve been thinking lately that my longtime anti-government stance is a little outdated. I’ll soon be 53, which means soon after that I’ll be ready for Social Security and Medicare, the two most successful government programs. If those programs aren’t funded, I’m in a world of hurt.

I’ve also been thinking about the nature of government in a democracy. Our Constitution begins, “We, the people.” So, government is “We.” Or as we might say nowadays: Government “R” Us.” Or perhaps: U.S. = us.

When government raises taxes, we’re just paying ourselves. It’s like putting money from an unproductive checking account into a savings account that bears interest. With government, if taxes increase, people have to pay more, but they do so by reducing such harmful things as smoking and drinking; so they’re better off just by that. But it’s even better because the money goes for such productive things as better schools to produce the innovators of the future, and cleaning the environment to keep us all save and healthy.

home frontWe should look on the police the same way. They’re “our” police, belonging to “We, the people.” Sure, there are a few bad apples, as in any barrel. But police “internal affairs” departments take care of such problems. If you’re innocent, then you don’t have anything to fear from increased police powers. The police will use those powers to protect you and me — that is, “We, the people” — from the thugs that threaten us. Only the guilty need fear the police.

On foreign policy, we should favor a policy, such as that pursued by all the recent presidents, that expands democracy abroad. Yes, it can be costly, as we see in Iraq. But it’s wroth it. More democracy means more freedom. And more free peoples around the world means more people who understand America, and like America.

Although government bureaucracies can be difficult to deal with, they, too, reflect the wishes of “We, the people.” How many of us, after all, understand monetary policy? Doesn’t it make sense to entrust it to highly trained economists at the Federal Reserve Board? And how many of us got past even high school chemistry? Doesn’t it make sense to entrust drug safety to the FDA? These experts have many years of college and professional training behind them. Yet, they are close to the people — us — because they are appointed and confirmed by our elected representatives. They are the best and brightest, rising from amongst us to help all of us — all of “We, the people.”

So, we should give government a break. By criticizing government, we only criticize ourselves.

Red the next line backwards:

! loof lirpA

Will the U.S. Supreme Court protect our 2nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms”?

Wednesday, March 19th, 2008

washingtonThe Bill of Rights originally was intended to restrict only the federal government, with the states allowed to function (except on foreign policy and a few other areas) as independent countries. But over the years the federal government has erected what the Founding Fathers criticized as “consolidated government.” So today, the Feds call the shots on everything from economic production, to abortion laws, to what goes on in your local schools.

This produces a conundrum for people, like me, who support both individual liberty and the Constitution. Should the Supreme Court support individual liberty against the 50 states? Or is the further expansion of federal power — even when defending individual rights — something that, in the end, will reduce individual liberty by expanding the most oppressive power of all, the federal government?

Some people I respect say the Feds control everything anyway, so we might as well use that to our advantage. Others say every chance to reduce federal power is worth it, even it means increasing state power.

The case the Supreme Court just took up, District of Columbia v. Heller, produces just such a conundrum. Are Washington, D.C.’s strict gun control laws a violation of the 2nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms”? Or does that amendment, along with the other 9 in the Bill of Rights, apply only to the federal government itself, with the states (and D.C. acting as a state) allowed make their own laws?

The latter view is ably presented by one of our best constitutional jurists, Kevin R.C. Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D. He is the author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,” which actually is the best book on what our Constitution really means. (Hat tip to Lew Rockwell’s Blog.)

Also, did the 14th Amendment “incorporate” the Bill of Rights into the constitutions of every state, meaning the Bill of Rights applies everywhere? Or did it not? Or was the 14th Amendment fraudulently adopted? Questions to ponder.

For once, I’m wondering what position to take. Not that the Supremes will base their decision on my blog (although they ought to).

Out here in California we’re likely to soon get a rash of new gun control laws as the state increasingly becomes North Koreafornia. On the other hand, every day I see new encroachments of federal power of my liberties, and the liberties of my friends. And I don’t want the feds to get any more power.

2nd Amendment, 1st right

I suppose that, at this late date, it would be best to protect my right to keep a gun. The Feds, the state, and the local governments have taken away so many liberties, that a defense of states’ rights — in this case, to limit gun ownership — probably won’t matter much. It certainly is unlikely, for example, to lead to a curb of Bush’s Bolshevik No Child Left Behind usurpation of local and parental authority over public schools.

And if the court doesn’t uphold the 2nd Amendment everywhere, then its action will be taken as a reason to impose gun control in many more places, beginning with California.

So, let’s hope the justices overturn D.C.’s gun control law.

john wayneThe right to “keep and bear arms” really is the most important right, even more than such other rights as freedom of speech, the right to property, or the right to life (anti-abortion). Because if you don’t have a gun, you can’t protect any of the other rights.

I recently reviewed a biography of Stalin, who murdered millions of people. He never would have gotten away with it if, when his secret police goons came around to grab men and their families for execution or the Gulag, the men had opened fire. With our guns, at least Americans will retain some freedoms.

Get a gun

gunsFinally, if you don’t have a gun, get one and learn how to use it. Learn gun safety and how to shoot straight. My father, a captain of ordnance in World War II, taught my brother and me when were were kids. And I was in the U.S. Army for four years. But you can take lessons at your local firing range.

If you get a gun, you should be be prepared to use it, if necessary, to defend your family. That means, if an intruder is attacking your wife and kids, you kill the intruder. As a cop once said, make sure that there’s only one story to be told to the authorities afterwards.

If you can’t do that, then don’t get a gun. Instead, make sure your cell phone is charged so you can call police, who will arrive after it’s too late to protect your family.

You’re not really free unless you’re prepared, and willing, to defend that freedom.

Lock and load.

Ron Paul: “Why don’t we just open up the Constitution and read it?”

Wednesday, October 10th, 2007

Ron PaulAt last night’s GOP debate in Dearborn, Michigan, only one candidate actually backed the U.S. Constitution — to which the next president will take an oath of office to “preserve, protect, and defend.” That was Ron Paul.

When asked if they would get approval from Congress, all the other candidates said no, or used weasel words. The worst response came from Mitt Romney:

We’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn’t need to do, but certainly what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people in leadership of our government, as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available.

The lawyers! We don’t need lawyers to tell us what the Constitution says about declarations of war.

Ron Paul retorted:

This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don’t we just open up the Constitution and read it? You’re not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.

When we do read the Constitution, here’s what we find, in Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have the Power….To declare War….

That’s what this election is about, Americans. Read the Constitution for yourselves. When you do, you’ll find that only one candidate, Democrat or Republican, actually would implement the supreme law of our land.

That’s Ron Paul.

(Keep up with my blog. Sign up for my RSS feed.)

Good riddance to A.G. Gonzales

Monday, August 27th, 2007

The worst U.S. attorney general since John Mitchell has been Alberto Gonzales, who just resigned. At least Mitchell was competent.

Will he become the second A.G., after Mitchell, to be convicted and imprisoned?

He’s been Bush’s bumbling consiglieri. With him gone, it’s possible the whole Bush regime could crack open like a rotten egg.

Sidney Blumenthal wrongly predicted that Gonzales would not be fired. But Blumenthal was right in writing:

If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales were miraculously to tell the truth, or if he were to resign or be removed, the secret government of the past six years would be unlocked. So long as a Republican Congress rigorously engaged in enforcing no oversight was smugly complicit through its passive ignorance and abdication of constitutional responsibility, the White House was secure in enacting its theories of the imperial presidency. An executive bound only by his self-proclaimed fiat in his capacity as commander in chief became his own law in authorizing torture and warrantless domestic wiretapping and data mining.

The Democratic Congress now needs to call Gonzales to testify about what has been going on — how Bush/Gonzales have conducted a massive attack on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Republicans — with a few heroic exceptions, such as Rep. Ron Paul, the presidential candidate — disgracefully have defended Bush’s attacks on our liberties, and voted him the dictatorial powers he has been using. To reclaim their own honor, Republicans need to take the lead in going after Bush — just as Republicans did during the Watergate investigations of Nixon in 1973-74.

Republicans can reclaim their lost honor by helping Democrats investigate, and cleanse, the putrid Bush dictatorship.

(Don’t miss a word! Sign up for my RSS feed.)

U.S. out of O.C.!

Friday, August 10th, 2007

The U.S. Government has invaded Orange County to investigate Treasurer/Tax Collector Chriss Street. The Register reported:

The investigation, which was initially launched by District Attorney Tony Rackauckas last May, was turned over to federal prosecutors at their request, said Susan Schroeder, a Rackauckas spokeswoman.

“The feds wanted that case and we determined it would be best handled by the feds because it had more federal issues than state issues,” she said.

Rackauckas should have told the Feds to butt out of Orange County’s business. We’re a big county. We can handle it. And if we can’t, then the case should have been handed over to California Attorney General Jerry Brown. I don’t like Jerry Brown and have demanded his recall. But he’s better than U.S. Attorney General Alberto “The Torturer” Gonzales, who helped wrote the infamous memo approving torture.

Gonzales and his Feds also are attacking former Broadcom CEO Henry Nicholas. The latest is that an aide to Nicholas is being charged with “withdrawing hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to avoid federal reporting requirements.” Right — “reporting requirements.” The Feds make their tax system so complex even Albert Einstein couldn’t make head or tail of it, then go after people who “violate” it. America has become like the Soviet Union, where everyone always was guilty of some violation of the “law,” and could be sent, at whim, to the Gulag.

It remains amazing that the criminal Bush regime accuses anybody of anything. As Sidney Blumenthal has written of Gonzales, Bush, and Cheney, whom he calls the Three Stooges running the government:

Omertà (or a code of silence) has become the final bond holding the Bush administration together. Honesty is dishonorable; silence is manly; penitence is weakness. Loyalty trumps law. Protecting higher-ups is patriotism. Stonewalling is idealism. Telling the truth is informing. Cooperation with investigators is cowardice; breaking the code is betrayal. Once the code is shattered, however, no one can be trusted and the entire edifice crumbles.

If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales were miraculously to tell the truth, or if he were to resign or be removed, the secret government of the past six years would be unlocked.

The Fed gangsters have no business in Orange County — or anywhere.

And let’s look at how the Feds have managed things in other places. In Iraq, which the U.S. Government runs as completely as it wishes it could run Orange County, almost 4,000 brave Americans have been killed; 600,000 Iraqis are dead; and 10% of the Iraqi population are refugees.

Then let’s turn to the U.S. city that the Feds, for once following the U.S. Constitution, completely control: Washington, D.C. It’s a hellhole. In the 1990s, it was Murder City U.S.A. Last year,

“D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey reacted … to a recent surge in homicides by declaring a “crime emergency”….

Instead of mucking around in O.C., the Feds should tend to their own cesspool-city, D.C. Put all those FBI agents and Justice Department striped-pants boys out on the mean streets of D.C. with .38’s.

All these actions against Street and Nicholas are unconstitutional. The Constitution gives Congress only 18 severely limited powers. Nothing more. Everything else, including what they’re doing now in O.C., is unconstitutional.

Of course, none of that is taught in the government schools, those brainwashing centers for tyranny. Except for Ron Paul, no Republican or Democratic candidate proposes returning to the Constitution.

When are we supposedly “free” Americans going to tell the Federal tyrants to get out of town, that we’ll handle problems with our local politicians and businessmen locally?

(Add me to your RSS feed! Click here: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Johnseilerblogscom)

How should Sen. Stevens be investigated?

Wednesday, August 1st, 2007

stevensI had a couple of comments on my blog about the investigation of Sen. Stevens. One said:

I hate to be the one who corrects you but, the Constitution does not allow its members to be free from criminal prosecution by the FBI or other executive branch departments.

Alan Bartlett said:

I can see your argument about keeping the branches of government separate, but how do we hold these Senators and Reps accountable if they’ve broken the law? Sen Stevens might be the next Duke Cunningham. I want him prosecuted if it’s proven that he did the type of things Duke did.

My problem is that the Executive Branch of government has become overwhelming in its power. Only Congress and the courts can check that power. But if the Executive has free rein to investigate and prosecute senators and representatives, then it effectively controls that branch, too.

Another problem is that the FBI itself is an unconstitutional agency that, because of Bush’s obsession with wiretapping without warrants, has become an American Stasi. The FBI isn’t mentioned in the 18 modest functions the Constitution allows the federal government to do in Article 1, Section 8. Which means the FBI itself is illegal and therefore should be abolished.

Of course, we don’t follow the Constitution anymore. It’s about as defunct as the Code of Hammurabi. The government just does what it wants to.

As to Sen. Stevens’ alleged corruption, as I said, it should be investigated by state authorities in Alaska. What if Alaska doesn’t investigate, and perhaps has become a center of corruption and abuse? Then Alaska can be kicked out of the Union.

The real threat to our freedoms is not an allegedly corrupt senator, but the mammoth, intrusive, oppressive central regime in Washington.

FBI, IRS violate separation of powers in raid on Sen. Stevens’ home

Tuesday, July 31st, 2007

Doesn’t anyone care about the U.S. Constitution and the separation of powers anymore? It clearly states in Article I, Section 5:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members….

That means the Executive Branch — nowadays best called the Imperial Branch — should butt out of investigations into members of Congress, letting Congress itself determine if members have violated any laws. (State and local investigations also are kosher.) Instead, we have this:

Federal agents searched the home of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens on Monday, focusing on records related to his relationship with an oil field services contractor jailed in a public corruption investigation, a law enforcement official said.

Stevens, 83, has been under a federal investigation for a 2000 renovation project more than doubling the size of his home in Girdwood that was overseen by Bill Allen, a contractor who has pleaded guilty to bribing Alaska state legislators.

This is a way for the Imperial Branch to bully senators into doing its bidding.