Archive for the ‘Founders’ Category

First, a good visual, via AP at HotAir; from the leftist New Republic:

new republic yeltsin

Their story from The New Republic is here, and is a phenomenal example of the blind leftist desire for tyranny:

What is a president in a presidential constitutional republic to do when faced with an intransigent, bull-headed faction among his people’s representatives?

Syria’s a presidential constitutional republic.  Is the answer “nerve gas civilians”?

Well, Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s first democratically elected president, was once faced with a similar situation exactly 20 years ago, in October 1993. The parliament, then called the Supreme Soviet, was increasingly against Yeltsin’s neoliberal economic reforms (suggested to him by young Western advisors like Jeffrey Sachs). On one hand, these reforms freed up the old Soviet command economy.

So, Yeltsin was pushing for a reform that would break up a command economy, where government would no longer dictate how and where money will be spent.  Meanwhile, in Soviet America, Obama is pushing for a reform that will institute a command economy, where government dictates who and where money will be spent.

Yeltsin was pushing for reforms against state control, Obama is pushing for state control.

On the other, they drove the country into chaos and violence, and left tens of millions impoverished, their savings nullified by skyrocketing inflation.

I guess Yeltsin should’ve had Ben Bernanke doing some Quantitative Easing to hide the inflation a bit better.

The parliament, dominated by old Soviet conservatives, was increasingly against these reforms and refused to confirm Yeltsin’s key economic advisor.

In Soviet Russia, conservatives stand for crushing citizens with government!  In Soviet America, conservatives are terrorists and anarchists against government!

Almost exactly 20 years ago, he dissolved parliament. The vice president and the speaker of the parliament dissolved Yeltsin’s presidency, and holed up with their supporters in the parliament’s headquarters, now known as “the White House.”

Then Yeltsin did this to it.

1993 russia parliament

Oh, yes.  So The New Republic wants Obama to burn down the capitol building and dissolve congress and eliminate the representatives of the people so he can enact his “reforms” which create a command economy with regards to the health of every citizen.  It’s a bill that the Ruling Class exempts itself from (you really think Obama will be on Obamacare?), and which was pushed through without being read – passed so you can find out what’s in it rather than read it – by shady procedures in the middle of the night by a Democrat party that didn’t listen at all to what the people wanted, and the same Democrat party that knows Obamacare will fail the citizenry but knows it’s only a tool so it can be used institute a government-controlled single payer system.

On the other side of the Ruling Class statist coin, The National Interest, which seems today to mostly be a Ruling Class statist publication where party isn’t that important (with neocons it rarely is), asks “Is It Time To Abolish Congress?

-

So, DC insiders on both the left and the right are asking if the people’s representatives should simply be done away with so the great leader can get on with his business of creating a command economy against the will of the citizenry.

Congress is representing their constituents, who vehemently oppose the Obamacare mandate and taxation.

-

When faced with an intransigent, bull-headed governing body, the Founding Fathers did this:

stand your ground lexington concord 2

From ForeignPolicy, Rosa Brooks writes a piece called “Blood on the Constitution”:

Here we go again. With 12 dead bodies at Washington’s Navy Yard, not including that of the shooter, Americans are back to the usual handwringing: Why, oh why can’t we stem the tide of gun violence?

People, this is not rocket science. (Yes, I’m mad).

That’s the best way to write a modern liberal column.  Impotent Rage!

Americans currently have crappy gun-control laws, “crappy” being the technical legal term for “hopelessly, pathetically inadequate,” especially when compared to other countries‘ laws. Yes, those countries with fewer guns and fewer gun deaths — they have much tougher gun-control laws than the United States does.

Those “other countries” being the usual suspects: cold-weather politemongers of Canada (who have abandoned their long gun registry as pointless and a stupid failure), ethnically whites-only no-guns Australia, under-siege religious-ethnic bonded Israel, unarmed UK, genetically homongenous Norway, and genetically homogenous xenophobic and occasionally murderously totalitarian Japan.

And why do we have crappy gun-control laws? Because of the Second Amendment, which gives Americans a constitutional right to crappy gun-control laws. That’s why we fought a war against the British: We wanted to the right to kill each other, instead of being killed by foreign enemies.

At least when leftists write mad, they write what they feel.  And she’s right, in her own warped worldview.  But we’ve had some of the kind of gun control laws she’d like in the past.  They were instituted so America’s slave underclasses and minorities and undesirables could be kept down.  Just the way she likes it – she just adjusted her sights to oppress the serfs of the Country Class.

The real reason we have the Second Amendment is to preserve a free state – as opposed to a tyrannical oppressor state.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

- Thomas Jefferson

And remember, he was referencing Shay’s Rebellion at the time – a domestic insurgency against perceived tyranny.  And it was viewed as a good thing, because it was necessary to keep the government honest.  Yes, that was TJ supporting armed rebellion as a way to keep government in check.

Brooks real complaint is that the classic liberal enlightenment document that the nation is based on must be destroyed.

For its time, the U.S. Constitution was a pretty impressive document, if you leave aside certain small details such as slavery, which was considered A-OK by the Founding Fathers, and women’s rights, which were considered not A-OK. But let’s give the Constitution’s authors a break; they lived at a time when slavery was widespread not only in the United States but around the globe and women were still considered semi-chattel in most of the world. For its time, the Constitution was not bad at all.

But for our time, it stinks.

First off, it was broad enough that “all men are created equal” in founding documents can easily apply just as well to everyone.  And things like the 3/5 compromise were written to slowly abolish things like slavery.  Also, amendments, how do they work?

Whenever I teach constitutional law, I ask my students if they’re happy that they live in a nation with the oldest written constitution in the world. They all nod enthusiastically. Then I ask them if they’d be equally pleased if our neurosurgeons operated in accordance with the oldest anatomybook in the world, or our oil tankers steered using the oldest navigational charts in the world, or NASA’s rocket scientists used Ptolemaic astronomy to chart the path of the Mars Rover.

Frankly, having the world’s oldest written constitution is not something to be proud of.

From here she goes into a leftist diatribe about how the Constitution sucks because it’s old, and thus it’s irrelevant and needs to be destroyed to represent her chosen vision of a modern world because remember, she’s mad.

But she’s got some specious argument there about age being a condition of obsolescence.  A counterpoint would be to ask students if they think their mathematicians should continue to use the Pythagorean Theorem, or if they should use the positions put forth in the Kama Sutra in their dorms.

soha ali khan

Picture of Soha Ali Khan unrelated.

Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.  Often it means it’s tried and true, and especially as human nature tends to be rather consistent, the Constitution works rather well, just like the Quadratic Formula and cowgirl.

And boy, have circumstances changed lately. To return to gun deaths, the framers could never have imagined weapons technologies like those used in Newtown or the Navy Yard. But because the U.S. Constitution is amazingly difficult to amend (incredibly, women still have no text-based constitutional guarantee of equal rights), Americans are stuck with gun rules from more than two centuries ago.

The Founders were very, very smart men.  They were inventors themselves.  They also had privately owned cannon at the time – ordnance, not arms; and they were well aware of rapid firing weapons, anti-personnel munitions, and all kind of other assorted nastiness that could be used for evil intent.  Keep in mind that was also an era where swords were still commonplace, and unlike a gun, you don’t have to reload a sword ever.  Also, medicine to treat wounds in the 1700s was much more limiting. thus survivable wounds today would often have been fatal wounds then.

The Constitution is difficult to amend for a reason.  It’s so a bunch of mad shrews like Brooks don’t just go out and change it willy-nilly.  Anger-fueled madness triumphing over reason is how with the likes of Carrie Nation and later iterations of the temperance movement, we eventually got Prohibition, which no one but some progressive anti-freedom anti-drink busybodies wanted.  Government driven by progressive do-gooders inflicted Prohibition on the population, and murdered 10,000 US citizens for our own good.

Crime statistics of individual man on man pale in comparison to 10,000 murdered by the government in the name of “the common good” against “fiend intemperance”.  And that’s from a mostly benign government.  Government is the problem.

oleg volk government killing

This may help explain why the U.S. Constitution no longer gets much global respect. Just a few decades ago, the overwhelming majority of nations around the globe modeled their own constitutions on it. Today, that’s no longer true.

Just why other democracies are losing interest in the U.S. Constitution as a model is an interesting question, and there are undoubtedly a thousand and one reasons.  But I’ll bet the Navy Yard shootings just added 12 more.

Guess what, Brooks?  I don’t care too much what other countries do with their constitutions.  I like ours just fine.

I also don’t care because most of the world isn’t founded on the idea of a representative democratic republic based on Enlightenment ideals of the individual as the most important element of society.  Most new governments are filling themselves up with collectivist declarations of the special rights of group A or group B, not with the declaration of the Natural Right of Individual X.  They exist only to empower the Ruling Class at the expense of the ruled, to balance different balkanized groups against one another while the truly powerful play a game of favorites with resources they steal from the population.  It is a game of plunder, where Brooks and her Ruling Class plunderers distribute it for the good of their own personal power as the Ruling Class.

It’s worth noting that her bio includes this:

Rosa Brooks is a law professor at Georgetown University and a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation. She served as a counselor to the U.S. defense undersecretary for policy from 2009 to 2011 and previously served as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department.

She’s been a high-level advisor in the Obama administration, and a professor of law.  She teaches students that the Constitution must be destroyed, and she advises government to destroy the very document that governs the government.  She is one of those Ruling Class elites who of course would demand that you be disarmed.  It makes her job of administering your resources and deciding how you will be controlled that much easier.

-

And as a complete counterpoint to her nonsense:

Via HotAir, David Brooks at NYT wants so much more government involved in your life, but it’s so sad that sometimes so much more good government that will tell you how to live doesn’t turn out perfect like it should.  Aww.. poor statist tyrant:

Most government workers are amazingly dedicated and talented, and they put in a level of commitment that is far out of proportion to their salaries.

But we’re also seeing government workers, who, far from checking their own desire for control, have taken it out for a romp.

Brooks is an idiot.  At the bottom of the page, it notes that he’s filling in for Paul Krugman, who’s also an idiot, so he must be competing with Paul Krugman for some inter-office idiocy award.

Auditing low-level agents at the IRS do not “take their desire for control out for a romp”.  Doesn’t work that way.  They may agree with the IRS conservative crackdown plans and go along with them, but the guy doing the paperwork does not come up with schemes and machinations.  The mid-level manager gal doing the office paperwork to make sure the guy doing the lower paperwork doesn’t come up with these schemes.  She may go along with them, but they have to be passed down to her from someone with the authority to be able to waive all the concerns about repercussions for IRS personnel doing something wrong and getting fired.  Normal people do not get together to “take their desire for control out for a romp” at the low level, as though there’s some spontaneously generated lust for power in people who double-check math all day.

It’s hard to tell now if the I.R.S. scandal is political thuggery or obliviousness. It would be one thing if the scandal is just a group of tax people targeting the most antitax groups in the country. That’s just normal, run-of-the-mill partisan antipathy.

Sure, it’s okay if they target people who try to restore the nation to founding priciples.  That’s okay.  It’s fine if you’re tax collectors who target people who want the tax burden reduced through legal means and legislation.  Of course that’s fine.  No problem with that kind of targeted oppression by government whatsoever.

It’s just as okay as if the government targeted any other group that the government didn’t like.  Because after all, the citizen exists solely for the government to deem either worthy or unworthy.

It would be far worse if the senior workers of the I.R.S. have become so isolated by their technocratic task that they didn’t even recognize that using the search term “Tea Party” was going to be a moral and political problem.

Gee, it’s too bad they didn’t come up with a more clever way to target those sniveling teabaggers.  If only they had been smart enough not to outright say they were targeting the Tea Party.  Then they could’ve gotten away with it.

Everyone is treating the I.R.S. issue as a bigger deal, but the Justice Department scandal is worse. This was a sweeping intrusion that makes it hard for the press to do its job. Who is going to call a journalist to report wrongdoing knowing that at some future date, the government might feel perfectly free to track the phone records and hunt you down?

I would have thought a dozen Justice Department officials would have risen up and splashily resigned when they learned of the scope of this invasion. Aren’t there some lawyers in the Justice Department, and, if so, did they go to law schools where the Constitution is left unassigned?

The DOJ smuggled guns to narcoterrorist cartels and hushed it up and you and your reporter friends helped hush it up.  Brooks, when the DOJ decides to make you sign your own confession Soviet-style, you will have earned your statist utopia and all the hard labor it will sentence you to until the end of your days.  Maybe after a few decades in the ground, they’ll even take the time to posthumously rehabilitate you.

We clearly have a values problem in the federal government. We clearly have a few or many agencies where the leaders don’t emphasize that workers need to check themselves, or risk losing what remains of the people’s trust.

There is no “values problem” in the fedgov.  There is a fedgov that is unconstrained by the document that created it.  Men are the same, that’s why we have a Constitution.

We have a Constitution, and that creates our government.  The Constitution is what creates the government and limits it – it is the laws by which the government is created and those it must abide by.  When government ignores the Constitution, as it has been doing, it should have no trust – because it is an entity of domination composed of men with power – whether malignant or benign.   When it ceases to be an entity that exists at the behest of the citizen, it becomes oppressive.  A massive, distant power composed of men with power and no constraints are never deserving of any trust.

I generally support the little behavioral nudges that Cass Sunstein describes in his outstanding book “Simpler” — the subtle policy shifts that induce people to save more, or eat healthier.

Ah, David Brooks, lickspittle for tyrants.

I’d trust somebody with a minimalist disposition like Sunstein to implement these policies.

That’s so precious that you want to be dominated, David.  You’re so vanilla.

But I wouldn’t necessarily trust the people at the I.R.S. or Justice Department to implement them.

Guess who you’re going to get?  Guess who’s going to be running your health care?  Guess who’s been hushing up the murders of your Mexican neighbors to the south?

Cass Sunstein is a tyrant wannabe, along with all of his authoritarian ilk.  Revisit his rave review of “Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism”.  They want to coerce you – to force you – into something they think is good for you.  Brooks wants to be coerced – to be forced – into something someone else thinks is good for him – and he wants you forced as well.  Everybody knows what’s best for you, and they’re going to force it on you, because they’ve decided you need to be forced into what they think you should be.  Brooks wants to be dominated and be controlled by government.

Brooks wants a bad government to dominate him, he just wants one that doesn’t spank too hard.

-

But I’ll end this with a quote from a tax collector and freedom fighter:

samuel adamsIf ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

A fair number of highlights.  Good speech.

Some folks don’t like his delivery (just a tad melodramatic at times), but few can argue against the actual message.

From the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, aka Coalition to Ban Handguns:

csgv awb insurrection 2013Except for times when it’s necessary, like The Battle of Athens.

There might’ve been other times when it was justified but not exercised, too… like when the government rounded up Americans of Japanese descent, took their property, and stuffed them into concentration camps.

h

csgv awb insurrection 2013 2

I think that quote goes quite well next to a tyrannical, military concentration camp that denied the rights to life, liberty, property, and happiness, where there was fear of actual military firepower – because it was in the guard towers.

This declaration that the insurrectionist argument “has no place” in the debate is ridiculous.  The Founders made it pretty damned clear.

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.

In general, our government, even though currently run by economically destructive Keynesians and professional anti-colonialist Marxist-socialist street agitators who want to fundamentally transform the nation, isn’t yet wholly destructive of the security of the rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property (which was what the Founders wrote before they changed it to the intangible Happiness).  A government that is of, by, and for the citizens that institute it by their consent, has no real reason to fear insurrection, nor to give it a second thought.

The citizenry, armed, represent the nation as well, and should never be a threat to the state, provided the state is operating with the consent of the governed, as outlined by their charter – the Constitution.

The Coalition to Disarm Everyone is giving the knee-jerk reaction of tyrants everywhere, giving that tyrant’s plea of necessity, and mocking any concern that a government might, just maybe, get out of hand.

Inalienable rights to life, liberty, property and happiness all exist until someone violates them.  That’s why we have natural rights to defend ourselves, as individuals, citizens, and as a nation of citizen-individuals, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, oppressors large and small.  And because of those inalienable natural rights of self defense – specifically noted in the Constitution with the Second Amendment’s acknowledgement of the right to the tools of self-defense, it’s exceedingly rare that we have to exercise the rights of self defense.

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

- attributed to Thomas Jefferson

Update: Welcome Merry Band of Three Percenters.

From Bloomberg’s Dictatorial Mayors Against Citizens Owning Guns group:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.

- Madison

Via Drudge, from a leftist anti-rights useful idiot at the Seattle Times:

Misstep in gun bill could defeat the effort

One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake

It’s a “misstep” because they said what they want to do.  They gave away what their plan is.  They’re not opposed to it, it’s just a mistake to say so this soon.  It’s not a misstep, it’s the next step.

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

The author, a typical leftist statist idiot who supports “common sense” gun bans, which means of course means total eradication of citizens’ rights and the supremacy of the state, isn’t intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that this is what his side wants.  Assuming he’s being truthful, he’s amazingly naiive.  Somehow he manages, along with the rest of the leftists who supported “common sense” home invasions by the state, to be shocked, shocked, I tell you:

I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.

“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

It’s eight pages long.  He either read it and supports it or he’s phenomenally incompetent, and is destroying civil rights without even bothering to look at what he’s doing – but since he says he supports the idea, he still supports it.  The Founders would’ve tarred and feathered him and ridden him out of town on a rail.

The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.

He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Without sweating all the details.

This is their guiding light.  The prime sponsor is, just like all leftist politicians who get caught, blaming someone else and denying his own involvement.  He still thinks it’s a good idea, and it is the guiding light of where they “need” to go.  Straight into a dictatorial world where those filthy serfs are controlled by the enforcers of the state, and their will to resist is crushed, their homes are invaded at will by the enforcers, and the supreme political ruling class is firmly in control, leading the people to the glorious future.  The people are too stupid to live their own lives, they need to be controlled, they need to be dominated, they need their homes invaded by the state to force them to comply.

They want tyranny.  It is their goal.

Later, a Senate Democratic spokesman blamed unnamed staff and said a new bill will be introduced.

Sure.  Unnamed staff.  “Oh, shit, we got caught – blame the intern!”

“We will only win if we reach out and continue to change the hearts and minds of Washingtonians,” Murray said. “We can attack them, or start a dialogue.”

Good plan, very bad start. What’s worse, the case for the perfectly reasonable gun-control bills in Olympia just got tougher.

Clausewitz is famously paraphrased as saying: “War is a continuation of politics by other means.”  This is a war.

Murray speaks in terms of forcing a change of will on the people.  Representative republics elect their officials to represent the will of the people.  Here, the Seattle Democrat senator Murray is dictating that he will change the will of the people to his ends.  He speaks of “hearts and minds”, made famous by the Iraq war, and he speaks of “attacking them”.  This is a would-be tyrant pushing his will on the people – telling them what they shall be given, and what they shall live by.  The people didn’t choose dictatorship.

The leftist lapdog author writes “good plan, bad start”, not because he disagrees, but because he can’t get his total gun bans that he, a Ruling Class information minister, wants to see.  He wants tyranny as well, because he’ll be on top.  His Orwellian newspeak “reasonable” is ban on civilian ownership of modern rifles.  His “good plan” is to destroy citizens rights, he just is sad because the “very bad start” is by telling people what he and the rest of the left ultimately wants – to invade their homes and disarm them.  He’s upset because there will be resistance to this – because they showed exactly what they are.

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

There’s a saying – a conservative is just a liberal who’s been mugged.

People are going to the NRA because they’re seeing from experience what the left wants.  The left is upset that they’re being exposed.  They aren’t upset at all at what they’re proposing (as evidenced by the “good plan, bad start” commentary by the propaganda arm apparatchik at the Seattle Times).

He “understands” worry, and laments that people go to the NRA.  He’s lamenting that his cause has made a “misstep” and showed people exactly what they are – dictator wannabes.  And the Democrats in Washington are just upset that they haven’t quite brainwashed everyone into becoming lockstep drones who beg the state to come and control them.

guncontrol

If this post seems a little more harsh than many of my other ones, it’s because it is.  We’re seeing an apologist for tyranny twisting words to mean things they don’t.  He speaks of “common sense”, “reasonable”, and “good”, all in the same breath that he defends the people who wrote a bill that puts the government into your house.  He claims to lament that, but still supports the idea that leads to it.

This is the “just the tip” with the rapist.  There is no compromise with these people.  None.  Either you stand your ground, or they will simply bleed you dry, little by little.  They will lie and say “common sense” that isn’t, “reasonable” that’s wholly unreasonable, and “good” when the entire force, purpose, and history of their argument is evil itself – of the domination of mankind and destruction of liberty.

There is no compromise with this.  This is the kind of outrage that the Founders overthrew and then sought to prevent.

gadsden flag

Update: HotAir has a little day-after roundup on this.