Puerto Rico – A New State full of Potential Progressive Voters

Ok, here is the quick and dirty History of Puerto Rico.  Puerto Rico lies nestled right between Haiti/Dominican Republic and the British Virgin Islands.  It is in the same island chain as Cuba.  To get it in your mind right, Cuba is closest, then then Haiti/Dominican and then Puerto Rico.

 

Christopher Columbus landed on the island, which was inhabited by Amerindian Natives, in 1493 on his second voyage and claimed it for Spain.  Spain had it as a colony until the Spanish American war, in 1898 the United States invaded.  The US got Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, the Philippines in the Treaty of Paris.  They began their relationship with the US as a territory governed my Martial Law, two years later moved to mostly self governed using systems virtually identical to a State’s, In 1917 all the inhabitants became citizens of the US, they began having popular elections of representatives and gained a US style Judicial system, Under Truman they got a regularly elected governor and other trappings of statehood including non voting representatives in DC, this had the effect of changing its’ status from Territory to Commonwealth or “Free Associated State”.  All of this was paving the way for a vote for statehood, currently three different plebiscites or votes have been taken by the people and all three have failed to win enough votes to make Puerto Rico our 51st state.

Why?

Well it probably has a lot to do with getting something for nothing.  To put it another way, why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?  They have all of the benefits of statehood, with fewer taxes. 

Enter The Zero Regime…

There is a bill up for vote today to support Puerto Rico’s right to self determination.  This is on the face of it, nonsense.  Puerto Rico already has that right and has expressed itself three times to remain as it is.  BUT, just like Yesterday’s post on Amnesty and Illegal Immigration, granting Puerto Rico Statehood would win many many Liberal Progressive voters.

You doubt it?

The UN is heavily involved in the push for a change in Puerto Rico’s status.     From 1952 to 2007, Puerto Rico had three political parties which stood for three distinct future political scenarios. The Popular Democratic Party (PPD) seeks to maintain the island's "association" status as a commonwealth, and has won in referendums on the island's status held over six decades since coming under U.S. control.  The New Progressive Party (PNP) (catchy isn’t it?) seeks statehood. The Puerto Rican Independence Party seeks independence.

The real clincher on this one is this:  apparently in the bills that will follow this “nonbinding” vote today is a provision to allow people born in Puerto Rico but currently living in the continental US to vote on Puerto Rico’s status.  Read it again, a US citizen, born in Puerto Rico but currently living in, say, Illinois, will be able to vote in the self determination vote for Puerto Rico.

According to the latest estimates 70%  of Puerto Ricans cannot speak English passably, and many many of the recent immigrants TO Puerto Rico have been from Central America including Venezuela and Colombia and also from Cuba. 

Now ask yourself, in a Liberal House and Senate do you think, for an instant that if Nasty Pelotox and Dingy Harry and Chairman Zero thought that the people of Puerto Rico would:

a) Vote for statehood on their own without stacking the deck and;

b) vote in any way Conservative Republican or Libertarian after gaining statehood

They would a) stack the deck and b) want there to be a vote?

So here is what I think they are up to regarding Puerto Rico, it all seems to make some sense, They have this vote to affirm Puerto Rico’s right to Self Determination.  Puerto Rico already has a constitution, a popularly elected government, follows all federal regulations, and its’ populace are all citizens.

The Current Speaker of the House, President of the Senate,  and Governor are all members of this “New Progressive Party” (although actually claim to align themselves with Republicans, lending more credence to the crazy notion that Parties really do not matter), once this sham vote takes place in congress, they will call another referendum, although this time allow anyone born in Puerto Rico no matter where they reside (or actually probably no matter if they were born in Puerto Rico or not) to vote.  Then, because there are already delegates in Congress, they will immediately ask to be seated and BLAMMO we have a 51st state.  Then these so called republicans will decide they will caucus with the Liberals and Bingo, we are back to a filibuster proof super majority. 

Heck- they might just do it without resorting to a vote.  Congress votes in a nonbinding agreement that Puerto Rico has the right to self determination, and bang the delegates are seated as senators and representatives.  Sew another star on the flag boys and girls…

So take Amnesty for Illegals, throw in Puerto Rico, and what do you have…the re-election of the most rapidly unpopular president in history to a second term.

Puerto Rico: One Step Closer to 57.  next up, Guam, American Samoa, and the  US Virgin Islands …no really…click the link.

There is a bill pending Senate approval in the United States Congress that would authorize the United States Secretary of the Interior to extend technical assistance grants and other assistance to facilitate a political status public education program in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa

ISNT THAT NICE?

Viva La Reconquesta! Arriba La Raza!

-KOOK

War drums beating?

Looking at world events, there are some amazing and frightening parallels between the times and events leading to world war 1 and now.

Here is a list off of google that names some general events that are believed to have caused WW1. I will compare them to events happening now and let you decide for yourselves:

"World War 1 is actually much more complicated than a simple list of causes. While there was a chain of events that directly led to the fighting, the actual root causes are much deeper and part of continued debate and discussion. This list is an overview of the most popular reasons that are cited as the root causes of World War 1."

1. Mutual Defense Alliances

Over time, countries throughout Europe made mutual defense agreements that would pull them into battle. Thus, if one country was attacked, allied countries were bound to defend them. Before World War 1, the following alliances existed:

• Russia and Serbia
• Germany and Austria-Hungary
• France and Russia
• Britain and France and Belgium
• Japan and Britain

Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia got involved to defend Serbia. Germany seeing Russia mobilizing, declared war on Russia. France was then drawn in against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Germany attacked France through Belgium pulling Britain into war. Then Japan entered the war. Later, Italy and the United States would enter on the side of the allies.

Okay, currently we have NATO, OPEC, the UN, the "Axis of evil" between Iran Venezuela, Cuba and N.Korea. China and Russia are really behind those nations. We also have the European Union which is being influenced by many sides and is nearing collapse. America is generally allied with Canada, Israel, England and Germany but relations with all our allies are "strained" at the moment. There are also borderless alliances such as the Muslim brotherhood (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas) as well as La Raza (MS 13, and the Latin American drug cartels.)

2.Imperialism Imperialism is when a country increases their power and wealth by bringing additional territories under their control. Before World War 1, Africa and parts of Asia were points of contention amongst the European countries. This was especially true because of the raw materials these areas could provide. The increasing competition and desire for greater empires led to an increase in confrontation that helped push the world into World War I.

Imperialism isn't happening now, right? The map hasn't changed since WW2. Think again...Russia showed the world how to build an empire using ideology and proxy war. Islamists are trying to take over Europe. Statists are trying to take over the US. Russia recently made the entire Polish government disappear forcing new elections that can be easily bought (Russia considers Poland its historical territory just as Mexicans consider the American Southwest theirs.) There is also Kyrgystan, Georgia (the nation) and the Ukraine where Russia is now exerting an increasing influence. China is trying to exert more and more influence on SW Asia.

3. Militarism

As the world entered the 20th century, an arms race had begun. By 1914, Germany had the greatest increase in military buildup. Great Britain and Germany both greatly increased their navies in this time period. Further, in Germany and Russia particularly, the military establishment began to have a greater influence on public policy. This increase in militarism helped push the countries involved to war.

Not happening now right? China and Russia have increased their Military spending by 1000% in the last decade. What do you think they do with all the money they get from that cheap stuff you buy? America has not decreased military spending , and the Islamists are awash in oil and opium money. What are they buying with that money? Since our cash is worthless, what do you folks think we trade for oil????

4. Nationalism

Much of the origin of the war was based on the desire of the Slavic peoples in Bosnia and Herzegovina to no longer be part of Austria Hungary but instead be part of Serbia. In this way, nationalism led directly to the War. But in a more general way, the nationalism of the various countries throughout Europe contributed not only to the beginning but the extension of the war in Europe. Each country tried to prove their dominance and power.

Nationalism is on the rise in China, Russia, Europe, in the Islamic world and in S.America. We are the only nation that has a leader that feels we owe the world an apology and should let others take our lead.

5. Immediate Cause: Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

The immediate cause of World War I that made all the aforementioned items come into play (alliances, imperialism, militarism, nationalism) was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. In June 1914, a Serbian nationalist assassinated him and his wife while they were in Sarajevo, Bosnia which was part of Austria-Hungary. This was in protest to Austria-Hungary having control of this region. Serbia wanted to take over Bosnia and Herzegovina. This assassination led to Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia. When Russia began to mobilize due to its alliance with Serbia, Germany declared war on Russia. Thus began the expansion of the war to include all those involved in the mutual defense alliances.

This was simply a flash point at a time when because of economic downturn, anger against european imperialism, and arrogance by world leaders led to a war no one could stop. America sold much of the Arms used in WW1 and ended up being owed billions by Europe which when was not repaid led to huge taxes and the Depression of 1920. We had a so called "progressive" President who swore to keep us out of war. Days after his reelection we jumped into WW1. Communism was able to take hold in Russia leading to it's exit of WW1 on an anti-war platform. By the start of WW2, Russia had the biggest, most advanced army in the world. We also had a "progressive" President who swore to keep us out of WW2. When attacked by Japan we invaded Europe first. Now we have another "progressive" President who ran on an anti-war platform but has increased the total number of troops currently overseas, yet has grossly mismanaged both Afganistan and Iraq to the point that victory (which was all but assured in both) is now all but impossible in Afganistan and looking less likely in Iraq. So you tell me, why should we not be worried about an impending world war?

History Channel's "The Story of Us" and Irony

I watched the first episode of this great documentary series on the history channel tonight. It covered events leading up to the revolutionary war and it dovetails nicely with a couple of books I recently read. I find it very ironic that an otherwise entertaining and excellent series covering information that should be required material for every citizen of this country was introduced/prefaced by a man that apparently has little understanding of, or reverence for, the material itself. The series was introduced by none other than his one-ness, The pResident, chairman zero.

Secondly, does anyone else find it odd that a sitting president is endorsing a History channel documentary like Marlin Perkins hawking Mutual of Omaha insurance? What is next, selling an energy drink or some sportswear?

Maybe he should watch it instead of reading a TelePrompTer script of what one of his handlers thought a true blue USA loving American would say... You know what a good President would have actually felt and thought...

-Kook
via iPhone

Liberal Myths and History: Emancipation Proclamation

   We are fighting a narrative.  The narrative is not some concrete list or document.  These people do not have to have meetings.  There are no official decoder rings.  The narrative is set in motion by those in the media and those in power.  They all come from the same schools, work in the same industries, move in the same circle, and share the same worldview.  The narrative is based on several foundational beliefs, which are generally untrue. Sometimes the narrative is subtle, sometimes it is not.  We have all felt the narrative’s presence, we have all spoken about it, but the first time I discovered that someone called it what it was and gave it a real name was in a novel I read by Stephen Hunter.  I recommend all of his books, strictly great entertainment, but in this case he hit upon a very significant sociological/cultural truth: There is no vast conspiracy of the left, it is just a set of beliefs that grew out of a framework constructed, primarily in our schools by leftists and communist sympathizers. Our history has largely been subverted and suborned for political gain.

So here is my attempt to fight the narrative one myth, lie, and misrepresentation at a time.

The narrative:  Abraham Lincoln Freed the Slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation ending the South’s Policy of Slavery. North=Good/South=Bad.

Caveat: I, in no way, shape, or form think slavery was anything other than an abomination.  it was a shameful practice.  I am a Pro-Liberty/ Pro-Freedom kind of guy.  The thought of anyone owning another person is anathema to me.  This is why I rail so hard against the involuntary servitude to the Federal Government.  This is why I speak so loudly against people selling themselves into slavery with government ‘entitlements’.

Facts:

The graphic below depicts the states that had slaves and the states that did not as of 1860.  DE, MD, DC, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, TN, KY, MO, AR, LA, and TX were states that allowed slavery.  Notice that Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC are included.

The map below depicts the Union and the Confederates States, as well as the Slave States that stayed in the Union after the start of the war.  Virginia split into Virginia  and West Virginia.  But notice that West Virginia, although a Union state, was still a Slave State, along with DE, MD, KY, MO, and Washington DC. Slaves in the District of Columbia were not freed until April 16, 1862; well after the start of the war,  and their owners were compensated for their loss by the Federal Government.

So what about the Emancipation Proclamation? 

The Emancipation Proclamation is not one document, it is actually two executive orders. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. Had any slave state ended its secession attempt before January 1, 1863, it could have kept slavery, at least temporarily. The Proclamation only gave Lincoln the legal basis to free the slaves in the areas of the South that were still in rebellion.

That is Interesting, isn’t it?  If they had rejoined the union they could have kept their slaves. Seems like this might not have been the altruistic move we were lead to believe.  Seems like slavery might have been used as leverage.

These orders were a (mostly) political move on the part of Lincoln similar to a diplomatic sanction, or trade embargo that we use today to force our political will on other nations.   The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named ten specific states where slaves would be freed. Although implicitly granted authority to do so by Congress, Lincoln used his powers as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, "as a necessary war measure" as the basis of the proclamation, rather than the equivalent of a statute enacted by Congress or a constitutional amendment.

Why?

Because, Lincoln had previously declared in peacetime that he had no constitutional authority to free the slaves. Even used as a war power, emancipation was a risky political act. Public opinion as a whole was against it, and it was a controversial decision even in the North.  Secretary of State William H. Seward commented,

"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

It is very important to note that while the Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal. Several former slave states had already passed legislation prohibiting slavery; however, in a few states, slavery continued to be legal, and to exist, until December 18, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted.

More to follow…

-KOOK

Liberal Myths and History: Emancipation Proclamation

   We are fighting a narrative.  The narrative is not some concrete list or document.  These people do not have to have meetings.  There are no official decoder rings.  The narrative is set in motion by those in the media and those in power.  They all come from the same schools, work in the same industries, move in the same circle, and share the same worldview.  The narrative is based on several foundational beliefs, which are generally untrue. Sometimes the narrative is subtle, sometimes it is not.  We have all felt the narrative’s presence, we have all spoken about it, but the first time I discovered that someone called it what it was and gave it a real name was in a novel I read by Stephen Hunter.  I recommend all of his books, strictly great entertainment, but in this case he hit upon a very significant sociological/cultural truth: There is no vast conspiracy of the left, it is just a set of beliefs that grew out of a framework constructed, primarily in our schools by leftists and communist sympathizers. Our history has largely been subverted and suborned for political gain.

So here is my attempt to fight the narrative one myth, lie, and misrepresentation at a time.

The narrative:  Abraham Lincoln Freed the Slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation ending the South’s Policy of Slavery. North=Good/South=Bad.

Caveat: I, in no way, shape, or form think slavery was anything other than an abomination.  it was a shameful practice.  I am a Pro-Liberty/ Pro-Freedom kind of guy.  The thought of anyone owning another person is anathema to me.  This is why I rail so hard against the involuntary servitude to the Federal Government.  This is why I speak so loudly against people selling themselves into slavery with government ‘entitlements’.

Facts:

The graphic below depicts the states that had slaves and the states that did not as of 1860.  DE, MD, DC, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, TN, KY, MO, AR, LA, and TX were states that allowed slavery.  Notice that Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC are included.

The map below depicts the Union and the Confederates States, as well as the Slave States that stayed in the Union after the start of the war.  Virginia split into Virginia  and West Virginia.  But notice that West Virginia, although a Union state, was still a Slave State, along with DE, MD, KY, MO, and Washington DC. Slaves in the District of Columbia were not freed until April 16, 1862; well after the start of the war,  and their owners were compensated for their loss by the Federal Government.

So what about the Emancipation Proclamation? 

The Emancipation Proclamation is not one document, it is actually two executive orders. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. Had any slave state ended its secession attempt before January 1, 1863, it could have kept slavery, at least temporarily. The Proclamation only gave Lincoln the legal basis to free the slaves in the areas of the South that were still in rebellion.

That is Interesting, isn’t it?  If they had rejoined the union they could have kept their slaves. Seems like this might not have been the altruistic move we were lead to believe.  Seems like slavery might have been used as leverage.

These orders were a (mostly) political move on the part of Lincoln similar to a diplomatic sanction, or trade embargo that we use today to force our political will on other nations.   The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named ten specific states where slaves would be freed. Although implicitly granted authority to do so by Congress, Lincoln used his powers as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, "as a necessary war measure" as the basis of the proclamation, rather than the equivalent of a statute enacted by Congress or a constitutional amendment.

Why?

Because, Lincoln had previously declared in peacetime that he had no constitutional authority to free the slaves. Even used as a war power, emancipation was a risky political act. Public opinion as a whole was against it, and it was a controversial decision even in the North.  Secretary of State William H. Seward commented,

"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

It is very important to note that while the Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal. Several former slave states had already passed legislation prohibiting slavery; however, in a few states, slavery continued to be legal, and to exist, until December 18, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted.

More to follow…

-KOOK

Challenge to liberals: Find a racist tea party sign!!!!

Right now, the anti-liberty crowd in DC and in the media is running a smear campaign claiming that the pro-liberty (Tea Party) movement is racist, violent, they are comparing us to Nazis, claiming that protest attendees used racial slurs against and spit on members of the "black Congressional Carcass"..I mean "Caucus," sorry, I get words confused sometimes. So, I challenge any liberal reading this to dig through all the photos of tea party protests and rallies and find me a racist sign. Find pro-neo-Nazi signage within the tea party events. I don't think you can and here's why: The Tea Party movement is not racist by nature. We, unlike the despot claiming to be President are not fascists. We unlike those in the media and the education system are not neo-bolsheviks hellbent on destroying the American way of life. So, prove me wrong. There is plenty of footage and photos from Tea Party rallies available to look through but just to make it easy, I will give you some never before seen photos from the big rally on 9/12 in DC. When I was there photographing for this blog, I put a strong emphasis on photographing signage as it shows what issues matter most to those who are protesting. So here's some photos, and if any of you find such signage from another source you can click the link to e-mail me and send me the photo along with info as to location and date of event and I will post the photo here along with an apology for what I would consider reprehensible behavior. You libs would love to prove a conservative wrong, right? Well. here's your chance. Here are some to check as I will pick at random 10 photos from 9/12 to make it easier on you so prove me wrong as I say you cant find any racist signage whatsoever....

Challenge to liberals: Find a racist tea party sign!!!!

Right now, the anti-liberty crowd in DC and in the media is running a smear campaign claiming that the pro-liberty (Tea Party) movement is racist, violent, they are comparing us to Nazis, claiming that protest attendees used racial slurs against and spit on members of the "black Congressional Carcass"..I mean "Caucus," sorry, I get words confused sometimes. So, I challenge any liberal reading this to dig through all the photos of tea party protests and rallies and find me a racist sign. Find pro-neo-Nazi signage within the tea party events. I don't think you can and here's why: The Tea Party movement is not racist by nature. We, unlike the despot claiming to be President are not fascists. We unlike those in the media and the education system are not neo-bolsheviks hellbent on destroying the American way of life. So, prove me wrong. There is plenty of footage and photos from Tea Party rallies available to look through but just to make it easy, I will give you some never before seen photos from the big rally on 9/12 in DC. When I was there photographing for this blog, I put a strong emphasis on photographing signage as it shows what issues matter most to those who are protesting. So here's some photos, and if any of you find such signage from another source you can click the link to e-mail me and send me the photo along with info as to location and date of event and I will post the photo here along with an apology for what I would consider reprehensible behavior. You libs would love to prove a conservative wrong, right? Well. here's your chance. Here are some to check as I will pick at random 10 photos from 9/12 to make it easier on you so prove me wrong as I say you cant find any racist signage whatsoever....

Deconstructing our Progress to Communism Pt. II – Commerce Clause

   We the People are engaged in a battle over our future.  Are we going to remain a Constitutional Republic, or are we going to devolve in a communistic tyranny ruled by a politburo of non -representatives elected through sham elections like Iran, Cuba, Russia, or Venezuela?   Yesterday the focus was on the faulty premise that the “General Welfare” clause allows congress to legislate anything and everything under the sun.  Today’s focus is on another clause that our current would-be Kings and Queens in Washington think gives them the power usurp all authority reserved to the states or the people.  The “Commerce Clause”, Article I section 8.3 which reads:

[the congress shall have power…] “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”

The part of that statement which so much debate has been centered upon is “To regulate commerce…among the several states." Luckily we do not have to be confused as to what the framers meant, as they clearly laid out their intent in their writings.  reading their correspondence, there should be no debate at all what the proper understanding of those words should be. But as was pointed out yesterday, the small minority of our non-representatives who would hazard a guess as to where their unlimited power is derived from, will likely quote this clause.
Indeed Speaker Pelosi issued a press release on her website in September 2009 where she expressly said just that: Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster: 'Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform'

“…  But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce.  Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.”

So according to this widely held interpretation these 16 words nullify the tenth amendment.  IF congress can regulate the commerce that goes on within a state because the prices and availability of a product or service in one state impacts the prices and availability in another, then there is literally no end to what they can control.  How convenient  for them.  This is clearly not what the founders meant. The original intent of the framers is clear.  Madison said to Cabell :

“For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it.

Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.”
Allow me to translate into more easily understood language. 
I did not refer to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States."  [in my response].  I purposefully left that part out because I always thought that in the future people would misunderstand the meaning unless it was  put into context.  If not, it would be too easy to extend this power to the same level as the power reserved to the federal government to regulate relationships with other nations.  It is very clear that this language grew out of an abuse of power by states that had ports and harbors against states that did not. The language was intended as a protection to keep one state from harming another by restricting its trade, not as an additional power given to the Federal government over the states; however, the Federal government is the only agency we could give this authority to, and so we did.

   Remember, until the mid 20th century any goods received from a foreign nation were received by ship.  This put States without ports and harbors at a serious disadvantage to states who did.  Imagine Kansas or Oklahoma's vulnerable situation if they had to pay taxes  on every product imported to every state that was crossed en route to the final destination.  imagine a ship from China delivering products to the port in Long Beach, CA en route to Kansas.  California could then charge tariffs to Kansas, and every state subsequently after that could charge both CA, and KS, as the product moved across their borders.  What a nightmare that would be.  This is the reasoning behind the Commerce Clause.  The purpose of the Commerce Clause was to keep this internal turmoil out of trade, to allow all the states to access shipping and receiving points.  This is further explained in Federalist #42, and Madison mentions that one of the reasons for this language’s inclusion into the constitution was because it was a noted weakness of the articles of Confederation as well as several Nations in Europe at the time.
It was meant as a restriction on states from harming other states, not to create an  all encompassing evil overlord Fedzilla government. 
Unfortunately over the years the courts have wavered back and forth on this issue and the most recent passing of the buck by the court has been this:
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985),

Of course, we continue to recognize that the States occupy a special and specific position in our constitutional system and that the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause must reflect that position. But the principal and basic limit on the federal commerce power is that inherent in all congressional action—the built-in restraints that our system provides through state participation in federal governmental action. The political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not be promulgated.

The recent Firearms Freedom laws are set to test this theory, but it is unlikely from the above decision they will. Folks, if we don’t like Pelosi et. al. view of things, we have to vote them out, because the courts are likely going to take a pass on this.  This may be one of the most important litmus tests on a prospective candidate, “what is your opinion regarding the proper role of the Fed with respect to the Commerce Clause”
-KOOK

Deconstructing our Progress to Communism Pt. II – Commerce Clause

   We the People are engaged in a battle over our future.  Are we going to remain a Constitutional Republic, or are we going to devolve in a communistic tyranny ruled by a politburo of non -representatives elected through sham elections like Iran, Cuba, Russia, or Venezuela?   Yesterday the focus was on the faulty premise that the “General Welfare” clause allows congress to legislate anything and everything under the sun.  Today’s focus is on another clause that our current would-be Kings and Queens in Washington think gives them the power usurp all authority reserved to the states or the people.  The “Commerce Clause”, Article I section 8.3 which reads:

[the congress shall have power…] “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”

The part of that statement which so much debate has been centered upon is “To regulate commerce…among the several states." Luckily we do not have to be confused as to what the framers meant, as they clearly laid out their intent in their writings.  reading their correspondence, there should be no debate at all what the proper understanding of those words should be. But as was pointed out yesterday, the small minority of our non-representatives who would hazard a guess as to where their unlimited power is derived from, will likely quote this clause.
Indeed Speaker Pelosi issued a press release on her website in September 2009 where she expressly said just that: Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster: 'Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform'

“…  But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce.  Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.”

So according to this widely held interpretation these 16 words nullify the tenth amendment.  IF congress can regulate the commerce that goes on within a state because the prices and availability of a product or service in one state impacts the prices and availability in another, then there is literally no end to what they can control.  How convenient  for them.  This is clearly not what the founders meant. The original intent of the framers is clear.  Madison said to Cabell :

“For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it.

Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.”
Allow me to translate into more easily understood language. 
I did not refer to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States."  [in my response].  I purposefully left that part out because I always thought that in the future people would misunderstand the meaning unless it was  put into context.  If not, it would be too easy to extend this power to the same level as the power reserved to the federal government to regulate relationships with other nations.  It is very clear that this language grew out of an abuse of power by states that had ports and harbors against states that did not. The language was intended as a protection to keep one state from harming another by restricting its trade, not as an additional power given to the Federal government over the states; however, the Federal government is the only agency we could give this authority to, and so we did.

   Remember, until the mid 20th century any goods received from a foreign nation were received by ship.  This put States without ports and harbors at a serious disadvantage to states who did.  Imagine Kansas or Oklahoma's vulnerable situation if they had to pay taxes  on every product imported to every state that was crossed en route to the final destination.  imagine a ship from China delivering products to the port in Long Beach, CA en route to Kansas.  California could then charge tariffs to Kansas, and every state subsequently after that could charge both CA, and KS, as the product moved across their borders.  What a nightmare that would be.  This is the reasoning behind the Commerce Clause.  The purpose of the Commerce Clause was to keep this internal turmoil out of trade, to allow all the states to access shipping and receiving points.  This is further explained in Federalist #42, and Madison mentions that one of the reasons for this language’s inclusion into the constitution was because it was a noted weakness of the articles of Confederation as well as several Nations in Europe at the time.
It was meant as a restriction on states from harming other states, not to create an  all encompassing evil overlord Fedzilla government. 
Unfortunately over the years the courts have wavered back and forth on this issue and the most recent passing of the buck by the court has been this:
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985),

Of course, we continue to recognize that the States occupy a special and specific position in our constitutional system and that the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause must reflect that position. But the principal and basic limit on the federal commerce power is that inherent in all congressional action—the built-in restraints that our system provides through state participation in federal governmental action. The political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not be promulgated.

The recent Firearms Freedom laws are set to test this theory, but it is unlikely from the above decision they will. Folks, if we don’t like Pelosi et. al. view of things, we have to vote them out, because the courts are likely going to take a pass on this.  This may be one of the most important litmus tests on a prospective candidate, “what is your opinion regarding the proper role of the Fed with respect to the Commerce Clause”
-KOOK

De-Constructing our Progress to Communism Pt. I

We are facing a constitutional crisis in this Country. In debate, one of the best ways to disprove an opponent’s argument is to attack their thesis statement, and not the particulars of the faulty premise.  The faulty premise in this case is that the “General Welfare” clause allows congress to legislate anything and everything under the sun. Seemingly all of the Democrats and apparently many of the Republicans, along with hordes of the populace believe that there are alternate interpretations of the constitution, which allows certain usurpations of power by the Federal Government.  But we do not have to guess at the Founder’s intent on these things, because we have documents providing their meaning and intent.   Amongst our elected non-representatives who have an opinion or a clue (and most do not) as to where they might derive the power for their “Progressing to Communist” agenda they will cite the “General Welfare” or the “Commerce Clause”.  Below are just a very few of their recent comments regarding their authority for their usurpation of our rightful power; for the rest check out this Link at CSNnews.com

In response to the question, “Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”, these are how some of our supposed representatives answered:

House Speaker Pelosi Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.)  “Are you serious? Are you serious?” (How dare you question my authoritay! peasant!)
 
• Sen. Bernard Sanders (I.-Vt.) “Where in the Constitution? Probably the same place that comes Medicare and Medicaid and the CHIP Program and the Veterans Administration, and the health care programs that we’ve been doing for many, many decades.” (full disclosure on Bernie, he is an avowed Socialist)
  
• Sen. Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.)  “Well the -- we have all kinds of places where the government has gotten involved with health care and mandating insurance. (not at the same time) In most states, the government mandates the buying of car insurance (ya, if you choose to own a car, I guess we could choose to kill ourselves and therefore not need medical insurance), and I can assure everyone that if anything in this bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in.”
  
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) “Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various (unconstitutional) programs.”
  
• Sen. Mary Landrieu (D.-La.) (Of Louisiana Purchase v 2.0 Fame) “Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that.(cause I don’t have the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.)
  
• Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.) – of the famous Cornhusker Kickback “Well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar (having never read the constitution myself). So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.”
  

 

And now for someone with credibility…

James Madison, American politician and political philosopher,  fourth President of the United States, has been called the "Father of the Constitution," he was the principal author of the document. He wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, the most influential commentary on the Constitution. The first president to have served in the United States Congress,  and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights". As a political theorist, Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

I think his credibility speaks for itself.  In Federalist #41 Madison explained the very concept so many of our non-representatives have misconceptions about (my translations in Blue as always, and I have edited out some of his commentary , rest assured I do this for brevity and clarity)

Some, …, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution,... It has been urged ..., that the power "to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. (people who make this argument are grasping at straws, and are ridiculous)

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; (if this was the only language granting congress power, and if we hadn’t spent the time enumerating powers in the constitution, these objections might have some merit)

though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. (even if the above were true, what a strange way to grant unlimited authority to congress)

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." (if this interpretation was followed then the words "to raise money for the general welfare." would allow congress to take away all the other rights we just listed)

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? (read the rest of the sentence, the part after the semicolon, when we explain what we meant)

If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? (do we have to spell it out line by line and repeat ourselves over and over to keep you from keeping half of what we said and disregarding the rest?  Why listen to the general terms and ignore the specific ones that follow which we included for clarification?)

 

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? (why list other powers if that first general sentence gave the congress unlimited authority?)

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. (“Make me a sandwich, put ham and cheese between two slices of bread.”  See what he means?)

But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. (The specifically enumerated powers are there to explain and qualify the general meaning.  It is absurd to think we put them there to confuse what we meant.  If there is any misleading as to what we meant either it was by the authors, or by the people making the objections, and it was not the authors)

…How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! (you hang yourself with your own rope!)

-KOOK