What Rule of Law?

Tom Rhodes, 9/8/2015

Today we are seeing the ruling elite imprison those who don’t follow there dictates regardless of the law. In fact obeying the law, if our ruling masters don’t like the law, can and will land you in prison indefinitely. Kim Davis sits in jail for following the law. Even some libertarians say she should be in jail for not following the law. The question is what law is she violating? The fact is the contempt of court finding, but that finding is based on the court enforcing the will of ruling elites without any law to support the ruling.

The court is saying, “You will do as we dictate regardless of the law.” Kim Davis chose to obey Kentucky’s marriage law and state Constitution which requires marriage be between two people of different sexes. The SCOTUS cannot make law, that is the exclusive authority of the Legislature. Read the constitution if you don’t believe me. The SCOTUS can declare a law null and void because it violates the constitution, but it has no power or authority to dictate laws. It’s called separation of powers.

Here’s the real problem. Others whom the ruling elite favor, can refuse to enforce laws and dictates of federal courts at will and suffer no consequences, while those who enforce laws the ruling oligarchy wish didn’t exist are jailed. Here are some recent examples:

Chief Cathy Lanier, of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, is refusing to issue concealed weapons permits to people unless they can arbitrarily show a “good reason,” although the law is clear that there is no requirement to do so. Despite a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in May stopping her from denying the permits. Refusing a federal judge is not landing Cathy Lanier in jail for contempt.

Lesbian Texas judge, Tonya Parker, in 2012, refused to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples until same-sex marriage was legalized. Unlike Kim Davis, she was clearly violating the law, not only wasn’t she jailed for violating the law, she wasn’t even disciplined.

County sheriffs throughout California are similarly denying concealed weapons permits to applicants, despite last November’s Ninth Circuit ruling stating the the sheriffs were violating the law. People have died, unable to obtain permits to legally carry a weapon for self-defense, yet none of those sheriffs have been sent to jail.

In 2004 in clear violation of California State Law San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2004. Newsom was never sent to jail.

In 2007 Newsom made San Francisco a sanctuary city, in clear violation of federal law. Nothing happened to him. The city’s sanctuary status resulted in the death of Kate Steinle in July, who was shot by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times and had seven felony convictions.

Davis is in violation of no law, and is attempting to enforce Kentucky law. The constitution does not grant the federal government the right to regulate marriage, that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the states. The sad fact is Kim Davis was singled out and punished disproportionately compared to other public officials who didn’t comply with other controversial laws.

If we were a country ruled by law, not dictates of those in power, then Cathy Lanier, Tonya Parker, Gavin Newsom, and multiple California sheriffs would be in jail alongside Kim Davis. Obviously if your position is not to enforce laws leftists don’t like, or violate laws leftists don’t like, then there are no consequences, but not do as leftists dictate, regardless of the law and you will be imprisoned. That is not rule of law, but rule by the elite’s whims, and no different than any other feudal system.

The problem is that the it is the U.S. Supreme Court who violated the Constitution by legislating, a power explicitly restricted to only Congress. Congress had overwhelmingly approved a law that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, all the SCOTUS can do is declare that law unconstitutional, it cannot create offsetting legislation.

In the state of Kentucky, it’s constitution is unambiguous saying, “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.” There is no provision in the US Constitution or laws that grant the U.S. Supreme Court the authority to overturn the Constitution of any state.

Clearly there is no law that Kim Davis is in violation. She did defy a court order, but that court order has no basis in law and is therefore illegal. A court can’t order an elected official to murder a citizen, or otherwise violate the law. Such orders are invalid. A court order in direct conflict with the state of Kentucky’s Constitution is by default invalid. Obviously the Rule of Law is DEAD in the USA, and we are now ruled by the dictates of the elite. More of a Neo-Feudal society than a republic. The elected representatives of Kentucky have made the matter clear with 75% declaring that in Kentucky marriage is the legal union of one man and one woman. America used to be distinct among the countries in that it was a nation under the rule of law, not a nation under the rule of men. There’s a big difference.

Sarah Warbelow, the legal direction of Human Rights Campaign, the USA’s largest LBGT activist lobby has said, “This situation absolutely didn’t have to happen, if only Kim Davis followed the law.” Exactly what law can she or anybody else cite that Kim Davis isn’t following?

She can site the SCOTUS ruling but the SCOTUS does not have the power to create law, the U.S. Constitution is unambiguously clear about lawmaking: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” That means SCOTUS cannot make law, PERIOD! So any law dictated by the SCOTUS is null and void and not a law.

We used to be a nation ruled by law, now we are a nation rule by some ruling oligarchy, who can pick and choose who must follow the law and who can do whatever they want without being held accountable. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s a safe bet it is a duck. For the USA if it acts like a feudal oligarchy, sounds like a feudal oligarchy, and looks like a feudal oligarchy, then it’s a safe bet that the USA is now a feudal oligarchy, not a republic based on the rule of law.

Hobby Lobby vs. Critical Thinking

By Tom Rhodes, 7/2/2014

Liberals are all upset that Hobby Lobby won in the Supreme Court. I firmly believe that most of the left today have their hearts in the right place, but let their emotions override their ability to think. Their big angsts seem to be they don’t want to let their bosses into their bedroom and that somehow this decision is unjust.

The only way you can accept their argument that declining to pay for something is the same as "blocking access" to it, and the only way you can accept that argument is to say that people have a right to free birth control. If you believe that then allowing some employers to violate that right because of their religious beliefs should be considered unjust. The problem is that there is no such right as a right to free birth control. Worse yet the exact wording and nature of the ACA is clearly sexist.

There is no provision to pay for men’s birth control, and no provision to force insurance to cover vasectomy surgery for men, while birth control and tubal ligation for women must be covered. There is no rational way to justify a right to forcing others to pay for women’s birth control, but not to pay for men’s. Any rationalization is simply sexist, supporting the feminine imperative.

The entire case is predicated on two conflicting feminist positions. The idea that women can force their boss to pay for their birth control and that their boss has no right to stick his nose in their bedroom. The reality is when somebody pays for something they have a right to some control of what they are paying for. Saying that Hobby Lobby had no right to control what health care services and products it purchases for its employees is the same as saying that government has no say in what medical procedures it will pay for under Medicare or the ACA. Those paying have the right to choose what they purchase.

This is a prime example of liberal lack of critical thinking. There is no up swell and call by men to force insurance companies to pay for their prophylactics and vasectomies. The reason is clear, men know their sex life is nobody else’s business, and men know if they ask somebody else to pay for it, that somebody else will have a say in it. As soon as liberals decided that paying for women’s birth control must be covered by insurance they invited those who pay for that insurance into their bedroom. Be it your employer or the government, those who pay for something have a say in what they pay for, including birth control. You want the government and your boss out of your bedroom, quit asking them to pay for your bedroom activities.

You have the right to do whatever you want with whomever is willing to join you in that activity in your own bedroom. You don’t have the right to force others to subsidize your sex life. If you are going to ask others to pay for your bedroom activities, then they have a say in those bedroom activities.

What the supreme court said in the Hobby Lobby case was, a woman’s boss has no business in her sex life, so she can’t make him pay for it if he doesn’t want to. The idiocy of the SCOTUS decision was they based it on freedom of religion, instead of basing the decision on the fact that people have not granted the government the power to dictate that women’s sex lives must be subsidized by others.

Statists Lose in Supreme Court

By Tom Rhodes, 4/3/2013

By now you’ve read and heard the statist news media bemoan the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution stating that Congress shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of speech it meant what it plainly says. This is a victory for freedom and liberty, and a loss for statism.

Chief Justice Roberts noted that “Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades – despite the profound offense such spectacles cause – it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

What statists, especially liberals, don’t like, don’t want, and actually hate, is the fact that in the USA the government not the people is limited. The idea that an individual may exercise freedom and do things that are contrary to the supremacy of the state is repugnant to statists. There is this think called freedom. Statists hate it. Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Free Press, are all under massive attack by statists.

They are attacking bloggers, and other people because they bring stories that the main stream news ignores to the attention of the people. Stories statists don’t want covered. The idea that an individual, the little guy, a common person can freely blog and present “news” outside of corporate/state control is a position statists find intolerable. This is why Hillary famously said that the news needs some “gatekeeper.” Of course the fact that that the Government is prohibited from infringing on the right of people to offer news and opinion without any kind of government interference means they are exposed. The internet has destroyed the defacto state/press control of media that used to exist. Statists hate this.

They also attack rich people spending their money to get their ideas presented. Again the idea that an individual can actually put his resources to promoting candidates and ideas without going through some state “gatekeeper” and without limits is intolerable. Freedom for the individual is not an idea statists can abide. It is a red-herring that individuals having too much freedom to spend their money on politics causes corruption.

The court rightly found that it makes no sense that an individual can give the limited amount to nine candidates, but not the 10th.

The Constitution is clear, Congress cannot abridge the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. Spending money to promote a candidate or idea has long been held as the exercise of those freedoms. There is one way in the USA to make such laws constitutional. Change the constitution. I don’t think changing the 1st Amendment to read “Congress shall have the authority to limit how much individuals may spend expressing their ideas, especially concerning political candidates, and may create laws to act as “gatekeepers” to the press determining who can and can’t publish the news and what news is suitable for the public, and what government actions are “newsworthy” is going to fly. That is exactly how statists want to treat individuals from poor basement bloggers to wealthy eccentrics, they don’t want the individual to have the ability nor right to actually effect politics.

The constitution was written uniquely not to grant privileges to the people, but to curb and limit the powers of government. The reasoning was clear and is as viable today as 2 centuries ago; limiting government insures liberty and freedom for individuals, dividing power in government helps reduce the corruption that power inevitably brings.

The solution is take away power from centralized government so that even if a politician is bought off they won’t have the power to hurt us. Corruption in government is not the result of individuals having too much freedom, but government having too much power.

Quiet Win for Individual Rights

By Tom Rhodes, 6/27/2013

Amidst all the hoopla over gay marriage and voting rights, a win for individual property rights by the SCOTUS went un-noticed. In what was probably the most important of this week's SCOTUS verdicts, was Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, where they found that when municipalities attach fees and extraneous payment obligations to a permit, like finance road improvements or expansion of waste disposal sites or wetlands development, the burden is now on the government to justify those mandates.
The idea that to force a property owner to pay extra to expand or improve sites not owned by that property owner as a condition to build or develop that property, the burden is no longer on the property owner to prove his development won't have an impact but on the government to prove it will. Unless the government can prove that such mandates are in "rough proportionality" to the demonstrative effects of development, such mandates are in effect the taking of property by the government.
The case is simple, St. Johns River Water Management District denied an application by Coy A. Koontz Sr. to fill more than three acres of wetlands in order to build a small shopping center. The district put conditions on granting the permit that effectively took his property. They were requiring Mr. Koontz to reduce the size of the development or spend money on any of a variety of wetlands-restoration projects designed to offset the project's environmental effects. Because Mr. Koontz declined to pursue any of these options, the district denied the permit.

KooKoo Koontz claimed that the permit denial constituted a "taking" based on other Supreme Court precedents; specifically Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. These cases established that conditions placed on the development of private property are an appropriation of private property unless the government could show a logical relationship and a "rough proportionality" between the conditions imposed and the projected effects of the development. The SCOTUS agreed.
SJWMD vs. Koontz dramatically shifts the burden of proof to
the government to justify mandates placed on private property owners; it follows the traditional idea that people are innocent until proven guilty, including the impact of private property development. This dovetails with other recent rulings against the EPA concerning "wetlands." And will have an impact on the EPA which will now have to prove development impinges on wetlands rather than the property owner proving it doesn't.

This was a both a symbolic and real win for private property rights. It may be used as a blow against "sustainable development." This SCOTUS ruling puts the onus where it belongs, on the government.

Supreme Court ends Checks And Balances and The Rule of Law.

By Tom Rhodes, 6/27/2012

The SCOTUS has found that a state cannot enforce federal law if the federal government refuses to enforce that law. The logic of this is absurd. Suppose speeding on federal highways was a federal crime, if the federal government decided not to enforce that law it means that states and local police would be in violation of the constitution and could not ticket or arrest speeders on federal highways.

Justice Antonin Scalia summed up the absurdity in his dissent writing, "to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."

This logic should scare us all, suppose a President decided not to enforce air traffic laws, and stopped manning airport control towers. The states would be prohibited from doing so themselves, doesn't that sound just dandy. A president could stop all Pell Grants by just refusing to spend the money congress allocated by law.

This ruling seems to be an end to the rule of law in the USA. We now have an elected despot, with the power to pick and chooses what laws to enforce, and deny the states the ability to enforce laws the feds don't want enforced. The will of the people as expressed by their duly elected representatives is no longer the law of the land, the law of the land is what a president decides. This is just a sign that we are nearing the end of our republic.

On the other hand, if we elected Gary Johnson as President, based on this ruling, he could end the FED, all government welfare, and reduce government spending drastically with the stroke of a pen. Maybe this is not such a bad thing, let's elect a libertarian and see what happens. Imagine a balanced budget just because the president refused to spend the money regardless of the will of congress and laws. Imagine zero welfare checks sent to anybody, just because the president chooses not to, based on this SCOTUS ruling states would not be allowed to do welfare either.

Why Obama Lawyers couldn’t answer Constitutional Questions

By Tom Rhodes 4/2/2012


Last week’s historic 3 day Supreme Court debate on Obamacare made one thing abundantly clear. The Obama administration is unable to answer basic constitutional questions and does not want nor consider the fact that there are limits on what the Government is allowed to do. Whether a liberal or conservative justice asked the basic question: If Congress can do this, what can't it do? Obama’s lawyers had no reasonable answer. Fundamentally, Obama and his administration, do not grasp liberty and freedom and the basis for the American experiment in self-rule.

Obama’s sole case was that because everybody might unexpectedly need healthcare the government has the right to force everybody to purchase insurance. When asked to compare that with a certainty, Justice Samuel Alito asked, "Everybody is going to be buried or cremated at some point. What's the difference?" The Obama lawyer stammered and tried to equivocate but offered no coherent retort.

Obama and the liberal left want the government to control the people, but our pesky constitution keep making it difficult. Little questions like since health care is regulated by the states, since you cannot purchase health insurance across state lines, and since patients and doctors services are exchanged within a state, how forcing all people to purchase health insurance is regulating interstate commerce? Is a question bounced around but not answered by Obama’s lawyers.

SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI: “I agree, except, Mr. Chief Justice, that what the Court has said as I read the Court’s cases is that the way in which you ensure that the Federal Government stays in its sphere and the sphere reserved for the States is protected is by policing the boundary: Is the national government regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce?”

JUSTICE KENNEDY: “But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.

And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”

Obama said he wanted to fundamentally change America. That is exactly what he is trying to do, to grant government the authority and right to force the people to purchase services and take actions that the government deems prudent, regardless of the individual’s liberty.

Justice Kennedy said it very well, the fact is there is no government enforced “obligation to one another.” The fact is that there is not a legally “shared responsibility” for our fellow citizens. In a free society everybody is responsible for themselves. We do have a moral obligation to voluntarily take care of each other, this is charity. Charity is voluntary, with our own time and money give of our own volition. Liberals as repeated studies have demonstrated, give embarrassingly little to charity, but are quite fond of forcing others to provide charity.

Constitutionally there are limits to the federal government. That doesn’t sit well with liberal utopian fantasy. They have no answer when asked, “If the government can do that, what can it do?” They accept no limits to the government. The fundamental problem is far deeper. The culture of America is no longer based on any form of democratic control. The ruling elite simply choose to ignore the plain will of the people.

The traditions and intellectual rigor that created our constitution, a period of time know as the “Enlightenment,” resulted in such clear and succinct ideas as expressed in the Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights. The idea that the people, not some ruling elite, can and should govern themselves lived for about a century. That idea is dead, there is not a liberal out there would be willing to let somebody make a life decision that government doesn’t approve and benefit or suffer the effects of that decision. Make a decision that earns wealth, and the government has a right to that wealth; make a decision that makes you poor, and the government will supply you with your needs. Self governing, self ownership, and individual responsibility are ideas that created the greatest nation the world ever saw, with the highest standard of living for more people than ever before. These concepts are foreign to Obama and his administration.

The writings of Locke, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and even Newton, all added to the conditions that resulted a society like the world had never known. The result was rather than the historic norm for all of history, which a few ruling elite live in relative luxury and control the masses living in abject poverty but the establishment of what is now know as the middle class. Over the past 100 years, this tradition of self rule has been diluted to a point that most people don’t even understand it. For a while new Americans from Europe, Russia, and even Asia, appeared to assimilate into the self-governing culture of the USA. The addition of millions of people who come from cultures that don’t even have a word in their languages to describe such basic principles as earning completely diluted the very principles upon which the USA was built.

Although it has taken a century, the melting pot has proven to be a myth not a fact. Rather than take the responsibilities and risks that accompany freedom and liberty, the multi-cultural experiment has resulted in old feudal ( or possibly tribal) thinking supplanting the foundational basis for self-rule. The very idea that because some people won’t (or can’t) make good life choices, that some ruling elite must take care of everybody cradle to grave is the antithesis of the foundational principles of the USA. Masses of immigrants have ignored the founding principles of our former Republic, and imposed the traditions, mores and attitudes of their cultures on the USA.

When the concept that people earn, not win, are not granted, but earn property, based upon free trade of their labor and capital, is not accepted as a viable concept, it is plain that the USA is going the way of the Roman Empire and is destined to be frayed. The historically brief period of time where liberty and freedom was allowed to prosper is over. Libertarianism, or classic liberalism, has been killed by multiculturalism; it was inevitable as the “live and let live” attitude associated with libertarianism, the very freedom and liberty our society was based, lead to tolerance of other cultures regardless of their compatibility with self-rule.

The reason Obama’s lawyers couldn’t answer basic constitutional questions, is culturally the very idea of self-ownership, self-rule, and the associated responsibility that accompany liberty are such foreign concepts that the Obama administration doesn’t even understand the question.

Obama and his administration believe that the ruling elite have the authority to dictate to individuals what they must purchase, and do not accept that people are free to pursue life as they see fit. This is the fundamental change Obama promised and is attempting to enact. The very idea that government is limited, especially from doing “good,” is culturally beyond his and his administration’s understanding. Obama’s “Bitter, Clinging” comments and his often repeated frustration with the constitution, speak clearly that he does not understand a culture of self-rule, self-ownership, and liberty, and does not believe that people should be free.

The very fact that the individual mandate in Obamacare is being considered constitutional by any of our Supreme Courte Justices, is ample evidence that the ideas, culture, and thinking that created our nation are gone; no longer are all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and no longer do we consider the fact that our government was created to secure these rights, instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, instead the government is some ruling elite with the power and authority to mandate what actions individuals must take, as it assumes the responsibility for every person in exchange for their liberty.

Newsflash: SCOTUS upholds plan language of the Constitution.

By Tom Rhodes, 1/23/2012

In a unanimous decision Monday the Supreme court ruled that the police must obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS tracker to person's vehicle. This is evidence that contrary to all available evidence there are limits to government power and authority. This case tested the boundaries of how far government can go in using new technologies to monitor the whereabouts of the people.

The plain language of the 4th Amendment is clear. It states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The mere fact that the government would consider adding a device of any kind to a person's private property to monitor anything without probable cause is a clear indication that, on the whole, the government no-longer considers a person's private property to be of consequence. The government didn't argue that placing a GPS device on a person's car wasn't a violation of rights, but argued that attaching the tiny device to a car's undercarriage was too trivial a violation of property rights to matter, and that no one who drove in public streets could expect his movements to go unmonitored. Thus, the technique was "reasonable," meaning that police were free to employ it for any reason without first justifying it to a magistrate, the government said. To the government your rights are "trivial."

Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority concluded that the Fourth Amendment's protection of "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" extends to private property such as an automobile.

Justice Samuel Alito split from fellow conservatives holding that the search violated not just property rights, but also individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." The same justification the court has used since 1967, when it held that warrants were required before police could wiretap a call made from a public telephone booth because "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." He warned that a property-based approach was too narrow to guard against the proliferating threats to personal privacy modern technology posed.

It is nice to see that the SCOTUS in some cases still protects the rights of the people over the government. Too bad the SCOTUS isn't consistent in protecting our property rights from search and seizure, they still accept the idea that any cash you have is the government's unless you can prove that cash didn't commit a crime. Without probable cause nor evidence nor due process, if you carry cash it can be confiscated as drug money. Monday's decision should be celebrated as a good step in the right direction, but we still have too many laws that put the government's "interests" above the rights of the people.

Too Much Government

by Tom Rhodes, 1/10/2011

Common sense, reality, justice, are all concepts that the excess regulations that our government has instituted are chasing away from the American people form trust and belief in our government. We have so many laws and regulations that it is impossible for anybody to know them all, much less obey them all.

Consider a kid in school, a good kid, whom it is quite legal to own, use, and poses a tool when not in school. If this tool is a pocket knife, a tool people have traditionally carried from a young age for centuries, and he accidently forgets to leave it at home when he goes to school, notes that he forgot, and then self reports to the school (government) that he made a mistake, what should a reasonable response to that responsible action be.

The Gwinnett School System thinks that several days of in-school suspension is appropriate, they used to have a minimum 10-day out-of-school suspension for such atrocious crimes.

What our government is teaching it citizens, specifically our children, is that laws are not just, they are instituted to control you. That you are better off not trusting the government (schools) and hiding any problems or questionable possessions, as even if you did no wrong, you will be punished as an example to the rest of society.

Consider compliance with current traffic laws. We have so many traffic laws, most of which are used to generate fines, not provide more safety, that they are routinely ignored. Laws against and controlling mind altering substances like pot, beer, etc. are so routinely ignored that all of our past 3 presidents have openly admitted ignoring them.

Worse Yet, the government doesn't want to be accountable. Consider the EPA, they are arguing before the supreme court that the people have no right to legally challenge anything they dictate or any fine they levy, and must allow open access to private records without a court order to the EPA, and that there can be no judicial review. The government literally claims that the EPA as an agency is not and cannot be held to constitutional limits. In the case argued before the SCOTUS, a property owner had their property declared a wetland, it’s on the side of a hill in a subdivided community, and they had all the necessary building permits, and the property was not part any of the EPA declared wetlands. The EPA stopped construction and demanded they remove all foundations, plant non-native species, and let it be a virtual park for years before they could apply to the EPA for permission to build, and that there could be no review of the EPA finding of any kind.

SCOTUS Justice Elena Kagan said it was a “strange position” for the government to adopt in insisting that the property owner has no right to a hearing on such an order. Justice Stephen Breyer said it looked intimidating to him. “It said this is an order,” he said. Justice Alito summarized what had happened, saying, “You buy property to build a house. You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says you have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house. Remove the fill. Put in all kinds of plants. and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to … you have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000 and by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you…”

Justice Breyer said, “For 75 years the courts have interpreted statutes with an eye towards permitting judicial review, not the opposite.”

Justice Ruth Ginzburg recognized that the property owners had sought a hearing from the EPA over the controversy, “and the EPA said no.”

It is clear our government bureaucrats chafe at the idea that the people have rights and can challenge their orders. It has gotten so bad that even all of the liberal justices on the SCOTUS can be said to have misgivings based on the questions they asked EPA lawyers.

The EPA believes that the constitution no longer applies and does not restrict the power and authority of government. Regardless of the fact that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” the EPA is arguing to the SCOTUS that through the Clean Water Act that they have the authority to issue orders as it wishes and collect fines for “violations” – without court review.

This is evidence that the government is trying to teach the people of this country that the rule of law, and equality under the law are passé. That the ruling elite have the power to issue orders as they wish and collect fines, confiscate property, and issue punishment for “violations” – without court review, without due process, and you mere citizens have no choice.

Clearly the left, and ruling elite in the government want to end property rights. Consider liberal columnist, Carl Gibson’s recent editorial titled, “ ‘Job Creators’ Aren't Doing Their Job.” where he says, "With $2 trillion at home and $1.4 trillion abroad, corporations are sitting on record-high piles of cash. For example, Apple holds $76 billion by itself, more than the U.S. Treasury. Yet these hoards of cash remain untaxed. A 35% tax on corporate America's cash reserves in the United States alone would generate $700 billion in revenue."

Start with the obvious lie, where he claims that “hoards of cash” are untaxed; taxes were paid on that cash when it was earned, cash on hand is savings not untaxed income. Just like individuals can save part of their income if they choose not to spend it after they pay taxes, groups of people (what corporations are) can do the same. Gibson is in essence saying that if you have cash remaining after you pay taxes and rather than spend those funds you choose to you save them, that then the government should take that savings from you. Get it!! you should only be allowed as much savings, property, etc, as the government gives you permission. Your savings is actually the governments and the government not you should decide if it should be spent. This sounds more like the old USSR than the USA. Liberals and the media wonder why corporations move their savings off shore, or why Americans are purchasing gold, jewellery, guns, and other tangible goods in record numbers, as investments to protect assets, it’s because the people no longer trust the government not to confiscate their accumulated wealth.

The ruling elite and liberal intelligentsia actually believe that all the wealth and property of the USA is the governments, not the individuals who earned it, and the government has the right to redistribute all property as it sees fit, including savings. It isn’t just big corporation savings (cash on hand) that leftists want, they also want the accumulated savings of those individuals who have taken personal responsibility and saved for their retirement. The government is actively seeking ways to control 401K accounts. The government is saying that you are too stupid and shouldn’t be burdened with being responsible for your own money, and that you are not a sovereign individual with individual rights, that your property is actually the governments, and it graciously allows you to keep some of it at the government discretion.

Our government is too big, protecting individual sovereignty and responsibility is no longer considered the job of government, and it now considers the people and their “rights” to be a burden. To get around constitutional restrictions on confiscating property without due process, then now charge the property not the person with a crime. Have more than a few dollars in your pocket, and the police will confiscate it saying it was drug money with no proof, no evidence, and no due process. Rather than innocent until proven guilty, you must prove that the money charged with a crime is yours. Note that to avoid the obvious lack of due process they have decided that it is ok to charge the money with a crime, not the owner of that money, and since money isn’t a person and has no rights, they can do what they want with it.

Too much government has now made it so that the average person no longer considers avoiding a tax wrong. Too much government has now made it so that the average person now considers what the government might do to them before reporting anything. Too much government has now made it so that the average person seriously searches for ways to avoid “permits.” In many of our big cities it is almost impossible to for the government to get a jury to convict individuals arrested for possession of small amounts of pot. The people realize that the law is stupid, the government will destroy individuals not for violating anybody else’s rights, but for doing something the government doesn’t like, so juries don’t convict.

Because of this the government is trying and has succeeded in limiting the people’s right to a jury trial. Schools no longer teach civics where the jury trial, and how being tried by your peers is a check against an abusive government. A jury can and does have the right to say not guilty when the government charges a person of a crime that although the defendant did commit, the law itself is wrong and the action should not be a crime. A fully informed jury is not something the government wants, and better yet, the government doesn’t want juries at all. Having to prove to 12 people, not a single government employee (the judge) severely restricts the power of government.

The solution to almost all the problems America now faces is not more government, it’s less government. But don’t expect the media who profits from more government or corporations who can buy off government to protect themselves from competition and being held accountable to their actions, to promote smaller government.

We need to return to limited government, but just as the Romans used bread and circuses to control the mobs, we too are seeing the same actions by our ruling elite, and is indicative of the beginning of the end of our republic. The only possible way to reverse course, and not end up a former shell of our past greatness like roam, losing our constitutionally protected rights, is to return to what made us great; being a limited small government republic. From the way anybody supporting smaller government who does manage to get the public’s attention (think Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson) is systematically destroyed, there is little hope that in 2012 we will even have the choice to elect a person who respects private property, individual liberty, freedom, self-rule, etc.

I have a better idea, more freedom, less government. Of course you have to be willing to accept that you not the government is responsible for your own well being. You not the government will be responsible to help the needy. You’ll have to be a part of your community and depend on your family, neighbours, church, etc. to help you when/if you’re in need not the government. That was the situation and worked for about the first 150 years of American history. That can, and will, work again, but not if society doesn’t believe in individual sovereignty and responsibility. If you wonder, I did steal that phrase “more freedom, less government” check it out at www.lpf.org.

SCOTUS Nominee Kagan, Declares Declaration of Independence Null and Void

Kagan Denies the Declaration of Independence

Nominee for SCOTUS Justice, Elena Kagan, may have disqualified herself from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court with her statement under oath that conflict directly with the founding documents of the USA.

This exchange happened during her confirmation hearings between her and Senator Coburn:

Coburn: Do you believe it is a fundamental, pre-existing right to have an arm to defend yourself?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, I very much appreciate how deeply important the right to bear arms is to millions and millions of Americans. And I accept Heller, which made clear that the Second Amendment conferred that right upon individuals, and not simply collectively.

Coburn: I'm asking you, Elena Kagan, do you personally believe there is a fundamental right in this area? Do you agree with Blackstone [in] the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense? He didn't say that was a constitutional right. He said that's a natural right. And what I'm asking you is, do you agree with that?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, to be honest with you, I don't have a view of what are natural rights, independent of the Constitution. And my job as a justice will be to enforce and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

Coburn: So you wouldn't embrace what the Declaration of Independence says, that we have certain God-given, inalienable rights that aren't given in the Constitution that are ours, ours alone, and that a government doesn't give those to us?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, I believe that the Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I'm not saying I do not believe that there are rights pre-existing the Constitution and the laws. But my job as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws.

Coburn: Well, I understand that. I'm not talking about as a justice. I'm talking about Elena Kagan. What do you believe? Are there inalienable rights for us? Do you believe that?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, I think that the question of what I believe as to what people's rights are outside the Constitution and the laws, that you should not want me to act in any way on the basis of such a belief.

Coburn: I would want you to always act on the basis of the belief of what our Declaration of Independence says.

Kagan: I think you should want me to act on the basis of law. And that is what I have upheld to do, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, is to act on the basis of law, which is the Constitution and the statutes of the United States.

Kagan in her own words said she will not uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence. In signing the Declaration of Independence, for the first time in history, the people reduced government from master to servant. Government was proclaimed to derive its powers only from the consent of the governed. Kagan is claiming that the law and government is master over the people. She said that the law supersedes unalienable rights. SCOTUS Nominee Kagan has determined that the Declaration of Independence Null and Void for the citizens of the United States of America.

The Declaration of Independence proclaims that life and liberty are the unalienable gifts of God, natural rights, which no person or government can rightfully take away. It affirms that the purpose of government is to secure our God-given unalienable individual rights. The Constitution is definition of how our government is instituted based on the purpose set forth in the DOI.

The idea that there are no natural or unalienable rights, only the law is tantamount to declaring that the government determines right not the people. Clearly Kagan is not qualified to sit as justice to the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS Rules Second Amendment is Fundamental Individual Right

Monday June 28, 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that Chicago’s blanket ban against owning handguns to be unconstitutional. Writing for the majority Justice Samuel Alito says, "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."

The case, McDonald v. Chicago, challenged a 7th Circuit court ruling that said the Second Amendment applies only to federal regulation of an individual's right to guns and not in cases of restrictions by states and municipalities. The SCOTUS overturned this ruling agreeing with the plaintiff’s argument that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment is "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment and applies to both states and localities. This opinion confirms the historically liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruling that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" and regarded as the "true palladium of liberty," so it therefore must be applied against state and local government weapon restrictions as well as federal gun limits.

The court’s 5-4 decision was split along its typical ideological lines: The conservative justices; John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, all voted to extend gun rights, the liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor voted to allow continued restriction on the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

This decision is going to make people like Chicago Mayor Daly unhappy. He promised new laws and said, "As a city we must continue to stand up and fight . . . for a ban on assault weapons . . . as well as a crackdown on gun shops." I believe it will also profoundly consternate liberals in congress and the White House. The statists temporarily in charge, who think ordinary people shouldn't be allowed to make our own health care choices, or decide which schools their children attend, will be apoplectic that the SCOTUS has ruled that the people can make decisions about how to defend themselves.

Quotes from the majority opinion:

The Court is correct in describing the Second Amendment right as “fundamental” to the American scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan v. Louisiana , 391 U. S. 145 , and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions,” Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U. S. 702 .

"It is clear that the Framers [of the Constitution]. . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,"

If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of handguns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.

President Obama’s first appointment to the SCOTUS, Justice Sotomayor, proved herself to be contemptuous of the Senate and the people. She ruled exactly the opposite of the way she intimated she would rule during her confirmation hearings last year. When asked about gun control during those hearings she said, “One of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized. . . . I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans.” Obviously she understands how important it is to many Americans, but does not believe that it should be it is a right fundamental right for all Americans regardless of how "important" it is to the people. Justice Sotomayor formally agreed with the minority opinion criticizing the ruling, including this statement by Justice Breyer, “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ in so far as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

Of interest is the pro-Tenth Amendment arguments presented by Justice Breyer in his dissenting opinion. Justice Breyer says "I find any justification for interpreting the Constitution as transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the States to the Federal Government." He also says, "Private gun regulation is the quintessential exercise of a State’s “police power”— i.e. , the power to “protec[t] … the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and the protection of all property within the State,” by enacting “all kinds of restraints and burdens” on both “persons and property.” Slaughter-House Cases , 16 Wall. 36, 62 (1873). The Court has long recognized that the Constitution grants the States special authority to enact laws pursuant to this power."

Breyer’s strong Tenth Amendment words included, “In a nation whose constitution foresees democratic decision-making, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people?" Breyer wrote. "What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?" Taken at his word you would think that Stephen Breyer, will side with Montana, Tennessee, and the 6 other states that have so far passed Firearm Freedom Acts, exempting from federal regulation the sale of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition manufactured and retained in the state. I’m sure that Justice Breyer will contradict himself and rule against his own opinion if any of the Firearms Freedom Act laws make it to the Supreme Court.

The right to keep and bear arms is the law of the land. The SCOTUS has ruled that “The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee.” If the government or the people want to change that it will and should require a constitutional amendment. We are a nation of laws, with constitutional restrictions on what the federal authority can do. If the statists currently in the majority of elected federal positions want to change that, then they can and must amend the constitution. It is neither impossible nor difficult; it was amended 4 times in 8 years between 1913 and 1920. The situation has changed, to amend the constitution in the era of new media in which the powerful elite no longer control all the news and information, the will of politicians to further restrict liberty knowing it could lead to their loss in the next election, does not exist. The people, not the statists in charge, believe in the rule of law. Monday’s SCOTUS ruling just confirms the plain meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, that the people have the right to Keep and Bear Arms.

SCOTUS DOCS http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html

SCOTUS Confirms Second Amendment is an Individual Right

"It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty," ~ Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr

The Supreme Court ruled that the Second ...Amendment provides all Americans a fundamental right to bear arms, a long-sought victory for liberty advocates who have chafed at federal, state and local efforts to restrict gun ownership.

Victory for Free Speech

Why is yesterdays Supreme Court ruling saying that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections, so controversial?

The 1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."

Justice Kennedy got it right in his opinion where he said, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

The SCOTUS got it right, and overturned McCain-Feingold.

Justice Kennedy also wrote in the majority opinion, “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

Supreme Court makes decision for individual liberty

Today in Arizona vs. Grant the SCOTUS ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not permit police to conduct a warrantless search of a car unless the search is immediately necessary to safeguard the arresting officer's safety or to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence.

The decision means that police cannot rely on a mere traffic violation to authorize a general search for guns, drugs, or other contraband. Such searches created "a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion.

"The character of that threat implicates the central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment – the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person's private effects."

So once you’re out of your car for a traffic violation, they have no reason to search your car as you can’t reach anything in it that could hurt them, and they have no probable cause to look for any other crime. The smart thing to do would be to exit your car with your registration and proof of insurance when stopped, and lock the car. If all they stopped you for is a traffic violation then anything they find in your car if searched it is not admissible in court.

Some may say this makes it harder on police. It may, but then the constitution limits the government not the people, it should be harder for them. The government shouldn’t be able to rummage through the private effects of a person without a warrant.