Nobody likes ignoring the Constitution; but...well…..

In an interview on the FOX News Network last month, former TSA Director Mo McGowan made the following statement:

"Nobody likes having their 4th amendment violated going through a security line, but the truth of the matter is, uh, we're going to have to do it."

That’s right folks; the former TSA director believes that, in the 4^Th Amendment, when the Constitution states that “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”, it is just kidding. What we the unwashed masses fail to understand, in McGowan’s view, is that there is apparently hidden here the fact that, if they decide to, the government has the power to ignore the meaning of this amendment and simply do whatever they want. [This massive power is perhaps found in an ultra secret portion of the Constitution that we have just never been shown before.]

Inherent in his own words here is the implication that the Constitution is simply a pie in the sky fantasy that not only can, but should be ignored whenever some bureaucrat such as Mo here decides that he wants to do so. The Constitution is the fantasy to McGowan, the the ability to ignore what the Constitution says is “the truth”.

That anyone can state such an odious comment with a straight face and not understand the implications for its precedent is astonishing. If those who are actually in charge of implementing processes such as these believe that they are not violating the rights of those who are subjected to them, it is a much different thing than having someone implement them in full awareness that they are violating them. The former would be an idiot; the latter would be a criminal.

How is it not a crime for a government body to willfully violate the rights of the citizens as enumerated in the Constitution? How can the Congress hear statements proving this willful disregard of the rights of the citizens they are elected to represent and not take immediate action? How can the President of the country, whose oath of office requires that he intercede in such matters to “protect and defend the Constitution”, not intervene?

Do they not care? Do we as a people no longer care?

We must remember that allowing the government to remove a right [ANY RIGHT] means that ALL of the rights that remain are merely privileges to be allowed only at Government discretion. Allowing rights to be taken away makes the idea of rights the fantasy.

Why are they allowed to get away with it?

Consider this: If I were to tell you that, because I had to change my plans to add on new room to my home this year, it would actually be smaller next year, you would most likely laugh at me. If I were to tell you that, because I decided to continue buying my kids a Happy Meal during our weekly visit to McDonalds rather than move them up to an adult meal, I had actually reduced their food intake, you would probably wonder about my ability to reason. If I was to then tell you that, because I decided against expanding my cable package to include the Showtime movie pack, that I am actually reducing my service, you would most likely begin to wonder about my grasp of reality. If I then went on to explain that deciding to extend the current tax rates/policies in this country would be a tax cut, you might think [rather than questioning my sanity] that I was simply restating the beliefs of any number of liberal politicians or commentators speaking on the issue today.

I call this to your attention because recently I have heard many on the left argue against an extension of the current tax rate/policy in this country by calling it a tax cut for the wealthy. In their argument, an extension of what exists today will somehow be giving new money to those people they have defined as wealthy.

For those who hear this argument, accepting their premise makes accepting their argument all the more understandable. The problem here, as I have shown above, is that the premise is fundamentally flawed.

What is happening here is that the left [in this case] is framing the argument to try to pull attention away from the facts of the situation:

Fact: Keeping the current tax rate neither raises or lowers taxes

Fact: Allowing the current tax rate to go up raises taxes.

Fact: Lowering the current tax rate would lower taxes.

These facts cannot be argued [this uncontestability is actually the defining feature of what constitutes a fact.] Because this is the case, however, [and because those on the left understand that “We are against continuing the current tax rates because it neither lowers or raises taxes on the wealthy in this country” is a losing argument] it is clear that the left have decided to ignore those pesky little things called facts and simply argue fantasy.

This decision to argue fantasy, however, is nothing new. In the past I have heard politicians claim that the only way to know what is in the bill is to pass it [while any first grader would know that reading the bill and discussing it is another, and in this case better, way.] I have heard the President state that Comprehensive Healthcare Reform would actually lower our deficit [even though it would add millions of people to the rolls of a taxpayer funded program.] I continue to hear that the only way we can reduce the deficit by raising taxes [even though deficits are ongoing decisions that can be stopped tomorrow by deciding to only pass budgets are balanced.] These positions are clearly flawed but are all the more palatable for those who hear them because the arguments are framed to argue fantasy in an attempt to make each of them more believable.

The answer for those who are actually looking for a return to reason is to break down these frames in a very public way. Remind those who hear these flawed arguments of the obvious. Hold a press conference with a three year old child, show them a copy of the healthcare reform bill, and ask them how you could know what is written into it. [I guarantee the child will say to read it.] Hold a press conference with a dog and give it a piece of bacon. Watch the dog eat the bacon. Next put a bowl of bacon in front of the dog and watch it eat all of the bacon. Explain that without restraint, the dog will most likely continue to eat all of the bacon you give it while wanting more the same way that Congress will continue to spend all of the tax you give it while still wanting more.

Honesty dictates that we should never let those who have decided to ignore facts for fantasy get away with doing so.

Perhaps he needs a thesaurus…

With the Bush tax cuts set to expire, one can only imagine the comfort the average taxpayer in this country felt when the President stated, in his first post election interview with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes, that his “number one priority coming into this is making sure that the middle class families don’t see their tax rates go up January 1.”

Clearly, with such little time remaining for such legislation to take place, the idea of the President making it his number one priority to ensure that rates will not go up should go a long way towards allaying the fears of those who have seen rising food and fuel costs over the last year with little prospects of new jobs or increasing wages in the near future. What decisive actions, what intense meetings, what impassioned pleas must be planned in the next few days that would allow the President to work towards achieving his number one goal? How many long hours would he be working in the Oval Office to be sure that his priorities are realized? Well, as it turns out, the answer to each of these questions is “none.”

That’s right. Apparently, in order to achieve his “number one priority” in the very short time available to him this year, President Obama felt that an extended trip to Asia was in order.

Yes, that is correct. It would seem that his “number one priority” could only be accomplished by a 10 day travel itinerary including such stops as Mumbai, New Delhi, Jakarta, Seoul, and Japan. Apparently we should all take heart in understanding that visits to the Great Buddha statue, the Gandhi Museum, the Taj Majal Palace, the Tower Hotel, Jumayun’s Tomb, the Mahatma Gandhi memorial, and the National Handicrafts and Handloom Museum (this one for Michelle but apparently important as well) are an integral part of his overall strategy.

Sure, to the layperson this may seem as if the extension of the tax cuts are not his “number one priority;” but, rather that his “number one priority” was simply the use taxpayer money to remove himself from the political scene for a bit after his party suffered such a crushing defeat in the November elections, however, I am sure that the President could certainly explain how this is not the case if we gave him the chance. Who knows, it may even be his number one priority.

We will just have to wait and see…

So the election has taken place and the GOP turned out to be the big winners.

I only hope that Republicans do not think that this election was due, in any real part, to their recent actions. In fact, if I had to describe what the strategy of the majority of the party was in the last couple of months, I would have to say it was to try to keep quiet and avoid saying anything too stupid. Ultimately, most of the winners [with a few exceptions] were simply happy to sidestep the anger of the American voters and quietly slip into the seats of those who were pushed out by that anger.

In this one I have to give it to Marco Rubio [Senator Elect from Florida] who said it would be a mistake to interpret the results of the election as being an embrace of the Republican Party. Here is a rising member of the Republicans who is willing to speak the truth even when it may not cast his party in the best possible light. Rubio was correct in his understanding that this election, for many, was simply a choice between what they viewed as the lesser of two evils.

We will see if the new batch of Republicans will rise to Rubio’s call that they become “what they said they were going to be not so long ago” or if they will fall back into the trap of simply talking like true conservatives while acting the opposite way. Should the Republicans fail to follow Rubio’s call to action, there is little doubt that they will soon find themselves on the receiving end of the same anger they were just able to avoid.

Now is the time to lead. The question is whether they will have the strength to do it.

A note to the President.

President Obama,

On your recent visit to Rhode Island, the one where the Democratic candidate in the gubernatorial race Frank Caprio said that you could "take [your] endorsement and shove it,” I heard you say the following:

“we can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

Now, while I am sure that in your analogy you see the government firmly planted behind the wheel of the car that represents the economic and political path of this country, perhaps you might [in the future] take a moment to consider how such imagery paints you and affects those people you were elected to govern. Perhaps you might want to consider that your audience, at least those who are familiar with the Constitution, might believe that it is not the government who should be driving anything; but, rather it is the people who should be driving. The government, in any proper analogy, would be the pit crew that keeps air in the tires and grease in the bearings so that the wheels of industry are ready to go at a moment’s notice; keeps the wiper blades updated so that we can see the road ahead and plan for those things that we can tell are approaching; basically that does those things they are contractually allowed to do. [As a hint, driving is not one of these things.]

Now as a second point here you might want to watch your message a bit more closely for a couple of reasons. First, please try to remember that, as the President of the United States, you are the President of everyone here: Republicans included. When you suggest that the roll of the minority party in a Constitutional Republic is to simply come along for the ride and sit in back, your meaning [that Republicans should simply shut up and let Democrats do whatever they desire to do at the moment because they are of no importance at all] is pretty clear. Surely you must understand that it is the job of all representatives to represent their constituents and that in telling them to stay out of the way and be relegated to “the back seat” you are tacitly telling large numbers of the American people to do this as well.

Secondly, while I am sure that you were simply trying to come across as placatory, when you said “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us,” this message [especially when taken in context] was clearly insincere. It is a bit like a high school jock dismissing someone with whom he does not wish to associate by smarmily intoning “I guess you could come for the ride if you want to but you’ll have to carry my sweaty gym bag.” Yes the welcome is stated, but the rejection is clear. The problem with your statement is twofold. First, when you relegate Republicans to the back and the middle class to ride shotgun you seem to be forgetting the large number of the middle class who are Republicans. Thus, by your own words it would seem that, while you claim the middle class needs to be “up front,” it is clear that, under your administration, the Republican middle class is welcome in the back seat alone. Secondly, by stating that Republicans are welcome to simply come along for the ride, you are implying that once the ride is over, they are not invited to take participate in the destination. With such open hostility being put forth by no less than the President of the United States, how could those on its receiving end not get the feeling that the administration is less interested in the welfare of all than in the welfare of those he has chosen to be “up front?”

Ultimately, when you demonize Wall Street, you [the President] are demonizing Americans. When you talk about the greedy upper class, you [the President] are demonizing Americans. When you tell Republicans that they should sit down, shut up, and simply agree to come along for the ride, you [the President] are saying this to Americans. Remember, you were elected to be a leader and these are certainly not the actions of one.

Get Ready to Dig Deep

So far I have had several posts about how people want to take your things from you to give to others in a power grab masked as fairness. This weekend, the LA Times threw its hat into the ring as an enabler of this view.

How did they do it? The LA Times, in reporting on the possible recommendations of the [what I am sure we will soon see is the improperly named] National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, gives space to author Kenneth Harney to write the following about possible upcoming tax change recommendations:

“Likely targets: The mortgage interest deduction, which added about $100 billion to the deficit in fiscal 2010 and more than $400 billion during the last five years, according to congressional estimates; capital gains exclusions for home sale profits, which cost more than $128 billion between fiscal 2006 and 2010; and property tax write-offs, which cost $70 billion-plus during the same period.”

At a glance, the more smooth brained among Harney’s readers will most likely look at the idea that each of these programs are adding significantly to the deficit and [after working painstakingly with their Cipher Me Elmo calculators for several hours] ultimately add the numbers above to get a number that [while almost assuredly wrong] seems “pretty high.” As a result of this realization, these people will eventually succeed at wrapping their fragile little head meat around the idea that adding to the deficit is “bad” and so these programs must be "bad” as well.

The problem with this idea, as those people who’s minds have a few more wrinkles will see almost immediately, is that adding to the deficit is a result of spending rather than a result of not taking more of other people’s property.

Let’s think a moment about this if we could. If Congress looked at the money they have coming in and then spent only that amount, there would be no deficit. Further, if a part of what they planned to spend was applied to the National Debt, that too would one day disappear. This is how budgets should work. It is only the willful decision to spend MORE than you are taking in that will add to the deficit. It is only the willful decision to IGNORE the debt that allows it to grow to the levels it has now reached.

The belief that legal deductions are somehow adding to the deficit requires the believer to dismiss the roll of the government in the process at all. Further, this attempt to push the blame for deficits to property owners is yet another step towards seizing wealth in addition to taxing income as a method of redistribution.

The evidence is all around us. Whether we choose to see it will determine our future and the future of our children.

Who Said That?

Okay, so… I was right.

In my October 7^th post I wrote a bit about the comment made by Jim Moran [the Democratic Congressman from VA] and stated that if you really looked at his words, you would see that he was talking about seizing more than taxes. By looking more closely at his idiotic statement, you could see that Moran was actually suggesting that property is not safe as far as he is concerned and that he would have little problem seizing it to distribute as he sees fit.

Shortly after making these points I was told by several people that I was just “being paranoid.”

Sadly, it took only about 10 days for my assertion to be proven. On October 19th, the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said the following:

“We’re talking about addressing the disparity in our country of income… But that disparity is not just about wages alone, that disparity is about ownership and equity.”

That’s right folks. The person who is third in line for the Presidency has come out and directly stated that we need to address the disparity in what people own and what equity [read this as accumulated wealth] they have been able to put away.

And why, one might ask, should they be looking to take away from those who have earned what they have? Pelosi answers that one as well:

“It’s all about fairness in our country.”

Unfortunately for the rest of us, the “fairness” that Pelosi is speaking of here is a fairness that she wants to decide on. While I am sure that those on the receiving end of such a handout would somehow be able to delude themselves into seeing the seizure as some act of fairness, I somehow doubt that those who would have their property and equity taken to be distributed to others would consider it “fair.”

Perhaps someone should take a moment to sit this twit down and explain that rather than being all about “fairness,” this country is actually all about “freedom.” Even a cursory glance at the Constitution should have made this apparent even to our esteemed speaker. That it has not, makes me wonder how loudly the spine of her copy would crack if she ever decided to open it.

Careful Nancy, the pages of a book that has never been read can cause nasty paper cuts.

Snyder v. Phelps [A Supreme Court case that should not have been necessary]

If you have missed the fervor surrounding the heinous actions by the WBC [which either stands for Wart-filled Bile-spewing Colons or Westboro Baptist Church depending on who you ask] and the infamous pastor Fred Phelps please consider yourself lucky.

They seem to find great pleasure in playing on the grief of others by carrying signs such as “Thank God For IEDs” while protesting at [among other locations] the funerals of fallen soldiers. They also seem to enjoy holding up signs saying how got hates homosexuals and attacking the Catholic Church. While I could go on to discuss every disgusting thing that has ever floated to the surface of their rather smooth textured minds, there is really no point.

Ultimately, the truth is that they have the right to say disgusting things in public places and we have the right to ignore them. When it comes to saying things that are specifically meant to infuriate those people grieving at a funeral, I think that perhaps we could craft laws that would protect their rights in this way:

It is considered a misdemeanor crime to physically assault someone carrying out a protest at the funeral of any person and any person found to have severely physically assaulted someone in the act of such a protest will be subject to a cumulative fine beginning from $.10 not to exceed $1.00 and civil fines also beginning from $.10 and not to exceed $1.00. Failure to pay such a fine may subject the offender to the possibility of up to 30 seconds of public service. [Such public service should consist of telling those who have been beaten that they did a good job in accomplishing their goal of inflaming the other person to violence.] Once restitution is made, all records of this offence will be immediately expunged.

I wonder how many more protests we would see at funerals. I would hope for at least a few more.

A Democratic argument against savings...

I recently heard the following quote from Jim Moran [Democratic Congressman from VA]:

“For the last seven years we have had the highest corporate profit ever in American history… But it hasn’t been shared, and that’s the problem, because we have been guided by a Republican Administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it. They have an antipathy toward the means of redistributing wealth.” Jim Moran D-VA Congress

Now this quote is from a while back but it really demonstrates a fundamental difference in how many Democrats view the world.

As recently as just a few years back, I would have found it difficult to believe that any politician could say what Jim Moran said without being thrown out of office. The notion that our government is actually stating openly that it is their belief that the wealth we earn as workers in this country is not our own is shocking.

Let’s follow this line of thought a bit more here. If those who earn wealth are not entitled to keep it then we must be saying that it is not really theirs in the first place. If the wealth is not the property of the person who earned it, then we have to ask who actually owns it. Could it be the wealth of those to whom Congressman Moran wishes it to be redistributed? That explanation seems to fall apart as well. If it was their wealth, then there would be no laws against the poor simply going in and taking what “already belongs to them” back from those who have it. As laws do exist to prevent this, it would appear that the only other option is that the wealth belongs to the government itself. [And we should really remember to look at Moran’s words carefully here to see the true meaning of his words.] Remember, Moran is not really arguing for taxes here; but, rather specifically mentions “people who have wealth” in his comment. We are not merely talking about whether it is okay to tax higher wage earners; we are discussing whether those who have wealth in any form can have it taken away.

This belief can only come about as a direct result of a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution. It would be impossible to believe that Moran could miss the implication that ,by noting the Constitutional rights to “keep and bear arms,” be “secure in their Persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” be protected from “excessive fines,” etc…, the framers were not only acknowledging, but, rather codifying the idea of ownership of property and wealth. As this is the case, one must logically assume that Moran is either unfamiliar with the document that is supposed to guide his daily work, that he is incapable of understanding it, or that he is simply ignoring it. Either option here should be grounds for his removal from office.

The implications of Moran’s misguided belief are far reaching and widely destructive. If people are not entitled to keep wealth, one must question what this means for property ownership, 401k plans, Money Market accounts, etc….

Remember that this is not some fringe group nutcase here; this is Virginia’s Congressman from the 8^th Congressional district. He has been in office since the early 90s and continues to bring his misguided views to the House even now.

Where was the outrage here?

That sentiments like these can go unchallenged by those whom Moran represents suggests that there is at least some agreement as to its truth. This is perhaps the most frightening point of all.

A justification for Judgment

While studying for my undergraduate degree I once took an English class on Early American Literature. This course was being taught by a relatively new professor at the school who was revamping its structure. No longer was it sufficient to begin with the works of literature written by the English who had just arrived in the new world; this class began with Zuni myths and other works by indigenous people [even though these tales were of an oral history and the practitioners wrote little of it down and none of it in English.]

As it turned out, the most significant assignment for the quarter would focus on “comparing two separate works by different writers.” [This teacher went as far as to pass out an assignment sheet with a list of works that could be chosen from.] As a believer in “New Criticism” I always found looking at different works and comparing how each work uses language, theme, tone, and imagery similarly or differently to convey either similar of wildly different ideas to be something of a puzzle and certainly an interesting challenge for the one doing the critique.

The day that the assignment was given out, I went to the library and read over large portions of the Norton Anthology of English Literature and found two works on the list that would pose an interesting challenge for critique and set about comparing and contrasting how each piece each written about an apple, used similar themes and images but denoted very dissimilar overall tones and caused the reader to come away from the work with entirely different mindsets.

The next time the class met, we were asked whether we had decided what we would be doing our project on and I let her know that mine was finished. She was a bit taken aback and said that part of the process was going to be to have things approved. I pointed her to the assignment sheet and she agreed that she had neglected to do state this in the assignment and also agreed to look at my paper as soon as I was ready to perform the first review. I handed it to her immediately.

When next we met, the professor told me that she would take some time with me after class to discuss my paper. When class ended, I went with the professor to her office and she pulled out my assignment. After taking a moment to look over her notes she looked at me and said the following: “Well I read your paper and it was very well written. I guess I have to ask you... ‘What is the point?’ You seem pretty clear about what you think the works do here but how does this play into what was happening in the world at the time? “

I sat there politely and then proceeded to explain that the paper was written not as a historiographical approach to the works but rather as the well established form of “New Criticism”. I went on to explain that, as such, any new critical work would obviously not take the happenings of the day into account just as a “Deconstructionist” approach to the paper would not have looked at the works in relation to their rhythm, meter, or metaphors. A New Critical approach will look at the internal aspects of the work itself and eschews the use of external evidence to explain the meaning of a work.

Somewhat skeptically, the professor began to explain that good critique [the idea that ‘good’ is definable only by her somehow never hit her as being a bit self-centered] had to take into account the period and that “anyway” I didn’t even have any citations supporting my viewpoints.

This really stirred things up a bit as I asked whether I had failed to support any of the assertions in my paper. She agreed that my approach was good but that without the support of “experts” she could not say whether any of my ideas were “valid”. I pointed out that she had already, on two occasions in the last few minutes, commented on the validity and clarity of my arguments and then I went on to suggest that the validity of an idea has nothing to do with support of others. If this were the case, no new interpretations would appear to be possible. She began to explain that I perhaps misunderstand her point… It is not that the idea is new; but, rather that the idea is not from an “expert” that dooms it. I asked what it would take, in her eyes, to allow someone to write critiques of their own that need not be “validated” by having been already expressed by someone else and she said that it requires an “advanced degree.”

At this point I knew that my professor was a close minded idiot [incapable of using her own mind to determine whether the ideas of others are valid.] This being the case I stopped my argument and spent the afternoon reading a number of reviews on the subject as well as a history of the time period each poem was written. I threw together a bit of BS about the change in tone being a byproduct of the transitional period between which each work was created and even inserted several quotes from “experts” with “advanced degrees” to “support” my argument [The funny part about this was that the support came in the form of presenting their ideas about what each work meant and then disproving the validity of their arguments—The professor never did realize that in doing it this way I disproved her idea that the “experts” validated my ideas, but rather proved that the “experts” were wrong.]

The new paper was submitted during the next class and it received an A.

This interaction was not the first time I was told that I didn’t have a right to my opinion about something and was certainly not the last one either. It is perhaps the clearest example of the hypocrisy I have run into in my life that is needed to support the misguided belief that others have no right to comment on the things around them. Do I need to be a politician to say when a law is bad? I have been told that I do. Do I need to be a Constitutional Law Professor to say when something is unconstitutional? I have been told this as well. Do I have to be a police officer to tell a rowdy person that they should quiet down? This too, I have been told.

There is, however, no validity to this argument. Any person who takes the time to look at the world around him has a right to participate. I do not have to be a professor of Constitutional law to know that rewording the Constitution [from “public use” to “public purpose”] in as Supreme Court Decision to support the idea that people can arbitrarily confiscate someone’s private property to sell to someone else for increased tax revenue is wrong. I do not have to be a politician to know that explaining that your party is not bad by pointing to bad things done by the other party is wrong as well.

I am the best arbiter of what is right in this world. So are you. We may not agree on everything, but if we can form an opinion and support a belief, we have every right to express it to others. This being the case, I will continue to sit in judgment of the things around me.