Yet Another Reason to Leave Southern California...

We're living in a fourth amendment exclusion zone...

Forget Due Process?

Reader Larry E. writes in with this regarding the leaked memo detailing the Obama administration's justification of targeted killings of Americans:

This is a sad, scary thing.

Seems all it takes to have you killed in the US is for some official to say you might be dangerous.

How we got to this point, from constitutional protections from unwarranted search, innocent until proven guilty, to no knock search warrants, secret courts, CIA prisons, actively mining all data flowing in the US for any evidence of wrong doing, to justifying murdering US citizens on US soil. Amazing.

Here's the actual memo.

This is disturbing, no doubt about it.  The opportunities for abuse are obvious, and if there's any lesson from history it is that any possible abuse will become an actual abuse. 

Also disturbing is the obvious alternative: American Taliban (or the equivalent) untouchable by U.S. military action because of legal restrictions.

I much prefer to err on the same side that our jury system errs on: I'll gladly take a small risk to my country (an American Taliban run amok) to keep the due process protection afforded (or so I thought) by our Constitution.

But little by little, bit by bit, our Constitutional protections have been eroded over the years.  This is not a recent phenomenon; it started a long, long time ago.  The examples are everywhere: illegal drugs and building codes are two noxious examples that are long-standing and have widespread public support.  With this memo, Obama is just participating in an old and well-practiced political sport...

How Can They Be So Stupid?

Or is it that they think we're so stupid?  Maybe it's both...

The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That's the whole thing. It's simple, straightforward, and is one of the most important freedoms we have as Americans. The first amendment gives us a right that is surprisingly rare in this world, though most Americans don't realize it. 

The first amendment was ratified as part of the “Bill of Rights” (the first ten amendments), on December 15, 1791 – some 220 years ago.  In all that time, nobody has ever seen the need to modify it.  It does its job quite admirably.

But now the Democrats (led by the harridan-in-chief Nancy Pelosi) want to change it.  In particular, they want to remove this freedom from corporations.  I suspect that their internal noodlings are that corporations, being businesses, are more likely to lean right – so shutting them up would be advantageous for Democrats. 

This is a very dangerous step down the slippery slope.  You can bet on this: if they managed to amend the Constitution for reduce our freedom of speech for this reason, they'll keep trying to impose more restrictions.  But slippery slope aside, this is dangerous for another reason.  The law considers a corporation to be a person in a legal sense, and with very good reason: a corporation is nothing more than a collection of people (the shareholders).  Restricting freedom of speech for a corporation is exactly the same thing as restricting the speech of a group of people.  The argument is sometimes made that corporations are comprised of people who aren't necessarily Americans, and that's true.  But it's also true that foreigners in America have freedom of speech here.  So why would we treat them any differently simply because they're part of a group?

Thankfully, there's very little chance that Pelosi's amendment would ever be ratified.  The Founding Fathers made amending the Constitution very, very hard for a reason – and this is an excellent demonstration of that reason.  Their best hope to accomplish something like this is to pack the Supreme Court with allies – one of the main dangers of allowing Obama to stay in power.

Remember all this when you vote in November!

Symbolic Reading...

The Republicans are going to read the current version of the U.S. Constitution on the floor of the House today.  This is mainly a symbolic gesture to reinforce the notion that the U.S. is a land of laws, not of (powerful) men.  It's also an acknowledgment of the role of the Tea Party in the Republican's newly-won majority.

The reaction of the left to this reading is instructive.  It's almost entirely negative, ranging from hand-wringing about the cost (that's rich, after the last two years of spendathon!) to entirely predictable snide remarks about the irrelevance of the literal Constitution to governing today.

This symbolic act is a bit like having a powerful flashlight that one can shine into the warren of Congress-critters to illuminate those who see the Constitution as fundamental to our way of governing, and those who would prefer to ignore that pesky, dusty old document.

Bring on that flashlight, Speaker Boehner!

Slightly Revised Constitution...

Originally from SGT Phillip DePalma, via reader Jim M.:

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!

The Gathering Storm...

Scary graphic, but the message is dead serious.  At every turn, our liberal congress-critters are doing their best to limit one of American's most fundamental rights: the right to bear arms.

I just hope we have enough concerned citizens to beat back these efforts...

Empathy...

Last week, after Justice Souter announced his retirement, Obama made some remarks that included this bit:

I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes.

I've been stewing on this all week...it's the single most frightening thing I've heard Obama say yet (and that's saying something, as he's made some terrifying utterances). If you parse his words carefully, he's really saying this: he wants Supreme Court justices that ignore the law (including the Constitution), and instead make decisions based on their understanding of people's feelings (that's what “empathy” means).

Am I exaggerating, making too much of his rhetoric? I think not. I believe that he is saying here quite clearly what he wants – justices who won't think of themselves as bound by a musty old Constituition. He really does want justices willing to make decisions even that directly contradict the Constitution, so long as those decisions correspond to where Obama wants the country to go.

We've seen this scenario play out quite recently, and not so far from home. This is exactly what happened in Venezuela, where now the “socialist” (thugalist, really) Hugo Socialist has made the country over in his image.

How are we going to get our country back?