Judge John M. Roll, True American Hero, by Sheriff Richard Mack

On January 8, 2011, Federal District Judge John Roll was gunned down by a maniacal coward lunatic. Since this unspeakable and unimaginable tragedy much has been said about who caused this tragedy or who may have prompted its occurrence. Some of this rhetoric bordered on the absurd. I would much rather talk about the good people who had their lives snuffed out before their time and to pay tribute to who they were and what they stood for. Certainly, a beautiful little nine year old angel, named Christina Green, deserves to have her life displayed as an example to others to learn from and enjoy. So, I will do that regarding a man who changed my life and helped alter American history; Judge John M. Roll. He was an honest man and a principled judge. He stood for what he believed was right despite the possible consequences. I met Judge Roll back in 1994, in fact, it was in his courtroom. He was the judge who first heard my lawsuit against the Clinton Administration. Judge Roll had the courage to take a strong stand against the very entity that controlled his salary and career. He actually had the audacity to tell Congress and President Clinton that they exceeded their authority when they made the Brady bill a law. I was extremely nervous when I walked into Judge Roll's courtroom. There was a big crowd of supporters and numerous reporters and cameras outside the courthouse. Although I had been to court many times before, this was the first time it was in front of such a crowd of onlookers and the Press and in Federal court. I remember looking at Judge Roll and relaxing somewhat; he was nice looking and rather young, about my age. He had already defended me with at least two pretrial motions that he ruled on, both in my favor. The first one was the Federal Government's attempt to remove me from the case entirely by claiming I had no standing to sue them in the first place. They argued that only the county's Board of Supervisors could represent the county in such legal actions. Judge Roll said this was wrong because it was the sheriff being commandeered by the Federal Government, both officially and personally. Next, my lawyer asked for an injunction against the government from being able to arrest me for "failure to comply." (There was an actual provision in the Brady bill that threatened to arrest the sheriffs if we failed to comply with this unfunded mandate from Congress.) Judge Roll seemed legitimately concerned about this threat throughout the entire lawsuit. Janet Reno herself wrote a memo to the Judge and assured him that the Feds had no intention of arresting me and that the threat of arrest within the language of the Brady bill, was only intended for the gun shop owners, not the sheriffs. Judge Roll, as he announced his decision regarding the injunction said that Janet Reno was not allowed to change the law "by fiat" nor interpret the law for Congress. "Mack's injunction is hereby granted," the Judge said calmly and sternly. Then as the hearing proceeded I was called to the stand. The butterflies returned big time. As the Justice Department's lawyer cross examined me, she did something unusual; she actually began to address the Judge while I am still sitting on the stand. She said, "why your honor, already in just the first four months of the implementation of the Brady background checks, we have denied over 250,000 felons from gaining access to handguns in this country." I was thinking to myself what a crock her numbers were and wondering why we had so many felons on the streets all trying to buy handguns in government checked gun shops. Suddenly, Judge Roll interrupted the attorney and rebuked her with, "Counselor, do not pretend in this courtroom that your statistical analysis somehow equates to constitutionality." I have to say that Roll's understanding of principles amazed me. He was so professional and knowledgeable. He took his job and the Constitution so seriously. He was truly an exemplary Justice. When Judge Roll issued his ruling on the Mack v. US case on June 28, 1994, he said two things that absolutely floored me. The first one was the order of the court which summarized his findings: "The Court finds that in enacting (the Brady bill) Congress exceeded its authority under Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution, thereby impermissibly encroaching upon the powers retained by the states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The Court further finds that the provision, in conjunction with the criminal sanctions its violation would engender, is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution." Judge Roll, of all the dozens of Judges who had heard this case from me and the other six sheriff defendants, was the only one who ruled that the Brady bill violated the Fifth Amendment as well as the Tenth. It was pursuant to Judge Roll's insight and sensitivity to the threat this "law" posed to us, the sheriffs, that this case made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. When I read the other Judge Roll principle, it truly brought me to understand how astonishing this man really was. He said: "Mack is thus forced to choose between keeping his oath or obeying the act, subjecting himself to possible sanctions." To have a federal Judge actually grasp the full extent of my personal motivation for filing this case was absolutely remarkable. He touched my soul with this comment and it is recorded in my books and memory forever. He was truly before his time. Now, his work is a part of American history. His legacy should be one of honesty, courage, and living up to his oath as a true defender of our nation's rule of law. He changed my life and showed us all that the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. via Oathkeepers

Quote of the Day 1/15

Gen. Winfield Scott

Mr. Toombs told us a story of General Scott and himself. He said he was dining in Washington with Scott, who seasoned every dish and every glass of wine with the eternal refrain, "Save the Union; the Union must be preserved." 

Toombs remarked that he knew why the Union was so dear to the General, and illustrated his point by a steamboat anecdote, an explosion, of course. While the passengers were struggling in the water a woman ran up and down the bank crying, "Oh, save the red-headed man!" The red-headed man was saved, and his preserver, after landing him noticed with surprise how little interest in him the woman who had made such moving appeals seemed to feel. He asked her "Why did you make that pathetic outcry?" She answered, "Oh, he owes me ten thousand dollars." 

"Now General," said Toombs, "the Union owes you seventeen thousand dollars a year!" I can imagine the scorn on old Scott's face.

Robert Toombs

--Mary Bokin Chestnut, A Diary from Dixie, February 19, 1861

Why government sucks 2...to wit:

When bipartisanship breaks out in Washington DC, check to make sure your wallet is still in your pocket. Every time you fill up your car this winter you are participating in the biggest taxpayer swindle in history. Forcing consumers to use domestically produced ethanol is one of the single biggest boondoggles ever committed by the corrupt brainless twits in Washington DC. Ethanol prices have soared 30% in the last year as the supplies of corn have plunged. Only a policy created in Washington DC could drive up the prices of gasoline and food, with the added benefits of costing the American taxpayer billions in tax subsidies and killing people in 3^rd world countries.

The grand lame duck Congress tax compromise extended a 45-cent incentive to ethanol refiners for each gallon of the fuel blended with gasoline and renewed a 54-cent tariff on Brazilian imports. The extension of these subsidies, besides costing American taxpayers $6 billion per year, has the added benefit of driving up food costs across the globe, causing food riots in Tunisia, and resulting in the starving of poor peasants throughout the world. This taxpayer boondoggle is a real feather in the cap of that fiscally conservative curmudgeon Senator Charley Grassley. He was joined in this noble effort by another fiscal conservative, presidential hopeful John Thune. It seems these guys hate wasteful spending, except when it benefits their states. The bipartisanship in this effort was truly touching, as Democrats Kent Conrad and Tom Harkin also brought home the pork for their states.

From zerohedge.com

Why government sucks

As I read the article from the National Review Online below, I thought:  This is a great way to explain why government promises much, and fails in spectacular fashion.  


Government sucks (despite their presumed good intentions) because they try to regulate for the common good.  The many reasons government fails to deliver on promises of protection and proper regulation:  


first, they have no competency to know what constitutes the vague term common good, 


second, they have no way to acquire enough data to make decisions about policy, 


third, they are economically ignorant in general, and have no sense of the economic consequences of the laws they pass or the regulations they write, and

fourth, they never think about blowback or the law of unintended consequences.


Question:  Why do we have to live by laws designed to deal with the (sometimes extremely) rare exception, instead of the rule?  


Are we not much more poor, and much less free because of our own government?


Gun control laws are a good example of this.  Read a relevant article about what growing up American was like only 40 to 50 years ago, before many of the modern gun control laws, or the PC regulations and laws we live under today.


---------------------------------------------


 So read an interesting, long, quirkily written article by Kevin Williamson, deputy managing editor at the National Review, that he entitled "Welcome to the Machine":

"So, where do you [the government] find help writing and administering the regulations — help to help you apply plain common sense to serve the common good? Take the banks, for instance: The guys who know a whole lot about how banks work work in banks. So, you might disco on down to Goldman Sachs, where they scrupulously seek to accumulate evidence of the production of social value in great quantities, and try to hire yourself some staffers. And when they are done laughing at you, you can head down to some lower-tier, south-on-the-food-chain bank, where you’ll find some guys who got their MBAs at Eastern Michigan and who might want to spend a few years in government work. There’s job security, for one thing, and the pensions and benefits are great. Also, they know that Goldman Sachs cares a lot about how the bank regulations are written for the same reasons that McDonald’s cares a lot about how the all-beef-patty regulations are written, and so a third-tier banker who becomes a government regulator might in five or ten years be a pretty good candidate for a job at Goldman Sachs, which will shunt great fresh roaring streams of social value at people who can help it out compete its rivals in the regulatory arena, Eastern Michigan grads or no." 


By the way, Kevin, thanks for the darn title of your article.  Now I can't get the Pink Floyd song out of my head for days now.

"Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help..."

Update on Iceland economic recovery -- doing it the right way

First, they apply generally Austrian school economic principles -- allow malinvestments to run their course naturally.  No bailouts.  V shaped rapid recovery.  Now they are going to administer justice to the bankers who manipulated the market that led to the crisis...

"Iceland, which alone in the entire developed world allowed its banking sector to collapse, and which, also alone, has benefited from a recovery that is truly organic courtesy of a devaluation of its currency and a global restructuring of its corporate balance sheet (read wipe outs for its banker class), continues to show the world that it is possible to have at least some semblance of justice in a world captured by fraud and criminal financial interests. After the CEO of failed bank Kaputhing was arrested back in May, today AFP reports that Iceland police has also detained the former CEO and several other executives of the other major Iceland failed bank: Landsbanki."

Article here

Think the bankers who manipulate(d) the market and the political system behind the scenes in the US have anything to worry about?  No.  


Dont worry about them.  


Application of the law in this country applies to mundanes only.

Anonymous global protests on 15 January

Anonymous urges global protests


The protests are likely to feature masked demonstrators


A group of self-styled internet freedom fighters have called for a global day of action in protest at attempts to close down Wikileaks.


Anonymous has gained notoriety in recent months for its cyber-attacks on the websites of companies it deems to be anti-Wikileaks.


Now, in a new video posted on its blog, it calls for a series of offline protests.


These are planned for major cities around the world on 15 January.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12191486

Leftist sharks go into a feeding frenzy over the blood of Tucson innocents

Paranoid schizophrenic with Gabrielle Gifford obsession.  
No politics.  
End of story.  
Mourn, show respect, express sympathy. 
Horrible, horrible, shit happens to good people.
Move on.

Leftist reaction to the shooting is as disconnected from reality as Loughner's Youtube video. 

--------------------------------

"This has been a hugely shameful week for sections of the American Left, who have exploited a horrific tragedy that claimed six lives, in order to advance political attacks upon some leading conservative politicians and media commentators, as well as an entire political movement in the form of the Tea Party. The vitriolic and hate-filled attacks have marked a low point for liberal media elites in America in the 21st century, even to the extent that President Obama himself, probably the most liberal US president of modern times, felt the need to rebuke this undignified and crass display of left-wing finger-pointing in his memorial speech in Tucson on Wednesday night."

Nile Gardener of the Telegraph blogs comments from the UK.

Texas woman wins settlement against TSA

JANUARY 13--The woman who sued the Transportation Security Administration after her breasts were exposed during a frisking at a Texas airport will receive a “nominal” payment from the government as part of a legal settlement, The Smoking Gun has learned.

The settlement was disclosed in documents filed last week in U.S. District Court in Amarillo, where Lynsie Murley last year filed a lawsuit accusing the TSA of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection with the May 2008 incident at the Corpus Christi airport.

------------------------------------------------

Well, isnt this special:

Woman pays taxes to federal government.

Federal government gives tax money to TSA.

Tax enabled TSA causes same woman emotional distress
by causing her to expose herself in public (without cause).

Federal court orders settlement "from the government" to wronged woman.

American taxpayer money paid out to wronged woman.  

Those [TSA employees] who violated her rights don't have to pay out of their own pocket;  no word on disciplinary action.

So, woman pays for the privilege of being abused by those oath bound to protect her constitutional rights, and tasked with protecting her life by screening for threats, 


And we pay money to support both their labor, and bail out their abuses. 

Do we as taxpayers bear collective guilt for TSA thuggery?


"People are beginning to realize that the apparatus of government is costly. But what they do not know is that the burden falls inevitably on them."--Frederic Bastiat
 

Anonymous kills website for Fine Gael, Irish opposition party

Hackers have compromised the Irish (pro EU) party Fine Gael's website, leaving a message claiming to be from Anonymous.

Fine Gael said it was working on restoring the site after it was "professionally hacked" on 9 January, leading to personal data on around 2,000 supporters reportedly being lost.

"The website will be offline while we follow-up with the appropriate authorities to resolve the matter," a message on the party's site read.

The initial defacement on the website called for free speech to be respected.

"Nothing is safe, you put your faith in this political party and they take no measures to protect you," it reportedly read.

"They offer you free speech yet they censor your voice. Wake up!"

http://www.itpro.co.uk/629956/irish-opposition-party-hacked-by-anonymous

Fine Gael website still down tonight, 4+ days later...

Quote of the Day 1/14

"The Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states." 

Charles Dickens, 1862

Packing heat on the floor of Congress -- it takes a Texan!

Tor for untraceable surfing

Tor is a network of virtual tunnels that allows people and groups to improve their privacy and security on the Internet. It also enables software developers to create new communication tools with built-in privacy features. Tor provides the foundation for a range of applications that allow organizations and individuals to share information over public networks without compromising their privacy. 

Individuals use Tor to keep websites from tracking them and their family members, or to connect to news sites, instant messaging services, or the like when these are blocked by their local Internet providers. Tor's hidden services let users publish web sites and other services without needing to reveal the location of the site. Individuals also use Tor for socially sensitive communication: chat rooms and web forums for rape and abuse survivors, or people with illnesses.

Tor can't solve all anonymity problems. It focuses only on protecting the transport of data. You need to use protocol-specific support software if you don't want the sites you visit to see your identifying information. For example, you can use web proxies such as Privoxy while web browsing to block cookies and withhold information about your browser type. 

Also, to protect your anonymity, be smart. Don't provide your name or other revealing information in web forms. Be aware that, like all anonymizing networks that are fast enough for web browsing, Tor does not provide protection against end-to-end timing attacks: If your attacker can watch the traffic coming out of your computer, and also the traffic arriving at your chosen destination, he can use statistical analysis to discover that they are part of the same circuit. 

Interesting.

Read

Atlanta Tea Party's response to anti-gun anti-CCW legislation proposed after Tucson

"Because the Progressives are attempting yet once again to take away our rights, the Perimeter Tea Party of East Atlanta is planning another Restore the Constitution Rally.  While we deplore the murder of unarmed men, women and a child, the attention and blame should be placed on Jared Loughner, not the gun he carried nor the size of the magazine.  If 30 round magazines are outlawed, then only outlaws will have 30 round magazines.  If a 1,000 foot “no carry zone” law is passed, then only outlaws will be withing 1,000 feet of our representatives.  Let it be know if one of us was in Tuscon that day and were not shot first, there would be fewer shots fired, people wounded or killed and Loughner would be sprawled out on the pavement with a few extra holes in him." 

http://restoretheconstitution.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/tea-party-group-responds-to-upcoming-anti-gun-legislation/

via Western Rifle Shooters.

American citizen, Wikileaks volunteer, harassed by TSA at border (2nd time)

Wikileaks volunteer detained and searched (again) by US agents

Xeni Jardin at 12:59 PM Wednesday, Jan 12, 2011 

Jacob Appelbaum, a security researcher, Tor developer, and volunteer with Wikileaks, reported today on his Twitter feed that he was detained, searched, and questioned by the US Customs and Border Patrol agents at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on January 10, upon re-entering the US after a vacation in Iceland.
He experienced a similar incident last year at Newark airport.
An archive of his tweeted account from today follows.

---

• It's very frustrating that I have to put so much consideration into talking about the kind of harassment that I am subjected to in airports.
• I was detained, searched, and CPB did attempt to question me about the nature of my vacation upon landing in Seattle.
• The CPB specifically wanted laptops and cell phones and were visibly unhappy when they discovered nothing of the sort.
• I did however have a few USB thumb drives with a copy of the Bill of Rights encoded into the block device. They were unable to copy it.
• The forensic specialist (who was friendly) explained that EnCase and FTK, with a write-blocker inline were unable to see the Bill of Rights.
• I requested access my lawyer and was again denied. They stated I was I wasn't under arrest and so I was not able to contact my lawyer.
• The CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) agent was waiting for me at the exit gate. Remember when it was our family and loved ones?
• When I handed over my customs declaration form, the female agent was initially friendly. After pulling my record, she had a sour face.
• She attempted to trick me by putting words into my mouth. She marked my card with a large box with the number 1 inside, sent me on my way.
• While waiting for my baggage, I noticed the CBP agent watching me and of course after my bag arrived, I was "randomly" selected for search.
• Only US customs has random number generator worse than a mid-2007 Debian random number generator. Random? Hardly.
• During the search, I made it quite clear that I had no laptop and no cell phone. Only USB drives with the Bill of Rights.
• The CBP agent stated that I had posted on Twitter before my flight and that slip ended the debate about their random selection process.
• The CBP agents in Seattle were nicer than ones in Newark. None of them implied I would be raped in prison for the rest of my life this time.
• The CBP agent asked if the ACLU was really waiting. I confirmed the ACLU was waiting and they again denied me contact with legal help.
• All in all, the detainment was around thirty minutes long. They all seemed quite distressed that I had no computer and no phone.
• They were quite surprised to learn that Iceland had computers and that I didn't have to bring my own.
• There were of course the same lies and threats that I received last time. They even complemented me on work done regarding China and Iran.
• I think there's a major disconnect required to do that job and to also complement me on what they consider to be work against police states.
• While it's true that Communist China has never treated me as badly as CBP, I know this isn't true for everyone who travels to China.
• All in all, if you're going to be detained, searched, and harassed at the border in an extra-legal manner, I guess it's Seattle over Newark.
• It took a great deal of thought before I posted about my experience because it honestly appears to make things worse for me in the future.
• Even if it makes things worse for me, I refuse to be silent about state sponsored systematic detainment, searching, and harassment.
• In case it is not abundantly clear: I have not been arrested, nor charged with any crime, nor indicted in any way. Land of the free? Hardly.
• I'm only counting from the time that we opened my luggage until it was closed. The airport was basically empty when I left.
• It's funny that the forensics guy uses EnCase. As it, like CBP, apparently couldn't find a copy of the Bill of Rights I dd'ed into the disk.
• The forensics guy apparently enjoyed the photo with my homeboy Knuth and he was really quite kind. The forensics guy in Newark? Not so much.
• The CBP agent asked me for data - was I bringing data into the country? Where was all my data from the trip? Names, numbers, receipts, etc.
• The mental environment that this creates for traveling is intense. Nothing is assured, nothing is secure, and nothing provides escape.
• I resisted the temptation to give them a disk filled with /dev/random because I knew that reading them the Bill of Rights was enough hassle.
• I'm flying to Toronto, Canada for work on Sunday and back through Seattle again a few days later. Should be a joy to meet these guys again.
• All of this impacts my ability to work and takes a serious emotional toll on me. It's absolutely unacceptable.
• What happens if I take a device they can't image? They take it. What about the stuff they give back? Back doored? Who knows?
• Does it void a warranty if your government inserts a backdoor into your computer or phone? It certainly voids the trust I have in all of it.
• I dread US Customs more than I dreaded walking across the border from Turkey to Iraq in 2005. That's something worth noting.
• I will probably never feel safe about traveling internationally with a computer or phones again.
• None the less, safe or not, I won't stop working on Tor. Nor will I cease traveling. I will adapt and I will win. A hard road worth taking.

BTW, have you been reading the leaked documents?  Boring as hell as a rule, with the occasional embarrassment for the State Department.  Much ado about nothing so far  -- Feds have their panties in a bunch because they lost control of the situation.  Shows up their incompetence, just in a more obvious way than usual.  

What national security threat does Wikileaks represent?  Biden called Assange a "high tech terrorist."  I see no foundation for that based on evidence.

Are our public servants not proud of their actions?

UK independence party (UKIP) looking good to win EU parliamentary elections in 2014

"I was having a beer with Nigel Farage recently when he came out with a most remarkable statement. “UKIP,” he declared, “will win the next European election.”

Win? Win? Certainly, like most Conservatives, I’d love a UKIP victory if it gives us some chance of ending our disastrous membership of the EU. But, come off it, I thought, this must be the beer talking. Yes, UKIP came second in 2009, but this was after the MPs’ expenses scandal and it is still a minority party – a protest vote. A UKIP victory, I told myself, is out of the question, however much of a soft spot I have the party."

Great for UKIP in Brussels...but how about at home?

We the people (whole nation) or We the people (of each sovereign state)

The preamble to the Constitution proposed by the Convention of 1787 is in these words:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The phraseology of this preamble has been generally regarded as the stronghold of the advocates of consolidation. It has been interpreted as meaning that "we, the people of the United States," as a collective body, or as a "nation," in our aggregate capacity, had "ordained and established" the Constitution over the States.

This interpretation constituted, in the beginning, the most serious difficulty in the way of the ratification of the Constitution. It was probably this to which that sturdy patriot, Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts, alluded, when he wrote to Richard Henry Lee, "I stumble at the threshold." Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention, on the third day of the session, and in the very opening of the debate, attacked it vehemently. He said, speaking of the system of government set forth in the proposed Constitution:

"That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen [its authors]; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of 'We, the people,' instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of this [pg 122] compact, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all the States."³⁸

Again, on the next day, with reference to the same subject, he said: "When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: it is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, 'We, the people,' instead of the States of America."³⁹

The same difficulty arose in other minds and in other conventions.

The scruples of Mr. Adams were removed by the explanations of others, and by the assurance of the adoption of the amendments thought necessary—especially of that declaratory safeguard afterward embodied in the tenth amendment—to be referred to hereafter.

Mr. Henry's objection was thus answered by Mr. Madison:

"Who are parties to it [the Constitution]? The people—but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties: were it, as the gentleman [Mr. Henry] asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment, and as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining States would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it: were it such a government as is suggested, it would be now binding on the people of this State, without having had the privilege of deliberating upon it; but, sir, no State is bound by it, as it is, without its own consent. Should all the States adopt it, it will be then a government established by the thirteen States of America, not through the intervention of the Legislatures, but by the people at large. In this particular respect the distinction between the existing and proposed governments is very material. The existing system has been derived from the dependent, derivative authority of the Legislatures of the [pg 123] States, whereas this is derived from the superior power of the people."⁴⁰

It must be remembered that this was spoken by one of the leading members of the Convention which formed the Constitution, within a few months after that instrument was drawn up. Mr. Madison's hearers could readily appreciate his clear answer to the objection made. The "people" intended were those of the respective States—the only organized communities of people exercising sovereign powers of government; and the idea intended was the ratification and "establishment" of the Constitution by direct act of the people in their conventions, instead of by act of their Legislatures, as in the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. The explanation seems to have been as satisfactory as it was simple and intelligible. Mr. Henry, although he fought to the last against the ratification of the Constitution, did not again bring forward this objection, for the reason, no doubt, that it had been fully answered. Indeed, we hear no more of the interpretation which suggested it, from that period, for nearly half a century, when it was revived, and has since been employed, to sustain that theory of a "great consolidated national government" which Mr. Madison so distinctly repudiated.

...The original language of the preamble, reported to the Convention by a committee of five appointed to prepare the Constitution, as we find it in the proceedings of August 6, 1787, was as follows:

"We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish, the following Constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity."

There can be no question here what was meant: it was "the people of the States," designated by name, that were to "ordain, declare, and establish" the compact of union for themselves and their posterity. There is no ambiguity nor uncertainty in the language; nor was there any difference in the Convention as to the use of it. The preamble, as perfected, was submitted to vote on the next day, and, as the journal informs us, "it passed unanimously in the affirmative."

Volume I, Part II, Chapter V, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Jefferson Davis

Quote of the Day 1/13

"I know not which mortifies me most, that I should fear to write what I think or that my country bear such a state of things." 

Thomas Jefferson, reacting in a private letter to the Alien and Sedition Acts, 1798 

Sovereign world debt crisis: China to the rescue again--of Portugal!

Another country is bailed out by the Chinese taxpayers and Chinese productivity:

Text in full from zerohedge.com

China Confirmed As Buyer Of Directly Placed Portuguese Debt

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/12/2011 13:18 -0500

• Goldman Sachs
• Portugal
• Reuters

A few days ago, when it was first announced that Portugal is contemplating a direct placement of bonds (with amount and buyer undisclosed), we speculated: "Reuters reports that Portugal is in the process of making a private placement of bonds, without announcing details on size or the buyer. Our guess: buyer is China, and size is about €1 billion." We were off. By €100 million. The WSJ has just confirmed that China was indeed the buyer, and the amount purchased was €1.1 billion. It is unclear if, as we suspect, Goldman Sachs was the underwriter on the transaction.

Glenn Greenwald's rational approach is appreciated: Climate of Fear created by US government

WikiLeaks has never even been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime, nor does it do anything different than what major newspapers around the world routinely do, nor has it been formally designated a Terrorist organization, nor -- I believed at the time -- could it ever be so designated. There is not -- and cannot remotely be -- anything illegal about donating to it. Any efforts to retroactively criminalize such donations would be a classic case of an "ex post facto" law unquestionably barred by the Constitution. But from a political perspective, the crux of the fear was probably more prescient than paranoid: within a matter of months, leading right-wing figures were equating WikiLeaks to Al Qaeda, while the Vice President of the U.S. went on Meet the Press and disgustingly called Julian Assange a "terrorist."

But more significant than the legal soundness of this fear was what the fear itself signified. Most of those expressing these concerns were perfectly rational, smart, well-informed American citizens.  And yet they were petrified that merely donating money to a non-violent political and journalistic group whose goals they supported would subject them to invasive government scrutiny or, worse, turn them into criminals.  A government can guarantee all the political liberties in the world on paper (free speech, free assembly, freedom of association), but if it succeeds in frightening the citizenry out of exercising those rights, they [the rights] become meaningless.

So much of what the U.S. Government has done over the last decade has been devoted to creating and strengthening this climate of fear.  Attacking Iraq under the terrorizing banner of "shock and awe"; disappearing people to secret prisons; abducting them and shipping them to what Newsweek's Jonathan Alter (when advocating this) euphemistically called "our less squeamish allies"; throwing them in cages for years without charges, dressed in orange jumpsuits and shackles; creating a worldwide torture regime; spying on Americans without warrants and asserting the power to arrest them on U.S. soil without charges:  all of this had one overarching objective.  It was designed to create a climate of repression and intimidation by signaling to the world -- and its own citizens -- that the U.S. was unconstrained by law, by conventions, by morality, or by anything else:  the government would do whatever it wanted to anyone it wanted, and those thinking about opposing the U.S. in any way, through means legitimate or illegitimate, should (and would) thus think twice, at least. 

The salon.com article is here

Quote of the Day 1/12

“A meddling Yankee is God’s worst creation; he cannot run his own affairs correctly, but is constantly interfering in the affairs of others, and he is always ready to repent of everyone’s sins, but his own.”

attributed to North Carolina newspaper, 1854

Any doubts we live under the penultimate Yankee government?

Pennsylvania Constitution, 1776, on term limits

"And at the expiration of the time for which each counsellor was chosen to serve, the freemen of the city of Philadelphia, and of the several counties in this state, respectively, shall elect one person to serve as counsellor for three years and no longer; and so on every third year forever. By this mode of election and continual rotation, more men will be trained to public business, there will in every subsequent year be found in the council a number of persons acquainted with the proceedings of the foregoing Years, whereby the business will be more consistently conducted, and moreover the danger of establishing an inconvenient aristocracy will be effectually prevented."

Congress has no term limits now.  

Hasn't the Congress become this "inconvenient aristocracy": unfamiliar with, and unresponsive to the needs of their constituents (that these founders contemplated)?

Are you serious?  Are you serious!?

 

Quote of the Day 1/11

We have not sought this conflict; we have sought too long to avoid it; our forbearance has been construed into weakness, our magnanimity into fear, until the vindication of our manhood, as well as the defence of our rights, is required at our hands.

Robert Toombs

 

Keynesian economic policy almost destroys Sweden; economy saved by frugality since '92

 Which, of course, is a principle of Austrian economics.

"...there has been no job creation at all in the private sector from 1950 to 2005.

Yes, you read that correctly: there was no net increase in the number of jobs in the private sector in Sweden over a period of 55 years. In other words, starting five years after the end of the Second World War, the Swedish economy was at a complete standstill."

Read the rest at mises.org blog

Conspiracy in Tucson?

"Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva are both Democratic members of the House of Representatives from Arizona. On Tuesday January 4 the number of hits on the "Gabrielle Giffords" page on Wikipedia began to rise. The number of hits on the "Raul Grijalva" page did not. By Friday January 7 more than three times as many people were looking at Gabrielle Giffords's Wikipedia page than had done so in a normal day in the previous month and a half."

Interesting coincidence.  Read more here

Alexis De Tocqueville comments on the current U.S. regime

"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

--Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume II, Book 4, Chapter 6, published 1840 

---------------------------------------------------

Personally, I take issue with "it does not tyrannize,..."

To me, it does. 

Was Einstein thinking of Keynsian quantitative easing when he said:

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results..."

----------------------------------------------

Just wondering...

Fed's policy favors the rich, the poor languish.

I don't know about y'all, but I don't have any extra cash lying around to spread around Saks, Nordstrom, and Tiffany's.

 "There is a telling detail in the US retail chain store data for December. Stephen Lewis from Monument Securities points out that luxury outlets saw an 8.1pc rise from a year ago, but discount stores catering to America’s poorer half rose just 1.2pc.

Tiffany’s, Nordstrom, and Saks Fifth Avenue are booming. Sales of Cadillac cars have jumped 35pc, while Porsche’s US sales are up 29pc.

Cartier and Louis Vuitton have helped boost the luxury goods stock index by almost 50pc since October. Yet Best Buy, Target, and Walmart have languished.

Such is the blighted fruit of Federal Reserve policy. The Fed no longer even denies that the purpose of its latest blast of bond purchases, or QE2, is to drive up Wall Street, perhaps because it has so signally failed to achieve its other purpose of driving down borrowing costs." 

From Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of The Telegraph in the United Kingdom.

I thought of this quote when I was reading the article:

Stephen: [to William Wallace] "God tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're fucked."

Austrian economic interpretation:  

Those with cash would rather have tangible goods than hold onto cash that will lose it's value secondary to impending inflation.  

Productive elements in society cannot hire workers secondary to lack of orders or capital (minimal lending from banks, tighter controls on lending) to expand business.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

The following is the complete text of the Virginia Declaration of Rights:

Comments in blue now apply to all Virginians, indeed to all Americans...

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the Representatives of the good people of VIRGINIA, assembled in full and free Convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of Government. I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Except when congress, of course, causes debt that cannot be overcome for generations and generations.

II. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

 Except when the Congress becomes an incovenient aristocracy answerable only to the Oligarchy that controls them.

III. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Except when the only choices are between a Statist party with socially conservative rhetoric and a Statist party with socially liberal rhetoric.  Then what are we supposed to do?

IV. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary.

V. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.
VI. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.
VII That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

Except when Congress gets a whim, or it suits the Oligarchy directing Congress from behind the scenes.

VIII That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.

Except now juries can only rule based on the law and evidence as presented to them in a limited manner so as to favor the State's interest, instead of the traditional right of juries to try the justice of a specific law based on all the evidence of a certain situation, rather than as instructed to them.  You see, the law is too complicated for mere mundanes, and must be explained to them in language that they understand.

IX That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
X That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

Unless, of course, you pass a TSA or Department of Homeland Security checkpoint.

XI That in controversies respecting property and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.
XII That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.
XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
XIV That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.
XV That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Dont you worry your pretty little heads about such things.  Worry about making sure you max out your credit card buying your next Chinese made flat screen to watch Dancing with the Stars and Judge Judy.

XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776 Virginia Convention of Delegates drafted by Mr. George Mason

George Mason: remembered by a few...

America is indeed a banana republic...only with Nukes...

"The other day, in my post “The Lull Before the Storm”, I mentioned that for fiscal year 2011, the Federal Reserve would be purchasing over 60% of the Federal government deficit.

In other words, the Fed would be dancing the Monetization Waltz, just like Latin American countries used to back in the 1970’s: Proof positive that America is indeed a banana republic—only with nukes.

A lot of people didn’t believe me—or wanted me to check my figures. Or wanted to know if I was having an acid flashback from those aformentioned 1970’s. A lot of people couldn’t believe it."

Gonzalo Lira's latest blogpost.

Hyperinflation coming.  Time to prepare is now.

BTW, I don't think I want to know where Biden's hand is...