Caesar Is Lord

Rush played a clip of Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee,

The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process.  That is what HR-2 does and I rise in opposition to it, and I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives, and we recognize that 40 million plus are uninsured.  Can you tell me what is more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their 14th Amendment rights, and their right to equal protection under the law?  This bill is constitutional, and it protects the constitutional rights of those who ask the question, "Must I die, must my child die because I am now disallowed from getting insurance?"

Apparently, medical insurance has been Constitutional right all of this time (see here). For consistency sake, would not car insurance also be a Federal Right? After all, it was the Left that compared the two to begin this debate. Why stop there? Why not insure every home owner? In fact, don't I need a home, and therefore the government should buy me one?

Whether you are Prolife or Prochoice, if she is going to be consistent, why does she stand with the party that takes away the Fifth Amendment rights of unborn children. So apparently, the Media and the Left get to control the frame of the debate by arguing that it is unconstitutional to repeal Obama Care. So if it is repealed, does that mean she could take the Right to court because the Constitution is being violated?

It is quite ironic that the number of murdered children in this country that could have received proper medical care, the right to due process and the right to life, reached 53 million as opposed to her made up number of 40 million uninsured. But as my friend likes to say, "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument."

But all of this only critiques her own inconsistencies. The fact is, the Left can't even begin to justify their assumptions and presuppositions. For instance, why is Caesar Lord? Where did the Right to Life come from? How did the State become the source for the right of insurance or life? Why do insurance companies have to insure anyone?

What is stopping Left-wing owned companies from doing the very things the Left wants the government to do? I have a friend who believes that companies should do business differently by doing things like profit sharing, etc. That's fine. So why not start a business doing just that instead of forcing by law his ideas of how things should be? Why is it just assumed the government has the right to do what the Left wants and force the rest of us by the power of taxation to pay into their giant insurance scheme? (which would be illegal in any legitimate company)

But in all of this, my same friend can't even begin to explain why government has the right to exist. It is just assumed because to attempt to justify his position would bring him to a reality that he must suppress. The answer is simple. God exists, but we don't like God. Since man is an idolater, we must replace God at all costs. In this case, it is with the State.

Tenth Amendment and Enumerated Powers

Now one of my good friends posted this on his Facebook thing, and I must admit it is funny. There's isn't a bit of truth to it, but if it did, it would even be funnier. Nobody is arguing that the Federal Constitution is not the Law of the land. Nobody is arguing that the Federal Government may not "levy taxes" and "regulate commerce". So whatever humor could have been was given over to straw-men.

So the cartoon misses the point or did it? The cartoon was clearly intended to give the impression that Constitutionalists and or conservatives/libertarians or whoever believe the Federal government can't do anything, especially whatever the political Left wants. Therefore I believe the cartoonist knows full well that he is purposely trying to deceive and marginalize his political opponents.

However, if you wish to believe the best about this cartoonist, and that he is just misled, then lets go with that assumption. The truth is that Conservatives and Libertarians want to follow the Constitution. The Constitution writers assumed that only the enumerated powers within the document is what the Federal Government could be authorized to do. Since most Americans knew that it was just nonsense to believe the Government would restrict itself to just its enumerated powers, the States demanded what turned out to be the Bill of Rights.

For the moment, I want to cite the Tenth Amendment and a quote from the authors as to its meaning if there is some doubt.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now if you doubt about the Conservative understanding of this text, please read this quote:

“The most numerous objects of legislation belong to the States. Those of the National Legislature [are] but few.”
–Rufus King, at the Federal Constitutional Convention

As Robert Natelson, Nevada Law Journal, has written,

The drafters of the Constitution chose to enumerate the powers of the federal government but not, with a few procedural exceptions, the exclusive powers of states. However, that decision should not be understood as implying that exclusive state powers were narrow, but rather that they were vast. As the drafters explained, they had decided not to enumerate the states’ reserved powers for the same reasons they had decided not to include a bill of rights: first, the reserved powers were too extensive to enumerate; second, a discrete list would encourage the pretense that the federal government could act everywhere else.

So for those of you who choose to misrepresent the Conservative/Libertarian/Tea Partier, the meaning of the Constitution may be debated, but it must debated within the Framework of the document's original intent, something sorely lacking among today's Media/Left wing politics.

Not Just Palin, They Oppose Us All

ABC News' The Note, which is apparently "Washington's most original and influential tipsheet", has a post written by Michael Falcone and Amy Walter commenting on Palin's "lashing out" and Obama unification speech (see how this works?). So while Palin is out to defend herself, Obama is working hard on his speech for the slain.

President Obama, meanwhile, was said to have worked throughout the night on the speech he is set to deliver at tonight's memorial service in Arizona, “Together We Thrive: Tucson and America.” According to ABC News’ Jake Tapper, the goal of his remarks will be to administer to those mourning, honor those impacted by the shootings -- including the victims, the heroes, and all those grieving in Tucson and beyond.

So the Media is breathlessly hoping that this will be Obama's finest hour in getting a country back to unity. Notice the next paragraph,

Now is a time for both Obama and Palin to show leadership. For Palin, the challenge is for her to decide who she wants to -- or can -- be. Does she want to be a uniter and a national leader instead of one of the country's most polarizing figures?

Of course the assumption is that Palin has divided us while Obama is working tirelessly to unite us, but darn those darn Tea Party wackos. They just won't stop dividing us. Never mind the fact that Palin is not in any political office and has not been for quite some time. Never mind the fact that she is not in an authoritative position to unite or divide. Keep in mind that all of this division has come about by the one who has done everything to divide and has the power to do so. Obama has made racist comments, forced ObamaCare when the majority clearly did not want it and used rhetoric that inflames hatred and violence against conservatives. The article goes on to say,

But she also used the address as a defense of herself and a critique of the media. Instead of trying to get beyond this controversy, Palin has put herself back in the middle of it.

See how this works? These same people blame her for what they have done and then expect her, and by virtue of her alliance with the average conservative, and the rest of us to shut up. The irony is that the Left and the Media has politicized this tragic event because that is who they are. Politics is life for them, and this is their golden opportunity to stop the political Right, Tea Party and anyone else who dares to question their authority.

Sarah Palin represents something the Media just can't seem to get (and many of my friends on the other side). While everyone criticizes her for not being smart enough or educated enough or of the right pedigree or not understanding world politics enough or whatever, it is exactly that she isn't a political Washington insider that makes her so attractive (never mind the fact she is good looking).

It is exactly all of the traits that people both on the Left and Right demand of her that the current Washington politicians supposedly possess, and yet here we are in this financial mess! This simple point is overlooked by everyone who hates her. The Tea Party wants Washington insiders that broke our system to get out of town. They broke us with their crony Capitalism. Until they get this (which I think they actually do and don't know what to do about it), they will continue to be in opposition to the American public.

A Caller Reminds Us of Colin Fergusin

A caller on Rush reminded us of factual events in which the Left incited people to violence. Therefore, we now know that the violence committed by a lunatic this week was directly caused by the Old Media.


CALLER: You know, I've been listening for the last couple of days to all the news broadcasts, and they're -- they keep bringing up all the shootings and terror attacks and everything for the last 20 years, but the one thing never mentioned is the one on the Long Island Railroad that Colin Ferguson did. If you remember that, that was a month after Giuliani got elected mayor.

RUSH: I do remember that.

CALLER: Yeah. And he was actually found to have a note in his pocket saying that he was doing this because, A, he hates white people; and, B, he wanted to be sure he was outside the city limits so he wouldn't embarrass Dinkins. This was after people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had been just scouring Giuliani and just saying horrible things about him; and immediately they began walking it back saying, "Oh, no, this poor guy, he's just crazy. It isn't our fault. This isn't what we do."

RUSH: Yeah, exactly. This is my point. When there is firsthand evidence that a leftist engages in this behavior because of an ideology, because he's been influenced by somebody else, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You can't say that. Let's not jump to conclusions here. This is a rush to judgment. Wait! We need to gather all the facts here." The exact opposite approach to an event like this. But I think it is important to point out again that at no time are any Democrat constituent groups ever blamed or associated. Hollywood movies and TV are very violent. Music is very violent. Some music promotes violence against law enforcement people. Obama's friend, Bill Ayers, was very violent. We have stories of union thugs beating up Tea Party activists.

In one case, a black Tea Party activist outside St. Louis. None of this matters. There is no control ever proposed. Well, there are now and then groups of social activists on the Republican side who say, "We need warning labels, more stringent warning labels," but no control is ever proposed over Hollywood, music, associations by politicians with domestic radicals, control of union violence. Never happens. Nor is it the case that any left-wing media is ever associated with any violent behavior like this. The profile of this guy, Jared Loughner? We know he listened to heavy metal. We know he was influenced by The Drowning Pool. But no speculation. If this guy does listen to talk radio or watch cable news shows? Do you think this guy actually listens to me or reads Sarah Palin's website? Highly unlikely. Do you think he might be the kind of guy that likes Bill Maher or Keith Olbermann?

Rush Nails the Media

Now when the wacko shot people in the crowd, you knew the Media template was going to be, "This is a result of Tea Party rhetoric." Rush simply nailed it yesterday with his opening monologue. Before it disappeared to the pay per view side of his website, I thought I would paste a section of it.

After 9/11 happened, Democrats are running around lamenting that it did not happen on Clinton's watch. After the Times Square attack happened, Mayor Bloomberg said: It has to be an angry Tea Party person upset at Obamacare. It's the template. It's the narrative. There's never any evidence. Every projection, every prediction, every association that any act of violence has been made with the conservative right has fallen on emptiness. There has never been any evidence of it. To the extent that politics is involved in assassinations, Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK, he was a communist back from Moscow. There's one example that nobody's talked about that I'm going to cite. Remember Jim Jones? There's one sitting congressman who has actually been killed in the line of duty. His name is Leo Ryan, and this is Jim Jones and that cult down in Guyana. You may not be old enough to remember that, but during the course of the program today I'm gonna refresh your memory. A full-fledged communist and Democrat killed a Democrat congressman. Now, when these types of events happen, I don't recall -- and I'm not aware -- of one conservative, one Republican, one conservative blogger making a mad dash to a microphone, a camera, or a computer to blame a Democrat or liberals for what happened in Arizona on Saturday. But a mad path was beaten.

Don't kid yourself. What this was all about is shutting down any and all political opposition and eventually criminalizing it. Criminalizing policy differences, at least when they differ from the Democrat Party agenda. One of the more disturbing things about this incident is that someday the left will finally get their wish. One of these days it's going to happen. This is all setting the table for it. Groups are large. Many people populate groups -- and within any group of people, a sample is gonna find those who are unstable, deranged, and so forth like this kid. You are eventually, at some point, going to probably find somebody who could be more closely identified with a particular political movement. This kid is just a nut, and they've done their best... By the way, they're already moving off of this, folks. They're now talking about gun control. That's the indication that they're preparing to move off of the fact that I, the Tea Party, Palin, and all these other people are responsible for this. They're now moving to gun control. That was also predictable. What that happens, you know that they're beginning to change course on this. Now, I guarantee you that somewhere in a desk drawer in Washington, DC -- someplace in an FCC bureaucrat's office or someplace -- the government machinery will be in place to take away as many political freedoms as they can manage on the left. They already have it in place, just like the health care bill, Obamacare, was already written years ago. It was in a desk drawer waiting for the moment that they could begin to implement it. The same thing here. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody in the Obama administration or some FCC bureaucrat or some Democrat congressman has it already written up, such legislation, sitting in a desk drawer somewhere just waiting for the right event for a clampdown. They have been trying this ever since the Oklahoma City bombing. They have. You know, I debated with myself whether to, on this program today, cite and play for you audio examples of the left actually engaging in the behavior about which they have accused us on the right of behaving and engaging in. I've gone back and forth on it, and I have a whole lot of audio sound bites to make this illustration, and I'm going to do so. I decided I'm gonna do it, because it needs to be done. People need to be reminded. But here you have a 22-year-old kid, a dopehead, marijuana. Just genuinely insane, irrational. And the first thought, the desperate hope that the losers in November of 2010 had, was that they could revitalize their political fortunes because of this unfortunate shooting of a congresswoman in Arizona. That was the most important thing to them -- and that, to me, is sick. You know that they were rubbing hands together. You know that they were e-mailing and calling each other on the phones saying, "A-ha, this might be the one! This might be the one where we can officially tie it to these guys and shut 'em up and shut 'em down." They want you to believe that sadness was on the order of the day, and I'm sure it was, but the opportunity! They couldn't help themselves. They just couldn't help themselves. Their first objective and first priority was to try to make an association between this nut and Sarah Palin. What? That's absolutely... You talk about insane? This guy doesn't know Sarah Palin. She doesn't know him. The really weak, flimsy, balsa wood-type attempts to link this guy to Sarah Palin? The difference is that a majority of the American people don't buy it. The difference today and 15, 20 years ago is these people on the left are now seen by a majority of Americans for who they are and what they are. They can't sell what they have to sell. Real question: Who are the parents of this kid? What kind of a job did they do raising this kid? Are the parents derelicts? So what? This guy spends time on the Web surfing and so forth.

Really? If people on the right and Sarah Palin and so forth are responsible for all of this and this "vitriol" and "rhetoric" is so pitched, how come this isn't happening every day? Why is it the vast exception to the rule? There's no logic in any of the assertions that they're making. None. But they couldn't wait. They were chartering the plane, scrambling to get out to Arizona on Saturday for the Sunday shows to maybe connections that don't exist; making utter fools of themselves, embarrassingly so. To watch people who we're told are the biggest names in news today making absolute fools of themselves and unnecessarily stirring the country up in ways that they probably don't even mind. But back to this kid's parents. Are they derelicts? Or did they just draw an unlucky card, get a kid born with mental issues? Is anybody investigating any of this? Mental health issues like this often caused by drug use, and this guy was so devoted to marijuana, he wanted it to become the new US currency. I don't know of anybody on my side of the aisle who has suggested that. But I think it's fatuous and silly to even verify on justify these accusations by defending them. To accept the premise is insane, it's silly, and it's stupid. It's beneath these people. Or is it? It is who they are. Has anybody tried to institutionalize this kid? The pack mentality of the Drive-Bys has led them to ask none of these questions. Why are we constantly admonished not to rush to any conclusions? The president himself after Fort Hood said: Don't rush to any conclusions here. Be very careful! We don't want to make any unfair allegations or associations here. He was talking of Major Hasan on his shooting spree at Fort Hood. Now the same politicians and reporters are bending over backwards to try and link this shooting to me, to Sarah Palin, to an entire industry: talk radio. Only in these instances is something that is said in the media said to influence public behavior. Go out and try to tell these same people that one of their top grossing movies has influenced abject perversion or radical behavior and they will attack you left and right, saying, "That's entertainment. It stands alone. People know the difference." You go out and accuse them of engaging in work, their art, such as crucifixions in jars of urine or whatever other acts of perversion they engage in that they call "art" -- their movies, their music -- and you go try to tell them that their music is responsible for criminal behavior. Look at the reaction you get from that. You are considered to be a numskull, old-fashioned, out, and not with the times. They permanently, constantly insulate themselves from any influential behavior they might be responsible for and yet run off without any evidence whatsoever and admit they've got no evidence. I'll use myself as example. During this ill-fated attempt of mine to be a part-owner of the St. Louis Rams. Fake quotes promoting slavery and other such despicable things were made up and circulated, and finally (after it was too late) documented to be all lies. The reaction was, "Yeah, well, he probably thinks it anyway." Well, one of the early posts was, "There's no evidence that this kid's linked to, blah, blah, blah, but it's a good bet that he was." It's the same lame, transparent, purely political attempt by the American left to do what they cannot persuade the American people to do, and that is support them. They know they can't. They lose elections left and right, they got shellacked. The only thing they can do is get rid of, silence the opposition. All of this that you have been subjected to if you've turned on the television over the weekend has been pure politics, disguised as compassion and concern for a congresswoman. It's been nothing but pure politics. The same people -- Mark Penn, we've got the sound bite coming up. Mark Penn, pollster, said Obama needed his own Oklahoma City. He said to Chris Matthews on MSNBC, "Obama needs his own Oklahoma City." What does that mean? Obama needs mass murder in order to reconnect with the American people. It's not us saying this kind of stuff. It's not us hoping for this kind of stuff. It's not us celebrating and clapping our hands what happens. It's them! It's sick. It's embarrassingly, depressingly sick.

Klein on the Constitution

Now I don't doubt that many see the reading of the Constitution as a "stunt" because of some form of cynicism or perhaps that it is a stunt by those deceiving they actually care about it. However, I think the reading of the Constitution is symbolic for at least one necessary reason. It is the law of the land that the Political Left admittedly hates as seen in this video. Now I am fully aware that the Political Right often overlooks nice little paragraphs such as the freedom of political speech located in the First Amendment (think McCain/Feingold).



Now after watching this video, I had to ask, "What did this guy mean by what he said?" I mean, not only is the video some hours or days old, not only is the context devoid of any real meaning, but we all know that Liberals love to redefine everything. Just think of Clinton's testimony and redefinition of the term "is".

A It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the ?if he ?
if "is" means is and never has been, that is not--- that is one thing.
If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.

If you have figured out what this means, then you are by far a better man than Klein.

So, following the logic of Ezra Klein, let's just make it up as we go. And since Democrats can overthrow the Constitution at every whim, why can't Republicans just say, "Hey, we don't need a majority, we don't need the Senate, we don't need a Presidential signature on our bills, we'll just repeal Obama Care because we say so."

As my wife reminded me, the Left used to say the Constitution is a "living document" in order to make it say what they wanted. Now apparently, it is dead. Of course the Left would object. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.