It is, in my opinion, impossible to make sense out of the totally senseless madness of James Holmes. The crazies among us will always find a means to strike terror in the hearts of innocents, as their insane way to exorcise the demons making them so miserable that they seek to make every other person on the planet suffer pain, fear and grief. That said, can a Constitutional Republic, consistent with its values of individual freedom, including a personal right to bear arms, adopt sensible policies that might deter, or at least diminish the capacity of, lunatics from being able in less than two minutes to inflict hundreds of casualties? Is that national conversation worth having? I say yes, but fear that it will not be possible in a Presidential election year. Some sad irony there, indeed.
A few random reaction to how this national conversation commenced - ABC's Brian Ross was roundly criticized for failing to confirm the identity of Mr. Holmes before reporting that an individual of that same name was listed as a Colorado Tea Party member. So much so, that ABC News issued a formal apology for its unprofessional failure to gets its facts straight before going public. The far more egregious professional journalistic failure here was the belief that had Mr. Holmes been a Tea Partier, that voluntary association would in anyway have been relevant to his decision to engage in mass murder.
By way of analogy, ABC could have accurately told us that Holmes is a California born, unmarried male, college graduate and Ph.D candidate in neuroscience - thereby making all unmarried, studious adult men from California appropriate candidates to be interviewed by the FBI to determine whether they are likewise incipient homicidal maniacs. The worst kind of guilt by association by Brian Ross, who should be ashamed, but no one should call for his firing by ABC News, as these reminders of the depths to which the MSM will go to libel conservative Americans is useful knowledge, even if no one watches these channels anymore for that same reason.
So, no more sadness for one Post, life does go on, and tomorrow will be time enough to re-gather in this market place of ideas. Today, I'm with President Obama, Mitt Romney and all fair minded Americans -give your loved ones, as I will, a tighter hug.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Happy 236th Birthday America
Writing this Post yesterday was a difficult task, as I was seeking to find words appropriately thoughful and thought provking to be worthy of honoring the sacrifices of the many, many generations of our Nation's patriots who made it possible for me to be free to pontificate as I please, without fear of retribution or government censorship.
Finding no eloquence in my quill yesterday, I instead turned to the words of a noted American orator, Daniel Webster, who spoke to a warring nation on July 4,1812:
"It is the power of every generation to make themselves, in some degree, partakers in the deeds, and in the fame of their ancestors, by adopting the principles, and studying their examples ... [thereby] the heart, as well as the understanding, feels the connection [and discover they are] ... part of the great chain of existence ... binding the present to the past, and even to the future. ... They cannot perish better than standing between their country and the embraces of a ferocious Tyranny, hated of man, and accursed of God."
Now most of us will not be called upon to literally take up arms to war against America's ememies, but we are all called upon to be active citizens, involved in the political process so as to defeat the domestic agents of tyranny. Accordingly, for us all, in striving to preserve this most Perfect Union, a Federal Republic - so long as we can keep it, we are challenged to marshall our full talents, energy and yes, eloquence, between now and the November elections. I do not care to whom you enlist your support, just as long as your participation embodies the framers' vision of America where every citizen is free to pursue his own vision of success and personal happiness based the merits of his own endeavors, work ethic and determination.
In keeping our polities' commitment to rugged individualism, and not Group Identity entitlements, we will remain connected to our Nation's glorious history and limitless future, where it can again be Morning in America.
Finding no eloquence in my quill yesterday, I instead turned to the words of a noted American orator, Daniel Webster, who spoke to a warring nation on July 4,1812:
"It is the power of every generation to make themselves, in some degree, partakers in the deeds, and in the fame of their ancestors, by adopting the principles, and studying their examples ... [thereby] the heart, as well as the understanding, feels the connection [and discover they are] ... part of the great chain of existence ... binding the present to the past, and even to the future. ... They cannot perish better than standing between their country and the embraces of a ferocious Tyranny, hated of man, and accursed of God."
Now most of us will not be called upon to literally take up arms to war against America's ememies, but we are all called upon to be active citizens, involved in the political process so as to defeat the domestic agents of tyranny. Accordingly, for us all, in striving to preserve this most Perfect Union, a Federal Republic - so long as we can keep it, we are challenged to marshall our full talents, energy and yes, eloquence, between now and the November elections. I do not care to whom you enlist your support, just as long as your participation embodies the framers' vision of America where every citizen is free to pursue his own vision of success and personal happiness based the merits of his own endeavors, work ethic and determination.
In keeping our polities' commitment to rugged individualism, and not Group Identity entitlements, we will remain connected to our Nation's glorious history and limitless future, where it can again be Morning in America.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
It's Not Morning in America Anymore
And yes, Toto, we are not in Kansas anymore either. Instead, we are in a State of Shock and Disbelief. About a month before the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a University of Texas Law Professor wrote an opinion piece recommending that the Court acknowledge the constitutional invalidity of the insurance mandate (which is codified in a separate provision of the law), but simultaneously uphold the penalty for an individual's failure to obtain said health care insurance. I recall laughing out loud upon first reading this erudite scholar's seriously advanced proposal. I then concluded that the Republic was indeed safe, for now, and possibly for the foreseeable future, as the liberal elite had finally shown itself to be totally intellectually dishonorable, openly ignoring any need to adhere to the Rule of Law. I thought how utterly cynical - a tenured professor at a well respected Law School argues that a federal law should be construed to impose no legal duty or mandate to do something, and yet should a person not undertake such a voluntary, non-lawfully required act, he or she will be made subject to a collection action by the IRS for thousands of dollars in penalties. In short, I knew that no right thinking, rational person could envision a society in which engaging in lawful conduct is made subject to mandatory federal sanctions - such cognitive dissonance would have been rejected by George Orwell as too implausible for his novel "1984".
Well, guess what Elite Members Oceania 2 Point O has arrived in the former federalist Republic of the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts, to all plausible accounts, literally sucker punched the conservative wing of the Court by changing his vote after the several Justice's opinions, 5-4 majority and dissenter's, had already been written finding the ACA unconstitutional in its entirety. Mr. Roberts, without even acknowledging or giving credit to the Texas law genius, initially struck down the insurance mandate because in our Constitutional Republic with only enumerated powers given to the federal government, the Commerce Clause does not, and cannot, reach individual inactivity. That initial conclusion by Roberts constitutes the very foundation and essence of America's unique system of government - were the national government to hold unfettered police powers to legislate the full panoply of duties of its citizenry under the guise of regulating commerce, then the fifty states (or 57 should Obama be asked) would not be sovereign entities, alone charged with exercising authority to enact laws enhancing the general welfare. They would be merely administrative appendages of the national government, doing only what told to do from on high.
A limited national government of explicitly stated, enumerated powers was enshrined in the Constitution, and has remained inviolate for more than two hundred years, until Roberts brought back to life the insurance mandate as a tax, which legislative enactment was disclaimed by every Senator and Congressman who voted in favor of the ACA, as well as the President in signing the Bill.
What Roberts has accomplished is breathtakingly incompatible with same Constitutional principle he so ardently championed in explaining how the Commerce Clause can not go beyond the regulatory powers as envisioned by the Framers, in order to preserve and maintain our nation's two sovereigns, federal system of limited national government. What Law Judge, not experiencing total cognitive dissonance, would conclude that the Constitution forbids the insurance mandate - as such invalidity is crucial to the very essence of our governmental structure - but then declare that the Framers authorized that same mandate in another provision of the same Constitution.
As noted by the Court's four dissenters, Chief Justice Roberts' Tax power holding is a chimera, an illusion, a fantasy, a semantic construct of such utter arrogant cynicism that it must be characterized as " ... verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists". Indeed, first in Texas, now in all of America: War is Peace, and everybody better love Big Brother, or the IRS will be knocking on your door.
Well, guess what Elite Members Oceania 2 Point O has arrived in the former federalist Republic of the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts, to all plausible accounts, literally sucker punched the conservative wing of the Court by changing his vote after the several Justice's opinions, 5-4 majority and dissenter's, had already been written finding the ACA unconstitutional in its entirety. Mr. Roberts, without even acknowledging or giving credit to the Texas law genius, initially struck down the insurance mandate because in our Constitutional Republic with only enumerated powers given to the federal government, the Commerce Clause does not, and cannot, reach individual inactivity. That initial conclusion by Roberts constitutes the very foundation and essence of America's unique system of government - were the national government to hold unfettered police powers to legislate the full panoply of duties of its citizenry under the guise of regulating commerce, then the fifty states (or 57 should Obama be asked) would not be sovereign entities, alone charged with exercising authority to enact laws enhancing the general welfare. They would be merely administrative appendages of the national government, doing only what told to do from on high.
A limited national government of explicitly stated, enumerated powers was enshrined in the Constitution, and has remained inviolate for more than two hundred years, until Roberts brought back to life the insurance mandate as a tax, which legislative enactment was disclaimed by every Senator and Congressman who voted in favor of the ACA, as well as the President in signing the Bill.
What Roberts has accomplished is breathtakingly incompatible with same Constitutional principle he so ardently championed in explaining how the Commerce Clause can not go beyond the regulatory powers as envisioned by the Framers, in order to preserve and maintain our nation's two sovereigns, federal system of limited national government. What Law Judge, not experiencing total cognitive dissonance, would conclude that the Constitution forbids the insurance mandate - as such invalidity is crucial to the very essence of our governmental structure - but then declare that the Framers authorized that same mandate in another provision of the same Constitution.
As noted by the Court's four dissenters, Chief Justice Roberts' Tax power holding is a chimera, an illusion, a fantasy, a semantic construct of such utter arrogant cynicism that it must be characterized as " ... verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists". Indeed, first in Texas, now in all of America: War is Peace, and everybody better love Big Brother, or the IRS will be knocking on your door.