My Exam is Tomorrow

Wish me luck everyone. I really don't want to have to study for this exam again... it takes up too much of my time.

Regular, substantive posting should resume later this week.

Cheers

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 10:19 AM | 2 comments |

_____________________________________________

As the China Threat Becomes More Blatant, US Media Generally Ignores It

I know I'm a little late responding to this issue, but I'm really busy. A general in the so-called "People's Liberation Army" of China announced last week that "if the Americans are determined to interfere [in any military invasion of Taiwan by the tyrants of Beijing] we will be determined to respond."

This general, Zhu Chenghu, further said that the People's Republic of China "would prepare itself for the destruction of all of its cities east of Xian -- a city in central China -- while "the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."

This was the big story of the week, in my opinion. China has been promising to mount a military invasion of Taiwan for months. They have passed a law that would make it legal (within Beijing's empire) for them to invade Taiwan if Taiwan were to claim to be a sovereign nation (which it is). They even have a dress rehearsal of such an invasion scheduled in the form of a joint exercise with the Russian military. I have an acquaintance who spent 20 years as a navy helicopter pilot who keeps saying that China is willing to trade us city for city in a nuclear conflict. And now we have this Chinese general confirming that, yes, China is willing to do what Russia wouldn't: invoke MAD. Anyone seen Dr. Strangelove lately?

This story broke last week. I first heard about it sometime after midnight. The next morning, there was not a peep about it in my local paper. Something is rotten in the state of the Union.

This general was careful to maintain that he was not officially speaking on behalf of the tyrants of Beijing, and now the tyrants are now claiming that "Zhu's remarks were his 'personal views.'" At least, so says an unnamed foreign ministry official.

What reporting there is on this topic claims that there was a strong response from Washington.

Not strong enough. Here's what ought to have happened. The China's move to purchase an American energy company (Unocal) ought to have been forbidden within 24 hours of this statement. And the President ought to have put the Pacific Fleet on high alert (particularly our nuclear submarines) within 5 minutes of the statement. If all the analysts are correct, China is not ready for a war right now and would be forced to apologize profusely in the face of such a strong response. But this is not Reagan, this is Bush, and for all his tough talk, he has too soft a touch. Reagan talked softly, but carried a huge stick.

We could write our Congress-critters and tell them that we disapprove of Unocal in the face of blatant military threats made by high-ranking individuals within the Chinese military.
---------Chinese General Warns of Nuclear Conflict Over Taiwan
---------China Plays Down General's Nuclear Remarks

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 12:15 AM | 2 comments |

_____________________________________________

CAFTA Violates the US Constitution, Plain and Simple

First of all, I would like to dispel the notion that you have to be a socialist to oppose CAFTA. Anyone arguing that is employing at least two logical fallacies and can therefore be safely ignored.

Everyone likes free trade. I have a question, though, why is a treaty that violates American sovereignty said to promote 'free' trade? And, to paraphrase Representative Ron Paul, why do we need a treaty to promote free trade? As I've been saying (about the FairTax), and as Ron Paul now says, all we have to do to promote free trade is to relax our own restrictions and all the trade we can handle will come to us.

I don't have the time to go into this, and to do so would be repetitive because Ron Paul has already written quite eloquently on the topic:
"I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

We don't need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don't need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish."

So, to sum up, CAFTA (Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement -- HR 3045) is flat unconstitutional. The Congress of these United States cannot delegate authority granted to them specifically by the Constitution to a foreign power. I believe that to do so is treason against the We the People. Does anyone care? These people take an oath to uphold the Constitution. I know only one Congress-person who takes that oath seriously -- Ron Paul of Texas.

You should write your people in Congress and remind them of their oaths and of the Constitution itself.

* * *

By the way, do you take vitamins? Nutritional supplements? I do. I have my whole life. I have been reading reports that CAFTA will eventually make the European Codex law in the United States -- this would virtually give drug companies control over vitamin supplements (which are their major competitors). People who follow the Codex claim that it will basically make most vitamins we take illegal. This is not cool, and another reason to write your Congress-critter and tell it to say no to CAFTA.

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 12:59 AM | 0 comments |

_____________________________________________

Announcement

I apologize for not posting as often as I would like. However, I am very busy of late. I will try to post at least once each week, though.

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 12:57 AM | 0 comments |

_____________________________________________

Happy Fourth of July!

This will be my last post until after the holiday. For the Fourth, I want you to consider what we are celebrating. Is the government we currently have following the spirit that we celebrate on that day? Think about some of the laws and the Supreme Court decisions that have come about in the last 5 years -- or even the last 15 years. I have included below some quotations from our founding fathers -- the men who led the fight against tyranny so that our liberties might be protected. Meditate on what they have said. Ask yourself if today's America, and if today's major political parties measure up to the spirit of these great American Revolutionaries.

* * *

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1759


"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."
--Benjamin Franklin


"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
--William Pitt, 1783


"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
--Samuel Adams


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
--Thomas Jefferson


"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."
--The Free Citizens of the United States of America, 1776


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson


"We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government."
--James Jackson, First Congress, 1st Annals of Congress, 489


"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
--James Madison, Federal No. 45, January 26, 1788


"It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot be separated."
--James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention, December 2, 1829


"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787


"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."
--Thomas Jefferson


"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."
--Thomas Jefferson


"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."
--Thomas Jefferson


"Wherever the real power in a government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Government the real power lies in the majority of the community..."
--James Madison


"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
--Thomas Jefferson


"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
--James Madison


"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
--Thomas Jefferson

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 6:24 PM | 3 comments |

_____________________________________________

More on Kelo v. New London -- it's been more than a week and this case still burns me up

As you know, there is an effort underway to seize Souter's house and build a hotel there. The paperwork has been filed with his local zoning board. This man needs to be taught that it is wrong to use eminent domain to take someone's property and give it to another person, and I can think of no better way than to do it to him (remembering the principle that a leftist who's been mugged becomes a conservative or libertarian). Help see that "Justice Is Served" on Property Rights!

I all candor, I don't think this will happen -- ordinary eminent domain abuse is not targeted at specific people (at least, not officially). If Souter can show malice on the part of the developers, he can probably successfully challenge this sort of eminent domain seizure.

* * *

The ruling in Kelo v. New London goes against the Supreme Court's own precedents.

Apparently, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Bill of Rights cannot be altered, or the rights therein lessened, by wither the legislature or the courts.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.
One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, free press, freedom of worship & assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Jackson, J., West Virginia State board of Education v Barnette 1943 319 US 624,638 87L ed 1628, 1638, 63 S Ct 1178, 147 ALR 674.
While I have not properly Shepardized this case, it has been cited by the Supreme Court as recently as 1997 and still appears to be good law.

Since Kelo nullifies part of the Fifth Amendment. It therefore goes against the ruling in West Virginia State board of Education and violates the principle of stare decisis (the principle by which prior decisions are controlling on future cases). Of course, I have never known the Supreme Court to shy away form overruling itself when convenient (it is rare for the court to ever admit that it is so doing, though).

Anyway, thought you might find that interesting.

* * *

Congress to Slap Down the Court's Eminent Domain Decision

The House on Thursday approved by a 231-189 vote a bid by conservative Scott Garrett, R-N.J., to bar federal transportation funds from being used to make improvements on lands seized via eminent domain for private development. Legislation in the works also would ban the use of federal funds for any project getting the go-ahead using the Kelo v. City of New London (Conn.) decision.

I approve. Very nice.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, we have John Cornyn's bill: S. 1313, would lay down a congressional definition of "public use," far narrower than the Court's constitutional interpretation in Kelo v. City of New London (04-108) . . . Here . . . is the operative part of the Cornyn bill:
"( a ) In General. -- The power of eminent domain shall be available only for public use.
"( b ) Public Use. -- In this Act, the term 'public use' shall not be construed to include economic development.
"( c ) Application. -- This Act shall apply to --
(1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government, and
(2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds."

All freedom-loving people need to write their Congress-people and tell them that this, and legislation like it, is always a great idea.

* * *

Elsewhere on the Blogosphere and the Internet:
---------News Media Blackout On 'Revving Bulldozers,' Intimidation And Harassment Of New London Residents
---------Another Terrible Decision By 5 Robed Legislators
---------Location, Location, Location
---------Judicial Rulings Causing a furor in the Beltway...
---------Further Thoughts On The Kelo Ruling
---------Floodgates open following Kelo decision
---------Kelo and eminent domain abuse: What now?

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 5:35 PM | 1 comments |

_____________________________________________

This is why I am opposed to public registration of so-called "sex offenders"

There has been a lot in the news lately, especially in Florida, about sex offenders and whether or not we should publish names and photographs and addresses of sex offenders. I say no. Here's why. Sex offenders are scum and they need to be bludgeoned to within an inch of their life. Our insane laws do not punish sex offenders. They punish people who violate certain laws. A 17 year old in possession of pornography must register as a sex offender. This is not right. The way the laws are written, we are all just one innocent mistake away from becoming so-called 'sex offenders' ourselves -- like Fitzroy Barnaby.

"Fitzroy Barnaby said he had to swerve to avoid hitting the 14-year-old Des Plaines girl who walked in front of his car. She said he yelled, "Come here, little girl," before getting out of his car and grabbing her by the arm. He said he simply lectured her. She said she broke free and ran, fearful of what he'd do next. In a Thursday ruling, the Appellate Court of Illinois said the 28-year-old Evanston man must register as a sex offender. While acknowledging it might be "unfair for [Barnaby] to suffer the stigmatization of being labeled a sex offender when his crime was not sexually motivated," the court said his actions are the type that are "often a precursor" to a child being abducted or molested."

This tyrannical court admits that his "crime" was not sexually motivated; yet they are willing to ruin his live by labeling him a sex offender. Well, I have a label for Cook County Judge Patrick Morse -- tyrant. This judge should be locked up for his assault against the liberties of Fitzroy Barney. These tyrants need to learn that you cannot ruin an innocent person's life without some sort of repercussion. By the way, Morse's excuse for the ruling -- he was just following orders. I wonder where I've heard that one before...?

Two words, folks: jury nullification. It's your right as free Americans. Use it.

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 5:34 PM | 1 comments |

_____________________________________________

Who's the Cowboy Now? (I love it!)

Question: What do you call a Liberal (or Leftist) who's been mugged?
Answer: A Conservative (or Libertarian).

Europeans always look down their noses at Americans for their unrefined, take no guff from anyone, "cowboy" attitude. They don't seem to understand that it is a very human attitude to want to strike back at someone who has wronged you. Now some of them are starting to come around -- finally. A Swedish engineer who was held captive by Islamic terrorist murderers has now hired professional bounty hunters to find the men who held them and kill them. To this man, all I have to say is: "Welcome to the good guys. Yippi Ki Yay!"

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 5:30 PM | 3 comments |

_____________________________________________

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005

They're at it again, folks. This law reinforces the idea that you can be punished for what you think. This is not right. It is wrong to assault people -- for any reason. If one girl is raped, and another is raped by a Muslim man because she is white, do you want to be the one to explain to the first girl why the second rapist will get a harsher punishment even though the same thing happened to her? It's just not right. If someone shoots me for my wallet, that person should get the same harsh punishment as a Muslim who shoots me because he hates white Christians. It's as simple as that.

The bill is H. R. 2662. It provides specific punishment for and extra help in the prosecution of thought crimes -- err, I mean hate crimes -- which are defined as a crime of violence that is a felony and "is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the hate crime laws of the State or Indian tribe."

Write your congress-people and tell them to just say no. This violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. Members of Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Remind them of that.

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 5:14 PM | 0 comments |

_____________________________________________

A season of dissent for the chief justice

Story

As you can see, our chief justice hasn't been very effective at influencing the majority opinion lately -- which is bad because, as Kelo and Roper demonstrate, the leftist majority is intent on dismantling the Constitution.

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 5:13 PM | 0 comments |

_____________________________________________

The Constitution is Better Off Dead

Column

Not what you think. If the Constitution is a 'dead' document, the rules can't suddenly be changed on us. Death is final. It is better to have a dead bill of rights that cannot be changed, than to have a 'living, breathing' bill of rights that can suddenly change in ways that only effete intellectual snobs in their ivory towers would think made sense.

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 5:12 PM | 0 comments |

_____________________________________________

Roadside Dispute Leads to Rioting in China

Story

"Thousands of Chinese rioted in a dispute sparked by a lopsided roadside brawl, setting fire to cars, looting a supermarket and wounding six police officers, a local shopkeeper and domestic press said on Wednesday." While I generally oppose lawlessness, I can support it if it is in pursuit of liberty. What is not clear is whether this instance is simple crime, or if it is a spontaneous expression of rage against the tyrants of Beijing.

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 5:10 PM | 0 comments |

_____________________________________________

House vote squeezes Mexico: Threat to cut off U.S. aid tied to extraditing suspects in cop killings

Story

Considering that Mexico is encouraging illegal emigration into the U.S., why are we giving them any foreign aid at all? Oh, well -- I fully support this bill, and you should too. It's a good start toward keeping our money at home where it belongs.

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 4:17 PM | 0 comments |

_____________________________________________

2 Iraqis held trying to cross Mexico border

Story

In case you haven't been paying attention, instances like this are why we need to seal the borders. We have potential Islamic terrorist murderers entering from Mexico, along with all the other illegal Mexicans. It has to be stopped.

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 4:16 PM | 0 comments |

_____________________________________________

Bush Encouraged Illegal Aliens, 'Tried to Cover It Up,' Lawmaker Says

Story

Well, that's not news -- I've been complaining about this since Bush's first term. But no one listens.

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 4:10 PM | 0 comments |

_____________________________________________

Can You Be Fired for Blogging?

Story

This is something we bloggers need to be concerned about. Those who have something to loose from it will always persecute free speech and the Truth. We need to see to it that we never loose our freedom of speech on the internet.

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 4:09 PM | 0 comments |

_____________________________________________