A partial Stevebussey.com Surf Report
Hey folks – here is a partial surf report – web sites – I’ve visited and stories I’ve read today.
“Americans United” Doesn’t Think Catholic Bishop Should Have Free Speech.
Salazar: ‘No one knows’ if US headed to $9/gal gas
Young People May Not Bother to Vote for Obama: Poll
Obama Caught Misquoting House Member He Criticized — And Beck Has the Evidence
Liberals dismiss everything that made America great
Some snake oil that progressives are trying to sell the more naive Americans among us is that if the federal government doesn’t do it or fund it – whatever “it” is – then “it” just cannot or will not be done. That’s hogwash and flies in the face of American history.
Liberals intentionally dismiss the time period in which America became great and what it was that made America great and allege longtime federal subsidies for things such as the railroads, canals, dockyards, science, art and everything else that allowed America to become the greatest, freest, richest and strongest nation in the history of the world.
…continue reading “Liberals dismiss everything that made America great”
Liberal ideals equal unconstitutional involuntary servitude
I believe federal tax receipts obtained through a progressive income tax system for the purposes of redistributing wealth using social welfare programs constitutes involuntary servitude in violation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and also violates the central premise of equality under the law.
First of all, the 16th Amendment allows Congress to tax income from whatever source derived but it does not allow for a progressive tax system and other prescriptions and proscriptions in our Constitution establish equal justice under the law and equality before the law. All Americans are to be treated equally by our government.
Now, taxes are intended to pay for the legitimate functions of government and not for social engineering, and the legitimate functions of our federal government are defined and limited in and by our Constitution.
Under the American system of governance established in our Constitution, in conjunction with the philosophies in our Declaration of Independence, there are no powers or opportunities for the federal government to confiscate money from some to give to others – none – including the general welfare clause.
And when you are forced against your will to give money to the federal or state government for the sole purpose of supporting other citizens with direct welfare payments, food stamps, healthcare, rent subsidies, utility subsidies and even free cellular telephones you are working for and supporting those people.
The 13th Amendment states,
…continue reading “Liberal ideals equal unconstitutional involuntary servitude”
Federal government illegally controlling child labor when that amendment was rejected?
Most people have never looked at proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution that failed ratification, but it can be very interesting and brings up two questions; in light of the powers now claimed by the federal government and the “living document” philosophy, why have we ever amended the constitution? And, how can the federal government exercise powers that were specifically denied it when the States and the People refused to ratify certain proposed amendments?
I find it interesting that as late in American history as 1926 politicians and courts believed it necessary to amend our Constitution versus ignoring or reinterpreting it through the courts whereas now in America it is no holds barred with respect to federal powers.
I find it oddly ironic and dangerous that just since the 1920’s our federal government now exercises powers that were denied it by the States and the People through failed constitutional amendments.
Here are some examples of hypocrisy in American law and constitutional jurisprudence:
…continue reading “Federal government illegally controlling child labor when that amendment was rejected?”
Arizona v. United States – Sadly, the Constitution really doesn’t matter
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard oral arguments in Arizona v. The United States over Arizona’s law, SB-1070, regarding enforcement of immigration law and it does not seem to have gone very well, according to comments and questions by the justices, for the United States.
But, that isn’t what bothers me. What bothers me is the lack of understand of, and fidelity to, the Constitution.
The basic philosophy in our Constitution is that it has to say the federal government can do something or that the States cannot do something – that’s it, it’s just that simple. So, how does that play into immigration and Arizona’s case before the Supreme Court against the United States?
The United States government claims exclusive jurisdiction to make and enforce all laws having anything and everything to do with immigration but that isn’t true or constitutional.
…continue reading “Arizona v. United States – Sadly, the Constitution really doesn’t matter”
