PostHeaderIcon Convoluted Inconsistencies

In the lengthy comment section of the recent “Iowa Values” post, Chris has made some valid observations about some of my inconsistencies, which deserve a more fulsome response than there is room for there:

I completely understand your viewpoint is strictly based on your interpretation of the constitution as well as your own no doubt studious review of other relevant materials such as federalist papers et al. I’ll not begrudge you your opinion as I for a large part agree. Your even right that in the view as a constitutionalist if your view is correct SCOTUS can’t change that. One thing I am content with is letting the people decide if there is an issue. It appears Iowa doesn’t take your view. It’s possible that farther along the process the citizens of other states will see it more seriously. It’s out there. (I don’t see that happening.) In that case any of the candidates in question will be denied the nomination and the argument will be vindicated. If one of them does win the nomination the argument is defeated and therefore moot.

Well, I certainly am not content with letting the people decide if there is an issue with the Constitution. This is not a democracy. The will of the majority cannot change the meaning of the Constitution either. If folks consider a feature of the Constitution outdated and in need of revision, it has built in mechanisms for its Amendment. As designed, it simply cannot be changed by legislative statute, judicial fiat, executive action, or popular opinion. It means what it says, or it is entirely meaningless, and worth less than the parchment on which it was written.

The simple fact is that the majority of the sheeple in America are too ignorant of the very purpose of the Constitution in our Republic, to be trusted with interpreting the original intent of its 18th century verbiage. Their minds are too malleable by lawyerly disinformation, and susceptible to grandiose concepts like ‘Living Constitution.’ It would seem to me irreverent and rather foolhardy, to decide that since voters are inclined to ignore blatant violations of it, such transgressions don’t really matter.

I disagree entirely that if Republican Primary voters don’t challenge the attempt to usurp the office of POTUS, the issue is moot. On the strength of Trump’s efforts alone, 25% of polled Iowa voters acknowledged that Cruz’ birth in Canada was an issue for them. The Democrats have yet to take their turn at bat. Rubio might get a pass, because they might not wish to delve too deeply into the controversial ‘anchor baby’ issue; but they spent way too much effort trying to prove Obama was born in the USA, to ignore Cruz’ Canadian birth certificate.

Dave I find it perplexing that on these same pages you advocate for the tearing down of the system post haste so we can start rebuilding again yet this particular issue you hold on to as though any deviation is certain death to the republic. I understand your reverence to the constitution but I think you have missed the possibility that were such a collapse in the system come about our constitution could be it’s most obvious victim. There are many that would like to see the same collapse to rid us of that constitution. Probably many more than would wish to leave it in as written form. That’s why I have from neutral to opposition regarding a convention of states. It’s my position that the constitution is correct and need only be adhered to despite some 20th century amendments that are detrimental because I know those won’t be addressed.

I acknowledge that the current state of my now somewhat tenuous attachment, to my lifelong patriotic fervor and esteem for our Constitution, is probably confusing when juxtaposed with my newfound interest in anarchy. I suppose old habits are hard to break, and I have spent way to much of my lifetime studying and pontificating on our Founding history and Freedom documents, to just let them go out of my mind. Interestingly, even though it no longer matters, because I acknowledge the Progressives have won and our Constitution is now a dead letter, my blood still boils every time I hear the blasphemous term ‘Living Constitution.’ 🙂

The same is true of the ‘natural-born citizen’ (NBC) issue. I spent so much time in the past several years studying the issue, and debating with young Obot lawyers, that it is like a ringside bell that brings me charging off my stool with my dukes up. I probably spent just as much time trying to convince Birthers that the birth certificate issue was a red herring, to keep the focus off the fact that Obama was ineligible simply because his father was not an American, and he was born a subject of Great Britain, wherever the blessed event occurred. Once acquired, it is impossible to unlearn such facts, and difficult to ignore them, even now.

As I have said elsewhere, the audacity and arrogance displayed by Cruz in particular, who absolutely knows better, to try to slink past his ineligibility with smarmy lawyerly obfuscation, irritates me to no end. I just can’t help it. BTW: I took the trouble to look up the question of Trump’s mother’s citizenship, and found that she was naturalized four years before he was born in NY, so Trump is unquestionably a NBC. I now wonder if Cruz was aware of her naturalization when he dramatically brought up her foreign birth in the debate. While looking over that site, of the delightful grandmother calling herself ‘Clinical Thinker,’ I found a couple more articles worth perusing. One is a recent article discussing why Cruz isn’t a NBC.  The other is a great 2010 article covering the four SCOTUS rulings that have addressed the definition of NBC. The comments to it are informative as well. I wish I had encountered her site back then. I would have enjoyed collaborating with such a Clinical Thinker. 🙂

Yes, I understand that the convenient fiction that our Constitution protects our rights, will disappear with the collapse of the system. Yet, that is all it is – a fiction. Nothing of real value would be lost. Most of its intended restraints on the Federal government are already meaningless, and routinely ignored by its apparatchiks and their clueless ‘subjects’ alike.

Take the 2nd Amendment for example, arguably the best known ‘right’ enshrined in the Constitution. Try to calculate the time, money, and effort expended over the years by the NRA, et al, and their millions of dedicated members, to defend it. Yet, how few places remain in America, where an honest peaceable citizen can strap on a gun in public, without undergoing an extensive background check, to acquire a government permit or license to do so. Why do sheeple agree to apply for them? A permit is evidence of a revocable privilege granted by one’s rulers, not an inalienable right of a freeman.

You mentioned in another post that I was actually looking for someone to turn things around and fix what’s broken. Guilty as charged because a major collapse would be no guarantee of what would be rebuilt in it’s place. If you can show me any country that has suffered a political and/or economic collapse and come out better for it in the 20th or 21st century I will rethink my position. The intellect and honor no longer exists to rebuild what we had.

Germany and Japan come immediately to mind. Taiwan; South Korea; arguably even China and Russia turned around failing states, by simply adopting a more capitalistic economic system, and deciding to somewhat befriend America. There are others in South America and among the former satellites of the Soviet Union.

Why should we even try to rebuild what we had? The United States has now dropped to only eleventh place, in the economic freedom ranking of the countries of the world. There is absolutely nothing I perceive in the unsustainable and unpayable debt burden, with which we have saddled our posterity, that could possibly reverse that trend, no matter who is elected to the office of POTUS.

It will collapse, sooner rather than later. When it does, the easiest way to repudiate the debt, would be to erase the Federal government that owes it. Texas, et al, could become vibrant economies as independent nation states, not paying any tribute to the oligarchs running DC. That would certainly be a step in the right direction; but I am more interested in exploring the concept of enjoying unbridled capitalism in stateless anarchy. Without a coercive government, empowered to initiate violent force against its citizens/subjects, no constitution is necessary. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

44 Responses to “Convoluted Inconsistencies”

  • Chris says:

    I thought of all those countries when writing. Thing is Germany, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan weren’t internal collapses the likes being discussed for the US. They were defeated in war then promptly rebuilt in as much our own likeness as they would accept. I know Germany has since marched steadily back to the socialist system slowly but steadily. The others seem stable but I’m not that familiar with their politics. Even Russia which post collapse seems to be enjoying more prosperity and freedom isn’t out of the woods. That collapse pretty much allowed Russia to offload responsibility for territories to Europe but if you look at current events the march toward the Soviet Union of old is alive and well. China will be China. As soon as a more open economy no longer benefits the government that will disappear as quickly as it came. Their economy now is slowing. As discontent among the people returns so will the levers of control to quiet the masses.

    “Yes, I understand that the convenient fiction that our Constitution protects our rights, will disappear with the collapse of the system. Yet, that is all it is – a fiction. Nothing of real value would be lost. Most of its intended restraints on the Federal government are already meaningless, and routinely ignored by its apparatchiks and their clueless ‘subjects’ alike.”

    Then why bother defending any of it?

  • Chris says:

    I would look closer at countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and Argentina as better examples of internal collapse. They pretty much did it to themselves.

  • Chris says:

    Sorry for the broken comments but there’s a lot here.

    Well, I certainly am not content with letting the people decide if there is an issue with the Constitution. This is not a democracy. The will of the majority cannot change the meaning of the Constitution either.

    In theory and a perfect world I absolutely agree but the world is far from perfect and theory is just that. Maybe an analogy is in order.

    Imagine being blind from birth and never having seen the sky. I tell you the sky is green. Troy tells you the sky is blue. (Sorry for dragging you into this Troy but you have been too quiet. At least I gave you blue. 🙂 How do you decide what color the sky actually is? There are a couple ways. You can either weigh the dependability of my word against Troys and base your decision on who is being truthful or you can ask more people and use that sampling to decide who is being truthful. Of course there is one other option. You could not give a dam one way or the other because you don’t know what either green or blue is.

    That is where we are in the “NBC debate”.

    Ultimately it’s going to come down to people that don’t know what green and blue is deciding between green and blue. I find that more acceptable than say nine blind people in robes.

    • Sorry for the broken comments but there’s a lot here.

      No worries, it makes the replies easier too. 🙂

      Your analogy doesn’t work for me; but you are right about Troy being too quiet lately. 🙂

      I reject the notion that there is even a valid debate over the definition of NBC, just because lawyers wish to obfuscate it. The interpretation I was taught in junior high school civics class has prevailed for over 200 years of our nation’s history. Now, a few ambitious young lawyers wish to redefine it to include their personal circumstances of birth. Why does their dreams of power and glory, suddenly make the venerable definition debatable? The sky is still blue, no matter how many sheeple they might convince that it is green. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

  • Chris says:

    It will collapse, sooner rather than later. When it does, the easiest way to repudiate the debt, would be to erase the Federal government that owes it. Texas, et al, could become vibrant economies as independent nation states, not paying any tribute to the oligarchs running DC.

    Provided the “oligarchs running DC” were willing to give up that tribute. Most likely not the case. It was tried before. They can talk about slavery all they want. 1861 was a second revolution started over taxation. To this day the confederate states suffer under some discriminate laws not held over northern states designed to curb future dissent.

    • I don’t see where the Feds would have a choice this time. Do you think the US military would invade Texas for the oligarchs? Do you think the few they could talk into it could prevail, against those who would defect to fight on Texas’ side? Their typical wimpy rules of engagement wouldn’t permit it, and I could see DC itself nuked, before such an ill-advised adventure were settled. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Chris says:

    Wanted to call this to your attention. This is as good a place as any. Then you only need ask yourself. Have we seen Donald Trump anywhere before?

    • Interesting… I need to think it through… thanks for sharing. â—„Daveâ–º

      • Chris says:

        You know what’s interesting these days? When you find an article that’s really interesting then go back to try and check something and find for some reason or another you can’t get to it. The site is up. It still comes up in site search, but that particular article is broken. Now pass me my tinfoil hat please.

        • Very interesting! Do you still use Pocket?:

          We still have it… 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

        • Chris says:

          Yea, I have pocket. Just didn’t bother to add it in. LOL it’s already full of stuff I haven’t even gotten to.

          • I signed up for the pro version years ago, so I have unlimited storage and use it for my archival system. Now that it is integrated into Firefox, it is pretty awesome. After following a link to an article, I immediately open it in the reader (the open book icon in the address bar), which eliminates all the site’s distracting bells, whistles, and ads. Then, adding it to my pocket account is easy with the pocket icon on the left. Add a few tags for later searches, and I have it forever. I can then go ahead and read it now, or just skim it to get a sense of how soon I will want to read it later. I don’t even need to remember which website I found it on. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

          • That’s curious. Now the original link is working again… â—„Daveâ–º

    • OK, Chris, I reread the article and several underlying articles referenced by those it references. Although I wouldn’t call Trump a fascist (yet), I can certainly see why some might, and recognize the danger that he could easily become one, if he actually became POTUS, and attained considerably more popularity with the sheeple. This is no small worry.

      This, of course, raises the question of which form of tyranny would be worse? The current system of an oligarchy controlling the bureaucracy and the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly, where the sheeple get to believe they have a choice of shepherds? Or, a strong-man fascist dictatorship, which brooks no dissent? Obviously, for an individualist like me, it is a no-win situation, for which I would choose ‘none-of-the-above.’ Once again, anarchy would seem to me to be the best option.

      Thinking about it, it occurs to me that there are even more differences worth considering. The current duopoly is trending evermore Progressive, which is an euphemism for socialism and/or communism. This system requires the taxing the hell out of the populace, to redistribute the wealth to buy votes. They are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, to make life easier for unproductive sheeple.

      Trump, while not a Constitutionalist, is not a globalist either, and is a committed capitalist nativist. His main interest seems to be in rebuilding the industrial sector of our economy, by lowering business taxes on domestic production, to repatriate our offshore wealth, and raise tariffs on imported goods. This would provide Americans good paying jobs again, which should reduce social welfare expenditures, while actually raising revenue, from increased GDP and tariffs.

      At my age, it is a moot point; but if I were an ambitious young man, and had only the choice of the Socialist bureaucratic welfare state of Bernie Sanders dreams, or a strong-man quasi-Fascist dictatorship of a capitalist Trump, I would definitely choose the latter. Of course, I am neither a Muslim or illegal alien. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

      • Chris says:

        Once again your pragmatism in the face of claiming strict constructionism is a bewilderment. You willingly accept the lesser of the two worst evils without so much as a mention of any other option. I still find both options completely unacceptable. Where my pragmatism leads me to bend on the NBC issue you have expressed letting the complete founding hit the ash heap. I understand your recent leaning toward anarchy but neither of these two options would even bring about that end. At least nowhere in the near future and long after anything was left. How about a third option. One that would either bring about a desired change or the anarchy you wouldn’t mind seeing in short order. A hard right shift back to a constitutionally prescribed government. If you want to test the limits to anarchy these days try that and watch the poo hit the fan.

        I compromise on one constitutional issue only because there is only one that has hinted to me that the two worst options can be avoided and someone has shown that maybe they will try the third. I’m not ready to give up yet even if it costs a little.

        • It was a ‘what-if’ limited to only two options, Chris. Still, I chose none-of-the-above. As much as I am turned off by Cruz phoney persona, I like what he says about the Constitution. If I believed that actually electing him in the General were possible (which I doubt), and that he could actually herd the bureaucratic oligarchy back into their Constitutional constraints (which he or anyone else can’t), I might be convinced to pragmatically overlook his Canadian birth.

          I don’t hear him promising to eliminate the Department of Education, et al. I don’t hear him promising to drastically reduce the size of the Federal government. I don’t hear him promising to end deficit spending entirely, and only spend current revenue on current expenses. I don’t hear his plan for paying back the national debt. I could care less about the abortion or gay marriage issue. I have no particular interest in building up our military power again, if we have to borrow (or print) money to do it.

          Speaking of printing, what is his plan to end the FED? Does he intend to return to sound money? Will he end inflation? There are a whole lot of unconstitutional shenanigans afoot in DC, which nobody in the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly ever mentions, including Ted Cruz. â—„Daveâ–º

        • Chris says:

          Actually Dave he does. Not mentioned here is also his co-sponsorship of the Rand Paul investigate the fed bill.

        • Chris says:

          LOL your killin’ me man.

  • Chris says:

    Do you think the US military would invade Texas for the oligarchs

    The military of 10 years ago no. Today it’s a very good possibility.

    • You may be right… in which case we need to stop investing so much respect and reverence in these guys… they are merely mercenaries – hired guns who follow orders – and should not be considered patriots. 🙁 â—„Daveâ–º

      • Speaking of mercenaries who deserve no respect, who the hell is paying these guys? Watch the short video. I suspect that they are Blackwater/Academi. I can see the CIA hiring them for overseas jobs; but should they be hired for domestic law enforcement duty? 🙁

      • Chris says:

        I can see the CIA hiring them for overseas jobs; but should they be hired for domestic law enforcement duty?

        Oddly enough I can’t. The CIA using unaccountable “muscle” around the globe is a problem in itself. I see no reason to hire anyone to exhibit military force when we already have a fully capable military for just such things. If they can’t enlist the support of the military maybe there’s a reason.

        As far as on American soil that’s a whole other issue. Hired guns have no arrest or law enforcement powers. I’m not even absolutely sure but I don’t even think the CIA has those powers. I believe they have to enlist either the DOJ or FBI to effect an arrest. That said these individuals if not LEO’s are for no other reason than to kill without the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act. The “civilian army” Obama spoke of?

        • Diplomatic relations would preclude stationing our active duty military personnel within some countries, for some covert missions. Think of the CIA mission in Benghazi. That whole thing could have been most embarrassing, if they were actually US military troops. â—„Daveâ–º

        • Chris says:

          Maybe, just maybe they shouldn’t have been doing things that would prove embarrassing in the first place.

  • Well here I am back again. 😉

    It is refreshing to read dialog that does not come from those who appear to have the brain power of a chunk of 2 by 4 with less use.

    First THANK YOU Dave for your kind words “delightful grandmother”. My grandchildren and great grandchildren might agree … in this NBC skirmish I am considered the BITCH FROM HELL and do what I can to live up to the title.

    After all it is a fierce fight that I PERSONALLY hope WE ALL WIN.

    It was Chris that I believe you quoted as saying “It’s out there. (I don’t see that happening.)”

    Yes it is out there but I do see something happening. And I am with you Dave. I am not at all comfortable letting an ill educated, entitled, sometimes corrupt, segment of the society dump us ALL into a “we master YOU SLAVE situation” because they are offered FREE STUFF.

    Back to the point … here is an example of possible progress.
    I posted an article … Is Ted Cruz an “natural born citizen”? on January 31 … on Feb 1st that post got 16,416 page views in that 24 hours.

    Consistently the most viewed pages on my blog are:

    Just a bit of data about that silly blog written by a nobody grandma.

    Since March of 2015 until today there have been 884,607 page views for that blog. The average page view per day runs 3043 for the last 6 months

    The point that I tried to make when I started that blog in 2009 to a conservative group that I frequented was … anyone can educate the mass if they try and remain consistent at it.

    I was ignored of course. 😉

    • Chris says:

      Hi CriticalThinker.

      Nice blog and nice to see you here. If you were including me in the “dialog that does not come from those who appear to have the brain power of a chunk of 2 by 4 with less use” I thank you. I come here as a respite from that very thing. I also started a blog/community site back around 09 for the very same purpose. To spread the word of conservatism and libertarian thinking with constitutional grounding. Alas at some point I also felt ignored. Yet we soldier on but in some ways I have given up. It’s more a venting process now as some people don’t even respond when whacked by a seven year long 2 by 4.

      Fight the good fight and hope to see you here again.

      • Hello Chris 😉

        Thank you!

        You indeed are clearly not among those who are clueless among us.
        You know that seems to be quite a feat these days. We are lucky.

        What is your blog address Chris?
        I hope you continue to post to it?

        Here is the thing … like you I started mine as a venting place. I really did not expect much from it. I certainly never thought it would be so well read.

        If you look at the comments on my site they are very few for a 7 year stretch.

        Actually I like it that way really because there is no use preaching and having a dialog with the chior so to speak … IMO.

        But here is what I believe goes on behind the scenes. People visit because they have some interest in what you say. They may not agree but then does it really matter as long as they CHOOSE to come back and listen again? The more they visit the more likely they pick up something they find useful. Maybe even mind changing. 😉 Who knows? I figure that is not my job. Let the guy upstairs manage that.

        Personally I visit a lot of sites … very seldom do I stop and comment. I silently appreciate and come back again or reject and simply move on never to return.

        Where I do dialog is when I find a wing-nut on youtube. Said wing-nut I use as a foil to educate others who might be viewing ONLY. It is much easier to change someones mind with FACT and logic than engage them in an discussion or argument. Most people who have skin in the game are more reluctant to give in to the opposition even if at some point they decide they just might be wrong.

        So my target for change is never the wing-nut who are usually extremely cooperative in providing fonder for my continued attacks.

        Almost everyone likes to be a by-stander to a skirmish.

        So you might be surprised at how many people listen but simply do not have the time or energy to kick their brain in gear to comment.

        So let us both soldier on … it ain’t over until the fat lady sings … LOL 🙂

        • Chris says:

          Thank You CriticalThinker. You can reach my site simply by clicking on my name here as we can yours. As I said it is a combination community and blog site so the landing page is along the lines of Facebook. (but a lot better) For just the blog content simply use the articles link at the top. At one time Dave was an active contributor there. There’s a lot of good stuff. Anyone signed up can also participate in forums and contribute articles pretty much free from editorial oversight and with broad limitations. You would always be welcome to stop by and drop a link to your latest articles on our wall.

          So let us both soldier on … it ain’t over until the fat lady sings … LOL

          That’s what I’m trying to tell Dave. 😉

        • Agreed. When I am commenting elsewhere, I am almost always playing to the wider audience, with some hope of educating at least a few of them. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

        • Chris says:

          Hey, you two. Don’t get too chummy… I will need CT’s help to straighten out my good friend Chris.

          I’ll try Dave but my brand of personal charm, flawlessly executed wit, and cutting edge analysis is not something that can be turned off like a light bulb. It’s bigger than all of us. 😉

    • Hi CT. Welcome aboard! Thanks for YOUR kind words regarding the quality of the discourse hereabouts. I certainly don’t have your readership, and only a few regular commenters; but they are some of the finest on the web. I sure hope you become one of them. 🙂

      I edited your comment, to change your referenced articles into live links. I had already found and referenced the Cruz and 4-SCOTUS cases articles. I just finished reading the Mitt Romney one. Good research. It is frankly amazing how often the NBC issue has arisen in modern history. I suppose the Left’s mantra that we are a nation of immigrants has some validity. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

  • Chris says:

    Dave, knowing your affection for good education I thought this may interest you.
    Two weeks ago he was ranting about how horrible it was.

    • LOL… so somebody finally caught him slip and say something that wasn’t what was on his mind. Did you notice that about a third of the people behind him weren’t even paying attention, much less fired up. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

Leave a Reply for â—„Daveâ–º

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links