The Constitution is DEAD !!

Do you remember many years ago when the phrase "God Is Dead" was popular among non-believers? Well, they made the case for the statement with unsubstantiated circumstantial evidence. They were wrong.

Today I am declaring that "The Constitution Is Dead". But, I have PROOF.

I came to this realization yesterday when I was complaining that one of the bad things about growing older was that you could remember how it was in the good old daze. I remember fishing for Spanish Mackerel with no license and no limits. In Southern California in those days if you were fishing in the ocean you needed no license and there were no limits on salt water species. The more I thought about it the more I realized that almost nothing has gotten better in the 74 years I have been alive. Everything is going to hell in a hand cart.

Then I suddenly realized that the Constitution was dead when I started thinking about sending a check for $117 in to secure a Concealed Carry Permit. That $117 is to pay for a right that the Constitution guarantees to me. There is nothing in the constitution about paying for the rights granted by it. But I will pay $117 to the state of Florida every 7 years to have this inalienable right.

So I decided to look at each of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and see what it was costing me...or if I even had those rights anymore. Or if I had them, but greatly impoverished.

1st amendment.......nope, that is gone without paying for it. If I want to "peaceably assemble" on public (I am public, right) property, I need to get a permit from the reigning government body. That permit will not be free. So I am paying for the right to peaceably assemble. And they get to set limits on my assemblage.

2nd amendment.......nope, I am paying for the right to carry arms CONCEALED. I cant even pay for the right to carry them in the open!!! Open Carry is against the law here in Texas!! But that is a violation of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution!!

3rd amendment.......well, so far, I still have this.....

4th amendment.......nope, it is clear that the prohibition against unreasonable searches without "probable cause" is going on daily by the TSA at airports all over the United States. According to the Constitution the TSA cannot search me unless they have reason to believe that I am breaking the law. BUT...they do it every day. And many residents of this state don't have the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" anymore since Home Owner Associations can now demand, as a requirement of residence in a particular community, that the homeowner turn over to the HOA a key to their home, just in case the HOA needs to get in. This is an unconstitutional ability to search. What protection does the homeowner have that the HOA wont steal them blind. Can they sue the HOA if something is missing? I think not!

5th amendment.......Double Jeopardy? Well, while I think OJ Simpson got what he deserved, isn't it "double jeopardy" to be tried twice for the same crime? Ok, Ok, maybe it was justice in this case, and his "life and limb" were not at peril in the Civil case, but I think that is just lawyers talk for a way around what would have horrified the founding fathers. Its still double jeopardy and one day it will come back to haunt an innocent person and that innocent person might be YOU! We have to think about what happens if an apparently just reading of the law is turned against an innocent person.

6th amendment.......a "speedy trial"?? Do we really think that a 20 year stay on "death row" while exhausting appeals is a "speedy trial". At the time the Constitution was written that would be HALF of a lifetime. I really don't think they thought that a trial should last 20 years!!!

7th amendment.......I plead no contest....

8th amendment.......But isn't "No Bail" excessive? Isn't denying bail the same as assessing excessive bail?

9th amendment.......Here we have a whole barrel of worms. But just one worm; the government has taken my right to insure myself in any way I may feel sufficient to secure my health. The Obama Care law takes away a right that was not enumerated in the constitution...WITHOUT AMENDING the constitution to add that as a right. I have been denied a right.

10th amendment.......WOW, here we are at the biggest failure of the ten. The Federal government, under the guise of regulating interstate commerce has violated this amendment so many times that I wonder why the foot traffic hasn't wiped away all the ink on the constitution. Obama care claims to be regulating interstate commerce while regulating the sale of insurance WHICH CANNOT BE SOLD ACROSS STATE LINES. Folks, that ain't interstate commerce!!! The Feds have taken to regulating firearms that are made in a state and not sold across state lines. Folks, that ain't interstate commerce!!! The Federal government arrests Amish farmers for selling home grown milk within the borders of the state. Folks, that ain't interstate commerce!!!

Out of the ten, and there are another 18 I haven't even looked at, two might still be intact. The rest have been trashed. If 80 percent of my body was decaying, I would hope someone would declare me dead.

The Constitution Is Dead.

Can we revive it? Yes, I think we can. But you cant bring something back to life until you, first, concede that it is dead. We cannot be in denial. To resurrect the Constitution we first have to accept the fact that it is, for all intents and purposes, DEAD.

Come out of your denial and join the movement to restore the Constitution to the living document that it was meant to be.

Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================

July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook

OK, Now You Have Gone And Done It!

I was just sitting there fat, dumb, and happy, as regards HB 1937.......until now.

No, I don't like being searched at the airport, but then as a pilot, I don't like the idea of gunfights in the isles while at 30,000 feet, either. Texas HB 1937 makes it a felony to search a US citizen at an airport or any where else without "probable cause". It is only reaffirming the 4th amendment to the US Constitution which states in no uncertain terms that,

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This is what our forefathers felt we needed to be safe from a marauding government. They gave it to us in our Constitution. So this bill, HB 1937, is only reaffirming that right.

But I wasn't unduly disturbed by these searches since I could see how one might interpret, however falsely, "unreasonable searches" to mean that a search before boarding a plane was not unreasonable. So I was content to let it slide.

BUT...Then the Department of Justice got into the act by THREATENING, not to take the legislation to court, but to just single handedly, shut down all Texas airports if the bill passed. This is pure Chicago Ward Politics. It is bullying. It is unconstitutional. The DOJ threatened to make Texas a "no fly zone"...I assume that they would enforce it with F16s..??

I wonder how the rest of the nation would fare if the Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio airports were closed down. I think the Feds have more to lose than Texas does.

This is now a 10th amendment issue. If the government wants to challenge the law in court, that is their right, but to come in and threaten retaliatory action, outside of the court, is Unconstitutional!! It violates our 10th amendment rights to rule ourselves without their interference.

So what did the Texans do at Gonzales in 1835 when the Mexican government demanded their canon back? They put up a flag with the words "Come And Take It!" and aimed the canon at the Mexican lines! Following is a part of the address that Rev. William Smith gave to the Texans just before they routed the Mexicans and sent them running back to San Antonio. I think it is on the spot to our present situation.

in 1835, Rev. William P. Smith rode into the square and addressed the Texans:

FELLOW-SOLDIERS: To cap the climax of a long catalogue on injuries and grievances attempted to be heaped upon us, the government of Mexico, in the person of Santa Anna, has sent an army to commence the disarming system. Give up the cannon, and we may surrender our small arms also, and at once to be the vassals of the most imbecile and unstable government on earth. But will Texas give up the cannon? Will she surrender her small-arms? Every response is NO, NEVER! Never will she submit to a degradation of that character! Fellow-soldiers, the cause for which we are contending is just, honorable and glorious--our liberty! The same blood that animated the hearts of our ancestors of '76 still flows warm in our veins. Having waited several days for the Mexican army to make an attack upon us, we have now determined to attack them on tomorrow morning at the dawn of day. Some of us may fall, but if we do, let us be sure to fall with our face toward the enemy. ...

Texans, this is our Gonzales Moment. We must tell Obama, "Come And Take It!" and, just as the defenders of Gonzales did, "let us be sure to fall with our face toward the enemy. ..."

Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================

July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook

Are we running out of oil???

From the Washington Post
--------

Setting The Record Straight on America’s Oil

By Lisa Murkowski, Published: April 21, 2011

With gasoline prices in many areas above $4 a gallon, energy concerns are once again making headlines. Prices have more than doubled since the start of 2009 and are projected to remain at excruciating levels for the foreseeable future.

We know from experience that high energy prices harm American families and businesses. Aside from pain at the pump, it’s harder to balance budgets or even buy groceries when transportation costs soar. Many experts have concluded that if prices remain high, economic growth will languish. At stake is our fragile recovery from the recent recession.

High energy prices therefore demand a strong policy response. For years, however, federal lawmakers have routinely ignored the supply side of the equation and the fact that — if we chose to — we could absolutely produce more oil here in America.

For that reason, I welcomed President Obama’s recent pledge to increase domestic production. It was a big step, and I hope his administration heeds the message. But I’m also deeply concerned by some of the information presented about America’s energy potential. Left unchallenged, it will contribute to a mistaken belief that increased domestic production is not truly possible.

The president said this month that “even if we doubled the amount of oil that we produced, we’d still be short by a factor of five.” That’s simply incorrect. Doubling our production would trim imports nearly in half. Boosting production by a factor of five is not currently feasible, but if it were, it would make the United States the world’s largest producer.

Perhaps most misleading is his claim — also made by others — that the United States has “about 2, maybe 3 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves; we use 25 percent of the world’s oil.” That line is crafted to make the audience think that America is both running out of oil and using oil at an unsustainable rate.

In truth, “reserves” is just one of several categories used to quantify oil and, on its own, misrepresents America’s potential. To classify a barrel as a reserve, you have to drill, prove the oil is there, and meet strict criteria established by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It’s not an easy process.

Right now, America has an estimated 22.3 billion barrels of oil reserves. But that’s hardly the whole story. A recent Congressional Research Service report that I commissioned with Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma found that the United States’ recoverable oil resources are estimated at 157 billion barrels. That is seven times as much as our reserves and doesn’t even include the roughly 900 billion barrels of unconventional oil resources nearing commercialization.

Consider this: While our nation’s oil “reserves” have never reached 40 billion barrels, we’ve managed to produce nearly 200 billion barrels since 1900. Between 2008 and 2009, America’s oil reserves rose more than 8 percent, even as roughly 2 billion barrels were produced. That was made possible by our substantial resource base. Reserves alone have never provided the full picture.

Those who repeat the 2 percent argument are falling into an old trap. Government officials have claimed since 1919 that America is “running out of oil.” Nearly a century later, we are still the world’s third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. Our consumption levels may seem high, but in fact they’re directly proportionate to America’s share of the global, petroleum-based economy.

Relying on reserves to depict America’s oil excludes all of the lands that have never been explored. My home state of Alaska, for example, holds an estimated 40 billion barrels of oil — the equivalent of more than 60 years’ worth of imports from the Persian Gulf — that are excluded from reserve figures. Ignoring that supply underestimates America’s oil and leads us away from one of the best solutions to our various energy challenges.

If our country endeavored to produce more oil, we could slash imports and stanch the flow of dollars sent to foreign suppliers. At the same time, we could create thousands of jobs in this country and generate hundreds of billions of dollars in government revenue.

In this era of fiscal restraint, our most effective energy strategy may be to have oil work itself out of a job by using revenue from production to facilitate the deployment of alternatives. A firm commitment to greater production and lower consumption would also send a message to OPEC that the United States will no longer tolerate high oil prices.

It’s time to acknowledge how much oil America really has — and expeditiously bring more of it to market.

Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================

July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook

Red Herrings, Straw Men And Caterpillars

Saturday evening I was having a discussion with a young lady of my acquaintance. She is a nice lady, but terribly misinformed politically.

The discussion started from some comments on the merits of the Obama Care debacle. I was remiss in my duty as I let her take me far afield of the proper discussion with Red Herrings and Straw Men. I think we all are guilty of that when getting into emotional subjects such as Politics, Religion and Sex. We need to be careful or we could loose the argument by our own failures, not because the other side had a better argument. They dont.

The discussion started well enough with statements about the efficacy of Obama Care. But then it continued in that direction, as though that was all its about. It is not what its about...not yet.... We all agreed that the USA has the best health care system in the world and we all agreed that it could be improved. But then the question came up as to whether Obama Care was the way to improve it. That is getting the horse before the cart. Before we can discuss whether Obama Care will be effective in getting the "Change" we want ot not, we must decide whether it is LEGAL or not. Because if it is ILLEGAL than its benefits are ZERO...unless we abandon the Constitution of the United States...along with Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, freedom of assembly, Due Process, etc. Yes, all those are IN the Constitution. If we abandon the Constitution in order to have Obama Care, then we loose all the rest to precedent.

So the current discussion should not have to do with whether it is better or worse, expensive or cheap. We could all agree on those points and if Obama Care was unconstitutional then they would all be moot points.

The tenth amendment to the constitution states that:

"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."

That is the whole enchilada! Thats it, thats all there is. Nothing has been added nor taken away! Its just that simple.

A quick and easy search of the Constitution and all previous amendments shows NO MENTION of health care insurance. So, by the above amendment, that issue is "reserved to the States respectively". Now there are another 17 amendments after the tenth amendment, so we must search there for a possible granting to the Federal Government of the right to issue or regulate health insurance. As before, no mention is found in the latter 17 amendments. Nada!! It just isn't there!! So the tenth amendment holds and health insurance regulation is the right of the individual states.

Now we could change that by the simple adding of a 28th amendment that states that the Federal Government DOES have the power to regulate health insurance and health dispersal. But we haven't done that yet. So the discussion should be on this amendment. Until that amendment is added, then Obama Care is illegal and any points, there gained, are moot.

I think that perhaps we should add that amendment and by so doing, enable ALL insurance vendors to sell across state lines. This would put health care under the "Regulation of Interstate Commerce" where it currently IS NOT because of the prohibition of interstate commerce in health insurance. But if that were done, thus enabling the legal, constitutional passage of a national health care program, such passage would no longer be needed because the interstate commerce in private insurance programs would solve the problem, in and of itself!

Thus saving the country a half a trillion dollars a year which could be applied to the National Debt.

Now the alternative to the above is to ignore the Constitution....along with Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Due Process, etc., all those are in the Constitution that you may want to abolish to have Obama Care.

This is where the discussion went from health care. The solution of the massive National Debt and huge deficit. Now my young lady friend was of the opinion that we should attack the deficit first. "because is something we can actually do". She felt the National Debt was beyond our control. This is like sitting on your front porch while a bulldozer is destroying your home from the back wall forward, and crushing a caterpillar on the rose bush, "because it is something we can actually do", rather than going to the back yard to stop the bulldozer. If we don't stop the bulldozer there wont be any reason to save the rose bush.

Of course, what discussion on the deficit would be complete without a discussion of Foreign Aid? Since Foreign aid is about 50 billion a year, cutting it completely would reduce the deficit, 1.2 Trillion, by a pittance, less than 4% per year!! Oh, but what about the money that could be raised from "Taxing the Rich"?

From the Washington Post:

"Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009, so clearly something else is to blame.

The main culprit was the recession -- and the responses it inspired. As the economy shrank, tax revenue plummeted. The cost of the bank bailouts and stimulus packages further added to the deficit. In fact, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that the Bush tax cuts account for only about 25 percent of the deficit this year."

So, eliminating the "Bush Tax Cuts" would not reasonably affect the deficit and would mean NOTHING to the debt. And elimination of them would turn the economy south in a big way. A souring economy would make bigger reductions in the tax revenues that would totally offset ANY perceived gain by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire.

But back to Foreign Aid or more specifically to money sent to Pakistan. Somewhere the discussion turned to that subject, and my young friend stated that we could not take aid away from Pakistan because they had an atomic bomb and we had to remain friendly with them. That is like saying, "The rapist has a knife so I might just as well relax and enjoy it." Are we friends with China? Are we friends with Russia? They have more atomic bombs than Pakistan!!!

Friends, the bulldozer is tearing down our house. I don't care if you are a Socialist, a Democrat, a Republican, or what ever, we have to cut off the fuel to that bulldozer, and 2012 is our chance to do that. Vote for fiscal conservatives of EITHER/ANY party.

And talk to your mistaken friends and show them the error of their ways. But don't let them talk you into chasing Red Herrings, Straw Men, and caterpillars.

Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================

July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook

Apology Due

Ok, I was wrong. Not the first time. Obama was telling the truth and it was the news broadcast that was wrong. I owe him an apology. THIS time he wasnt lying......its a rare instance, but he wasnt lying this time.

And maybe we even have to give him credit for getting Usama Bin Laden. He has been in power for over two years and the leadership of the CIA and military are all his hand picked people. So he was successful at ONE thing.

But I still dont think he is the man we need to lead our country because he has been so wrong on so many things and as FAILED at so many things.

However. I will apologize for my taking the news at face value, and calling him a liar. I should have known better. The News media is notorious for getting it wrong. BUT...Obama is notorious for lying, so you can see how I make the wrong call this time.

Why Is Obama Lying?

Right now, on live TV Obama is stating the Usama Bin Laden was killed today while across the bottom of the screen it says he was killed a week ago!!!

I had a brother, who is now dead of old age, that could never tell the truth, even when it would be to his advantage. I think Obama is one of those pathological lairs.

We have known for a couple of years he is a liar. And this proves it without a doubt. There is no advantage to this lie so it must be pathological.

Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================

July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook

Dont Believe Everything You Hear.

Actually theres more to that than just hearing. My mother always said, "Believe only a quarter of what you hear, one third of what you read and half of what you see." But I think those were the days of 60 years ago. I don't think we can believe that much of what we hear, read and see today.

Recently I was reading on the Internet that Blake Farenthold was taking a tax payer paid junket with his family to Florida to watch the Space Shuttle. This was deemed inappropriate for a congressman that was championing fiscal responsibility.

This morning, I was privileged to visit with Congressman Farenthold and posed the question, "Is it appropriate for you to spend taxpayers money on a junket to Florida." His answer was direct and satisfactory.

"I am paying for that trip out of my own pocket. The only perk I am getting at taxpayers expense is a meal of cornbread and beans which is a traditional celebration of a successful mission"

Somehow I don't think that a meal of cornbread and beans is such a big price to pay to a congressman that is doing his best under trying circumstances as a Freshman Congressman in a legislature that is dominated by an opposition controlled Senate and an opposition President.

No, I don't agree with Blake on every vote. But, then, I don't agree with my wife on everything but I married her anyway and its lasted 54 years!

There are things that I hope to educate Congressman Farenthold on and perhaps there are things that he will educate me on. But lets not go after him with Internet rumors. Yes, lets ask him to explain them and if he can, then let him off the hook.

In this case he has, in my opinion, put the rumor to rest.

Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================

July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook