From The Rutherford Institute
"More powers for the FBI. As detailed in the FBI’s operations manual, rules were relaxed in order to permit the agency’s 14,000 agents to search law enforcement and private databases, go through household trash, and deploy surveillance teams, with even fewer checks against abuse. FBI agents were also given the go-ahead to investigate individuals using highly intrusive monitoring techniques, including infiltrating suspect organizations with confidential informants and photographing and tailing suspect individuals, without having any factual basis for suspecting them of wrongdoing. These new powers extend the agency’s reach into the lives of average Americans and effectively transform the citizenry into a nation of suspects, reversing the burden of proof so that we are now all guilty until proven innocent. Thus, no longer do agents need evidence of possible criminal or terrorist activity in order to launch an investigation. Now, they can “proactively” look into people and groups, searching databases without making a record about it, conducting lie detector tests and searching people’s trash."
Read more
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
What's Old Is New Again
"My Lord, I can touch a bell on my right hand and order the arrest of a citizen of Ohio; I can touch a bell again, and order the imprisonment of a citizen of New York; and no power on earth, except that of the President, can release them. Can the Queen of England do so much?"
So saith William Seward to Lord Lyons, but it could have just as easily been Hillary Clinton or Eric Holder to some foreign official.
The corps of sappers in the legislative branch have been busy undermining the Constitution while the populace has been focused on important things like Kim Kardashian's divorce or Donald Trump's hair. Two retired Marine Generals, Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar wrote an Op-Ed in the December 12, 2011, NY Times opposing the provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, saying:
"One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past....A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans."
As retired military men, they know that "service members" aren't going to be asked to do anything; they are going to be ordered upon pain of incarceration or death to do as they're told. Many people express the opinion that Americans would never fire on their countrymen. Where this idea comes from is a mystery. George Washington led any army of about 15,000 men to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. This is the only time that a sitting American president led troops in battle, even though only two or three people were killed.
Reconstruction is conclusive evidence that the army will perpetrate barbarous acts against Americans over a long period. Whether you think the Bonus Marchers were rabble or deserving veterans, the fact is that the army attacked and dispersed them when told to do so. For a more recent - and deadly- example, the Kent State Shootings illustrate that troops will fire on unarmed civilians. In the Kent State incident, the person killed who was closest to the Guardsmen was 265 feet away. This was Jeffrey Miller, the person lying dead in the famous photograph from the shooting.
Police routinely beat, club, gas, "taze" or shoot people when told to and they are not a different species from military personnel. John Marshall chronicled many of the outrages perpetrated against citizens in his 1869 book American Bastile. If you are in doubt about how the military will act, his book is a good place to start your research.
When there is a legal challenge - as there almost certainly will be - to the provisions in the NDAA allowing indefinite detention of citizens by the military, it will become apparent that present-day citizens owe an eternal debt of gratitude to Colonel Lambdin P. Milligan. Milligan was imprisoned by the Union for several months and had been sentenced to death by hanging. He sued demanding a writ of habeas corpus, his suit reaching the Supreme Court.
Several people tried to get the steel-spined Milligan to withdraw the suit, assuring him of a pardon if he would drop it. He refused.
The Supreme Court heard the case and rendered a verdict in 1866. Some of the relevant parts from a syllabus of the case (here) are:
7. Military commissions organized during the late civil war, in a State not invaded and not engaged in rebellion, in which the Federal courts were open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their judicial functions, had no jurisdiction to try, convict, or sentence for any criminal offence, a citizen who was neither a resident of a rebellious State nor a prisoner of war, nor a person in the military or naval service. And Congress could not invest them with any such power. (emphasis added)
8. The guaranty of trial by jury contained in the Constitution was intended for a state of war, as well as a state of peace, and is equally binding upon rulers and people at all times and under all circumstances.
9. The Federal authority having been unopposed in the State of Indiana, and the Federal courts open for the trial of offences and the redress of grievances, the usages of war could not, under the Constitution, afford any sanction for the trial there of a citizen in civil life not connected with the military or naval service, by a military tribunal, for any offence whatever.
Congress of course pays even less attention to the Constitution now than it did then, but it will be interesting to see how this is decided. Congress not only doesn't have any such authority, but is specifically forbidden by the 4th, 5th, 6th and probably the 10th Amendments from delegating this non-existent authority.
When it comes to enforcing this, it cannot be hoped that many soldiers will refuse to follow whatever orders they are given. There are a lot more like Charles Graner than Antonio Taguba or Hugh Thompson.
So saith William Seward to Lord Lyons, but it could have just as easily been Hillary Clinton or Eric Holder to some foreign official.
The corps of sappers in the legislative branch have been busy undermining the Constitution while the populace has been focused on important things like Kim Kardashian's divorce or Donald Trump's hair. Two retired Marine Generals, Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar wrote an Op-Ed in the December 12, 2011, NY Times opposing the provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, saying:
"One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past....A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans."
As retired military men, they know that "service members" aren't going to be asked to do anything; they are going to be ordered upon pain of incarceration or death to do as they're told. Many people express the opinion that Americans would never fire on their countrymen. Where this idea comes from is a mystery. George Washington led any army of about 15,000 men to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. This is the only time that a sitting American president led troops in battle, even though only two or three people were killed.
Reconstruction is conclusive evidence that the army will perpetrate barbarous acts against Americans over a long period. Whether you think the Bonus Marchers were rabble or deserving veterans, the fact is that the army attacked and dispersed them when told to do so. For a more recent - and deadly- example, the Kent State Shootings illustrate that troops will fire on unarmed civilians. In the Kent State incident, the person killed who was closest to the Guardsmen was 265 feet away. This was Jeffrey Miller, the person lying dead in the famous photograph from the shooting.
Police routinely beat, club, gas, "taze" or shoot people when told to and they are not a different species from military personnel. John Marshall chronicled many of the outrages perpetrated against citizens in his 1869 book American Bastile. If you are in doubt about how the military will act, his book is a good place to start your research.
When there is a legal challenge - as there almost certainly will be - to the provisions in the NDAA allowing indefinite detention of citizens by the military, it will become apparent that present-day citizens owe an eternal debt of gratitude to Colonel Lambdin P. Milligan. Milligan was imprisoned by the Union for several months and had been sentenced to death by hanging. He sued demanding a writ of habeas corpus, his suit reaching the Supreme Court.
Several people tried to get the steel-spined Milligan to withdraw the suit, assuring him of a pardon if he would drop it. He refused.
The Supreme Court heard the case and rendered a verdict in 1866. Some of the relevant parts from a syllabus of the case (here) are:
7. Military commissions organized during the late civil war, in a State not invaded and not engaged in rebellion, in which the Federal courts were open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their judicial functions, had no jurisdiction to try, convict, or sentence for any criminal offence, a citizen who was neither a resident of a rebellious State nor a prisoner of war, nor a person in the military or naval service. And Congress could not invest them with any such power. (emphasis added)
8. The guaranty of trial by jury contained in the Constitution was intended for a state of war, as well as a state of peace, and is equally binding upon rulers and people at all times and under all circumstances.
9. The Federal authority having been unopposed in the State of Indiana, and the Federal courts open for the trial of offences and the redress of grievances, the usages of war could not, under the Constitution, afford any sanction for the trial there of a citizen in civil life not connected with the military or naval service, by a military tribunal, for any offence whatever.
Congress of course pays even less attention to the Constitution now than it did then, but it will be interesting to see how this is decided. Congress not only doesn't have any such authority, but is specifically forbidden by the 4th, 5th, 6th and probably the 10th Amendments from delegating this non-existent authority.
When it comes to enforcing this, it cannot be hoped that many soldiers will refuse to follow whatever orders they are given. There are a lot more like Charles Graner than Antonio Taguba or Hugh Thompson.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The Coming Of Christ
This is an old article and factually in error on a few things, I think, but still great.
The Coming of Christ
John W. RobbinsLife and Death. In the ancient world abortion, the exposure of infants, infanticide, and suicide were common and legal. At the coming of Christ, the Roman governor in Judea, Herod the Great, in an attempt to murder Jesus, ordered that all the male infants in Bethlehem and the region surrounding it, from two years old and younger, be put to death.
The head of the Roman family had the power of life and death—patria potestas—over his children and slaves. At birth, the midwife would place the newborn on the ground, where he would remain unless the father took the child and raised him from the earth. If the father did not raise the child, he—or more likely she—was left to die in some public place. The pagans exposed their children because they were poor, ambitious, or concerned about their “quality of life”: “so as not to see them corrupted by a mediocre education that would leave them unfit for rank and quality,” to quote Plutarch. The first Christians rescued thousands of children discarded by the pagans. Thousands were also rescued by pagans, who would raise them to be slaves and prostitutes. If infants were born with defects, they were frequently killed, rather than exposed. Infanticide was not merely the practice of the pagans, it was their doctrine as well: Plato and Aristotle endorsed infanticide, and Seneca wrote: “What is good must be set apart from what is good for nothing.”
According to Roman law, the power of the father over his children remained as long as he lived. An adult Roman man could do nothing without his father’s consent; his father could even sentence him to death."
Continue reading.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Is It Terrorism?
Recently I was looking up some of the details of the 1916 explosion at Black Tom, New Jersey. The explosion occurred on July 30, 1916 at a warehouse/rail yard/shipping depot where ammunition was stored before being shipped. It was suspected that it was the work of German saboteurs, but it was never proven who did it, although the German government did pay reparations from a civil lawsuit over the incident.
The thing that struck me while looking at various accounts of this is that there is now a plaque at the site that reads:
"Explosion at Liberty! On July 30, 1916 the Black Tom munitions depot exploded rocking New York Harbor and sending residents tumbling from their beds. The noise of the explosion was heard as far away as Maryland and Connecticut. On Ellis Island, terrified immigrants were evacuated by ferry to the Battery. Shrapnel pierced the Statue of Liberty (the arm of the Statue was closed to visitors after this). Property damage was estimated at $20 million. It is not known how many died. Why the explosion? Was it an accident or planned? According to historians, the Germans sabotaged the Lehigh Valley munitions depot in order to stop deliveries being made to the British who had blockaded the Germans in Europe. You are walking on a site which saw one of the worst acts of terrorism in American history." (emphasis added)
According to the plaque itself it is not known:
(1) Who did it.
(2) Why they did it if it was in fact caused by a human agent.
(3) Whether anybody did it or if it was caused by some kind of self-ignition.
I am willing to believe that German agents probably were responsible, but if so, how is that terrorism? The British and Germans are engaged in a war, the British are blockading the Germans; the Germans blow up an ammunition depot in a supposedly - but not actually - neutral country to prevent their enemies from getting ammunition. What definition of terrorism would include an act such as this? Why is it that every act of violence against the US meets the definition of terrorism, but said definition never applies when we bomb countries that have not attacked or even threatened to attack us?
A friend of mine was in the Marine barracks in Lebanon when it was blown up and is always quick to correct anybody when they refer to it as a "terrorist bombing." He points out that it was a legitimate military target. The same could be said of the bombing of the USS Cole, sometimes referred to as a "terrorist bombing."
When we bomb another country, it "sends a signal," but when any country does anything to us, it's "terrorism."
The US is currently trying to extradite a guy from Canada by the name of Faruq Khalil Muhammad ‘Isa. Mr. 'Isa is an Iraqi who had the audacity to attack military personnel of an invading army. The fact that they were US military personnel meant that his actions fit the elastic definition of "terrorism." It would be difficult to draw a distinction between Mr. 'Isa and the members of the French Resistance, who are considered heroes for fighting an invading army.
The US government has been making threats against Iran for several years because the Iranians are supposedly trying to build a nuclear weapon. The Iranians deny any such project as do the intelligence agencies of the US government, but it seems expedient to have a pretext for attacking them whenever we decide to. If our government attacks Iran for building or trying to build a bomb, how will this not be terrorism?
One of the lessons that could be learned regarding nuclear weapons is that if you want security from being attacked by the US, acquire a few nuclear weapons. We never seem to attack any country that actually has them.
Terrorism is a term that should be abandoned since it defies precise definition.
According to the FBI website:
"There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)." (emphasis added)
Does this mean that if the police or military act "unlawfully" in trying to disperse or control a demonstration that they are guilty of terrorism? If the police should act unlawfully - beyond the scope of their authority - in trying to disperse something like the Occupy Wherever movement or pro-life demonstrators, are they guilty of terrorism? What about the National Guardsmen at Kent State?
If charges are ever brought in an incident like any of these it's probably going to be concluded after an "investigation" that officials acted "according to procedure."
The Senate passed a bill on Thursday (12-15-2011) allowing indefinite detention of people suspected of terrorism. Only 13 senators* voted against it. The other 86 should be voted out of office no matter how "good" they are on other questions. Traitors should not be rewarded.
* The 13 senators who voted against the bill were Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).
The thing that struck me while looking at various accounts of this is that there is now a plaque at the site that reads:
"Explosion at Liberty! On July 30, 1916 the Black Tom munitions depot exploded rocking New York Harbor and sending residents tumbling from their beds. The noise of the explosion was heard as far away as Maryland and Connecticut. On Ellis Island, terrified immigrants were evacuated by ferry to the Battery. Shrapnel pierced the Statue of Liberty (the arm of the Statue was closed to visitors after this). Property damage was estimated at $20 million. It is not known how many died. Why the explosion? Was it an accident or planned? According to historians, the Germans sabotaged the Lehigh Valley munitions depot in order to stop deliveries being made to the British who had blockaded the Germans in Europe. You are walking on a site which saw one of the worst acts of terrorism in American history." (emphasis added)
According to the plaque itself it is not known:
(1) Who did it.
(2) Why they did it if it was in fact caused by a human agent.
(3) Whether anybody did it or if it was caused by some kind of self-ignition.
I am willing to believe that German agents probably were responsible, but if so, how is that terrorism? The British and Germans are engaged in a war, the British are blockading the Germans; the Germans blow up an ammunition depot in a supposedly - but not actually - neutral country to prevent their enemies from getting ammunition. What definition of terrorism would include an act such as this? Why is it that every act of violence against the US meets the definition of terrorism, but said definition never applies when we bomb countries that have not attacked or even threatened to attack us?
A friend of mine was in the Marine barracks in Lebanon when it was blown up and is always quick to correct anybody when they refer to it as a "terrorist bombing." He points out that it was a legitimate military target. The same could be said of the bombing of the USS Cole, sometimes referred to as a "terrorist bombing."
When we bomb another country, it "sends a signal," but when any country does anything to us, it's "terrorism."
The US is currently trying to extradite a guy from Canada by the name of Faruq Khalil Muhammad ‘Isa. Mr. 'Isa is an Iraqi who had the audacity to attack military personnel of an invading army. The fact that they were US military personnel meant that his actions fit the elastic definition of "terrorism." It would be difficult to draw a distinction between Mr. 'Isa and the members of the French Resistance, who are considered heroes for fighting an invading army.
The US government has been making threats against Iran for several years because the Iranians are supposedly trying to build a nuclear weapon. The Iranians deny any such project as do the intelligence agencies of the US government, but it seems expedient to have a pretext for attacking them whenever we decide to. If our government attacks Iran for building or trying to build a bomb, how will this not be terrorism?
One of the lessons that could be learned regarding nuclear weapons is that if you want security from being attacked by the US, acquire a few nuclear weapons. We never seem to attack any country that actually has them.
Terrorism is a term that should be abandoned since it defies precise definition.
According to the FBI website:
"There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)." (emphasis added)
Does this mean that if the police or military act "unlawfully" in trying to disperse or control a demonstration that they are guilty of terrorism? If the police should act unlawfully - beyond the scope of their authority - in trying to disperse something like the Occupy Wherever movement or pro-life demonstrators, are they guilty of terrorism? What about the National Guardsmen at Kent State?
If charges are ever brought in an incident like any of these it's probably going to be concluded after an "investigation" that officials acted "according to procedure."
The Senate passed a bill on Thursday (12-15-2011) allowing indefinite detention of people suspected of terrorism. Only 13 senators* voted against it. The other 86 should be voted out of office no matter how "good" they are on other questions. Traitors should not be rewarded.
* The 13 senators who voted against the bill were Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Oath Breakers
Should murder be legalized? What about speeding, reckless driving, arson, rape or gambling? No, you say? As far as I know, all of these things are legal as far as the federal government is concerned - that is to say that their regulation or prohibition is a state matter.
Ron Paul's support for "legalizing" drugs would legalize them in the same way that murder is now legal. Why should drugs be any different from murder or speeding? If a group of farmers decides to start growing opium poppies and open up an opium den associated with the farm, how is this a federal matter?
The late Congressman Larry McDonald said that he had several questions he asked himself before voting on - or maybe even reading - a bill:
(1) Is it constitutional?
(2) Can we afford it?
(3) Is it a good idea?
If a bill fails the first test you needn't proceed any further. It doesn't matter how great an idea it is if it isn't constitutional.
Government officials routinely perjure themselves by voting for, signing or upholding unconstitutional bills. Violating an oath is still perjury even if you think you have a good reason. St. Thomas Aquinas says that even if you swear to commit an evil act - e.g. murder someone - you cannot morally perform the act, but you are still a perjurer. Perjury has become so commonplace that nobody thinks anything about it.
A politician who honors his oath of office is so rare that Ron Paul is unique. There may be others, but I don't know who they are. There are quite a few who follow the constitution when it doesn't matter, but when the fat's to the fire, they will vote however they are supposed to. Thirty or so years ago, I was at a rally, and G.V. "Sonny" Montgomery, a congressman from Mississippi was speaking about something long forgotten. One thing he said that hasn't been forgotten was that politicians with ratings in the 70s or 80s by the Americans For Constitutional Action are "conservative when it doesn't matter."
Most people who constantly squawk about obeying the constitution want to make exceptions in their own cases or for other "good reasons." One constantly recurring and popular violation is the awarding of gold medals to various people in a thinly veiled feel-good vote-buying scheme.
Ron Paul is sometimes portrayed as an ogre for opposing these bills. In 1997 there was a bill to award a medal to Mother Teresa, which he opposed.
From the Congressional Record, U.S. House of Representatives, May 20, 1997.
It is easy to see why politicians have no regard for their oath of office when nothing happens to them for violating it and one who holds it sacred is called a "kook" for honoring it. Anybody who claims they want a constitutionalist for president has no options other than Ron Paul. He is the only one who is bound by the dictates of the constitution and has a 24 year record to substantiate what he claims.
The record of all others who have a voting record contradicts any claim they make of honoring their oath to uphold the constitution. We have a system of men, not laws. No system of law is possible when it can be disregarded by those sworn to uphold it.
Ron Paul's support for "legalizing" drugs would legalize them in the same way that murder is now legal. Why should drugs be any different from murder or speeding? If a group of farmers decides to start growing opium poppies and open up an opium den associated with the farm, how is this a federal matter?
The late Congressman Larry McDonald said that he had several questions he asked himself before voting on - or maybe even reading - a bill:
(1) Is it constitutional?
(2) Can we afford it?
(3) Is it a good idea?
If a bill fails the first test you needn't proceed any further. It doesn't matter how great an idea it is if it isn't constitutional.
Government officials routinely perjure themselves by voting for, signing or upholding unconstitutional bills. Violating an oath is still perjury even if you think you have a good reason. St. Thomas Aquinas says that even if you swear to commit an evil act - e.g. murder someone - you cannot morally perform the act, but you are still a perjurer. Perjury has become so commonplace that nobody thinks anything about it.
A politician who honors his oath of office is so rare that Ron Paul is unique. There may be others, but I don't know who they are. There are quite a few who follow the constitution when it doesn't matter, but when the fat's to the fire, they will vote however they are supposed to. Thirty or so years ago, I was at a rally, and G.V. "Sonny" Montgomery, a congressman from Mississippi was speaking about something long forgotten. One thing he said that hasn't been forgotten was that politicians with ratings in the 70s or 80s by the Americans For Constitutional Action are "conservative when it doesn't matter."
Most people who constantly squawk about obeying the constitution want to make exceptions in their own cases or for other "good reasons." One constantly recurring and popular violation is the awarding of gold medals to various people in a thinly veiled feel-good vote-buying scheme.
Ron Paul is sometimes portrayed as an ogre for opposing these bills. In 1997 there was a bill to award a medal to Mother Teresa, which he opposed.
From the Congressional Record, U.S. House of Representatives, May 20, 1997.
RON PAUL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. R. 1650. At the same time, I rise in total support of, and with complete respect for, the work of Mother Teresa, the Missionaries of Charity organization, and each of Mother Teresa’s Nobel Peace Prize-winning humanitarian efforts. I oppose the Gold Medal for Mother Teresa Act because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Mother Teresa who dedicated her entire life to voluntary, charitable work, particularly humanitarian.
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, several of my colleagues found it amusing to question me personally as to whether, on this issue, I would maintain my resolve and commitment of the Constitution — a Constitution which, only months ago, each Member of Congress swore to uphold. In each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath.
In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for the work of Mother Teresa, I invited each of my colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to the well-deserving Mother Teresa. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one's genuine convictions by spending one's own money rather than that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to the work of Mother Teresa, and have consistently done so. For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayer's money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate the courage of their so-called convictions and generosity.
It is, of course, very easy to be generous with other people’s money.In a similar vein, there is a famous incident recounted here between Davy Crockett and a constituent named Horatio Bunce, in which Bunce reprimands Crockett for appropriating tax money in a charitable cause. Crockett did have the integrity to admit that Bunce was right and pledged to not do it again.
It is easy to see why politicians have no regard for their oath of office when nothing happens to them for violating it and one who holds it sacred is called a "kook" for honoring it. Anybody who claims they want a constitutionalist for president has no options other than Ron Paul. He is the only one who is bound by the dictates of the constitution and has a 24 year record to substantiate what he claims.
The record of all others who have a voting record contradicts any claim they make of honoring their oath to uphold the constitution. We have a system of men, not laws. No system of law is possible when it can be disregarded by those sworn to uphold it.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Not Enough Government
Is there any problem for which more government is not the solution? I have noticed signs appearing everywhere warning that chubbiness is not a cute attribute in children. I think these are erected by some private group, but I have no doubt that even if this is a private "educational" campaign, pretty soon it's going to become my responsibility to remedy the "problem" or "crisis" of childhood chubbiness. After all, "we" can't have children getting fat because we're all responsible for everybody else's health.
With the passage of socialized medical care we now have an excuse to horn in on everybody's behavior. Every malady - real or imagined - becomes a collective problem, or "challenge" as they like to say nowadays.
Are you a dope addict or a drunk who has ruined your health with intemperate behavior? Don't worry, we're all responsible for your expenses and treatment. Picked up a venereal disease down at the waterfront bar? That's everybody's responsibility too, and not only is treatment a collective obligation, but we must have "education" to teach people how to avoid catching something that has been known about for thousands of years.
Knowing the way government programs always develop mission creep, pretty soon we're going to have to pay for psychological counseling for women whose looks are deteriorating or guys that are going bald. Maybe men can be issued a voucher for free treatments at the Hair Club For Men and women can get a subsidized membership in Curves. This sounds far fetched now, but pretty soon it will be a "right."
Not to suggest any pernicious ideas, but why is schooling free until you get to college at which time you have to start paying for it? I realize that no education takes place in most of these schools, but since that's the supposed reason for their existence, why should it stop at grade 12? Maybe you want to get a doctorate in Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame - shouldn't your freedom from want (one of FDRs Four Freedoms) allow you to study or "explore" this at tax-victim expense?
Whenever a new program is proposed or introduced and has the effect that the opponents predicted, the reply is always that things would be much worse if said program had not been instituted. When sex education was imposed in spite of vigorous objections, it ended up having the results that the nay-sayers predicted, but the answer from the educrats was that things would have been much worse without it.
The same was true of the financial disaster. The crash wasn't caused by know-nothings monkeying around with the economy - no- total ruin was averted by the prudent measures taken by omnicompetent bureaucrats to right the mistakes of private parties.
The government and the news organizations are in a meretricious relationship, and it never fails that we are instructed in the proper interpretation of events. Several years ago, when the government was trying to gin up AIDS hysteria, Magic Johnson became a vehicle to use in the effort. There were pronouncements that "Now we know that anybody can get AIDS." Probably just about everybody already knew that without being told.
The annual flu scare is starting now so you had better rush out and get a flu shot because the CDC says that you should.
With the aforementioned passage of socialized medicine the government now has an excuse to meddle in almost every conceivable activity. Diet is the most obvious area open for control since everybody has to stay healthy so we don't cause any unnecessary expenses, but what about auto maintenance? If you're driving around with bald tires or defective brakes you might wreck or cause someone else to - better have some mandatory auto inspections.
Perhaps you have unrecognized health hazards at your house - dirty air filters on your HVAC system, pathogens lurking in your carpet, bugs, rats, moldy shower curtain, combustible materials near an ignition source, improperly secured swimming pool, over-temp refrigerator, cat walking on counter tops, ad infinitum.
At the grocery, maybe they can program the scanner to calculate the fat, salt, sugar, alcohol and caffeine content of the items scanned and forbid the sale at a certain aggregate. You could be required to enter the number of people you were buying for so the machine could compensate - crazy, I know, but you can never out-crazy the government. Putting government in charge of medical services really does give it an all purpose excuse to forbid or mandate just about anything. It won't happen immediately, but it won't be at snail's pace either. When you go in for any reason, the "medical professional" (now a government agent) will be able to perform a drug test to see if you're endangering your health. Maybe every office can have a police precinct to haul violators to jail. It's all our business now. With government control of health, there is absolutely nothing that is none of its business. As the saying goes, "He that pays the piper calls the tune."
This health bill is going to be found to have all kinds of "penumbras" and "emanations" associated with it.
It really turns the keys to the Temple over to government.
Forty years ago, who would have thought that in just a few years the government would be telling you what kind of windows to put in your house, or what the picket spacing should be on your railings, the acceptable measurements for the rise and run of stairs, flow rates for toilets and shower heads, the required surface area of handrails, what kind of light bulbs are allowed, acceptable door widths, counter heights, switch heights and on and on? Some places prescribe the maximum allowable height for grass.
There is no subject about which government doesn't judge its competence superior to all others. This would be crazy even if the smartest people went into government employment, but they don't. Whenever there is a disaster of some kind there will be the usual "investigation" and the findings are always going to be a "failure" of some private person or entity. It's never going to be found that there was too much regulation or that the existing regulations contributed to the problem.
Some children are smarter than others, at least that's the way it was when I was in school, but now it's believed that if we just have the right teachers, books, audio visual aids, class size, uniforms, school year length, metal detectors, hall marshals and on and on, we can get equal outcomes. It is never going to be admitted that some people are race horses, some plow mules, some mustangs and some jackasses.
This is because the jackasses are in charge.
With the passage of socialized medical care we now have an excuse to horn in on everybody's behavior. Every malady - real or imagined - becomes a collective problem, or "challenge" as they like to say nowadays.
Are you a dope addict or a drunk who has ruined your health with intemperate behavior? Don't worry, we're all responsible for your expenses and treatment. Picked up a venereal disease down at the waterfront bar? That's everybody's responsibility too, and not only is treatment a collective obligation, but we must have "education" to teach people how to avoid catching something that has been known about for thousands of years.
Knowing the way government programs always develop mission creep, pretty soon we're going to have to pay for psychological counseling for women whose looks are deteriorating or guys that are going bald. Maybe men can be issued a voucher for free treatments at the Hair Club For Men and women can get a subsidized membership in Curves. This sounds far fetched now, but pretty soon it will be a "right."
Not to suggest any pernicious ideas, but why is schooling free until you get to college at which time you have to start paying for it? I realize that no education takes place in most of these schools, but since that's the supposed reason for their existence, why should it stop at grade 12? Maybe you want to get a doctorate in Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame - shouldn't your freedom from want (one of FDRs Four Freedoms) allow you to study or "explore" this at tax-victim expense?
Whenever a new program is proposed or introduced and has the effect that the opponents predicted, the reply is always that things would be much worse if said program had not been instituted. When sex education was imposed in spite of vigorous objections, it ended up having the results that the nay-sayers predicted, but the answer from the educrats was that things would have been much worse without it.
The same was true of the financial disaster. The crash wasn't caused by know-nothings monkeying around with the economy - no- total ruin was averted by the prudent measures taken by omnicompetent bureaucrats to right the mistakes of private parties.
The government and the news organizations are in a meretricious relationship, and it never fails that we are instructed in the proper interpretation of events. Several years ago, when the government was trying to gin up AIDS hysteria, Magic Johnson became a vehicle to use in the effort. There were pronouncements that "Now we know that anybody can get AIDS." Probably just about everybody already knew that without being told.
The annual flu scare is starting now so you had better rush out and get a flu shot because the CDC says that you should.
With the aforementioned passage of socialized medicine the government now has an excuse to meddle in almost every conceivable activity. Diet is the most obvious area open for control since everybody has to stay healthy so we don't cause any unnecessary expenses, but what about auto maintenance? If you're driving around with bald tires or defective brakes you might wreck or cause someone else to - better have some mandatory auto inspections.
Perhaps you have unrecognized health hazards at your house - dirty air filters on your HVAC system, pathogens lurking in your carpet, bugs, rats, moldy shower curtain, combustible materials near an ignition source, improperly secured swimming pool, over-temp refrigerator, cat walking on counter tops, ad infinitum.
At the grocery, maybe they can program the scanner to calculate the fat, salt, sugar, alcohol and caffeine content of the items scanned and forbid the sale at a certain aggregate. You could be required to enter the number of people you were buying for so the machine could compensate - crazy, I know, but you can never out-crazy the government. Putting government in charge of medical services really does give it an all purpose excuse to forbid or mandate just about anything. It won't happen immediately, but it won't be at snail's pace either. When you go in for any reason, the "medical professional" (now a government agent) will be able to perform a drug test to see if you're endangering your health. Maybe every office can have a police precinct to haul violators to jail. It's all our business now. With government control of health, there is absolutely nothing that is none of its business. As the saying goes, "He that pays the piper calls the tune."
This health bill is going to be found to have all kinds of "penumbras" and "emanations" associated with it.
It really turns the keys to the Temple over to government.
Forty years ago, who would have thought that in just a few years the government would be telling you what kind of windows to put in your house, or what the picket spacing should be on your railings, the acceptable measurements for the rise and run of stairs, flow rates for toilets and shower heads, the required surface area of handrails, what kind of light bulbs are allowed, acceptable door widths, counter heights, switch heights and on and on? Some places prescribe the maximum allowable height for grass.
There is no subject about which government doesn't judge its competence superior to all others. This would be crazy even if the smartest people went into government employment, but they don't. Whenever there is a disaster of some kind there will be the usual "investigation" and the findings are always going to be a "failure" of some private person or entity. It's never going to be found that there was too much regulation or that the existing regulations contributed to the problem.
Some children are smarter than others, at least that's the way it was when I was in school, but now it's believed that if we just have the right teachers, books, audio visual aids, class size, uniforms, school year length, metal detectors, hall marshals and on and on, we can get equal outcomes. It is never going to be admitted that some people are race horses, some plow mules, some mustangs and some jackasses.
This is because the jackasses are in charge.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Walbro Carburetor Fix For Miller Big 40 Welder
About three years ago, I had a carburetor problem with a Miller Big 40 welder. The engine is a Continental 4 cylinder flat head.
The float swelled up and wouldn't turn the fuel flow off. I checked all over the civilized world for a replacement float, but couldn't find one anywhere. The problem with finding a float was that the engine used a Walbro carburetor and it was long discontinued The float is a brown phenolic or micarta-like substance, not a brass float. I assume the new fuel (10% ethanol) was the fly in the ointment.
With nothing to lose by trying to remedy the problem in an unorthodox manner, I decided to sand the float down until it would move freely in the bowl. I compared notes with James Reeve, a friend who has been fooling around with engines forever and he said that he used to modify the float configuration on his race cars and then seal the float with epoxy.
I did this and it worked for a few months, but again swelled up. I again disassembled the carb and sanded the float as I had done previously. There was a tiny hole in the epoxy when I took the carb apart that had allowed gas to permeate the float again.
The second time I let the float "air dry" a day or two before applying the epoxy and it's still working fine. I think the problem was caused by the float out-gassing when I originally coated it with epoxy, causing it to have the tiny hole in the epoxy and allowing it to swell again.
Keep in mind that when you sand the float it needs to have enough clearance to still work when the epoxy is added.
The float swelled up and wouldn't turn the fuel flow off. I checked all over the civilized world for a replacement float, but couldn't find one anywhere. The problem with finding a float was that the engine used a Walbro carburetor and it was long discontinued The float is a brown phenolic or micarta-like substance, not a brass float. I assume the new fuel (10% ethanol) was the fly in the ointment.
With nothing to lose by trying to remedy the problem in an unorthodox manner, I decided to sand the float down until it would move freely in the bowl. I compared notes with James Reeve, a friend who has been fooling around with engines forever and he said that he used to modify the float configuration on his race cars and then seal the float with epoxy.
I did this and it worked for a few months, but again swelled up. I again disassembled the carb and sanded the float as I had done previously. There was a tiny hole in the epoxy when I took the carb apart that had allowed gas to permeate the float again.
The second time I let the float "air dry" a day or two before applying the epoxy and it's still working fine. I think the problem was caused by the float out-gassing when I originally coated it with epoxy, causing it to have the tiny hole in the epoxy and allowing it to swell again.
Keep in mind that when you sand the float it needs to have enough clearance to still work when the epoxy is added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
