MORAL OR POLITICAL DECISIONS?
by Michael Gaddy, ©2016, blogging at The Rebel Madman
THE QUESTIONABLE DEATH OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA
The unexpected death of Antonin Scalia in a remote part of Texas has created among those who discount “conspiracy theories” by rote to suddenly believe the highly esteemed Justice died at the hands of perpetrators unknown. Most of these people have scoffed at the mountains of evidence that contradict the government’s version of events of 9/11, yet they proudly tout their reasons for believing Scalia was murdered, ignoring of course Scalia’s family requested no autopsy and his oldest son, Eugene, called the conspiracy theories, “hurtful.”
First of all, despite the accolades from both sides of the aisle, Scalia was by no measure a “strict constructionist” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Therefore, to refer to him as a constitutionalist is to blaspheme many of our founders, especially those known as the Anti-Federalists.
Scalia, in private writings, stated Secession and Nullification to be unconstitutional. He stated the issue of Secession was settled not by constitutional means or legal precedent but by force, coercion and violence: the Civil War. He also stated confirmation of his position could be found in the Pledge of Allegiance, thus: “one nation indivisible.” Was Scalia, like most Americans, ignorant of the fact the pledge was written by an avowed Socialist? Was he also unaware of the difference between a national form of government and a Republic (federal) as cited by Gouverneur Morris on May 30th, 1787 at the Philadelphia Convention.
“Mr. Govr. MORRIS explained the distinction between a federal and national, supreme, Govt.; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation…”
The Pledge of Allegiance contradicts itself, as most socialist renderings do, when it states “and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible.” As Morris stated, a federal form of government (Republic) rests on the “good faith of the parties” and is not a “complete and compulsive operation” as is required of a national form of government. In his stated opinion on Secession, Scalia sided against the founders and for a strong centralized government and a “compulsive” government, as did Abraham Lincoln and many other supporters of a nationalist government. As further proof, Scalia sided with none other than Adolf Hitler who commended Lincoln for his “nationalist” approach in destroying the states in his magnum opus, Mein Kampf.
“[T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states.” ~ Mein Kampf, p. 566
On the above point, Hitler is supported by Abraham Lincoln, Justice Joseph Story, Senator Daniel Webster and Antonin Scalia while the Anti-federalists and the tenets of the 9th and 10th Amendments are refuted/ignored.
Absent from most accounts of Scalia’s “accomplishments” on the court was his role in perverting the electoral process when the court decided for the American voter who would be president in 2001. Hardly anyone mentions that Scalia’s long time friendship with Dick Cheney should have led to Scalia’s recusal in this case, a case which should have never been heard by the high court. Also not mentioned is Scalia’s support of keeping documents that could have led to the indictment of Cheney on issues reference Cheney’s “Energy Task Force” and how this task force related to the invasion of Iraq. Many have forgotten Scalia and Cheney took a “duck hunting trip” while this case was before the Supreme Court. What is that old axiom about avoiding the appearance of impropriety? Yet, Scalia adamantly refused to recuse himself from this case.
Few would even remember Scalia’s turning the Supreme Court hearing on the release of documents which could have proven Clinton insider and confidant Vince Foster did not commit suicide into an Evening at the Improv, cracking joke after joke about conspiracy theories and theorists while failing to ask any relevant question about the obvious conflict between the statement of EMT’s who recovered the body and the official medical report concerning the wounds to Foster’s body.
While I believe from all facts available that Donald Trump has very little knowledge of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the very thing he would take a sacred oath to uphold and defend should he prevail and would be not that much different than any of his opponents, I absolutely love what he is doing to the Republican Party. The actions of the party faithful lead me to think of the title “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.”
When looking at politics on any level, a true “Declarationist,” a term recently coined by a wonderful lady in Arkansas who has tired of the term “conservative” and seeks instead allegiance to the tenets of our Declaration of Independence, the vital question that must be asked is this: when a politician states a position, did they arrive at that position using the rule of morality, the Constitution or the rule of politics? We constantly see politicians on the national stage change their position on the issues when it becomes politically expedient to do so.
So-called “conservatives,” who supported Willard Romney in 2012, refuse to acknowledge many of Romney’s political vacillations during his career. He was pro-choice, then he was pro-life; he was pro Second Amendment when running for prez but signed an assault weapons ban into law while governor of Massachusetts. He was against Obamacare but had originated similar legislation known as “Romneycare,” also in Massachusetts. Did these vacillations occur because of moral decisions or political ones?
In 2008, Republican John McCain, again supported by a great majority of “conservatives,” was endorsed by the NRA while the the group Gun Owners of America gave McCain an F-minus grade on 2A issues. So-called “conservatives” don’t seem to care that McCain had accepted funding from George Soros group “Open Society Institute” and Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s political group “Tides Foundation.” Of course, also forgotten by conservatives is McCain’s move to “close the gun show loophole” which would have required every person attending a gun show to pass a background check whether or not they purchased anything.
Intelligent folks must ask the question of McCain and the NRA if their decisions were based on moral or constitutional grounds, or political ones. Then, certainly, we must pose that same question to all the “conservatives” who voted for McCain and Romney or continued their membership in the NRA when that group supported a political candidate with an F-minus rating, or had signed an assault weapons bill into law. The NRA also supported Harry Reid. We all know that decision was made on moral grounds.
SHOULD APPLE BE REQUIRED TO FURNISH A BACKDOOR TO THE FEDS
The federal government wants Apple to provide access to an alleged terrorist’s Apple phone to assist with their investigation. Representatives of the central state, including retired police and federal agents, have been all over the mainstream media citing reason after reason why Apple should provide access to this phone. Of course the government claims they would not use that access to look into any other person’s Apple devices. And we all know the government never lies.
If someone finds your Apple device and tries to access content by randomly typing in passwords, after the tenth unsuccessful attempt the phone erases all content. The content could only be recovered by the owner of that device. The government actually expects the people to believe they would never exceed the limitations of the Fourth Amendment. After all, their record is so squeaky clean when it comes to protecting our individual rights. Just ask Edward Snowden and a plethora of other whistle blowers who revealed government crimes, many of whom are serving long prison sentences. Were there not legions of so-called conservatives railing for Snowden’s arrest? Did they base their beliefs on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, morality or did they chose the political expedient? Do “conservatives” believe it is perfectly legitimate for the government to exceed the limits of our Constitution and Bill of Rights if it meets their political approval? Really???? And how does that differ from a progressive liberal?
CARNAGE ON THE STREETS OF CHICAGO—BLACK LIVES DON’T MATTER
Now, I must confess, I did not hear this on the news. I had to look up the statistics for myself. (Up to the minute statistics can be found at www.heyjack***.com) Currently, every two hours and fifty-one minutes someone is shot on the streets of Chicago and every thirteen hours and five minutes someone is shot and killed. So far this month 24 people have been shot and killed; 94 have been shot and wounded and there have been 33 total homicides. Weapons of choice in the 9 murders other than a firearm consists of knives, vehicles and a frying pan. So far this year 77 have been shot and killed; 340 people have been shot and wounded and there have been 90 homicides. Where is the national coverage of this carnage? Is the decision by politicians, journalists, and other government officials based on morality or political expediency? No need to answer—we all know the truth.
By the way, there have been no requests to Apple or other carriers by our government to provide access to the electronic devises of any victims or assailants in these crimes. Do Black lives not matter to them?
Of those whose lives have come to a violent end in Chicago so far this month, 61 are Black; 22 are Hispanics and 3 are listed as “White/Other.” Of the known assailants, 10 are Black, 1 is Hispanic and one death was by Police. 74 of those murders are currently unsolved, so the race of the assailant is unknown.
All of this has occurred without any major media coverage while Black sportswriters have been attacking Peyton Manning as a privileged White man, evidently because he conducted himself differently than did Cam Newton in a news conference after losing a Super Bowl. Go figure. America today has become a cesspool of political nonsense while moral decisions are as rare as a barnyard egg layer with teeth.
IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY