Wednesday, December 03, 2014

Tired Gay Story



Fits My Mood Today


Go out and play dammit!

                    Boys Will Be Boys

I imagine my thoughts here are identical to my grandparent's worries about television  And they were right.

The Founding Fathers were clear about ...

you know who you are
                                                                          A Constitutional Moment

A Constitutional Moment
Seth Lipsky  Nov. 20, 2014    

The Founding Fathers were clear about who sets immigration policy
The coming clash between President Obama and Congress over immigration promises to light up what I like to call a constitutional moment. This is a moment in which our politics are so divided that we have scraped away the soil of legislation and are fighting on American bedrock. Rarely has it shone more clearly than in respect of who has the power to decide who can come here and be naturalized as a citizen.

Nor, the record suggests, did they want the President setting policies on immigration and naturalization. There may be talk about Obama having presidential “discretion” in enforcing immigration laws, but the record of the Constitutional Convention makes clear where the founders wanted discretion to lie. “The right of determining the rule of naturalization will then leave a discretion to the legislature,” James Madison quotes Alexander Hamilton as saying.
This is one of the reasons we seceded from Great Britain. King George III had been interfering with immigration to the colonies. It was one of the complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. The British tyrant, the Americans declared, had endeavored “to prevent the Population of these States.” For that purpose, they said, George III had been not only “obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners” but also “refusing” laws “to encourage their Migrations hither.”

The articles of confederation that first bound the newly independent states failed to solve this problem. Each state set its own policy on naturalization, with the potential for chaos. Hence the founders, who gathered in 1787 in Philadelphia to write the Constitution, granted to Congress the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” They could have granted this to the President or left it to the states, but they assigned it instead to Congress.

So Obama, in threatening to act on his own, is playing with constitutional fire. It’s not that I object to his liberality on immigration. On the contrary, for years I was part of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. It reckons that it would be illogical to stand for the free movement of trade and capital absent the free movement of labor. It once called for a constitutional amendment saying “there shall be open borders.”

That is based on the idea of human capital, the notion that in a system of democratic capitalism people have an incentive to produce more than they themselves consume. This system discovers that more people lead to a richer society for all. In my generation, this point animated the campaign for America to take in the boat people escaping Vietnam after the communist conquest. What a windfall they turned out to be.

I have also long plumped for a merger of pro-immigration activists and pro-life conservatives. A movement that cherishes pro-life principles contradicts itself when it emerges against immigration. Better to press consistently for the idea that more people are better, particularly in a country as underpopulated as the U.S., which ranks near the bottom of the world’s nations in population density.

All that, though, is trumped by the constitution. It not only seats naturalization power in Congress but also gives it almost total sway. The founders discussed adding language relating to how long someone must reside in America before becoming a citizen. In the end they required of Congress only that its rule be “uniform.” They didn’t want the states feuding over this and setting competing policies. They wanted a united front to the world.

Nor, the record suggests, did they want the President setting policies on immigration and naturalization. There may be talk about Obama having presidential “discretion” in enforcing immigration laws, but the record of the Constitutional Convention makes clear where the founders wanted discretion to lie. “The right of determining the rule of naturalization will then leave a discretion to the legislature,” James Madison quotes Alexander Hamilton as saying.

Madison followed by remarking that he “wished to maintain the character of liberality” that had been “professed” throughout the states. He was not for open immigration. He “wished to invite foreigners of merit and republican principles among us.” He noted that “America was indebted to emigration for her settlement and prosperity” and added, “That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture, and the arts.”

The Founding Fathers were not naive. They worried plenty about intrigue by what Madison, at one point, called “men with foreign predilections” who might “obtain appointments” or even seek public office. One can imagine that they would be horrified by the loss of control of the southern border, the lawlessness, the abuse of welfare and the scent of rebellion north of the Rio Grande. But the founders also feared a King–or a President who acted like one. They wanted the question of immigration settled by Congress and wrote an impeachment clause that glints in the fray.

Lipsky is the editor of the New York Sun

SOURCE: The Writings of James Madison, Volume IV

That Time Magazine would print Lipsky's (editor of the New York Sun) treatise  means that at least one reliably leftist publication is impressed.

Court Boners

—  You Clot                                

Great Trial Boners

During a trial practice Ted's lawyer tested the defense's contention that Ted was on the jogging trail that morning, still under the influence of Cialis which he'd taken the day before, and for which continued condition was going to call his physician when he got back to the office, when, because of weight loss, his jogging shorts fell down to his ankles, tripping and propelling him into Ms. Foster whose own jogging shorts had quite coincidentally also fallen to her ankles where she, being quite without undergarments, was bent over, frantically screeching, while pulling them up.

Later, Ted took a plea deal on sexual assault instead of facing a rape trial.

Bombs Over Tokyo, etc.


I've touched on this before, but I'm rankled again.

In our nation's history,
approx14,300,000 Americans have served during wartime, with approx 2,800,000 of them being killed or wounded. 

I was a student at UM when Jack Kennedy announced on television details of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Three of us jumped into my car and drove to Baltimore to enlist.  Just like that.  Alas, recruiting stations were closed at 9 PM,  so we went to the Block and saw some strippers instead, but the point is made.

 I imagine that over the years quite a few Americans  felt the same call to action.  That's raw patriotism.   Not all ran to enlist at first bugle of course.  My own father, and step father, were both drafted.  Dad took a Nazi mortar shell directly; my step dad a sniper's bullet, but he survived.  I think if you asked all 14 million who served in wartime why they were fighting, all would have answered,  in some fashion, "to protect our country from the rat bastards trying to destroy it."  That includes both armies in the War of Rebellion, rat bastards being a relative thing.  If you further asked them to be more specific, the answers could I think be distilled down "to protect our freedom.

For the past 50 years some Americans who share ideologies copacetic with what King George, the Kaiser, the Nazis, the Japs, the Communists, and radical Islamos had in mind for us (total subjugation)  have increasingly gained control of our ship of state's machinery.  There is not a lick of difference between today's Democrat Party and the Communist Party, USA of the 1950s.  None.  To wit: the CPUSA fielded a candidate in every U.S.  presidential election from 1925
until 1988when they began just endorsing the Democrat candidate.  For the same reason then that I hate Communism, I hate today's elected Democrats, and the useful idiots who serve them.  They are deceitful and focused liars, the lot. And endorsed by the CPUSA.

All to bring me to this point.  If you, like me, see us engaged in an ideological war for the very soul of the United States, then what, pray tell, are the differences between this struggle and being in a frozen foxhole in 1951 Korea?  Most everyone in this forum have already enlisted, and wear the uniform proudly.   Our common goal: Destroy the uniformed Obamunist enemy.  But, more hatefulin any warare those who wear our uniform, infiltrate our lines, and  sabotage from within.  So heinous a crime that international rules of war allow the summarily execution of them when captured.

The GOP’s War On Obama’s Executive Action Lasted About 5 Minutes

Two Words.  Boehnor; Ilk    The greatest penalty, indeed a political death penalty for that lot, is being stripped of any leadership role by the GOP caucus.  And  replaced with those who understand that we are in a war for our survival. Boehnor must be replaced.  If the Republican caucus have a sense of duty, he will be, in January if not today.