The Roberts hearings...

One theme that I have heard arise repeatedly during the John Roberts hearing is a comparison to Justice Ginsburg. Many Senators label her as an extremist for certain viewpoints that she supposedly holds, one of which being a Constitutional right to practice prostitution.

While I am largely unfamiliar with Justice Ginsburg's personal viewpoints, as well as her legal opinions, I suspect that she is very extreme on a number of issues based largely on her previous involvement with the ACLU and its radical agenda.

That being said, I find it very troubling that these Republican Senators, who supposedly believe in limited government and individual liberty as articulated by a relatively literal reading of the Constitution, believe the profession of prostititution to be Constitutionally impermissible.

Assuming that Justice Ginsburg's viewpoint is as these Senators suggest, I must agree with her position, although I likely arrive at it from a much different foundation.

The 9th and 10th amendments make clear that only such powers granted to the federal government within the Constitution are within its scope. Otherwise, all powers and rights remain with the States and/or the People of the several States.

Simply put, prostitution is legal according to federal law unless the Constitution specifically suggests otherwise. I conclude that it does not, as it neither prohibits free market capitalism nor sexual relations among free People. Further, if we are to take the stance that a person's body is his own property, it must be subject to the protections clearly outlined in the 5th and 14th amendments.

Sadly, those who categorically dismiss the opinion shared by Justice Ginsburg and I regarding the federal legality of prostitution must do so not because of a strict adherence to the Constitution and its originally intended meaning, but instead do so in an attempt to legislate morality.

Since the so-called "religous-right" provides a large voting bloc for the Republican party, I can only logically conclude that these politicians are ignoring the legal issues surrounding this issue and substituting in its stead the moral value judgments of their constituents.

Such practices are totally consistent with democracy, and as most people of average historical scholarship can appreciate, democracy is a failed government model totally unconducive to the protection of individual rights. In fact, I would go so far as to say that truly democratic governments are completely unable to protect the individual rights of its People since all laws are subject to the whims of the majority. Thus, any person not aligned with the majority opinion has no standing to challenge it, since democracy is nothing more than a majority rule system.

Overall, these hearings constitute nothing more significant than another example of just how broken our federal government is. Instead of challenging Judge Roberts to articulate his understanding of what the Constitution says and means, the Senators were more inclined to discuss trivial minutia related to existing case law, most of which decided on fundamentally flawed Constitutional understanding.

Using the hearings as personal soap boxes from which they attempted to satisfy their various constituencies, the Senators have completely poisoned these entire concept of their role in the nomination and confirmation process. Instead of the Republicans trying to use this week to prevent another David Souter, they chose to toss softballs at Judge Roberts without pressing him on key issues such as private property, gun ownership, free speech versus sedition, the legality of the Patriot Act and the concept of limited federal authority.

Likewise, the Democrats chose not to grill Judge Roberts on specific issues related to Constitutional law, but instead they chose to use the hearings as another venue from which to attack George Bush, ignore the failures of their own policies, as well as the legitimacy of their "living, breathing" Constitutional interpretation.

Predictably, the questions asked and the answers given solidify the preconceived opinions of various groups and individuals on both sides of the debates our country faces today. This does not surprise me in the least because the overwhelming majority of Americans either don't care to participate in the political process, or are unwilling to consider alternative viewpoints other than those found on the Rush Limbaugh show or the editorial page of the New York Times.

Independence and free thought were virtuous at one time in this country. Today, anybody who disagrees with President Bush is labeled unpatriotic. Any black or hispanic person who holds conservative views is labeled as an "Uncle Tom". Very few Americans retain the capacity and desire to engage in free thought and the expression of their viewpoints. Even fewer arrive at those viewpoints by applying reason and logic to the Constitution, the laws of economics, and the laws of human nature.

Such a scenario does not bode well for the future of our nation.

Civil rights...

When you hear Ted Kennedy and the other socialists talk about the great triumph of the Civil Rights Act, and all the wonderful spinoffs of it which supposedly promote "equal opportunity", you are listening to liars.

Substitute the term "equal outcome" every time you hear them say "equal opportunity", and you can quickly see what they really mean.

The left is not comfortable with the idea that some people are smarter than others, more physically able than others, born into more wealth than others, or otherwise do not find themselves in the same life circumstances as every other person.

Thus, only one of two conclusions to be drawn.

One, these people actually believe that they are able to create a soceity in which every single human being finds himself in the same scenario as every other human from birth. In which case, the arrogance is such that they do not view themselves as humble servants to reality but instead masters of it.

Two, these people recognize that they cannot guarantee everyone the same opportunities from birth, so the only option left is to punish those who find themselves in advantageous circumstances or those whose own work provides them with a favorable lifestyle. The intent then becomes to hold people back from achieving so that all people end up "equal" since it is obvious that the least among us demonstrate no ability nor desire to improve themselves. Therefore, the only available method for orchestrating a society dominated by "equality" is to restrict the ability of those to excel who are able and willing to do so.

The victims of Katrina...

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we're hearing lots about how much funding came from the federal government to the city of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana designed to improve and strengthen the city's defense system against hurricanes and flooding.

What you won't hear from the socialist, liberal media is the notion that the funding needed to protect and defend the State of Louisiana ought to originate in the State of Louisiana.

The United States are just that, united by the bonds between the People, the States, and the federal government as outlined in the Constitution. Nowhere in there does it refer to any provision which permits or empowers the federal government to take money from one State to give it to another State or the people thereof for any particular purpose.

In this case, the left is claiming that New Orleans didn't get funds because federal taxes were diverted to other projects from the War in Iraq, to highway spending pork, to whatver else. Of course, since the federal government feels free to debt finance itself, it could also be said that the funding for New Orleans was lacking because Congress didn't take a big enough loan from the Federal Reserve or the Chinese to pay for it.

In reality, each state is supposed to be self sufficient for its own survival and the well-being of its people. In this case, the people of New Orleans and Louisiana were derelict in their duty to protect themselves. The responsibility for acquiring and dispersing the funds lies with the local and State politicians. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, why does the responsibility shift to the people in every other State?

If I don't wish to pay my own insurance premium on my homeowner policy, does the insurance company send a bill to my neighbor? No, the policy is cancelled and I am left to fend for myself because of my own choices.

Clearly, New Orleans is a microcosm of all the ills of a welfare state. Crime rates are 10 times the national average, and the number of "poor" people is higher there than most other places in America. As a result, when the welfare state and law enforcement broke down, the inevitable happened. People were unable to take care of themselves, and criminal behavior skyrocketed as a result. Those who were used to robbing their neighbors through entitlement programs now find themselves robbing their neighbors directly by burglarizing their homes and businesses.

And the downward spiral continues. The State of Louisiana didn't have the money and other resources in place to defend itself against Katrina because it spent too much time and energy encouraging the vote buying scams of corrupt politicians while subsidizing the lazy and those unwilling to assume control of their own lives.

As usual, the media and race mongers like Al Sharpton are trying to paint the blacks of New Orleans as victims. They are victims alright, but not victims of capitalism or George Bush. They are victims of the very systems put in place by Democrats which supposedly provide equal opportunity for those to whom it is not otherwise available. These welfare programs have taught people for generations that somebody else is obligated to take care of their every whim and desire. In the end, when the caregivers fled, the sheep were ravaged by the wolves amongst themselves, also products of the same entitlement programs.

The best military in the world...

The U.S. military is the best in the world because it combines three elements of human nature the best.

First, it's structure is a dictatorship. Most people thrive in settings where there are clearly defined levels of superiority and directives which flow from top to bottom without exception.

Second, participation in this dictatorial society is entirely voluntary. Anyone who wants to join may, and those who do not wish to don't have to.

Finally, it possesses the most advanced technology in the world, technology produced by men who treasure the system of free market capitalism and whose geniuses are unlocked.

What Katrina taught me...

Big government kills.

With the Able Danger story unfolding, it's clear that bureaucracy among the various agencies of the federal government rendered them unable to work together in a way which might very well have prevented 9/11.

As information comes out about the preparation and response to Hurricane Katrina, it's also clear that the people who rely on the government for their sustenance died waiting for their government to come rescue them.

While I sympathize greatly with any person caught in the storm or its aftermath who truly were unable to leave, I am not a bit concerned with the misfortune of those who simply refuse to take care of themselves.

These societal bottom-feeders contribute nothing to mankind yet demand help from those who do. I refuse to accept the notion that some government can justly levy taxes against me to pay for the survivla of such people. It is illegal by the code which I follow.

Every man must in his own mind make a decision. He must choose to take ultimate responsibility for his own survival and well being, or he must choose not to do that.

When an individual must be threatened with imprisonment in order that he contribute his time or property to a particular cause or recipient means that he would likely not otherwise do so.

Thus, the welfare state and the individuals who choose to live according to its rules instead of the rules of nature which dictate that every individual be responsibile for its own survival end up unable to survive on their own when it matters most. They have indeed lost all ability of survival after years of existing not by the labor of another instead of their own hand.

I wonder how many of those who died realized the truth of these words in their final moments?

How many died regretting their entire philosophy and the quality of life they led because of it?

Bush to crack down on lawlessness...

From FOX news:

• There will be "zero tolerance of people breaking the law during an emergency such as this," Bush said in a live interview at the White House with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I've made that clear to our attorney general."

I think the President should apply the same determination to his law enforcement efforts in curbing the looting in New Orleans as he does to the illegal alien invasion from Mexico.

Perhaps we'll hear from Michael Chertoff or Alberto Gonzales that "Americans just don't have the will to do what is necessary to stop the looters"... (a la Asa Hutchinson).