Confessions of a Theater Geek

I didn't believe it even after I saw it. A man was arrested for reading the bible. the BIBLE! Not only that, but the cop arrested the guy for "impeding an open business" Which is bull since the courthouse was CLOSED AT THE TIME HE READ THE PASSAGES! He wasn't impeding anything!



Let's pray for these brave men who dared practice their freedom of religion in spite of a downright tyrannical police officer.

The Other McCain has a truly disturbing story on his site that I only just got wind of. Apparently a judge Kessler has decided that "it is a matter of pure semantics to say that someone who chooses not to purchase health insurance is not acting." As McCain says in the post, paging George Orwell.

This is truly frightening to me, and even though I know the law will have to reach the supreme court before the final decision is made, what really scares me is that there are people working in our federal courtrooms who can actually twist the meaning of our most important founding document so horrifically that someone can actually be lead to believe that making a decision through thought is the same as acting on that decision. If this ruling is not overturned eventually, the floodgates will have opened. What then stops the federal government from regulating absolutely everything we do at any given time for any given reason? Nothing, that's what. One of the comments on McCain's site does lend a bit of humor to the situation which helps keep things in perspective for me:

"As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power."

Oh this could be SO much fun. Let's try it with other Constitutional provisions:

"As previous Eighth Amendment cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. thoughts, there is little judicial guidance on whether a punishment that makes someone feel bad can constitute cruelty."

"As previous Freedom of the Press cases have all involved physical publication, as opposed to mental publication, i.e. ideas, there is little judicial guidance on the scope of First Amendment exceptions such as libel apply to the general police power against Badthought."

"As previous War Powers cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power."

"As previous Electoral College rules have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether deem-and-pass can apply in this context." 

Legal Insurrection as well has something to say about this. Via the Other McCain:


Our thoughts are now actions. There literally is nothing the federal government cannot regulate provided there is even a hypothetical connection to the economy, even if the connection at most is in the future.

A comment was left at my first post about this issue:

Hi. I am William M. Windsor. The report of what the Supreme Court has done is 100% valid. The decisions in the THREE actions filed at The Supreme Court are all easily accessed from the SCOTUS website -- http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx Just enter windsor, william, and then see 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690. These were original actions filed in The Supreme Court, and the justices were asked to declare that federal judges do not have the right to void and ignore the Constitution, the law, and the facts in cases. They refused to do so. They had THREE opportunities to tell their fellow judges to uphold the Constitution, and they refused to do so. They heard the case, and refused to tell judges to honor the Constitution!

The federal court system is corrupt. That's the issue. I have received calls and emails from close to 1,000 people, many relating their own stories of judicial corruption. A lot of normal law-abiding Americans are trying to keep our country from being a police state due to the tyrannical acts of federal judges who do whatever they want. The mainstream media won't touch this story because they are afraid of the judges. It will take people like you with your blog to educate the public. I believe this is the biggest crisis America has ever faced. Please see www.LawlessAmerica.com for lots of facts. If you have any questions, just email or call.

Thanks,
William M. Windsor
bill@LawlessAmerica.com

Any who have information regarding efforts to stop this monstrous practice please let me know so I can let others know in turn. Meantime I will be checking his sources and facts to be certain of what's going on.

Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.

Then we're in for a lot of trouble. The article is from CNBC.com. Will continue following and update as necessary:

ATLANTA, Jan. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED.




Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions: "There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court." The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was: "Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts." By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will.



William M. Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.



Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).



After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S.



Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this was detailed for the Supreme Court.



Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, and the justices of the United States Supreme Court function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S.



"My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.



"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us.



"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and on amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed." For more information, see www.LawlessAmerica.com.



Contact: William Windsor, +1-770-578-1094, bill@lawlessamerica.com SOURCE William M. Windsor www.prnewswire.com Copyright (C) 2011 PR Newswire. All rights reserved -0- KEYWORD: Georgia INDUSTRY KEYWORD: BKS SUBJECT CODE: LAW

Dear Statist Friends:

I know, I know. You’re already objecting to my letter. You don’t like the label “statist.” You don’t think of yourselves as worshipping government; rather, you think of yourselves as simply wanting to help people, with government being your preferred means to achieve what is usually a very worthy end. “Statist,” you say, is a loaded term—a pejorative that suggests an over-the-top affinity for the state.

Well, let’s wait and see how the term stacks up after you’ve read my whole letter and answered its questions. Meantime, if you have any doubt about whether this missive is directed at you, let me clarify to whom I am writing. If you’re among those many people who spend most of their time and energy advocating a litany of proposals for expanded government action, and little or no time recommending offsetting reductions in state power, then this letter has indeed found its mark.

You clever guys are always coming up with new schemes for government to do this or that, to address this issue or solve that problem, or fill some need somewhere. You get us limited-government people bogged down in the minutiae of how your proposed programs are likely to work (or not work), and while we’re doing the technical homework you seldom do, you demonize us as heartless number crunchers who don’t care about people.

Sometimes we all get so caught up in the particulars that we ignore the big picture. I propose that we step back for a moment. Put aside your endless list of things for government to do and focus on the whole package. I need some thoughtful answers to some questions that maybe, just maybe, you’ve never thought much about because you’ve been too wrapped up in the program du jour.

At the start of the 1900s, government at all levels in America claimed about 5 percent of personal income. A hundred years later, it takes something approaching 40 percent—up by a factor of eight. So my first questions to you are these: Why is this not enough? How much do you want? Fifty percent? Seventy percent? Do you want all of it? To what extent do you believe a person is entitled to what he (or she) has earned?

I want specifics. Like millions of Americans planning for their retirement or their children’s college education, I need to know. I’ve already sacrificed a lot of plans to pay your bills, but if you’re aiming for more, I’m going to have to significantly curtail my charitable giving, my discretionary spending, my saving for a rainy day, my future vacations, and perhaps some other worthwhile things.

I know what you’re thinking: “There you go again, you selfish character. We’re concerned about all the people’s needs and you’re only interested in your own bank account.” But who is really focused on dollars and cents here, you or me?

Why is it that if I disagree with your means, you almost always assume I oppose your ends? I want people to eat well, live long and healthy lives, get the prescription drugs and health care they need, etc., etc., just like you. But I happen to think there are more creative and voluntary ways to get the job done than robbing Peter to pay Paul through the force of government. Why don’t you show some confidence in your fellow citizens and assume that they can solve problems without you?

We’re not ignorant and helpless, in spite of your many poorly performing government schools and our having to scrape by with a little more than half of what we earn. In fact, give us credit for managing to do some pretty amazing things even after you take your 40 percent cut—things like feeding and clothing and housing more people at higher levels than any socialized society has ever even dreamed of.

This raises a whole series of related questions about how you see the nature of government and what you’ve learned, if anything, from our collective experiences with it. I see the ideal government as America’s founders did—in Washington’s words, a “dangerous servant” employing legalized force for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. As such, it is charged with deterring violence and fraud and keeping itself small, limited, and efficient. How can you profess allegiance to peace and nonviolence and at the same time call for so much forcible redistribution?

Don’t invoke democracy, unless you’re prepared to explain why might—in the form of superior numbers—makes right. Of course, I want the governed to have a big say in whatever government we have, but unlike you I have no illusions about any act’s being a legitimate function of government if its political supporters are blessed by 50 percent plus one of those who bother to show up at the polls. Give me something deeper than that, or I’ll round up a majority posse to come and rightfully claim whatever we want of yours.

Why is it that you statists never seem to learn anything about government? You see almost any shortcoming in the marketplace as a reason for government to get bigger but you rarely see any shortcoming in government as a reason for it to get smaller. In fact, I wonder at times if you are honestly capable of identifying shortcomings of government at all! Do we really have to give you an encyclopedia of broken promises, failed programs, and wasted billions to get your attention? Do we have to recite all the workers’ paradises that never materialized, the flashy programs that fizzled, the problems government was supposed to solve but only managed into expensive perpetuity?

Where, by the way, do you think wealth comes from in the first place? I know you’re fond of collecting it and laundering it through bureaucracies—“feeding the sparrows through the horses” as my grandfather once put it—but tell me honestly how you think it initially comes into being. Come on, now. You can say it: private initiative.

I’ve asked a lot of questions here, I know. But you have to understand that you’re asking an awful lot more in blood, sweat, tears, and treasure from the rest of us every time you pile on more government without lightening any of the previous load. If anything I’ve asked prompts you to rethink your premises and place some new restraints on the reach of the state, then maybe the statist label doesn’t apply to you. In which case, you can look forward to devoting more of your energies to actually solving problems instead of just talking about them, and liberating people instead of enslaving them.

Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Reed
President, Foundation for Economic Education (www.fee.org)
(Based on an essay originally published in FEE's journal, "The Freeman," in December 2000

This was originally posted by the Facebook page "Capitalism" on Facebook

Yesterday morning (Jan. 6th, as of this writing), something
unprecidented happened in the hallowed halls of the House of
Representatives. The elected representatives, all of them, a piece at
a time, read from beginning to end the Constitution of the United
States of America. We all know, of course, that this is a symbolic
gesture pushed by the new GOP majority in order to tell the people who
voted them in that they intended to do things right and actually
listen to and stand by the document our Founders gave us 223 years
ago. I, and I'm sure many others, however, will be watching these new
congressmen and women like hawks in order to make sure they hold their
own against the coming onslaught of ridicule and slander that the
liberal left will send their way (in some cases, they already have).

My astonishment isn't only with the idea that this congress might
actually keep its word after the last two failed miserably to do so,
but at the level of vitriol and ridicule being received just for the
idea of reading one of our founding documents. Such things in general
are to be expected from the other side, of course. Joy Behar calling
Sharon Angle a "bitch" for one, and even John Boehner's nickname given
to him by the media, the "Weeper of the House." That type of talk was
more than a little expected by me, and by many others. What I
personally did NOT expect to hear from these liberal talking heads,
however, was open contempt and hatred for the very document that the
representatives we elect are sworn to protect and defend.

Joy Behar, to bring us back to the redheaded dragon lady, actually
asked this loony question: "Don't you think this Constitution loving
is getting out of hand?" What? Does she even realize that that very
document is what reafffirms her freedom to slander it and those who
praise it incessantly? I doubt it.

One representative, Jerold Nadler, mocked the reading as nothing more
than "propaganda" and complained that the GOP was "reading it (the
Constitution) like it's a sacred text." Well in a way, isn't it? It is
the document that garauntees our freedom of speech, right to bear
arms, and protection against illegal searches and seizures. Shouldn't
we hold some reverence and respect for this document, as well as the
people who wrote it? Not according to him, apparently.

Ezra Klein, a man four years my junior and a few hundred brain cells
short of normal intelligence, said the Constitution was "confusing"
because it was "over a hundred years old" and thus "had no binding
power on anything." That statement basically calls into question the
very existence of the United States itself, given that without the
Constitution and Declaration of Independence (in my opinion the latter
moreso than the former) then there wouldn't BE a United States of
America at all, and the mouthpiece known as Ezra Klein would have no
forum to speak his mind if the wrong chucklehead was in power at the
time. He also, in the same breath as the above comments, called the
reading itself a "gimmick".

Now, I honestly don't know if the reading will have stuck a few months
into the new Congress. No one knows what they're going to do in the
future. We can only speculate. I am hopeful, however, as this reading
and the upcoming vote to repeal Obama's Deathcare bill next week are
signs that the new GOP is listening, something that the former
Democratic Supermajority never did. Call me an idealist, but as Ronald
Reagan said in his first inaugural address, I believe that "it is
morning again in America," and the future, should this trend continue,
is very bright indeed.

It was two hundred and thirty some years ago that the great ones we call the Founding Fathers crafted that glowing masterful expression of the American mind known as the United States Constitution. An originally four page document that was supposed to run an entire country. Granted, said country was much smaller and less populated back then than it is now, but the core principles still work, and some still believe in those principles, as evidenced by Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots, who just gave me an incredible bit of news. The new Food Safety Bill, which according to my local newspaper had passed the Senate has been sent back to chambers on the grounds of...wait for it...UNCONSTITUTIONALITY!

That's right, boys and girls, ladies and germs. The oh-so-touted food safety bill that would have given the FDA even more power over what we can and cannot eat has been sent back to chambers where it will, as most bills do when sent that way, most likely die a horrible, yet well-deserved death in the reconvened committee. I call this a definite win for the Limited Government team. Granted it is just one bill amidst a slew of others, but still, something about seeing such tyrannical measures defeated fills me with a bit of hope, and as we all know since the election of The Anointed One, that's been in a bit of short supply.

According to sources, the bill will likely be "blue slipped" by House Ways and Means Committee Dems, who seem to be now in the midst of a power struggle with their Senate counterparts. This is, I seriously doubt, the way that Senate Majority Leader Dingy Harry Reid imagined the reception of the bill going down. If Reid is smart, he'll let the matter drop. If he's not, and I'm more and more sure by the day that he isn't, he'll bitch and moan and cry until either the bill is ramrodded through, dies, or the lame duck session ends, whichever comes first.

See the actual entry at Patriots for more on this rather uplifting outcome.

So the Republicans unveiled there new Pledge With America today. I haven't actually read it yet, but I heard the basics while listening to Rush this morning before heading into work. All I can say is, from what I heard, it sounds an awful lot light Newt Gingrich's Contract With America that was drafted and signed in 1994.

If so, this country may yet be back on track within the next two months. After all, it states in writing exactly what the voters have been screaming about for the past two years. Cutting taxes, reigning in spending, and even canceling a sizable chunk of Obama's spending agenda. Namely TARP and all the bailouts. Wonderful, wonderful ideas all. Now, hopefully the new blood in Washington come November (knock wood) will be enough to purge D.C. of the stink that has been festering there for nigh on fifty years.

Of course, the Democrats and Leftist propaganda arm wasted no time in coming up with a clever yet insulting moniker for the pledge, calling it instead the "Plague to America", or some such thing. The George Soros funded Center for American Progress even has a story claiming that tax cuts and reduced spending will result in more debt and deficits. They have no credibility with me, of course, being that GS is nothing more than a globalist sociopath with aims at world domination (so Saturday Morning Cartoony, btw), so I'm not going to spend time lambasting them. Still, it bears resemblance to the attacks on Newt's Contract (Contract ON America, rather than WITH). Now, call me crazy, but if this IS just like the Contract With America from 94, wouldn't that mean that if implimented, it would have the same results? Just sayin'.

All of this, of course, is an attempt to smother once again the Age of Reagan. Ronald Reagan's tax cuts, as we all know, created over twenty million new private sector jobs, resulting in twelve years (Reagan 8, Bush 41 4) of straight economic growth, during which time poverty declined and the standard of living had risen for Americans all across the financial spectrum. As Jack Kemp used to say, a rising tide lifts all boats.

But it's not going to work. We the people are too well informed at this point. We the people see now first hand that socialism doesn't work. We the people want to, in short, throw the bums out and institute new blood in Washington. We're winning, too. That's why the spin machine is in overdrive and is doing so much so fast that even Obama's own supporters are tired of having to keep up.

Keep up the fight, fellow tin foil hat wearers. We're winning!

Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.

Fellow Tin-Foil-Hat-Wearers, I must confess something to you. Something that, as an arch-conservative, bible-thumping, gun-toting hick who hails originally from Nevada, I am somewhat loath to admit: I read Time and Newsweek magazine. Not regularly, you understand, it’s just an occasional thing when I find an article that I, using my free and independent (and therefore dangerous to liberal elites) mind that I can’t resist ripping to shreds that I delve deeply into the Forbidden Zone. I did such today and discovered an absolute gold mine of articles, each of which I will rip to shreds in turn in this post. As always, comments are encouraged (even though I get maybe two or, if I’m lucky, three tops, some of which are mine to begin with). So, shall we begin? Yes, I think we shall.

We go now to our favorite partisan hack of a commentator, Mr. Joe “Americans are Stupid” Klein. The article is entitled Tough Issues: What if we Gave People Real Choices and Real Consequences and let them Make Decisions? Now, upon reading that, I just about wet myself. Could Joe Klein have finally come to grips with what is truly ailing the nation as a whole? Could he in fact be delving into that as yet untapped resource known as the American People and attempting to actually come up with a fair way to assert our will over our self-appointed rulers? I dared hope for about five seconds and then, predictably, my hopes were dashed.

Klein seems to think that our whole “bottom up” set up is a new and revolutionary idea that we haven’t been employing for the last two hundred some-odd years with ridiculously unbridled success. Given who this guy is, I shouldn’t be surprised. Still, it does sometimes boggle the mind at how incredibly stupid Klein sounds when he tries to make himself sound smart. In the article, he mentions a Greek method of randomly choosing representatives to tackle the tough issues of the day and find solutions after talking with experts and collaborating. Holy secret ballot, Batman! That sounds like a great idea! Picking representatives to tackle the tough issues on behalf of the people they govern? We should implement that right away, don’t you think? YEAH! I say do it now…oh, wait…we already have something like that. It’s called the ELECTORAL PROCESS and it helps us elect REPRESENTATIVES to do exactly the thing that Klein believed (up until writing this piece of garbage, apparently) that the people were too stupid to handle. He did in fact say that we were too stupid to realize that we’d been given a (temporary) tax cut. I have yet to see such a thing on my paycheck, by the way. Week to week I get the same amount. No new cuts in taxes have allowed me to keep more of what I earn, but I’m getting off topic here.

The device that Klein mentions in his article is called a kleroterion. No idea just yet what the actual translation of that word is, but I’ll look it up. The K, as I’ll call it from now on, is basically a giant bingo basket full of balls with names on them that someone spins, and randomly picks out of the basket. The name of the person on the ball is chosen as a representative to join some sort of behind-closed-doors, unelected (the process is one of appointment by lot, remember) and therefore UNACCOUNTABLE commission set up by who-knows-who to tackle the tough issues. The irony in this is that the whole beginning of the article has Klein bemoaning the fact that our Might-be-Kenyan Moonbat has assigned blue ribbon commissions to study the very problems he now magically believes that the people can actually handle. In fact, that description above sounds like something the Russians had in the days of the Soviet Union. What did they call it? Oh, yeah. A Politburo.

Did you read that right? Yes, you did. Klein’s solution for deciding how to solve our big bad problems is to appoint an unconstitutional and unaccountable group of people who meet behind closed doors to make decisions without consulting the people they represent. Wow. Way to break the mold there, Klein.

Ah, the birth of our nation. Such a day brings to mind images of barbeque, fireworks, and family get-togethers. I have many such memories, the most recent of which is today's, where I successfully pulled off my own first 4th of July barbeque, where my fiance and I served a delectable spread of burgers, corn, and pudding for dessert.

As a kid, I had little to no realization of the history behind the holiday, except for what one learns in the elementary school textbooks. Only in recent years have I truly begun to really understand the importance of today.

I thought long and hard about what to post here in rememberance of the fourth, and I think this poem sums it up rather nicely:

"I hear a ghost of my country...
I hear a ghost of my country
Made real on this day in July
I am wrestled from tyranny's clutches
By the sound of its birthing cry
We are bound by a fair declaration
Of which I am a proud engineer
I hear a ghost of my country;
'Tis the promise of all I hold dear."

It's a poem written by John Adams in an issue of Captain America called "Ghosts of my Country". My fiance showed it to me and as I read the first page of the issue, I knew that this was what I wanted this post to center around. Even though in the comic John Adams (the author) doesn't quite like it, I think its simplicity puts this nation's birth into perspective rather nicely. We are the promise so many hold dear throughout the world, even now with a freedom hating president in the White House.

Here's to many more Fourths, and many more celebrations of freedom for every other freedom loving country across the globe.

Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.

Truer words were never spoken, and will never again be spoken in my opinion. I just read a great post on a sight called American Thinker entitled "You Can't Take God out of American History." So true, so true. Apparently a math teacher had several phrases posted on her walls mentioning god, such as In God We Trust and God Bless America. The school sued the teacher in an attempt to get her to take it down but the judge ruled in favor of the math teacher on the grounds that his rights under the first amendment had been violated. Hallelujah! Sanity from the judges bench! I was beginning to think it was an endangered species.

I am currently watching the Glenn Beck Program on TiVo, and I have just been served up a healthy dose of real hope. Apparently a majority of the states (2/3rds according to Beck himself) are reading some wierd document called the United States Constitution. Huh. And here I thought we weren't supposed to read that thing...oh, well. Might as well look at it myself...oh, looky here...the Tenth Ammendment...let's see...the rights not specifically granted to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution shall be retained by the states or the people...

Wait...did I read that right? The rights not specifically granted to the federal government...yeah...states or the people...okay, yep. Read it right. States and people have rights.

Well, it seems to me that several dozen states have realized that the health care bill is...wait for it...UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Holy Church and State, Batman! What a revelation!

Now, as an added sort of protection against this horrific mess of a bill, two thirds of the states are passing CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENTS to prevent that damn thing from becoming law in each state that passes one!

Amazing. 2/3. Can all of these people be that racist? How dare they!