Will someone stick a sock in the mouth of people like Rubio?

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., appeared on the Senate floor around 2 a.m. Wednesday to file the 844-page bill. It is the product of weeks of negotiations among the Senate's "Gang of Eight," a bipartisan group that includes Schumer and seven others.

"This bill marks the beginning of an important debate," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said. "And I believe it will fix our broken system by securing our borders, improving interior enforcement, modernizing our legal immigration to help create jobs and protect American workers, and dealing with our undocumented population in a tough but humane way that is fair to those trying to come here the right way and linked to achieving several security triggers."

The hell it will.

Just the fact that you're talking about it has already led to a huge spike in illegal crossings from Mexico.

The fact that we already allow illegals to obtain various benefits from the public trough, including but not limited to access to educational resources that we all pay for but they do not, is among the problems.

The fact that we already allow them to show up in a hospital and get "emergency" care, where if you try that crap in Mexico you won't only get tossed out you might get arrested, is also part of the problem.

The fact that there are millions of Americans who are (1) on welfare and (2) can work, yet you wish to admit more people to the nation who will then compete for jobs, especially low-wage jobs, is a huge part of the problem.

Never mind the fact that any person who, as their first act in the United States, breaks the law, has already told me all I need to know about their character -- money is more important than honor, integrity, and the rule of law.

Oh wait -- that's exactly why we have this problem in CONGRESS too, right?  Money is more important than honor, integrity and the rule of law!

I say we deport the sponsors of this bill to North Korea.  

All of them.

Heh Schumer, remember this you TRAITOROUS DOUCHE, which YOU were involved in?

In the you know how it is column, we have the following.

First, Eric (Place)Holder received some "unexpected" support from -- you guessed it -- Democrats in Congress, who used the cover the holidays to file the following:

A little-noticed brief filed last Thursday by House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Elijah Cummings and fellow Democrats John Conyers, Jr., Henry A. Waxman, Edolphus Towns and Louise M. Slaughter, asks the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss without prejudice the civil complaint by the Oversight Committee against Eric Holder following the Attorney General being found in contempt of Congress for refusing to produce subpoenaed documents related to the Fast and Furious gunwalking investigation.

This is, because, well, the chief law enforcement officer of the country shouldn't actually have to obey the law.  That's for us peasants, you see.

Next we have the NY Shooter.  Yes, that one; the wonderful nice guy who shot and killed firefighters -- after lighting a fire on purpose.  The media has been oddly silent about this "mass shooting", and with good reason: This clown did 17 years in prison for killing his 92-year old grandmother with a hammer, and we let him out.

He also left a note saying that he intended to do "what he liked best -- kill people."

That's a fine upstanding citizen for you, and someone who we should let out of prison -- right?  Well, he couldn't buy guns since he was a convicted felon, but that didn't stop him.  Unlike many who simply steal them, however, he got a 24 year old lady to buy them for him!

That's a crime, and she's now been arrested.  Incidentally all the gun stores around here have nice big signs warning you that buying a gun for someone else (and lying on the form) is a criminal offense, so it's rather unlikely she didn't know.

Of course the media is making nice-nice about how this guy was such a "model prisoner."  Yeah, ok.  I guess after clubbing your grandmother to death with a hammer you get extra brownie points for being nice in prison.  Right?

Can we have a discussion about people going to prison for serious offenses then then letting them out unsupervised where they get a second crack at serious crime?  Like, for instance, the jackass in the Tampa area that murdered a Marshal who showed up to serve him some papers? 

He had a penchant for violent crime too -- he had done time for stealing both cars and guns, along with resisting arrest, and after getting out of prison for that he decided he'd like to try his hand at sexual assault.  He was again let out, and this time decided that blasting a law enforcement officer was a good idea. 

Have the lefty liberals ever considered that maybe he was simply one of the few percent of the population that is incapable of living around other people without initiating violence against them? 

You can't have this one both ways folks -- if you're going to play the "compassionate jailer" routine then you have to accept that some reasonably-large percentage of these people will offend again, and sometimes when they do people will die.

Finally, we have the voices in the head thing once more.  This time it appears to have involved the man who was pushed into an oncoming Subway train in NY. 

Erika Menendez, 31, was charged with second-degree murder as a hate-crime for allegedly pushing Sunando Sen, 46, into a No. 7 train in the Queens borough of New York on the night of Dec. 27, Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said today in a statement.

Menendez, who lives in the Bronx, admitted pushing Sen and said she was prompted by the terrorist attacks in 2001, according to Brown. She said “in sum and substance ’I pushed a Muslim off the train tracks because I hate Hindus and Muslims ever since 2001 when they put down the twin towers I’ve been beating them up,’” according to the district attorney.

I see.  Oh let's not forget this part -- you know, the "muttering and talking to oneself" part:

Menendez was seen talking to herself while seated on a bench at the 40th Street-Lowery Street station and was also observed pacing on the platform and muttering to herself.

"Simple" murder or maybe a bit of psychosis added in there?  Does it really matter?  Not much, and unfortunately there's not a whole lot you can do about this sort of thing.  It would be nice if there was, but the facts don't quite fit all nice and neat with any sort of narrative on that.  Unless the accused had shown signs of being dangerous to others previously I don't know how you prevent someone from expressing a sudden murderous rage in a public place.  Of note is that she didn't need a gun or a knife to shove the victim in a front of an oncoming train.

Speaking of knives....

Look where we're headed.  You know, after they manage to (foolishly) get you to give up your guns.  That's right -- next will be your kitchen knife:

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase – and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

“We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect.”

I will give up my Henckels when they...... oh never mind.

I wish the last was a joke.

There are many alleged Christians who treat the 10 Commandments as the "10 Suggestions", and as such it should not surprise anyone that the Constitution's 10 original Amendments, otherwise known as The Bill of Rights, are also treated as "10 Suggestions."

But they're not.

I, for one, am putting a stake in the ground -- over this line thou shalt not pass if any politician, political group or party wishes me to support, endorse, work for, contribute money to or otherwise be involved with them.

That's the issue of marriage.

The US Supreme Court is likely to issue some sort of ruling on DOMA, The Defense of Marriage Act, just another in a long line of unconstitutional laws.

Here's the argument raised by both sides:

“Of course, Congress has the right to define such a fundamental institution,” said Brian Brown, president of the Washington-based National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex nuptials. “This is a question for the representatives of the people. Congress represents the people.”

Sorry, but no.

Congress is expressly limited to the powers granted to it under The Constitution.  That document is not one of exclusions, it is one of defined and limited powers.  If you cannot find an explicit delegation of power to do a specific thing in the Constitution, Congress lacks the power and authority to do it, irrespective of what the people want.

There is only one proper way for Congress to acquire a power it does not have -- amend the Constitution.  That is a difficult process on purpose as it explicitly protects the rights of all by making it extremely hard to accomplish, and therefore it is only something that can occur under fairly extreme circumstances, backed by huge supermajorities of the people.

This is how liberty flourishes.

Note that there are a few voices in the wildnerness, other than mine, on this issue putting forward what I argue is the only correct and Constitutional position:

The colloquy on same-sex marriage ignores the most compelling alternative: abolish civil marriage. The classic way for a diverse polity to resolve contentious issues with minimum strife is to decentralize and privatize those issues. A world without civil marriage would be a world in which everyone can pursue his or her own vision of marriage without imposing those views on others.

Abolishing civil marriage would ultimately be good for marriage by ending the government's legal monopoly defining the family. The resulting competition among alternative forms of marriage would strengthen the institution, just as competition among religions has made America a more religious society than societies with established churches.

Though not without its complications (including the problems of transition), abolishing civil marriage is the best alternative for our diverse society.

Edward A. Zelinsky
Benjamin N. Cardozo
School of Law
Yeshiva University
New York

The larger issue is that the Federal Government lacks the authority to define marriage.  It's not in the Constitution as a delegated federal power.  Period.

I have repeatedly argued exactly this point, but it seems that everyone loves their wedge issues.  So be it -- but I won't support it, and that's a non-negotiable position.  No, I will not "go along to get along", I will instead erect my middle finger in the direction of those who demand that I surrender principle and accede to racism and other forms of institutionalized discrimination.

The incessant pandering on the left, right, and so-called Libertarians (who are lying through their teeth -- anyone claiming they are Libertarian when they simultaneously demand to be able to initiate force against those who disagree with them on what "marriage" is declares their claim of being "Libertarian" as an outrageous perversion and abject fraud) is disgusting and un-American. 

These people -- all of them -- use our Constitution as toilet paper, just as surely as do those who abuse the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments.

Their arguments further intentionally disregard the history of civil marriage law, which clearly evidences intent as an enforcement tool for racism; the earliest civil marriage regulations in America were put into place to prevent intermarriage between white people and both blacks and native Americans.  These laws were continued through Reconstruction as a means of preventing former slaves from marrying white people.  These are facts, not suppositions, and even the most-trivial of research can find these laws and their specific statutory language, some of which are still on the books even though rendered inoperative by court decision.

(And incidentally, if you want to know why have "Gun Control", which began with The Gun Control Act of 1968, you need only look to The Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It was only when "those people" could own guns that suddenly we needed "gun control laws"; for the same reason I adamantly refuse to support political candidates who think there is "compromise" on "gun control" -- those laws, as with marriage laws, were intended and enacted for racist purpose.)

But that simply adds disgust and outrage to the fact that you cannot find in the Constitution authority for the Federal Government to "define" marriage or enforce any provision related to it; such a power was never delegated.  The 10th Amendment makes clear that whatever is not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government is not under Federal purview; it belongs to the states or the people individually

Yes, I understand that the 10th Amendment and indeed the entire Constitution is, today, honored more in the breach than the observance.  But two or more wrongs do not make a right and that someone has violated the law serially, notoriously and openly does not excuse continued abuse. 

Those who claim to be "liberty" advocates yet refuse to get the government the hell out of the people's bedrooms are Statists, not Liberty candidates or parties. 

Period.

So here is my line in the sand -- my stake in the ground.

Government has no right to define, privilege, disabuse, recognize or debar any consensual living arrangement among adults, irrespective of whether the justification is civil, religious or otherwise.   The only legitimate government role is in the provision of a place where people can adjudicate disputes between themselves in a civil format, commonly called "a courtroom", and where contractual matters, freely entered into, can be heard and allocation of damages, if any, can occur subject to public review and where such agreements must be adjudicated without prejudice irrespective of the parties thereto. 

In short if you want to get married, go see a Priest.

Any political group that wants my support, endorsement or effort, irrespective of who it is or what flag they wave, can conform to and advance this position or my response to their entreaty for my assistance, support, endorsement or money is and shall be most-easily expressed in two simple words:

Piss off.

Sigh....

Two dozen young people were arrested after causing disturbances near and on the Magnificent Mile Saturday afternoon, Chicago police said this morning.

Of those arrested, 20 were juveniles and four were adults after the incidents Saturday evening, police said. Most were cited or charged with misdemeanor reckless conduct.

Uh huh.  "Disturbances" eh?

Let's cut the crap -- this was a "spontaneous event" that was about to turn into a wholesale looting and robbery operation on the people there.  And incidentally, there are reports that recognized local rappers and gang members were not arrested.

It's all ok though folks, we can just placate the masses with more "free cheese" and keep spending money we don't have, all the while allowing this sort of wilding to go on with a disarmed populace -- right?

Ps: There were several shootings this weekend in Chicago too, including one just three blocks from Obama's house.  Don't worry, come to Chicago, it's all good -- oh, and be prepared to be mugged, and leave your gun at home -- this is a target-rich environment for thugs by design.

I wonder if the Chicago cops can shoot any better than the NYC ones....

I wonder how long it will take....

Although the U.S. murder rate has been dropping for years, an analysis of homicide data by The Wall Street Journal found that the number of black male victims increased more than 10%, to 5,942 in 2010 from 5,307 in 2000.

Overall, more than half the nation's homicide victims are African-American, though blacks make up only 13% of the population. Of those black murder victims, 85% were men, mostly young men.

You don't often see the press point this out.  Most murders are black-on-black.  Young, black men murdering other young, black men.  I've written on this before and until we take this on, and then act on the precursors to the problem and put a stop to them we will never see a solution.

The precursor is the drug war and an eviscerated manufacturing section of our economy that offers few good jobs for those who are not "rocket scientists."

But there is an economy that offers riches and "street cred."  It's drug peddling.  Drug peddling that our government itself is involved in, including explicit permission, it is alleged, for various Mexican cartels. 

Let's face reality -- guns are expensive and so is ammunition.  Very expensive, when you don't have a good job.  They are turned into tools, status symbols, means of "expression" like gold grills in kids' teeth, the latter of which we have among high schoolers these days.

We're never going to solve this problem with "more police, more interdiction, more stop-n-frisks, more evisceration of fundamental liberty interests."

We will stop it if and when we stop using the jack boot of government to enable 15 year old black youth the means by which they can afford a pistol, the ammunition to feed it and a reason to use it. 

But that requires that we start treating people like Eric Holder as the criminals that they are, holding them to account as accessories and co-conspirators to the drug running and gang shootings that take place because of our government policies on drugs and our explicit permission granted to certain cartels to run them. 

It means that we recognize that the government has no right to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own home, freeing up half or more of our prisons and expunging every drug-related (but not violence-related) record from our legal system so those individuals with no other than non-violent drug records are able to return to the productive workforce rather than be toilet-bowl cleaners in perpetuity.  It means treating drug addiction as a personal medical issue that comes with no right of government intercession until and unless one threatens to or does harm another, exactly as we do with alcohol.  It means returning to the roots of the Second Amendment, so that every law-abiding citizen can be armed, wherever and whenever they want, for the explicit purpose of not being an unarmed victim. And it means locking up violent offenders, whether they be robbers, rapists or murderers until they are no longer a threat -- and never, ever giving them more than one "second chance."

And finally, it means that we have to stop pretending that shipping our manufacturing labor offshore to what amount to slave camps in foreign nations, where they poison the air, water and land, abuse the population with the help of those governments and then move on as soon as it becomes unprofitable is either sustainable or wise in terms of what it means for either them or us and our people -- because it is simply a fact that not everyone is a rocket scientist, and we need good, decent, honest jobs to be available for people of all levels of personal ability.

We're not ready to do any of that, and until we are, this problem is not solvable.