How to Spot a Hypocrite in the Gun Debate and Other Reflections on Newtown

Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
How to Spot a Hypocrite in the Gun Debate and Other Reflections on Newtown
For those of you that follow me on Facebook, some of the statements and themes you will read in this blog will sound familiar.  What happened on December 14, 2012 was obviously a horrific tragedy that my simple mind can’t possibly wrap itself around, but what I can do is send my deepest thoughts, prayers and sympathies to all of those affected.  I can’t imagine the level of pain and suffering you are all experiencing.  This article; however, isn’t directed at you.  There is nothing I can do to ease your pain.  This article is for the rest of us who weren’t directly affected by the incident, but may be indirectly affected by certain parties’ emotional response to it and by those that will exploit it to justify agendas.
One of the key lessons from all of human history is that the easy way to deal with any tragedy is to scapegoat.  In some cases, like in Nazi Germany, the scapegoat proved to be unpopular minorities, especially Jews.  These days, many Americans have fallen into the trap of scapegoasting Muslims and the Islamic religion for all the bad things that happen on the planet.  The key similarity I see in these sorts of situations is that the population affected by some trauma (hyperinflation and economic collapse in Germany and 9/11 in the United States) tends to resort to the knee-jerk reaction of scapegoating an easy target rather than diving into the complexities of the issue and engaging in societal self-reflection.  This is extraordinarily dangerous.
From what I can tell, some of the most ridiculous polices are the direct result of a trauma, people getting emotional, and then begging for a response. In my own lifetime, 9/11 is the perfect example.  Our national response to a gruesome attack that killed thousands of innocent civilians was to tear up the Constitution, specifically the cherished Bill of Rights, with insane Big Brother type legislation like the “Patriot” Act.  We basically launched the war on terror by waving a white flag.  Truly defeating terrorists wouldn’t have consisted of running to the mall and shopping, as George W. Bush insisted, or giving up the freedoms that made America the most attractive country to move to for the last two hundred years.  The way to judge victory or defeat in the ”war on terror” eleven years later is not to check the statistics on terrorist attacks.  The way to judge victory or defeat is to look at the nation economically, socially and politically and ask yourself are we better off or worse off?  I think the verdict is clear on that front, and I do in large part blame our childish and emotionally charged reaction to the national tragedy of 9/11.
Well here we stand in mid-December 2012, just days from the Mayan end of the world and another national tragedy has been unleashed on the land.  Most of the victims were innocent, helpless six and seven year old children that never even had the chance to fulfill their potential on this planet.  Unfortunately, just as Ron Paul told us, key parts of the Patriot Act were written and desired by certain factions well before 9/11, there is a powerful faction in the highest echelons of the elite that have wanted and continue to want to remove guns from the hands of innocent American citizens.  These people are not interested in easing violence; these folks want to disarm the public before the mathematically inevitable economic collapse occurs.  While many of these folks claim publicly that there is an “economic recovery” and happy days are just over the horizon, they know better and privately want to get all their ducks in a row before the final and horrific collapse occurs.  This is why the surveillance state is making such aggressive strides at the moment. It is also why there is a panic to remove firearms from the public.
The person who bothers me the most on this entire topic is Mayor Michael Bloomberg, of New York City.  You can tell when someone is disingenuous if they freak out over gun violence like it is the biggest issue in America today and at the same time protect the banksters and their “too big to fail” culture, which has and continues to systemically steal trillions of dollars from the poor.  This is Michael Bloomberg to a tee, so this man should have no credibility on any moral subject when he protects and coddles the most dangerous criminal organizations on this planet.  I guess there is something “liberal” about white collar crime.
 The other way to spot a hypocrite is to see whether they ever speak out about other acts of violence, or if they only open their mouths when it comes to gun incidents.  I see this attitude all over the “fake left” landscape. If someone you know, or someone in the media never decries American drone strikes that kill children regularly in the forgotten parts of the globe, yet jumps at every gun incident like it is the end of the world, that person has an agenda. That person hates guns, not necessarily violence.  They do not have a clear head in this argument.
Zerohedge.com put together an excellent article called Newtown Shooter Had Asperger Syndrome, And Some US Gun Facts, which I suggest everyone read.  They go into the fact that mental illness seems to be the determining factor in most of these shooting incidents and also points out that the deadliest school massacre in U.S. history was The Bath School Disaster, which was carried out with dynamite, not firearms.  From justfacts.com we learn that:
In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.
These emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents resulted in 5,045 hospitalizations, constituting 0.4% of 1.4 million non-fatal accident hospitalizations that year.
During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.
The homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.
The interesting thing about all of this is because of differentiated gun laws in these United States we can see how effective gun bans really are in the places where they are in effect.  The answer seems to be not very effective.  This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, as what ends up happening with gun bans is that only criminals end up with guns.  A criminal will not obey the law, and even in the Newtown shooting case, these weren’t Adam Lanza’s guns.  He stole them from his own mother.
For the record, I’d love a world without gun violence, but as long as criminal governments have them and start wars, the people have the right as well.  The actions of one or several mentally ill people should not lead to the restriction of a Constitutionally enshrined right for the hundreds of millions of law abiding, honest citizens that use firearms responsibly.  In fact, with an estimated 300 million firearms within these United States, I’d say it’s somewhat impressive how little gun violence there is.
Unfortunately, going forward, I expect gun violence to escalate.  I don’t think this is a result of the number of guns as much the result of increased poverty and societal marginalization as a result of the economic catastrophe we are witnessing.  A direct result of criminal theft by the "too big to fail" financial institutions that gun haters like Michael Bloomberg protect and serve.  It is also the result of the increasingly sick culture that has developed in America.   One that is in many ways a reflection of the sickness and depravity at the very top of U.S. society emanating from the political and economic oligarchs.  It reminds me of the anti-drug commercial from the 1980′s where the son says to the father “from you dad, I learned it by watching you.”  It’s the same with violence in America. Our own government leads by example.
Recall the words of Justice Brandeis before jumping to emotional conclusions on the gun debate.  We already made that tragic mistake once this millennium.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

Neocons and Democrats Work in Congress to Support Obama's Illegal War

As the mad bombers at NATO engage in a public relations stunt in response to the fallout from the slaughter of innocent Libyan civilians, here in the United States a few dignified members of Congress are attempting to put a halt to the illegal war.
Obama’s order to bomb Libya was obviously unconstitutional. He did not consult Congress let alone seek a declaration of war, as spelled in Article One Section Eight of the Constitution. Democrats want to pass some sort of after the fact resolution signing off on Obama’s war, but they fear opponents will take advantage of any such hearings to denounce the president.
In response, Obama’s minions insist they don’t need to follow no stinkin’ Constitution. “Obama administration officials claim they don’t need Congress’ permission to launch what they describe as kinetic military activity,” reports Fox News.
After Secretary of Forever War Robert Gates acknowledged Obama’s little war has so far cost the American people $550 million and would continue to cost about $40 million a month, a few in Congress used the math to attack the globalist operation.
Gates said the Pentagon will need a supplement budget to fund the operation.
On Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul introduced a nonbinding resolution that states the president “does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Paul said Obama’s acts are a “very serious breach of our Constitution.”
Rep. Dennis Kucinich has proposed an amendment to ban funding for the Libya campaign while Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a Maryland Republican, introduced a bill aimed at making sure the Libya operation does not add to the deficit.

Instead of calling for an end to the illegal onslaught, the Bartlett proposal would require Obama to provide Congress with a list of proposed cuts from the discretionary, non-military section of the budget to cover the military’s expenses in Libya. In other words, Bartlett and the Republicans would cut grandma’s Social Security to pay for the globalist adventure.
“We find ourselves in a situation where Congress is debating cuts in domestic programs to make essential progress on the deficit, even as President Obama has initiated an expensive, open-ended military commitment in a country that his defense secretary says is not a vital interest,” said Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Meanwhile, Senate neocons are drafting a resolution to slap the gloss of legality on Obama’s war. Sen. John McCain is working with Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass, GOP boss Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn, to come up with a symbolic “sense of the Senate” motion or something with more sticking power to legitimize the illegal war.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said debate on a resolution authorizing military force after the fact could open the door for opponents to rally against the resolution.

Kerry went so far as to say he doesn’t think Congress needs to sign off on the military action after the fact, but Congress may come up with a bill regardless.

In other words, the unitary presidency is alive and well, never mind how loudly Democrats howled when Bush did the same thing.

Assault on Collective Bargaining Illegal

The International Commission for Labor Rights (ICLR) sent a notice to the Wisconsin Legislature, explaining that its attempt to strip collective bargaining rights from public workers is illegal.

Anyone who has watched the events unfolding in Wisconsin and other states that are trying to remove collective bargaining rights from public workers has heard people protesting the loss of their "rights." The ICLR explained to the legislature exactly what these rights are and why trying to take them away is illegal.

The ICLR is a New York-based nongovernmental organization that coordinates a pro bono network of labor lawyers and experts throughout the world. It investigates labor rights violations and issues reports on issues of labor law.

The ICLR identified the right of "freedom of association" as a fundamental right and affirmed that the right to collective bargaining is an essential element of freedom of association. These rights, which have been recognized worldwide, provide a brake on unchecked corporate or state power.

In 1935, when Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (also known as the NLRA, or the Wagner Act), it recognized the direct relationship between the inequality of bargaining power of workers and corporations and the recurrent business depressions. That is, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners, the economy fell into depression. The law therefore recognized as policy of the United States the encouragement of collective bargaining.

While the NLRA covered US employees in private employment, the law protecting collective bargaining in both the public and private sectors has developed since 1935 to cover all workers "without distinction."

 The opening paragraph of the ICLR statement reads:

As workers in the thousands and hundreds of thousands in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio and around the country demonstrate to protect the right of public sector workers to collective bargaining, the political battle has overshadowed any reference to the legal rights to collective bargaining. The political battle to prevent the loss of collective bargaining is reinforced by the fact that stripping any collective bargaining rights is blatantly illegal. Courts and agencies around the world have uniformly held the right of collective bargaining in the public sector is an essential element of the right of Freedom of Association, which is a fundamental right under both International law and the United States Constitution.

The ICLR statement summarizes the development of this law from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights through the International Labor Organization's (ILO) conventions on freedom of association (that is, the right to form and join unions) and collective bargaining. It cites court cases from the United States and around the world. All embrace freedom of association as a fundamental right and recognize the right to collective bargaining as an essential element of freedom of association.

Some anti-union voices argue that since federal employees presently do not have the right to bargain collectively, neither should state workers. In fact, the argument should go the other way. The law cited in the ICLR statement means that denying federal employees collective bargaining rights - which they have had over the years when presidents have recognized them by executive order - is just as illegal as denying collective bargaining rights to state public employees. President Obama should take this opportunity to reinstate the rights of federal employees to collective bargaining.

States Rebeling Against TSA

Legislation has been introduced into the Texas House of Representatives that directly challenges the authority of the TSA in airports within the state, specifically aimed at criminalizing the use of naked body scanners and enhanced pat-downs.
Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview) introduced a set of bills earlier this week that would empower the Texas Attorney General to bring suit in court against any airport operator who installs or uses the full body imaging equipment or any operator who touches a person without consent and searches them without probable cause.
The bills, HB 1938 and HB 1937 would see criminal and civil penalties handed out to any TSA worker who was found to have contravened the laws.
HB 1938 reads in part:

(b) An airport operator may not allow body imaging scanning equipment to be installed or operated in any airport in this state.

(c) An airport operator commits an offense if the operator fails to comply with Subsection (b).

(d) An airport operator who commits an offense under Subsection (c) is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $1,000 for each day of the violation.

HB 1937 includes the following:

(3) as part of a search performed to grant access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(A) searches another person without probable cause to believe the person committed an offense; and

(B) touches the anus, sexual organ, or breasts of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.

(f) …. An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a state jail felony.

 Constitutional watchdog, The Texas Tenth Amendment Center noted that “the Texas legislature stands on solid ground. Local governments control airports and no enumerated power in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to regulate them. Under the Tenth Amendment, airport operation falls under state jurisdiction.”
Texas, and in particular Austin, has been at the forefront of the revolt against the TSA since it began increasing its presence in airports some eighteen months ago.
The TSA has signaled its intention to install the scanners at Austin, but the date has continually been put back, with the agency saying it could now be as late as 2012 before the devices are activated.
Texas is the latest state to introduce anti-TSA legislation, as a growing number seek to revolt against the federal government’s enhanced presence in airports and other transport hubs.
Earlier this week, New Hampshire introduced legislation that would classify the TSA’s use of enhanced pat-downs as sexual assault, punishable in the same way as other sexual offenses.
House Bill 628-FN, co-sponsored by both sides of the political spectrum would classify “the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault.”
Any government worker found guilty of such an offense would be classified as “tier III offenders under the criminal offenders registry” should the bill be passed.
“Let’s put their name on the sex offender registry, and maybe that will tell them New Hampshire means business,” stated cosponsor Rep. Andrew Manuse (D-Derry). Cosponsor Rep. George Lambert (R-Litchfield) stated that “we should charge (agents) every single time” they assault passengers with a pat down or naked body scan.
A number of other lobby groups, state and local authorities around the country have also resolved to either block the body scanners or kick the TSA out of airports altogether, including New Jersey, where Republican state Senator Mike Doherty has vowed to push for legislation that will ban both the scanners as well as invasive groping techniques.
“It is with great sadness that I have come to recognize that one of our greatest threats has been presented by officials of the TSA who have begun to implement intrusive searches of law abiding Americans who are traveling within our borders.” Doherty has said.
“I am drafting new legislation that will make it perfectly clear that in New Jersey, our Constitutionally granted civil liberties are treasured and will be protected. I am calling upon my colleagues in the Legislature to step up and co-sponsor legislation that will protect the rights of citizens in New Jersey,” he added.
The TSA has not officially responded to the proposals in Texas and New Hampshire, however, in a speech at the American Bar Association’s (ABA) 6th Annual Homeland Security Law Institute in Washington Thursday, TSA head John S. Pistole intimated that the agency was considering completely changing its security approach away from a “one size fits all” approach towards a more “intelligence-driven system,” that would focus on “higher-risk passengers,”
“Everyone is familiar with the current system in place that screens nearly everyone the same way,” Pistole said. “My vision is to accelerate TSA’s evolution into a truly risk-based, intelligence-driven organization in every way.” he added, without being specific about what such changes would entail.
I'm just wondering if the State of Kansas will have the balls to stand up to the Federal Government like this?

Fear Extreme Islamists in the Arab World? Blame Washington!

In the last year of his life, Martin Luther King Jr. questioned US military interventions against progressive movements in the Third World by invoking a JFK quote: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Were he alive to witness the last three decades of US foreign policy, King might update that quote by noting: "Those who make secular revolution impossible will make extreme Islamist revolution inevitable."

For decades beginning during the Cold War, US policy in the Islamic world has been aimed at suppressing secular reformist and leftist movements. Beginning with the CIA-engineered coup against a secular democratic reform government in Iran in 1953 (it was about oil), Washington has propped up dictators, coaching these regimes in the black arts of torture and mayhem against secular liberals and the left.

In these dictatorships, often the only places where people had freedom to meet and organize were mosques - and out of these mosques sometimes grew extreme Islamist movements. The Shah's torture state in Iran was brilliant at cleansing and murdering the left - a process that helped the rise of the Khomeini movement and ultimately Iran's Islamic Republic.

In a pattern growing out of what King called Washington's "irrational, obsessive anti-communism," US foreign policy also backed extreme Islamists over secular movements or government that were either Soviet-allied or feared to be.

In Afghanistan, beginning BEFORE the Soviet invasion and evolving into the biggest CIA covert operation of the 1980s, the US armed and trained native mujahedeen fighters - some of whom went on to form the Taliban. To aid the mujahedeen, the US recruited and brought to Afghanistan religious fanatics from the Arab world - some of whom went on to form Al Qaeda. (Like these Washington geniuses, Israeli intelligence - in a divide-and-conquer scheme aimed at combating secular leftist Palestinians - covertly funded Islamist militants in the occupied territories who we now know as Hamas.)

This is hardly obscure history.

Except in US mainstream media.

One of the mantras on US television news all day Friday was: Be fearful of the democratic uprisings against US allies in Egypt (and Tunisia and elsewhere). After all, we were told by Fox News and CNN and Chris Matthews on MSNBC, it could end up as bad as when "our ally" in Iran was overthrown and the extremists came to power in 1979.

Such talk comes easy in US media where Egyptian victims of rape and torture in Mubarak's jails are never seen. Where it's rarely emphasized that weapons of repression used against Egyptian demonstrators are paid for by US taxpayers. Where Mubarak is almost always called "president" and almost never "dictator" (unlike the elected president of Venezuela).

When the US media talks about the Egyptian and Tunisian "presidents" being valued "allies in the war on terror," it's no surprise that they offer no details about the prisoners the US has renditioned to these "pro-Western" countries for torture.

The truth is that no one knows how these uprisings will end.

But revolution of some kind, as King said, seems inevitable. Washington's corrupt Arab dictators will come down as surely (yet more organically) as that statue of Saddam, another former US ally.

If Washington took its heel off the Arab people and ended its embrace of the dictators, that could help secularists and democrats win hearts and minds against extreme Islamists.

Democracy is a great idea. Too bad it plays almost no role in US foreign policy.

Egypt: U.S. Puppet Regime On Verge of Collapse

In an interview with NPR, Joe Biden stumbles his way through soft ball questions about Egypt and the dictator Hosni Mubarak, who Biden identifies as a personal friend. In the process, Biden reveals the U.S. attitude toward dictators and client states.
“Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things,” said Biden. “And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with — with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator.”
Remarkably, Biden is considered the go-to man in the Obama administration on foreign policy. The vice president has been famously and consistently called a foreign policy expert by the Washington establishment. In fact, President Obama admitted during his campaign for president that he relied on Biden’s foreign policy advice while both men were in the Senate.
Mubarak’s knuckle-dragging dictatorship is so crucial to the foreign policy of the United States, it is the number two recipient of money (it receives around $2 billion per year). Only Israel receives more.
Egypt under Mubarak uses its billions in U.S. military aid to detain, beat and torture dissenters, opposition politicians and journalists; many have died in custody, Thousands of political prisoners and pro-democracy activists are held in overcrowded, disease-ridden prisons, without charges or trials. Press restrictions, including newspaper shutdowns, are widespread.
This sort of behavior is not the exception but the rule. Egypt has faced repeated criticism from human rights activists and others for decades.
Biden told NPR the U.S. government encourages Egypt to embrace democracy, but this is at best a sick joke.
In 2005, after similar gentle nudging from the Bush administration, Mubarak allowed opposition candidates to run against him, including Ayman Nour. After Nour won a paltry 7 percent of the vote (according to the Egyptian government), he was arrested on politically motivated charges of forgery and sentenced him to five years in prison, thus sending a strong message to anybody who would dare challenge Mubarak.
Since Tuesday, Egypt has witnessed widespread protests against poverty and corruption, and calls for democratic changes. Authorities suspended Internet and cell phone service, according to news reports and mobile operators, in an attempt to block media coverage and communications between protesters. Security forces today continued violent physical attacks on journalists. Mubarak’s thugs have targeted the BBC, Al-Jazeera, CNN, and French journalists working for Le Figaro, Journal du Dimanche, Sipa Photo Agency, and Paris Match.
Beating up journalists and confiscating their equipment, however, will not prevent the regime’s collapse, which now appears imminent.
Even the globalists gathered in Davos, Switzerland, are issuing hollow calls for Egypt to guarantee the freedoms of its residents and eschew violence in order to avoid the fall of Biden’s friend in Cairo.
Prior to the threat posed against Mubarak’s authoritarian rule financed mainly by the U.S. tax payer, Ban Ki-moon and the globalists did not complain much about the despot’s treatment of journalists and the political opposition in his country. Now that the linchpin of globalist control in the Middle East is about the fall, they are calling for reform.
Even Secretary of State Clinton was obliged to offer mild rebuke of Mubarak and his thugs. She suggested Mubarak open “a dialogue between the government and people of Egypt.”
Mubarak’s dialogue was heard this evening in Cairo. He did not answer with words, but with bullets.

Does the Constitution Have Any Binding Power?

Now that Republicans have a majority in Congress, they are pretending to be constitutionalists. In order to demonstrate this, they will theatrically read aloud the Constitution from the floor of the House next week. “And then they will require that every new bill contain a statement by the lawmaker who wrote it citing the constitutional authority to enact the proposed legislation,” reports The Washington Post.
Establishment Republicans, of course, have the same amount of contempt for the Constitution as establishment Democrats. As dedicated worshipers of state power over the individual, establishment Republicans and their ideological twins the establishment Democrats hate the founding principles of this country.
Conservatives regard civil liberties as coddling devices for criminals and terrorists. They see the First Amendment as a foolish protection for sedition. The conservative assault on the US Constitution is deeply entrenched. Today’s conservatives are so poorly informed that they cannot understand that to lose the Constitution is to lose the country. While so-called conservatives pay lip-service to the Constitution, so-called progressives actively trash it and cosign the founding document to irrelevance.
A columnist for the Washington Post says the Constitution has “no binding power on anything” and is confusing – for liberals and other advocates of state power over the individual – because it is over a hundred years old.
Nancy Pelosi and the formerly ruling Democrats also believe the Constitution is irrelevant. “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” a reporter for CNN asked Speaker Pelosi as Democrats prepared to shove Obamacare down the throats of the American people. Pelosi responded: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
In August, Illinois Democrat Phil Hare told his constituents that he does not give a whit about the Constitution. “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest,” Hare said in response to a question about the constitutionality of Obamacare.
Hare also demonstrated his contemptible ignorance by saying that the Constitution guarantees each of us “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In fact, that line is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
We’ve now arrived at the point where a sitting Congressman can openly state that he doesn’t care what the Constitution says, a sentiment obviously held by a majority of members since Congress continues to putatively enact ‘laws’ in the utter absence of express constitutional text. For the establishment political class, the Constitution is completely irrelevant.
Even the soon to be leader of the House, John Boehner, is largely clueless about the Constitution. He, like Phil Hare, has mistakenly attributed a line from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution. Obama did the same, but then he was reading from a teleprompter.
Good 'Ol George W. Bush was reported to have said, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Dismissive remarks about the Constitution are shared by a large number of politicos and other worshipers of state power in the District of Criminals. If the establishment political class is going to successfully strip us of our natural and god-given rights, they have to support the idea that the Constitution is irrelevant and nothing more than a quaint piece of goddamn paper.