He's still a crook

Sorry about the delay in posting. I had my reasons.

Some things that have happened in the news recently:

Michael Jackson was aquitted. Appears the jury finally was convinced that Michael Jackson wouldn't know what to do with his dingus besides pee with it anyhow, and the lady was scary and was coaching her sun to lie. Tell me how much I care about this decision. NEXT!

Runaway bride -- yeah yeah. NEXT!

Oh, yeah. Pat Buchanon has gotten editorials published that basically accuse the FBI of conspiring to bring down Richard Nixon as part of a vindictive punishment for not appointing J. Edgar Hoover's chosen successor to head the FBI. To which I sent the following succinct message to the letters editor of my local newspapaper: "All of Patrick Buchanan's whining about "conspiracies" won't change one simple fact: Nixon was a crook. Attacking the motives of the people who brought that fact to light doesn't make Nixon one bit less crooked." Thus far, the local newspaper has refused to publish this letter. What? A newspaper editor who's gutless and won't publish a simple statement like, "He was a crook"? You don't say! NEXT!

Finally, regarding the uses of federal power and rights: I received criticism for saying that Clarence Thomas was right about how the commerce clause is being abused. But he was. I am a bit of an expert on how the commerce clause has been used to take away consumer's rights in one particular area (household goods moving). Look at the Carmack amendment on that web site, and especially how the courts and federal law have legalized the theft of your goods and taken away all recourse against those who would defraud you. A truck driver can literally steal your life's possessions right in front of a police officer, and he is powerless to do anything about it because of federal laws and court rulings.

Of all the rights that the federal government has granted to individuals, it has taken far more of them away. As a good Libertarian, I believe that the best government is that which is closest to the people. That is, government of the people, by the people, for the people, and if you don't like one area's government, you either change it or just move on to the next area. So that in the end you get states like Mississippi that are sludge pits of inbred rednecks too stupid to make it elsewhere, and then states like Massachusetts and California that have the best and brightest of the world. What has happened is that the federal government is now punishing the successful states for the crime of being successful, taking far more in resources than are given back in services, in order to prop up the trailer park "flyover states" full of losers too stupid to make it elsewhere and old people who think that cheap labor and cheap goods in their local Wal-Mart are all that matters, to hell with schools and stuff.

I am a reluctant convertee to limited government, because there are some things that simply require a national scale to make work. Social Security, national defense, immigration and border control, and healthcare are four things that have been shown to be more effectively done on a national scale. But I think the events of the past five years have shown just how dangerous an imperial presidency and supine Congress can be when granted unlimited powers. If there are no limits, there is no liberty -- regardless of how many times in the past a court or a Congress has temporarily turned back on itself and restored liberties that had been unlawfully taken away.

- Badtux the Busy Penguin