Search This Blog

Friday, August 3, 2018

Venezuela Dictator Admits Mistake

HEADLINE: "Venezuelan President Finally Admits That Socialism is Broken, Economy Is Destroyed" (August 2018)

Sounds like President Maduro has seen the light? Well, sort of. At least he's acknowledging the abject failure of socialism. With hyperinflation further impoverishing the country and 93% of the population not earning enough for their own food needs, I'd say it was about time someone in Venezuela saw the light.

My guess is that his admission of failure is akin to a Hail Mary pass. He knows he and his regime are finished and that it is only a matter of time. That said, the following exemplifies the superficiality of his supposed epiphany: first, he blames the "US empire", then Chavez, his predecessor, and then the Venezuelan people--yes, the PEOPLE--for the economic disaster his regime created. (And you know what? In a real sense, Mad Maduro's right when he blames the people. The people demanded free bread and circus and they got stung with their own avarice.) Then, he proclaims "I want solutions, Comrades!" Comrades??? Gee, doesn't sound like a liberating epiphany to me. Yup, like socialists everywhere, he can't quite take the blame for his idiocy and can't quite recognize socialism for the scam that it is. This fool is still mired in his self-destructive Marxist ideology. Bad habits are hard to break and genuinely own up to, or so it appears. In any event, his end is mercifully near.

Word of advice to Venezuelans: this time embrace capitalism and individual responsibility, not life-sapping socialism. In the end, free government giveaways are poison. Let's hope you've learned your lesson. Of course, this is a lesson for American socialists to learn as well, but, alas, stupid is as stupid does.

What Happened to Constitutional Rule of Law?

Our judicial system is a disgrace.

In law school, ever wonder how many lawyers and  jurists are required to study the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and other original foundational documents? (Afterall, to properly drive a car, doesn't one have to possess at least a general understanding how the car operates and, very importantly, the rules of the road?) 

Thus, one would logically think that, at the very least, the careful study of original documents would fully consume the first year of law school. No? I mean, after all, our law's origin is supposed to be these foundational documents. Right? However, from all I've read and heard, a paltry 1% of law school grads--at best--understand the constitutional foundations of our law. 

In truth, many of us layman are very likely more knowledgeable about original meaning and intent than most lawyers. It's the lawyers' ritualized "legal process" and the maze of errant laws which give attorneys an edge over us. 

My guess is that those one percenters who, one way or the other, learned something about our founding principles most likely familiarized themselves with those founding documents during their free time--not as part of their classroom instruction. (So, though badly outnumbered, we must be thankful for that 1%, wherever they may be hiding.) 

Given this scenario, is there any wonder why our legal system has strayed so far from the Constitution and the Rule of Law? Today's legal eagles are taught "case law", the reckless principle of "stare decisis" and how to win legal arguments, the be-all-end-all, the bread and butter of modern jurisprudence, which, over the years, has served to routinely contradict, violate and further erode the importance of our Constitution's original meaning and intent. Most lawyerly types and jurists are simply blind to, ignorant or dismissive of those all-important foundational rules of the road. From all I've observed, it's a good ol' boy fraternity of income-driven lawyerly competitors, implacable enemies in court and drinking buddies after the verdicts are reached. For most, it is a game dictated by fabricated rules of the road. Add self-serving political and ideological agendas to this toxic brew, and what we end up with is a faithless, whimsical "living constitution" which enshrines revisionist interpretations and misapplications of the law which further hasten our Constitution's slide into irrelevance and, ultimately, oblivion. End product: Rule by Man, not Rule of Law. And that's where we are today. Tragic.

Any wonder why so much chaos, dysfunction and tyranny both at the Federal AND State level. Lesson learned: when one no longer refers to the road map or GPS, one inevitably gets lost.

Beware the "Convention of States" Scam

For those out there who are still fervently pushing for an Article V Convention of States to amend the Constitution, as framer George Mason unambiguously observed, "the purpose of amendments is to correct defects in the Constitution"--NOT to re-rewrite the Constitution--a dangerous undertaking to which too many, inclusive of Mark Levin, are wittingly or unwittingly fostering.
Also this quote from deceased Justice Scalia: "I certainly would not want an [Article V] Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa! Who knows what would come of that?"
Comprised of delegates from the several States and enjoined by their respective State leaders to only revise the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention in 1787 didn't revise the Articles; in secret proceedings the delegates literally created an entirely new Constitution. OK, so we dodged the bullet that time and the Constitution these disobedient delegates created well-served the nation--well until the War Between the States in 1861 which turned the Constitution on its head.(But that's another story. for another time.)
Thus, given the terribly divisive ideological divide and powerfully influential interest groups plaguing this republic today, dare we jeopardize the Constitution with another Convention to "amend the Constitution"? Or would these State delegates do what some of the Art V Convention of States disciples have already demonstrated they would be willing to do, that being to re-write the Constitution and, in the process, even legalize federal usurpations against which we've all been resisting? Rather than cutting the feds down to Constitutional size and crafting amendments with that single purpose in mind, some of the COS-proposed amendments I've reviewed demonstrably enshrine violations of the existing Constitution! Frankly, I was incredulous. Check it out.( Also, for starters please check out Publius Huldah blog and CAAVC sites for some erudite discussions on this issue.) Even among patriotic originalists there are gaping disagreements about the desirability and efficacy of an Art V Convention of States whose product could well end up doing us more harm than good. Would love to have you weigh in.