Brutal Civil War Rages on Island of Misfit Toys


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

For years Santa had stopped at the Island of Misfit Toys.  But no more.

“I wouldn’t go near that place anymore” said Santa.  “It’s more dangerous than Mexico, Afghanistan or Detroit.”

The culprit is politics.  For years the Island of Misfit Toys had been ruled by King Moonracer (pictured here),King Moonracer, who has never read the Federalist Papers an absolute, hereditary monarch.  But not all were happy with his rule.  Chief among them was Charlie-in-the-Box (seen here.) Charlie in the box fights the powerCharlie, who sees himself as the Island’s resident intellectual, had taken to reading the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence.  Dissatisfied with his position as a subject he began to push for more civil rights and liberalization of the Island’s political structure.  As Charlie said in a manifesto he had plastered throughout the Island:

King Moonracer says he is a benevolent king.  But where is our right to vote?  Where is our right to peacefully assemble and redress grievances?  Our taxes are too high.  His Secret Police spy on us. He has an insatiable sexual appetite and uses our Island’s virgins including Dolly for Sue (pictured here)Dolly just wants to be loved for his own pleasure.  And to top it off, he’s a Red Sox fan.  Fight the power!  Up with the Republic!

Needless to say the manifestos did not sit well with King Moonracer.  Unable to arrest Charlie-in-the Box, who had gone into hiding with the I.M.T.R.A (Island of Misfit Toys Republican Army), Moonracer arrested the polka dot spotted elephant (seen here in an undated file photo)The Poka Dot Elephant, an innocent victim of political violence and had him tortured to reveal Charlie’s whereabouts.  As the elephant’s toenails were ripped off, his trunk turned inside out and electrodes attached to his genitalia, his pathetic screams could be heard around the Island.

Reaction from the Republican Army was swift.  Dozens of the King’s Secret Police were shot.  The King, in an incident now known as “Bloody Sunday“, retaliated by having his troops fire on a crowd watching a soccer match.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

As atrocities rage on both sides the fighting shows no signs of letting up, despite offers from the King of a truce, with free bread and posters of David Ortiz to those who accept his pardon.

Currently 60% of the Island is controlled by Republican forces while the other 40% is held by King Moonracer and his loyalists, including Dolly for Sue, who escaped past Republican road blocks to reunite with her lover.

“All I’ve ever wanted is to be loved” Dolly said in a farewell message to Charlie-in-the-Box. “King Moonracer loves me and he is kind to me.”

The I.M.T.R.A. for its part has declared Dolly a traitor and sentenced her to death “In absentia.”

The U.S. State Department has issued an advisory warning its citizens against traveling to the Island of Misfit Toys.

President Obama has called for a “Two state solution” with the Island partitioned into Republican and Loyalist sections.

Original Post: Manhattan Infidel


We Know About the Federalist Papers. What About the Anti-Federalist Papers?


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Constitutional scholars, federal justices, and lawyers who try cases in federal courts and the Supreme Court often go to the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist papers and other historic documents to get to the original intent of our constitution. Although my education on American history was woefully lacking, I was, at least, aware the something called the Federalist Papers existed. It was decades later when I actually read any of the Federalist Papers and then only about ten of the eighty-five or more papers. It was only recently that I decided it might be educational to find out what those opposed to the ratification of our constitution had to say. I have now read about ten of Anti-Federalist Papers.

The Articles of Confederation signed in 1781 is considered our first constitution. Although written by essentially the same group of Founders, their first attempt at forming a federal government for the United States was a total disaster. The thirteen states were so intent on maintaining their power and sovereignty that they created a Federal government that was toothless. Article II stated:


Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no Executive branch, there was no judicial branch, there was no one designated as head of state to negotiate treaties or commerce with other nations,there was no taxing authority, and the federal government had no control over interstate commerce or in the coinage of a national currency and each state was, therefore, setting tariffs to protect their own industries and creating their own currencies. The Federal government was a joke and that was how it was perceived by other nations.

There were during the years after the ratification of the Articles of Confederation a few attempts to fix parts of it; but they went nowhere. Finally in May of 1787 twelve states, Rhode Island was the exception, sent delegates to Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation such that the federal government could truly function. However, after about four weeks, the majority of the delegates voted to throw out the Articles of Confederation and start over on a new constitution. Some delegate were very unhappy over this turn of events and the New York delegates walked out temporarily.

Working behind closed doors the delegates worked and debated in secrecy until the final document of seven articles on four pages was completed on September 17, 1787. Copies printed so as each state could then hold ratifying conventions and that is when the “fun” began. The destiny of our constitution was fought until March 4, 1989.  Supporters of ratification published papers explaining and defending the new constitution. All of these 85 papers were signed Plubius. But, consensus today atributes 52 to Alexander Hamilton, 28 to James Madison, and five to John Jay. Collectively they have become known as the Federalist Papers. Those that opposed ratification of the constitution as it was written also published their arguments against ratification. Most were written under pseudonyms, such as, Centinel and Brutus and Federal Farmer and Cato. Some, however were signed with the authors proper name. These letters became collectively known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.

In the course of ny research for this post, I found several references to the  Anti-Federalst as the “old patriots” (those that had been loyal to the crown and did not support the Revolution) and the Federalist were refered to as the “new patriots who had supported the Revolution. I think that is an over statement because as you will see Patrick Henry was an Anti-Federalist and argued against ratification of the constitution as written.

If you click on the link above to the Anti-Federalist Papers, you will find an index to 85 papers. Scroll through it and look at the titles and you will the gamut of concerns the Anti-Federalist had.

The fear that an American aristocracy would take over our new government was common to many of the Anti-Federalist. Massachusetts, for example, was appalled that Senators would be elected to serve six-year terms and could possibly serve for a life time. The Federalist argued that they had addressed that concern because Senators were to be appointed by the state legislature and they could remove an appointee at will. Sadly, the states lost that power with the 17th Amendment in 1013.

Patrick Henry gave a total of 24 speeches before the Virginia ratification convention.  If you have time, you may want to read Henry’s Speech No. 1. Patrick Henry was very much a states rights man. He objected to the words “We the People” and would have prefered “We the States”.

I was impressed that in several of the A-F papers I read the authors were concerned about the “Commerce Clause” and thee “General Welfare Clause” would be used to expand the powers of the federal government. The Federalist, of course, were quick to point to the “Enumerated Powers” as the restraint against the federal government.We all know how that worked out, don’t we?. I doubt we could find a conservative today that doesn’t wish the founders had been more specific with those two clauses.

There was another concern that came up often in the papers I read. It was a reference to the well known political philosopher Montesquieu who believed that republics could only function in relatively small geographical areas with relatively small populations. The reason being that otherwise the connection between the people and their representatives would be lost. The Federalist argued that this had been addressed through the proportional representation in the House of Representatives. The constitution allowed that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand. Congress  regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth until it fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911. Today with a population of 330 million a House member represents on average about 759,000 people. Maybe the Anti-Federalist had a point.

In the end the Anti-Federalist lost, which explains why so few Americans are even aware that there were arguments against ratifying the constitution as it was written. But, even my cursory review of their concerns makes me think that they were quite prescient.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire


New York vs First Amendment: Seeks to Make it Easier for Leftist Goons to Target Critics by Banning Anonymous Speech


From the Federalist Papers, to the Internet today, anonymous political speech has been a mainstay of political discourse in the US.  It is frankly needed, as there is often negative consequences to speaking out against the status quo.  And, in other countries, the results can be somewhat terminal.  Since it is difficult to track down, harrass,  intimidate, beat, or even kill anonymous speakers, the NY State Legislature has decide to ban it.  David Kravets, at Wired, has more...

Did you hear the one about the New York state lawmakers who forgot about the First Amendment in the name of combating cyberbullying and “baseless political attacks”?

Proposed legislation in both chambers would require New York-based websites, such as blogs and newspapers, to “remove any comments posted on his or her website by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post.”

No votes on the measures have been taken. But unless the First Amendment is repealed, they stand no chance of surviving any constitutional scrutiny even if they were approved.

Republican Assemblyman Jim Conte said the legislation would cut down on “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks” and “turns the spotlight on cyberbullies by forcing them to reveal their identity.”

Had the internet been around in the late 1700s, perhaps the anonymously written Federalist Papers would have to be taken down unless Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay revealed themselves.

But, taking things, like the Federalist Papers, down is the general idea.  We have covered many examples of why statists hate anonymous speech, and what they do to people they can identify…

Well, let’s take a look at what happened to people that were found to have made donations to efforts that “progressives” do not like.  First, here is some details that I covered in past years.

First up, here is an article from Human Events.

No matter that Prejean was representing California, majorities of whose voters have twice voted to enshrine in their constitution the exact belief Prejean articulated on stage.

The real apology needed to come from homosexual activists who, immediately after more than six million Californians voted last November to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, participated in riot-like protests across the nation.

Conservative churches were picketed and vandalized, and church services were disrupted.  Envelopes containing white powder were sent to several Mormon temples. And a postcard sent to the homes and businesses of many financial donors of Proposition 8 read:  “If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter.”  Other donors were forced to resign from their jobs after they were revealed as contributors to the Prop 8 effort.

This may seem like a harsh reaction to democracy in action.  But the gay rights movement has always had an erratic relationship with basic democratic values.

Last May, gay activists shut down an American Psychiatric Association panel because two evangelicals were scheduled to appear. Ahead of the California vote, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom declared that same-sex marriage was coming to California “whether you like it or not.”  Recently, a student at Los Angeles City College sued the school after a professor called him a “fascist bastard” and refused to allow him to finish a speech against gay marriage during a public speaking class.

That just oozes “tolerance” and “diversity,” doesn’t it?  Then again, the gay rights crowd used campaign contribution regs to find out who contributed to Prop 8, and created a map to their homes.

And the results of that?

More to the point, what Eightmaps intends to accomplish happened to me and my famly last year. And it was terrifying. Here’s the story:

Someone got my address from publicly available sources, made a malicious flyer with that information on it, went to the city’s homeless shelters and passed it around (the police told me that someone on staff at a shelter told them he saw a stranger distributing the flyers). The flyer told the homeless that if they came to my house, we’d give them money. This person did not care that it was summer, and he was tricking the poorest of the poor to a four-mile walk from the downtown shelters to my house. All he cared about was striking out at me.

We knew something was up after the second rough-looking person showed up demanding money, and got angry when he was told we had no idea what he was talking about. (All this happened when I was at work; imagine your wife opening the door to confront a homeless man who has just learned from her that he’d walked all that way in the heat for no reason). But we could tell they had some sort of flyer with our address on it. We called the police, who advised us to stall the next person who showed up, then call them on 911. That we did. Julie phoned me at work one day to say a scary-looking guy was at the front door with one of the flyers, and that she’d just called 911.

By the time I got home, the police were there questioning this guy, who looked like he’d wondered what the heck he’d gotten into. The cops said that this guy meant no harm, that he’d been the victim of this prankster just as we had. They also said he was a registered sex offender.

But wait…there’s more.

Harassment, Hostility, and Slurs

Several individuals who supported Proposition 8 reported receiving harassing telephone calls, e-mails, and mailings. Prop 8 supporters have reported receiving phone calls and voice mails calling them “bigot”[34] and using vulgar language.[35] Sometimes harassers called at work.[36] A public relations firm hired by the Yes on 8 Campaign received so many harassing phone calls from one person that the sheriff’s office became involved.[37] Other Prop 8 supporters received e-mails, letters, and postcards using vulgar language[38] and offensive labels like “gay hater.”[39] Through the contact form on his business’s Web site, one individual received an e-mail stating “burn in hell.”[40] One e-mail threatened to contact the parents of students at a school where a particular Prop 8 supporter worked.[41]

Harassment sometimes took other forms. For example, two women painted an arrow and the words “Bigots live here” on the window of an SUV and parked the vehicle in front of a household that had supported Prop 8.[42] In another case, an individual who supported Prop 8 found himself the subject of a flyer distributed in his town. The flyer included a photo of him, labeled him a “Bigot,” and stated his name, the amount of his donation to Prop 8, and his association with a particular Catholic Church.[43] At the University of California, Davis, a Yes on 8 table on the quad was reportedly attacked by a group of students throwing water balloons and shouting “you teach hate.”[44] A professor at Los Angeles City College allegedly told students in his class, “If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist [expletive deleted].”[45] One Prop 8 supporter received a book, sent anonymously through, that contained “the greatest homosexual love stories of all time.”[46]

So, as you can see.  These bills have one main goal-identify dissenting individuals so they can be harassed, and otherwise intimidated into silence.  It does not intend to stop “bullying,”it aims to facilitate it.



Executive Orders – Separation of Powers


Our Constitution set up three distinct, separate branches of the government -The Executive branch, the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch.  Each of these have different functions and powers.  The Constitution words it this way:

Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Article 1, Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

What does it mean “vested”?  The dictionary says, “To place (authority, property, or rights, for example) in the control of a person or group.

The men who wrote and adopted the Constitution were no mere farmers.  They were the intellects of their day.  They studied the science of politics.  They read the works of many political geniuses throughout history.  One particular scholar and writer they read was Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat (Montesquieu).  He wrote “The Spirit of the Laws”.

In the Federalist Papers #47, James Madison quotes Montesquieu as saying, “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person.”  Madison then continued by saying, “The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

We see the powers of one branch over another branch being usurped in many ways these days and all of it going unchecked or unchallenged.  One example is the judicial branch making laws through judicial decrees and another example is the President making laws through Executive Orders and Proclamations.

Today, I’m focusing on Executive Orders (EO).

Prior to 1907, executive orders basically were not announced or documented.  In 1907, the Department of State instituted our current numbering system.  There were no rules or guidelines saying what the President could or could not include in an Executive Order.  However, in 1952, one of Harry Truman’s Executive Orders was challenged by the Supreme Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v. Sawyer.  In EO 10340, Truman said that all steel mills would be under federal control.  The Supreme Court said the EO attempted to make law rather than just clarify law or act to further a law put forth by Congress.

In the concurring documents of this case, Justice Frankfurter said of our founders:  “They acted on the conviction that the experience of man sheds a good deal of light on his nature.  It sheds a good deal of light not merely on the need for effective power, if a society is to be at once cohesive and civilized, but also on the need for limitations on the powers of governors over the governed.  To the end they rested the structure of our central government on the system of checks and balances.  For them the doctrine of separation of powers was not mere theory; it was a felt necessity.”

One of the major duties of the Executive Branch of government is to make sure the laws created by the legislative branch are executed and enforced.  It is unconstitutional for the President to create law through the use of Executive Orders.  However, Presidents have been doing so (both Democrats and Republicans) down through the years – some worse than others.

Recently, Obama issued an Executive Order establishing the Council of Governors.  While I detest this EO and feel that the Council of Governors is unconstitutional, Obama had the authority to execute the EO.  The blame for the Council of Governors goes to the 110th Congress who passed the “National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 with Section 1822 in it.

However, the EO#13527, “Establishing Federal Capability for the Timely Provision of Medical Countermeasures Following a Biological Attack” does seem to legislating from the Oval office.  No prior legislation is mentioned, so I can only assume he is making law.

Even Abraham Lincoln created law when he issued Executive Orders on September 22, 1862 and January 1, 1863 which are now referred to as the Emancipation Proclamation giving freedom to slaves in Confederate states.  Don’t get me wrong – I am in no way condoning slavery.  However, he did not have the authority to do so.  Congress and the states later rectified this by passing the 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

So, what can about this?

If it is in regard to a law that the President has clarified or executed erroneously, they can rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act.  In cases where the President is enacting law, the EO can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from “congressional intent” or exceeds the President’s constitutional powers.

We need to contact our representatives in Congress (both Senators and House of Representatives) and demand that they uphold the Constitution by challenging Executive Orders that are not just clarifying or executing law that they, the Congress, have passed.

Let us demand that the system of “Checks and Balances” be enforced to ensure the freedom of us, the citizens of the United States.

As I stated in my article, “Anarchy to Tyranny”, the President is NOT over the Legislative and Judicial Branches of government.  He is equal with them.  Let us never forget this.