screwy indignation by a political whore

many don't get an important detail about LewRockwell.com, though they should, since lew's placed the information under their noses for years: lew, one of the smartest people i've ever met, doesn't fully agree with many of the articles he publishes. i'd hope people would catch on when he sometimes publishes traditional socialists or borderline neocons (socialists with severe potty training mishaps in childhood). some still don't.

a problem for unskilled readers of the site surfaces when they start accepting whatever's printed there as 100% on target with liberty principles, especially if it's in some way critical of the state. published at LRC? "i agree!" perfect example with today's article The Writing of Challenger Revealed, by a career political whore who, having bilked the victims forced into paying his salary during runs with the carter administration and NASA, still hasn't a handle on the declared supreme law of the land (the US constitution, according to it), and whether laws were made in conformance with it. this nonsense pisses me off, and i could wail on it for hours, but i'll just spare whoever wandered here and get right to it.

his tone in the article is uniformly negative, centering on overt disgust with reagan policy which, he alleges, tended to militarize NASA's mission, counter to "legislation".

[... The shuttle] was becoming a platform for space weapons testing under the Strategic Defense Initiative — "Star Wars" — so it was an integral part of the Reagan military build-up. Whether the military use of the shuttle was in agreement with the stated purpose of NASA’s 1958 enabling legislation — "that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of mankind" — was a question no one seemed to be asking.

tripe. the question that should have been asked and answered (by gutting NASA's purse of stolen money) is whether that legislation puking NASA on everyone and his grandbabies was in compliance with the US constitution.

what most language failures would call "ironic" here, but which i simply call an atrocious flip-flop of grandiose sloppiness, is that it was only the military mission which could justify NASA's existence and each mission. no federal jackass has the constitutionally delegated power to fly into space and do shit "devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of mankind". as james madison and the tenth amendment explained well, and i'll probably link to it another 400 times before i kick this rock, if the power wasn't delegated to the US government by "the people" (bumbling fictional term), it doesn't have it legally.

there is in the constitution, however, clear delegation of the power to protect the states against invasion, and if space is the place where that should be done, NASA would be legal within that constraint. doesn't matter that space travel wasn't foreseen by "the framers" or written into the document explicitly; it provides for it. oh how stupid the hordes of government-dumb lackeys who posit, when hearing someone cite the tenth amendment, the absurd and false requirement that if all USG powers are to be delegated, the constitution must be rewritten for every innovation that rolls by.

that revolting sophistry merely brands them as bootlicking simps (one step up from tyrant) who suppose that all must have USG fingers up its tush shortly after arrival.

so in the instant article, career US gov't whore author alleges illegality when NASA, dire incompetence aside, comes closest to a legal function, chastising reagan for not following illegal "legislation" of the same type vetoed in 1817, correctly, by james madison — who even socialists begrudgingly admit might have had a solid understanding of the constitution.

while i'm bitching, on to an associated subject, in case any statist moonbat (e.g., neocon) stumbles upon this post and starts mumbling disoriented shit about some "elastic clause" — the prime delusion of the "conservative" socialist.

here ya go, jerkoffs: there is no "elastic clause" in the US constitution. what so many regurgitating freakadroid turds call the elastic clause:

The Congress shall have Power [...] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

it could hardly more tightly confine congress — the only constitutionally legislative body — to enumerated powers, yet government-suckling weasels bent on hell-raising call it elastic. why? not because it's elastic, but because a childish misappropriation and isolation of "necessary and proper" justifies to them their inherently unconstitutional preferences. as madison said, if it's so easy and important to add whatever power one desires to congress's role, why were powers enumerated at all — as suggestions?

every time you hear some US government criminal spouting anything about law, remember that the constitution is all about telling them, not "the people", what they can and cannot legally do. fictional though the concept is, their sworn power flows from the people, not the other way around. and it's power that's limited to a minuscule portion of what they routinely usurp, hands on bible, tongues a-wagging, gun pointed at your head. this violation is only one small reason why i call them criminals. acting in denial and under color of law, they are the worst sort of criminal.

so why does lew rockwell publish such inane BS by a career criminal? he has a reason and a difficult mission that most people will never understand.

Labels: constitution, derailleur, monopolistic incompetence, space boondoggle

posted by saltypig @ 02:54