Who is scaring the "Lemmings for Kerry" crowd? Quite obviously, someone on the left is stirring up problems: rumors of Republican vote fraud, a divided nation, psychological problems among the Kerry followers, people wanting to move to Canada, etc., etc

Qui bono? Who profits from the nation becoming divided? What uncaring group would cause harm among the less stable in society this way? When one stops to consider that whatever group starting these problems has both a grass roots and media following, it tends to narrow things down some.

Nonetheless, I must admit that the Lemmings for Kerry are great fun to watch.

Acting like one of the Pajamahadeen crowd here, I've started doing a lot of speed-reading of articles over coffee and breakfast nowadays. Last week I came upon a couple articles mentioning "PEST" in conjunction with psychologists and read right over (and disregarded) the newly invented meaning.

In the Swedish, French, Italian, Indian and German health care sectors the acronym PEST pertains to all "political, economic, social and technological" factors affecting any industry. I have even seen it mentioned in American literature from time to time. So, that not being something I'm interested in, I quickly moved on.

It wasn't until the next day that I learned some junior psychobabble people at the American Health Association (AHA) down in Florida invented a new disorder they call Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST). Unfortunately, I couldn't find information on this group or their "therapists" -- except that they signed on to some of the far left's children's rights programs.

What a handle for a disturbed person -- PEST -- eh? If nothing else, that'll make the supposed afflicted feel better. So Pest is what we'll call them. In fact, we'll be glad to call all those on the left pests.

Rob Gordon, the AHA executive director, said these PESTs are like "the canaries in the mine shaft. There could be thousands of others, even Republicans, who need to be in therapy over this election."

Republicans, too? I don't think so. We're still celebrating.

Referring to PESTs as "the canaries in the mine shaft," though? Is Gordon calling them the first to die because Republicans won big this year? Perhaps this therapist needs his head examined -- certainly his rhetoric.

These people at AHA represent themselves as practicing psychologists. That may or may not be true. But this Gordon guy evidently does not think very well before speaking.

Twice last week, organization people from Canada were interviewed on local radio inviting liberal Americans dissatisfied with our government to move up north. One interesting point is that both times the Canadian speaker used to live here. Also, when questioned by the talk show host just a little, their stories about the great socialist society in Canada totally fell apart.

We won't tell the lefties that, though. If they want to bail out and move to Canada, we'll point the way for them. The official Canadian government, however, has other ideas about that. Between applying and actually moving there, say the officials, there is a year waiting period. But, for our socialist brethren who really wish to make the move, I, for one, will be happy to show them how to get that year waiting period waved.

But, back to the real politics of this issue. Who benefits from all the discord being seeded among the left? Whoever it is has the liberal media behind them and is good at propaganda. It must be someone who has something to benefit from dividing the nation.

It seems the next presidential campaign has already begun. Anyone have any idea who might come waltzing in about 2007 as our nation's Great Unifier?

Yeah. All hail Hillary, the political harlot who will hustle Americans into believing she can heal all ills and salvage a divided nation. That's what she will be telling us, anyway. Because, by then even those of us who suspected will have forgotten that she started most of the problems.

One little fact about the Internet, though: This article will still be available to be read.

Never one to mess up a good story by sticking with the facts, the liberal media in Washington refuse to tell us much about the inner-workings of the Senate. Oh sure, they are quick to carp about anything they think may be a misstep by a Republican member. But that is about as deep as their news reports usually go.

No one ever reports that few senators fully understand, or even read, any of the bills before voting. Nor are we often informed that an inordinate amount of each senator's time is spent seeing lobbyists and other campaign contributors, rather then doing things that may benefit constituents.

The Clinton Impeachment Trial is an illustrative case in point: No senator -- not even one! -- bothered to look at any of the background information (evidence) of the case. The "trial" was fixed before it even got to the Senate. To the one hundred elected ones, it was nothing but an inconvenience because it was the first time they all had to be in their seats, present and accounted for. Even then, some slept there.

Now we read news reports that the newly strengthened Republican majority in the Senate might not allow filibusters to block action on judicial nominees by President Bush. Most reports seem to imply this is a bad thing recently invented by those hard line Republicans and that the minority party could be deprived of its right to "advise" the executive branch by obstructing appointments.

Senate Majority leader, Senator Bill Frist (R-TN), told the Federalist Society: "One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end. The Senate must do what is good, what is right, what is reasonable and what is honorable."

What might that be, Senator? Senate rules are so ridiculous that now just one senator can "say" they are filibustering and all deliberation on that matter comes to a halt. That done, the "filibustering" senator can then return to his office and take a nap -- insured that his obstructionist activity for the day is completed.

Senator Frist said, "this filibuster is nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority," which is true, up to a point.

The Senate Rules Committee said they plan to gradually lower the threshold for filibusters against judicial nominees until a simple majority would allow a final vote. That is not likely to ever happen, though, because Senate rules require a vote of 67 out of 100 to approve that change. So, fat chance.

In a way, the liberal media is correct on this. Just barely, though. Yes, Senate rules are such that a senator can get the floor and keep on talking. That is called a filibuster. In one form or another, that has been part of the Senate rules for as long as there has been a Senate.

What changed recently was the fact that now a senator only has to "say" they are filibustering -- not actually stand up in the Senate chamber and talk -- to stop all action on a matter.

That is wrong. Very wrong.

That must be changed.

If a senator wants to filibuster on a topic, I say let him or her get up and start talking. As long as they are talking, Senate business is halted because a filibuster is in progress. But, when that senator runs out of steam and leaves the microphone, that filibuster has then ended.

Let's let the American people decide. If those socialist Democrats want to filibuster the Bush nominees, let them take the microphone and start talking. No more of this "we say there is a filibuster" and then go back to the office. Let the American people watch them on C-SPAN squirming at the microphone because they need a break.

In other words, cut the foolishness. Any senator may filibuster. Under the Senate rules, that is their right. Some of us will even watch on TV and laugh. In fact, we might even start Internet betting pools on how long they can last.

The point is, if those craven Democrats want to filibuster, let them do it, but make them filibuster the old fashioned way. That will quickly cut that foolishness off at the pass.

For information on what duties the Constitution actually tasks to the Senate -- and how officials in the Legislative Department corrupted those instructions over the years -- see "Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution," Article I.[1]

1. <http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html>

We've all heard about "taking the Fifth." Heck, we only need watch the bureaucrats testifying about their wrongdoings for instructions on how that works. They'll use their Fifth Amendment, and any trick they can think of, to keep from telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Well, "taking the Fifth" is not just reserved for those in government. Citizens also (usually) have a right against self incrimination. In fact, American citizens can use a whole host of such "protections," if they learn to exert their Constitutional authority.

For instance, the Ninth Amendment states that:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be considered to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That tells the central government that all rights belong to us, the people. It also implies that we can tell government to "kiss off" when they try to violate any of our rights or liberties the Constitution does not give government explicit authority to regulate.

So, when government says that we cannot encrypt our messages to others on the Internet, Constitutionally we could say, "tough cookies! I claim my Constitutional right to privacy under the Ninth Amendment to our Constitution." Or, when government demands that we have our papers in order to travel within our own country, we could say, "Buzz off! Our Constitution gives you no such authority to require that. Therefore, I take the Ninth, and do not choose to participate in your unconstitutional rule."

Silliness, you say? Not so. Somewhat impractical right now, but certainly not a bit silly.

At the very least, the Ninth Amendment acknowledges that there are some unenumerated rights retained by the people that are not mentioned within the Constitution. It does not, however, tell us what those rights are, or how to identify them. So, for some legal scholars, like Judge Robert Bork, it was as if a giant inkblot covered the words that would tell us what the Ninth Amendment means.

One of the few Supreme Court opinions mentioning the Ninth amendment is United Public Workers v. Mitchell (330 U.S. 75, 94-95 (1947)), which pertained to the Hatch Act. Therein, the Court said:

"We accept appellant's contention that the nature of political rights reserved to the people by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments [is] involved. The right claimed as inviolate may be stated as the right of a citizen to act as a party official or worker to further his own political views. Thus we have a measure of interference by the Hatch Act and the Rules with what otherwise would be the freedom of the civil servant under the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments."[1]

Later, the Ninth Amendment was mentioned by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479 (1965)). Therein, a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the majority opinion, asserted that the:

"specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."

Which brings us to privacy. While privacy is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, it is said to be one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of the right of association, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice then went to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one amendment or a complex of amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. The concurring opinion of Justice Goldberg devoted several pages to the Amendment. Justice Goldberg, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Brennan, said in part:

"The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. ...

"To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. ...

"Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive."[2]

1. <http://laws.findlaw.com/US/330/75.html>

2. <http://laws.findlaw.com/US/381/479.html>

For more on our "Unenumerated Rights" see:

<http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt9.html>

Also, Madison's address to the House:

<http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/speeches/amend.htm>

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh, GR Force and FRON, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2003 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron326.htm. Revised 11-21-04. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.