Tyranny: The Gross Abuse of the 'Commerce Clause'

Yesterday, a very rare thing happened: The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision. UNANIMOUS! 


What was this? This ruling stated - what an American might otherwise assume is self-evident in this supposedly "free country" - that an arbitrary edict from the government, especially one rendering one's property worthless, can be challenged in court. In this case, that Mike and Chantell Sackett have the right to challenge the EPA, part of the Executive Branch of government, on its arbitrary declaration of their property as a "wetland," which rendered their property and life savings worthless - WITHOUT the due process rights and fair compensation for taken property guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. 


This EPA ruling, by the way, was notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary, and next door neighbors being spared this designation. More on this later.


The Constitution of the United States, the highest law of the land, enumerates specific powers for the federal government, as well as puts limits on what the federal government may do.


Most people are familiar with the Constitution's 'Bill of Rights,' which is where the bulk of the limits on government are are stated, as well as stating that the individual rights and protections specifically stated there are not to be construed as the only individual rights and protections (Ninth Amendment).


What some people aren't as familiar with is the so-called 'Commerce Clause,' also known as Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. The text:


[The Congress shall have Power] ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; which grants the federal government powers to regulate interstate commerce, international commerce, and commerce with Indian tribes. 


The intent of the clause, especially the interstate piece, is to facilitate commerce, in other words, to make sure commerce could take place without impediments such as states passing laws that restrict commerce from other states, tariffs, taxes, duties, and such.


What it has been abused and perverted into, mostly starting during the Franklin D Roosevelt administration with Roosevelt's carefully chosen activist 'justices', is false granting of power to the federal government to do just about anything it wants. These courts used absurdly tortured arguments to claim such power, all of them boiling down to defining everything and anything as "interstate commerce" on the ridiculous premise that at some point, any given penny goes across state lines.


Of course, this violates not not only the enumerated powers contained in the rest of the Constitution, but also the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly holds the federal government to those enumerated powers, thus:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Of course, the FDR courts had an answer for that "inconvenient fact" as well, arrogantly and openly rejecting what the Constitution explicitly says in the Tenth Amendment.  In United States v. Darby Lumber Company (1941), the Court outrageously claimed the Tenth Amendment  "is but a truism" and was not considered to be an independent limitation on Congressional power.


Unbelievable?


Believe it, because in the federal government's application of this absurd and tyrannical "philosophy" things get very, very bad, liberty is usurped, commerce gets crushed, and lives get DESTROYED.


One of the first cases under this serial and ongoing gross violation of the Constitution and usurpation of powers not allowed the federal government is Wickard v. Filburn (1942).


In 1938, FDR and his Secretary of Agriculture got passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which set limits on wheat crop yields, in an attempt to control prices. The constitutionality of this act itself is highly questionable at best, but that's another story.

Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted by AAA. But, the excess wheat was for his personal, family's, livestock's consumption, all on his personally-owned farm. This wheat never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce.

Nonetheless, 

FDR's tyrants ordered Filburn 

to destroy his crops and pay a fine.

Filburn took this to the local federal court, which ruled in his favor. However, FDR's thugs took the case to his stacked Supreme Court, which i

n a gross perversion of the definition of interstate commerce, ruled that Filburn, in using his own wheat for his own consumption, was foregoing buying wheat for his family and livestock, thereby "affecting interstate commerce," and thereby subject to the the AAA and the dictate of the FDR administration. In other words, FDR's Supreme Court bizarrely ruled that by not engaging in interstate commerce, he WAS engaging in interstate commerce, and thus subject to the edicts of the federal government.

This was only where the tyranny began. There have since been innumerable such cases and unconstitutional laws. Which brings us back to the Sackett family and the EPA.

In 2005, Mike and Chantell Sackett bought a 0.63-acre lot near Priest Lake in Idaho for $23,000 on which they planned to build a home. They got all the required permits and environmental impact reports and began grading and construction. Adjacent to their property is a state-owned creek. The state had neglected to maintain the creek to the extent that during a rainstorm, debris clogged the creek and it overflowed its banks, flooding part of the Sackett's  land. The Sacketts went to the state to get them to take care of it, where officials told them that the state wouldn't be able to do anything for awhile, and that they could clear it themselves. The Sacketts got a backhoe and cleared the debris, relieving the flood.

Noticing the state-caused flood the EPA came in and the Sacketts

 were threatened by the EPA with $37,500 per day fines if they didn't restore their land to its previous condition, notwithstanding the permits and environmental impact reports they'd already gotten. When they tried to take this order to court, they found out that the law prevented them suing until the EPA enforced the order. In other words, they were prevented from using their property unless the EPA started the

$37,500 per day fines, and they were prevented from getting the order rescinded unless they took actions that would incur those $37,500 per day fines.

The Sacketts took the case to the Supreme Court with the help of the non-profit Pacific Legal Foundation. Yesterday, the Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY ruled in the Sackett's favor, meaning they CAN sue to get the EPA's absurd order rescinded. Mind you, this unanimous ruling included the far left members - THAT'S how bad the EPA is!

Every day, the EPA similarly destroys the assets and lives of countless people across the USA, in complete violation of Fifth Amendment protections of due process and fair compensation for taken property, all under non-existent powers claimed through false use of the commerce clause.

This same false premise is being used by the Obama administration to justify the federal government's intrusion into health care and forcing people to engage in commerce in the form of private individuals being forced to buy private insurance products that the federal government mandates to take a particular form.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will show the same sense and honesty with respect to the Constitution when it soon reviews the constitutionality of Obama's disastrous health care act.

You're losing your liberty, your freedom, and your future folks, all in return for crumbs. Wake up and take them back!

Unintended Consquences

In the Twelfth Century, an abbott named Bernard of Clairvaux is believed to have coined the proverb, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."


Today, the concept behind this very wise insight is often referred to as "the law of unintended consequences."


'Unintended consequences' are results from a given action that are other than what that action sought to produce. These are not coincidences, but direct causes and effects, and they often over-ride or exceed their actual intent.


The Founders of the United States of America understood this concept very well, which is one reason why they worked very hard to write a Constitution that very clearly specified for the federal government a set of enumerated powers as well as very clear limits to what the federal government may do. This in turn limited the harm that could be inflicted, as is inherent in any form of government.


Today, the perils and harm inflicted by the over-bearing and tyrannical governments that the Founders referenced have become dim memories or forgotten altogether, and even recent examples of tyranny are dismissed as 'not possible here', and many people have abdicated their duty as free people to monitor their government against the enumerated powers and limits of the Constitution. As a result, the federal government has been by default allowed to far exceed its constitutionally-enumerated powers and limits, and usurp the powers reserved to the states and The People, and the law of unintended consequences has become the law of the land.


Thus, we stand on the brink of tyranny and chaos.


A few examples:


Minimum wage or "living wage". 


Good intention: 


Prevent exploitation, raise economic status of unskilled and entry workers.


Unintended consequences: 


Fewer jobs for unskilled and entry workers, reduced benefits, less availability of on-the-job training, more illegal hiring and exploitation, economic status of intended beneficiaries is not improved, etc.


Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) gasoline additive.


Good intention: 


Make gasoline burn more cleanly, producing less air pollution.


Unintended consequences: 


Existing storage tanks could not contain highly-toxic MTBE, and it leaked out into the watershed and reservoirs, poisoning drinking water (some areas had to find alternate sources of water); having to replace storage tanks with new MTBE-impervious ones that cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars per station, putting a large number of independent gas stations out of business, which in turn handed the market to the oil  company-owned stations, which reduced competition and raised pump prices; accelerated wear on motors; reduced  milage, negating the benefit, etc.


Gun control and confiscation laws.


Good intention: 


Prevent violence, murder.


Unintended consequences: 


Criminals become disinhibited from preying on presumably unarmed law-abiding citizens; violent crime and murder increased; innocent people, usually the weakest among us, are rendered unable to defend themselves; law-abiding citizens are made felons and lives  ruined because they unwittingly run afoul of  any of thousands of constantly-changing arcane and unclear prohibitions and restrictions - that are almost all in violation of the First Amendment, (I know someone who was made a felon  this way, and my unarmed cousin was murdered in his house), etc.


Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae.


Good intention: 


Create opportunities for home ownership, and easier access to home ownership, particularly among people of middle and lower economic status.


Unintended Consequences:


Forced banks to lower lending standards in order to meet mandated loan numbers in certain communities, which spread into the broader market; banks knew they could sell most of their loans to taxpayer-backed Fannie Mae, thus largely removing risk and incentive to avoid risky lending; the real estate market exploded into an over-priced bubble; investment instruments were created out of these loans in order to create opportunities to indirectly invest in the real estate boom and distribute risk; when the economy slowed down, the price of real estate stagnated or decreased, eliminating the basis for speculation and collapsing the real estate and mortgage markets, and the broader financial industry behind them.


Banning DDT.


Good intention:


Protect birds from damage to eggs due to DDT.


Unintended consequences: 


Malaria-carrying anopheles mosquitos, to that point under control by DDT, proliferated, taking worldwide deaths due to malaria from near eradication, about 3,000 cases per year, to 2 to 3 MILLION per year, over the period of the ban amounting to about 60 million deaths, mostly children and the weak, exceeding the total death toll caused by Adolf Hitler's perverse ambitions. As it turns out, the ban was based on sloppy science and misrepresenting completely contrary lab results, in a book by Rachel Carson, and birds'  survival were never in danger from DDT.


Of course, every such outcome spawns a whole new set of voluminous laws, regulations, and rules in attempts to solve the unintended consequences without repealing the cause, and the cycle is repeated and exacerbated.


The road to Hell, indeed!


There are many, many more examples, and it's not hard to think of them. And there are hundreds of thousands of laws, regulations, and rules (only a fraction of which anybody, including in government or law practice are familiar with, and thus any one of us could at this moment be a "criminal" without knowing it), all with 'good intentions,' whose unintended consequences we could review, but our time would be better spent kicking out the malefactors and fools in the federal government, and seeing to electing and appointing people to government positions who don't have personal interests in amassing government powers and careers.


The only question is, will we once again rise to our duty as free people and do so?

"A Republic, If You Can Keep it"

As Benjamin Franklin left Independence Hall after the final day of deliberation and the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a woman stopped him and asked, "Well, Doctor [Franklin], what have we got - a republic or a monarchy?”

Franklin answered, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Franklin's answer was quite wise, and perhaps prescient. 

He understood that the Constitution that he had just helped write, and the government and nation it would now define, was only as good as the diligence of The People in holding their elected and appointed officials to its enumerated powers and limits, as well the willingness and ability of The People to assume the risks and responsibilities that would now be essential and necessary in order to live in a civil society with unprecedented liberty and freedom, and clearly defined protections thereof.

He also understood how difficult this might become, hence his "if you can keep it."

What does this mean?

It means that in order to keep the republic, you are required to participate. Most people would respond to this by saying "I vote, so, I'm participating." WRONG. Participation means: 

1) Understanding just what it is in which you would participate, that is, the Constitution, the supporting documents of the Constitution, history, and current events.

2) Understanding just what your elected and appointed officials are doing, as well as the consequences of their actions - both intended and unintended.

3) Holding your elected and appointed officials to the powers and limits of the Constitution and to the highest ethical standards and fiscal responsibility.

If you don't have the knowledge derived from 1) and 2) you are incapable of completing 3), and you should NOT vote.

I just had the intense displeasure of sitting in a restaurant well within good earshot a group of people who were engaged in a conversation I can only loosely describe as 'political'. These people were so completely clueless that they would make excellent fodder for one of those late night TV impromptu street interviews in which people make utter asses of themselves by their appallingly ignorant incorrect answers.

One woman kept remarking incredulously about her housekeeper. "She's brilliant!" she repeated at several points. "She's written a few books." "Her English is better than mine. She has a Shakespearean command of English." But the woman also couldn't understand how her housekeeper, who she repeatedly suggested is smarter than her, could hold an opposing view to hers and vote, "against her own self-interest". This woman simply could not understand how her smart housekeeper could find taking other peoples' money via government police powers, both directly and in the form of government services, repugnant.

A man at the table actually declared with complete, but ignorant confidence to his companions, that "progressive income tax rates are in the Constitution" (they are not, only the power to levy taxes is mentioned in the Constitution).

It not hard to realize exactly how we have the crooks, tyrants, parasites, lunatics, and idiots currently in Congress, the courts, the White House, statehouses, and bureaucracies when you realize that these people, and tens of millions just like them, vote.

Even worse, because there are so many ignorant fools as these, the Constitution has been rendered little better than a quaint historical document by hubristic and power-hungry politicians, judges, and bureaucrats taking advantage of this lack of knowledge, vigilance, and action. A sampling of how:

The Tenth Amendment says that any power not enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution is reserved to The People and the states. Every day, the federal government flagrantly violates this Amendment, with the help of the next example.

The 'commerce clause', which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce for the purpose of keeping commerce between the states free and unimpeded, has been perverted via the bizarre judicial contortion that since any given penny eventually crosses state lines, everything and anything is "interstate commerce" and can be "regulated" (with "regulation" taking on an entirely different meaning and scope than that intended by the writers of the Constitution), and thus the federal government gave itself powers it was never intended to have, that are supposed to be left to The People and the states.

Obamacare attempts to pay for itself via a federal mandate that individuals buy a private product, that is, health insurance. Seems like a good way to cover the costs, but the government has absolutely NO right to force a citizen to engage in any act. If this insurance mandate is upheld, it would mean that the government has the right to force anyone to do anything. This violates so much of the Constitution it's too much to specify here!

And most recently, the National Defense Authorization Act, which in flagrant violation of the Constitution gives the federal government the power to arrest American citizens on American soil on mere suspicion of "terrorist affiliations", and imprison them without evidence, charges, hearings, trial, or habeas corpus. This effectively repeals the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, doing away with all guarantees of due process. Knowing a couple of people who were falsely accused of crimes, this is no abstract fear I express!


Of course, many of you think none of this touches you, or that you benefit from it. The problem is, everything comes with a cost. What you don't pay for with money, time, and labor, or that of other people, you pay for with reduced liberty and freedom, and thus opportunity and future, and eventually and inevitably it touches everyone, and we are harmed in ways we've never yet had to suffer in America (but are starting to), that have caused immeasurable misery and enslavement throughout the rest of the world.

So, I wonder - can you keep it?

Or is it already gone?

In which case I challenge you: Can you take it back?

Into the Dark

It’s been over a year since we’ve seen or heard from Moisè

A year since that night.

Without warning, the Secret Police came and burst through the door with a battering ram, guns drawn, angrily shouting orders for everyone to lie down on the floor. Then, one slightly older man in an impeccably tailored black uniform, stepped in over the remains of the door, then tracked salty mud onto the heirloom rug. He clearly was the one in charge. With controlled intensity, he asked, “Which one of you is Moisè Goldberg?”

Moisè answered, and started to turn to face him.

“Don’t move! Sergeant, take him into custody!”, the man barked.

Father asked, “On what charge?!”

The man in the black uniform shouted, “Silence! Or I’ll have you arrested for obstructing justice!”

They took Moisè away.

Just a week before, Moisè had attended a rally at which a new organization was demonstrating for reforms to the government, such as protecting civil rights, lower taxes, and less government control over our activities and businesses. We had told Moisè not to go, because we had heard members of the party denounce this organization as subversive and a threat to national security, and it seemed like a risk to be there. But Moisè scoffed at our concern, thinking it was nothing but political hyperbole.

We’ve tried calling local and national law enforcement, courts, jails, and elected officials, but they all gave us essentially the same answer, that is, no answer at all about the whereabouts, status, or condition of Moisè. We even tried the newspapers, but they told us that what we asked was very dangerous, and that they were themselves barred from any information. We hired a lawyer, but he too was denied any information at all.

We’d heard rumors of camps to where certain people had been taken, but had no way of knowing if they really existed, much less if Moisè was there.

We don’t even know if Moisè is alive.

Is this a story from Nazi Germany? The Soviet Union?

No. This is a scenario that could easily occur in the United States of America if President Obama signs the “National Defense Authorization Act” (NDAA) that was overwhelmingly passed by the US House of Representatives, and just yesterday overwhelmingly passed by the US Senate.

Under the NDAA, the government would be authorized to arrest and imprison, indefinitely, American citizens on American soil on mere suspicion of terrorist activity or suspicion of having some affiliation with a terrorist organization. Furthermore, under NDAA, no evidence need be produced, no charges need be filed, no hearings need be held, no writ of habeas corpus need be responded to, nor any trial date set indefinitely, all in complete, comprehensive, and egregious violation of every constitutional guarantee of due process.

Under NDAA, any government official could manufacture “suspicion”. Remember just last Summer, Obama and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano publicly and clearly stated that Tea Party activists could be “terrorists”. On this basis alone, someone who attended a Tea Party rally could be arrested and locked up with precisely no recourse and no hope.

Don’t like the Tea Party and don't care if they get arrested? What if a politician decided that OWS, or other organization you might support overtly or passively, was declared 'a potentially a terrorist organization'? This is an even easier fabrication since some people at OWS events have committed violent crimes, including throwing incendiary devices. You were there? You're a terrorist. No? You publicly expressed support of the movement? You’re a terrorist. Good bye!

Obama has indicated he will sign this bill of overt tyranny into law, reversing an earlier threat to veto it.

Please call and write to President Obama and tell him NOT to sign this blatantly unconstitutional, egregious violation of constitutionally protected (supposedly) civil rights.

If he signs it, support organizations and lawyers who will sue against the NDAA in federal courts, maybe even the Supreme Court. Write to newspapers, TV stations, web sites, etc, then vote Obama and all who voted for this, Republican and Democrat, out of office.

Of course, because of doing so, you could in turn be called by a tyrannical government official, a “terrorist”.

This is no joke. Act now!

The Ninth Commandment

Yesterday, I happened to find myself witness to several high school guys browsing Facebook and commenting on the various posts and people they were scanning. Their conversation turned very ugly and cruel as it gleefully focused on a certain girl and her supposed, let's say, unconventional, intimate actions. Of course, none of these boys were witness to anything they were insisting was "an absolute fact". I tried to explain to them that such suppositions, and spreading them, were wrong and cruel - even if true. I also told them that I have seen peoples' lives severely damaged by such. I don't think I convinced them. Perhaps growing up will bring them around. Then again, I regularly see 'grown-ups' do precisely the same thing.


Perhaps the thoughts below will help a few people reconsider and modify such behavior:


In the Judeo-Christian ethical/moral/legal tradition, the Ninth Commandment tells us that we "Shall not bear false witness". This concept is pretty much held as a universal and important value in the world, including by most secular ethical/legal systems and most non-believers. Indeed, penalties for perjury in the US legal system are severe, and hearsay, that is, testimony talking the form of 'person-A told me person-B did X', is inadmissible in US courts and most worldwide.


Most people understand "bearing false witness" simply as lying, but it goes further than that. It also applies to saying things about people that are not verifiably known to be true, also known as GOSSIP. 


Time after time, I have read and heard things about friends of mine and myself that I know to be completely FALSE. I've also read and heard things about people I barely know or don't know that seem to have the same 'stink' about them. These things are presented in spirit ranging from innocent to humorous to speculative to outright vindictive and malicious, but the innocent, humorous, and speculative can end up being every bit as damaging as the intentionally vindictive and malicious, and damaging these things indeed have been. 


Of course, these things are almost NEVER uttered in the presence of the person who is the subject of the gossip, which compounds the transgression with cowardice. 


These bits of gossip take many forms: 'x is [verb]ing [noun]'; 'x is [verb]ing y'; 'x is a [noun]'; etc. I know that some of the things I've heard are absolutely false, that other have precisely no proof, so it follows that many other things I hear or read are similarly without basis. 


Sometimes, these things take on the form of 'campaigns', in which a person has some axe to grind or a grudge, and repeatedly lashes out at some real or imagined 'enemy'. 


Sometimes such behavior takes the form of lacing what could be construed as legitimate gripes with wild and copious accusations of conspiracies and outright false and bizarre accusations of crimes and "moral" offenses. Such a person might define his/her beliefs very narrowly, then considers any disagreement a personal as well as ideological affront, and as such collects self-identified enemies as both 'badges of honor' and confirmations of supposed 'persecutions'. Of course, in these cases, perhaps a bit of understanding is in order, since these could easily be manifestations of severe neurosis or other mental illness. 


But for the most part, we can all take care NOT to gossip:


Is what you're about to say or write verifiably true, and by verifiably, I mean not just because someone else said so? If not, do not say it, write it, or repeat it. 


If what you're about to say or write is verifiably true, does it serve any positive purpose to bring it to light? If not, don't say it or write it. If you feel you must say or write it, at least go to the person or persons involved PRIVATELY and try to work it out PRIVATELY before you make it public fodder that could damage someone. And if you do want to damage someone, maybe you'd be better off getting psychological help or consulting a lawyer on defending against a slander lawsuit. 


And remember, just because you don't think you have malicious intentions in saying or writing something, it doesn' mean that it won't have that effect. Indeed, it often does. And things you think think are said in confidence have a way of getting out and around, including to people you would not want to learn of these things. 


Think about it.

The REAL Big Game: Life and Death

Along with about 30,000 of my fellow Cal people, and maybe 20,000 Stanford people, I was enjoying a typically temperate California Autumn afternoon watching the latest iteration of one of American football's oldest and most-loved and occasionally spectacular rivalries, the 1993 Cal vs Stanford Big Game, watching to see which team would earn the right to take home the Big Game's trophy, 'The Stanford Axe'.

As usual, the horrid Stanford Band took the field at half-time to demonstrate how 'unorthodox' and 'irreverent' they are, in their standard and utterly predictable manner, which went from being amusing and novel to boring and stale some time in the Mid '60s about two years after they started this affectation.

Stanford, unable to resolve their aching compulsion to be 'politically correct' and at the same time appear 'democratic' despite the Stanford president's fatwa that "the mascot issue is not up for a vote", and come up with a respectable mascot everyone could accept and believe would not offend anyone or anything, went from being the 'Indians' to the 'Cardinal'. Not the ecclesiastical official. Not the bird. The color. Stanford, paralyzed by 'political correctness' and a lack of creativity and cohesion had now renamed themselves a color. Of course, this was recognized by the few dozen smart and sane people at Stanford as being extremely lame, so they largely rejected the color thing, especially since coming up with a mascot costume to depict a color was just bizarre - what are you going to do, have a guy dressed up as a color swatch leading cheers and such? No. So, they adopted as a mascot something Stanford was well known for having a lot of and indeed featured on its seal: Trees. They came up with a Tree costume and finally Stanford had an identifiable, although unofficial, mascot.

And today the 'Tree' was hard at work taunting opposing fans, players, and mascots. As the Stanford Band went about its running around in circles and playing bad song arrangements very badly, the Tree danced frantically next to them.

Suddenly, I noticed in the bleachers across the stadium from me, a commotion in the crowd down near the fence bordering the playing field. Two young men leaped the fence onto the field. Security guards collapsed on them and manged to catch one. But the other broke loose, leaving his torn shirt in the hands of the security guard who tried to use the shirt as handle, and sprinted onto the field. The security team lit out after him, but kept losing ground to the much faster culprit. I went from mildly amused to very excited as I realized he was on a beeline for the Stanford Band, which was completely absorbed in their contrived display of 'spontaneity' and oblivious to what was going on in the broader world around them.

I didn't know just how yet, but I knew this was going to be good.

The man dashed right by the first band members he encountered, momentarily puzzling me. Then the situation became entirely clear: He was at full speed and locked on to the Stanford Tree, obliviously spinning and waving his 'branches' erratically to the music like a drunken dervish. Clearly, he had had enough of the Tree's taunts, and was intent on a reckoning.

Over a post-game beer, it was declared by several Cal football alumni friends of mine, including Kevin Moen of 1982 'Big Play' touchdown fame, that this was the biggest and best hit of the whole game.

The man dove into the air, flew headlong, and mercilessly tackled the Tree at hip height, instantly dropping it and scattering the two of them across the grass. I actually cringed at the sight.

The band members then snapped out of their trance and converged, kicking at the man like a bunch of five-year-old girls trying to play soccer.

Finally, security caught up and rescued him from the onslaught of Stanford's most pencilly pencil necks, handcuffed him, and led the shirtless man away, now with an ear-to-ear, clearly-satisfied and elated grin on his face as he acknowledged the roaring approval of the crowd.


Eight years later, this same man found himself on an airplane which had been violently hijacked for the purpose of crashing into a building in Washington DC. United Airlines Fight 93, September 11, 2001. He made the decision to fight back, along with other passengers.


This was the REAL Big Game, now. Life or death, not just his and the passengers', but those of untold numbers of innocent people on the ground. He took back 'The Axe' from the filthy savages that murderously hijacked the plane. Although he and his fellow passengers didn't survive, they saved the lives of those who were targeted on the ground. 

He won life's Big Game.


That man's name is Mark Bingham, Cal Varsity Rugby alumnus and hero.


Never forget!

A Bridge to Glory

Every day, I drive under, by, or over this bridge. Hundreds of thousands of people do the same.

I wonder how many of them are aware of the fact that this bridge, this overpass of Fostoria Way over I-680 in San Ramon, California, is also a monument to a national hero?

Ten years ago, September 11, 2001, a group of evil, filthy savages took control of four commercial airliners by cutting the throats of the unarmed crews, for the purpose of murdering further thousands of innocent human beings by means of turning the aircraft into exploding missiles. One of those airliners was United Airlines Flight 93.

The passengers of Flight 93 learned via phone of the earlier plane attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Not willing to wait for their now obvious fate like sheep to the slaughter, the passengers of Flight 93 organized themselves to counter attack those low-lifes and take back control of the airplane, and hopefully save themselves, as well as the lives of hundreds or thousands on the ground below.

These heroes did indeed manage to thwart the maniacal plot of the hijackers and save an unknowable number of people on the ground, but not without giving up their own lives. Although they prevented their plane from being used against a target in Washington DC, they could not avoid the plane and themselves being nearly vaporized on a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

One of those heroes was Thomas E Burnett of San Ramon, California. He left behind a wife and kids, a legacy of heroism, selflessness, and glory, and a nation's debt of gratitude that can never be repaid. It is after him that that little bridge over I-680 is named.

"Let's roll!" - Todd Beamer, hero of Flight 93

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." - John 15:13