Do You Have a Right to Self-Defense?

People ask, why am I opposed to Obama? Here's one: nominating a justice to the Supreme Court who doesn't believe in an individual's right to self defense.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is asked if she sees the right to personal self-defense. She doesn't see it; doesn't see a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that. Now that's just a little slippery of her, isn't it? Just because the Supreme Court hasn't had to address it doesn't mean that it is not part and parcel of the agreed upon social contract (The US Constitution). Maybe the Supreme Court hasn't addressed it because no one was foolish enough to question it.

We have had, for the last several generations, a concerted, and quite silly argument against the Right to Bear Arms. And yet through Rebellions (Whisky) and Civil War we maintained -- until the Progressive Era -- a Right to Bear Arms. Now we get a Supreme Court justice who doesn't believe in Americans having a Right to Defend themselves.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers,

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot,

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

Of course to Sotomayer, and her ilk, these statements mean nothing. The only thing that matters is what can be parsed from earlier Supreme Court decisions. As there was a Protestant Revolution in the 16th C there will be a Constitutional Revolution. We must reinclude "Original Intent" or there will be no constitution left to defend.

Evolution and Peanut Butter

OK, where's ZOMGitscriss when you need her. I can't do this video the justice it deserves.

Two points:

1. The Theory of Evolution doesn't concern itself with the creation of life. As a matter of fact The Theory of Evolution isn't in conflict with the existence of a Creator. Both can coexist with God creating life and knowing the final outcome of evolution in the same way that farmer who plows seeds knows that a plant will exist some time later.

2. The Peanut Butter example is faulty for two reasons: one oxygen is removed from the jar and the jar is sealed; second (assuming the jar had some oxygen left) who knows if people haven't eaten newly evolved microscopic organisms when they made their peanut butter and jelly sandwiches?

See ZOMGitscriss in action.

Dan Benishek takes on Bart Stupak

Meet the doctor who symbolizes the nationwide rebellion against Obamacare.

His name is Dan Benishek. He’s a 57-year-old surgeon from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and he’s never held political office at any level. He announced on March 15 that he was running as a Republican for Michigan’s First Congressional District - that’s Bart Stupak’s district, in case you were wondering.

Today Benishek is a rising political force and an Internet phenomenon who could upset the balance of power in Washington, D.C.

Six days after Benishek announced his candidacy, he was handed an unexpected gift by Stupak, the Democrat who vowed to fight publicly funded abortion in Obamacare. Stupak stepped to the podium that fateful Sunday afternoon in front of a live national TV audience and announced he would support Obamacare with nothing but a meaningless executive order as his cover.

The congressman’s capitulation made Benishek a nationwide sensation.

Within 24 hours, he boasted 20,000 Facebook “friends.”

Within 48 hours, Benishek had raised $50,000 in online donations.

“No way is he [Stupak] going to win,” said Benishek. “I’m going to beat him. Actually, he beat himself by doing that dramatic flip-flop. He could have been a hero.”

Bart Stupak meets his match, Boston Herald

I don't know anything about Benishek outside of what's on his website. danbenishekforcongress.com I hope there's something to the man.

Huffington Post: 'Anti-Incumbent Tide' Threatens Republicans, Too

Well lets hope so; especially if the Republicans included in the Anti-Incumbant tide are Senators such as Robert F. Bennett of Utah

I love the spin put forward by the Huffington Post that this anger is simply "anti-incumbant." Let's see in November how many Republicans are voted out versus the number of Democrats. If it's simply anti-incumbant Republicans should be voted out in the same proportion as Democrats.

I've always hated the concept of "Better the Devil you Know, then the Devil you Don't." I've always followed the principle of "Vote for the Challanger unless you are For the Incumbant:" meaning you should be able to articulate why are for the incumbant. If you cannot come up with reasons why you are for him then vote him out.

Huffington Post: 'Anti-Incumbent Tide' Threatens Republicans
NYT: Political Tide Could Wash Away Utah Senator

Don't Retreat, Instead RELOAD

Here I am discouraged, hoping against hope that the American people don't sit for this power grab: that there are still enough people who understand the difference between the rights of a free people and those of a subject people.

And here comes Sarah Palin with: "Don't Retreat, Instead RELOAD."

Wow! Thank you Sarah.

2010 Census

I hear lots of people complaining about the information asked on the census. I agree. The constitution requires that one provides the number of people living at the residence, and nothing else.

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

It is said that many of the questions on the census is intrusive and unconstitutional. I'm not certain about its unconstitutionality (although I understand the sentiment) but these intrusive questions are not new. As a matter of fact questions in earlier census were often much more intrusive.

I'm setting up a section with these earlier census for your viewing pleasure.

Freedom: what is your definition?

Obama mocks the anguish that I, and others, feel.

For Obama and most “liberals” freedom means food in everyone’s belly and everyone being treated the same. My concept of freedom is owning my own body and my own property. You think freedom is only what other people – in realty government bureaucrats – let you have. You criticize the Republicans over Roe v Wade and yet pass laws requiring adults to wear seatbelts or helmets if riding a motorcycle. Sorry, it may make sense to wear seatbelts (I do) and wear a helmet (I do) but if you are a FREE man or FREE woman the choice is yours and yours alone. All other arguments to the contrary – namely cost to the society – are an infringement upon individual freedom and is the primary reason I’m against the health care bill. Now, under the guise of the healthcare, another wall protecting the individual from the government has been knocked down. Property rights – the basis of all freedom has already been destroyed and now you think nothing of turning over basic individual liberties to government fiat.

The basic premise of the social contract, the foundation of the US Constitution, was “I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take mine.” Welcome to the Counter-Enlightenment bliss of “I promise to give you room and board if you promise to prevent me from eating too many Twinkies.”

American Morality Survey

I just took the American Morality Survey put up by a group called Public Advocate of the United States. They seem to be more than a little pre-occupied by the "homosexual lobby."

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Radical homosexuals claim YOU support same-sex marriage, special job rights and promotion of homosexuality in schools. Please fill out the survey below and let your voice be heard.

There were five questions. Each question could be answered by YES, NO, UNSURE. The first question was:

1. Should homosexuals receive special job rights and force businesses, schools, churches and even daycares to hire and advance homosexuals or face prosecution and multimillion-dollar lawsuits?

I answered no. Not because I think homosexuals should be discriminated against by businesses, schools, etc... but because I feel this is not the province of government. The only people who should have a say in such a decision are the businesses and schools, churches, daycares etc...

2. Do you support the use of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to fund homosexual "art", so called AIDS-awareness programs and homosexual research grants that are frequently funneled to political advocacy?

I answered no. No taxpayer dollars should be used to support any form of art. Now, if a community agrees to give a property tax break to a museum I would not be too offended. Nonetheless that should not be done either. If you think the museum deserves a tax break then stand up as the free person you think you are and donate money to that museum.

3. Should homosexuality be promoted in school as a healthy lifestyle choice, while information about the life threatening consequences are ignored?

Is this a leading question or what? First of all I don't think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. I didn't choose to be a heterosexual, I just am. Second there is nothing particularly life threatening about being a homosexual. (We're not taking about definitions of after-life; immortal soul here.) Promiscuous, unprotected anal sex is as "life-threatening" if you're a homosexual man or a heterosexual woman. Assuming the "life-threatening" clause refers to anal sex then what of homosexual women? What about their lifestyle choice is particularly "life-threatening?"

I think that schools should teach the values of the parents. One set of parents may want to teach their children that variations in sexuality are as normal and natural as variations in skin and hair color. They may even want to teach their children to be wary of intolerant adults who belittle and hurt their friends simply because their friends' sexuality doesn't match a particular standard. Other parents may want to teach their children that homosexuality is wrong and to shun homosexuals.

I answered yes because I want my children to view homosexuality as normal and natural. But I respect the right of a free people to choose differently than me.

4. Do you support same-sex "marriage" for homosexuals or "marriage-like" rights, like homosexuals being able to adopt children and raise them in their "lifestyle"?

I answered yes. Gay Rights advocates should not be promoting the term marriage as that has religious overtones. Let us not have this debate degenerate into one over semantics. Let's use the word "Civil Ceremony" instead with its "'marriage-like' rights."

5. Should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn traditional marriage between one man and one woman?

I'm unaware that the Supreme Court defined marriage as between one man and one woman. As I think that "marriage" is a term laden with religious overtones, let's not fight this battle. Let marriage be between one man and one woman.

Civil Ceremony marriages can be between one man and another man; one man and 15 women; 32 women and one male; any combination of adult males and females.

I answered No. The Supreme Court should NOT overturn the definition of marriage. Let the religious folks keep that term. The rest will have to be satisfied with the term "Civil Ceremony".

The Ends Justify the Means.

Is there any doubt that the means by which this bill was passed was a case of the ends justifying the means; from the pay-offs to the fact that NO ONE, not any of the Representatives or Senators, nor even the President of the United States knows what’s in this bill. AND YET the bill must be passed.

Commentators demand that it be passed and yet they don’t know what’s in this bill. Why then are these people so committed to the bill being passed? Because all its supporters know that power is being accumulated by the Federal Government and this, they think, is good for them and good for the country.

Years ago there was a saying that “What’s good for GM is good for America.” That was a perverted concept; now we have the sentiment that “What’s good for the government is good for America.” If this is not a perversion of the Declaration of Independence, of the United States Constitution I don’t know what is.

Freedom in Retreat

This is a shameful day; a horrible time in our country's history. I had hoped against hope that enough lawmakers would see this bill and the process for what it was: a power grab by the federal government usurping the rights of the individual and would be horrified by what they were about to do.

I know that flying a flag upside down doesn't apply to the country and only applies to personal distress (danger) but I feel that the symbol applies to both my personal distress and the state of country,

Looks as if the Socialists have won the day

What happens next?

How do we reverse this without violence?

The Final Push for Health Care is on.

I can't say anything about the healthcare bill that other opponents haven't already said. I think much of the legislation over the last century is unconstitutional so I am but a lunatic voice on the fringe. Still, I ask, where in the powers granted Congress does one find the power enumerated for any Progressive Era legislation; or the New Deal; or the Great Society; or for what is currently being done? I don't find it.

This bill is one more step toward the infantiling of America; of turning a society based upon individual rights, with government as protector of those rights, into a society where government parcels out privileges to the favored of the day.

We are now becoming subject to a new crown -- and, to our everlasting infamy -- we voted it in. We are quickly going from the "land of the free and the home of the brave" to dopes in chains.

Is there anything that can be done? Only one at this stage and that is to write -- I mean it -- innundate your Representative with emails and faxes opposing the current health care bill. If nothing else write: "I'm against this health care bill and I vote." Don't forget to write to Representatives in neighboring districts (even states) and remind them that you will campaign against them this fall if they vote for this bill.

You can get a list of representatives; their districts and their websites at: www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State. If you're not sure which district you're in you can find state maps at www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/congress.html and see which district you're in.

I warn you. You may get a little frustrated with your Representative's website. Some of them are are not as simple to send a message as they ought to be.

Here's to April 15th

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Businesses, if they're off on their taxes by even a few cents, get huge fines. In NYS, for instance, businesses get a minimum 10% fine when submitting their quarterly sales taxes. For example if a business collects $5000 in sales tax and are off on their calculation by even a penny they are charged a minimum fine of $500 (10% of $5000).

Whenever I hear congressmen talking about making life easier for small businessmen I think about their equanimity concerning the existing state and federal laws and know that all they're doing is playing a game. If they wanted to help they would apply the same rules to the IRS -- and state and local governments -- that they set for banks, credit card companies and debt collectors.

From the Sports Pages

I'm a fight fan so, out of curiosity, I read the NYT's piece on the Pacquiao-Clottey fight. I certainly was not expecting any political / philosophical issues to come up. And yet, in the midst of the article I came upon the following line:

The fight had a surreal premise: an African and a Filipino fighting in Texas, the birthplace of Top Rank Boxing and, fittingly, the Cowboys’ owner, Jerry Jones.
Relentless From Start, Pacquiao Retains Title

What is surreal about the fight being held in Texas: unless you think that all Texans are racists and xenophobes; or for some reason you think that Texans never heard of boxing?

What is wrong with the writers and editors at this newspaper? For your information, in case you're not a boxing fan, Filipinos have produced numerous quality fighters over the past century. There haven't been as many Africans in the fight game but African fighters are not an unusual breed; and Texas has produced great boxers including Jack Johnson and George Foreman among others. There was nothing at all surreal about this match except in the minds of the writer and his editors.

Apologize

Time for a musical interlude.



Hattip Classical Liberalism What a catchy name for a blog, don't you think?

Undercover Boss - Living the American Dream

I like the show Undercover Boss. It's getting a little formulaic but that's neither here nor there. As with many people who love this country the following scene stole my heart.

[at 3:00]

I am living the American dream now.
America is the best country in the world.
You guys don't really know how blessed you are. ... You take it for granted.

The Malthusian Paradox

We’ll never pay for all the desired social programs. Think of this as the Malthusian Paradox. As social programs are created they take money from the money-generating sector. Money creation slows and social programs have to be halted, cut-back or eliminated. Conversely as wealth is being created there is less need for social programs. There is a point on the scale, analogus to the sweet-spot on the Laffer Curve, where the social good of government programs and the economic detriment balance out. Unfortunately that is an unknowable, unproveable point.

Furthermore, as with the Laffer Curve, it doesn't address the philosophical and constitutional problems inherent in social programs.

Logic, Facts and Faith

There is too much nonsense out there, but one thing I'm very happy about is that religious people use facts and logic in presenting their points. I know most evolutionists and creationists would disagree but this is common ground between the two sides. It is difficult, if not impossible, for a non-believer to have a discussion with a believer if the entire conversation is focused on revealed truths.

So, when we come across statements such as what's quoted below we have the opportunity to dispute or debate facts and logical reasoning.

It has been said that it is virtually impossible for anyone to make 11 straight predictions, 2000 years into the future. There is only one chance in 8 x 10 to the 63rd power, or 80 with 63 zeros after it that such a thing could be done. If such a set of predictions existed, it would have to be the Word of God. http://www.ravikrishnaa.blogpsot.com/

What's wrong with the above? Simple, how could someone, anyone, be able to make the odds on generic predictions; more than that what formula could be used to say that the odds of making "11 straight predictions, 2000 years into the future" are 8x10^80?

For example:

I predict that in the year 4010 there will be earthquakes.
I predict that in the year 4010 there will be volcanic activity.
I predict that in the year 4010 there will be hurricanes.

What are the odds that those three predictions come true?

How about the odds on this prediction: A 42 year old man; a paternal descendant of George Washington will be elected president of the United States.

How do we calculate the odds of that prediction coming true? Do you want to try to calculate the odds that the United States still exists in 2000 years?

Obama now against Armenian Genocide Resolution

While he was running for president candidate Obama said that "The US must recognize the events of 1915 to 1923, carried out by the Ottoman Empire, as genocide." And that the "Bush Administration's refusal to do so is inexcusable."

For the last year Obama and his administration has slowly changed their position to the point where now:

The Obama administration had urged the House Foreign Affairs Committee not to pass the resolution, warning it could damage U.S.-Turkish relations and jeopardize efforts to normalize relations between Turkey and its neighbor Armenia. The two do not share formal diplomatic relations.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters Friday that "the Obama administration strongly opposes the resolution that was passed by only one vote in the House committee, and we'll work very hard to make sure it does not go to the House floor."

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters ahead of the vote that the United States was concerned about the impact the vote could potentially have on U.S.-Turkish relations. Turkey, among other things, is considered a strong American ally and is home to a critical U.S. air base.

Official: Armenian genocide resolution unlikely to get full House vote

Let's compare that with his earlier statements.




At 0:48 candicate Obama said that:

"There was a genocide that did take place against the Armenian people. ... there has been a constant denial on the part of the Turkish government ..."

"Joe Biden and I believe that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence."
-Barack Obama (10/27/2008)

"America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides."
- Barack Obama (01/19/2008)

The following video demonstates the hope that many in the Armenian community had in Obama:



Obama's not the first candidate to lie through his teeth to get votes or to change his mind when actually confronted with the realities of the job. I don't think Obama lied when he said that a genocide took place, but now he is faced with nuances that he didn't consider earlier.

Isn't it funny that positions which so many found idiotic and hateful when Bush was in office is now accepted and excused when Obama takes the same position, and often for very much the same reasons?

Radical Judges Making Gun Ownership a Right!

My mind is racing, not only from the title of the piece but a lot of comments. Unfortunately I'm working on my taxes. Seeing the accountant on Friday.

Justices signal they're ready to make gun ownership a national right

I posted some of the comments below:

We have the silly:

Yippee!!!! Now the Country can be like Somalia. Why not? We're heading that direction anyway. Let the civil wars, crazy private armies, etc. begin.

I love reading the comments about peace loving gentle people who feel the presence of murderous weapons lead us to commit crimes. We will not become an enlightened society by banning everything that is bad for us. If that is the case, why isn't Mexico the safest most peaceful place on the earth?

I guess it's just not dangerous enough for them. What fairy tale land do these justices live in? Here in reality, we live in fear of armed men. And it's not the "hoods" either; The "law-abiding Americans" are just as dangerous and just as likely to shoot innocents.

We have the half-informed pseudo-intellectuals:

Does everyone ignore the first half of the 2nd Amendment?? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, At the time the nation was founded there was no permanent standing Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, or well established State National Guards; the everyday citizen was the Militia. When the organized National Guards were established by Congress & the States, they became the Militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment. So by that Act, the 2nd Amendment should of become null & void to the regular citizen and would only apply to those enlisted in the National Guard.

We have the self-righteous who demean their philosophical opponents:

The passion of this issue isn't about the constitution. Many people just like guns and want them. The Constitution is meaningless to them since many of them probaly think the Bill of Rights is what Moses brought down from Mount Sinai.

The constitution says "Well-Regulated" when referring to guns, so it's pretty much an open and shut case. However, if youa re a Supreme Court Justice you can pretty much rule on anything without needing a legitimate reason.

All those people who get their seilf identity from gun ownership will probably think this is great. Now they can wear their insecurity in a holster for the rest of the world to see. If they can conceal it, then no one else needs to know about their low self-image.

At least everybody will have a gun handy to commit suicide as society degrades into chaos. Keep a health watch on Kennedy and Scalia. If either dies, all the liberal Justices (except Sotomayor) will retire before the end of Obama's term so that he can restore some faith to the American people, and to keep things from degrading into a corporatist, rightwing, survivalist mentality.

Then we have the ones that ask the only truely valid philosophical question: what is the limit of firepower allowed to an individual?

I want an M1A1 tank, an F-22 Raptor, and some Hawk missiles so I can defend myself against my neighbor who will probably get an F-16... does the Supreme Court think this would be okay? Just thought I'd ask...

Where this breaks down is that the 2nd amendment talks about arms, not rifles or pistols. If the Supreme Court thinks that this means that individuals have a right to own and possess arms then it isn't limited to guns, an individual has the right to own and possess anything up to and including a hydrogen bomb. I think the terrorists have won.

And finally we have the people who simply don't deserve citizenship in this great country:

How many innocent people will now die because of this dogmatic worship of the constitution? Let their bodies be delivered to the Supreme Court and show them the result of their Supreme stupidity.
Who knows best how to run a city? The people who live there or 9 pedants who have never lived there?
You live in a democracy if, and only if ,you and your peers and your neighbours are free to take the decisions which affect your life and your life only. This country is a dictatorship of 9 lawyers who dedicate their life to implementing unto eternity the ideas of a dozen Englishmen in the 18th century who knew nothing of 21st century life. The magnificent nine in their shining temple on the hill, regard as secondary, the views of everyday people alive today (until some nut shoots them) This country has more nuts per acre than any other country in the world.
The constitution has become a cross on which innocent people will be crucified.
Repeal the 2nd amendment in the name of common sense and sane men, women and children.
If you want a gun then join the damned militia