The
pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, free markets and individual
liberty
"There is but one straight
course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
To subscribe, see note
below
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Most People Don’t Know Much About Second Amendment
History
The first line to Sam Cookes’ song “Wonderful
World” goes like this: “Don’t Know Much about history.” And that’s the way liberals want
to keep most of the nation. History’s a great teacher, but too many of us found
it boring. But it comes in handy when we’re trying to protect our freedoms. Knowing
some history about what our founders thought about what it means to “bear arms” can go a
long way to shut the mouth of someone who does not know much about history.
In 1999, Texas U.S. District Judge, Sam
Cummings ruled in a domestic abuse case that the Second Amendment guaranteed an
individual the right to keep and bear arms. There was naturally blowback from
this decision. His detractors claimed he neglected to follow usual judicial
practice. You see, his sin was not citing legal precedent to support his
decision. That one sentence clearly defines a major problem in this country,
run by pinhead lawyers — so full of arrogance that they think
themselves and their court decisions superior to the Constitution and the
founders. By citing only court precedent instead of original intent one
bad decision leads to another and so on.
Some legal pinheads might cite the Supreme
Court case U.S. v Miller (1939) wherein the court ruled the Second
Amendment’s “obvious purpose . . . was to assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness of the state militia.” In the early 1980s, the
Illinois Supreme Court as well as the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled that there was no right for individuals to keep and bear arms in the
Second Amendment. I’m no constitutional scholar or great jurist with an army of
researchers, but I can read.
So did the framers intend the Second
Amendment to encompass an individual’s right to carry guns for self-protection? It turns out they,
the founders, had plenty to say on the subject. The first state Declaration of
Rights to use the term “bear arms” was Pennsylvania in 1776: “that the people
have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.” Pretty
clear. No ambiguity there.
Noah Webster of dictionary fame was certainly
in a position to know what the Second Amendment phrase “bear arms” meant. A
prominent Federalist, he wrote the first major pamphlet in support of the
Constitution when it was proposed in 1787, in which he stated:
“[B]efore a standing
army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom
in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the
sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.”
Again, pretty straightforward, but one might
expect that of a wordsmith. In fact, in Webster’s famous dictionary,
first published in 1828, “bear” is defined as “To wear; to bear as a mark of
authority or distinction; as to bear
a sword, a badge, a name; to bear
arms in a coat.” Continuing to the word “arms,” we find this definition:
“weapons
of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.” So according to
Webster, “bear arms” is to carry or wear weapons openly or concealed.
Further, Webster defines “pistol” as a “small firearm, or smallest firearm
used… small pistols are carried in the pocket.” I bet
most Americans don’t know this much about gun history in America. Remember "snookered"? The above is the only defense one has against
it. We must know our Constitution and
what the framer's intents were through the Federalist Papers. Otherwise you will be snookered!
~~~~~~
IMF Wants Americans Taxed $1.40 More Per Gallon Of Gas
Already, we have federal and state gas taxes
that are embedded in the price of gasoline that are supposed to fund
construction and maintenance of roads and highways. But imagine if a gallon of
gas was all of a sudden $1.40 more expensive. This is what the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) is suggesting. They think this gas tax would be a good idea
to fend off global warming and save the environment.
A few days ago, I reported how global
warming isn’t progressing as many scientists expected it to. According to The
Economist, the Earth has added 100 billion tons of carbon just in the
years between 2000 and 2010, which represents about a quarter of all carbon
emitted by humans since 1750. Yet, scientists are having to admit that
there is a hiatus in temperature rises. All they can say is that the
non-rising temperature is puzzling. It doesn’t correlate with their presumed
theory that carbon emissions cause global temperatures to rise. I’m sure
they’ll think of something to keep the myth going. That’s what they’re paid to
do. So, do you know who the International Monetary Fund
is? Do you know why they would be
advocating how much gas tax you should pay? Lastly, why do you think anyone
should listen to them? Find out!
~~~~~~
Public Says “Butt Out, Government” on Global Warming
by Gary North
The public is no longer buying the story of
man-made global warming. So says a recent Pew poll. About 69% of the public still
believes the story of global warming, despite the fact that warming stopped
over a decade ago. But of those still taken in by the hoax, only
42% say that humans did it. That means that only 29% of Americans think
there is anything governments can do to reverse global warming.
About 23% of Americans think that natural
forces are heating the earth, and 27% don’t believe the story at all. The news gets better.
Today, 33% of Americans think that global warming is a major problem. Last
October, 40% believed this.
·
The global warming movement is cooling.
·
And though 33 percent of Americans believe
that global warming is a “very serious” problem, that number has declined by 6
points since October 2012.
·
The mania is over.
·
The crusade is finished.
·
The hoaxers are losing.
·
How many Americans believe that global
warming is a hoax? About 37%.
·
All that hype, and nothing to show for it.
· Al
Gore has failed to persuade the voters . . . on anything.
Over 31,000 scientists have signed Dr. Arthur
Robinson’s petition on the non-threat of global warming. This galls the warmers.
There is little they can do about it. I will not say that it’s all over but the
shouting. But it really is just about over. The warmers have lost. The public
is no longer buying it. All the warmers can do is shout!
~~~~~~
What Could Go Wrong? Obama Pressures Big Banks to Make
Risky Loans to Poor
According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration is pushing big banks to make
more home loans available to Americans with bad credit – the same kind of
government guidance that helped blow up the housing market:
In response,
administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider
range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs
— including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure
home loans against default.
Housing officials are urging the Justice
Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly
cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they
make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later
default. Mad enough yet?????
~~~~~~
Cancer clinics are turning away thousands of Medicare
patients. Blame the sequester by Sarah Kliff
Cancer clinics across the country have begun
turning away thousands of Medicare patients, blaming the sequester budget cuts.
Oncologists
say the reduced funding, which took effect for Medicare on April 1, makes it
impossible to administer expensive chemotherapy drugs while staying afloat
financially. Patients at these
clinics would need to seek treatment elsewhere, such as at hospitals that might
not have the capacity to accommodate them. “If we treated the patients
receiving the most expensive drugs, we’d be out of business in six months to a
year,” said Jeff Vacirca, chief executive of North Shore Hematology Oncology
Associates in New York. “The drugs we’re going to lose money on we’re not going
to administer right now.” Still not mad enough?
~~~~~~
ObamaCare in Trouble? Exchange provision delayed, as
lawmakers push to repeal another By Jim Angle
Parts of ObamaCare are starting to fray, even
before full implementation. The Obama administration now says a special
system of exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses to provide
insurance will be delayed an entire year -- to 2015. "Lots of small
businesses struggle with providing insurance for their workers so this was
supposed to facilitate it and make it easier for small business to do this,"
said Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. "It was a huge
portion of the sale job. When they passed the law in 2010 there were many
senators and members of Congress who were saying 'I am doing this because it's
going to help small businesses.'" The exchanges were designed to give workers a
range of choices supported by dollars from their employers. But now they will
have only one choice until 2015, which could mean they can't shop for
insurance that includes their current providers. Capretta said the
administration is "way" behind schedule. Since insurance is more
expensive for small businesses, many of which have no obligation under the law
to provide coverage, analysts now fear many might just stop trying and let
workers go on the soon-to-be-launched state exchanges. Sara
Teppema of the Society of Actuaries -- which did an exhaustive study of
ObamaCare -- said that "even if it's just a small change of people who are
leaving the employment-based insurance and coming into the individual insurance
market, their costs and their numbers will overwhelm those who are currently
uninsured." That means costs would increase.
~~~~~~
Sen. Feinstein Blames NRA, Gun Makers For Derailing
Assault Weapons Ban
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/AP) – The National
Rifle Association and gun manufacturers are to blame for the “disconnect”
between the broad public support for gun control and the reluctance in Congress
to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, U.S.
Senator Dianne Feinstein said Wednesday. Speaking to a hometown audience of
about 500 people in San Francisco, the California Democrat said the NRA
has intimidated senators with threats that the gun lobby would spend heavily to
unseat them if they support the restrictions Feinstein championed in response
to the December massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. “A fear has
set in that if they vote for the bill they won’t be re-elected. It’s that
plain, it’s that simple,” Feinstein said during an appearance before the Commonwealth
Club. “My view is they shouldn’t go up to the Senate if they are unwilling to
stand up and vote.” She did not mention any senators by name, but
ticked off a long list of southern and western states, from Montana and Wyoming
to Tennessee and Florida, where the threats would be most successful. Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid last month stripped the assault weapons and
ammunition bans from the gun-control legislation that Democrats plan to bring
to the Senate floor in coming weeks. Reid said he was worried those
provisions would doom any reforms, such as expanded background checks for gun
sales, but assured Feinstein he would allow them to be voted on as amendments. Oh! is this not what politicians do? They vote and behave according to how their
constituencies want things to be? So, is
it the NRA lobby or simply Americans that don't want the Second Amendment to be
watered down or changed WITHOUT a constitutional amendment process!!
~~~~~
Chris Matthews: Only Whites Can Be Racists
'Actually, Rushbo,
racism is the belief that one race -- whites
-- should rule all others. Get your definitions straight!"
Over to you, Merriam-Webster: Racism - noun - 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination. The best part of the clip is the confident, smirking nature of Matthew's little lecture. Get your definitions straight, Rushbo! Racism is the exclusive province of whites. Isn't it fun to be so much smarter and more sophisticated than those ignorant knuckle-draggers on the Right, audience? What an ass. And I bet most of his viewers nodded right along. Question: How might Spittle McTingles describe these remarks?
Mr. Barry [Marion
Barry of D.C.] used the occasion of a victory party Tuesday to make this
ignorant observation: “We’ve
got to do something about these Asians coming in, opening up businesses, those
dirty shops. They ought to go, I’ll just say that right now, you know.”
That would be a bigoted statement from an African-American politician (D) about getting rid of the "dirty" Asian shops that apparently bother him. No white people, so no racism -- right Chris? Incidentally, Matthews wins the insufferability crown at MSNBC for several reasons, at least in my book. First, his show airs twice in a three-hour span. The same show. Second, for years, Matthews masqueraded as a centrist newsman. He occasionally still claims to be one. So he was either subduing his bias that whole time, or he's gotten in touch with his inner hack to conform to the network's editorial bent. Neither explanation reflects particularly well on him. (I guarantee you his defense would be, "these Republicans have just gotten so radical," or whatever. Yes, I'm sure the party abandoned you, Chris). At the end of the day, viewers know what they're getting with a Bashir or an O'Donnell or a Schultz. But Matthews' show is unique in that it's degenerated from a tough, interesting news and analysis program to a sneering, predictable echo chamber. And finally, perhaps more than anyone else on the network, Matthews plays the race card to bully people he doesn't like. How ironic that he doesn't even know the dictionary definition of racism.
~~~~~~
Sledge Hammer Alert: Five Gay Marriage Myths Destroyed
If homosexuals and heterosexuals are really
“equal” before the law, then logically heterosexual marriage must collapse into
being little more than a legal construct as well. Indeed, marriage and family
become mere adjuncts of the state after the removal of the de facto conditions
that make the traditional family a pre-political institution in the first
place. No longer is family something that, in the words of Douglas Farrow,
“precedes and exceeds the state.” No longer is the family a hedge against the
totalitarian aspirations of the state because no longer is the family prior to
the state.
This is not mere hypothetical speculation
about what ‘might’ happen if same-sex marriages are legalized. Canadian
theologian Douglas Farrow has shown that after Canada legalized same-sex
marriage, even traditional marriage began to be spoken about as little more
than a legal construct. In his book Nation of Bastards, Farrow
criticized warned that by claiming the power to re-invent marriage, the
Canadian state “has drawn marriage and the family into a captive orbit. It has
reversed the gravitational field between the family and the state… It
has effectively made every man, woman, and child a chattel of the state, by
turning their most fundamental human connections into mere legal constructs at
the state’s disposal. It has transformed those connections from divine gifts
into gifts from the state.”
Most people are not aware of how gay marriage
will undermine the traditional family because it does so in ways that are
subtle and ubiquitous. However, once gay marriage is introduced into a
nation, it undermines the integrity of every family and every
marriage in the nation. It does this by rearranging the family’s
relationship to the state. The state which legalizes gay marriage is a state
that has assumed the god-like power to
declare which collections of individuals constitute a ‘family.’ But by
this assumption government declares that both marriage and family are little more than
legal constructs at best, and gifts from the state at worst. In the former
case, marriage and family lose their objective fixity; in the latter case, we
become the wards of the state.
Myth #1: Marriage is fundamentally a
voluntary union of persons in a committed relationship
Myth #2: Gay marriage legislation would
remove the ban on same-sex couples getting marriage
Myth #3: Gay marriage is the most tolerant
option
Myth #4: Gay marriage will bring greater
equality
Myth #5: Gay marriage will not undermine the
traditional family
Do your own research and you will see the why
these are myths. However, notice that
these myths are the center piece of the narrative you see in the media and
other proponents.
~~~~~~
"The steady character of our countrymen is
a rock to which we may safely moor; and notwithstanding the efforts of the
papers to disseminate early discontents, I expect that a just, dispassionate
and steady conduct, will at length rally to a proper system the great body of
our country. Unequivocal in principle, reasonable in manner, we shall be able I
hope to do a great deal of good to the cause of freedom & harmony." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1801
No comments:
Post a Comment