The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The men that drafted the Constitution of The United States added the Amendments in the order of their moral priority. If one looks at the Constitution and the Amendments with an eye on practicality, the Second Amendment then becomes at least, par with the First Amendment in importance. The Second Amendment is the guardian and guarantor of the Bill of Rights, preventing the Federal Government from writing any law that would deny the citizens of this nation the arms they would need to defend the nation, their State and to defend the rights that were secured under the new government.
Without the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution would have little meaning and no defense against a corrupt government. Let us not forget that the men who drafted the Constitution had also written into the Declaration of Independence “…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.” It is clear that they possessed a deep and abiding distrust of governments in general and while they labored to create a nation founded in freedom, they recognized that this Republic was a supreme experiment and the outcome was yet to be proven.
Many opponents of the private ownership of firearms use the first few words of this amendment to say that this was strictly to provide for the arming of a State Militia; that it was never intended as a right for the common citizen to possess firearms. Well, once again we will delve into the Federalist Papers. That is where you will always find the clear intent of the men that wrote the Constitution and the Amendments. An excerpt taken from a document written by Alexander Hamilton on January 10, 1788 says:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
It was the intent of this Amendment to insure that the citizens are armed to defend this fledgling nation and it is clear by this passage alone, that the entire populace was expected to be armed. The “Militia only” interpretation the detractors of the Second Amendment say is implied in the Constitution clearly does not exist. The “regulation” that is implied in the Constitution was directed at insuring the Citizens were properly armed and is not meant to say that those that may bear arms can only exist as part of a National Guard or regular Army and in fact, this passage indicates that was not to be expected of the people.
Bear in mind that Congress had already created an army that had just secured our independence from Great Britain and there were provisions written into the draft of the Constitution that provided Congress with the means and the authority to raise an army, a navy and to secure the funds to provide for them both. If a militia was the sole intent of the Second Amendment, it would be the one and only redundant provision that appeared in the whole of the Constitution.
I find it mildly interesting that those that claim the intuitive insight to interpret the Constitution on our behalf tend to ignore the very store of documents that are the road map through the minds of the men that wrote it. To ignore the Federalist papers is a gross injustice to the American people and an insult to the honor of the founding fathers of this nation.
So why do I feel that the right to bear arms is so important? I could point to the article I posted here yesterday as one good reason. Pravda has all but written off the United States and quite honestly, if we do not put a stop to the insanity of 3.6 trillion dollar budgets, trillion dollar deficits and the wholesale looting of the treasury by “community organizers”, I agree with them. Rather than spell out a scenario of doom and gloom I will name my second reason, or rather Thomas Jefferson will...
"…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is quoted as saying: "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all." Let’s face it; only someone that intends to deny or destroy our rights and freedoms would be fearful of the people that would stand to defend them. It further tells me that if he could find a way around the Second Amendment, they would have already started collecting guns.
Henry Waxman is one of the authors of the Waxman-Markey or Climate Bill. This bill is supposed to protect the environment by reducing the carbon output of the United States. To do so, this bill will severely cripple the manufacturing industries in this nation and place draconian restrictions on personal power consumption by raising the price of energy to a point that will be unsustainable for the average American household.
The truly criminal part of that legislation is that it will have no effect on the environment whatsoever. China and India are the largest producers of carbon emissions and refuse to hamper their economic growth by enacting similar measures. The bill will certainly reduce carbon emissions in our country but not because we are cleaner. The emissions will be reduced as manufacturing industries relocate to other nations that do not possess costly restrictions on manufacturing and are truly happy for the opportunity to put their citizens to work doing the jobs we once had. Is this why Henry Waxman is nervous?
Gun opponents would cite crime statistics involving the use of firearms. The statistics they ignore is that the vast majority of those crimes are committed with unlawfully obtained firearms and in many cases, by people that are already prohibited from owning firearms because of a felony criminal record. You see, criminals by definition, do not obey the law so weapon legislation does not stop them. They also ignore the statistics that say that gun violence is predominately highest in the cities where they already possess stringent gun ownership laws. That is because the criminals aren’t quite so brave when there is an even chance that you might have a weapon too.
The text written by Alexander Hamilton that was posted above is a clear indication that the nation’s founders looked at the citizens very differently than Congress does now. We were the nation then, equal in status and rights. Now we are treated as the subjects of this massive government, nearly as much as we were under King George and that alone is sufficient to reinforce the need for the Second Amendment.
To make things worse, the Federal government continues to expand its powers beyond those granted to it under the Enumerated Powers Act, which is highly dangerous in a government that is full of people that think they are the new aristocracy. Remember, criminals by definition, do not obey the law and that includes the elected ones.
Paul
Showing posts with label second amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label second amendment. Show all posts
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The Commerce Clause Hoax
The other day I hinted that the President and Progressive members of Congress secretly fear the constitutional challenge to the healthcare bill. It has nothing to do with actually negating that healthcare bill per se, but rather the spill over affects of challenging the liberal use of the Commerce Clause that has given, or rather, that has allowed the Federal government to seize powers that were reserved for the States and the People when the Constitution was enacted.
Much of what the Federal government has done over the past one-hundred years has been justified through an interpretation of the Constitution and not what is actually written in the law. Since the Congress and President see fit to invoke the Commerce Clause as their justification lets take a look at that clause.
The United States Constitution
Article One
Section Eight
The Powers of Congress (third paragraph)
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”
While seemingly innocuous, the Commerce Clause has been intentionally manipulated ever since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. To derive the power needed to create massive agencies and oppressive regulations using this simple statement one must first ignore or conceal the words and intentions of the founding fathers. “To Regulate”, at the time the Constitution was written, simply meant “to make regular” and the authority to regulate was never meant to imply that the Federal government would have any powers beyond those that were enumerated in Article one, Section Eight. There are numerous examples that prove this interpretation in both the Constitution and in the Federalist Papers and it doesn’t take very long to find them.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers three definitions for “regulate” which are”:
1- To govern or direct according to rule: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority: to make regulations for or concerning (regulate the industries of a country)2- To bring order, method, or uniformity (to regulate one's habits)3- To fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of (regulate the pressure of a tire)
Congress loves to use the first definition of “regulate” to justify their actions through the use of the Commerce Clause but is that really appropriate? The Commerce Clause gives Congress to regulate Commerce with foreign nations but we all know that foreign nations are sovereign and will only recognize the rule and authority of law within the framework of their own governmental processes. Can Congress claim the Commerce Clause gives them the authority to negate the lawful structure of government in a foreign nation and burden that nation with laws and controlling regulations simply because we have trade with that nation? Of course not! As much as Congress may love that definition of regulate, it is clear that since the Commerce Clause also uses the word regulate in conjunction with commerce between the US and foreign nations; the definition that best applies would be the second “To bring order, method, or uniformity.”
In Article one, Section Eight, Congress also has the authority “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”. Money is an object, so clearly one cannot control the actions of money through legislative regulation. The regulation of the value of currency can only make sense in the context of insuring that the value of money was uniform throughout the United States and that the exchange rate with foreign currency was equally uniform; that a dollar in Massachusetts was worth the same as a dollar in Georgia and both of those dollars could be exchanged for an equal amount in British Pounds.
In the Madison debates staged during the August meetings of the Federal Convention of 1787, Representative John Mason of Maryland argued the point of regulating the militia. In fact, his motion was for the “…power to make laws regulating and disciplining the militia...” Since discipline is a rule or system of rules governing conduct or activity using regulation to imply control through legislative regulation would be redundant and redundancy was not something our founders were famous for. Therefore, the word regulate in that case also referred to insuring a basic uniformity of standards for the militia. Many examples exist within the Federalist papers and each time the word “regulate” appeared, it could only have meant to guarantee a degree of uniformity.
Since the inception of the Federal government and most especially, over the last hundred years, Congress has routinely overstepped its authority and in doing so, has slowly diluted the rights of the States that were clearly denied to the Federal government by the Tenth Amendment. The Federal legislation resulting from this seizure of power is now challenging the rights of all American citizens. For the Federal government to assume a power that is not clearly enunciated as one of the enumerated powers, they must first take that power away from the States, the people or both and the Commerce Clause is what has been most often used to achieve that. The President and the Congressional Democrats will fight tooth and nail in the defense of their new healthcare legislation but much of that fight will be waged to prevent the toppling of the healthcare bill from being used as a springboard by a coalition of States intent on restoring their Tenth Amendment rights and the Constitutional balance of power.
In addition to the actions taken by the States to block the individual mandate in the healthcare bill, a number of States have already enacted legislation or have legislation pending, designed to bolster the rights of gun owners in response to the threat of new Federal legislation that would restrict our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. These same States are considering measures to protect the rights of those that hunt and fish now that there are threats of Federal interference with those activities as well. As the Federal government attempts to cultivate more power in Washington, the States have finally realized the danger and are taking action themselves. Eventually the cases questioning the constitutionality of the Healthcare Bill will find their way to the Supreme Court and a defeat for Obama there may open the door for the States to question the authority of the Federal government in other areas where the definition of commerce is in question or where the interstate activity of that commerce has not been firmly established.
This reigning in of the Federal government is long overdue and if these measures fail, there may be no way to restrain the Washington leviathan the States created through their own complacency. If however, the individual mandate to purchase insurance fails to pass muster for constitutionality, the healthcare bill will fall with it and that failure will set the stage for a reevaluation of other, equally intrusive Federal agencies, programs and regulations. Federal law may supersede State law as the law of the land but not if the Federal laws, are themselves, unconstitutional. The Constitution grants the Federal government authority to enact any and all laws needed to fulfill their lawful obligations under the Constitution but those obligations are few and limited. I have a feeling they are about to find out how few and how limited their powers will be and they aren’t going to like it very much.
Paul
Much of what the Federal government has done over the past one-hundred years has been justified through an interpretation of the Constitution and not what is actually written in the law. Since the Congress and President see fit to invoke the Commerce Clause as their justification lets take a look at that clause.
The United States Constitution
Article One
Section Eight
The Powers of Congress (third paragraph)
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”
While seemingly innocuous, the Commerce Clause has been intentionally manipulated ever since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. To derive the power needed to create massive agencies and oppressive regulations using this simple statement one must first ignore or conceal the words and intentions of the founding fathers. “To Regulate”, at the time the Constitution was written, simply meant “to make regular” and the authority to regulate was never meant to imply that the Federal government would have any powers beyond those that were enumerated in Article one, Section Eight. There are numerous examples that prove this interpretation in both the Constitution and in the Federalist Papers and it doesn’t take very long to find them.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers three definitions for “regulate” which are”:
1- To govern or direct according to rule: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority: to make regulations for or concerning (regulate the industries of a country)2- To bring order, method, or uniformity (to regulate one's habits)3- To fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of (regulate the pressure of a tire)
Congress loves to use the first definition of “regulate” to justify their actions through the use of the Commerce Clause but is that really appropriate? The Commerce Clause gives Congress to regulate Commerce with foreign nations but we all know that foreign nations are sovereign and will only recognize the rule and authority of law within the framework of their own governmental processes. Can Congress claim the Commerce Clause gives them the authority to negate the lawful structure of government in a foreign nation and burden that nation with laws and controlling regulations simply because we have trade with that nation? Of course not! As much as Congress may love that definition of regulate, it is clear that since the Commerce Clause also uses the word regulate in conjunction with commerce between the US and foreign nations; the definition that best applies would be the second “To bring order, method, or uniformity.”
In Article one, Section Eight, Congress also has the authority “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”. Money is an object, so clearly one cannot control the actions of money through legislative regulation. The regulation of the value of currency can only make sense in the context of insuring that the value of money was uniform throughout the United States and that the exchange rate with foreign currency was equally uniform; that a dollar in Massachusetts was worth the same as a dollar in Georgia and both of those dollars could be exchanged for an equal amount in British Pounds.
In the Madison debates staged during the August meetings of the Federal Convention of 1787, Representative John Mason of Maryland argued the point of regulating the militia. In fact, his motion was for the “…power to make laws regulating and disciplining the militia...” Since discipline is a rule or system of rules governing conduct or activity using regulation to imply control through legislative regulation would be redundant and redundancy was not something our founders were famous for. Therefore, the word regulate in that case also referred to insuring a basic uniformity of standards for the militia. Many examples exist within the Federalist papers and each time the word “regulate” appeared, it could only have meant to guarantee a degree of uniformity.
Since the inception of the Federal government and most especially, over the last hundred years, Congress has routinely overstepped its authority and in doing so, has slowly diluted the rights of the States that were clearly denied to the Federal government by the Tenth Amendment. The Federal legislation resulting from this seizure of power is now challenging the rights of all American citizens. For the Federal government to assume a power that is not clearly enunciated as one of the enumerated powers, they must first take that power away from the States, the people or both and the Commerce Clause is what has been most often used to achieve that. The President and the Congressional Democrats will fight tooth and nail in the defense of their new healthcare legislation but much of that fight will be waged to prevent the toppling of the healthcare bill from being used as a springboard by a coalition of States intent on restoring their Tenth Amendment rights and the Constitutional balance of power.
In addition to the actions taken by the States to block the individual mandate in the healthcare bill, a number of States have already enacted legislation or have legislation pending, designed to bolster the rights of gun owners in response to the threat of new Federal legislation that would restrict our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. These same States are considering measures to protect the rights of those that hunt and fish now that there are threats of Federal interference with those activities as well. As the Federal government attempts to cultivate more power in Washington, the States have finally realized the danger and are taking action themselves. Eventually the cases questioning the constitutionality of the Healthcare Bill will find their way to the Supreme Court and a defeat for Obama there may open the door for the States to question the authority of the Federal government in other areas where the definition of commerce is in question or where the interstate activity of that commerce has not been firmly established.
This reigning in of the Federal government is long overdue and if these measures fail, there may be no way to restrain the Washington leviathan the States created through their own complacency. If however, the individual mandate to purchase insurance fails to pass muster for constitutionality, the healthcare bill will fall with it and that failure will set the stage for a reevaluation of other, equally intrusive Federal agencies, programs and regulations. Federal law may supersede State law as the law of the land but not if the Federal laws, are themselves, unconstitutional. The Constitution grants the Federal government authority to enact any and all laws needed to fulfill their lawful obligations under the Constitution but those obligations are few and limited. I have a feeling they are about to find out how few and how limited their powers will be and they aren’t going to like it very much.
Paul
Friday, April 2, 2010
Target 2010 - Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Henry Waxman is one of the more nefarious members of Congress and poses a greater threat than most because of his seniority as a thirty-five year veteran of Congress. His political ideology and voting record are currently rated between 85 and 100% by a whole host of Progressive and Leftist political organizations but of course, that should come as no surprise. Anyone that has followed Waxman’s career has seen that time and time again, Waxman has openly displayed a real love for political activism and Socialist principals. He champions many of his causes with a hard core belief that government must act for the good of the people, even if those actions are unpopular and stretch the very fabric of the Constitution. Curiously, as he claims to speak for the public, much of the legislative action that Waxman is famous (or infamous) for, necessarily requires a degree of government control over the people that is clearly beyond the lawful limits decreed by the enumerated powers of the United States Constitution.
Many Progressives are drawn to the study of Political Science and Law to facilitate their ideology and Waxman was no different. He earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and a Degree in Law from UCLA Law School. Anyone that has been alive for the past forty years knows who UCLA is and what they represent. They have been one of the centers of Progressive ideology for decades and their halls and buildings are clogged with openly Socialist professors and educational programs. Many of those professors actively pursue the indoctrination of their students until they are drawn into a zombie-like belief of what is now called, social and economic “justice”. The curious thing about this brand of justice is that it unapologetically advocates stomping on the rights, freedoms and possessions of some, to provide a subsistence level, government funded existence for others. I was raised to believe that the redistribution of wealth is not justice; it is Socialism but then again, I didn’t go to UCLA. In the end, I think the only thing UCLA excels in is providing future Progressives with a lexicon of new and less threatening words they can use to sell Marxist principals to an unsuspecting nation.
It is clear that Waxman drank the “Kool-Aid” while he was in UCLA because he is one of the most far left leaning Progressives in Congress and second only to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that is an admitted Socialist. Waxman pushed for crushing legislation against the tobacco industry and was instrumental in the House passage of many anti-smoking legislative packages that included the imposition of heavier “sin” taxes for tobacco products. I know there aren’t many people that think that smoking is a good thing, including me. It is a nasty, filthy habit but in reading the Constitution, it should remain a nasty, filthy personal choice because there is no way to tax smokers into submission without inflicting grave damage on the Constitution.
Taxation was never meant to regulate behavior and the imposition of those specific taxes is a direct assault on the Ninth Amendment affirmation that the general public has more rights than those that are specifically stated in the Constitution. It also flies in the face of Article One, Section Eight (The Powers of Congress) which states clearly that taxes are to be collected only to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States and that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. There is nothing uniform about a tax on one consumable item that is not levied on all of them and there is no compelling argument that the Congress has the right to impose a tax that exceeds the criteria of Article One, Section Eight to encourage or dissuade behavior. The Constitutional issues with Waxman’s urge to ignore personal freedoms for our own good have been argued six ways from Sunday and I doubt little progress will be made on that unless we can establish a list of definitions that clearly state the intentions of the law as it was written by the founding fathers.
Laying taxes aside for the moment, Waxman is quoted as saying something far more dangerous to a nation of free people. Henry Waxman said "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” One must first recognize that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because it was the only way to guarantee that the rest of our rights would remain inviolate at the hands of the Federal government. The founders did not trust a strong central government and recognized that a limited government would only remain limited for as long as the people maintained the ability to “keep them honest”; by force if needed.
I submit to you that the only people that would be nervous about American citizens that would use weapons in the defense of their rights are the people that intend to deny those rights in the first place. The Progressive movement seeks to replace the Free Market with a government based on Socialist principals and it is well known that the first impediment to this “Progressive Transformation” is the uninhibited private ownership of weapons. As such, the first assault on our rights must have the affect of nullifying the Second Amendment before they can move with impunity to tamper with any of the rest. I don’t think it’s any great mystery that Henry Waxman is a devoted advocate of strict gun regulation. For those that think gun registration and licensing is a benign action that promotes safety; don’t forget that every government that made radical changes towards Socialism used those very registration and licensing records to zero in on gun owners when the confiscation of weapons finally began.
Henry Waxman is currently Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which is an extremely powerful position and Waxman has used that position to nudge the country closer to the hidden goals of the Progressive movement than at any time in our history. In many ways, Henry Waxman was the muscle behind Nancy Pelosi when it came to extorting the votes they needed for the Healthcare Bill from reluctant Democrats. As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, there are matters taken up before his Committee that can direct billions in funding to the States of Congressmen willing to cast the “right” vote and those same Congressmen could see projects and special funding dry up and blow away if their votes weren’t in line with the demands of the House leadership.
Of course, those deals are never discussed openly on the floor of Congress but you can bet that language favoring Congressmen that sold their votes behind closed doors has already been slipped into Bills totally unrelated to Healthcare so the trail to connect the bribes to the votes would be difficult, at best, to follow. The justification for this can be found in the open admission by the Democratic leadership is that this is the way business in Washington is done. It doesn’t really matter if Candidate Obama campaigned on a new era of transparency and honesty in government, Obama is President now and he made it very clear during the healthcare summit that the campaign is over.
Henry Waxman used every power at his disposal to move the healthcare bill forward and now he is already positioning himself to do the same for the comprehensive Energy Bill otherwise known as Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is his bill and is even more intrusive and fiscally irresponsible than the Healthcare Bill. Through the smart grid, smart meters and compliant appliances, the government will have the ability to reach into your home and regulate how long your appliances run and how much you will pay to run them. The regulation of CO2 is not actually meant to curb climate change. It is meant to provide a vast new source of revenue for redistribution, bringing us even closer to a Socialist State. Just as in smoking, if the government were serious about reducing CO2, they wouldn’t simply charge you a fee to produce it or to use it; they would actually regulate it with goals for reduction.
Waxman is a vicious little troll that has been in Congress long enough to believe that he is a member of the ruling class instead of just another United States citizen elected to represent his constituents. As with most Progressives, Waxman has forgotten his responsibility to his district and to the Constitution. You can always spot the Congressmen that have been there way too long. They are the ones that think the Constitution is a hurdle to be jumped or a challenge to be overcome. Unfortunately, Henry represents an area that doesn’t pose much difficulty for his reelection but I still have faith. I think this year exposed career politicians for what they really are and that is the polar opposite of the founder’s intention of having a citizen legislature. You can’t stay in Washington for thirty-five years and pretend you have the first idea about what your constituents expect from their government. The biggest favor anyone can do for Henry Waxman is to send him home so he can get reacquainted with the human race.
Paul
Many Progressives are drawn to the study of Political Science and Law to facilitate their ideology and Waxman was no different. He earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and a Degree in Law from UCLA Law School. Anyone that has been alive for the past forty years knows who UCLA is and what they represent. They have been one of the centers of Progressive ideology for decades and their halls and buildings are clogged with openly Socialist professors and educational programs. Many of those professors actively pursue the indoctrination of their students until they are drawn into a zombie-like belief of what is now called, social and economic “justice”. The curious thing about this brand of justice is that it unapologetically advocates stomping on the rights, freedoms and possessions of some, to provide a subsistence level, government funded existence for others. I was raised to believe that the redistribution of wealth is not justice; it is Socialism but then again, I didn’t go to UCLA. In the end, I think the only thing UCLA excels in is providing future Progressives with a lexicon of new and less threatening words they can use to sell Marxist principals to an unsuspecting nation.
It is clear that Waxman drank the “Kool-Aid” while he was in UCLA because he is one of the most far left leaning Progressives in Congress and second only to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that is an admitted Socialist. Waxman pushed for crushing legislation against the tobacco industry and was instrumental in the House passage of many anti-smoking legislative packages that included the imposition of heavier “sin” taxes for tobacco products. I know there aren’t many people that think that smoking is a good thing, including me. It is a nasty, filthy habit but in reading the Constitution, it should remain a nasty, filthy personal choice because there is no way to tax smokers into submission without inflicting grave damage on the Constitution.
Taxation was never meant to regulate behavior and the imposition of those specific taxes is a direct assault on the Ninth Amendment affirmation that the general public has more rights than those that are specifically stated in the Constitution. It also flies in the face of Article One, Section Eight (The Powers of Congress) which states clearly that taxes are to be collected only to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States and that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. There is nothing uniform about a tax on one consumable item that is not levied on all of them and there is no compelling argument that the Congress has the right to impose a tax that exceeds the criteria of Article One, Section Eight to encourage or dissuade behavior. The Constitutional issues with Waxman’s urge to ignore personal freedoms for our own good have been argued six ways from Sunday and I doubt little progress will be made on that unless we can establish a list of definitions that clearly state the intentions of the law as it was written by the founding fathers.
Laying taxes aside for the moment, Waxman is quoted as saying something far more dangerous to a nation of free people. Henry Waxman said "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” One must first recognize that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because it was the only way to guarantee that the rest of our rights would remain inviolate at the hands of the Federal government. The founders did not trust a strong central government and recognized that a limited government would only remain limited for as long as the people maintained the ability to “keep them honest”; by force if needed.
I submit to you that the only people that would be nervous about American citizens that would use weapons in the defense of their rights are the people that intend to deny those rights in the first place. The Progressive movement seeks to replace the Free Market with a government based on Socialist principals and it is well known that the first impediment to this “Progressive Transformation” is the uninhibited private ownership of weapons. As such, the first assault on our rights must have the affect of nullifying the Second Amendment before they can move with impunity to tamper with any of the rest. I don’t think it’s any great mystery that Henry Waxman is a devoted advocate of strict gun regulation. For those that think gun registration and licensing is a benign action that promotes safety; don’t forget that every government that made radical changes towards Socialism used those very registration and licensing records to zero in on gun owners when the confiscation of weapons finally began.
Henry Waxman is currently Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which is an extremely powerful position and Waxman has used that position to nudge the country closer to the hidden goals of the Progressive movement than at any time in our history. In many ways, Henry Waxman was the muscle behind Nancy Pelosi when it came to extorting the votes they needed for the Healthcare Bill from reluctant Democrats. As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, there are matters taken up before his Committee that can direct billions in funding to the States of Congressmen willing to cast the “right” vote and those same Congressmen could see projects and special funding dry up and blow away if their votes weren’t in line with the demands of the House leadership.
Of course, those deals are never discussed openly on the floor of Congress but you can bet that language favoring Congressmen that sold their votes behind closed doors has already been slipped into Bills totally unrelated to Healthcare so the trail to connect the bribes to the votes would be difficult, at best, to follow. The justification for this can be found in the open admission by the Democratic leadership is that this is the way business in Washington is done. It doesn’t really matter if Candidate Obama campaigned on a new era of transparency and honesty in government, Obama is President now and he made it very clear during the healthcare summit that the campaign is over.
Henry Waxman used every power at his disposal to move the healthcare bill forward and now he is already positioning himself to do the same for the comprehensive Energy Bill otherwise known as Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is his bill and is even more intrusive and fiscally irresponsible than the Healthcare Bill. Through the smart grid, smart meters and compliant appliances, the government will have the ability to reach into your home and regulate how long your appliances run and how much you will pay to run them. The regulation of CO2 is not actually meant to curb climate change. It is meant to provide a vast new source of revenue for redistribution, bringing us even closer to a Socialist State. Just as in smoking, if the government were serious about reducing CO2, they wouldn’t simply charge you a fee to produce it or to use it; they would actually regulate it with goals for reduction.
Waxman is a vicious little troll that has been in Congress long enough to believe that he is a member of the ruling class instead of just another United States citizen elected to represent his constituents. As with most Progressives, Waxman has forgotten his responsibility to his district and to the Constitution. You can always spot the Congressmen that have been there way too long. They are the ones that think the Constitution is a hurdle to be jumped or a challenge to be overcome. Unfortunately, Henry represents an area that doesn’t pose much difficulty for his reelection but I still have faith. I think this year exposed career politicians for what they really are and that is the polar opposite of the founder’s intention of having a citizen legislature. You can’t stay in Washington for thirty-five years and pretend you have the first idea about what your constituents expect from their government. The biggest favor anyone can do for Henry Waxman is to send him home so he can get reacquainted with the human race.
Paul
Friday, March 26, 2010
Target 2010 - Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Texas has always remained a highly independent State, especially where politics have been concerned. They consider anyone living north of the Red River a “Yankee” and have often joked that the difference between a Yankee and a Damned Yankee was that a Damned Yankee shows up with a moving truck. The problem with Damned Yankees is they also show up with a desire to alter the political landscape whenever they get where they are going and for the most part, their Liberal leanings are at odds with the Libertarian and Conservative beliefs engrained in Texas’s rich heritage.
Having been born in Queens, New York, Sheila Jackson Lee certainly qualifies as a Damned Yankee. Ms. Lee showed up in Houston Texas with her moving truck in 1975 after her husband, Dr. Elwyn Lee, secured a position at the University of Houston. Having received a degree in Political Science from Yale, Sheila Jackson Lee then pursued a degree in law (Juris Doctor or J.D.) from the University of Virginia Law School. In many cases, the study of Political Science infects people with warped ideas on how to use law to affect ideological change rather than reinforcing the traditional view of law as a societal tool to maintain peace and stability within the structure of the Constitution.
Having been armed with a sufficient quantity of Socialist ideals and the degrees needed to spread them throughout society, Sheila Jackson Lee made three attempts to obtain a local judgeship before being appointed as a municipal judge in 1987 by then Mayor of Houston, Kathryn J. Whitmire. Whitmire, who was the first woman mayor of Houston was a former professor of Political Science at the University of Maryland’s Burns Leadership Academy and a Progressive Democrat herself. As a former professor of Political Science, Whitmire understood the importance of establishing a Progressive presence in the court system so that they can begin the work of tweaking existing legislation in favor of their ideological goals and Sheila Jackson Lee had the credentials of someone she could trust to do just that.
The position of municipal judge was the springboard Jackson Lee needed to thrust her into the public arena. In 1989, Jackson Lee won a seat on the Houston City Council where she continued her mission of chipping away at Constitutional rights to forward the Progressive agenda. A major impediment to the ultimate Progressive goal of collapsing the US Constitution is the 2nd Amendment and Texans had traditionally guarded the 2nd Amendment with passion. To chip away at that right, Jackson Lee used the Alinsky trick of framing the argument to elicit the answers she wanted. If minor changes can be made to local law that would impose slight limits on gun owners, then those minor changes could be used later as a precedent for more control and limits.
Jackson Lee launched her assault by pushing a gun safety ordinance that would punish parents that failed to keep weapons away from their children. Alinsky and Jackson Lee both knew that no one would argue against the idea of keeping guns away from children but this wasn’t about children; this was about taking the first step towards gun control in an area that predominantly favored gun ownership. Every community already has laws specifically designed to protect children and punish those, including parents, that would endanger a child. Current law provided all the muscle local law enforcement needed to safeguard children against reckless parents but what it didn’t do was raise a question about owning guns and that is what Jackson Lee wanted. Of course Sheila Jackson Lee was elected to Congress, assuming office in January of 1995 so any interest she may have had to continue her fight against gun owners would now have to take place in the national arena.
I have always maintained that Progressives are the single greatest threat to America because they a gang of closet subversives that clothe themselves as part of the mainstream and speak the language of Middle America while exercising a carefully crafted strategy designed to transform America into another “Socialist Utopia” one law at a time. Saul Alinsky laid the groundwork out in his book “Rules for Radicals” where he stated quite clearly that to obtain their ultimate goal; Progressives must hide their agenda and be willing to accept small steps towards achieving a larger goal. He recognized that Americans would fight tooth and nail against major changes but could be nudged into accepting Socialism one piece at a time; especially if they thought they were getting great benefits from the government for a small investment of taxes or minor freedoms. Progressives pray upon the generous nature of the American culture and sell their ideas on the premise that government programs are just an extension of their own charity.
Sheila Jackson Lee is not only a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus but a member of the Congressional Black Caucus as well. That is also in keeping with Alinsky’s strategy of framing the argument to achieve results instead of actually engaging in honest dialogue. A favorite technique of Progressives is to claim that any opposition to their plans is motivated by hate rather than political ideology. For the past fifty years, they have successfully branded anyone that opposed their agenda as racists fighting against social justice for poor and minority Americans. That was actually very effective until just recently. After all, it’s hard to throw claims around about racism when the United States has a greater degree of racial diversity in local, State and Federal government than any other nation on the planet. The idea that Barack Obama was elected by such a wide margin should have shut down any argument of societal racism in America but the left still tries. The difference is that the charges are now so ludicrous that they just haven’t been able to gain the same traction they once did.
Progressives like Sheila Jackson Lee are actually doing America a favor. They have become so emboldened by their recent victories that many have tossed out Alinsky principals and have begun to publically air their real agenda instead of sneaking in through the basement a piece at a time. That is why the independent and Conservative people in this nation have been so actively opposed to the President’s plans. American’s still don’t like sweeping change and they have never liked Socialists. Most Americans can’t even utter the word Socialist without out getting a sour taste in their mouths.
Sheila Jackson Lee actually considers the Marxist regime of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez as “friendly” to the United States and has proposed relaxing the U.S. ban on weapon sales to that nation. She also has continued her fight against the 2nd Amendment and co-sponsored a bill that would restrict the ownership of so-called “assault” weapons; a bill that has such a loose interpretation of what an assault weapon is that it would have been a major blow against the lawful ownership of hundreds of weapon classes and accessories. Keep your eyes open because they are not done with this one yet. If they are going to seize the control they need over the population to realize their dreams then the first thing that has to be done is the elimination of privately owned weapons and they will use any means at their disposal to bring that about.
Sheila Jackson Lee still hasn’t learned that with her election to Congress, she has a responsibility to display obedience to the law and that adherence is obviously optional to Jackson Lee. In 2006, she was one of five Congressman and six other activists that were arrested for disorderly conduct during a protest in front of the Sudanese Embassy in Washington. Strangely, Jackson Lee spoke very harshly about the Tea Party protests in front of the Capitol this past weekend despite her own penchant for angry protest. What she didn’t mention in her news appearances on the issue is that none of the Tea Party members were arrested as she was, so their protests apparently did not contain the same level of intensity as her own. Truthfully, there would have been no incidents at all during the Tea Party protests last week if Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress had chosen their usual route to the Capitol Building. Instead, they walked through the crowd in an act of open defiance against the protest. In the end, it was Pelosi’s insistence on flaunting the impending vote in the faces of the protesting crowd that served to inflame them.
Sheila Jackson Lee was prominently mentioned during the town hall meeting protests over healthcare last August. She was the only member of Congress that was so blatantly indifferent to her constituent’s concerns that she continued to carry on cell phone conversations while people were speaking at the meeting. I’ve been in meetings that were very important and the general rule of courtesy is to turn the phone off, let an aide take messages or at the bare minimum, to turn it to silent ring. As a member of Congress pledged to represent her district, there should have been nothing more important than to hear from the people she speaks for.
Sheila Jackson Lee is one of the people that least deserves re-election. There was no doubt that she would vote for the healthcare bill because it fits the Socialist agenda that she supports. She didn’t bother to read any of it because it didn’t matter…..she was going to vote for it regardless of what it contained or how many of her constituents openly despised it. If re-elected, she will certainly continue on her march to bring about her Progressive idea of a Socialist America; an ideology shared and promoted by President Barack Obama.
Paul
Having been born in Queens, New York, Sheila Jackson Lee certainly qualifies as a Damned Yankee. Ms. Lee showed up in Houston Texas with her moving truck in 1975 after her husband, Dr. Elwyn Lee, secured a position at the University of Houston. Having received a degree in Political Science from Yale, Sheila Jackson Lee then pursued a degree in law (Juris Doctor or J.D.) from the University of Virginia Law School. In many cases, the study of Political Science infects people with warped ideas on how to use law to affect ideological change rather than reinforcing the traditional view of law as a societal tool to maintain peace and stability within the structure of the Constitution.
Having been armed with a sufficient quantity of Socialist ideals and the degrees needed to spread them throughout society, Sheila Jackson Lee made three attempts to obtain a local judgeship before being appointed as a municipal judge in 1987 by then Mayor of Houston, Kathryn J. Whitmire. Whitmire, who was the first woman mayor of Houston was a former professor of Political Science at the University of Maryland’s Burns Leadership Academy and a Progressive Democrat herself. As a former professor of Political Science, Whitmire understood the importance of establishing a Progressive presence in the court system so that they can begin the work of tweaking existing legislation in favor of their ideological goals and Sheila Jackson Lee had the credentials of someone she could trust to do just that.
The position of municipal judge was the springboard Jackson Lee needed to thrust her into the public arena. In 1989, Jackson Lee won a seat on the Houston City Council where she continued her mission of chipping away at Constitutional rights to forward the Progressive agenda. A major impediment to the ultimate Progressive goal of collapsing the US Constitution is the 2nd Amendment and Texans had traditionally guarded the 2nd Amendment with passion. To chip away at that right, Jackson Lee used the Alinsky trick of framing the argument to elicit the answers she wanted. If minor changes can be made to local law that would impose slight limits on gun owners, then those minor changes could be used later as a precedent for more control and limits.
Jackson Lee launched her assault by pushing a gun safety ordinance that would punish parents that failed to keep weapons away from their children. Alinsky and Jackson Lee both knew that no one would argue against the idea of keeping guns away from children but this wasn’t about children; this was about taking the first step towards gun control in an area that predominantly favored gun ownership. Every community already has laws specifically designed to protect children and punish those, including parents, that would endanger a child. Current law provided all the muscle local law enforcement needed to safeguard children against reckless parents but what it didn’t do was raise a question about owning guns and that is what Jackson Lee wanted. Of course Sheila Jackson Lee was elected to Congress, assuming office in January of 1995 so any interest she may have had to continue her fight against gun owners would now have to take place in the national arena.
I have always maintained that Progressives are the single greatest threat to America because they a gang of closet subversives that clothe themselves as part of the mainstream and speak the language of Middle America while exercising a carefully crafted strategy designed to transform America into another “Socialist Utopia” one law at a time. Saul Alinsky laid the groundwork out in his book “Rules for Radicals” where he stated quite clearly that to obtain their ultimate goal; Progressives must hide their agenda and be willing to accept small steps towards achieving a larger goal. He recognized that Americans would fight tooth and nail against major changes but could be nudged into accepting Socialism one piece at a time; especially if they thought they were getting great benefits from the government for a small investment of taxes or minor freedoms. Progressives pray upon the generous nature of the American culture and sell their ideas on the premise that government programs are just an extension of their own charity.
Sheila Jackson Lee is not only a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus but a member of the Congressional Black Caucus as well. That is also in keeping with Alinsky’s strategy of framing the argument to achieve results instead of actually engaging in honest dialogue. A favorite technique of Progressives is to claim that any opposition to their plans is motivated by hate rather than political ideology. For the past fifty years, they have successfully branded anyone that opposed their agenda as racists fighting against social justice for poor and minority Americans. That was actually very effective until just recently. After all, it’s hard to throw claims around about racism when the United States has a greater degree of racial diversity in local, State and Federal government than any other nation on the planet. The idea that Barack Obama was elected by such a wide margin should have shut down any argument of societal racism in America but the left still tries. The difference is that the charges are now so ludicrous that they just haven’t been able to gain the same traction they once did.
Progressives like Sheila Jackson Lee are actually doing America a favor. They have become so emboldened by their recent victories that many have tossed out Alinsky principals and have begun to publically air their real agenda instead of sneaking in through the basement a piece at a time. That is why the independent and Conservative people in this nation have been so actively opposed to the President’s plans. American’s still don’t like sweeping change and they have never liked Socialists. Most Americans can’t even utter the word Socialist without out getting a sour taste in their mouths.
Sheila Jackson Lee actually considers the Marxist regime of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez as “friendly” to the United States and has proposed relaxing the U.S. ban on weapon sales to that nation. She also has continued her fight against the 2nd Amendment and co-sponsored a bill that would restrict the ownership of so-called “assault” weapons; a bill that has such a loose interpretation of what an assault weapon is that it would have been a major blow against the lawful ownership of hundreds of weapon classes and accessories. Keep your eyes open because they are not done with this one yet. If they are going to seize the control they need over the population to realize their dreams then the first thing that has to be done is the elimination of privately owned weapons and they will use any means at their disposal to bring that about.
Sheila Jackson Lee still hasn’t learned that with her election to Congress, she has a responsibility to display obedience to the law and that adherence is obviously optional to Jackson Lee. In 2006, she was one of five Congressman and six other activists that were arrested for disorderly conduct during a protest in front of the Sudanese Embassy in Washington. Strangely, Jackson Lee spoke very harshly about the Tea Party protests in front of the Capitol this past weekend despite her own penchant for angry protest. What she didn’t mention in her news appearances on the issue is that none of the Tea Party members were arrested as she was, so their protests apparently did not contain the same level of intensity as her own. Truthfully, there would have been no incidents at all during the Tea Party protests last week if Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress had chosen their usual route to the Capitol Building. Instead, they walked through the crowd in an act of open defiance against the protest. In the end, it was Pelosi’s insistence on flaunting the impending vote in the faces of the protesting crowd that served to inflame them.
Sheila Jackson Lee was prominently mentioned during the town hall meeting protests over healthcare last August. She was the only member of Congress that was so blatantly indifferent to her constituent’s concerns that she continued to carry on cell phone conversations while people were speaking at the meeting. I’ve been in meetings that were very important and the general rule of courtesy is to turn the phone off, let an aide take messages or at the bare minimum, to turn it to silent ring. As a member of Congress pledged to represent her district, there should have been nothing more important than to hear from the people she speaks for.
Sheila Jackson Lee is one of the people that least deserves re-election. There was no doubt that she would vote for the healthcare bill because it fits the Socialist agenda that she supports. She didn’t bother to read any of it because it didn’t matter…..she was going to vote for it regardless of what it contained or how many of her constituents openly despised it. If re-elected, she will certainly continue on her march to bring about her Progressive idea of a Socialist America; an ideology shared and promoted by President Barack Obama.
Paul
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Healthcare Reform and the Constitution
About the only thing that the Democrats and the President have said about the Healthcare Bill that isn’t an outright lie is that it is comprehensive. In fact, that is probably understated since this will give our Federal government unprecedented control over every facet of health, including some very personal decisions.
The bill contains a tax on sugary beverages since sugary beverages have been deemed bad for you. Anything bad for you will raise healthcare costs and this bill gives the government the authority to regulate anything that will affect your health. When government began its crusade to steer behavior under what is widely known know as a “sin” tax on cigarettes, I warned that this was only the beginning. No one argues that cigarettes are bad for one’s health but the same argument can be made for nearly the entire fast food industry. As cigarette taxes climb and people quit smoking, the number of cigarette related illnesses will also decline. When illness related to obesity ranks as the number one cause of death in the United States, the same argument will be used to regulate that behavior too.
We all know the number play in Washington. We saw it all through the debate as some figures were issued in real numbers and some were issued as percentages, whichever made the case for healthcare reform stronger. The industry profits for healthcare insurance were given in real dollars since the amount appeared staggering. Even though the industry-wide profits were stated in the hundreds of billions of dollars, the fact is it represented an industry profit of only two percent. See how that works? Two percent wouldn’t make the people paying high insurance premiums angry but hundreds of billions of dollars would.
Choosing the right set of numbers, the Liberal think tanks can now establish a cause to intervene in our lives. The hundreds of billions of dollars that cheeseburger and fries sap from the health insurance industry is certainly enough to warrant government regulation and that regulation will come in the form of an additional tax. Part of the healthcare bill also requires restaurants to list the caloric content of their meal items. How convenient! That would give us an easy factor by which we can calculate a “progressive” tax on foods that cause obesity. Of course, like any tax it will probably start with some thing barely noticeable as in the sugary beverage tax which was to be one penny per ounce, the last time I looked. But as the paradigm shifts and obesity overtakes cigarettes as the number one killer in the US, they will just have to raise unhealthy food taxes in order to save lives.
Why there are all sorts of things that contribute to skyrocketing healthcare costs; things that progressives would love to eliminate but that the Constitution has prevented until now. Several cities have an incredible amount of healthcare money devoted to treating the victims of weapons related crimes. Using the EPA’s recent announcement that they will being regulating CO2 emissions without Congressional approval using the existing Clean Air Act as a guide, is it really beyond the scope of possibility that our Second Amendment Rights could vanish as a regulatory casualty of controlling healthcare costs? Of course the number crunchers would site the dollar and cents cost for that care as the justification and just ignore the facts that gun related crime is the highest in cities that already possess the harshest gun laws in the nation or that crimes committed with lawfully obtained and owned weapons is less than one half of one percent of all weapons related crimes.
What other rights could be swept away by this bill? Well, we didn’t have to wait for the passage of the bill for our right to free speech to be assaulted. Humana advised its customers about the potential loss of Medicare Advantage under the Healthcare Bill and the White House immediately attacked, threatening legal action even though Medicare advantage was indeed, on the chopping block. Where Humana is concerned, the White House acted with total disregard to the Supreme Court ruling that Corporations are considered individuals where Constitutional protections, including the First Amendment right to Free Speech is concerned. If that wasn't enough, the White House went as far as to establish an Orwellian e-mail account so individuals could report anyone that was spreading lies (opposing information) about the healthcare bill. The apparent message was that Big Brother is indeed watching. Of course that site was dismantled when there was an outcry over this clear abuse of power and the danger it represented.
How about our right to privacy? The administration claims that medical records will be specially secured and kept from prying eyes; really? When Social Security was enacted opponents railed against the loss of privacy and again, the government issued assurances that our privacy would be protected. Social Security numbers were never supposed to be used as a means of identification and the original cards were issued with the statement “For Social Security Purposes, Not for Identification” printed on the face of the card to allay those fears.
So what do we have now? Our Social Security number became our primary form of identification and is needed to secure employment, pay taxes and even to open a bank account. It is the only piece of identity needed in conjunction with your name to get a comprehensive credit report containing all of your financial dealings and as such, has become the primary instrument used by thieves to steal your identity and do irreparable harm to your credit and good name. Considering that the Federal government, with all of the technology and computerization available to them today, could not accurately track the stimulus expenditures with even a modest degree of accuracy, how could we believe that they can secure our medical records any better than they did our Social Security information?
The privacy issue may be further impinged if the final bill contains the same provisions for community based services that were in the House Bill. Under that, community base health providers would come to your home to offer solutions and advice on everything from child rearing to care for the elderly. We already know from past experience that once the government gets a toe in the door, it isn’t long before the whole proverbial 600 lb gorilla is in the living room.
Progressives may be for the most part, a Godless bunch while some Democrats like Ben Nelson are comfortable with placing their religious beliefs and morals on the same auction block with their votes; but American’s are a faithful people with 85% professing belief in one religion or another. The use of public funds for abortion, for many of these people, places them at odds with their faith. Intellectually, there is no difference in using their taxes to pay for abortion as it would be for them to pay for it themselves and that is something their conscience will not allow. Even soldiers have the ability to opt out of fighting in a war if they have a strong and historically verifiable religious objection. Those that object to abortion on religious grounds have no such “opt-out” provision available to them where taxes are concerned. Since tax money all goes into the same pot, if abortion is funded by any provision of the bill no one can offer a reasonable assurance that their money will not eventually end up funding abortion.
Let’s not forget that this is the first time the Federal government has levied a tax on us just because we are alive. The mandate that we purchase health care insurance or else, is as unconstitutional as it gets. There are those that say it’s no different than the mandate to have car insurance, but that mandate only applies if you choose to drive a car. Those that do not own a car are not required to have auto insurance to drive the costs down for those that do. Also, this healthcare bill is not actually insurance, but rather a whole life, cradle to grave intrusion on your life and liberty. It is pre-paid medical care and that is where the outrageous expense comes from. Do you file an insurance claim at every oil change or fill up? Does your auto insurance cover consumable items like brake pads and wiper blades? Does auto insurance cover pre-existent conditions or allow high risk drivers to purchase a low cost policy? No, the comparison to auto insurance is idiotic at best and only confirms the irrational lengths at which these people will go to sell you on this miserable idea.
Paul
The bill contains a tax on sugary beverages since sugary beverages have been deemed bad for you. Anything bad for you will raise healthcare costs and this bill gives the government the authority to regulate anything that will affect your health. When government began its crusade to steer behavior under what is widely known know as a “sin” tax on cigarettes, I warned that this was only the beginning. No one argues that cigarettes are bad for one’s health but the same argument can be made for nearly the entire fast food industry. As cigarette taxes climb and people quit smoking, the number of cigarette related illnesses will also decline. When illness related to obesity ranks as the number one cause of death in the United States, the same argument will be used to regulate that behavior too.
We all know the number play in Washington. We saw it all through the debate as some figures were issued in real numbers and some were issued as percentages, whichever made the case for healthcare reform stronger. The industry profits for healthcare insurance were given in real dollars since the amount appeared staggering. Even though the industry-wide profits were stated in the hundreds of billions of dollars, the fact is it represented an industry profit of only two percent. See how that works? Two percent wouldn’t make the people paying high insurance premiums angry but hundreds of billions of dollars would.
Choosing the right set of numbers, the Liberal think tanks can now establish a cause to intervene in our lives. The hundreds of billions of dollars that cheeseburger and fries sap from the health insurance industry is certainly enough to warrant government regulation and that regulation will come in the form of an additional tax. Part of the healthcare bill also requires restaurants to list the caloric content of their meal items. How convenient! That would give us an easy factor by which we can calculate a “progressive” tax on foods that cause obesity. Of course, like any tax it will probably start with some thing barely noticeable as in the sugary beverage tax which was to be one penny per ounce, the last time I looked. But as the paradigm shifts and obesity overtakes cigarettes as the number one killer in the US, they will just have to raise unhealthy food taxes in order to save lives.
Why there are all sorts of things that contribute to skyrocketing healthcare costs; things that progressives would love to eliminate but that the Constitution has prevented until now. Several cities have an incredible amount of healthcare money devoted to treating the victims of weapons related crimes. Using the EPA’s recent announcement that they will being regulating CO2 emissions without Congressional approval using the existing Clean Air Act as a guide, is it really beyond the scope of possibility that our Second Amendment Rights could vanish as a regulatory casualty of controlling healthcare costs? Of course the number crunchers would site the dollar and cents cost for that care as the justification and just ignore the facts that gun related crime is the highest in cities that already possess the harshest gun laws in the nation or that crimes committed with lawfully obtained and owned weapons is less than one half of one percent of all weapons related crimes.
What other rights could be swept away by this bill? Well, we didn’t have to wait for the passage of the bill for our right to free speech to be assaulted. Humana advised its customers about the potential loss of Medicare Advantage under the Healthcare Bill and the White House immediately attacked, threatening legal action even though Medicare advantage was indeed, on the chopping block. Where Humana is concerned, the White House acted with total disregard to the Supreme Court ruling that Corporations are considered individuals where Constitutional protections, including the First Amendment right to Free Speech is concerned. If that wasn't enough, the White House went as far as to establish an Orwellian e-mail account so individuals could report anyone that was spreading lies (opposing information) about the healthcare bill. The apparent message was that Big Brother is indeed watching. Of course that site was dismantled when there was an outcry over this clear abuse of power and the danger it represented.
How about our right to privacy? The administration claims that medical records will be specially secured and kept from prying eyes; really? When Social Security was enacted opponents railed against the loss of privacy and again, the government issued assurances that our privacy would be protected. Social Security numbers were never supposed to be used as a means of identification and the original cards were issued with the statement “For Social Security Purposes, Not for Identification” printed on the face of the card to allay those fears.
So what do we have now? Our Social Security number became our primary form of identification and is needed to secure employment, pay taxes and even to open a bank account. It is the only piece of identity needed in conjunction with your name to get a comprehensive credit report containing all of your financial dealings and as such, has become the primary instrument used by thieves to steal your identity and do irreparable harm to your credit and good name. Considering that the Federal government, with all of the technology and computerization available to them today, could not accurately track the stimulus expenditures with even a modest degree of accuracy, how could we believe that they can secure our medical records any better than they did our Social Security information?
The privacy issue may be further impinged if the final bill contains the same provisions for community based services that were in the House Bill. Under that, community base health providers would come to your home to offer solutions and advice on everything from child rearing to care for the elderly. We already know from past experience that once the government gets a toe in the door, it isn’t long before the whole proverbial 600 lb gorilla is in the living room.
Progressives may be for the most part, a Godless bunch while some Democrats like Ben Nelson are comfortable with placing their religious beliefs and morals on the same auction block with their votes; but American’s are a faithful people with 85% professing belief in one religion or another. The use of public funds for abortion, for many of these people, places them at odds with their faith. Intellectually, there is no difference in using their taxes to pay for abortion as it would be for them to pay for it themselves and that is something their conscience will not allow. Even soldiers have the ability to opt out of fighting in a war if they have a strong and historically verifiable religious objection. Those that object to abortion on religious grounds have no such “opt-out” provision available to them where taxes are concerned. Since tax money all goes into the same pot, if abortion is funded by any provision of the bill no one can offer a reasonable assurance that their money will not eventually end up funding abortion.
Let’s not forget that this is the first time the Federal government has levied a tax on us just because we are alive. The mandate that we purchase health care insurance or else, is as unconstitutional as it gets. There are those that say it’s no different than the mandate to have car insurance, but that mandate only applies if you choose to drive a car. Those that do not own a car are not required to have auto insurance to drive the costs down for those that do. Also, this healthcare bill is not actually insurance, but rather a whole life, cradle to grave intrusion on your life and liberty. It is pre-paid medical care and that is where the outrageous expense comes from. Do you file an insurance claim at every oil change or fill up? Does your auto insurance cover consumable items like brake pads and wiper blades? Does auto insurance cover pre-existent conditions or allow high risk drivers to purchase a low cost policy? No, the comparison to auto insurance is idiotic at best and only confirms the irrational lengths at which these people will go to sell you on this miserable idea.
Paul
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The men that drafted the Constitution of The United States added the Amendments in the order of their moral priority. If one looks at the Constitution and the Amendments with an eye on practicality, the Second Amendment then becomes at least, par with the First Amendment in importance. The Second Amendment is the guardian and guarantor of the Bill of Rights, preventing the Federal Government from writing any law that would deny the citizens of this nation the arms they would need to defend the nation, their State and to defend the rights that were secured under the new government.
Without the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution would have little meaning and no defense against a corrupt government. Let us not forget that the men who drafted the Constitution had also written into the Declaration of Independence “…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.” It is clear that they possessed a deep and abiding distrust of governments in general and while they labored to create a nation founded in freedom, they recognized that this Republic was a supreme experiment and the outcome was yet to be proven.
Many opponents of the private ownership of firearms use the first few words of this amendment to say that this was strictly to provide for the arming of a State Militia; that it was never intended as a right for the common citizen to possess firearms. Well, once again we will delve into the Federalist Papers. That is where you will always find the clear intent of the men that wrote the Constitution and the Amendments. An excerpt taken from a document written by Alexander Hamilton on January 10, 1788 says:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”
It was the intent of this Amendment to insure that the citizens are armed to defend this fledgling nation and it is clear by this passage alone, that the entire populace was expected to be armed. The “Militia only” interpretation the detractors of the Second Amendment say is implied in the Constitution clearly does not exist. The “regulation” that is implied in the Constitution was directed at insuring the Citizens were properly armed and is not meant to say that those that may bear arms can only exist as part of a National Guard or regular Army and in fact, this passage indicates that was not to be expected of the people.
Bear in mind that Congress had already created an army that had just secured our independence from Great Britain and there were provisions written into the draft of the Constitution that provided Congress with the means and the authority to raise an army, a navy and to secure the funds to provide for them both. If a militia was the sole intent of the Second Amendment, it would be the one and only redundant provision that appeared in the whole of the Constitution.
I find it mildly interesting that those that claim the intuitive insight to interpret the Constitution on our behalf tend to ignore the very store of documents that are the road map through the minds of the men that wrote it. To ignore the Federalist papers is a gross injustice to the American people and an insult to the honor of the founding fathers of this nation.
So why do I feel that the right to bear arms is so important? I could point to the article I posted here yesterday as one good reason. Pravda has all but written off the United States and quite honestly, if we do not put a stop to the insanity of 3.6 trillion dollar budgets, trillion dollar deficits and the wholesale looting of the treasury by “community organizers”, I agree with them. Rather than spell out a scenario of doom and gloom I will name my second reason, or rather Thomas Jefferson will…
“…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is quoted as saying "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all." Let’s face it; only someone that intends to deny or destroy our rights and freedoms would be fearful of the people that would stand to defend them. It further tells me that if he could find a way around the Second Amendment, they would have already started collecting guns.
Henry Waxman is one of the authors of the Waxman-Markey or Climate Bill. This bill is supposed to protect the environment by reducing the carbon output of the United States. To do so, this bill will severely cripple the manufacturing industries in this nation and place draconian restrictions on personal power consumption by raising the price of energy to a point that will be unsustainable for the average American household.
The truly criminal part of that legislation is that it will have no effect on the environment whatsoever. China and India are the largest producers of carbon emissions and refuse to hamper their economic growth by enacting similar measures. The bill will certainly reduce carbon emissions in our country but not because we are cleaner. The emissions will be reduced as manufacturing industries relocate to other nations that do not possess costly restrictions on manufacturing and are truly happy for the opportunity to put their citizens to work doing the jobs we once had. Is this why Henry Waxman is nervous?
Gun opponents would cite crime statistics involving the use of firearms. The statistics they ignore is that the vast majority of those crimes are committed with unlawfully obtained firearms and in many cases, by people that are already prohibited from owning firearms because of a felony criminal record. You see, criminals by definition, do not obey the law so weapon legislation does not stop them. They also ignore the statistics that say that gun violence is predominately highest in the cities where they already possess stringent gun ownership laws. That is because the criminals aren’t quite so brave when there is an even chance that you might have a weapon too.
The text written by Alexander Hamilton that was posted above is a clear indication that the nation’s founders looked at the citizens very differently than Congress does now. We were the nation then, equal in status and rights. Now we are treated as the subjects of this massive government, nearly as much as we were under King George and that alone is sufficient to reinforce the need for the Second Amendment.
To make things worse, the Federal government continues to expand its powers beyond those granted to it under the Enumerated Powers Act, which is highly dangerous in a government that is full of people that think they are the new aristocracy. Remember, criminals by definition, do not obey the law and that includes the elected ones.
Please join me tomorrow for the Third Amendment
Paul
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The men that drafted the Constitution of The United States added the Amendments in the order of their moral priority. If one looks at the Constitution and the Amendments with an eye on practicality, the Second Amendment then becomes at least, par with the First Amendment in importance. The Second Amendment is the guardian and guarantor of the Bill of Rights, preventing the Federal Government from writing any law that would deny the citizens of this nation the arms they would need to defend the nation, their State and to defend the rights that were secured under the new government.
Without the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution would have little meaning and no defense against a corrupt government. Let us not forget that the men who drafted the Constitution had also written into the Declaration of Independence “…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.” It is clear that they possessed a deep and abiding distrust of governments in general and while they labored to create a nation founded in freedom, they recognized that this Republic was a supreme experiment and the outcome was yet to be proven.
Many opponents of the private ownership of firearms use the first few words of this amendment to say that this was strictly to provide for the arming of a State Militia; that it was never intended as a right for the common citizen to possess firearms. Well, once again we will delve into the Federalist Papers. That is where you will always find the clear intent of the men that wrote the Constitution and the Amendments. An excerpt taken from a document written by Alexander Hamilton on January 10, 1788 says:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”
It was the intent of this Amendment to insure that the citizens are armed to defend this fledgling nation and it is clear by this passage alone, that the entire populace was expected to be armed. The “Militia only” interpretation the detractors of the Second Amendment say is implied in the Constitution clearly does not exist. The “regulation” that is implied in the Constitution was directed at insuring the Citizens were properly armed and is not meant to say that those that may bear arms can only exist as part of a National Guard or regular Army and in fact, this passage indicates that was not to be expected of the people.
Bear in mind that Congress had already created an army that had just secured our independence from Great Britain and there were provisions written into the draft of the Constitution that provided Congress with the means and the authority to raise an army, a navy and to secure the funds to provide for them both. If a militia was the sole intent of the Second Amendment, it would be the one and only redundant provision that appeared in the whole of the Constitution.
I find it mildly interesting that those that claim the intuitive insight to interpret the Constitution on our behalf tend to ignore the very store of documents that are the road map through the minds of the men that wrote it. To ignore the Federalist papers is a gross injustice to the American people and an insult to the honor of the founding fathers of this nation.
So why do I feel that the right to bear arms is so important? I could point to the article I posted here yesterday as one good reason. Pravda has all but written off the United States and quite honestly, if we do not put a stop to the insanity of 3.6 trillion dollar budgets, trillion dollar deficits and the wholesale looting of the treasury by “community organizers”, I agree with them. Rather than spell out a scenario of doom and gloom I will name my second reason, or rather Thomas Jefferson will…
“…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is quoted as saying "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all." Let’s face it; only someone that intends to deny or destroy our rights and freedoms would be fearful of the people that would stand to defend them. It further tells me that if he could find a way around the Second Amendment, they would have already started collecting guns.
Henry Waxman is one of the authors of the Waxman-Markey or Climate Bill. This bill is supposed to protect the environment by reducing the carbon output of the United States. To do so, this bill will severely cripple the manufacturing industries in this nation and place draconian restrictions on personal power consumption by raising the price of energy to a point that will be unsustainable for the average American household.
The truly criminal part of that legislation is that it will have no effect on the environment whatsoever. China and India are the largest producers of carbon emissions and refuse to hamper their economic growth by enacting similar measures. The bill will certainly reduce carbon emissions in our country but not because we are cleaner. The emissions will be reduced as manufacturing industries relocate to other nations that do not possess costly restrictions on manufacturing and are truly happy for the opportunity to put their citizens to work doing the jobs we once had. Is this why Henry Waxman is nervous?
Gun opponents would cite crime statistics involving the use of firearms. The statistics they ignore is that the vast majority of those crimes are committed with unlawfully obtained firearms and in many cases, by people that are already prohibited from owning firearms because of a felony criminal record. You see, criminals by definition, do not obey the law so weapon legislation does not stop them. They also ignore the statistics that say that gun violence is predominately highest in the cities where they already possess stringent gun ownership laws. That is because the criminals aren’t quite so brave when there is an even chance that you might have a weapon too.
The text written by Alexander Hamilton that was posted above is a clear indication that the nation’s founders looked at the citizens very differently than Congress does now. We were the nation then, equal in status and rights. Now we are treated as the subjects of this massive government, nearly as much as we were under King George and that alone is sufficient to reinforce the need for the Second Amendment.
To make things worse, the Federal government continues to expand its powers beyond those granted to it under the Enumerated Powers Act, which is highly dangerous in a government that is full of people that think they are the new aristocracy. Remember, criminals by definition, do not obey the law and that includes the elected ones.
Please join me tomorrow for the Third Amendment
Paul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)