QOTD - HogDaddy

It saddened me to read that the NRA sold out my First Amendment Rights to ensure that the NRA's First Amendment rights were not infringed. The Second Amendment is supposed to be used to protect the other Nine. Therefore, even though the association's focus is the Second Amendment, it should never agree to stand idly by while other freedoms are infringed upon.

The musings of a 'Big Man" on the NRA sellout over the DISCLOSE Act.

I agree. While the NRA is a "Single issue" organization, their willingness to sell out their principles in order to retain their advocacy has a chilling effect upon those of us who are not as large, nor as powerful. I am still an NRA member, but I recognize their limitations and will do whatever is necessary to preserve, protect, and defend my constitution from all enemies. Even if it is the NRA.

Pax,

Newbius

NRA and the DISCLOSE Act part 2

As I noted last night, the bill is dead for the time being. Some people are touting this as a win for the NRA, others are claiming this as a victory by all of the other groups that objected to the NRA carve-out.

First, let me re-iterate that I am opposed to the NRA removing their objections to the bill once they got their exemption. Their agreement to sit on the sidelines is a tacit acknowledgment that their objections had the potential to kill the bill. Although I don't like it, I do understand it.

Now, a little truth is in order.

Representative Heath Schuler (NC "A"-rated Democrat) offered an amendment that would have exempted all of the 501-c-4 groups from the requirements. Doing so would expose primarily the 527s (who are not non-profits) and the corporations to the rule's remaining provisions. This doesn't sit well with the Blue Dogs (for business reasons), or the left fringe (because they are the primary users of the 527 rule).

This amendment is defeated.

So, Chris Van Hollen (MD "F"-rated Democrat) carves out an exemption for the NRA, The Humane Society, and the AARP. The NRA stands down their opposition, and the left blogosphere howls that the Dems are caving to the "Evil Gun Lobby". The Gun blogosphere howls that the NRA sold out, and nobody is happy. At no time did the NRA EVER support this bill. That much is clear. The NRA might have been tone-deaf, but they didn't ever support this box of fail.

The bill gets tabled.

So, what really happened? Nothing, yet. If the NRA objects, and scores this vote, wobbly centrist and Blue Dog Dems will vote against. If the NRA sits this one out because of the exemption, the hard-core left Dems will vote against because their favored groups still have to comply. The Right will object to this bill no matter what.

So what next?

Well, if the AFL-CIO and Sierra Club get their way, then more carve-outs will be forthcoming. This will continue until this bill can get finely-tailored to enough Democrat's satisfaction that the votes are there for passage. At which point we are back to the courts again.

May I make a suggestion to the Democrat leadership? Let it go. Drop this issue and quit trying to stifle political speech. Quit trying to muzzle your critics and protect your incumbents.

Infringing the rights of citizens, so you can hang onto political power, will only end badly.

My $0.03, tax included.

Pax,

Newbius

Why the Gun Rights crowd is winning

No, not just because we are right, but also because we are engaged (and have an 800 pound gorilla on our side).

Why doesn't "Furious Mike" Bloomberg's group get the same level of respect as the NRA? Well, look at the numbers:

Gun Control Lobbyists spent $50,000 so far in 2010, while Gun Rights Lobbyists spent $1,299,006.

In Washington, D.C., Money talks...the rest walks.

Go see for yourself.

Pax,

Newbius

Who is watching?

I discovered something interesting this morning while reviewing my site statistics this morning. I discovered that the banking giant Wachovia (North Carolina) is really interested in the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus.

I know this because Wachovia hit my site at 7:37:59 this morning on a Google redirect using the search term "VA Legislative Black Caucus Members 2010". That would not be noteworthy in and of itself. What is interesting is that at 9:26:23, I got a hit from the Virginia Legislature, also from a Google search, with the the search term "virginia black caucus article", followed by ANOTHER hit from Wachovia at 10:44:46, this time from their Richmond office.

Now why would Wachovia be interested in me? And, why would they be interested in what I have to say about the VLBC? And, why would they alert their contacts in the VLBC?

Was it something I said?

And while I am asking questions, why would the VLBC OPPOSE Charter Schools? In every place that they have been tried, and especially in predominately minority districts, charter schools have proven to raise reading and math comprehension, skill level, and testing. If the goal of the VLBC is to empower minorities who have been forced to attend under-performing schools where cronyism and tenured, unionized teachers have a monopoly on our kids' futures, then they should be SUPPORTING charter schools, not the education establishment.

Oh, I guess that would take spine and a willingness to risk campaign contributions for the good of the children. Perhaps that really is too much to ask...

Pax,

Newbius

Who paid for YOUR politician?

In case you live in Virginia, and are curious who is buying the services of LOBBYING your representatives, you can go to The Virginia Public Access Project and find out.

In it, you just might find that the recent Special Election in District 41 was won by Eileen Filler-Corn, an employee of lobbying firm Albers & Company, and wife of Democrat operative and pollster Robert Corn.

I guess if you are going to buy a seat in the Virginia Legislature (she outspent her opponent 4:1 and only garnered 50.1% of the vote), it helps to have employers, friends, and family inside the Democrat machine to ensure your victory. Oh, and she supports gun control, too. She is also owned by the Labor Unions, but what Democrat isn't?

Wake up, Virginia!

Newbius
|||

If we want to take our country back

from the moneyed special interests, THIS is a good way to begin.

I much prefer the soap box and the ballot box to the final option for redress of grievances, the cartridge box. It is my sincerest hope that we never have to use that third option in our country ever again. Let's start this process by cleaning house next year. My Congressman is a good man, and a conservative. But, I will vote him out on principle if that is what it takes to get the People's House back under control of the People.

Pax,

Newbius

Astro-truth

Sorry. I didn't get in to the conference call with Axelrod.

It isn't like there were going to be any bombshells going off, though. We have read the playbook and seen it in action. It goes something like this:

Protesting "Teabaggers" are un-American and are tools of the insurance lobby.

The protesters are the violent ones, and our purple-shirted goons union enforcers volunteers are just victims who want what's best for the people.

Violent right-wing extremists are now bringing guns to peaceful gatherings. So we need to demonize and marginalize shine the light of truth on them to show how they are out of the mainstream.

Even though we are paid-for tools of Soros and the Pharmaceutical industry (of which Soros owns a pretty chunk), we only want power over you you to have the best choices possible for your health care.

Right.

And the beat goes on.

The Truth? Real citizens are getting active and the more they learn about what's REALLY in the bill, the less they like it. Heck, even I can take a few days to read the bill. Unlike John Conyers... So, the obvious truth is that the Democrats are trying to frame the message, and are lying brazenly and openly to our faces, and the enabling media is white-washing it and covering for them.

I can tell you this much. If I go to a town hall myself, I can understand the logic of carrying a means of self-defense with me. The last thing I want is a confrontation with 2 or 3 or 6 300-pound goons trying to intimidate me into compliance with their views or silence about mine. This is America, for God's sake! If you Dems cannot get your message across in a manner that makes the people support you, then you deserve to lose the next election. Bringing in thugs to beat up the opposition only invites violence in return. And if your thugs continue to escalate, you might find you have a real fight on your hands.

All this over power you are not even authorized to wield in this Republic. Think about that one Nancy and Steny. Think about that one Mister President. Your constitutional authority does not extend into mandatory government-run health care.

Try respecting that.

Pax,

Newbius

Brady Campaign cannot handle debate, part 2

Readers,

Since I had the temerity to offer an opposing opinion last night on the Brady Facebook Page, I was promptly removed from public view. I posted about it HERE, and received a response (quite civil, actually) pointing out my own commenting rules to me.

No issue there.

When I checked my site statistics, however, it became clear that the Brady Campaign not only cannot tolerate dissent but they want to begin the debate here. Excellent! How do I know this?

THIS is how I know.

Game on! Bring it if you can...

Newbius

This isn't hard...

On 11/28/2007, Paul Helmke wrote a minor diatribe about the phrasing of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. His contention was that the Parker decision went the wrong way, and that the Second Amendment refers only to Militia prerogative for arms ownership; that self-defense was too narrow a view and misses the thrust of the amendment, as written. These remarks were pre-Heller.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State; the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Bon.

If we were to parse it, it would go as follows:

A

well regulated ("in proper and working order")

militia ("the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service")
or, alternately, under 10 USC 311
("-STATUTE-

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.")

being (conjunction, emphasizing the following word)

necessary ("logically unavoidable, absolutely needed")

for the

security (" the quality or state of being secure: as a: freedom from danger")

of a

free ("1 a: having the legal and political rights of a citizen b: enjoying civil and political liberty c: enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d: enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another")

State; (individually - "mode or condition of being", collectively " a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign")

The

right ("something to which one has a just claim")

of the

people ("the body of enfranchised citizens of a state")

to

keep (" to retain in one's possession or power")

and

bear ("to carry or possess arms")

Arms ("a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense ; especially : firearm")

shall ("used to express a command or exhortation")

not ("used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word")

be (" intransitive verb: to take place") Together "shall not be" means "an absolute prohibition"

infringed. ("to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another")

So, to play Paul Helmke's game, we should look at every word of the Amendment, not leaving anything aside, and also address the Militia clause. To wit:

A properly functioning and in regular working order Militia (those citizens NOT a member of the Armed Forces or of the National Guard), being necessary, logically unavoidable, and absolutely needed for the security of a free state - as defined "a politically organized, sovereign body of the people having the legal and political rights of citizens, enjoying civil and political liberty, independence, and freedom; and not subject to the control and domination of another"; the Right (just claim) of the People (the body of the enfranchised citizens of the above free state) to keep and bear arms (to possess and carry weapons of offense or defense, especially firearms) shall not be infringed (absolutely no encroachments on this right whatsoever).

Mr. Helmke, the people ARE the Militia. The Constitution recognizes this, and 10 USC 311 codifies it in case there is any confusion. The Militia clause argument is self-defeating if you understand the words. Your failure to speak openly and honestly about this indicates that you are either a fraud or a liar, and your intention is perfectly clear to anybody who can read and understand the words. You are attempting to re-write history for your own purpose, to empower a central government who holds you in contempt but will use you for their own purpose, at the expense of free citizens who only wish to be left alone.

According to the Militia clause, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is unconstitutional. According to the Militia clause, the Miller decision was wrongly adjudged. According to the Militia clause, the Brady Assault Weapons Ban was patently unconstitutional, as were the infringements upon civilian purchases of high-capacity magazines, semi-automatic shotguns, and yes even machine guns.

Mr. Helmke's current position on the Heller case is one that presumes Heller to be an invitation to regulation, restriction, and imposition of onerous "common-sense gun laws" for the protection of the people, as the "Slippery Slope" that previously restrained legislators is "now gone".

If the previous position required one to believe that the Second Amendment was solely for Militia purpose, then, logically, the people should not be prohibited in their pursuit of Arms for defense of home and hearth, town, city, county, state, or country. If the current position is that the people really do have the right to self-defense, but that this right is subject to "reasonable restriction"; said restrictions being as many as he can force through the system to achieve the goal of effectively total civilian disarmament, then his previous argument was a smokescreen and a lie. In either case, the two positions are incompatible with each other as rational pieces of the whole. Unless, as mouthpiece of the Brady Campaign, he has no positions of his own and is merely a puppet or a stooge.

In either case: Mr. Helmke, your stated positions are on the side of those people who would gut the Constitution for their own aims. The Supreme Court in the Heller decision got it only half-right. Unfortunately, they limited their scope and dared not tread upon stare decisis and ALSO reverse Miller and declare NFA34 unconstitutional as well. It would have been the greatest blow for freedom that the United States would ever have experienced. Instead, we get to argue banalities about whether your position is one of moral bankruptcy or mental deficiency.

Good day to you.

Pax,

Newbius

|||


(NOTE: Previous version of this posting was removed and replaced by this version to correct a technical inaccuracy and a reference to the wrong court decision in the opening paragraph.)

The Societal Cost of Radical Environmentalism

Nobody really wants to tell the truth about the cost of OIL and how much of the cost of that $4.00/gallon gasoline is the true cost of radical environmentalism.

No, really.

The numbers change regularly but here are the basic facts:

The United States COULD be one of the top producers worldwide of oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium but lacks the political will to be. Or, rather, the politicians lack the political will to be leaders instead of lackeys to the Environmental Lobby. (Don't worry, I'll pick on the "evil corporations" later).

Why aren't we? Because the citizenry became the governed and forgot about the consent part of the deal. We do not work for the Feds, they work for us. We need to remind them once in a while or they will continue to usurp our power to line their pockets with political contributions and kickbacks from marginalized but powerful fringe groups. Because the US Congress is a bunch of cowards more afraid of negative publicity than negative consequences.

The United States citizens have a legitimate gripe about the cost of energy. Unfortunately, they are blaming the wrong people for the trouble. The energy cost problem was not caused by ExxonMobil, or Shell, or BP, or ConocoPhillips, or Unocal, or Amoco, or even that evil Venezuelan company CITGO.

Nope.

Really.

It was caused by US.

Wow. There is a radical statement Newbius. What do you mean?

When WE the governed allowed the Congress to bow to pressure from groups like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Earth First, and Save the Seals, we created our own nightmare. We have some of the world's largest proven energy reserves within our territorial control, but lack the will to go get it.

We would rather enslave ourselves to people who hate us, than be self-sufficient for our own energy needs...just so we don't inconvenience some caribou in Alaska that maybe 30,000 people in the whole world will ever see. We would rather enslave ourselves than risk marring the view from Hyannisport with new wind energy stations (thanks Teddy!). We would rather enslave ourselves than see drilling platforms off the coasts of California, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, or Mississippi. We would rather be SLAVES to rich oil sheiks who plot daily to subjugate us under the next Caliphate than allow coal production , oil shale production , or natural gas production in those areas of our own country where we are resource rich. God help us if we ever tried to allow a new oil refinery, Nuclear power plant, Hydroelectric plant, or new wind generation facilities (can't risk the Condors can we?).

Get real.

The world marketplace runs on the laws of supply and demand. You can work either or both sides of the equation, but it is what it is. Add supply, price drops. Reduce demand, price drops.

Simple.

Pass laws that make it harder to explore for, produce, transport, and market a commodity and prices will rise. Limit opportunities to develop existing reserves, prices rise. Mandate expensive boutique gasoline blends to help out some corporate fat-cat farmers, prices rise (and on more than Gas, too).

Also simple.

So what's it going to be America? Are you going to allow your congressmen/congresswomen to continue being paid-for lackeys of the monied environmental and corporate interests? The price of your next tank of gas hangs in the balance on your decision. Take action! Do it now!

Newbius