Category Archives: Politics

Health care bill constitutionally flawed

Posted on by

Of course the entire concept of the bill is unconstitutional. But it’s going to be tough to find someone with standing and get any serious court attention that could scrap the entire thing. But the attorney generals of 13 states might slow things down some:

Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska’s political deal from the federal health care overhaul bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.

“We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed,” South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

“As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision,” they wrote.

Those signing on are Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state. I’m proud to say both of my states of Idaho and Washington are attempting to stop this abomination.

I just “love” how they point out they are all Republicans. Other sources make an even bigger deal out of that point:

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said the letter was a political ploy.

“This threat stinks of partisan politics,” he said in a statement. “If Henry McMaster wants to write federal law he should run for Congress not governor.”

Meanwhile, Nelson is taking his message on health care reform directly to his constituents. In a television ad beginning during Wednesday night’s Nebraska-Arizona Holiday Bowl football game, the Democrat says he stuck by his principles throughout the debate and doesn’t want Nebraskans to be confused on his position.

While it’s not uncommon for states to challenge federal laws in court, one legal expert said political bluster was likely behind the letter.

“I do think that it is some combination of the losers just complaining about the officiating, or complaining about how the game was played, in combination with trying to make the bill look as seedy and inappropriate as possible, for political purposes,” says Andy Siegel, a former University of South Carolina School of Law professor now teaching at Seattle University School of Law.

“It is smart politics to try to tarnish it and make it look less like an achievement and more like some sort of corrupted bargain,” he said.

Principles? Democrats have principles? I didn’t know Democrats had principles. Can anyone tell me any principles the Democrats will admit to? The Republicans claim some principles but treat them as guidelines or just half-hearted suggestions.

Does this Mean We Should Encourage R. O’Donnell to Buy More Spoons?

Posted on by

Not that it would surprise anyone who’s been seeking facts, but murder is down while gun and ammo sales are way up.  NRA’s ILA discusses the latest FBI crime report.  They link to this tidbit also.  Wow– what happened in 2006?  See that little spike in the last quarter of 2001?  We felt that one, so we already knew about it.  We has recently started selling our ground breaking AK optic mount, and people started buying them up in droves after 9/11, along with high-end optics.  You attack the U.S. and we prepare to respond as individuals, should individual action become necessary.  That is as intended by our nation’s founders.

I’d like to have seen some mention of the word “rights” or of the second amendment, and how a right is not contingent upon certain crime rate parameters, but the ILA article will have to do.  I can help them understand things a bit further;

At the expense of undercutting a future post I have planned, here’s the danger in these types of arguments; crime will at some point rise.  For one reason or another, these things cycle up and down.  If you place too much stock in the assertion that gun rights should be protected because crime is dropping while gun ownership is rising, you’ll eventually lose that argument and have to start over with a different one, in danger of looking like a hypocrite (Republicans? Are you listening?).  Crime will increase and gun buying will at some stage decrease, and they will probably at some other point happen both at the same time.

If violent crime were high and increasing, wouldn’t access to the tools of self defense be that much more important?  Hmmm?  And again I ask; Hmmm?

Principles.  It can’t be overstated.  Gun rights should be protected because a right is a right.  Violators of rights should be punished because they are criminals and we can’t afford to tolerate criminals.  Principles don’t change with the ebb and flow of statistics just as Rosie would have gotten fat with or without legal access to a spoon.

It was over before it started

Posted on by

As I said a couple weeks ago they were going to lose on this one. It appears they are admitting defeat already:

You would think that if ever there was a political climate favorable for gun control legislation, it would be here. With the state reeling from the third police killing in two months, legislators surely feel the need to do something. A proposed assault weapons ban, to be introduced in the coming legislative session, would seem like a place to start.

Yet only one week after Washington CeaseFire held a press conference to announce the planned bill, its prospects look dim. “Frustrating, that would be the word,” CeaseFire president Ralph Fascitelli says, speaking of the reaction he’s getting from key politicians as he lobbies for the proposal.

“We don’t have the votes,” he recalls House Speaker Frank Chopp telling him recently. Fascitelli says the powerful Seattle Democrat alluded to a bloc of approximately 20 representatives in his party who are opposed to gun control legislation. In any case, Chopp told Fascitelli, he was preoccupied by the budget and upcoming elections.

…

Contrary to a report last week in the Seattle Times, the Seattle Police Department has not officially come out in favor of an assault weapons ban although it is “supportive of the work CeaseFire is doing,” according to spokesperson Mark Jamieson. “We understand that discussion of gun rights legislation is polarizing,” he says.

While the bill has yet to be introduced and debated, Fascitelli already sounds bitter. When it comes to gun control, he says, “there is no leadership in this state.”

A frustrated, bitter bigot. Sounds like we are doing something right in this state.

Quote of the day–Will Brown

Posted on by

Instead of identifying politicians by name or party, we ought to do so by ideology – which is uncomfortably akin to classifying strains of dysentery by patient I admit.

Will Brown
Comment to a post by Kevin Baker on November 26, 2008
[The take over of the health care industry by the Federal government reminded me of this.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Ralph Fascitelli

Posted on by

These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute. Anybody that uses a semi-automatic to hunt is an animal assassin. You know, that’s someone who would take an M-80 and throw it in a pond of water to kill fish.

Ralph Fascitelli
Board President of Washington Ceasefire
[“Weapons of war”? Almost none of the proposed firearms to ban have been used as military issue firearms let alone used in a war zone. They are sporting arms in common use and protected the Second Amendment.

If he can get 200 rounds a minute out of my Ruger P89 (considered an “assault weapon” by his definition) then he is a far, far better shooter than me or anyone I know.

Any firearm can be used to kill something. So how does that bit of information contribute to the discussion?

“Animal assassin”? I have a feeling that phrase is going to be used to mock Fascitelli for quite some time. And why bring up hunting? What has hunting got to do with the right to keep and bear arms?

A M-80 thrown into a pond to kill fish makes someone an “animal assassin”? No wonder their side is losing. They can’t make a cogent argument. He just wanders all over the place with his thoughts.

Every single sentence this guy said is either completely false or nonsensical. It’s another case of Crap for Brains.–Joe]

Was it an accident?

Posted on by

As reported by Say Uncle, Dave Hardy, and Sebastian President Obama actually signed a bill into law Wednesday that would require passengers who carry firearms aboard AMTRAK be locked in boxes for their journey.

They claim “no one quite knows the origin of the mistake”.

I have absolutely no data to support my suspicion but I would like someone to explore the hypothesis that it was not a mistake. It seems to me that would be a very clever way to defeat legislation you didn’t like. Swap a word or ten in a 1000 page bill and who is going to notice until you drive your truck through the loophole you created or your political enemy gets dragged off to the gulag?

They don’t realize they already lost this one

Posted on by

Some ignorant lawmakers (I repeat myself) announced they are going to attempt banning “assault weapons” in Washington State:

In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.

The lawmakers intend to propose the ban in the state legislative session that begins next month.

The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.

…

The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn’t be banned

Sorry guys. That horse has already left the barn.

Do you remember that little phrase “in common use” phrased in the Heller decision?

Emphasis in the following is mine.

On page 2:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

…

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

On page 52:

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

On page 55:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

For the clueless bigots in Seattle what that means is that if you managed to get your proposed law passed the U.S. Supreme Court, if not the Washington State courts will overturn it. You know why? Because Obama was elected.

What? Yeah, you read that right.

When Obama won the election the U.S. population went on a gun buying spree the likes of which has never been seen before. The guns they bought were the very guns that those Seattle bigots want to ban. If they weren’t already considered “in common use” before Obama’s victory they sure are now.

And because of the delay from when a law is first proposed until the time it can become the law of the land anytime some lawmaker starts having the power to ban a particular type of gun the people will have put that gun into “common use” and thus render the law stillborn.

But if those knuckleheads want to waste their time on harassing activities I suppose that is better than some of the other things they might try.

[H/T to Chet at work and Ry for the pointer to the article.]

Update: Another article with video taken at the gun range where I go when in the Seattle area. And still another article which quotes Washington State AG Rob McKenna as saying, “If this bill is not even going to get a hearing, it is not worth a lot of energy”.

Quote of the day–Sean Flynn

Posted on by

That sounds like something Jim would say. Except he would give excruciating detail about the method of execution.

Sean Flynn
December 16, 2009
In response to my suggestion that the U.S. Constitution should require any government employee who votes for or enforces a law or regulation that is later found to be unconstitutional is to be charged with and convicted for the crime of treason.
[Sean and I both like Jim.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Larry Summers

Posted on by

Here is what I think they don’t get…It was their irresponsible risk-taking in many cases that brought the economy to collapse.

…

And they don’t get in some cases that they wouldn’t be where they are today, and they certainly would not be paying the bonuses they are paying today, if their government hadn’t taken extraordinary actions.

Larry Summers
December 13, 2009
White House economic adviser referring to the banking industry. He also chairs the National Economic Council.
White House Lashes Out at Bankers
[In the first sentence he hopes you won’t get it was Federal regulations which required irresponsible risk-taking. In the second sentence he hints that he knows this is true and that the U.S. government rewarded that same behavior.

If you think the government knows what it is doing in terms of the economy then you need to do more reading or if pictures and minimal words are all you are up for then check this out (via Linoge and John Lott):

–Joe]

Quote of the day–Dr. J. Gordon Edwards

Posted on by

In testifying and speaking in public, I frequently exposed the misleading references Rachel Carson had cited in her book, presenting her statements from Silent Spring and then reading the truth from the actual publications she was purporting to characterize. This revealed to the audiences just how untruthful and misleading the allegations of Silent Spring really were.

Now, nearly 30 years later, the controversy is still boiling about how truthful Rachel Carson was. I recently learned that a movie honoring Rachel Carson and Silent Spring is being made for television. Because I believe such a movie would further misinform the public, the media, and our legislators, I decided to type up my original rough notes from 1962-1963 and make them available. Here they are, page by page, starting with her dedication.

Dr. J. Gordon Edwards
The Lies of Rachel Carson
[H/T to David for the link.

I remember reading Silent Spring in about 1970. It made quite an impression on me as it did millions of other people. I think the copy of the book I read is still on the bookshelf of my parents house.

Reading Edwards notes I realize her half-truths were the same type of propaganda that the anti-gun people propagate today. What she did was not carelessness, ignorance, or a series of honest mistakes. She pulled tidbits out of references that clearly did not support her conclusions or the impression her book portrayed. She had to be doing that deliberately. The same is true of many of the anti-gun writings. When you check their references you find the source concludes something completely different or (as in the case of Michael A. Bellesiles) does not even exist.

The global warming hoax (H/T to Phil for the link), the ecology hoaxes, the anti-gun material and many others all come from the political left. Why is that? Is their desire for control over people so great they will do nearly anything? Sure we have lots of examples of leftists (Stalin, Pol Pot, China, and Nazi Germany for example) where they will do horrible things to consolidate and keep power political power. But even on a much smaller scale it seems to result in the same sort of thing–total lack of ethics, morality, and respect for human life.

I sometimes can’t help but think that “if it saves just one life” then people advocating leftists political beliefs should be imprisoned or exiled. But that would be using the very same warped ethical behavior as they do.–Joe]

Dear Republicans

Posted on by

This is addressed to Pete Sessions, but it serves as an open letter to the Party.  I don’t for a minute expect it to go anywhere, or make a difference if it did, and I could think of several ways to make it better after the fact, but someone has to say it.

Pete,

“The Obama/Pelosi agenda has been proven to be a failure…”

That’s true, but what exactly is the Republican agenda?  Remember Bush’s prescription drug entitlement, TARP, and the fact that McCain supported TARP and the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hoax?  I sure do.

It is well and good to point out the Democrats’ mental problems and their anti American mindset, but I’m looking for some distinction between Dems and Republicans other than the message I’m getting now, which is, “Give us money—we’re not as corrupt as those other guys.”
 
In my lifetime the distinction has been, More Socialism Faster, verses More Socialism Slower.  No thanks.  I want to see your plan for;

A) Dismantling socialist programs in the U.S. (going back to the Wilson Administration and un-doing the damage).  This would involve the elimination of multiple government “departments” and laying off thousands of federal government workers (if they’re worth something, they’ll thrive in the private sector. If they’re not, they shouldn’t have been hired in the first place) so as to allow the markets to do what they do best—excel, by weeding out the poor performers and elevating the best performers.

B) Holding accountable those who have promoted or supported socialism (government intervention in the markets for the purpose of social engeneering, i.e. economic stagnation and the erosion of property rights) of any kind within the halls of government.  That would include, but not be limited to, charges of fraud and/or racketeering and/or misappropriation of public funds against the perpetrators of the AGW hoax.

C) Restoring compliance with, and faith in, the U.S. constitution.

D) Cutting tax rates across the board to a small fraction of their current levels, thereby moving boldly forward in restoring capitalism and the liberty and prosperity that comes along with it.
 
The socialist/Progressive movement has been gaining ground in this country for over 100 years, and all that time the Republican Party has been there, either in idleness, in complacency, or themselves actively leading us down this rat hole.  I have had enough.  Do not ask me to take you seriously until you’ve demonstrated some seriousness of your own, plus some clarity, specificity and bold action with regard to the above points.

Sincerely,

Lyle

I’m not supporting any squishy, cowardly Republicans and neither should you.  There is no time for playing games.

Quote of the day–Lazarus Long

Posted on by

The phrase “we (I) (you) simply must -” designates something that need not be done. “That goes without saying” is a red warning. “Of course” means you had best check it yourself. These small-change clichés and others like them when read correctly, are reliable channel markers.

Lazarus Long
A character of Robert Heinlein in his book Time Enough For Love
[Challenging assumptions is sometimes surprisingly easy. It will make you stand out from others as being brilliant, crazy, or both. For practice apply it to global warming, health care “reform”, and gun control. Then expand the application of these tests to other political imperatives and even everyday life.

The appropriateness of Heinlein’s wisdom is probably endless.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Ben Franklin

Posted on by

He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas.

Ben Franklin
[This could apply to many of the things going on politically these days or almost any day. But on this occasion I’m thinking of the global warming/climate change supporters.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Steve Chapman

Posted on by

In Chicago, only criminals and aldermen are armed. Forgive me for being redundant.

Steve Chapman
November 22, 2009
Above the law–Armed pols: An unfortunate Chicago tradition
[It’s worth reading the entire article.–Joe]

Quote of the day–NRA-ILA

Posted on by

You would think that someone who can spend $200 million of his own money to get elected mayor of New York City three times could afford copies of the U.S. Code and the Constitution. Not only does federal law stipulate the specific grounds for denying a person the right to arms, the Fourteenth Amendment states that no one shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

And while he is at it, he could buy a copy of another well-known publication, Webster’s Dictionary, and look up the word “obsession.”

NRA-ILA
November 26, 2009
Bloomberg Uses Ft. Hood Murders To Push Gun Control
Referring to NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his probably illegal acts discriminating against gun owners.
[One does have to wonder about his motivation for attacking gun owners. Surely he knows there is no evidence showing firearm restrictions makes people safer. So what is his real reason? Does it further his political career that much? Is it because he can use the issue to get more new coverage and feed some narcissistic tendency?–Joe]

Nice headline

Posted on by

I think I detect a hint of bigotry in this headline, “Second Amendment Brief Filed by Bellevue Gun Nuts“.

What if the headline had been, “Bus Boycott started by Montgomery ni**ers“?

Quote of the day–Dick Armey

Posted on by

The reason families need two incomes today is not to support themselves but to support the government.

Dick Armey
[You will see this is particularly relevent if you look at our current national debt.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

We’ve had a very well-plotted-out legal strategy for years, leading up to this.

Alan Gottlieb
November 10, 2009
Barack & Load
Regarding the McDonald gun case out of Chicago that is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
[I recently talked with Alan and he is 100% convinced we are going to win this one.–Joe]

Quote of the day–William Penn

Posted on by

Let the people think they govern and they will be governed.

William Penn
[Some people think our government is by the people and for the people. Recent events should dissuade you from this belief.–Joe]

The Tenth Amendment is for cowards

Posted on by

Wow! It’s almost surreal reading this:

I’ll say the last refuge of cowards in the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth has been invoked a lot lately. The Tenth has been mentioned as the reason health-care reform is unconstitutional. It’s the way the Speaker of the Tennessee State House says his state can circumvent federal gun laws. It’s the states’ rights argument carried to the extreme.

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

What that says, in other words, is that if a power is unclaimed by the federal government — or if that power is not denied to the states — then the states have it. The intent is to clarify the basic point that if the feds aren’t in charge, the states are.

It’s a truism, not a grant of power.

Soon after the framers wrote the original document, it was obvious states couldn’t act independently. When the Constitution was written, there wasn’t much interstate commerce at all. Going from one end of the country to the other end didn’t take five hours — it took five months. So the federal government claimed some powers to tie up loose ends.

If states acted on their own when it came to matters of interstate commerce, it would be to easy for states to grant monopolies to business, and too easy for large businesses to fix prices and destroy smaller competition.

…

Everyone learns at some point in life that there are three remedies to a negative situation: avoid, alter or accept it. Those against health-care legislation or gun-control laws don’t need to accept what they see as bad policy. They should try alter the policy in all the accepted ways.

But reverting to the Tenth Amendment is avoidance. It’s the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. And these issues are too important to do that.

After invoking the Tenth Amendment he goes on (there is more than just that above) to justify the Interstate Commerce clause without even mentioning it as if it were the Tenth Amendment.

And did you notice all the errors in the passages above?

  • The first line says “…in the Tenth…” instead of “…is the Tenth…” but I figure that is just a typo and I give him a pass on that.
  • “It’s a truism, not a grant of power. “? It explicitly states that the Feds are not granted most powers and he turns it around to claim the states are not granted powers.
  • It took five months to travel from one end of the 13 colonies to the other? It’s only about 1500 miles so he is saying the average speed of travel was 10 miles per day. Even with a backpack on and walking on mountain trails I can do better than that.
  • The Tenth Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution and it’s pretty clear the original intent is being violated. Many other Federal laws have been struck down by the courts as violating various parts of the constitution, including the Tenth Amendment, so it’s entirely reasonable to quest whether this law is in violation.

 So it’s the author that is the coward avoiding the issue. He gets it exactly backward and calls people invoking the Tenth Amendment cowards. It’s called “projection” and it just goes to show he either has mental problems or has crap for brains.