Archive for the ‘Editorial, Opinion’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

But don’t worry: Democrats know what’s best for you.

October 11, 2009

Wait, it’s not a hoax? Are they serious? Early Friday morning, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that Barack Obama would receive a consolation prize for losing out on the 2016 Olympics — namely the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Here in our humble editorial shop, our first reaction was, naturally, to spew coffee on our keyboards. Our second reaction was to wonder, For what? There’s been no signing of peace treaties, no ending of wars, no stopping of nuclear proliferation. Obama hasn’t stood up for human rights in China, hasn’t denounced the oppression of women in the Muslim world, hasn’t stared down brutal dictators such as Castro, Chavez, Kim and Ahmadinejad. Again, we ask: For what?

The Nobel Committee explains that it was “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” and the fact that he has “created a new climate in international politics.” Didn’t Al Gore get the award two years ago for seeking to stop climate change?

Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee, gushed, “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.” In other words, it was the Nobel Prize for Narcissism. Unfortunately, the committee did not pass out barf bags prior to the announcement.

Apparently, the fact that the community organizer took up residence in the White House less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline was not as important to the committee as being able to give a slap in the face to his resolute predecessor, George W. Bush. It certainly sends a message against actually winning in Afghanistan.

The president joins other you’ve-got-to-be-kidding winners Jimmy Carter, who is largely responsible for present-day Iran, Gore, who does nothing but scare people about global warming, and Palestinian terrorist Yasser Arafat, who assumed room temperature in 2004. Obama’s win is one more sign that the award has long since jumped the shark.

Blogger Eugene Volokh has started a great list of the “Top Ten Reasons Obama Won the Nobel Peace Prize.” Among our favorites are these: “For extraordinary diplomacy at the Gates-Crowley ‘Beer Summit'”; and a reader’s suggestion, “He was the 10th caller.”

As we all know by now, last Thursday, Barack Obama took time away from a raging war and a terrible economy to fly to Copenhagen to lobby in person for the 2016 Olympic Games to be hosted in his “home” city of Chicago. The Windy City was blown out of the competition in the first round, though, and the Games eventually went to Rio de Janeiro, taking the Olympics to South America for the first time.

But here’s the kicker. Not only was Obama’s own political capital spent, but he squandered taxpayers’ capital as well. The Pentagon recently estimated the cost of flying Air Force One at $100,219 an hour — without Obama on board. At that rate, Obama’s 14-hour excursion tapped taxpayers for at least $1.4 million. Other passengers jacking up the price included White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. First lady Michelle Obama traveled to Copenhagen separately, though she claimed she was making a “sacrifice” to do it.

Assorted leftists had a conniption over the results, with some, including the “Reverend” Jesse Jackson, going so far as to blame — wait for it — George W. Bush for the worldwide ill will that cost Chicago the Games. “The way we [refused to sign] the Kyoto Treaty, we misled the world into Iraq. The world had a very bad taste in its mouth about us,” Jackson complained. Never mind that Kyoto was unanimously rejected by the U.S. Senate in 1997, four years before Bush took office.

Fortunately, Obama can finally claim to have actually saved jobs. Nine of them, to be exact. The first-ever White House Olympic Office will stay in business, continuing to employ its staffers. Doing what, we don’t know.

Finally, if there’s one thing Obama’s Olympic Fail settled, it’s that we can’t compare him to Adolf Hitler in all things. At least Hitler brought the Olympics to Berlin.

“Hey Chicago, has it ever occurred to you that maybe the International Olympic Committee just isn’t that into you? It’s not as though the choices were to hold the games in the Windy City or cancel them altogether. Maybe the IOC delegates chose Rio de Janeiro on the basis of its merits as a venue. The notion that it must have been motivated by hatred of America reflects a most unattractive combination of arrogance and self-pity. –Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

The normally reliable Congressional Budget Office released a report on the Democrats’ proposed takeover of the health care system this week. The report absurdly claimed that a Senate panel’s $829 billion package would not add to the federal deficit. As we reflect that George W. Bush’s Medicare prescription drug program alone created $7 trillion in unfunded liabilities, it appears that the CBO is using a lot of outcome-based math for its calculations.

The CBO’s report, however, is not exactly hard and fast. As Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) points out, “This is an estimate of a concept, not a formal cost analysis of an actual bill.” No matter. The Leftmedia are gleefully reporting the “no new debt” part of the report without that unfortunate detail. It’s all part of trying to get the so-called fiscally conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats to heel and vote for the bill.

There are other details worth mentioning. For example, the plan would still leave uninsured 16 million of the supposed 47 million currently uninsured. And Democrats claimed no one would be left behind.

According to The Washington Post, “[T]he package would raise $200 billion more by levying a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost insurance policies — the ‘Cadillac’ plans that cost more than $8,000 for individuals or $21,000 for a family.” The House plans to slap a “surtax” on income above $500,000 rather than impose the “Cadillac” tax.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says she’s open to a value-added tax, or VAT, to help finance the plan. “Somewhere along the way, a value-added tax plays into this,” she said. “Of course, we want to take down the health care cost, that’s one part of it. But in the scheme of things, I think it’s fair to look at a value-added tax as well.”

The VAT is a tax on manufacturers and distributors at every stage based on the “value” added to a product by each additional step, and it’s largely hidden from consumers. As a result, it’s attractive to politicians — even ones who promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. Almost every European country with socialized medicine also has a VAT, and if the health care takeover is accomplished, then the same should be anticipated for the United States.

With all of these shenanigans, is it any surprise that Democrats defeated an amendment to post the bill online for the American people to read before the vote? Indeed, rather than adhering to Barack Obama’s promise of transparency, the Heritage Foundation’s blog, The Foundry, details “the four part scenario that would railroad the bill through the Senate using a very unusual closed door procedure to craft the bill with no input from the American people.” This includes some legislative tricks such as attaching it to an unrelated tax bill or using reconciliation, meaning only 51 votes, not the filibuster ending 60, are required in the Senate.

“When you cut through all the noise and all the distractions that are out there, I think what’s most telling is that some of the people who are most supportive of reform are the very medical professionals who know the health care system best.” –Barack Obama before a Rose Garden gathering of about 150 Obama-activist doctors in white lab coats — that the White House passed out, the better to stage the photo op

The truth, however, as noted in a recent Investor’s Business Daily poll, is that two-thirds of doctors oppose ObamaCare, and nearly half said they would consider leaving medicine if it passes.

“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language [of the health care bill] because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life.” –Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE)

SOURCE

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, News, Politics | 4 Comments »

The Junk Science front

October 11, 2009

No, this time your tax money didn’t go to more man made global warming stupidity. But rather to a group that uses predetermined outcomes in order to bolster their failed belief that surrender is the way to go when your life is threatened.

One would think that a group of Doctors would seek proper treatment for their mental disease. There is hope for this devastating condition. Hoplobe’s resist your un-natural urges!

Now, more than at any other time in anyone’s memory, the federal government is in no position to waste taxpayer dollars on gun control advocacy “research.”  Nevertheless, the National Institutes of Health recently gave anti-gun researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine $639,586 to conduct a survey intended to prove that possessing a gun doesn’t benefit assault victims.

Criminologist Gary Kleck calls the resulting survey “the very epitome of junk science in the guns-and-violence field—poor quality research designed to arrive at an ideologically predetermined conclusion.”

Here’s how it was done.  The Pennsylvania researchers surveyed only those assault victims who were shot, limited in the last six months of the survey to victims who were fatally shot.  It did not consider the far more numerous gun owners who used guns for self-defense successfully without being shot, nor crimes that were not even attempted because the criminals feared that prospective victims might be armed.

The survey was further limited to residents of urban Philadelphia who, according to the research, “were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest,” compared to the rest of the population.  Victims who were shot in Philly, but who were not from Philly, were excluded too.  The survey considered a victim to be “armed” even if his gun was “in a nearby vehicle, or in another place.”

As Kleck says, “none of the evidence presented by the authors actually has any relevance to the issue of the effectiveness of defensive gun use, for the simple reason that at no point do they ever compare crime victims who used guns defensively with victims who did not.”  Kleck notes that other published research “reached precisely the opposite conclusions” reached by the NIH-funded survey.

What Kleck had in mind were the results of the federal government’s annual National Crime Victimization Survey, covering tens of thousands of assaults.  Kleck and others have reviewed those surveys and found that people who use guns to defend against assaults are less likely to be injured than people who use other means, or no means, of protection.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Bloomberg sycophants

October 10, 2009

The Bloomberg sycophants are marching along like good little serfs as usual. Read on…

Bathed in camera flashes during a “news conference” on October 7, 2009, New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg was in his element in announcing “a wide-ranging undercover investigation by the City of New York into illegal gun sales” that revealed “a willful disregard of the law” by “74% of gun show sellers.”

Or, so he claimed.  The ego-driven multi-billionaire’s publicity stunt was neither “wide-ranging” nor representative of what occurs at gun shows, nor was it intended to be.  And it determined nothing about “74%” of all gun show sellers.

Instead, as Bloomberg’s report on the stunt openly admits, his “investigators” attended gun shows only “in states . . . that supply crime guns trafficked across state lines at the highest rates,” only in neighborhoods with the highest incidence of “federal prosecutions for straw buying and trafficking, and proximity to urban areas experiencing gang violence,” and ultimately focused their attention on only 47 individuals who, based upon their comments and actions, seemed the most likely to violate a gun sale law.

Even that amount of deliberate skewing of Bloomberg’s sample of the nation’s “gun show sellers” did not work as he expected.  Only 35 of the 47 (hence, the fraudulent “74%” claim) ultimately exercised poor judgment with respect to a gun sale law or, in perhaps some of the cases, may have been willing to break a law, and thus be subject to prosecution.

Anti-gun groups and politicians immediately heralded Bloomberg’s effort as definitive proof of the need for more restrictions on guns.  “Thanks to Mayor Bloomberg and the New York City Police Department, the public can see firsthand what goes on at these weapons markets,” said the Brady Campaign. “This investigation reveals how easy it is for criminals and even terrorists to purchase firearms at gun shows,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).

And, since the day of fair, hard and objective reporting has apparently passed into journalism’s history, newspapers went along with Bloomberg’s charade like shills at a carnival game of chance, reminding us why public confidence in “the press” has dropped to 15% in annual polls.

“[I]n almost three out of four instances, undercover investigators were able to purchase guns illegally,” the New York Times dutifully reported. Bloomberg’s investigators “repeatedly bought guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows even though they disclosed they probably couldn’t pass a background check,” said the Washington Post. “Bloomberg’s sting documented that these transient marketplaces for guns, ammunition and accessories are a multibillion-dollar business that is funneling weapons directly into criminals’ hands, in plain sight,” said the New York Daily News.  “Any doubt that stricter regulation would be helpful was removed last week when the results of an undercover investigation of gun show sales in Tennessee and two other states was released by the office of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg,” the (Memphis) Commercial Appeal editorialized.

Bloomberg’s bottom line?  You guessed it.  Congress should adopt S. 843 and H.R. 2324 to “close the gun show loophole by requiring background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.” Bloomberg and his media friends failed to mention, of course, that both bills also propose that gun show promoters be registered, be required to pay unspecific fees, and be required to maintain ledgers of all non-dealers who bring firearms to shows (even if they bring them to sell only to dealers).  H.R. 2324 further proposes that promoters be required to provide such ledgers to the Attorney General.  For more information about anti-gun show legislation, see our facts sheets on S. 843 (www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=229&issue=014) and H.R. 2324 (www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=252&issue=014).

Reporters worthy of the name would have pointed out that buying a gun for a family member or friend as a gift is not a straw purchase.  It’s a violation of the law only to buy a gun for a prohibited person.  And competent reporters would have also noticed that Bloomberg’s “investigation” actually undercuts his call for requiring background checks on non-dealer sales at gun shows.  The most common gun sale violation, Bloomberg says, is that straw purchasers defeat the background check.  Requiring more sales to be run through checks would not alleviate the straw purchase problem one whit.

Individuals—dealers and non-dealers alike—who knowingly break the law should, of course, be prosecuted, as NRA has long advocated.  Obtaining and providing a gun for a prohibited person are both federal felonies, each punishable by 10 years in prison.

However, enforcing gun sale laws is the responsibility of the BATFE, and state and local agencies.  Bloomberg has no jurisdiction in other cities, let alone outside New York State.  His periodic interstate escapades, of which “Gun Show” is but the latest, are not only possibly illegal (in that they may violate firearm sales laws), but risk compromising federal, state and local law enforcement agencies’ investigations.

At the bottom line, Bloomberg’s effort shows that even when you work very hard to find law-breakers at gun shows, you find that such individuals are few and far between.

Once again, Hizzoner demonstrates his true priority—media grandstanding.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 7 Comments »

Obamacare = Anti Liberty and Freedom

October 9, 2009

You heard it here first!  Obamacare (caps only for grammar purpose’s) The devil, is ALWAYS in the details! Well, the details are starting to roll in, and, as I warned. The obamacare assault on personal freedom and liberty will be a back door attempt at gun control.

Recently, a good friend and fellow bloger has gotten into a spitting match with a Texas Mayor. I have refrained from commenting, as I intend to allow this…. So-called Gun Rights supporter to spew enough rope to hang His-self… And? You knew it was coming! 😀

Most of the comments at my friends website, as well as at a local MSM outlet call for enforcement of all existing laws… Friends, Americans, Liberty Countrymen across the world!

I call for fewer laws that restrict any persons ability to defend themselves…

I call for the repeal of laws that take away anyone’s unalienable rights save conviction of classic felony’s or demonstrated mental incompetence. No more Lautenberg, period. He is a proved traitor to his oath to uphold our Constitution. No more Schumer; he is Lautenberg’s Page. No more Pelosi. We are not her grandchildren. Ex post facto law is immoral, and I don’t give a damn if the Supreme Court endorsed it being the cowards that they are. The list goes on, but those are the main players in the drum roll to abolish freedom and liberty. Not just here, but world wide. The obaminaion is their lap dog.

Read on…

ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense
— Important vote to occur on Tuesday

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org

Friday, October 9, 2009

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has something to say to gun owners:  “Own a gun; lose your coverage!”

Baucus’ socialized health care bill comes up for a Finance Committee vote on Tuesday.  We have waited and waited and waited for the shifty Baucus to release legislative language.  But he has refused to release anything but a summary — and we will never have a Congressional Budget Office cost assessment based on actual legislation.  Even the summary was kept secret for a long time.

But, on the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill (which is still unnumbered) tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law — nor the consequences.  It simply says:

* “all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase coverage through (1) the individual market…”;

* “individuals would be required to report on their federal income tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage…”;

* in addition to an extensive list of statutorily mandated coverage, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be empowered to “define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services…” within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting “required minimum health coverage.”

ObamaCare and gun control

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities.  And, given Sebelius’ well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment — she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas — we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm.  It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums.  (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.)  Don’t be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns “dangerous” firearms.

After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for self-defense!).  While not all insurers practice this anti-gun behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do — Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known.

The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one drops you.  But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun ownership?

All of this is in addition to something that GOA has been warning you about for several months … the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump your gun information into a federal database … a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to “encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records.”

Remember, the federal government has already denied more than 150,000 military veterans the right to own guns, without their being convicted of a crime or receiving any due process of law.  They were denied because of medical information (such as PTSD) that the FBI later determined disqualified these veterans to own guns.

Is this what we need on a national level being applied to every gun owner in America?

Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines — and possibly more for a household with older teens.  And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy — something which was never at issue — it doesn’t prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

ACTION:  Contact your two U.S. Senators.  Ask him or her, in the strongest terms, to vote against the phony Baucus bill.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

You already know that the phony Baucus bill:

* Is predicated on $283 billion in phony “cuts” which have never, never ever been realized since a similar commitment to cut Medicare costs in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 — and will never, never ever be realized under the Baucus bill;

* Requires massive numbers of Americans to have government-approved insurance which the CBO predicts will be more expensive than current policies;

* Refuses to provide a cost for these policies, making it almost certain that more and more Americans will find insurance beyond their reach;

* Has no legislative language and nothing but a CBO “guesstimate” of the cost and benefits, based on a summary.

On the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law — nor the consequences.  It does say that the “Secretary of HHS [Kathleen Sebelius] would be required to define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services…” within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting “required minimum health coverage.”

This could spell trouble for gun owners.

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities.  And, given Sebelius’ well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment — she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas — I presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm.  It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

This is, of course, in addition to the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump my gun information into a federal database — a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to “encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records.”

Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines — and possibly more for a household with older teens.  And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy — something which was never at issue — it doesn’t prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

Please oppose the Baucus bill.

Sincerely,

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, War, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

Living with Wildlife: Elk Rut in Estes Park

October 9, 2009

If ever a town could be called a tourist trap Estes Park would be the poster child of any marketing class. Nevertheless it does have its attractions. Watch, and enjoy this thrilling piece dealing with the elk rut. Many other very good videos are located HERE as well. Managing wildlife encounters has become a way of life for the people of Colorado, as well as the DOW.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics | Comments Off on Living with Wildlife: Elk Rut in Estes Park

The Rights of Englishmen?

October 9, 2009

One of the primary reasons that the American Colonies rebelled was the suspension of their hereditary rights as citizens guaranteed them by the Magna Carta. Commonly called “The Rights of Englishmen.”

Perhaps my “rude” American streak makes me the way that I am. But when I read what follows I was reminded of the reasons that men and women have fought and died for this nation. I pity our cousins across the Atlantic…

The country’s top judge has demanded an increase in penalties to those arrested in possession of firearms. The Lord Chief Justice stated that, “Guns kill and maim, terrorise and intimidate” and that public safety must be paramount above all else. The main argument used by Lord Judge is one of deterrence, stating “deterrent and punitive sentences are required and should be imposed” such as mandatory minimum sentences for offenders including life sentences for distributors even if there was no intent to endanger life. In the debate over gun control there are a two major issues people often find themselves divided over: Firstly, where to draw the line between public protection and public dominion, and second, the trade-off between public and private deterrence.

Full Story

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Historical Quotes, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

America’s Top 20 Trophy Elk Counties

October 9, 2009

I’ve been blessed living in Colorado and Wyoming in many ways. Not the least of which would be the excellent hunting offered in both states. What of the history involving what is my favorite big game species? As in big racks, not the spiritual connection with nature when one is out in the wilds.

Read on

MISSOULA, Mont.—America’s top 20 trophy elk counties have produced a combined 602 record-book bulls, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has invested millions to keep habitat in those counties in top condition.

Elk Foundation projects in trophy counties have included prescribed burns, treating noxious weeds and thinning overgrown forests to enhance forage for elk and other wildlife, restoring riparian zones, constructing wildlife drinkers, brokering land deals that improve public access, many kinds of research, public and youth education, and more “all funded primarily through our network of volunteers and system of fundraising events,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO.

Of course, RMEF funds identical projects all across elk country, not just top trophy counties. Nationwide, at a cost of over $448 million, RMEF has completed 6,371 projects that have protected or enhanced more than 5.6 million acres. The effort has helped U.S. elk populations grow by over 40 percent since 1984.

Trophy statistics below were compiled from Boone and Crockett Club (B&C) records. The club recognizes four categories of elk records. Those categories, along with their respective minimum scores for inclusion in B&C all-time records, are: American typical elk—375, American non-typical elk—385, Roosevelt’s elk—290, and tule elk—285.

Here are America’s top 20 trophy elk counties with RMEF conservation activities*:

Full story here

Related story here

DOW

WYF&G

Shoot Straight & Be Safe!

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, News | Comments Off on America’s Top 20 Trophy Elk Counties

Second Amendment March Newsletter

October 9, 2009

What a perfect day for a protest!  The weather was not too cold, not too hot and overcast most of the day but it did not rain on our parade.  I heard estimates throughout the day of numbers in attendance ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 million.  Our local news reported thousands on one channel and tens of thousands on another.  I was told that MSNBC reported 2 million!

Full Newsletter here.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, News, Politics | 3 Comments »

Joe Arpaio: American hero

October 8, 2009

People do what they are driven to do. Some address general issues within society, other times they are more specific, and still others sort of work along a general line but still focused within a parameter. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is one of those types. An equal opportunity Sheriff, he will arrest any law-breaker, and house them accordingly.

How to deal with such an upstart? By golly! Use the race card! It’s always worked in the past after all!  So, what do the people in the obamanure administration do? They try and brand him a racist, and attempt to pull his authority that’s what they do to those that don’t fit with their political correctness agenda. Judgment Day is coming next year progressives, and when that day comes your amnesty dream plan, along with many others will be heading straight into the toilet. Where it belongs…

Hat tip to a relatively new blogger for what follows.

And that folks,was followed up by the sycophants here…

The issue is not about racism. Not at all. It is about enforcing our laws, and national security. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

Butter or Guns?

October 7, 2009

Butter or guns? That question is a classic when you study economics. It involves just about everything, not just guns and butter though. It is about choices, called Opportunity Cost that you and I make everyday, and all of the time. However, when it strays into the realm of Political Economics? Strange things happen.

All too often we allow others to make personal judgments on our behalf when we should be doing the hard lifting ourselves.

Read on…

In the 1856 case Dred Scott v. Sandford, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the idea that Africans and their descendants in the United States could be “entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens.” To emphasize how absurd that notion was, Chief Justice Roger Taney noted that, among other things, those “privileges and immunities” would allow members of “the unhappy black race” to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

The 14th Amendment, approved in the wake of the Civil War, repudiated Taney’s view of  the Constitution, declaring that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens,” who include “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Just four years after the amendment was ratified, however, the Supreme Court interpreted the Privileges or Immunities Clause so narrowly that a dissenting justice said it had been transformed into a “vain and idle enactment.” The Court now has a chance to rectify that mistake—fittingly enough, in a case involving the right to arms.

Last week the Court agreed to hear a Second Amendment challenge to Chicago’s handgun ban. Since that law is very similar to the Washington, D.C., ordinance that the Court declared unconstitutional last year, it is bound to be overturned, assuming the Court concludes that the Second Amendment applies not just to the federal government (which oversees the District of Columbia) but also to states and their subsidiaries.

That seems like a pretty safe assumption, since over the years the Court has said the 14th Amendment’s “incorporates” nearly all of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights. But the Court’s reasoning in applying the Second Amendment to the states could have implications far beyond the right to arms. If it cites the Privileges or Immunities Clause instead of (or in addition to) the usual rationale for incorporation, the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, it can prepare the ground for a renaissance of economic liberty.

Full Story

Directly related to the above…

The website for all the Chicago case filings is here. For 19th century history, Stephen Halbrook is by far the most important scholar. His articles include: The Freedmen’s Bureau Act and the Conundrum Over Whether the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporates the Second Amendment, Northern Kentucky Law Review (2002); Personal Security, Personal Liberty, and The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms: Visions of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, Seton Hall Constitutional Journal (1995); The Right of Workers to Assemble and to Bear Arms: Presser v. Illinois, One of the Last Holdouts Against Application of the Bill of Rights to the States, University of Detroit Mercy Law Review (1999); and (co-authored with Cynthia Leonardatos and me), Miller versus Texas: Plice Violence, Race Relations, Capital Punishment, and Gun-Toting in Texas in the Nineteenth Century–and Today, Journal of Law and Policy (2001).The lead attorney in the Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago is Alan Gura. He did an excellent job in District of Columbia v. Heller, so the new case is in very good hands.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »