Friday, September 21, 2007

Second Amendment and Other Concerns

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSbolg has some serious points to ponder. What concerned me were:

"There is in fact the genuine prospect that the Court will hold (potentially by a five-to-four vote each time) that the government may ban the possession of pistols (possibly guns altogether, if there is no individual Second Amendment right), that child rapists cannot be executed, that certain federal legislation regulating child pornography is unconstitutional, that the Administration's treatment of alleged terrorists is unlawful, and that sentences for crack cocaine should be reduced. In that entirely realistic scenario, it is conservatives who will be aggressively using the Court as a rallying cry - in particular, the cry of the urgent need to move the Court a single seat to the right with the likely retirement of Justice Stevens - in the 2008 election."

It is the possibility that the reinterpretation of the Second Amendment that concerns me the most. What happens if is re-interpreted. Perhaps the next requirement would be to put a sign on our lawns stating that we do not have a weapon.

"If guns are outlawed, only..."

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Civics 101

I was driving to work today, and I was listening to talk radio, like I usually do on the way to work (Its just too darned early to listen to music), and my favorite morning show, Quinn and Rose was on (http://www.warroom.com). An interesting statistic was brought up that asserted that a foreign student in our higher educational system, upon graduation, does not know any more about American history, or the government of the United States than they did when they got here. They went on to say, that an American student, upon reaching their fourth year of college, actually knew less than when they started college.

This, needless to say, disturbed me a bit, and got me to thinking. The train of thought was long, and had a few stops along the way, but where I ended up was this: What exactly are the rights of an American? We go about every day throwing the word "right" around quite carelessly. "He had no right to do that!" "I have a right to a job!" "I have a right to free healthcare!" "He had no right to offend me!" Okay, most readers of this blog are unlikely to actually say most of those things, but occasionally we get a real nutjob in here, like Josh from the Traitors post of last week.

So, what are the things that we as Americans actually have a Right to? I'm going to list a few, but if I miss any, please add them to the comments.

Religion and Free Expression: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Organize and arm ourselves for defense: 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.

You may not be forced to provide shelter to soldiers: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Illegal and Improper searches are prohibited: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No involuntary self-incrimination: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No Kangaroo Courts: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Trial by jury: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Punishment must fit the crime: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Natural rights retained by the people: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 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.

Habeas Corpus except in times of war or invasion.

The military is subservient to civil authority.

Treason powers of government are broadly checked.

Slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited.

Adult citizens have sovereign franchise.

Our founding fathers decided that these were the minimum freedoms that had to be expressed in writing to have a free society. Note that you don't have a right to not be offended. You have no right not to be hated. You have no right to a job. You have no "right" to many things. Instead, what you are trying to say, is that you feel you are entitled to something. Well, bad news for you pal, but in the real world, you aren't entitled to much more than those things listed above.

You may, you know, just have to earn something on your merit. You may have to earn something by the force of your will, your merit, the sweat of your brow and the forces of fortune. Earn respect. Earn your fortune. In doing so you will improve your character.

What concerns me, is our tendency to try to legislate happiness and plenty on people who do not have the character to earn it. Every time we pass legislation that grants an entitlement to someone, two things happen. Our freedoms under the Constitution erode further and further toward the nightmare, nanny-state socialist hell that is Europe, and farther and farther from the vision of our founding fathers of a free nation where a citizen may rise according to their own merit to any level of society, limited only by their ambition and natural ability. The other is that the cycle of dependency grows--we feel more and more entitled to things--and thus act to legislate more and more. A vicious cycle.

My last, rambling, thought for the night is this: Many people look at the voting record of a legislator and marks his or her success by the new laws that were enacted while they were in office. I think that a legislator that went and spent their entire term and successfully prevented any new laws from making it to the books would have been more successful. Chew on that one in the comments.

Sad, but true

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Response: Jihadist (ahmadinejad) to Vist Ground Zero?!

In response to I-wanna-Jihad’s (ahmadinejad’s) request to visit the scared grounds of 9-11 - the worst attack on our soil in American history. NO!
(See Link: http://www.nysun.com/article/63004)

I realize that I do not have a say in this, but I would love to read of a leaked State Department letter that was fashioned thusly:

Dear Iminamood for Jihad (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad),

The collective WE (the elected representatives to the people of the Free World), are disinclined to acquiesce your request.

WE feel that the presence of your jihadie muslim (not capitalized) blood at Ground Zero would defile the memory of those slain (by your fellow jihadists). Furthermore, the disturbance caused by the bodies of the fallen tempestuously rolling over in their graves poses a grave risk of earthquake to the rest of New York.

In lieu of your trip to Ground Zero, perhaps WE can introduce you to one of our lovely protectorate islands - which just so happens to also begin with a ‘G’.

Yours truly,

America

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Be afraid. Be very afraid!

If you haven’t had concerns about the possibility of a socialist government, this may wake you up. According to the Associated Press; “By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 18, 12:59 PM ET WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American [no mention of illegals] to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system. "At this point, we don't have anything punitive [yet] that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans." She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.”

Be afraid. Be very afraid!

Monday, September 17, 2007

Freefloating Thoughts

Before Hillary there was Bill. Before Monica Lewinsky, there was Whitewater. Is there a family pattern? I cringe at the though of Bill being in the White House with nothing to do and time on his post presidential power. "Intern this, sweetie; have a cigar." The libs are pushing for free health care. As the oft mentioned meme implies, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is free." Not only "free" but unobtainable! I live in northern Minnesota and the largest "out-of-state" population of patients come from Canada. They come here because they can not be seen in their nanny-state health care system in a timely manner. They pay cash and are not looking for a freebie. There have many articles and documentaries regarding the care provided for veterans. The VA system is the largest HMO in the world. It is run by the government. On a good day it is overwhelmed and a Charlie Foxtrot. Thanks to congress, it is funded less than the annual COL. Does a loss in annual income for an HMO provide for the best medical staff? No, it does not! Think about it. If you were a medical professional, trying to pay off student loans and support a family, would you want to be employed by an agency that will pay you less each year than what it costs to remain at you current economic level? Take a look at the names of some of the professionals that are employed as medical staff at a VA medical center. Each year less names are from the Western Hemisphere. Most of the professionals are very competent, but where are the American born? There is one VA medical center that I deal with that would do well to have the person, that answers the main switchboard, speak and understand American English, without an accent; not ask me to speak more clearly! I have some words for affirmative action for immigrants and none of them are kind! If the government can not provide all of the needed care for our heroes, multiply that up to 300 million plus the illegals. I have no problem, and consider it a privilege, to help pay for any medical care for our military. To provide free health care for those who are here illegally is an abomination of our country. As often stated, "A nation that can not secure its borders ceases to be a nation."
/end rant

It may come as some suprise:

But Hillary Clinton's campaign has been drug further into the mud by more campaign finance scandal. Sought after by the IRS and both the state and city of New York, sued by the FDIC, and hounded by Indian banks (dot, not feather!) who accuse him of committing bank fraud, Sant Chatwal has been exposed as having gathered more than 5$ million dollars for her campaign.

Is it just me, or is this the second (so far...) criminal that has been exposed as gathering dirty cash for the Clintons? This is the same family, of course, that doesn't consider a blow-job a sexual encounter, so perhaps they didn't really think that bank fraud and tax violations, or money laundering and fleeing justice were all that bad characteristics for their friends to have.

Oh, and I was wondering... wasn't this also from the party that so strongly wanted campaign finance reform? Hmmm.

I was also noticing that a lot--and I mean millions--of Billary's seem to be coming to her from foreign nationals. Doesn't that concern you? Do we really want our Chief Executive taking marching order from the Chinese or Indians?

How is it that America is so asleep that they aren't noticing the snow-job they are getting from these weenies? That is, of course, excluding John Edwards... we all know he squats to pee.

Well, that was just some Monday ranting to get the week going. Looks like someone has a case of The Mondays.