Obama Receives Spike in Death Threats

Texas Fred reports on a story from the AP that says Barack Obama has received more death threats than any other President-elect in U.S. history.

It should be noted that ALL Presidents-elect receive these threats after a Presidential election. It comes with the territory.

But what is curious is the fact that Obama has received more than anyone else.

Now let me be very clear about this. Only a nutcase would personally threaten a United States President, Barack Obama included. Such a thing is simply over the top, and 99.99% of Americans, including me, would never even think about participating in such a brazen act.

To be sure, the 56 million Americans who voted against Barack Obama have been very emotional, sometimes heated, in our outrage that someone with Obama's political ideology could actually get elected to the White House.

We can expect the heated debate to continue.

But personal threats?

Deranged and unstable persons can often be pushed over the edge by forceful rhetoric. And the widespread fear of Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress may well have pushed the most unstable among us over the edge to the point of doing something stupid.

In the New Testament, for example, Jesus uses vivid and stunning imagery to describe the importance of avoiding placing oneself in a position to be tempted to do wrong. He said, 'If your hand offends you, cut it off. Better for your hand to burn in hell than your entire body. And if your eye offends you, gouge it out, for better to go to heaven blind than for the whole body to burn in hell.'

The imagery is metaphor, that is, not to be taken literally.

But the emotionally disturbed have been known to read those statements of Jesus and proceed to mutilate themselves, as if doing so will keep them from sin.

Those of us who are Jeffersonian libertarians have often stated that we would never fire the first shot against forces of tyranny who seek to rob us of our rights and property. Tyrannical government will always have to make the first move.

But we will not hesitate to defend ourselves against the forces of anti-freedom who wish to rob us of our guns, our property, our freedom to speak our minds, including engaging in heated political debate, our right to worship as we please, print what we please as citizen journalists, and to assemble to discuss our shared values.

These are clear rights given to all human beings by God and enumerated in and protected by the Constitution of the United States.

But as patriots who love our country and who wish to see ALL human beings free, we would never initiate any harm to anyone unless in self-defense and in response to an overt threat to our lives and liberties.

I write this today in order to differentiate us and what we are about from those who are intent on doing harm to others unprovoked. Strict Constitutionalists believe that murder is evil. We are guided by clear-cut principles, moral principles, that allow killing only under certain specified conditions, self-defense being the primary condition.

Gun Control in North Carolina: the National Database

The Democrat-controlled North Carolina state senate overwhelmingly passed legislation requiring that anyone in the state who by law has been committed to a mental health facility will have their name entered into a national database to prevent them from buying a firearm.

As many predicted when a national bill was introduced in the Congress that had the backing of not only the NRA but self-avowed gun-grabbers such as Carolyn McCarthy, John Conyers, Charles Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer, the bill is, indeed, leading to wholesale banning of firearms ownership for life based upon a person's medical diagnosis.

North Carolina is proof positive that the so-called 'nay-sayers' and 'NRA bashers' such as the GOA and the JPFO were 100% correct on this issue.

I maintained all along that despite my general and longtime support for the NRA, they got this one DEAD WRONG.

Thus, in North Carolina, if you ever go to the doctor with depression so severe that you have suicidal thoughts and have to be placed in a mental facility, you are banned from owning firearms for life. If you are a U.S. war veteran who served your country and because of post-traumatic stress syndrome your depression and anxiety are so overwhelming that you have to be hospitalized due to your fleeting desire to die, sorry, bud, but you will never be able to own a firearm again. The 'fleeting desire to die' is referred to in medical circles as passive suicidal-homicidal ideation.

And not only that, but your name will be entered into the dreaded national database where you will automatically recognized as 'too nutty to own a gun.'

It is a big mistake to assume upon reading the legislation that 'they are not talking about average citizens but about certified nutcases.' All it takes for an average citizen to be considered a danger to themselves or others is for a doctor to diagnose severe depression, which always involves thoughts of suicide, or bipolar disorder with suicidal ideation (and, by the way, in medical lingo there is no such thing as 'suicidal ideation' apart from 'homicidal ideation'...the two are described as one thing, i.e., 'suicidal-homicidal ideation').

The most severely-afflicted of these patients are then forcibly committed to hospitalization if they do not commit themselves voluntarily.

And this is why legislation such as the bill in North Carolina is a danger to the rights of citizens.

In addition, there may be HIPPA (Health Information Portability and Privacy Act) violations involved. Ever since the 1998 Congress passed privacy legislation protecting citizens' medical history, the medical community has understood that these matters are extremely private or else the offending parties could not only be sued by individual citizens but hauled to court by the U.S. Government and heavily fined.

Mental health issues have always been understood to contain inherent privacy safeguards due to the sensitivity of such diagnoses. But now the names of these poor souls will be entered into a national database, along with their complete mental health history.

In the name of preventing these persons from exercising their Constitutional rights, their privacy will be thrown under the bus.

And what about the Heller decision? It did absolutely nothing to prevent these types of government violations of citizens' rights.

The mental health advocacy groups should be up in arms over this one, but where are they?

For complete information about the North Carolina bill, click HERE

Second Amendment News Roundup for 3/11/08

Focusing on guns and politics, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

For those who wish to attend the oral argument in the D.C. vs. Heller case on March 18 at the Supreme Court, the Volokh Conspiracy has an informative post on when to show up:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_03_09-2008_03_15.shtml#1205175498

As it turns out, biofuel is not so eco-friendly, at least not in the production of it. Volokh has the story:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_03_09-2008_03_15.shtml#1205246377

Eugene Volokh opines on why Hillary is so silent on the Spitzer prostitution ring scandal in New York:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_03_09-2008_03_15.shtml#1205275431

The Buckeye Firearms Association has an article and a video that will make gun owners a bit squeamish at the stomach:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5516

Michelle Malkin has an interesting take on why the GOP lost retired House Speaker Dennis Hastert's seat in Illinois...and I fully agree!:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/11/why-the-gop-lost-hasterts-seat-continued/

John Lott has discovered the expected media bias in the coverage of Governor Spitzer's scandal--two of the three major broadcast networks failed to identify Spitzer as a Democrat. You know as well as I do that had he been a Republican, they would have been all over it:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/03/media-bias-in-coverage-of-governor.html

Traction Control has a brief but extremely important reminder on 2008's 'Buy a Gun Day':
http://tractioncontrol.well-regulatedmilitia.org/?p=997

This is an unmitigated outrage. Uncle reports that the Feds have threatened fellow gun blogger David Codrea at The War on Guns. They also apparently threatened Ryan Horsely at Red's Trading Post as well. Read the whole enraging horse shit here:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/03/11/feds_threaten_blogger/

Uncle has another one that simply makes my skin crawl with rage. A Judge has told a news reporter that she cannot get financial help to pay her court costs. Of course, this means the Judge is trying to force testimony, which I thought was against the law. Read all about this menace to society here:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/03/11/speaking_of_threatening_rights/

Here is David Codrea's post on the Feds' threat to his right to free speech:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/03/taking-bait.html

The MUST-read of the day is by Sebastian on Obama, McCain, and money:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/11/obama-tops-300-billion-mark/

The Bitch Girls also have required reading on the new tactic of the gun-grabbers. Take a look at THIS!:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=7954

Breda says she is a Glock Model 22 in 40 cal:
http://thebredafallacy.blogspot.com/2008/03/meh.html

Nicki writes that she was able to make a new convert to the ranks of the gunners over the weekend. Congrats, Nicki!:
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2008/03/made-convert-this-weekend.html

Where do these scumbags come from, and how do they get elected to office? David has the story of the scumbag who wants to outlaw anonymous posts online. Can you say 'TYRANNY?':
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/03/couched-in-tyranny.html

Well well well! It looks like our own Squeaky has a new boyfriend! Congrats to Squeaks and TD:
http://www.squeakywheelseeksgrease.com/blog/2008/03/10/as-if-you-havent-already-figured-it-out/

Just wait till you see what this high school freshman was given detention for! Dustin has the story:
http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/boy-given-detention-for-wearing-gun.html

In case you missed this MOST interesting piece of info, Born Again Redneck has the results of a Rasmussen poll that says most people want John McCain to be the one who answers that 3 AM phone call in the event of a major catastrophe. 25% want it to be Hillary and 25% want it to be Obama. 42% want it to be McCain. Read the rest of the info here:
http://bornagainredneck.blogspot.com/2008/03/42-want-mccain-to-answer-300-am-phone.html

Blogstitution has the goods on Michelle Obama. She just keeps opening her mouth and vomiting venom toward America. Makes you wonder what Barack says about America behind closed doors with his wife:
http://www.blogstitution.com/2008/03/10/what-i-think-of-michelle-obama-so-there-is-no-confusion/

Blogonomicon blogs on the true source of the Second Amendment:
http://blogonomicon.blogspot.com/2008/03/true-source.html

Alphecca wants some information on Bersa Guns. If you have knowledge about them, head on over there and tell him. Matter of fact, I don't know anything about these particular guns either:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=666

JR has a great post on the term, 'There ought to be a law.' And he cringes as much as I do when he hears it:
http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2008/03/there-ought-to-be-law.html

Mike McCarville reports on a government records clerk who put thousands of Social Security numbers ONLINE for ANYONE to see. Mike even saw them himself!:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2008/03/oklahoma-county-clerks-records-reveal.html

If We Have Right to Privacy As the Dems Say...

Without exception, each of the Democrats who are contending for their Party's Presidential nomination stated during Thursday night's debate that they believe the U.S. Constitution affirms and protects the citizens' 'right to privacy.'

The term 'right to privacy' has become code language for those who support abortion rights. That is most unfortunate. This implies that those who are pro-life see no right to privacy in the Constitution.

Such thinking is exceedingly flawed.

For example, personally I am pro-life. I do not believe that a living human being growing inside of a woman's body is just 'another part of her body' like an appendage. While the life growing inside her is connected to her body, that life itself is separate with its own genes and chromosomes.

I do not believe that it is right to tamper with that life unless there is an overriding medical reason for doing so.

This medical reason would be determined by the woman's physician. And in that regard there is a right to privacy, due to the fact that medical information is considered private and protected by law.

Thus, if the woman in question decides to have an abortion upon the advice of her physician, it is really none of my business. Medical records are private, and as each of the Democratic candidates stated, we all have the 'right to privacy.'

Alrighty then. Let's see just how far these legal scholars are willing to go with their supposed affirmation of the Constitutional 'right to privacy,' shall we?

If it is none of my business nor the government's as to whether or not the young woman living beside me decides to have an abortion due to medical reasons, which are considered a matter of privacy, although I happen to believe that such an act may be unethical, immoral, and displaying a shocking lack of regard for the sacredness of human life, then why is it any of government's business when and where or how often I buy a gun?

The right to privacy in the Constitution protects a woman's right to end a human life but does not protect MY right to privacy when it comes to the Second Amendment, which is explicitly affirmed as an inherent right.

It is actually much easier in this country to end a baby's life than it is to buy a gun.

When I go to the gun shop to purchase a handgun or a long gun, I am required to fill out paperwork, complete with my name, address, phone number, driver's license number, and Social Security Number, and in some states I have to wait a week to 14 days before I can take possession of the firearm.

How long will it be before I have to drop 'em, bend over, and grab 'em so that they can examine my lower colon with a proctoscope before I can purchase a firearm?

Further, the right to privacy doesn't seem to bother the Dems in the least when it comes to airline safeguards, national databases, national I.D. cards, cameras on street corners, eye-I.D., and the like.

Our privacy has been flying out the window faster than a bat out of hell over the last ten years or so, under both Democratic AND Republican politicians in the Congress and White House.

Yet the Dems claim we have a Constitutional right to privacy.

Apparently, that claim only pertains to abortion rights. I am waiting for one of them to correctly extend that right to the Second Amendment and other privacy violations as well.

I won't be holding my breath...

Joe Biden and the 'Average Joe' Judges

Democratic Presidential hopeful Joe Biden stated during Thursday night's debate that he wants to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who are 'average Joes.'

Of course the candidate did not use those exact words, but what he said means the same thing. Biden said he was tired of law professors and scholars being appointed to the bench. He wants to appoint judges who 'have lived out in the real world like most people.'

The question that is paramount, however, is how, exactly, would Biden determine if these prospective judges were 'just average Joes?'

I suppose that Biden thinks he is an average Joe, since he brought up the issue. After all, his name is Joe. The problem is that he is a lawyer, just like the elites of whom he claims to have grown weary.

So, how would Biden determine the 'common folk' prerequisite? Would they need to have worked their way through college and law school by being a grease monkey in a mechanic shop in Podunk? Would they need to buy their clothes at WalMart rather than Brooks Brothers? Would they need to prefer beer and pizza over fine wine and fillet mignon?

Better still, would they need to live in a place where there are lots of old cars in the yard with no tires, propped up on concrete blocks?

Just how do any of these make a judge, particularly a Supreme Court Justice, any better at interpreting the Constitution?

The legal profession by its very nature is not conducive to 'the average Joe.' It is very much an elitist fraternity. While it is true that the country has not always been well-served by Justices who were legal scholars, neither has it always been well-served by Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents who were 'average Joes.'

Just think of Jimmy Carter, for heaven's sake.

Frankly, when it comes to Constitutional law I want someone who is well-schooled in the foundation, history, and philosophy of Constitutional thought--that is, I want a scholar who knows the original background and setting of the Constitution as well as he knows the back of his/her own hand.

He or she should be able to quote extensively from rote memory The Federalist Papers, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, and many others.

The High Court is an entirely different animal from the executive and legislative branches of government. While the Presidency and the Congress lend themselves to the election of common folk who can connect with the average citizens, the Supreme Court is purposefully different. Justices must be able to stay above the fray and render decisions based NOT upon what the average Joes want, but what the Constitution requires.

And by the way, if you want an example of the dangers of selecting average Joes for the Supreme Court, just look at John Edwards, who comes as close as any to being what Biden would consider ideal.

Edwards has stated that the right described by the Second Amendment is a 'privilege' rather than a right--in direct contradiction to the U.S. Constitution. He has also stated that having access to the Internet and healthcare are 'rights.'

Exactly which amendments in the Bill of Rights state this, Senator?

Give me a strict constructionist, Constitutional scholar any day of the week over an 'average Joe.' The average Joes are best left in the House of Representatives.

Second Amendment News Roundup for 11/14/07

Focusing on guns and politics, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

Citizen outrage drove New York Governor Eliot Spitzer to drop his plan for drivers' licenses for illegal aliens, which means Mrs. Clinton is in deep trouble in New York, given her endorsement of the plan:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1363693520071114?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

The Adventures of Roberta X says that with the changing seasons, she changes guns:
http://twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/2007/11/change-seasons-change-guns.html

Squeaky says she watched Garden State last night. It is a great movie...I can highly recommend it if you haven't seen it:
http://www.squeakywheelseeksgrease.com/blog/2007/11/13/my-night-planned/

Breda received an invitation to join the pro-Second Amendment Bloggerfest next May:
http://thebredafallacy.blogspot.com/2007/11/whoa.html

Bitter Bitch put together the aforementioned Bloggerfest at the NRA convention and issues an invitation:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=7598

So, her hero who is old enough to be her father broke her heart when he got married. Damn. Here I am available and nobody's brokenhearted over ME!:
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-did-not-know-that.html

The War on Guns comments on the ATF recruitment video--yep, they are recruiting people to wage war on gun shops and gun manufacturers:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/11/borg-collective-wants-you.html

Red's Trading Post has more on that recruitment video here:
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2007/11/atf-recruitment-video.html

Say Uncle provides great commentary on the breaking point--a topic of debate among gun bloggers of late:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/11/14/breaking_point/

Dustin's Gun Blog comments on the upcoming National Ammo Day:
http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/national-ammo-day-nov-19th.html

The MUST-read of the day is from Syd at Front Sight, Press:
http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/rkba/i-dont-carry-a-gun/

Sebastian continues his important discussion on the subject of 'what if'?:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=1921

Mike McCarville reports on a very important firearms issue in Oklahoma:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/11/henry-edmondson-seek-firearms-case.html

Alphecca provides detailed analysis of the Heller case at the U.S. Supreme Court:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=521

Armed and Safe has the riveting story of a Florida sheriff who took a lot of heat for defending the Second Amendment:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2007/11/florida-sheriff-takes-heat-for.html

Xavier Thoughts blogs on some latest examples of citizens fighting off thugs:
http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/11/aint-that-america.html

Bob Parks says that the 'planted question' thing simply isn't going away as an issue to use against Mrs. Clinton, Bill's wife:
http://outsidethewire.mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/13/now-cnn-is-hitting-the-girl/

The Buckeye Firearms Association has an important update on the access to concealed carry names by news reporters:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article4043.html

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has an excellent read on the excuses government uses to deprive citizens of their Constitutional rights during national disasters:
http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-thebigone.htm

Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy has an excellent response to Howard Dean's latest mindless drivel concerning theology, Democrats, and Republicans:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_11_11-2007_11_17.shtml#1195018811

New G.I. Joe Symptomatic of a Growing Cancer

If Hollywood get its way, G.I. Joe will no longer be the toy symbol of the quintessential American hero--the U.S. Marine. A movie project is in the making that will remove G.I. Joe as the symbol of American military might and place him under an international special operations force in Brussels.

Paramount plans to turn 'G.I. Joe' into an acronym meaning 'Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity.'

Apparently Paramount is concerned about its international marketing ability should the new film glorify the American military.

But, of course, as supporters say, G.I. Joe is only a toy, right? It means nothing, actually.

Think again.

The new 'G.I. Joe' is a symptom of a growing cancer--that of degrading American patriotism in favor of a generic, international entity in which citizens are no longer citizens of the United States of America, but citizens of the 'universe,' or the 'global community,' or whatever the hell else the modern-day neo-Commies wish to call it.

G.I. Joe bears the face of a real American military hero by the name of Colonel Mitchell Paige, a World War II veteran. Paige had served in the Pacific theatre as one of the Marines the U.S. Navy dropped off to drive the Japanese off the island of Guadalcanal.

Paige lost 90 of his men during the battle. The Japanese lost over 2000 soldiers.

The citation for Paige's Metal of Honor reads, 'When the enemy broke through the line directly in front of his position, P/Sgt. Paige, commanding a machine gun section with fearless determination, continued to direct the fire of his gunners until all his men were either killed or wounded. Alone, against the deadly hail of Japanese shells, he fought with his gun and when it was destroyed, took over another, moving from gun to gun, never ceasing his withering fire.'

Hasbro Toys contacted Paige some years ago to request his permission to use his face on its G.I. Joe. Paige consented. And ever since, the toy soldier has born the image of one of the finest heroes in U.S. history.

Oh, and by the way, when Paige gave his consent to be the face of G.I. Joe, he stipulated that he would agree to the deal 'only as long as G.I. Joe remains a United States Marine.'

Paramount should be resoundingly condemned for planning such a desecration of a real American hero (Paige is now deceased). It is not the toy that counts. It is the man whose face G.I. Joe bears.

Once again, the creeping crawl of globalization is about to gobble up another piece of unique Americana. The United States of America is not about a North American Union, an 'Amero,' the U.N., or some European Union entity in Brussels. Those who push these ideas are one half-step away from being outright traitors.

A Winning Political Strategy for the 21st Century

Those of us who are conservative-libertarian in our political views often wonder if the future looks bright for those who adhere to the principles of liberty as envisioned by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution. I believe it does. But a few changes are necessary.

First, it is important that we steer the nation back to the Constitution as a liberating set of ideas penned by those who longed to be free from oppression, coercion, and tyranny. Far from being an antiquated set of beliefs that restrict and limit human behavior, the Constitution's central focus is on the expansion of liberty.

Education in the home and in our schools is essential to the rediscovery of the Constitution as a liberating document.

Second, in light of the general principle of the expansion of liberty, we must affirm the right of individual citizens to make their own choices although some of those choices may not align with our personal preferences or beliefs.

For example, non-smokers certainly have a right to clean air around them, but smokers also have a right to smoke. This means that non-smokers must stand for the rights of smokers to do their thing in smoking areas, in their homes, and in other public places, as long as non-smokers are afforded a reasonable amount of smoke free air.

The same principle applies to the issue of coupling. Decisions regarding romantic preferences are personal and must be protected. Allowing a gay couple to have a civil union that is recognized legally is no threat to marriage.

For example, the fact that I am a heterosexual male who is attracted to the opposite sex in no way forces me to prevent same-sex coupling in order to somehow 'protect my manhood' or to 'protect marriage.' My manhood is fully intact no matter what gay persons do. And marriage between a man and a woman will survive even if gay couples are allowed legally recognized unions.

If we are to maintain liberty, we MUST safeguard personal habits and choices even if they may appear strange or inappropriate for us.

Third, we must keep conservative members of the religious community on board with us by affirming the right to religious expression in the public arena. If we believe in the unfettered, unobstructed right to bear arms, for example, then that same principle must apply to ALL of the rights enumerated in the Constitution.

Religious conservatives need to know that we value their beliefs and their contributions to the political process. If they feel devalued or used, they will either stay home on election day or make a stupid mistake by voting for a purveyor of anti-freedom in protest.

Deeply spiritual people of various stripes have blazed a trail for liberty in this nation. These honorable persons learned from the Puritans that we cannot limit freedom. Hindsight shows the folly of the Puritan experience of coming to America for liberty only to turn right around and limit religious liberty for their detractors.

Fourth, we must return to the original Constitutional principle that America's defense must be exactly what the word denotes, i.e., defense and not offense. Outside of World Wars I and II, America's involvement in foreign adventures has tended to result in disaster.

Are there exceptions to this principle? Of course. There are times when it is absolutely necessary to involve ourselves on the world stage when the alternative would be mass genocide and broad-scaled tyranny, such as the prospects of a Hitler-dominated Europe.

Fifth, we must stress the concept of personal empowerment over dependence. Personal empowerment is a liberating process of being in control of one's destiny, one's decisions, one's life. Dependence, on the other hand, is serfdom and slavery.

Americans must be shown that dependence on government is the ultimate slavery. The highest example of liberty is when an individual lives with the knowledge that ultimately he/she is his/her own guardian and master.

In addition to the fact that this principle will guide the way to our deciding what is truly necessary in government and what is not, this principle will keep taxes and big government in check.

Sixth, with mounting problems facing us from globalization, climate change, border security, immigration, terrorism, and the like, we must take a 'can-do' attitude to each of these threats. Americans built the Panama Canal. We invented air travel. We invented mass production of autos using the assembly line. We were the first to put a man on the Moon.

If we could take each of these significant giant leaps in human progress, then there is no doubt that American ingenuity will lead the way to significant developments in emissions-free travel, safe nuclear energy that includes missile shields, personal devices that detect terrorist threats, and any number of further strides in technology.

Seventh, legal immigration must be affirmed and encouraged while illegal entry into the country must be stopped cold. Our complaint is not with Hispanics, Asians, or any other ethnic group. Those who are willing to come here legally and gain their citizenship according to our laws are to be welcomed with open arms. We need and appreciate all that they bring to our society in terms of manpower and technology.

But those who break our laws right off the bat by attempting to gain something for nothing are to be prosecuted severely. If it is so vitally important for a person in a foreign country to come to America to live and work, then the very least we should expect is an adherence to our laws, a knowledge of our language, customs, and culture, and an appreciation for our rich history as a beacon for liberty.

Illegal aliens have no business being in this country at all. Their behavior is an affront to every single immigrant who came here legally and went through the process of becoming citizens.

Naturally these seven components of a winning political strategy for the 21st century are only a start. There are many more issues to be considered.

I would hope that a dialogue could ensue concerning the precepts described here as well as other pertinent issues. I certainly do not claim the final word. But it would seem to me that these are the basic essentials, the bare necessities for a future in which liberty is cherished, valued, and protected.

Misconceptions on What Constitutes a 'Right'

In my last column on The Liberty Sphere I wrote about the principle of expansion of rights inherent in the 'originalist' or 'strict constructionism' method of Constitutional interpretation.

This brings us to the question of what, exactly, constitutes a 'right' as designated in the U.S. Constitution.

The question is of extreme importance, for it is clear that in modern society there are common misconceptions as to what constitutes a right.

Ask some of the neighbors in a 'planned community' what constitutes a right, and some may well tell you that they have the right to limit how many trees you can plant on your own property. In some inner-city communities, some may well state that they have the right to tell their neighbors they cannot possess a firearm due to the fact that they must feel 'safe.' Still others may state that they have a right to healthcare through the federal government, funded by taxpayers.

Each of these is an example of a gross misconception as to what constitutes a right.

Yet there is no small number of American politicians, who should know better, who are known to say the very same things. John Edwards, for example, when asked what he thought were the most important basic human rights, failed to mention a single issue delineated in The Bill of Rights but instead insisted that every single human being has a right to healthcare, to Internet access, and to American citizenship, among other such ridiculous and dangerous notions.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have said similar things. So have Senators Obama, Dodd, Reid, Kennedy, and Kerry.

So what, exactly, is a 'right' within the context of the U.S. Constitution?

A right is a specific expression or example of being free, of living in a state of liberty. In addition, something cannot be considered a 'right' if it deprives one's neighbors and fellow countrymen of liberty or of being able to live free.

You do not, for example, have the 'right' to tell me that I cannot plant but one tree on my property, unless, of course, I have willingly signed away my rights in a legally binding document, such as the Covenants and Restrictions of a 'planned community.'

You do not have the right to tell me that I cannot own a handgun simply because it may give you the willies to think of your neighbors being armed. For you to be able to do such a thing deprives ME of my liberty.

You do not have an automatic right to healthcare or healthcare insurance. Everyone in this country already has access to healthcare in any emergency room in the nation, and through various and sundry other services provided to those who lack insurance or the means to pay for their care.

But to claim you have a 'right' to healthcare means that you are depriving someone else of their liberty. They must pay your bill if you cannot afford it. Taxes must be raised on the masses to cover the fact that the care you receive will not be paid for by you.

A society or nation may well decide through its elected officials or through a public vote that it wishes to pay for the healthcare of the poor and uninsured. But this is NOT a basic human right. To take something from someone else in order that you might have something you would not normally have does not constitute a 'right.'

When the electorate, politicians, and governments decide that taxpayer-funded freebies constitute rights, they are immediately engaging in double-speak. It is practically and rationally impossible to secure a right by infringing on the rights of others. The one automatically negates the other.

Thus, for the nation to implement socialized medicine that puts everyone on a waiting list that may well mean death to those who are very ill, is not securing a 'right' but imposing tyranny. Such a plan will cost you and me plenty in terms of money, swift and timely care, and the right to make medical decisions solely between patients and their doctors.

It is vital, therefore, that we not allow liberal politicians to scam us into believing these things are inherent 'rights.' A right doesn't cost anyone anything. The only cost incurred is to the individual who must take responsibility for the exercising of those rights and the willingness to pay the price to keep them.

An Interesting Constitutional Question

Liberal jurists have often referred to the principle of 'strict constructionism' with regard to Constitutional interpretation as 'old hat.' The notion that 21st century Americans must be bound by a document that was written within the context of the 18th century seems to them to be stale, antiquated, and unsuitable for modern times.

Thus, 'liberal' or 'progressive' jurists coined the term 'the living document' to designate their viewpoint that the process of Constitutional interpretation must be given the broadest leeway possible in order to make the document relevant to our times.

For example, since the Framers could not have possibly envisioned a time in the future when large, heavily populated areas would be overrun with handguns, often obtained illegally, then they could not have possibly meant that the Second Amendment should provide an unconditional cover for bearing arms.

Thus, using the 'living document' method of interpretation, such jurists would be in support of 'reasonable restrictions and limitations' on a Constitutional right.

The problem, of course, with such a view is that the principle can be applied to any of our guaranteed rights, including First Amendment rights. The Framers could not have envisioned a time when society would be dominated by media coverage, including peering into the private lives of citizens, complete with outlandish charges and accusations we have come to expect from tabloid journalism.

Thus, a case could be made that utilizing the principle of the 'living document' school of interpretation, progressive jurists and politicians could claim that reasonable restrictions and limitations on free speech and freedom of the press are entirely appropriate.

Clearly those who have espoused the living document method of interpretation have a history of supporting restricting the rights delineated in the Constitution. Thus, we do not actually have complete freedom of religion in this nation due to the numerous restrictions placed upon religious expression in the name of 'diversity.'

The same could be said for freedom of speech.

And we know that the Second Amendment right to bear arms has been attacked and restricted relentlessly by those who adhere to the 'living document' method of interpretation.

Perhaps the only individual right that has escaped such limitation and restriction is the freedom of the press. One can surmise that the press has been granted a pass because so many who adhere to the 'living document' school of thought work within the media.

It is always more expedient to restrict someone else's rights than your own.

Thus, an interesting Constitutional question comes to the forefront of the debate. What principle should be used to interpret the Constitution in modern times, when clearly times have changed drastically since the 18th century?

Originalists, or 'strict contructionists,' are often mischaracterized. Of course, strict constructionism does, indeed, mandate that the original intent of the Framers is the single most important consideration in arriving at a correct interpretation of a Constitutional issue. But this method of interpretation goes beyond merely the words printed on the pages of the original documents.

For example, when one truly wishes to discover the meaning of the Second Amendment, one must go to the original intent of the Framers. What did those words mean to them at the time?

Fortunately for us, they told us. The Federalist Papers, the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, and others spell out in detail the exact meaning of the Amendment. They feared tyranny above all and its inherent attempt to remove God-given rights.

Firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens were viewed as a means of empowering the people against the power of oppressive government.

Any serious consideration of the meaning of the Second Amendment must start here and come to terms with this basic philosophy of the Founding Fathers.

But the process of originalism doesn't stop there.

One must look at the underlying principle that provides the foundation for all future attempts to interpret Constitutional issues. And that principle is expansion of rights.

The Constitution itself states that there are many other rights that belong to human beings which are not spelled out specifically in the document itself, but which are valid nonetheless. The absence of specific references to those unnamed rights is in no way to be construed as implying that those rights are not guaranteed as well.

This very statement provides the foundation of the principle of expansion of rights, which for a century and a half was an important precedent in Constitutional interpretation. Those matters that the Founders did not or could not specify at the time must be judged by the general principle of expansion of rights rather than restriction of rights.

How important has this principle been to Constitutional interpretation? Without it, slaves would have never been freed or given the right to vote. Women would not have been given the right to vote.

The nation has sometimes strayed from this basic Constitutional principle, much to its peril. Prohibition is an example. Individual rights were restricted and removed rather than expanded and protected.

The result was rampant crime and a lucrative black market for criminals.

The nation learned its lesson and repealed Prohibition. Yet those who espouse the so-called 'living document' method of interpretation still seek to limit individual rights. What they have not been able to do at the national level they have succeeded in doing at the local and state levels.

The creeping crawl of government expansion leads to oppression. In Europe, for example, we see governments so afraid of the people that laws have been passed that prevent individual citizens from owning firearms. Our own federal government in the U.S. apparently has been afflicted with the very same disease. We see increasing signs year by year that our own government is just as afraid of its own citizens as it is the terrorists, to the point that government has sought at every hand to remove every means of self-protection the citizens have at their disposal.

This is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared more than anything else.

Thus, it is absolutely essential in these strange and interesting times that we appoint to the bench only those jurists who live by the Framers' principle of expansion of rights. As it stands now there are far too many who would restrict every single right guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.

Dangers Inherent in 'Deliberative' Democracy

The term 'democracy' as it has come to be widely used and accepted in free societies is somewhat of a misnomer. No free society is a true democracy.

For example, if the U.S. were a pure democracy, the wishes of a simple majority of the electorate could obliterate every single liberty that free people cherish. 'Majority rule' is actually mob rule, as strong-armed, vocal, and intimidating mobs could potentially get a 51% plurality of voters, for example, to ban blue-eyed blond females from driving automobiles.

A better way to explain our form of government in American free society is 'constitutional republic,' which includes the notion of a 'representative democracy.'

Yet, even then, the representatives we elect are restricted in what they can do by an agreed-upon Constitution with a Bill of Rights that protects precious human liberty, including that of minorities that should never be subject to the mob mentality of 'majority rule.'

A growing movement in certain sectors of academia, however, takes the notion of representative democracy governed by a Constitution in a new and dangerous direction.

The movement has become known in academic and political circles as 'deliberative' or 'discursive' democracy.

The basic premise embraced by the proponents of this theory is that free societies should encourage greater cooperation between government and citizens, encouraging open discussion or deliberation concerning policy initiatives, the result of which would be a lower degree of opposition to policy decisions once they are initiated by government.

Civil libertarians and other academics who keep an eye on threats to liberty express deep concern about such a notion.

As one commentator pointed out, merely discussing freedom is not the same thing as actually being free.

Giving citizens the illusion that they are free and can influence government decision-making in developing public policy is a dirty trick of collectivists. Such a tactic satisfies the citizens' need to be heard and to feel important. But then, the elitists of government go ahead and do whatever they want anyway.

Are you now thinking to yourself as I am, that government in the U.S. is already under the creeping crawl of 'deliberative democracy'?

And this is precisely the core issue with regard to 'deliberative democracy.' At the heart of the movement is the desire to increase government power to control every aspect of human life.

Under normal conditions such a movement would be rejected outright as totalitarian, which is an accurate assessment. But what makes this movement so dangerous is that totalitarianism is disguised and made palatable by encouraging 'citizen participation' in government.

When citizens are allowed to deliberate proposed policy decisions effecting society, they are given the 'warm fuzzies' in that they feel their voices have been heard.

And then everyone can congratulate themselves over how wonderful it is to live in a land where average citizens can participate in their government.

The ominous, dark side of this plan, however, is that such an outcome among the electorate effectively diffuses and renders null and void any potential threat to the policies implemented by those in government.

In short, the plan is nothing but window-dressing.

Citizens are made to feel free without actually being free.

A perfect example of an adherent to deliberative democracy in politics today is John Edwards, Democratic candidate for President. As reported several weeks ago on The Liberty Sphere, when asked what he thinks are the most important basic, fundamental human rights, Edwards responded with things such as 'universal Internet access,' 'universal government healthcare coverage,' and the biggie, 'American citizenship.'

Never once did Edwards refer to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of self-defense as protected by the Second Amendment, or for that matter, ANY of the liberties delineated in the Bill of Rights.

In the brave new world of 'deliberative democracy,' there are many more important matters than guarding liberty. Apparently Edwards believes that allowing the entire world free citizenship in the U.S. is a good idea, along with all of the freebies offered to those he wants to import to the country in droves.

And it really doesn't matter if these new citizens know a thing about the Bill of Rights.

Collectivism as a political ideology has greatly matured since the days of the Cold War and Soviet Communism. Adherents are much more adept at hiding their true motives. The intent to expand government control to every single aspect of human life can be carefully framed and couched in the language of democracy and liberty.

And this, perhaps, is what makes the modern 21st century even more dangerous a time to live than during the Cold War. Not only do we contend with terrorists who wish to wipe us from the face of the earth, but we are now confronted with another enemy, and this one has a friendly face and nice-sounding words.

Knowledge and awareness are the number one enemies of these purveyors of government control in the name of democracy. It is vital that citizens become informed.

To help begin that process, we point you to two important links. The first is an excellent overview of the concept of deliberative democracy provided by Blogonomicon. It is well worth a careful consideration.

Next is a link to an organization that is fighting those promoting the concept of deliberative democracy--The Foundation for Economic Freedom. An excellent essay on the subject is provided there.

Blogonomicon:
http://blogonomicon.eponym.com/blog/_archives/2007/7/21/3109136.html

Foundation for Economic Freedom:
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=8070

Second Amendment News Roundup for 7/6/07

Scroll down for today's news:

Washington, DC (TLS). Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

A Keyboard and a .45 reminds us that when on vacation be sure to familiarize yourselves with local gun laws. This tourist was arrested at the Sears Tower:

http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2007/07/tourist-with-gun-arrested-at-sears.html

Armed and Safe points out a particular gun manufacturer that helps government stay ahead of the citizens when it comes to firearms:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2007/07/gun-manufacturer-helps-only-ones-be.html


The Ninth Stage reports that these particular rock stars are protesting Al Gore's 'Live Earth' shindig--you know, the one that promotes environmentalist wacko fiction?"
http://ninthstage.com/index.php/2007/07/04/must-not-be-progressive-rock-stars/


Front Sight, Press shows us the gall of the Clintons in blasting Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence. He has a .pdf file of all the pardons Clinton issued...get ready, because there is a LOAD of them!:
http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/news/pardons-granted-by-president-clinton/


The Buckeye Firearms Association says that the story of Matt Westerhold and the Sandusky Register's publication of the list of concealed gun owners made national news:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3832.html


The McCarville Report gives us some exciting news. Rasmussen is reporting that if the election were to be held today, Fred Thompson and Hillary Clinton would be tied...a dead-heat (and Thompson hasn't even announced):
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/07/rasmussen-reports-clinton-thompson-tied.html


The Bitch Girls have the scoop on the real story (and the actual costs) of John Edwards' extravagant haircuts. It turns out that these haircuts actually cost the Democratic candidate $1200 bucks. Must be nice to be filthy rich off of suing the pants off of OB-GYN physicians (one of the reasons why OB-GYNs have been leaving medicine by the droves--malpractice insurance is too high):
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=7074


Blogonomicon offers hope for those who are fed up with politically correct postage stamps. He says there is a way to make your own stamps that reflect your views, including religiously oriented themes and gun-rights:
http://blogonomicon.eponym.com/blog/_archives/2007/7/4/3071707.html


Nicki at The Liberty Zone blogs about a new law in Missouri that protects gun owners from prosecution in cases where they use their firearm in self-defense:
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2007/07/thank-you-missouri-sort-of.html


Say Uncle has the evidence that shows news reporters are woefully ignorant about firearms and the gun-rights of citizens:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/07/05/media_ignorance_dangerous_hysterical_and_in_our_streets/


Say Uncle also blogs about the ongoing tug-of-war in Wisconsin concerning a pro-gun legislature and an anti-gun Governor:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/07/05/wisconsin_personal_protection/


Snow Flakes in Hell points to a self-satisfied, self-righteous gun-grabber who goes on a tirade against gun-owners:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=966