The Left and their imaginary rights

Oh those goofy Leftists, always claiming some  imagined right they insist exists in our Constitution. the latest “right”? Why good weather of course!

Warming alarmist James Hansen talks law.

In a new study, I and my co-authors make indisputably clear what the world’s scientists have increasingly warned: Our climate is changing, and the impacts are growing. The changes harm humans and threaten other life on the planet.

Our study, published in the prestigious peer-reviewed science journal PLOS-ONE, was written in support of a lawsuit against the federal government. The plaintiffs are young people, those to whom we are handing an increasingly warmer and destabilized planet.
Climate change is altering people’s lives right now. … It is as clear and present a danger as we’ve ever seen.

They argue that they have a constitutional right to a safe climate, that they have a right to receive from us a planet that supports all life, just as our forebears gave us. It is correctly a legal argument, but it relates to a fundamental moral question.

REALLY? That is in our Constitution? Wow, who knew, besides delusional Leftists of course, no one knew because that “right” is not there. But seriously folks, can’t the Left be more creative when they invent rights? Hell man, go for the gusto! Here are rights I would invenent

The right to go on vacation three months out of the year

The right to have whatever job I want, say a roller coaster critic, or maybe a movie and restaurant critic.

The right to date whoever I want. Let’s see now, what is Tamron Hall’s phone number.

The right to have my own radio show. Hell, I would be a lot better than most on air today anyway.

The right to be rich, I would be GREAT at being rich!

Did I mention the right to date any woman I wanted to? So many NFL cheerleaders, so little time….

The right NEVER to hear Kanye West’s name again.

The right to confront any MSNBS host I wanted to on air. Yes, uncensored!

The right to go to any gun range, anytime, and to take any gun I wanted.

The right to take pictures of Alec Baldwin just to piss him off, let’s see him bully me. 

The right to date any woman I wanted, I may have mentioned that one before I know, but, Minka Kelly is, well have you seen her?

All kidding aside, rights are precious as our Founders knew, and the manner in which the Left trivializes natural rights is depsicable

 

Well THAT is inconvenient for the gun control nuts

From the CDC comes a report that proves just how wrong on gun rights the Left is, at Guns.com, we find this nugget

The Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, under the direction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recently published a study of findings related to violence and guns. Some of the results may come as a shock – to those on both sides of the gun control argument.

The study was conducted as part of the 23 Executive Actions signed by President Obama in January in an effort to reduce gun violence. The order specifically called to “issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”

Who says everything Obama does is bad? Certainly this study reveals some very crucial information about defensive gun uses, and confirms our basic right to own guns

“An individual’s right to own and possess guns was established in the U.S. Constitution and affirmed in the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.”

OK very good, but now, the best parts

According to the study, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century.” Accidental deaths resulting from firearms accounted for less than one percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.

“Mass shootings are a highly visible and moving tragedy, but represent only a small fraction of total firearm-related violence. … It is also apparent that some mass murder incidents are associated with suicides. However, the characteristics of suicides associated with mass murders are not understood.”

The Left has done their best to convince us that mass shootings are on the rise, they are not. The Left also has consistently mocked the very idea of Americans using guns in self-defense, David Frum, every Democrat’s favorite Republican has also made light of the idea that many Americans use guns to stop crimes. OH David, facts can be really inconvemient

Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

OUCH! That has to sting the gun grabbers on the Left. Allow me to make that sting last a bit longer. Given the lowest estimate of 500,000 defensive gun uses, and given that there are 365 days in a year, we can say that AT LEAST 1,370 Americans use firearms to defend themselves against criminals EVERY DAY! If you take the highest estimate, you get a total of 8,219 per day. Likely the real number is somewhere in between those two numbers. Any way you look at it though, numbers do not lie. The violent crime rate would be MUCH higher if the Left had their way.

 

 

 

So, we should have debates after Obama gets caught?

Great post by William Teach

The Politico’s Josh Gerstein explains what that means

The Obama administration has a familiar refrain on the surveillance of Americans’ telephone records: the president and his team are eager to have the debate.

Eager, that is, only after others have brought the tactics to light and the administration has spent years employing them.

On Guantanamo and drone strikes, as well as his administration’s aggressive use of leak investigations into the telephone records and e-mails of journalists, President Barack Obama and his aides often seem to cast him as a detached analyst or law professor watching policies carried out, rather than the one actually directing or responsible for them.

Or the one at whose desk the buck stops at. The guy who ran for the position of POTUS twice. The guy who sits at the head, per the United States Constitution, of all these federal agencies. The guy who said “I’m the president and I take responsibility.” The guy who said “I am not a dictator, I’m the president.”

When it comes to surveillance, Obama has as president shown no sign of really wanting to have a robust debate. For years, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Minn.) have been pleading with the administration to disclose more information about call-tracking tactics that they suggested would shock many Americans.

The administration largely rebuffed those calls. Only after the leak Wednesday of a four-page “top secret” court order indicating that millions of Americans’ phone calls were tracked on a daily basis did officials begin to confirm the program’s details.

Unfortunately, Wyden and Udall were not calling for the O admin to stop the full program, which casts a wide net over a good chunk of the American population, rather than targeting those who could be terrorists. I’m sure some have a problem with any electronic surveillance; I personally have no problem with targeting those who could be bad people. Some have cast out the old “well, if you’ve done nothing wrong, you shouldn’t be worried” meme. For those people, I’d ask if they’re OK with The Government coming in to their homes and searching them every day, going through their drawers. If they’ve done nothing wrong, they should be fine with that, right? Right?

“Every time he gets into trouble, he wants to have a debate, he wants to have a discussion….I think it’s his way — a distortion field created by his own moral rectitude,” said Michael Meyers of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. “It’s the same thing with the reporters [and leaks], he wants to have a guy who violated their civil liberties to have a discussion with the media.”

Go read it all. The ironic thing in all of these scandals is that the president who swore his administration would be transparent has been anything but transparent. Yet, each scandal sheds more transparency on what type of president we have. One that thinks nothing of invading the privacy of Americans. One that thinks nothing of spying on the media. One that thinks nothing of using the EPA, and IRS to punish his political enemies. Need I mention Benghazi? or Fast and Furious? But just wait folks, Obama Care is coming, Obama Care, run by the IRS, God help us.

Senator Durbin ought to read the Constitution sometime

Big Fur Hat lays into Senator Durbin

Lil Dick Durbin can go F himself, sideways 

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin has in the past had a very subjective and abstract view of the Constitution, and on Fox News Sunday he once again wondered which people might be “entitled” to constitutional protections and which people might not:

“You’ve raised an important point and I heard Sen. Graham call for special counsel,” Durbin said. “I’m not ready to do this at this moment. I would like to know if Holder has any conflict in here beyond what we heard when it comes to the Fox case.”

“But here is the bottom line — the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.”

 

 

 

The danger of equating “rights” with “needs”

90 Miles has a great example

ninetymiles1bdzo81s8kfyxo1_500

There is no Bill of Needs in the Constitution. There is a Bill of Rights. The single greatest founding principle of America is this. Our rights come from the Creator. they are natural rights. The government can neither give nor take these rights because these rights are as much a part of us as our hearts and minds are. Liberals love to talk of needs, telling us what we need, or do not need. How much we need how often we need to use our rights, and that our rights must be tempered by need. That is not an American ideal, that ideal comes from Marx, and should be rejected at all costs.

The proper response to anyone that seeks to equate your rights, and what they think you need is this

the-middle-finger

 

The quote of the day

Comes via American Power, where Donald Douglas refers us to Jeff Goldstein

Because through the heart of every leftist runs the blood of totalitarianism, of confirmation bias, of rank bigotry and a mob’s lust for violence, for punishment, for blood, for inflicting suffering on those who dare oppose their designs.

Lots more at Protein Wisdom, where Goldstein points out the obvious, that the Left is demonizing us and marginalizing anyone who holds the Constitution dear as a fanatic. It is all about their blood lust to eradicate our liberties, our Constitution, and raise up their Utopian dream of a Neo-Marxist America where everything we have is determined by what we “need”. Where there are no rights except what rights the government chooses to allow us to have.

How far they will go is not known, but history shows how far Marxists, and Fascists will go. Our best hope is an electoral sweep of Congress and the White House. But, with so many Americans now addicted to government entitlements, throwing the rascals out will be harder than ever. So, let us resolve to redouble our efforts to reach people, and make them understand    that less government will raise the nation up, and  allow more of us to prosper. 

I think the Founders would approve

The Founders would use more eloquent language, but I think A Nod to the Gods has captured their spirit here

a15

 

 

 

 

 

 

To those who will argue that I should use more “respectful” language I would pose one question. Do those miscreants seeking to deprive Americans of the right of self-defense have “respect” for our rights, or for the Constitution? Do they respect the truth when they deliberately lie about the number of times Americans use firearms to defend themselves? Do they respect honest debate when they seek to ram through legislation that would limit, or eliminate entirely my God-given natural rights? Do they show me any respect when they paint me, and other gun owners as nuts? Do they show us respect when they falsely seek to blame us for horrific tragedies like Newtown? The answer is no. So, why do I owe tyrants, seeking to rob my natural rights any damned respect?

 

——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Ed’s interjection:

Indeed, “fuck you” is the very sentiment which spawned this great nation. If it hadn’t been for our forefathers’ “fuck you” mentality, the Boston Tea Party never would have happened. Saying “fuck you” to authority is what America is all about. In fact, the U.S. citizenry is the most profoundly “fuck you”-oriented society on Earth… by tradition. Hell, “fuck you” was the thought that finally motivated Rosa Parks to move to the front of the bus. Our general “fuck you” attitude has helped sustain us as a people for generations, and if by chance you don’t happen to agree with everything I just wrote, then “fuck you” too!

No, Virginia, there is no expiration date on liberty

Via Moonbattery

The establishment media would have you believe that bitter clingers to the Constitution are tired old dinosaurs who won’t admit that the world has moved on without them. Brandon Smith isn’t buying it:

This argument is based on a series of lies, the first one being that American culture needs to “progress with the times” and shake off the dead skin of old and “unpopular” principles. Let’s set the record straight…

Some principles, like the liberties embodied in natural law and outlined in the U.S. Constitution, NEVER become outdated. They exist in the heart of mankind, and will remain as long as humanity remains. They cannot be erased, and they cannot be undone. They are inherent and eternal.

They can, however, be oppressed by those who seek to dominate the lives of others. This is what the establishment today calls “progress”. Their version of social order is not new, nor is it even clever. It is archaic, and has taken many forms, including oligarchy, aristocracy, mercantilism, monarchy, totalitarianism, despotism, fascism, socialism, communism, globalism, etc., etc. The goal is always the same; centralize as much power as possible into as few hands as possible while making the enslaved population as collectivized and dependent as possible.

The Liberty Movement is not some dying vestige of America’s past clinging to an antiquated philosophy. We are the new wave; the messengers of an ideal of freedom that in the grand scheme of history has been around for only a blink of an eye. Constitutional liberty IS the progress that humanity has been waiting for. We have only been led astray by those who would sell us on our own bondage.

I was thinking recently about how this nation, the brightest beacon of liberty on earth, has, since its beginnings been at the heart of the struggle between liberty, as Jefferson, Franklin, Adams (Samuel not John) Mason and Madison defined it, and ultimate tyranny. Even some “Conservatives” criticize those who cling too tightly to the idea of true liberty. They paint us as too extreme or too rigid. Those who desire Statism do not talk of liberty, they talk of rights, as if government is the source, and ultimate arbiter of what our rights are, and how much we can enjoy those rights. To our Founders, certain rights were natural rights, they ARE as much a part of mankind as ears and eyes are. Government does not “give” those liberties, therefore they cannot take them. That principle, more than any other IS our most basic founding principle.

The Left, of course, has been chipping away at every single liberty we have since the very beginning of America. Very early in our Republic we had the Alien and Sedition Acts, which John Adams signed, which is why I never name him among my favorite founders. These acts struck at the heart of free speech, and it was Madison and Jefferson who fired back with the Virginia and  Kentucky Resolutions declaring that such laws were not constitutional, and, Jefferson wrote that states had the right to nullify such acts. Of course anyone even using the word nullification today is brow beaten and labelled a fanatic. The Left uses this tactic very effectively.

Later, there were those who believed in something called “higher law”. Basically, what they held was that the Constitution need not be amended to be changed. Higher law superseded the Constitution. So, changing the Constitution did not require, in their view amending it. Now, was ending slavery the right thing, obviously it was. But was shredding the Constitution the proper way to do it? No, amending the Constitution was the prescribed, constitutional fix.  Today those early Republicans are championed by today’s GOP because they argued against slavery and defended laws that violated the Constitution because of this “higher law”. And, anyone who dares bring up the history of that time is risking being labelled as a nut. What those first Republicans argued was akin to what we hear Liberals say today about the Constitution being a “living breathing document” meaning, in reality, that the Constitution can say whatever Liberals desire it to say. Odd that Democrats today and the first Republicans ignore the Constitution as they see fit. Whether it be higher law, or the living breathing document argument, the result is the same. The undermining of our Constitution. When that happens the door to tyranny is opened wide.

Later in our history we had men like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ and of course President Obama who contributed mightily to the growth of Statism. Don’t think so? Think about the United Nations, Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare, government regulations and all the departments in our government that we have now. Think of the trillions of dollars sunk into these programs, and departments and regulations. Think of our bloated, punitive tax code, which is used as a weapon against some Americans, and as a tool to keep others dependent on government power. And, every day, Liberal Democrats cry for more. More gun laws that will only weaken the basic right of self-defense, more taxes, more spending, more government programs, more government agencies. All in the name of “progress”, which has replaced liberty as the basic principle of America. And every day, we trade more liberty for more progress, but progress to what? Bigger chains for us to wear?

Of course, we do have a few Republicans who will stand up and fight, but, they are castigated for their “extremism” and marginalized, even by the leaders of their own party. The bets hop for turning this around lies in a political party whose leadership is afraid of its own principles, and afraid to defend the principles that made America great in the first place.

God help us

 

Some much needed words of wisdom from the past

Loopy Loo, posting at Zilla’s place, has a must read bit of history

United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was a famous jurist, and his Commentaries was a very influential treatise on United States constitutional law

His tenure on the Supreme Court spanned three decades, from 1811 to 1845.   At the beginning of the twentieth century, Story was elected to the Hall of Fame.   His views on the Constitution of the United States are still widely respected.

On November 18, 1811, President James Madison nominated Story to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Senate confirmed the appointment on February 3, 1812. At the age of thirty-two, Story was the youngest person ever appointed to the Supreme Court. While on the Supreme Court, Story served as a delegate to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1820 and was a Professor of Law at Harvard, where he wrote a series of nine commentaries on the law, each of which was published in several editions. Story served on the Supreme Court for thirty-three years. He died on September 10, 1845, at the age of sixty-five.

This quote from him caught  my attention:

“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people in order to betray them.”

- Joseph Story – Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2d ed. (1851), vol. 2, chapter
Is that not a very near perfect summation of where America is today? The wise ARE mocked, and the honest are called “extremists”. Many of our citizens are blithely ignorant of our Constitution, our founders, our founding principles, and of our history. And some of the worst cases of ignorance occur in well-educated Americans. This is, I believe, because our education system  is about idoctrination, not education. 
Go read the rest of the post, it is worth it.

 

 

Maybe we could get Obama to leave our guns alone if we promised to convert and join the Muslim Brotherhood?

It is a question I hate asking, but, since this IS what I do, I have to ask it. Why do Obama, and his fellow Democrats Liberals Leftists want to disarm us, and yes, that is their ultimate goal, while they are arming the Muslim Brotherhood? Daniel Greenfield has an excellent piece up at FrontPageMag.com you need to read!

While the White House was busy drafting proposals to ban assault rifles, the last of the regulations imposed on Saudi travel to the United States after September 11 were being taken apart. While some government officials were busy planning how to disarm Americans, other officials were negotiating the transfer of F-16s and Abrams tanks to Muslim Brotherhood-run Egypt.

Obama is unwilling to trust Americans with an AR-15, but is willing to trust a genocidal terrorist group with Abrams tanks and F-16 jets. The F-16’s M61 Vulcan cannon can fire 6,000 rounds a minute and the 146 lb warhead of its HARM missiles can do a lot more than put a few dents in a brick wall. The Abrams’ 120 mm cannon can penetrate 26 inches of steel armor making it a good deal more formidable than even the wildest fantasies of San Francisco liberals about the capabilities of a so-called “assault rifle.”

While Obama has not been willing to respect the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights, he was willing to arm a terrorist group whose motto is, “The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal.” If a High School student wrote that on his Facebook page, he would be in police custody within the hour, but an international organization and national government that trades in such rhetoric gets devastating firepower from our government… free of charge.

In addition to giving the Hezbollah-run government of Lebanon two hundred M113 Armored Personnel Carriers, Obama deliberately turned a blind eye while Al Qaeda and other Islamist rebel groups in Libya received arms shipments from Qatar. Those weapons included a good deal more firepower than anything you can buy at Wal-Mart and later made their way to Mali and Syria. More weapons made their way into the hands of Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Whether any of these weapons were used in the assault on the Benghazi mission is unknown, but entirely possible.

Read the rest, it will sicken and outrage you. I leave you with this from Greenfield, it sums it up quite well

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you cannot profile Muslim travelers in airports. To use the same argument as the gun controllers, airports and airplanes didn’t even exist during the time of the Founding Fathers; therefore they couldn’t have possibly foreseen their existence or applied any limitation to any violation of civil rights that can take place in them.

The murder of 3,000 people did not in any way make it acceptable to single out a Muslim for special attention, despite the laws of probability, logic and common sense. That would be an overreaction. It would mean punishing large numbers of people and that would be unacceptable, no matter how many lives it might save. But depriving millions of Americans of the protection of the 2ndAmendment after several shootings carried out by mentally ill teenagers is, for some reason, not an overreaction.

It’s not acceptable to single out the relatively small number of Muslims in the United States to save the lives of thousands, but it is imperative that we single out tens of millions of Americans to save a smaller number of people. The public safety logic of this does not hold up according to the numbers, the ethics or the law.

At a certain point folks, we have to decide if the Left in this country is this stupid, or if there is a deliberate purpose behind these actions

 

Bob Belvedere on the vital role of state sovereignty

Read what Bob has to say, then I have some comments

It lies in state and county and local officials taking their oaths to The Constitution seriously.

It lies in people like Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County Oregon.

From CNN, Ed Payne and Ric Ward reporting [tip of the fedora to Wombat-Socho's Live At Five]:

An Oregon sheriff says he will not enforce any federal regulation that President Barack Obama lays out in his package of gun control proposals Wednesday. Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller joins several other public officials across the nation who have decided to square off with the White House even before it outlines what its plans are for expanded measures.

Mueller sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden this week saying he won’t enforce any federal regulation “offending the constitutional rights of my citizens.” He won’t permit federal officers to come to his county to enforce such laws either, he said.

Mueller’s defiant stand exploded into a groundswell of support. His letter — posted on the department’s Facebook page — earned more than 59,000 likes and shares — and was growing by the minute.

Bravo, sir.

It lies in thinking like this:

In Texas, a lawmaker said this week that he will introduce legislation that would make it illegal to enforce a federal gun ban.

“At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause,” Republican Rep. Steve Toth told WOAI 1200-AM. “It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama.”

Indeed, it is time for a showdown between the forces that want to aggregate to the national government more powers than those that are enumerated in The Constitution and those of us who believe that it should be followed to the letter.

I could not agree more, it is all our duty to honor the Constitution. The federal government has, over the history of this nation grown far past the intent of the Founders. The Constitution constrained not the people, but the federal government. It enumerated certain rights, natural rights as Franklin called them that neither come from government, or can be restricted by government. That IS the most critical founding principle of this nation. And that principle has been under attack since the very birth of the United States. Alexander Hamilton fought against it, Madison and Jefferson battled for it.

The idea that States have a right to ignore, or even nullify certain federal laws originated after President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, which, in part criminalized speech critical of the government. It was, again, Madison and Jefferson who fought against these laws, writing the Virginia Resolution, which Madison wrote, and the Kentucky Resolution, which Jefferson wrote. Anyone who questions the patriotism of those who still think the States are and ought to be sovereign should read these two pieces of our history

From The Kentucky Resolution

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled “An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States,” (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “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”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

5. Resolved. That in addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has declared that “the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808” that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens: that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory: that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void.

6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth, on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by said act intituled “An Act concerning aliens” is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment to which has provided that “no person shalt be deprived of liberty without due progress of law”; and that another having provided that “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to public trial by an impartial jury, 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;” the same act, undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States, who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without heating witnesses in his favor, without defense, without counsel, is contrary to the provision also of the Constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void, and of no force: that transferring the power of judging any person, who is under the protection of the laws from the courts, to the President of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which provides that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in courts, the judges of which shall hold their offices during good behavior”; and that the said act is void for that reason also. And it is further to be noted, that this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the general government who already possesses all the Executive, and a negative on all Legislative powers.

7. Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquillity, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress.

8th. Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States: to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly, to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal; that the friendless alien has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment; but the citizen will soon follow, or rather, has already followed, for already has a sedition act marked him as its prey: that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold, necessarily drive these States into revolution and blood and will furnish new calumnies against republican government, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits, Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice has assented to, and accepted over the friendly stranger to whom the mild spirit of our country and its law have pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicion of the President, than the solid right of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this commonwealth does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning aliens and for the punishment of certain crimes herein before specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, weather general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fœderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.

9th. Resolved, That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conference, at any times or places whatever, with any person or persons who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of Assembly.

From the Virginia Resolutions

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it’s existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.

That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the “Alien and Sedition Acts” passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.

That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, “the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States,” and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.

That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.

That the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other states, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this state in the Congress of the United States.

These two wise men are, to me the best possible sources from which to draw on in this debate. The man who penned our Declaration of Independence, and the man who is known as the Father of our Constitution. Two men who were far different from the reactionary politicos we have too many of today. Two men who held the Constitution dear, two men who understood that a federal government, left unchecked, would soon rage out of control, and would subjugate both the States, and the people.

 

Once again, I am proud to have the best damned Governor in the country!

Best vote I ever cast? Well Reagan in 1984  comes to mind. that has to be first. Second? Easy Rick Perry for Governor of Texas!

Gov. Rick Perry released the following statement regarding President Obama’s executive actions:

“The Vice President’s committee was appointed in response to the tragedy at Newtown, but very few of his recommendations have anything to do with what happened there.

“Guns require a finger to pull the trigger. The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly haunted by demons and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror.

“There is evil prowling in the world – it shows up in our movies, video games and online fascinations, and finds its way into vulnerable hearts and minds. As a free people, let us choose what kind of people we will be. Laws, the only redoubt of secularism, will not suffice. Let us all return to our places of worship and pray for help. Above all, let us pray for our children.

“In fact, the piling on by the political left, and their cohorts in the media, to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved those children, disgusts me, personally. The second amendment to the Constitution is a basic right of free people and cannot be nor will it be abridged by the executive power of this or any other president.”

YEP! That says it all. 

 

Noted lunatic AKA Alex Jones, is the last person I want defending my right to keep and bear arms

Alex the Crazy was on Piers Morgan the other night, debating gun control. Of course, Piers ONLY had Jones on his show for one reason. Jones is a nut job, and Morgan wants every American to think that all gun owners are like Alex Jones. I would bet most gun owners, and mos defenders of the second amendment would cringe at the thought of Alex being compared to them in any way. In fact, I would say that most of us agree with The Other McCain’s summation of Alex the Loony 

English: Radio host and documentary film maker...

Crazy is not an ideology

Crazy is not a political philosophy, and neither is anger. So, naturally, when anti-gun fanatic Piers Morgan wants a “typical” spokesman for Second Amendment rights, he brings on the permanently angry Alex Jones, who begins his rant with some signifying jive:

“[W]e did it to point out that this is globalism, and the mega banks that control the planet and brag they have taken over — in Bloomberg, AP, Reuters, you name it — brag that they’re going to get our guns as well. They’ve taken everybody’s guns, but the Swiss and the American people and when they get our guns, they can have their world tyranny while the government buys 1.6 billion bullets, armored vehicles, tanks, helicopters, predator drones, armed now in U.S. skies, being used to arrest people in North Dakota.”

Your key phrase there is “mega banks that control the planet.” This is classic kook-talk, the kind of paranoid stuff like Zeitgeist that inspired Jared Loughner. Recall that Zeitgeist not only demonized bankers, but also suggested that 9/11 was a hoax.

These are the ideas that circulate on the kook fringe, and Alex Jones first became notorious as a promoter of 9/11 Truther craziness.

His appetite for kook-fringe conspiracy theories discredits Alex Jones, as does his implacable raging anger. The only reason Piers Morgan had Jones on CNN was in order to discredit the Second Amendment by saying, “See how dangerously crazy these gun nuts are?

You can watch the video The Other McCain has posted of Jones on Piers Morgan. Jones starts out fine, with some good facts, then devolves into screaming about the New World Order. Like I said NOT the guy we want defending oue rights on national TV.

This guy, Joshua Boston, a former Marine , he knows how to go into the lion’s den and win. As Stacy McCain points out, Boston has a good way about explaining liberty to ignorant news folks

But there are lots of people who have taken that oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and one of them is Marine Corps veteran Joshua Boston, who had a few words for Sen. Dianne Feinstein regarding her plan to disarm American citizens:

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America. I am the man who fought for my country. . . .
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

It’s kind of a tricky business, this question of who is serving whom, and some people seem rather confused about this. Many of the most confused people are, alas, a disgrace to my own profession. One of them, a CNN news anchor, got schooled by the former Marine corporal:

See how facts work, when applied with reason and sanity, instead of of the Crazinese that Jones uses? God bless Joshua Boston, and God bless Stacy McCain’s son who is in the Army now. We pray that God keeps him safe, and thank him for his service.

What Would the Father of the Constitution say to gun grabbers?

Gun control you say? The Left is pushing hard to negate much of the second amendment, and part of that is to call anyone who defends that amendment as a lunatic. Well are these people who say the Constitution MEANS what it says loony? Let us consult THE expert on the Constitution, James Madison. Via Steve

James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #46:

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke;and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

Go read the rest. As a side note, it is amazing that more and more liberals are openly saying we need to scrap, or at least IGNORE the Constitution. I have long-held that destroying the Constitution is the end goal of the Left. For years, Liberals would scoff at such a suggestion. But, as the Left becomes more sure that they can render the Constitution, in this case the second amendment mute, they begin to be more honest about their disdain for our founders and their principles. The truth is the Left is as far removed from our Founders as the East is from the West. And their masks are slipping.

Arne Duncan explains Collectivism

Here you go, our Education Secretary, Arne Duncan touts our rights, as secondary to common values, in other words the common good that Marx and Engels espoused

Americans value their children, their safety, and the right to pursue their dreams without fear — and those “common values” trump the rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said last Friday in aspeech at a Washington, D.C., elementary school.


In the coming weeks, Duncan said he plans to spend a lot of time visiting schools and communities — to talk about gun violence:

“I want to talk to gun owners and hunters and sport shooters and ask them, what should we do? I want to talk about community and responsibility, and I want to talk about values — because we have common values that go far beyond the constitutional right to bear arms.

There you are, Collectivism defined by a Collectivist. Individual natural rights? Not if our “common values” are offended. Of course, once we as a nation sacrifice our natural rights on the Altar of Collectivism, we will seal our fate, soon no one will have any right that the government does not grant us. Rights that same government will then hold the power to revoke at their whim.

 

Audio-Rush saw the same debate I did

Rush makes some great points, I was not impressed with Obama or his “mojo”. As I posted earlier, sure Obama was more animated, but on what really matters, substance, Obama is still an empty suit. Audio via I’m 41

As a side note, while Rush, and I saw the same debate, Chris Matthews was watching from the lunacy of his alternate reality

During his show on Wednesday, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews critiqued the debate performances of President Barack Obama and his GOP rival Mitt Romney. While the host thought the president won the debate decisively, he couldn’t believe that Romney could “look down” on the president, who according to his guest, actor James Lipton, became a “hero” during the debate.

“It was the face off in ‘High Noon.’ And the President of the United States was Gary Cooper.” Lipton said. “At that moment, he became a hero, I think”

Lipton referred to Obama as a president and Romney as a “boss,” saying that “job creator is a euphemism for profit creator.”

Matthews later played a clip of the memorable exchange between Romney and Obama over permits for energy exploration on federal land, which are down over the last four years. As Obama attempted to interrupt Romney, he told the president “you’ll get your chance” to talk.

“I don’t think he understands the Constitution of the United States…He’s the President of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance,’” Matthews said.

Oh good grief! The Constitution, apparently says somewhere that you cannot talk to the president in a “rude” manner. Actually, it says the exact opposite! How does this boob stay on TV? Oh wait, that is right, he is not on TV, he is on MSNBS.

 

Like I have been saying, the Left hates Individualism, and loves the Collective

 

Every difference between Left and Right boils down to Collectivism vs Individualism. To the Right individual rights are the natural condition of man, hence the term that Franklin used, Natural Rights. the Left sees rights as coming from government, and sees the individual’s rights as secondary to the common good. This story from College Insurrection is a perfect example

I somehow doubt the writers of the US Constitution were thinking about “non-negotiable” codes of civility and diversity as they crafted the First Amendment. But then, what do I know? I don’t work for Illinois State.

Linnie Leavines of Campus Reform reports.

Illinois State University (ISU) is under fire from a student’s rights group for language in its student code that demands student conform their behavior  to “the needs of the university” including an “appreciation of diversity.”

ISU’s student code describes certain “non-negotiable” standards to which student are required to take on the “values of the university.”

“When individual behavior conflicts with the values of the University, the individual must choose whether to adapt his or her behavior to meet the needs of the community or to leave the University,” it reads.

These values are described as “civility, and appreciation of diversity, and individual and social responsibility.”

Student rights group, FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), flagged that code as September’s “speech code of the month” suggesting its language could actually lead to the stamping out of true diversity of thought and action on campus.

“If a student’s expression or behavior deviates from the university’s definition of what it means to appreciate diversity or be socially responsible, that student may be asked to leave the university,” FIRE warned on it its website.

A ISU spokesman told Campus Reform last week, however, that the language is harmless, because it “is really speaking to what are the enforceable parts of the code,” which are based on regular laws.

The highlighted section above is very clear. The individual is being told they must cede their individual liberties to suit the “greater good” if you will. And the point is well taken that you cannot defend diversity while squashing diversity of thought. Of course, the Left has no interest at all in cultivating diversity of thought, none at all.

 

Well, there is some sanity in Illinois after all

 

Via Shall Not Be Questioned comes this nugget from a statement by the Illinois Attorney General

Our message is this: we will no longer use the power and authority of our office to criminalize and punish decent, otherwise law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise the rights granted to them by the Second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and their families.

Wow, I love the sound of that. Of course, the Left is flipping out and mashing the panic button to beat the band I ESPECIALLY love this tweet

.@SebastianSNBQ We oppose anyone & everyone who flouts our Constitution & takes the law into their own hands. And we always will.

Aha, so NOW the gun grabbers give a rat’s ass about the Constitution? The same Constitution they actively seek to destroy where the 2nd amendment is concerned? I like this quote from the link, it really sums up the real priorities of the gun control zealots

This is what they are freaking out about. It’s not criminals possessing guns, it’s not drug dealers possessing guns — they are freaking out because a prosecutor has declared he’s not going to try to put otherwise law-abiding, honest people in prison.

BINGO! In the demented minds of these folks, armed Americans who defend themselves with a gun are a bigger threat than actual criminals.

H/T to Bill Quick who is quite pleased too

 

Actor better known as a character he played goes on Twitter rant, garners Marxist Moron Award!

If I told you Jason Alexander went on a Tea Party/Conservative bashing tirade you would say WHO? But is I say that George Costanza went on a Twitter tirade you would say, OH, that guy! Read what he wrote, THEN listen to my response!

Via Jason Alexander

George Costanza

George Costanza (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’d like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday’s victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre.

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence – these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason – true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. [...]

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats – no problem. But if they try it with anyone else – it’s going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a “militia”. They don’t. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That’s why they have to “take our country back”. From who? From anyone who doesn’t think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn’t believe that? Just asking.

OK folks, time to take Georgie to the woodshed, I have had more than my fill of Constitutionally ignorant buffoons calling Conservatives “terrorists” So click the pic to listen

Walter Williams on how to rid ourselves of Obamacare

Ed touched on Nullification yesterday and today, Walter Williams subbing for Rush touched on it as well

On Rush Limbaugh’s Thursday program, George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams outlined the case that states can nullify Obamacare, citing Thomas Jefferson’s 1789 Kentucky Resolution, which was a claim that the U. S. Constitution is a compact among the several states, and any power not delegated to the U.S. government is void.

“I think the American citizens ought to press their state governors and legislatures just to nullify the law — just to plain nullify it and say, ‘The citizens of such-and-such-a state don’t have to obey Obamacare because it’s unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court says,’” Williams said.

Williams cited Marbury v. Madison, which said “all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” to further the case for nullification from the states.

Nullification is a doctrine introduced in the infancy of the United States and was what some have suggested led to the Civil War. As far as the legal precedent of nullification and how it led to the Civil War, Williams said he doubted the repercussions would as serious as they were in 1861.

“I think two things are different this time,” he said. “First, most Americans are against Obamacare. And secondly, I don’t believe — and you call me up and tell me if I’m wrong about this — I don’t believe that you could find a United States soldier who would follow a presidential order to descend on a state to round up or shoot fellow Americans because they refuse to follow a congressional order to buy health insurance.”

Williams is right on here! As he usually is.