Category Archives: States’ Rights

Will The Real Second Amendment Please Cock And Load?

Firearms
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
–Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
Istumbled across this spot-on post by an insightful reader of The Federalist. Hat tip to Cylar.

It's sharply phrased and succinct, so I have chosen to republish it right here, a timely rehash of what we consider the one and only rather obvious interpretation of the personal protection against one's own rogue government as well as other proximity-tested threats to his person, family, property or state.

We suggest this moment in history is especially crucial, for even as we pen this silent outrage against us, the reckless, scheming United Nations and Madame Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, both entities now firmly entrenched in the long range Obama administration strategy of neutralizing America for Pan-Marxist Islamic purposes, continue their assault against our sovereign rights as free democratic republican Americans with their so-called Small Arms Treaty set for signing later this month which calls for the confiscation of all small arms in America (worse case). This is a treaty we the people cannot let stand.

It has always struck me as a bit funny that while nine of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are clearly intended to protect the rights of individuals against government overreach, we still have some (too many, actually) who insist that the 2nd Amendment was inserted so as to confer a right on government itself.

(Sarcasm on.) Because, you know, conferring a collective right on a “militia” (rather than individual citizens) is entirely consistent with the right of free speech (1st), the right against unreasonable search (4th), the right against self-incrimination (5th), and the stipulation that the federal government is prohibited from doing anything NOT expressly authorized by the Constitution (10th). I’m sure Madison and the others paused in the middle of scribbling down these individual rights, and said, “Hang on. We need to make sure everyone understands the police and the army have the right to carry weapons. Just to clear up any confusion.” (Sarcasm off.)

Also, I hate to break this to the gun-grabbers, but “the militia” isn’t a government organization like the National Guard. It’s the whole citizenry, specifically able-bodied males 17 and older. Secondly, “well regulated” means disciplined and trained. It doesn’t mean “covered with lots of laws.”

The 2nd Amendment was clear from the word go, and two SCOTUS rulings have made it even more clear that it applies to individual citizens. Why there is still controversy on this point is a mystery to me.

But try explaining this to some gun grabber, and he’ll produce a strawman like, “So, this means I have the right to mount artillery on my pickup, then?” instead of arguing the point maturely and rationally.

If the framers had meant to say the “states” or the “state militias” in order to convey a collective right then they most assuredly would have, for these men were not lazy thinkers and writers. As pointed out in many a discussion of the topic, the writers used the words “the people” when reconciling this right of the people, first and foremost, just as they did in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments, which have consistently been understood to convey rights to individuals, not the people collectively. The concerns of Madison, Jefferson et al are easily reconciled since the militia clause is explanatory, not limiting. In fact, the majority of SCOTUS said the same thing when they struck down the Chicago gun ban two years ago.

The Supreme Court Speaks on Health Care Law

Obama's Ditch
Obama's Drive Into The Ditch
ALMOST FULLY GROUNDED AGAIN AFTER ALL the zetetic excitement yesterday, I say we take a more serious and sober look at what transpired yesterday, and then again, this morning as Chief Justice John Roberts read for the majority, and we boomeranged all around the Internet seeking solace in our hour of disenchantment. Of all that I have read and seen in video, TV, and slapshot Internet reporting, here is a most convincing snippet from commentator Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard. Cost seems to put the onus on the current administration to act quickly in this snatch and grab of power and policy if they want to salvage the so-called Affordable Health Care Act because a not so shabby portion of it is unconstitutional, and a greater part is vigorously disliked by the citizenry, despite its many wonderful features that heal the sick and raise the dead, or so you would be led to believe by its proponents:

[I]f you were more concerned about the qualitative expansion in the power of the government that the bill represented, it was definitely a win.

First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.

Second, the Roberts Court also threw out a portion of the Medicaid expansion. States have the option of withdrawing from the program without risk of losing their funds. This is another major victory for conservatives who cherish our system of dual sovereignty. This was also a big policy win for conservatives; the Medicaid expansion was a major way the Democrats hid the true cost of the bill, by shifting costs to the states, but they no longer can do this.

Politically, Obama will probably get a short-term boost from this, as the media will not be able to read between the lines and will declare him the winner. But the victory will be short-lived. The Democrats were at pains not to call this a tax because it is inherently regressive: the wealthy overwhelmingly have health insurance so have no fear of the mandate. But now that it is legally a tax, Republicans can and will declare that Obama has slapped the single biggest tax on the middle class in history, after promising not to do that.

Conservatives have a shot at getting the best of both worlds: having the Supreme Court use Obamacare as a way to limit federal power while also using the democratic process to overturn the law. I didn't think we could have one without the other, but now maybe we can.
If Obama loses in November, that is...

We have gotten into a bit of editorial trouble on Facebook this morning by reposting what turned out to be one of those overwrought but probably closer to the mark than the original bill's hidden intent has tried to hide, so we will just have to watch for the fall out over the next several months, but chances are Obama and his buddies in Congress are too busy running for re-election to spend too much time on an old toxic bill like this one, but will quietly work behind the scenes implementing all the necessary changes to the health care industry it deems choice and tasty while leaving the iffy parts of the bill to gather dust and excuses. Fundraising and speechifying, yep, he'll be there. And let this health bill interfere with his golf outings? God forbid. We have an absentee president, although I am sure I'm not the first one to notice this.

This Pernicious Affordable Health Care Act

Uncle Sam In Tears
Uncle Sam In Tears
Dear Citizen, and I include ALL my Leftist friends who I saw celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday. Have you even READ the damn thing? Shame on each and every one of you, and if you did, and are still supporting this pernicious bill to stand as the Law of the Land, I guess I have just inherited have a full-blown “enemies list” already built into my own Internet empire, so to speak. I have checked with Scopes on a few on these items, and yes, there is some right wing extrapolation to meet the challenge of left wing sneakiness. All sides will cry foul, but it's worth a perusal. This health bill is just plain awful, if not thoroughly evil, and surprise, surprise, my little darlings, explain to me (AS IF I DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW) why sharia-spirited Muslims and Congress are exempt...

If you have read all 2700 pages of THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT (for reasons of subversion I shall no longer refer to this document as Obamacare), I would not be jumping the shark to surmise that each of you are aware of the following conditions, and now a willing slave in chains and in spirit to Federal government in all its myriad of forms:

Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process).
Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None
Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN).
Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans).
Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens.
Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll.
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.
• Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."

PLUS: OBAMA'S DARING MARK OF THE BEAST
There's a jarring, startling thing in the Obamacare Bill that 95% of Americans won't like.

The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section B) specifically includes ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable." Then on page 1004 it describes what the term "data" means in paragraph 1, section B:

14 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to in
15 formation respecting a device described in paragraph (1),
16 including claims data, patient survey data, standardized
17 analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of
18 data from disparate data environments, electronic health
19 records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the
20 Secretary."

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Lets see...

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a "implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information." The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as "claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary."

This sort of device would be implanted in the majority of people who opt to become covered by the public health care option. With the reform of the private insurance companies, who charge outrageous rates, many people will switch their coverage to a more affordable insurance plan. This means the number of people who choose the public option will increase. This also means the number of people chipped will be plentiful as well. The adults who choose to have a chip implanted are the lucky (yes, lucky) ones in this case.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM = CHIP

Children who are "born in the United States who at the time of birth are not otherwise covered under acceptable coverage" will be qualified and placed into the CHIP or Children's Health Insurance Program (what a convenient name). Children conceived by parents who are already covered under the public option will more than likely be implanted with a chip by the consent of the parent. Eventually everyone will be implanted with a chip. And with the price and coverage of the public option being so competitive with the private companies, the private company may not survive.

Of Tea Parties, Confederates and Sugar-Coated Do-Nuthins

Every Gang An Aggressor
Every Gang An Aggressor, We Told You We Didn't Like Your Kind Around Here

IN ANOTHER SHREWD BUT OBVIOUS MOVE, we at Project Scenewash jest and dangle from the limbs of just desserts when we state for the record that it has been revealed to us through fact and fiction that the Left is "the master" of political projection and audience misdirection. But like many who have no doubt kicked at the gravel beneath our feet, we too confess there are times that we try to see things from the Left's point of view but the big picture they paint just NEVER makes any sense at all to us. And we ain't big time successful capitalists, peace time, war time, beat 'em up, bang 'em down social banqueteers either, just ordinary working folks who choose to err on the side of humility, even humble arrogance (much preferable to arrogant humility) in our lives so as to plead justice for all in our spare time, not just for the "special" classes who seem to move in cotton pickin' what's up is down pecking ordered herds and seek dominance over others, nevertheless, but for the common idealist among us, the one who practices the kinder gentler arts of friendship, polite political gamemanship, kinetic oratory in the marketplace always with a strong dose of spiritual hope, but raises none of these to the height of a false idol.

With these few concessions offered to both free spirited friend and foe alike, we encourage you to read the following essay with its hidden emphasis on pots and kettles. While the Right can be soundly debated on one issue or another (with a nod to the libertarian's take on the constitutional pursuit of happiness language), it's clear why some people will NEVER understand nor compromise with the hysterical and fact-fudging Left.

American Thinker: Tea Parties are like the confederates or something...

Piercing The Political Tick

fingerprint2

Found this sharp stab at political-economical consciousness at the always provocative American Thinker in a few words posted by the self-identified AWARE54397, and from my own current sorry state of economic ruin all I can think to add to the soil is this—Damn. I wish I had written those two paragraphs. The political tick, blood-filled and bulging. Quite a fit description of the body politik...

So let us get on with the rain seeding...

It won't matter if gold and oil are pumped out of the ground in record quantities, there is no recovery, no "rebound". The problem is the same as the Soviets, who despite huge natural resources and a willingness to exploit them much more ruthlessly than we, continued down the road of want, shortage, and economic oblivion. Our problem is political not economic. The political class runs the economy and it is that simple. The political tick is now bigger than the economic dog. Do you think any benefits derived from increased oil production won't be siphoned off by the usual political bandits through the instrument of wealth destruction called government for the enrichment of the favored cronies?

Until the scope and power of government is severely curtailed no amount of wealth will change the worsening economic picture. With more government than we can afford the profit will always go to support it, not us.

Perhaps these also apply:

Mr. Obama is exactly what he has proclaimed he is many times over, and that is a "Citizen of the World"; a Globalist. A Globalist, who is familiar with and identifies more with Muslim culture than Judeo-Christian culture. Those people who refer to themselves as "Citizens of the World", or as "Global Citizens" believe the United Nations should be the sole arbiter for every international solution (i.e. AGW). It is the United Nations Agenda 21 which we are seeing being implemented in this country in a gallop under this administration.

These Globalists are the new NAZI movement except that instead of being nationalists they are internationalists. It is an international socialist movement which embraces the same totalitarian goals which Islamofascists pursue. Both are para-theo-political belief systems and constructs.

The parallel is that the Globalists are the new NAZI Party and the Islamofascists are the new Italian Fascists from WWII. Guess who gets to play the new Jew? The Conservative Constitutionalists, and Judeo-Christians get the role of the European Jew of WWII.

I hope that answered your question. Now have a "rooping" good day.

Just Saying No To Capital Concentration

JUDGE VINSON'S INDIVIDUAL MANDATE ruling is seen—properly—as a defeat for ObamaCare and a win for individual freedom. And it is all of that, of course.

But there's more. Perhaps almost as pleasing as the affirmation of individual freedom and the dismissal of a government run-society is the smack-down Judge Vinson's ruling gave to the concept of "crony capitalism." And that may be just as important in the long run.

After all, no government-run society is even possible without corporatists and crony capitalists eager to jump into the sack with the statists who will design laws to force unwilling customers to those corporations. This is something the statists will do under threat of sending IRS and other bureaucrats to harass every unwilling business or individual. You do remember that it was sixteen thousand new IRS agents—not sixteen thousand new doctors—that ObamaCare has plans to employ, don't you?

Gee, you think maybe ObamaCare was about control and not health care?

And you can believe that the resulting threats from bureaucrats are indeed scary to those entrepreneurs who put it all on the line daily. Business owners successful enough to be targets—yet too small to be crony capitalists with Beltway connections—know full well that unelected and unaccountable and incompetent bureaucrats can wipe out a life's work with mindless and asinine regulations and rulings. You know, like ObamaCare. Or OSHA. Or the EPA. Or an EEOC ruling. And so on.

Read more.

Power of the People vs. Political Parties

Andrew Breitbart & US Flag
Andrew Breitbart
....nothing new under sun.

FOR THE RECORD, I am not a member of any political party. I am, moreover, repelled by arguments that people should vote for a party’s candidate because . . . he is the party’s candidate. I have no interest serving any party simply for the sake of serving the party. I want best practices principles advanced, whoever, and from whatever party this person should come forth from the nation who supports those principles, but I also remain a pragmatist who considers each decision carefully.

"I think George Washington was right when he said, in his 1796 Farewell Address, that political parties “are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” He went on to argue:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."

More intelligent scorekeeping over at the Pileus blog.