Respecting the Constitution is “going off the rails”

At least according to “one senior member of congress”:

[There is] a growing certainty that President Obama is planning to enact amnesty by executive fiat, blowing up the chances of legislation for the rest of his presidency.

“It’s going to happen. He’s getting a lot of pressure, and he’s already told some people he’s going to. He’s told a bunch of people. I think he will. I think he has to,” said one senior member of Congress who asked that his name not be used.

“I’m hearing that he will do it by August. When that happens, it’s poof! The right will go off the rails, just because it’s unconstitutional — and they’ll be right about that stuff. They’ll fly off the rails, which will then get the Democrats [to close ranks]. And then it’s a presidential election. That’s coming, and as soon as that happens, it’s over,” the lawmaker said. [Emphasis Added – ed]

Um…I’m sorry…I prefer to think that the President of the United States, in direct violation of his oath of office, legislating by fiat, is what should be called “off the rails”, not any potential reaction by Republicans.

If he actually does this and ISN’T impeached…that’s what I would say is the sign that “it’s over”.

Actually, it would only be another sign among many that it’s already over. Constitutional government in this country is over. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” in this country is over. The rule of law in this country is over.

This is why I haven’t been blogging lately. I really don’t think anyone is very interested in the daily happenings of my life and everything else is too depressing to blog about.

The United States of America as created by our founders is dead. I am no longer flying a US flag in front of my house as I have done for most of my adult life. The flag is really just a piece of cloth. The meaning is in what it used to represent. What it used to represent is gone. Done. Dead.

So much for our little experiment in self-governance. I think the founders probably realized it was doomed to failure from the start, but had to at least give it a try.

There is a large minority of people who want nothing more than to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. These people tend to stay out of other’s business and expect the same courtesy in return.

There is a very small minority of people who see themselves as the elite and believe that the rest of humanity is incapable of caring for themselves without being ruled over by that elite.

And there is the majority of people who are desirous of and suited only for slavery. They want nothing more than to be provided for by others, any important decisions made for them and held responsible for nothing. It is this majority that causes any society to revert to it’s natural state: despotism and serfdom. We had a pretty good run. It took roughly 100 years before the natural order of things really started to take hold and another 150 or so before it really became the prevalent state of being. But it’s here now.

This is pretty much as good as it gets for a human society in historical terms. The past 250 years has been nothing but a fluke, a mistake, an aberration. Without another revolution (the outcome of which is by no means certain…in fact historical precedent indicates that we’d be worse off after it than before) it can go nowhere but downhill from here.

I (literally) weep for our descendents. We had such a good thing going for a little while, and we just gave it up.




The Elephant in the Room

Perhaps someone has mentioned this before and I just haven’t seen it, but in the discussions I’ve seen about how evil assault weapons are the “weapon of choice” of mass murderers, no one seems to be mentioning the obvious.

I’ve seen mention that modern semi-automatic rifles are no different functionally than any other semi-automatic rifle.

I’ve seen mention that there are valid self and home defense purposes for modern rifles.

I’ve seen mention that there are valid hunting purposes for modern rifles.

I’ve seen mention that rifles are rarely used in crimes of any type.

I’ve seen mention that most traditional hunting rifles are more powerful than modern rifles.

But what I haven’t seen is this:

Modern semi-automatic rifles are, by far, the most popular rifles in the US. They are everywhere. Virtually every one at the rifle range has one with them, even if they also have a more traditional pattern rifle as well.

If 80% of the vehicles sold were blue, it would stand to reason that the majority of drunk drivers would “prefer” blue vehicles because they are the easiest to get their hands on just by pure numbers.

If, as a result, legislation were passed banning blue cars, would the incidence of drunk driving go down simply because the preferred color of car for drunk drivers was no longer available?

Silly isn’t it?

So why isn’t silly when we are talking about the cosmetic features of guns rather than the cosmetic features of cars?


Making it illegaler

What does a “lawmaker” do when he’s afraid someone may break the law?

Why…introduce a law making it illegal to break the law of course.

With the exception of any person who lawfully possesses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon set forth in subsection A of § 18.2-308 while in the Capitol of Virginia or in any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly.

So if you are unlawfully in possession of a weapon, you can no longer unlawfully enter a a state government building…because it would be unlawful. Again.

Or something.

Hat tip to VSSA Blog


Quote of the Day

let me pose a question for stressed-out liberals. Why do you continue to vote to make the federal government and the leaders at its helm an ever-more present and powerful part of every part of our lives when you know there’s a chance every four years a guy you won’t like will be at the helm? If it’s going to stress you out this much who has the levers of power, perhaps you should work toward making the levers less powerful?

–Mary Katherine Ham at Hot Air




“I think that blacks are either not responsible enough or not intelligent enough to obtain even the most basic forms of identification…so you’re a racist.”

“Even though the majority of people in this country receiving welfare, housing assistance and/or food stamps are white, whenever you mention those programs, I think exclusively of poor black people…so you’re a racist.”

Original video deleted at source

I do agree with one of the things he said toward the end of his diatribe:

“[black political activity in 2008] didn’t seem like a political movement as much as it felt like a fan club”.

But, of course it’s never racist to vote FOR someone solely because they’re black, it’s only racist to vote AGAINST someone that happens to be black, even if race had nothing to do with it.

Racism is most definitely alive and well in today’s United States of America. It just has a slightly different flavor than in past eras.


Political Saviors

I wrote this this morning, but I hesitated to post it. I realize I’ve been very negative lately…but I can’t escape the fact that this is what I really believe. So here goes:

I haven’t been talking much about politics lately because I see it as so pointless and it’s so depressing for me.

I do still read a lot of political blogs and keep up with the “news”, and I just don’t understand what’s going on. Maybe I’m just getting old with all these things I don’t understand lately.

Anyway…why does everyone seem to think that the Future of Our Nation (and possibly the world) hinges on this November?

Do they REALLY expect anything substantial to change? Our choices are an establishment, big government leftist and an establishment, big government, slightly less leftist.

Are they expecting Romney to come into office and somehow un-set the precedent of the President legislating by executive order that Obama (and, to be sure, the presidents before him) has set?


Other than, perhaps, George Washington, can someone name a single, solitary President who has voluntarily given up power once the precedent has been set?

Do they really think that Romney is going to come in to office, repeal Obamacare, get the government out of our lives, get the deficit under control and start paying off the national debt?


A Romney administration may make some sort of symbolic effort to decrease the annual increases in government spending (that will be portrayed by the media as horrifically slashing budgets that will cause poor people to starve, old people to die, young people to grow up stupid, the ice caps to melt, the oceans to rise, tornadoes, earthquakes, swine flu outbreaks, poor box office returns, low credit scores and bad breath), but real reform? In your dreams. The kinds of cuts that would be necessary to do that would be political suicide.

Romney may even sign into law a repeal of Obamacare, but I can hear the cries already: “But what will we replace it with?”. It won’t be a week before we start hearing about Obamacare lite…repackaged as Romneycare, and only encompassing 2,405 pages, rather than the 2,409 of the “Affordable Care Act” that is anything but.

And what is going to change? 4 years from now we’ll be going through all this over again. Do you think the perpetual victims are going to change their spots under Romney? Do you think the leftists are going to magically come to understand and accept the principles of a free market, capitalist economy in the interim? That the nanny-staters will suddenly realize that their attempts to dictate how everyone else must live their lives were misguided?


The odds are, the economy isn’t going to get significantly better over the next four years no matter what Romney does. If they have the political fortitude to make the real, difficult reforms that are needed to turn things around, the public and media outcry would be incessant and deafening. The reforms necessary would be painful and would actually cause the economy to get worse before it could possibly get better.

If they don’t (as is inevitable) have the fortitude to do more than rearrange the deck chairs, we may see some small improvements as a result of people having a better outlook and more confidence…businesses may hire a few more people and invest in growth if they’re a little more confident about what the short therm future may hold in terms of taxes and regulations, but the root causes of our problems will remain unaddressed and, as a result, nothing real will change.

So we’ll be going through this again in four years, hearing the same promises and arguments and character assassinations…and edging ever closer to the inevitable collapse when the proverbial house of cards comes tumbling down.

If, of course, that doesn’t happen in the next four years…which is a distinct possibility.

Then what?

The survival of our nation doesn’t hinge on this election. It hinged on the past ten or twenty elections, and we weren’t up to the task. We’ve already failed and our nation is nothing like the land of the free and home of the brave that our founders envisioned. The cancers of socialism and cronyism have metastasized. We aren’t willing to endure the painful side effects of any potential cure, so it’s just a matter of time before the life support machines just can’t keep up any more and we simply succumb to the inevitable.

Everything that has a beginning, has an end.


“Castle Doctrine” defeated in Virginia

The Virginia Shooting Sports Association (an NRA affiliated Virginia gun rights group), in lamenting the demise of the Castle Doctrine bill that was presented to the Virginia Legislature this year, attempted to vilify another Virginia gun rights group by equating their opposition to the bill with the anti-freedom lobby’s opposition of it:

Virginians for Responsible Gun Laws sent this email today applauding yesterday’s effective defeat of the last remaining Castle Doctrine bills…

Ironically, the group used language similar to language used by a gun rights group in opposing the bills, explaining that Virginia law on the issue of self defense has been carefully crafted by the courts. A Virginia gun rights group was actively opposing the Castle bills during the General Assembly.

The VSSA Blogger indicated that the unnamed gun rights group should have been appeased by language that was added to the bill specifically to address those concerns.

VSSA and the NRA supported the legislation and worked with patrons to address concerns raised by some that the bills would override protections already in common law…[by]…including specific language clarifying the bill:

“…shall not be construed to limit, withdraw, or overturn any defense or immunity already existing in statutory or common law prior to the effective date of this law.”

I was going to leave a comment on the VSSA blog, but apparently a Google account is required, which my readers will well know I no longer have.

So…I’ll do this here.

The un-named pro-rights group that the VSSA blogger was back-handedly insulting was the Virginia Citizens Defense League, of which I was an Executive Member until fairly recently.

I have, both here on my blog, as a blogger for VCDL, and as an EM, strongly supported the concept and advocated the need for a castle doctrine bill here in Virginia. I know no-one at VCDL who is opposed to the concept in principle.

But neither I, nor VCDL leadership, will endorse a law that may potentially do more harm than good.

The added language notwithstanding, the proposed bill backed by the NRA and VSSA still had a glaring, huge, deadly flaw:

Any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when (i) the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling and has committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling [bold added -ed]

Right now, there is no requirement in Virginia Law or established case law for an overt act to have occurred. The only requirement is a reasonable belief that bodily injury is imminent.

Under the language of this bill, the defender would be required to wait until the criminal, who has already broken into their home, commits ANOTHER overtly hostile act before self defense is protected by the proposed law.

This is clearly unacceptable. Versus adding a vague statement about this law not being construed to change any existing laws (which could be interpreted any number of ways by a creative judge who “discourages self-help”), how about fixing the language itself? All they would have had to have done is strike the “overt act” requirement.

I would prefer any such law to include a presumption of imminent bodily injury when defending one’s castle against an unlawful intruder, but would have been satisfied with just the removal of the “overt act” language.

The bottom line is that this bill was fatally flawed and needed to be defeated. It may sting the NRA and its affiliates to be defeated by an upstart like VCDL, but if they want our support, they need to earn it. Attempting to equate VCDL to anti-gun groups when the two opposed this legislation for exact opposite reasons is hardly the way to win support for your cause.


Not worth publishing

Yesterday Weer’d posted about the response of one of the handful of anti-gun bloggers out there to the counter-demonstration staged in response to their “stop a bullet with a candle” publicity stunt.

I don’t read the anti-gunner’s sites because they don’t say anything worth reading and it just gives them traffic.  I believe the best way to deal with them is just to ignore them and let them wither on the vine.  If it weren’t for pro-freedom people reading and linking them, they wouldn’t have any traffic at all…or at least very, very little.

With that said, I used to engage them and try to discuss the issues with them, as they inevitably claim they want to do.  Every time I did so, I was met with derision, name calling, obfuscation, and the breaking out of “reasoned discourse” wherein any comment they couldn’t refute, was simply not published, followed by unfounded and unsupported claims that the unpublished comments were harassing, threatening or obscene.

The conclusion I drew from these experiences is simply that the anti-freedom lobby is made up of flatly dishonest professional victims who are incapable of actually engaging in discussion about the issues, whereupon, I stopped reading or engaging them.

This background was necessary in order to illustrate the irony of the comment that Weer’d pointed out in his post:

So far, no comments from the gun rights extremists are worth publishing. Come on guys, you can do better. “Dancing in the blood of victims”? Really guys. How rude and insensitive.

As if they actually would publish a comment that they can’t think of a way to dismiss out of hand.  That’s funny right there.

I couldn’t resist so I actually followed the link to her place where I found some other aspects of her position that I just had to respond to:

No one said candles would stop anything. You totally missed the point of the whole thing- on purpose I would add.

You seem to have forgotten the many other people for whom the bell was rung and for whom candles were lit on Sunday. Jan. 8th was the anniversary of a horrific national tragedy that highlights our lax gun laws. The vigils on Sunday were to call attention to the way too many victims of gun violence. Gabby Giffords story is known to the world. There were videos and photographs of her plastered all over the media all over this country calling attetntion to the one year anniversary and many of them to our lax gun laws as well.

To which I responded:

We didn’t miss the point at all and I think you know it…because you know as well as we do what the point really was. It was about attempting to commandeer the memorial of a tragedy to exploit it for publicity and political gain.

You can claim that your sideshow was, in part, to honor the victims of the Tuscon tragedy all you want, but I find it interesting that at the ACTUAL memorial service, no mention was made of you, your group, your agenda, or your political stunt.

You know what I find rude and insensitive? People exploiting the deaths of others, even of loved ones, to push a political agenda that has virtually nothing to do with, and would not have prevented, the incident(s) being exploited.

This is how you honor them? By using their suffering and even death like a poker chip in a political game? By trying to use their victimhood as a shield against criticism?

It’s not just rude and insensitive, it’s downright disgusting.

You should be ashamed. But I’m pretty sure you’re not. Which is why I don’t much bother any more.

So far that one “wasn’t worth publishing”.

In response to commenter “Country Tea”, she asserted:

No one is going to take your rights away Country Tea. 

To which I responded:

“No one is going to take your rights away Country Tea.”
Especially not the Brady Campaign, that’s why they tirelessly fight for your rights.
For example:  They strongly supported the effort to overturn Washington DC’s unconstitutional ban on defensive firearms in the home.
Well, they strongly supported the effort to overturn Chicago’s unconstitutional ban on defensive firearms in the home.
Well, they strongly oppose the proposed ban of certain types of firearms specifically protected by the second amendment under the “in common use” language used by the supreme court in the Heller decision.
Well, they strongly support the property rights of individuals re: the ability of citizens to lawfully sell their privately owned property without the interference of the government.
Well, they strongly support the right of law abiding citizens to practice the “bear” part of “keep and bear arms” and carry defensive firearms in public.
Well…never mind all that.  They really don’t want to take any of your rights away;  just ask them, they’ll tell you.
That comment was likewise deemed unworthy of publication.
Just not worth it I guess.

As a matter of fact, I do feel lucky…

…but not for the reasons that CNN Money implies:

The United States holds a disproportionate amount of the world’s rich people.

So where do these lucky rich people live? As of 2005 — the most recent data available — about half of them, or 29 million lived in the United Statesanother four million live in Germany. The rest are mainly scattered throughout Europe, Latin America and a few Asian countries.

The implication, of course, being that we Americans and Germans, and other western societies have achieved wealth through nothing more than “luck”.

As I said in the title of this post, I do feel very lucky (I actually prefer the term “blessed”) to have been born into a society that fosters personal achievement and success and not into one of the cesspools that punishes it.

But that’s as far as the luck goes.  It isn’t “luck” that has resulted in the success of the western world, it is a superior economic, governmental and societal model.  I’m very blessed to have been born into that superior society, but the success that free-market, democratic societies enjoy over other societal models has nothing to do with luck.

As a side-note:  Saying that the US has a “disproportionate amount of the world’s rich people” is like saying that bodies of water have a disproportionate amount of the world’s fish.

OF COURSE you’re going to find a “disproportionate” amount of things in the places that make it possible for them to exist.  That this would be surprising to the geniuses at CNN money says more about their biases and ideology than it does about the “distribution of the world’s wealth”.