CAN YOU HEAR US NOW LIBS?

I think perhaps the libs are hearing us now. With a sharp defeat in the House and a strong recovery in the Senate the Obamessiah no longer has his super majority. He will no longer to get advance his stupid socialist ideas after January.

We just have to keep it at bay until the newly elected representatives can get sworn in!

Bring on the Liberal Legislation!!!

This letter from Campaign for Liberty got me thinking, I know that can be dangerous, but why wouldn't we want these things brought up to a vote before the November elections?

September 28, 2010


Dear Friend of Liberty,

These next 48 hours are potentially the most dangerous time of the year, as Harry Reid and his statist allies in Washington, D.C. decide whether to head home for the election or try to sneak in a last minute vote to steal liberty, spend money, or empower big labor and other statist allies.

Thankfully, Senator Jim DeMint has taken a stand for liberty and promised to place a hold on any legislation not agreed to by both parties. This does not guarantee Reid won’t try to force a controversial vote in the next two days, but a hold can only be overridden by scheduling a time-consuming cloture vote.

For the moment, it appears after our defeat of the DISCLOSE Act last week that Harry Reid and his cohorts are almost ready to tuck tail and head home, where you and hundreds of thousands of other C4L members around the nation are waiting to hold them accountable for their votes over the past two years.

However, following the November elections, Harry Reid will pull out all the stops in a last ditch effort to pass as many bills as he can in a lame-duck session. According to a report in The Hill today, Democrats are planning to bring up as many as 20 bills in as little as six weeks! Bills such as S. 510, the FDA’s War on Food, Joseph Lieberman’s Internet Takeover Bill, Cap & Tax, and many more we’ve alerted you about are all likely to come up for a vote during that session.

We’ve accomplished great things together during these past two years. Thanks to your efforts, 80% of Americans support a full audit of the Federal Reserve. Despite the enormous odds stacked against us, we’ve held off some of the worst legislation this country has ever seen.

Only 48 hours remain before legislators head home. Let’s make sure they feel the pressure every single second of it.


In Liberty,



John Tate

President


P.S. Campaign for Liberty is committed to the fight against the statist agenda in Washington, D.C. through grassroots mobilization and issue education. However, unlike the Federal Reserve, C4L cannot just print money out of thin air when we need funds. Won’t you consider chipping in just $10 so we can continue to keep our members informed about serious threats to our liberty?

Let's think about this for one moment. If they bring these pieces of legislation up before the election they will likely FAIL because of the fear of backlash at the poles. If we force them to hold this legislation until after the election, it is likely to PASS because the election is decided and if they are voted out, they no longer need to worry about backlash. They will have no reason to be concerned with what the people have to say because we will have already spoken.

I say bring it all up now. Let them show their true colors now. I bet many are too scared of being put out of office to tow the party line.

Chicagoist Gets it Wrong II

I like the ignorant remark in this article at the Chicagoist
about HB 5832 being signed into law. 

"House Bill 5832 adds an extra 1- to 3-year prison sentence for convicted criminals found to have used a weapon unlawfully and without possession of an Illinois firearm owner's identification card (you FOID holders who hold up a gas station apparently get a break)."

It proves the preconceived notions and opinions of the author and goes to show that nothing short of outright unconstitutional gun bans and confiscation will do to please the disconnected Chicago mind.

I would think that tougher penalties for criminals would be welcomed not scoffed at?

Although this is a step in the right direction, I think these guys should be introduced to "Project Exile".  This is a program started in Richmond, Virginia in 1997.  The program took cases involving firearm use in crime from the State courts into the Federal court where a 5 year minimum sentence was imposed for conviction of illegal use of a firearm.

The Chicagoist gets it wrong.

The Chicagoist has this piece that was written just before the SCOTUS opinion in McDonald v Chicago.

"The City of Chicago is preparing for today's ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States on the handgun ban as the court issues its opinion on McDonald v. City of Chicago. (The city of Oak Park also has its handgun ban at issue with the case.)"

Chicago just has a mind set of it's own. They don't get it, this case goes beyond Chicago and beyond Oak Park. The Supreme Court is not ruling, "Chicago can't ban guns." or "Oak Park can't ban guns." This ruling goes against every gun ban in every city and every State. When they opined that the 2nd is incorporated as against the States, that incorporates the definition given in Heller.

"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation."-D.C. v. Heller

SCOTUS Opines 5-4 for Incorporation in McDonald v. Chicago

This should have been a unanimous decision.

"JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect toParts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense."

The opinion is here.

Questions:

Does this mean "Constitutional Carry" for all states?

First the SC confirms that the 2nd is an individual right to keep and bear.

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text
and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an
individual right to keep and bear arms."-Heller

Then the definition of the operative clause indicates the purpose of carrying arms for defense in case of confrontation.  The SC did not give a specific definition of when and where the carrying of arms would be prohibited or if it could be prohibited.

"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
. . . .”-Heller

Does this effect the NFA or the Gun Control Act?

Can a State or municipality prohibit the possession of automatic weapons?
If a State or municipal law prohibiting a handgun is unconstitutional, how could a state law prohibiting any type or class of weapon stand?

Illinois law prohibits automatic weapons(machine guns)-

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
"(7) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or

carries:
(i) a machine gun, which shall be defined for

the purposes of this subsection as any weapon, which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manually reloading by a single function of the trigger, including the frame or receiver of any such weapon, or sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses, or carries any combination of parts designed or intended for use in converting any weapon into a machine gun, or any combination or parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person;
(ii) any rifle having one or more barrels less

than 16 inches in length or a shotgun having one or more barrels less than 18 inches in length or any weapon made from a rifle or shotgun, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such a weapon as modified has an overall lengt(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:h of less than 26 inches;"-720 ILCS 5/24‑1

Democrats in Their Own Words

I tried to come up with an opening staement for this, but it just explains itself so well.  I'll let the Democrats speak for themselves.....

"No one likes paying taxes, particularly abusive taxes with no accountability, but they are a necessity of life and part of the reality of living in a democratic society."-Illinois Democrats

 At least the Illinois Democrats are honest about how they are abusive and unaccountable with tax dollars.

"If you think the extremists on the right are going to go away, think again. Between the ultra right-wing religious fundamentalists and the neo-conservatives, they are taking over our country from top to bottom, and we, as progressives and liberals and Democrats, need to fight much harder against their distorted values and egocentric viewpoints. "-Illinois Democrats

 "Our view: we’re all equal—each and every one of us, no matter what we look like or believe in or don’t believe—as long as we don’t legislate or mandate or somehow force our views on others."-Illinois Democrat

 I see, they are allowed their views, they just won't tolerate a conservative Christian view.  In fact they ridicule, make snide remarks, and  file lawsuits because our views "offend" them.  Democrats-the party of equality and tolerance.  It seems they are open and welcoming to every view or religion EXCEPT Christianity.

"We’re pro-life as much as the religious extremists but we believe it’s a woman’s right to choose to give life."-Illinois Democrats

  Yeah, we just think the decision is made before the bedroom activities.

"They fight paper trails that would assure fair and honest elections."-Illinois Democrats

 Who was that undocumented worker in the White House?  Oh, thats right, Obama is the name.  How much money did he spend fighting the paper trail of his birth?

"They don’t question outsourcing valuable American jobs to China, India, Mexico, and elsewhere."-Illinois Democrats

By "they" I think they mean Conservative Republicans.  Have these Democrats looked outside their Chicago office in the last couple of decades?  Seriously, democrats haven't seen any Republican opposition to moving jobs out of the Country?

I guess Democrats don't question it either, they encourage it through the above mentioned "particularly abusive taxes with no accountability" that "are a necessity of life and part of the reality of living in a democratic society".

"Our view: We don’t like labels. We don’t fear those who are different. We like and welcome diversity. Our fragile democracy cannot survive with hatemongering and lying in the name of false “patriotism.” The extremes of fascism and communism are about people who blame others for their problems and want everyone to believe, behave, and look like themselves. That’s not us.”- Illinois Democrats

"WE CAN’T SIT IDLY BY WHILE THEY TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY
If you think the extremists on the right are going to go away, think again. Between the ultra right-wing religious fundamentalists and the neo-conservatives, they are taking over our country from top to bottom, and we, as progressives and liberals and Democrats, need to fight much harder against their distorted values and egocentric viewpoints. We must tell President Obama again and again he can’t be Mr. Nice Guy. The Republicans are the party of “No.” they’ve become the party of Tea-Baggers. They will never ever allow Obama a victory of any sort, no matter how good it may be for the country as a whole."-Illinois Democrats

So who was it that came up with these:

1. extremists
2. ultra right-wing religious fundamentalists
3. neo-conservatives
4. distorted values
5. egocentric viewpoints
6. Republicans are the party of “No.”
7. the party of Tea-Baggers
Seven labels in the opening paragraph of the article, I would hate to imagine that paragraph if they liked labels and fear mongering.

"They assure that their industries are too big to fail."-Illinois Democrats

 This has to be the funniest one, these guys don't know the Democrats came up with the "to big to fail" idea.

 This just goes on and on, not just in the examples of this ONE article.  Yes, all these are from one article posted at IL-democrats.org.  Look around at other media sources and you will find more of the same.

Liberal Response to the Arizona Illegal Immigrant Law

Apparently the people at change.org think everyone who has light brown or olive skin is an illegal immigrant.  No physical appearance should not be as much a factor in reasonable suspicion as suspicious activities.

"Common sense dictates that if I, as a police officer, see blond-haired, blue-eyed Sue standing on the street corner, I won't think much of it. But if I see caramel-complexioned Juan Miguel, I now claim "reasonable suspicion" to ask Juan about his immigration status."-Change.org

I love the response to the Passage of Arizona Senate Bill SB1070 at the Daily Kos blog.

"Since I heard of this reactionary and evil passage and ramrod signing of SB 1070, I immediately thought that the best way to strike back would be a boycott of Major League Baseball."-Daily Kos

So, telling law enforcement they can question someone they have reason to believe is in the country illegally is reactionary and evil, and passage of it was ramrodding.  So what would they call the passing of a bill that a majority of the people do not support, the people RAMRODDING it through say we they have to pass it to know what is in it, and claim it must be done NOW, yet it will not have any effect for years?

I guess it is somehow inappropriate to enforce the law?  Boy, could we have used to enforce the law in 2008.  If the Congress had done it's Constitutional duty to verify the eligibility of the President Elect, we might not have the absolute plunge to socialism that is occurring in the country.

Arizona is in a unique position along with three other states.  Arizona shares a 378 mile border with Mexico, 24 miles along the Colorado River on the west and 354 miles of land border. New Mexico shares 180 miles of land border.  California shares a mere 141 miles of land border.  Texas shares 1255 miles of border, the Rio Grand River.  (Information is from the International Boundary and Water Commision http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/US-Mx_Boundary_Map.pdf)

There is a way to immigrate into this country in a legal manner.  I have no issue at all with those who wish to come to this country in a legal manner.  If someone chooses to enter this country illegally, why should we believe they will honor any other law of this country?

Arizona is in a position to have a high number of illegal persons.  Why would the law enforcement professionals not be allowed to question a person who is acting suspicious or seems nervous?  If you have ever been to Arizona, Texas, or New Mexico you know they are not going to arrest every person who looks Hispanic and verify their citizenship.  That would take several lifetimes!  Come on, are you ASSUMING that all law enforcement officers are racists and are going to arrest everyone who looks Hispanic?  That seems to be the case you are making.

More crazy legislation in Illinois.

Bills that ban "Assault Weapons" and .50 calibers.

Sen. Antonio Muñoz (D) Chicago - Jacqueline Y. Collins (D) Chicago introduced SB 3036 that would ban manufacture, sale, possesion of "assault weapons", "assault weapon" attachments, .50 caliber rifles, and .50 caliber cartridges.

Rep. Edward J. Acevedo (D) Chicago - Maria Antonia Berrios (D) Chicago introduced HB 5751 that would  do the same as the above bill.

Sen. Antonio Muñoz (D) Chicago introduced SB 1721 that would do the same as the abovc bills.

Legislation that Requires Micro Stamping

Sen. Dan Kotowski (D) Park Ridge(Chicago) - Jacqueline Y. Collins (D) Chicago introduced SB 3425 - Provides that it is a Class 3 felony for a person to knowingly sell, manufacture, purchase, possess, or carry any semiautomatic handgun manufactured on or after January 1, 2011 that is not microstamp-ready, or any semiautomatic handgun manufactured on or after that date if the person knows that a microstamping mechanism has been unlawfully removed from that handgun. Provides that any person who shall knowingly or intentionally change, alter, remove or obliterate the importer's or manufacturer's microstamping mechanism is guilty of a Class 2 felony.

Legislation to make something that is already illegal more illegal?

Sen. Kwame Raoul (D) Chicago introduced SB0323

Amends the Criminal Code of 1961 and the Unified Code of Corrections. Creates the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member. Provides that a person commits the offense if he or she

(1) possesses, carries, or conceals on or about his or her person a firearm and firearm ammunition while on any street, road, alley, gangway, sidewalk, or any other lands, except when inside his or her own abode or inside his or her fixed place of business, and has not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card and is a member of a street gang; or

(2) possesses or carries in any vehicle a firearm and firearm ammunition which are both immediately accessible at the time of the offense while on any street, road, alley, or any other lands, except when inside his or her own abode or garage, and has not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card and is a member of a street gang. Provides that unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member is a Class 2 felony for which the person, if sentenced to a term of imprisonment, shall be sentenced to no less than 3 years and no more than 10 years. Provides that a period of probation, a term of periodic imprisonment or conditional discharge shall not be imposed for the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member when the firearm was loaded or contained firearm ammunition and the court shall sentence the offender to not less than the minimum term of imprisonment authorized for the Class 2 felony. Effective immediately.

My comments on SB0323:

It seems to make being a criminal illegal?

The bill modifies 720 ILCS 5/12‑6.2, (c)For the purposes of this Section, "streetgang", "streetgang member", and "organized gang" have the meanings ascribed to them in Section 10 of the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act.(740 ILCS 147/). That act defines what a gang member is, 740 ILCS 147/10 "Streetgang member" or "gang member" means any person who actually and in fact belongs to a gang, and any person who knowingly acts in the capacity of an agent for or accessory to, or is legally accountable for, or voluntarily associates himself with a course or pattern of gang‑related criminal activity, whether in a preparatory, executory, or cover‑up phase of any activity, or who knowingly performs, aids, or abets any such activity.

It makes being a gang related criminal more of a crime. Why don't we just pass a bill that makes commission of a felony with a firearm by ANYONE a class 4 felony with a mandatory sentence.  I believe this has been done in other states, they call it Project Exile. This program actually shifts the prosecution to the Federal circuit, but I think it could be done at a State level.

Mixed-gender dorm rooms are gaining acceptance - latimes.com

Mixed-gender dorm rooms are gaining acceptance - latimes.com

Posted using ShareThis

This is further evidence of gender blurring.   Gay, lesbian, straight, bi-sexual, it doesn't matter there is no difference between a man and a woman.  Yeah, RIGHT!

After healthcare vote, Democrats turn to damage control - latimes.com

Have the democrats signed their poitical death warrants?

Sounds to me like the democrat strategy is to keep the people in the dark on government, what happened to transparency?

"The American people got too close a look at how Congress actually legislates and that's an ugly thing," said Jim Jordan, a Democratic campaign strategist.

After healthcare vote, Democrats turn to damage control - latimes.com

The Vote on Obamacare

	Ayes	Noes	PRES	NV
Democratic	219	34
Republican		178
Independent
TOTALS	219	212

Yeah's
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
OberstarObey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth


The Noe's

Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Holden
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kissell
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

Obamacare Debacle

As I watch the debate on CSPAN, I shall post rants and thoughts.

So far it looks like a partisan split.

I think I have it already, it is a plan to bankrupt the insurance companies so the government can bail them out and take control.

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) mentions 2/3 of the States have warned of suits against the bill, and mentions that is enough States to amend the Constitution.  Could that be what the liberal commies are after in the long run?  They want us to open the Constitution?  I strongly caution against it, once a convention is opened, they can modify any part of the Constitution they want.

Rep. Cynthia Lummins (R_WY) says the bill will create 20 new taxes.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) "...the founders got it right...", we derived our rights from nature and natures God.  I wonder if he just got put on the right wing terrorist list?

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) "...this is not the president's house, this is not the Democrat's house...this is the peoples' house and they don't want a government takeover of health care..."

The common thread I am hearing is a logical stand against the bill, the liberal commies don't give a rats butt about logical debate they want control.

So far, as best as I can count, it is an even split on yeah's and nay's.

Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, "This is the wrong bill at the wrong time."


Libacommies keep playing the same broken record....blah. blah, blah.....

What the hell is this doughnut hole thing about?  Have these guys been here so long they are getting hungry?

Rep. Eric Cantor Minorty Whip (R-VA), "The only bipartisanship we have seen on this bill is in opposition to it....I have a message to the American people, We hear you, We hear you loud and clear.  We believe this government must stop spending money it doesn't have."

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), "Just think, we will be joining those who established social security, medicare, and now tonight healthcare for all Americans."

Yeah, and those are the models of financial wisdom, aren't we trying to figure out how to make those last long enough to see the end of Obamassiah?

So, Pelosi was yield 1 minute and babbled for over 8 minutes......figures, she can't do the math on the bill, why would we expect her to tell time.

What's with all the thank you's, is she getting an academy award?

Come on November, I don't think I can stand that voice much longer.


And the vote on HR 3590.......

Yeah  219
Nay   212

It's official, we are now under communist rule.

I expected to see Pelosi and Obama having a ceremony raising a new flag with some kind of O symbol on it.

Excuse me while I puke...

Thoughts on McDonald v. Chicago

I have been reading and thinking about what the McDonald v. Chicago case would mean to this country and particularly to my State, Illinois.

First let's look at what the Heller decision states as the opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court.  In the definition of the 2nd Amendment, Justice Scalia wrote:

Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 19
Opinion of the Court
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
. . . .”

This is the first time the U.S. Supremem Court has visited and given an opinion, and therefore a definition, of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.  The court clearly states the Amendment protects an idividual right to posses and carry arms for the purpose of self protection and protection of others.  The court will no doubt agree that reasonable restriction is allowed.  I can't imagine any rational person would see restricting the right to carry a firearm in a prison or jail as excessive restriction.

Would the court hold that the total ban on the carrying of arms in public is reasonable?  I am inclined to believe they would not.  Just as they did not hold a total ban on a functional firearm reasonable in the Heller case:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home. -D.C.v. Heller

If the court holds that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated as against the States the previous opinion in Heller would apply.  This would not allow the States to restrict the carry of arms by the people beyond what would be held as reasonable.  Now what is reasonable would of course be another question likely to come before the courts.  Many States with carry laws prohibit the carry of arms in establishments that sell intoxicating beverages, court rooms, places of religious worship, sports arenas, and places of public debate by government bodies.

I can understand those restrictions for the most part.  There are obvious reasons to restrict carry at court proceedings and government meetings where people would likely have very strong opinions and perhaps strong emotional reaction.

I suspect the method used to carry would come into question as well.  Some States currently recognize a right to carry openly while restricting the carry of arms that are concealed to those with a permit.  Some require a permit to carry either way and some recognize both methods of carry.

A decision that the 2nd is incorporated as against the States would not support a cart blanch right to  keep and carry arms anywhere in any manner.  Those who are prohibited from possessing arms because of criminal action have been denied that right through due process and would not regain it because of a decision to incorporate the 2nd Amendment.  I feel the courts would probably hold requiring a permit issued by the State to be reasonable.

I think the incorporation of the 2nd would, in effect, be a national right to carry.

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. -D.C. v. Heller

I don't think the States would be allowed total prohibition of carrying arms.  The opinion clearly states the protection of the right to not only possess, but also to carry arms for protection.

The finding of the U.S. Supreme Court is only a affirmation of the natural instinct to defend yourself and family from harm.  This is not a privilege given, but a right reinforced by our Constitution.  The court said that in no uncertain terms in Cruikshank.

“[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .” -Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876)

A decision in McDonald v. Chicago to incorporate the 2nd as against the States will come very welcome to freedom loving Americans and would certainly be smiled upon by the founders of this United States of America.

The transcript of the oral arguments can be found here.

Harry Reid signs Dem's Death Warrant

"We plan to use the regular budget reconciliation process that the Republican caucus has used many times."-Harry Reid

Thank you Harry Reid, you have signed the political death warrants of so many Democrat politicians.

"Keep in mind that reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process."-Harry Reid

No, reconciliation will not exclude them, the up yours we don't give a rats ass what you think, bi-partisan Democrats will.  Let's face it, the Democrat party thinks bi-partisan means no one opposes them and the Republican party sits quietly and nods yes to whatever stupid socialist lies are pushed forth.

The only good that seems to be coming from the Obama occupation of the Oval Office is the awakening of many to what the true nature of liberalism is.

Obama shows disrespect to Supreme Court Justices - go figure.

AP Story
"With all due deference to the separation of powers the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama

I wonder if this was really a slap at the Court for the ruling or a call for fund raising to his foreign supporters?

Rasmussen Shows Brady with Strong Edge.

In this article from Rasmussen, Republican Bill Brady is shown with a marked edge over Democrat incumbent Pat Quinn.

Thousands March on Illinois State Capital to Support the 2nd Amendment.

This will make some liberals start crying..........check out this article.

McDonald v. Chicago - Supreme Court Blog

For those of you keeping up with this case, I believe you will find this a good read.

Analysis: 2d Amendment extension likely

"An attempt by an attorney for the cities of Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., defending local bans on handguns in those communities, to prevent any application of the constitutional gun right to states, counties and cities looked forlorn and even doomed."-McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521, Argument recap by Lyle Denniston

I don't know how any reasonable person could conclude the Second Amendment does not apply to the States. For that matter, I don't see how a reasonable person could conclude that the Second Amendment doesn't give a citizen the right to lawfully carry a firearm, concealed or not, for any legal purpose.

Random Interesting Legislation

Second Amendment Protection Act of 2009 H.R. 3022-Ron Paul

Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support ActH.R.3781-Betsy Markey

Government Inefficiency

This is what we elect and PAY for our legislators to do?

CURRENT HOUSE FLOOR PROCEEDINGS
LEGISLATIVE DAY OF JANUARY 15, 2010
111TH CONGRESS - SECOND SESSION

9:05 A.M. -

The Speaker announced that the House do now adjourn. The next meeting is scheduled for 12:30 p.m. on January 19, 2010.

9:04 A.M. -

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG - The Chair led the House in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

9:03 A.M. -

The Speaker announced approval of the Journal. Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

9:01 A.M. -

Today's prayer was offered by the House Chaplain, Rev. Daniel Coughlin.

9:00 A.M. -

The House convened, starting a new legislative day.

-from http://clerk.house.gov

The information found here tells us the average member of the House of Representatives is payed $174,000 per year and the House Leadership is payed as follows:

Speaker of the House - $223,500/yr
Majority Leader - $193,400/yr
Minority Leader - $193,400/yr

The Speaker of the House makes $612/day, Majority and Minority Leaders makes $530/day.

So we have 432 members at $205,939
The Speaker of the House at $612
The Majority & Minority Leader at $530 each.

That is $207,611 for a five minute day.

The regular member of the House makes $60/hr if they worked 8hr EVERY day. I don't think they earn it.

And who thinks the government can effectively manage health care?

Someone still has an Obamasiah complex!

Rep. Jose E. Serrano (D) NY-16 has introduced this joint resolution.

HJ 5 IH
111th CONGRESS1st SessionH. J. RES. 5
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 6, 2009

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article--

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.

-thomas.gov

If this doesn't speak for itself, take a look at other legislation he has supported and introduced here.