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.