The Supreme Court decision in the McDonald vs Chicago case should answer one simple question. Is the Constitution of the United States the constitution.
If the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States, then to whom does it apply? Since we are all residents of States (With the exception of D.C., Puerto Rico, the USVI, American Samoa etc.), then the Bill of Rights is absolutely worthless.
The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Second Amendment clearly says the "Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Shouldn't this prohibit states from passing laws restricting keeping and bearing firearms?
The 14th Amendment also comes into play:
"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Will the decision define “Selective Incorporation” once and for all?
The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to the Constitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are held to the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the FIRST AMENDMENT freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement of indictment by a GRAND JURY (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have not been applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.
Once the foot was in the door on the 6th and 7th, the 2nd was included as being selective and spun to mean optional by the opposing forces.
We should have our answer tomorrow.
If anything, the spin by the Brady Bunch and Bloomberg's Mayors should be entertaining.
Will they be like frightened little sheep or celebrating like an environmentalist watching the Gulf Crisis.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
This is What Happens to you when you Buck the Democratic Party Machine
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Political Correctness or Manners
Some people are offended by the use of the term Hoplophobiac. It is not politically correct and it is not a real medical condition. I would argue that I don't care about political correctness and while it may not be a medical condition, it is certainly a political condition.
We used to have manners in this country. Now we have political correctness.
Political Correctness is now regulating manners.
We used to say that we have freedom of speech in this country. Is Political Correctness regulating speech and opinion? Discouragement of discussing your opinion on religion or politics under the guise of political correctness certainly makes it seem that way.
Political Correctness (PC) is communal tyranny that erupted in this country in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behavior, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished.
Spontaneous declaration? WHAT????
Evidence of this effect is amply demonstrated by the Soviets, who embraced Political Correctness with the Communist Revolution. Nazi Germany followed suit.
What happened to the people that were not politically correct under those regimes? If you don't know you are a victim of revisionist history being pushed by people with agendas inspired by selfishness and unrestrained by morality.
In the 80's the US decided to take a "kinder, gentler approach".
Prisons and concentration camps are now replaced with lawsuits and loss of employability. What I call "Economic Genocide."
Who is behind all of this? Well, to be politically correct, I am not allowed to name names or identify groups, but it brings us right back to "spontaneous declaration".
Is there such a thing as spontaneous declaration?
What is a spontaneous declaration? Public Opinion or Judical Manipulation, or both?
Spontaneous Declaration is the Politically Correct way of saying Public Manipulation.
Who drives public opinion? In the 80's you could say that Hollywood and the News Media, and marketing molded public opinion through relentless repetition of a theme. All corporations are evil, all gun owners are right wing hicks, government is the salvation of all social ills. Although we would like to think that the New Media of today has replaced the old guard, nobody has bothered to tell them that. The Old Media is like a poker player and is "all in" today because they haven't caught on that their bluff is being called.
Judges: Shouldn't all judical decisions be judged on Constitutional Law?
Most judges are lawyers. Lawyers are in business to make profit. Lawyers like any busniess person have to grow the busniess in the future to survive and prosper.
We are seeing the beginning of a busniess plan today that will benefit Lawyers in the future.
They have to figure out a way to repeat the tobacco settlements. They have to determine the next huge cash cow and begin to mold public opinion using the media and bench rulings to get their foot in the door for billions in legal fees and cash awards. They are heavily involved in the current political structure and will be the candidates for judical appointments in the future. They are already floating trial ballons and red herrings to the New Media to mold public opinion. Trans-fat ban anyone?
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big.
One target to go the way of "Big Tobacco" will be Big Food. Once it becomes totally acceptable to discriminate against overweight people, the stage will be set. They will then be cast as victims of a disease caused by "Big Food".
So much for spontaneous declaratoins. Most if not all "spontaneous declarations" are deliberate methodical manipulation of public discourse, through political correctness.
We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
The United States has 5% of the world's population and 66% of the world's lawyers! Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as "spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you" and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the a certain Party. When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to one Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!
Hoplophobes were created by the manipulation of public opinion through the concerted marketing effort mentioned above. Lawyers need the money from BIG Ammo and Big Firearms manufacturing.
I do not say that all people in one party are the H word. However I do contend that Progressives who do not respect the Constitution and the Second Amendment in particular are Hoplophobes. There are progressives in both parties. Most if not all of them are lawyers.
Which Current Political Party has become the Lawyers' Party.
Barack Obama is a lawyer.
Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.
Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
John Edwards is a lawyer.
Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.
Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).
Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.
Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress:
Harry Reid is a lawyer.
Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer
The ohther Party is different.
President Bush was a businessman.
Vice President Cheney was a businessman.
The leaders of the Republican Revolution:
Newt Gingrich was a history professor.
Tom Delay was an exterminator.
Dick Armey was an economist.
House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.
The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976.
The one Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets of lawyers.
The other Party is made up of lawyers. They mock and scorn men who create wealth.
The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow.
Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation.
How to determine if you have you are not being politically correct.
Do Hoplophobes dissemble the real nature of the claim? Hmmm, on the Second Amendment? YES
Do Hoplophobes label dissenters as enemies of the truth? If gun toting rednecks is a label, then Yes.
Do Hoplophobes use hoplophobia as an excuse for crimes committed in its name? Well, if passing unconstitutional laws is a crime, then yes.
Other ways to tell.
Pay close attention when you start to hear people say things like:
People who disagree are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
People who disagree are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.
So to the progressives out there that think the Constitution is outdated and irrelevant and to the others that have been duped into following them, I can only use good manners and say, I am sorry that the word Hoplophobia hurts your feelings. But until the thought police technology improves, I don't have to mean it. Kinda like when you took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. You said it but you didn't mean it.
We used to have manners in this country. Now we have political correctness.
Political Correctness is now regulating manners.
We used to say that we have freedom of speech in this country. Is Political Correctness regulating speech and opinion? Discouragement of discussing your opinion on religion or politics under the guise of political correctness certainly makes it seem that way.
Political Correctness (PC) is communal tyranny that erupted in this country in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behavior, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished.
Spontaneous declaration? WHAT????
Evidence of this effect is amply demonstrated by the Soviets, who embraced Political Correctness with the Communist Revolution. Nazi Germany followed suit.
What happened to the people that were not politically correct under those regimes? If you don't know you are a victim of revisionist history being pushed by people with agendas inspired by selfishness and unrestrained by morality.
In the 80's the US decided to take a "kinder, gentler approach".
Prisons and concentration camps are now replaced with lawsuits and loss of employability. What I call "Economic Genocide."
Who is behind all of this? Well, to be politically correct, I am not allowed to name names or identify groups, but it brings us right back to "spontaneous declaration".
Is there such a thing as spontaneous declaration?
What is a spontaneous declaration? Public Opinion or Judical Manipulation, or both?
Spontaneous Declaration is the Politically Correct way of saying Public Manipulation.
Who drives public opinion? In the 80's you could say that Hollywood and the News Media, and marketing molded public opinion through relentless repetition of a theme. All corporations are evil, all gun owners are right wing hicks, government is the salvation of all social ills. Although we would like to think that the New Media of today has replaced the old guard, nobody has bothered to tell them that. The Old Media is like a poker player and is "all in" today because they haven't caught on that their bluff is being called.
Judges: Shouldn't all judical decisions be judged on Constitutional Law?
Most judges are lawyers. Lawyers are in business to make profit. Lawyers like any busniess person have to grow the busniess in the future to survive and prosper.
We are seeing the beginning of a busniess plan today that will benefit Lawyers in the future.
They have to figure out a way to repeat the tobacco settlements. They have to determine the next huge cash cow and begin to mold public opinion using the media and bench rulings to get their foot in the door for billions in legal fees and cash awards. They are heavily involved in the current political structure and will be the candidates for judical appointments in the future. They are already floating trial ballons and red herrings to the New Media to mold public opinion. Trans-fat ban anyone?
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big.
One target to go the way of "Big Tobacco" will be Big Food. Once it becomes totally acceptable to discriminate against overweight people, the stage will be set. They will then be cast as victims of a disease caused by "Big Food".
So much for spontaneous declaratoins. Most if not all "spontaneous declarations" are deliberate methodical manipulation of public discourse, through political correctness.
We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
The United States has 5% of the world's population and 66% of the world's lawyers! Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as "spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you" and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the a certain Party. When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to one Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!
Hoplophobes were created by the manipulation of public opinion through the concerted marketing effort mentioned above. Lawyers need the money from BIG Ammo and Big Firearms manufacturing.
I do not say that all people in one party are the H word. However I do contend that Progressives who do not respect the Constitution and the Second Amendment in particular are Hoplophobes. There are progressives in both parties. Most if not all of them are lawyers.
Which Current Political Party has become the Lawyers' Party.
Barack Obama is a lawyer.
Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.
Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
John Edwards is a lawyer.
Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.
Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).
Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.
Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress:
Harry Reid is a lawyer.
Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer
The ohther Party is different.
President Bush was a businessman.
Vice President Cheney was a businessman.
The leaders of the Republican Revolution:
Newt Gingrich was a history professor.
Tom Delay was an exterminator.
Dick Armey was an economist.
House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.
The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976.
The one Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets of lawyers.
The other Party is made up of lawyers. They mock and scorn men who create wealth.
The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow.
Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation.
How to determine if you have you are not being politically correct.
Do Hoplophobes dissemble the real nature of the claim? Hmmm, on the Second Amendment? YES
Do Hoplophobes label dissenters as enemies of the truth? If gun toting rednecks is a label, then Yes.
Do Hoplophobes use hoplophobia as an excuse for crimes committed in its name? Well, if passing unconstitutional laws is a crime, then yes.
Other ways to tell.
Pay close attention when you start to hear people say things like:
People who disagree are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
People who disagree are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.
So to the progressives out there that think the Constitution is outdated and irrelevant and to the others that have been duped into following them, I can only use good manners and say, I am sorry that the word Hoplophobia hurts your feelings. But until the thought police technology improves, I don't have to mean it. Kinda like when you took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. You said it but you didn't mean it.
Friday, January 29, 2010
GOOOH Get Out of Our House I met Tim Cox founder of GOOOH
I attended a GOOOH meeting Wednesday Night in Buffalo. I went in skeptical but came out understanding that the plan developed by Tim Cox is brilliant and could work.
I have met a lot of people that are fed up and frustrated with the current political situation. Tim outlines a very simple method allowing all of us to become involved instead of just complaining.
Does it mean you have to get off of the couch and participate? Yes.
Can it work? I believe so.
Will it be bashed by the current main stream media and political machines? Absolutely.
Just as in 1776, One third of the colonists were loyal to England, One Third didn't care one way or the other, and one third risked everything they had to give us what we have.
Today, 2010 One third will vote the way the Republican and Democrat party leaders tell them to vote. One third won't vote at all, and one third will vote for what they think is the lesser of two evils.
GOOOH is trying to excite the latter one third to get off the couch and do something different in an attempt to get back to a government of the people.
I have met a lot of people that are fed up and frustrated with the current political situation. Tim outlines a very simple method allowing all of us to become involved instead of just complaining.
Does it mean you have to get off of the couch and participate? Yes.
Can it work? I believe so.
Will it be bashed by the current main stream media and political machines? Absolutely.
Just as in 1776, One third of the colonists were loyal to England, One Third didn't care one way or the other, and one third risked everything they had to give us what we have.
Today, 2010 One third will vote the way the Republican and Democrat party leaders tell them to vote. One third won't vote at all, and one third will vote for what they think is the lesser of two evils.
GOOOH is trying to excite the latter one third to get off the couch and do something different in an attempt to get back to a government of the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)