Today, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve the nomination of Eric Holder to the federal AGs post. His nomination now goes to the full U.S. Senate for a vote.
If you do nothing else today, read this column, then call your senator. Even if Mr. Holder is confirmed as the new attorney general of the United States, at least your opinion will be on the record."If the issue weren’t so serious for our nation, the irony would be delicious. Eric Holder, President Obama’s choice for Attorney General is justly criticized for many things. But the fact that he recommended that President Clinton pardon and release from prison unrepentant FALN terrorists while at nearly the same time advocating that law-abiding gun owners be imprisoned if their registration papers are not in order reveals a hard core left wing agenda."
That says it all right there. The contradiction boggles the mind. Read the entire column, written by the eminent jurist Stephen Halbrook.
Then pass it on to a friend.
First off let me say that I am all out in favor of streamlining government. Less is more, in my book. There is so much duplication in government today that if it existed in the private sector no one could make a profit. Layer upon layer of bureaucracy does no one any good.
In an order released today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.
It is based on the suspicion that somone might be armed, because traffic stops "are inherantly dangerous." But what triggers "suspicion?" If it is totally up to the discretion of the LEO, what are the chances we are going to see an explosion in the number of "because I can" patdowns?"
In a related matter, the Court also released another opinion saying, essentially, the police get a free pass if they make an honest mistake. Huh . . . that's funny. We The People get no such free pass when we make an honest mistake, such as accidentally carrying a firearm into a so-called "gun free zone." Read it here.
Interesting decisions impact everyone in the U.S., whether they know it or not. Do these opinions unnerve anyone else?
Journalists covering a meeting of the Orange County, Calif. Board of Supervisors were aghast a few days ago when the sheriff blasted not just the Second Amendment, but disparaged firearms owners in general.
Further, in addition to taking on the Second Amendment, she proceeded to challenge the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well.
Here is a piece of a column from Steven Greenhut at the Orange County Register newspaper:
"I've been appalled at Sheriff Sandra Hutchens' hostility to the Second
Amendment, as she has tried to revoke the concealed-carry permits of law-abiding Orange County gun owners. But nothing prepared me for what happened at the Board of Supervisors meeting last Tuesday, when the sheriff displayed not only her hostility to gun rights, but her deep disdain for gun owners themselves and a clear disregard for open government and the First Amendment.
"Based on a rumor that gun-rights activists would show up to protest her policies by carrying unloaded guns in holsters, the sheriff sent more than 20 deputies to the public board meeting, where they searched, watched, followed and questioned those residents who showed up to speak out against the sheriff's new-and-not-so-improved plan to move up the expiration date of gun permits."
"The deputies targeted only those people who showed up wearing
pro-gun-rights buttons or who appeared to be part of that group. The department told me that "only" three subjects" (what an ironic term!) were searched or contacted, but I talked to CCW activists who said the number was higher. Many
felt intimidated and monitored.
"Regardless of the number of actual searches, the effect on the meeting was chilling. Sheriff Hutchens said she was upset after learning that deputies used the board room's security surveillance cameras – usually operated by security staff – to not only scan audience members but to focus in on and, in fact, spy on two supervisors' notes and one's BlackBerry-like device. She has started an internal affairs investigation into the matter. In a case of damage control, she contacted the two supervisors after someone submitted a public records act request for the surveillance tapes that showed this abuse of the security cameras.
"But she still defends what Supervisor Chris Norby calls the "1984-like" approach to security by pointing to instances in other communities where violence took place at government meetings and arguing that it's her job, in her words, to "balance" the security of the board room with First Amendment rights."
"If Gov. David Paterson thought announcing his choice to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton in the U.S. Senate after nearly two months of deliberation would bring an end to the political strife, he was clearly mistaken. Even before the governor took the podium Friday to introduce little-known upstate Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand as his pick, a Long Island congresswoman elected on a pledge to stem gun violence was telling reporters she would either challenge Gillibrand in the Democratic primary next year or find someone who would."
The "no weapons" signs at Virginia Tech, and irrational rules against students, faculty and staff being allowed to carry personal defense sidearms continue to get people killed.
Last night, a female graduate student from China was stabbed to death in a cafe at the Graduate Student Life Center. Police say the victim knew her attacker.
Details here.
University officials failed to protect yet another student, but boy-oh-boy they certainly are gleefully touting the success of their campus alert system!
Deaths by fire were up more than 40 percent in Ohio in 2008, according to the state fire marshall's office.
In Britain, people are are slowing -- but surely -- realizing that burglary is a serious crime.
No freakin' kidding . . .
And in further evidence that pigs are flying, even the Labour Party is coming around and enacting criminal sentencing proposals set forth by the Torys in 2000. But . . .
What is missing in this "remedy?" Deterrence. Merely increasing the penalty from a slap on the wrist to using a yardstick (or meterstick, as my British cousins might say), I predict, will yield nothing. Restoring the citizens rights to defend their homes and lives with firearms . . . THAT will give pause to the two-legged excrement that continue to prey upon British homeowners.
Jude Cuddy has been pondering 2009 and the historic election of November 2008. What it means, the people who are in power in Congress, and the statements of he who will take office in the White House next Tuesday. Jude, a regular contributor to The Ready Line, wonders where America goes from here. Hope for Change sounds nice, but what are the implications? Both the leadership of Congress and the new American president have dreadful records on the Second Amendment. He asks us whether we are prepared to spend the next four years working hard to defend liberty.
*****
16Jan09
What Are You Prepared To Do?
In the coming days, we shall witness the swearing in of a new Commander in Chief, who is sworn in with the oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States. This is politics on an immense scale, the grand stage where one is insulated from the real world - everything is done for you by others. At the other end you have the sovereign citizen that is trying to also “preserve, protect and defend” on a much more personal level. Both ostensibly want what is best for the country and themselves, respectively.
The American spirit is based on a mind set of independent thought, action and deed exactly because the Constitution limits the size, presence and scope of government – making it merely an “Invisible hand” as Thomas Jefferson envisaged. No one can argue that political and economic freedoms are inseparable. Look what this nation has accomplished in its short history. The world does not flock to our shores by accident.
One of the core tangible objects of the American citizen is the ability to preserve, protect and defend themselves by the employment of personal arms. If our current crop of politicians would only read the text of our founding documents they would understand this. The citizens of this nation would likewise do well to read and understand that these rights are slowly being usurped by an ever increasing government whose principal object is to create a dependent class at the expense of the freedoms we have traditionally held as inviolate.
Do not be lulled by platitudes of leaders who say they shall protect you, as they have no such obligation. A great thinker and student or history, Col. Jeff Cooper had this to say in 2004:
“The left−liberals are ceaseless in their determination to disarm the decent people of the world. Sadly enough, a great many decent people seem to have no objection to being disarmed. America may well be the last best hope of Earth, but there are many Americans who have no understanding of why this is so. It is so because America is the remaining bastion of political liberty. The armed citizen is the essence of political freedom, and an armed citizenry may not be enslaved, as our Founding Fathers well knew. The way to ensure liberty is to ensure that every man be armed − according to the tenets of Mr. Jefferson. Times change, but that principle does not. You can only push people around if they submit to being pushed, and this is impossible if they are personally armed. Thus, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution has nothing to do with hunting. It has rather to do with the security of a free state against all enemies foreign and domestic.
"Hunting, of course, should be encouraged, since it familiarizes the general public with the expert use of personal weapons, but it does not lie at the heart of the problem. A disarmed public is a conspicuous encouragement to crime, as the example of Britain will point out. I submit that we do not have a serious crime problem in the US. Such goblins that choose to prey upon other people will find means to do so regardless of technology. Just as a man who wishes to find cocaine will find it, a man who wishes to find a gun will find it, regardless of what the law says. It is far better for all the people to be able to protect themselves − by force and violence if necessary.”
The next administration already has plans for further erosions of freedoms, and it all starts with the ability of the average citizen to be trusted by those that they elect. Clearly this is not the case once the individual voting records are examined. However, the time for this has passed, and an increasingly complacent citizenry has spoken. Alexis de Tocqueville was right – once a democracy discovers that it can indeed vote itself sustenance at the public trough it is not long before it collapses under its own weight. My concern is for those future generations that may or may not enjoy the freedoms that we have even today.
President Ronald Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend out sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
What are we, the citizens of this Republic, prepared to do to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States of America? Rights that are not exercised, ignored or casually surrendered do not exist. If we do not practice the eternal vigilance that is called for then we shall indeed find ourselves wondering about our loss to the Nanny State. Examine the freedoms we have today and ask yourself if you have treated the gem you have been handed by earlier generations with equal respect and awe.
Will you allow your own interests to trump the freedoms yet to be exercised by those unborn?
What is one is prepared to do to assure that future Americans can exercise the freedoms once bestowed upon us?
Semper Fidelis,
Jude T. Cuddy
In Ohio, we have two anti-gun senators. One is democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown, who took office a year ago. The other is pretty wishy-washy on the basic human right of self defense. Sen. George Voinovich, who hasn't really distinguished himself in the U.S. Senate, but has voted for background checks at guns shows. While he was Ohio's governor he made it clear he would NEVER sign a bill reversing the 100-plus year antiquated ban on concealed carry. To the good, while in the Senate, he did vote against providing U.S. aid to U.N. agencies that promote gun control, and he did vote against bills that would firearms manufacturers responsible for the criminal acts of criminals.
A few days ago, Voinovich announced he will not run for re=election in 2010. Stepping up and gunning for the seat from the GOP is Rob Portman, a very pro gun candidate, based on his voting history. He is rated an "A" by the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). Further, while a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mr. Portman has voted: Yes on prohibiting nuisance lawsuits against firearms manufacturers; and Yes on reducing the number of waiting period days from three to one (back in the days when there were federal waiting periods on firearms purchases).
I think Mr. Portman would be an excellent choice for the U.S. Senate, representing the interests of Ohioans.
If you are an assistant district attorney in Nassau County, N.Y., it appears you are not permitted to possess a handgun.
Note they are not saying you cannot bring your personal defense sidearm to work with you . . . no, they are suggesting you cannot own one. Oddly, the question is lumped in with other questions that look at poor judgment, bad habits, etc., such as whether the job applicant has ever used drugs, whether they have ever been convicted of a criminal offense, whether they have ever gambled illegally, and so on.
Odd inclusion, don't you think?
Not so odd when you look at the DA website there. They recently held a "gun buyback." Collected a few hundred firearms. Now, undertand that New York's laws, far different than mainstream America, hold that guns must be licensed. But guns ARE licensed there. In buybacks that take place anywhere, a fair number are legally owned. The owners, or inheritors of such, decide they want the cash or gift card instead, or don't want it because it was dad's or granddad's. Knowing this, I know that many of the guns turned in in Nassau County (not all but many) were legally owned.
And yet, the Nassau County district attorney's office, doing its best to . . well, let's call it "demonize" any kind of firearms ownership, referred to every single gun turned in as "illegal." Which begs the question I ask repeatedly . . . just exactly what is an "illegal" gun? Did these firearms levitate and cross the border from Vermont under dark of night?
Sigh . . .
Eight days until the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama. Already there are noises in Congress about re-authorizing the disastrous, highly ineffective "Brady Ban" on semi-automatic competition rifles.
Firearms owners -- environmentally conscious. Not sure? Think about it. There is nothing more "green" than the shooting sports.
Another of the anti-gun cabal -- mayoral rank -- has been indicted. This time it is Baltimore, Md. Mayor Sheila Dixon, who today was named in a 12-count indictment on charges of perjury, theft, and misconduct.
Once again, these rulers these city-states that seem to think they are above the rule of law, but have no problem prohibiting law abiding moms and dads from exercising their basic human right to self defense. Dixon is no stranger to the gun control issue. A member of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's self righteous group of mayors hell bent on infringing on lawful firearms ownership, she hosted a regional conference of the organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
(One more time -- will somebody please explain to me, logically, just what an illegal gun is? Is it like an illegal alien? It levitated and somehow crossed a border on its own without proper documentation? Anyone? Anyone?.....)
Read the story of the indictment by clicking here.
It always amazes me how someone can be so self righteous and creating new law that does nothing but penalize law abiding people, ignoring the pleas of moms, coeds and grandmoms who want and need a firearm to protect themselves (all laws passed for the greater good). Yet these same holier-than-thou individuls seem to think their post at the top of City Hall or a Statehouse is a green light to create their own personal playground, and that the taxpayers money is their personal party fund.
Detroit, Illinois, Baltimore . . . who is next?
Some scary stuff out there. On the surface, one would believe it very difficult to just arbitrarily stomp on the Second Amendment, particularly after the Heller decision last year by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But a growing body of thinking 2A activists and scholars are becoming very concerned about the potential for the incoming U.S. attorney general to ban guns at will, with the blessing of the rabidly anti-self defense, anti gun Congressional leadership. On face value, sounds impossible. but . . .
This is worth reading. Check it out here.
If news reports are to be believed, it appears the city of San Francisco is about ready to settle with the National Rifle Association. Specifically, the San Francisco Housing Authority is about to drop its blanket handgun ban in public housing.
One of only two pro-gun politicians in Barack Obama's kitchen cabinet has dropped out of the running for a key cabinet post.
I love clever wordplay.
Over at Bright Idea Outdoors, there is a link to a column about hunting. The suggestion has been made that if you want to continue to hunt, be politically correct (ewwww), there should be a new way to define it. Just as the anti self defense crowd now calls gun control "gun safety."
So here it is. To appeal to those who don't understand hunting, we should call it "sustainable protein."
Heh . . .
