Month: January 2013

Okay, down to business. Due to current events, past events (and thanks to George Washington!), we have an insidious perversion of constitutional intent emanating from no less than the White House. (And yes, I am well aware that the current President is neither the first, nor the worst [said honor belonging to the “Big Stick” himself].)

I refer specifically to the concept of “Executive Orders” (EOs). Sure, the President can write memos all day long concerning how he wants the Executive Branch, of which he is the temporary head, to run the day-to-day implementation of constitutionally mandated laws, passed by the Legislative. But that’s not how they are being used.

There are EOs that are classified, the contents of which few citizens know for sure. There are EOs that bypass the legislative process, creating de facto laws. There are EOs that are simply inappropriate.

So, the simple solution is for Congress to outlaw EOs as unconstitutional. There is no — repeat no — constitutional basis for them, save by a tortured reading of Article II, Section 3, and that requires such contortion as to make Houdini proud.

So, repeal all EOs, effective immediately! Should the need arise, the Congress can pass legislation to replace those that actually are required.

SO there’s the “shot across the bow” of the Executive. Next part turns its sights to the Legislative branch.

This, and subsequent posts in this category, are my attempt at collecting my ideas as to how we can find our way back from the level of Hell in which we currently find ourselves as a nation.

I am not a fan of any government; nonetheless, I do believe that a constitutional republic based on free speech, free markets, and free individuals is an acceptable compromise.

I have been influenced by individuals far too numerous to mention; individuals whose expertise in one or more subjects touched on here far exceeds my own. My non-intellectual attempts here are derived from these sources; if you uncover an original thought, I suspect it slipped in by accident. Nonetheless, I hope to provoke thought, conversation, and possibly even action, by gathering them here in some sort of order.

Said order is not necessarily indicative of priority. At least at first, they are meant to be deliberately provocative, designed to let “the powers that be” know that we mean business. In many cases, the “how” is far more difficult than the “what”; nonetheless, I firmly believe they should be done, by whatever means the Constitution allows.

Enough said. Enjoy, please feel free to comment, and share if you will. After all, we’re all in this together!

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) must be either insane, stupid, or perhaps both. She was successful in ramming through an “assault weapons ban” [read “I don’t like the way they look, never mind functional differences or similarities”] in 1994 — thanks in large part to the assistance of Jack Brooks, Bob Dole, and the Necrotic Republican Apologists (NRA). Ten years after, that paragon of truthfulness and full disclosure, the “US Government”, allowed as how the ban had done: not less than expected, not very little, but nothing — repeat nothing — to affect violent crime.

So, a reasonable person would think, that was a bad idea; let’s try something else. But we do not speak of reasonable people; we speak of the “United States Senate”. And so, today, Senator Feinstein introduced an “Assault Weapons Ban (mod 2)”. It names 150 weapons, for which the manufacture, sale, or import would be prohibited, as well as magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Unlike the previous ban, which limited “assault weapons” to two of several “ugly gun” features (none of which having anything to do with lethality, mind you), this bill limits this class of detachable magazine weapons to “one or more” of such pseudo-deadly mods as a pistol grip or a folding stock.

Originally, the ban was to register (or confiscate) the listed weapons ‘ex post facto’; but now Her Benevolence will “allow” current owners to keep their banned firearms, after submitting to a criminal background check. (Gee, doesn’t that sound like back-door registration to you?)

Said Feinstein: “We have tried to recognize the right of a citizen to legally possess a weapon … No weapon is taken from anyone. The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”

Folks, if that ain’t infringement, I don’t know what is!

One further thought: it strikes me that this might be the ‘sacrificial lamb’ legislation that the Progressives will use to enact other, seemingly lesser infringements. This one dies, with wailing and gnashing of teeth, and then the “Progressives” insist that “compromise” dictates that their other measures receive bi-partisan support.

If I trusted Repugnicans (and I emphatically do not!), I’d expect a brutal death in the House. But then, I expected the original ban to die unborn, as it should have, until the back room door closed, and the deal was done. This time around, it is incumbent on every individual, regardless of party affiliation, who is sentient enough to recognize that appeals to emotion are not a rational argument for unconstitutional actions, to stand up and say “No!” to their Representatives and Senators.

It’s not just the right to keep and bear arms that’s at stake here. It’s time to take a stand on this and every other rights infringement. If it’s not too late for the republic, the shadow is certainly on the door.

The 23 Executive Orders proposed by President Obama contain phrase after phrase designed to unleash unprecedented federal power to regulate the natural right of citizens to defend themselves. A few of the more notable “red flags”, with my subjective analysis of their concealed meaning:

• “relevant data”: whatever data we deem useful in denying applications
• “unnecessary legal barriers”: rules which, though perfectly valid, undermine our ability to deny applications
• “incentives for states to share information”: coercive bribes to strengthen our pre-determined position to deny applications
• “review categories of individuals”: include everyone for whom we can jinn up any excuse to deny applications
• “dangerous people”: those people deemed dangerous to authority
• “safe and responsible”: manipulative, coercive, and restrictive
• “Review safety standards”: create punitive restrictions
• “trace guns” and “report … on lost and stolen guns”: compile a covert database of gun owners
• “Maximize enforcement efforts”: mandate law enforcement ratcheting down on firearms restrictions
• “directing the [CDC] to research the causes and prevention of gun violence”: using a biased government agency to create pseudo-science to further demonize firearms ownership
• “new gun safety technologies”: costly regulations and coercion of manufacturers
• “[ACA] does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes”: a violation of rights and doctor-patient confidentiality
• “reporting threats of violence”: opening a Pandora’s box of denial by false claim
• “mental health”: another excuse for gathering up “undefendables” for denial

The violation of doctor-patient privilege and HIPAA regulations, coupled with the heavy emphasis on mental health initiatives is merely another way to demonize as many people as possible, regardless of validity of their disqualification. Expect to see outspoken opponents to government, returning veterans, and the poor categorized as ineligible by these measures.

New safety technologies will be used as economic tools to render prohibitive the manufacture of firearms and ammunition at worst, and at best severe price increases to firearms consumers, especially penalizing the poor.

Data gathering and research will all be used to create official propaganda reports demonizing gun owners, manufacturers, and lobbyists, further ratcheting down the pressure to legislate private ownership out of existence.

The old saying goes: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” As long as we recognize that “law enforcement” and the military will retain their arms — and that this exception does not invalidate the saying — I maintain that the statement remains all too true.