Today the Supreme Court ruled that a government can not summarily ban personal firearms a person chooses to keep in their house. Now, to me, I could never understand how someone could interpret the Constitution in such a way that a citizen of the United States could now bear firearms in order to protect their home. The right to militia is absolute and one of the cornerstones of the Constitution and it’s ability to protect itself from the government. However, for thirty plus years, in of all places in the United States, the city that hosts the Constitution and its government, people were not allowed the most basic Constitutional right. Hardly anyone complained tho while they railed against imaginary losses of the civil rights from the day George Bush got elected. To me, in a perfect world, the truly stupid are the ones that don’t merit the right to be able to protect themselves from the government that they fear is infringing their right to make an unimpeded telephone call or chat nasty on the internet. However, being a true Republican, I recognize their right to be able to protect themselves regardless of how ignorant they may be of the true civil right they lost thirty years ago that I enjoy living where I do. I also recognize that the Constitution didn’t say that people in Kentucky can have the right to bear arms, but not the people in Washington, DC. The Consitution did not discriminate on location. It encompassed every citizen of the United States.
That part seemed obvious to me. However, the ruling today striking down the DC gun ban was a close one. 5-4 is not much of a margin. Four justices think the Second Amendment is not absolute. Here it is:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What part of that is not clear? Although some claim the capitolization of “People” intends to mean various things, the Constition starts off with:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is quite obvious who “People” are if taken in the context of who the Constitution defines as “People”. Quite simply, it is “We”. “We” have the right to militia, “We” have the right to bear arms. Nowhere does it give any suggestion that the government has the right to usurp the Second Amendment. Nowhere.
So, I read the opinions of the dissenters. They had all kinds of reasons to suggest the ban was a good thing. Basically none suggesting somewhere in the Constitution the ability to supress The Second Amendment existed.
Those four dissenters were Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and of course, Ginsberg.
Which leads me to November.
- Stevens has been on the Supreme Court since 1975. He has outlasted the President who appointed him by 32 years.
- Souter has been on the bench since 1990, outlasting his President by sixteen years.
- Ginsberg has been on the bench since 1993, outlasting her President by eight years.
- Breyer has been on the bench since 1994, outlasting his President by eight years as well.
Whoever becomes President in January 2009 will most likely be picking a new member their first term as Stevens will be 92 at the end of that term. Ginsberg will be pushing eighty. Four other will be in their 70′s. Now, the assumption is if Obama wins, the court will remain pretty much as it is. However, if any one of the “conservative” justices were to retire or die, then the whole balance has shifted again.
So, I think people need to think a little more about what they are voting for in November than just a popularity contest. It could very well change how laws that affect our entire society are decided for the next 30 years. And, if you think there’s really no connection, Obama has lived in the city with probably the second strictest gun laws, and has often voted on gun issues both in Illinois, and in DC. He has no problem with taking away your civil liberties.
And so far, I have not seen one single person whine about it.
Do you really want a Supreme Court that feels your Constitutional Rights, otherwise called “civil liberties”, are open to interpretation? I mean, really?
According to Congressional Quarterly, the House is on its way to passing an Alternative Minimum Tax patch to keep things the way they are right now. Apparently the Republicans, who initially raised the limits, support it, the Democrats want those exemptions gone. That’s good news to me. According to the Democrats over the last few years, I’m one of the wealthy that needs to be taxed to death. However, that doesn’t make my debts and expenses go away. Fact is, I’m paycheck to paycheck right now, far removed from the excesses of wealth. But, that doesn’t phase Democrats like Peter Welch:
“Enacting an AMT patch today when we don’t pay for it would simply shift that $62 billion from the middle class onto their children and their grandchildren,” said Peter Welch , D-Vt. “What we fail to pay today, they will be forced to pay tomorrow, with interest.”
Now, this totally befuddles a true Republican such as myself for several reasons.
- He’s not “shifting” anything. He had X number of dollars to spend before, he has the same X number of dollars to spend tomorrow. Just because he made no effort to pass a budget within his means last year doesn’t mean his children are guaranteed to suffer. It simply mean:
- Instead of taking more money from the tax payors, how’s about he B&M about the government spending less? According Cititzens Against Waste in Government, 38 Representatives have agreed not to request any earmarks. Peter Welch is not one of those. In fact, only 4 of the 38 are Democrats. So, I suggest that before Congressman Welch go bitching at the Republicans for not taxing me more so he can spend more, he direct his whining at those 228 members of his own party who think it’s prudent to take more of my money so they can waste it. However, since Nancy Pelosi refuses to sign the petition either, I doubt he’ll get very far.
- If they spend less, our children will owe less.
Bottom line, I think Peter Welch is way out in left field on this. He’s not going to win this argument with anyone that’s not flaming liberal. When he starts spending less, and THEN can’t pay the bills, I think he’ll have a lot better footing to stand on.
23
Jun
I LOVE this!
As he points out, the current tax incentives and such are a confused mesh that don’t make much sense. In the case of the car buyer, they are somewhat useless since it’s rather difficult to buy a decent hybrid, especially one that’s practical in rural areas. McCain is proposing solving the problem in the most Republican concept I’ve heard in years. Make it purely capitalist driven. Dangling a $300 million carrot will get people’s attention real quick. Not only that, but if they win that $300 million, they should have the capital it takes to ramp up production immediately. 100% private sector, 100% smaller government, 100% perfect. And, where is that $300 million going to come from you say? Well, if it works, it’ll come from what we’re sending to OPEC in a couple of days. And, given that US automakers are already seeing the writing on the wall, seems to me they’re poised to go after that $300 million right now.
This rocks every way I look at it.
Barack Obama announced this week he will not accept public funding. That in itself is no big deal. The big deal is what he had said earlier:
“Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge,” Obama wrote. “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
McCain as to date is agreeing to public funding.
Now, I don’t like public funding of elections. To me, fundraising is an indicator of how well a candidate is doing. Regardless of the total dollar amount, looking at the spectrum and count of donations is a good sign of how well a candidate is doing. So, I’d just as soon dropping public financing entirely.
However, what would have been a totally moot point has become an issue because I don’t think Obama has thought this through too well. As a perceived long-shot underdog, public financing looked good to Obama early on by limiting what his opponent could spend. However, as the presumptive candidate who has learned he can raise a ton of money, public financing apparently isn’t so appealing. This hypocritical approach to what was sold as “change” six months ago is yet another easy strike against Obama that only adds more wieght to the argument he’s a very typical DC insider selling an empty promise of “change”.
And, I think it was a bad decision for the very simple reason both candidates can easily dodge the fundraising issue entirely by doing nothing and relying on 527‘s to inflict untold damage on their opponent. Moveon.org has already pledged to spending $400 million to get Obama elected. They’ll do this the only way 527′s can, they’ll trash McCain for six months. Which is pretty ironic to me, considering McCain has as much to do with creating the 527 legal loophole as anyone. Now, McCain is going to finally appreciate the monster that was created with McCain-Feingold.
Now, the Obama people are already saying the “change’ is Obama not selling out to PAC’s and special interests. That’s complete BS. He doesn’t have to accept that money if Moveon is accepting it for him. But, as with the elections of 2000 and 2004, 527′s need to be discussed in the worst way. Unless Obama refuses to allow 527′s like Moveon to do the dirty work for him, he is absolutely no different than any other Washington insider running for office in the last eight years. His “change” is rhetoric only.
Two quick predictions:
-
I doubt you’ll see THAT angle discussed on major media any time soon.
-
Obama will look the other way as 527′s wage all-out smear campaigns against McCain. ( Where is the “change”? )
And by stuck, I do mean stuck. Nancy Pelosi has agreed to take into consideration four bills aimed at energy relief next week. One item she absolutely will not even debate or discuss is offshore drilling. Her logic? Get this:
That folks, is the reason we should not get oil lying in the middle of nothing. Now I, along with most supporters of offshore drilling, do not think it’s the single bullet solution to a huge problem. However, when you take resources off the table, it just simply limits that resource. By adding offshore drilling, you just simply add another resource to those available.
If that’s not stupid enough, her response to any mention of Iraq is “….President Bush’s failed policy in Iraq.”
On Bush endorsing McCain, “Bush’s endorsement “was appropriate,” she said, “because [McCain] has endorsed whatever George Bush has wanted, whether it’s his failed economic policies, or his failed policy in Iraq.”
Every time she decides she doesn’t want to do something, it’s because of “Bush’s failed policies”.
Now, how’s about this, instead of reciting the same damn thing over, and over, and over, Pelosi gives us an actual reason why she thinks intentionally limiting the supply of oil won’t continue to hurt us? In this particular situation especially, she’s just flat out lying to the public. And no one really seems to be calling her hand on it. Maybe it’s because her logic is screwed up even Bill O’Reilly can’t seperate facts from her rhetoric. To be specific, the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee is where the original debate began. Don’t bother looking to see who’s currently on the Marine and Fisheries Committee, it was eliminated over a decade ago. They presented their committee report to open oil exploration in ANWR in 1988. In 1995, drilling was approved by Congress, but Clinton vetoed it. In fact, he vetoed the entire budget largely on account of ANWR.
So, Nancy Pelosi, if Congress has been debating ANWR for twenty years, and have NEVER TRIED IT, how is this “another failed policy that has left the United States more reliant on energy imports? It would seem to me, that if we had mined the oil, then her argument would have something to it. But, to have never done it and declare something never done as a “failed policy” is just mind-boggingly stupid. And then, to use that double-negative as “proof” of why adding supply to a market is a bad thing is just a slam-dunk in stupidity.
The #1 reason to vote Republican for Congress, regardless of how qualified that candidate may be, is to get Nancy Pelosi out of the rest of the United States’ hair. We can not afford this kind of stupidity right now. If you all want her in California, so be it. That’s their choice. I don’t want her ruining our lives everywhere else.
19
Jun
Here’s the less than flattering headline:
Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer, said a member of her group was told by a volunteer that she could not invite Aref because of “a sensitive political climate.”
The Obama campaign then, when confronted with the story”
Obama spokesman Bill Burton issued a statement saying such actions are “not the policy of the campaign.”
“It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run. We sincerely apologize for this behavior,” the statement read.
Now, first of all, I know how campaigns work. Volunteers at an organized event don’t just wing it. Someone was instructed by a staffer to move Aref. Additionally, whether Burton likes it or not, and whether Obama likes it or not, the actions of a campaign are the policy of the campaign. Political campaigns are purely a public image campaign. When your campaign does something, it affects that public image. So, rather than Burton saying what they did is not what they do, which people won’t necessarily swallow, he needs to counter with an example that what they did is not what they do. That would be the photo-op and apology.
Which leads to second problem for Obama. Probably the rumor that has stuck to Obama the hardest is his Muslim background. No matter how hard he denies it, he has a very strong Muslim background. There are too many examples of his Muslim background. However, when that background is used against him, he recoils and denies it. Then, when hit with the contradiction of denying his own past, he cites what he has done as an individual to dissuade the Mulsim connection. The problem here is his message is one of unity and appealing to the minorities. So, this situation with Aref is a visible example of the hypocrisy of his position of unity. Sure, he catches heat when Muslim examples pop up around him, but he has to weather that in order to display his message of unity. He’s damned if he does, damned even more if he doesn’t.
Quite frankly, they should have let Aref be in the picture. As long as there are blacks, whites, latinos, Christians, Muslims, and a healthy mix of all people, then the message of unity would have been a lot more convincing than the message or radical support anyone could have made by singling out one person out of the masses.
18
Jun
Kent Conrad, DEMOCRAT from North Dakota, and Chris Dodd, DEMOCRAT from Connecticut, have been caught up in a bit of a mini-scandal. It may get bigger, but I doubt it. Now, both have made the same claim. They both have have received very favorable loans from Countrywide while the rest of the country was getting gouged. They have both claimed innocence by stating they had no clue what they were paying on their mortgages. Now, when I recently re-financed a bad loan into something much better, the whole dang planet heard about it. Every male with at least one drop of testosterone in their bloodstream brags on getting a loan rate that puts the screws to their friends. Now, I state flat-out that Kent Conrad is lying. How do I know this? Get this statement:
“If there is a finding here that I was given a gift, I’d be happy to send the money to Countrywide,” Conrad said.
Now, he’s either crazier than a fruit loop or just plain lying. Me, I think he’s lying. You have to be pretty sane to get elected to the US Senate. So, that’s what I think. I’ll tryto back it up with a public opinion poll of course ( man, I love polls! ):
( Barbara Boxer said she’d look into it. ROFLMAO! )
Last year Kentucky elected a new governor to replace the one we had. The one we had had been accused of inappropriate hiring practices. That never was resolved since the person making the charges decided to drop the charges so he could run for governor, and lose.
So, Kentucky ( not me ) elected a guy with a shady past of representing both sides on a huge bankuptcy case a few years ago. Not terribly ethical, but Democrats particularly felt his unethical past wasn’t that big a deal.
So, his first session amounted to getting basically nothing accomplished. Even he was disappointed at how little he got accomplished. They did however, manage to pass the budgets.
Or so we thought.
After the veto deadline had passed, Steve Beshear decided to veto the road spending bill. Now, since this was in the spring, it was something I shrugged off as another attempt to assure that nothhing got done.
But then he did something strange, he decided he would enact his own road spending budget.
Now, besides being illegal, it strikes me as being kinda unethical. Steve Beshear by profession is a lawyer. He has dealt with several huge cases. The Kentucky Central bankruptcy probably was the biggest, and I would imagine the most complex. So, I don’t understand how he is interpreting these instructions:
Those instructions are from the Kentucky Constitution. People have understood those instructions clearly clearly since September 28, 1891.
The President of the Senate has filed suit against Beshear for circumventing the Constitution.
So, what does Beshear do to assure people his ethics are so much better than the person he replaced by running a campaign on ethics? He hires his largest campaign contributor and former partners.
This is what you get for voting for “change” without figuring out what hat change might be.
Now, by definition, this could lead to an impeachment process. I’m sure Beshear would be thrilled at the thought of how much his partners who donate to him could make on that lawsuit.
SEIU is a union. Now, for some reason, unions generally prefer big government over small government. They love regulation and compelling people to pay “fees” for little to no real benefit. I’m talking about unions, not government. As such, every four years, we can pretty much expect unions to fall rank and file in line for the Democrat candidate without any concern whatsoever about the positions any candidate might take. It has often baffled me how loyal most unions are to the Democrats. This year is no different. The SEIU is already attacking McCain with gusto. Here’s their latest salvo:
Let us set aside for a minute that we have a fundamental disagreement about the war in Iraq. While you think we should stay there anywhere from one to 100 years, I think we need to bring our troops home now. Are you so committed to an endless war that you cannot see the problems we are facing here at home? What if it does end, then what? I want to look past that and focus on how you would spend those resources here on our problems.
It has been reported that our spending in Iraq amounts to more than $10 BILLION every single month. Those billions would go a long way to helping fix the problems we are facing here at home, especially now that we are facing a growing recession.
My question is how would you spend the more than $120 billion? That much money could provide health care coverage for every American that needs it. Would you do that? Here in Illinois, we are facing a $2 billion deficit. Would you use the money to help states like mine so they don’t have to cut back on services like educating our kids or fixing our roads? The cost of gas is hitting my family’s budget hard, causing us to scale back not just on luxuries but also on necessities. Would you use it to invest in alternatives so America can break its addiction to oil?
Today’s letter is the fourth “Dear John” letter to Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president. SEIU members are offering their assistance in the absence of any economic blueprint from McCain that puts working families first. The letters will continue until McCain personally meets with members.
Or would you use it as a partial payment to fund your proposed plan for a corporate tax cut, which your campaign admits will cost us $300 billion and do nothing to help a hardworking taxpayer like me? Think about it – we are spending $120 billion in Iraq each year, a ton of money, but that would not even cover your tax cut to further help CEOs instead of actually helping workers!
It seems to me that while you don’t believe in tax dollars going to fund domestic programs, you have no problem driving America further into debt for Iraq. I am afraid that as president you will continue the current Bush policies because you are out of touch with the problems facing American families like mine.
How about giving us some straight talk and release an economic plan that actually helps working families, not just the Washington lobbyists that staff your campaign from top to bottom.
Iris English is a Medical Billing Specialist at the University of Illinois Medical Center from Chicago and member of SEIU Local 73.
Now, the problem I have hear is they are attacking one candidate, who has told people we may be there a long time, while apparently ignoring the other candidate, who has committed to bringing the troops home while simultaneously assuring stability in Iraq. There is a very dirct reality here, if we leave Iraq right now, it won’t be stable. If we leave Afghanistan, it won’t be stable. How does Obama plan to pull this conflicted policy off?
Now, I gotta state right off that I think that is the most naive, and stupid comment Obama’s made this entire race. Clue here Obama, people in Iraq don’t give a rat’s patootie about principles and pragmatism in the United States. Do real people in the United States care what people in, let’s say, Iraq are doing? The policies of another country to do nothing affecting the underlying religious and socio-economic values of people living a thousand miles away. Nothing. It is those values of the people living in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been engrained for many generations that have been conflicted by military rule that have caused the problem. The atrocities Saddam Hussein committed against his people, and people of other countreis were not the direct result of a lack of pragmatism within the United States.
That, Iris English, is the what you are expecting people like me to believe you actually do believe.
That, Iris English, is called arrogance.
That, Iris English, is what got the Twin Towers bombed.
That, Iris English, is why people like me don’t want to return to the arrogant, policy-wonking foreign policy we had with Clinton. He knew we were having a problem with Iraq and tried to ignore it until other issues made “war” more palatable. However, he never committed to doing what it took to finish the job and fix the problem hopefully once and for all so that our next generation won’t have to. Now, one candidate is talking candidly about what we have to do to assure our next generation won’t have to deal with it. The other candidate is advocating returning to what caused the problem in the first place by surrendering and pretending we won.
And, using the hard-earned money that the members of the SEIU could be using to obtain better medical care, the SEIU is forcing its members to advocate one position or the other, regardless of whether they agree with it.
I hate it when unions do that. Obviously.
I felt compelled to blog this opinion becuase The Hill RARELY allows comments the author doesn’t like to be posted. The Hill really needs to moderate the articles themself, or just eliminate the ability to comment entirely.
Saudi Arabia has announced it’s increasing production by 200,000 barrels a day. There are some thoughts I have about the article.
- “Saudi Arabia is concerned that sustained high oil prices will eventually slacken the world’s appetite for oil, affecting the kingdom in the long run.” I wonder what gave them that idea? Could it have been the announcement of the 230 mpg car? Or, maybe Volkswagon’s hydrogen car? OR GM’s announcement it was ceasing production of most of its SUV’s? Or, possibly the Swiftfuel biomass ethanol that would completely eliminate the need for gas? Or, possibly the legislation being proposed by the Republicans to mandate usage of other fuels, open ANWR, and other drilling to develope very rapidly our own supply? Basically the Saudis got the message I”ve always said we needed to be sending. If send a signal we don’t need their product any more, the price will magically come down. Now, my concern has been our history of reactions to cheaper gas. Will we forget this current crisis again? Hopefully it’s seared in our memories and we’ll keep up the frantic pace of developing alternative means of transportation. Regardless of the price, I don’t like our dependence on a product from people who don’t really like us very much. There’s already an overwhelming lack of concern over what happened in 2001. My fear is if gas returns to $2.00 a gallon, the entire event will have been forgotten. And, along with that, forgotten will be who they were, and why they did it. I don’t think some of them hate us any less. If we as a nation can’t remember who wants to kill us, then shutting off their financial ability to do so is the next best thing we can do.
- “The king believes that the current are abnormally high, and he is ready to restore prices to their appropriate levels,” SPA quoted Ban as telling reporters in Jiddah. The report carried by SPA was in Arabic, and it did not say what language Ban spoke in. - Can someone clue me in to what difference it makes what language Ban spoke in? It never ceases to amaze me how media can toss in something completely irrelevent to the facts of the story that gives idiots an out to make an issue over something that has no bearing on the world’s events. Just report the facts Fox, we’ll interpret what they mean. If you don’t know what languare someone spoke in, it’s not news.
- The current president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Chakib Khelil, has said that the cartel will make no new decision on production levels until its Sept. 9 meeting in Vienna. OPEC ministers often follow the lead of the Saudis when discussing whether to increase production to take the pressure off rising prices. - The Saudis are just one of many members of OPEC. If those other members see OPEC making more money than they are, they follow suit. I expect the other members to increase production as well. That’s a good thing. However, I find it kind of curious in the timing. The Sauds have expressed an interest in seeing Obama be the next POTUS. The worst thing that could possibly happen to Obama is the price of oil to bottom out right before the election. If OPEC ramps up production before and around September, by November we’ll be seeing it at the pumps. If that happens, the anti-Bush/McCain economic angle Obama has is shot as the rest of the economy has held up surprisingly well given the 200% rise in fuel.
Yeah, I find this announcement interesting in a lot of ways. I don’t like paying $4.00 a gallon. I don’t like being dependent on OPEC. I am finally seeing a serious push towards alternative energies. And, just like the previous two gas crisis, the price of oil is suddenly being addressed by OPEC. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see it bottom out well under $100. The big question is will we forget what we’re going through right now if it does?
