Israel in frying pan, surrounded by fire

This article can be read at The Bulletproof Patriot.

High praise for Wizard Transmission, Honda reputation takes a hit

This article is posted at the new The Bulletproof Patriot home on the interwebs.

Homelessness: Solved with Individual Mandate

 The author has been somewhat dormant recently and this blog is about to be killed off... and replaced with a much better site at its own domain... stay tuned...

It has been widely reported that Senior US District Judge Roger Vinson, of the Northern District of Florida, has found the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, "Obamacare") of 2010 to be wholly unconstitutional [1].  In the ruling [2], Judge Vinson cited Madison, Jefferson, and others in support of his conclusion that the Congress had overstepped its Constitutional constraints by mandating the purchase of a private product.  Congress has no such power.

In a rebuff that makes this author crack a smile, Judge Vinson theorized that under the Obama Administration's current understanding of Congressional authority, the Congress could mandate that every citizen be required to eat broccoli [3].  On a less humorous note, it appears that Michelle Obama may already be thinking in that direction [4] [5].  Nevertheless, Judge Vinson is absolutely correct - the Congress cannot simply legislate however it pleases on any issue under the sun.  Congress has the authority to act solely within the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8.  If the Congress asserts its role in regulating interstate commerce, it is free to do so, in so far as it is commerce that is being regulated.  The Congress has no general power to legislate, and the regulation of commerce is most accurately understood to mean to standardize the sale of a good or service.  Regulation of commerce cannot be properly understood to entail the regulation of the good for sale, only the transfer of the good.

Judge Vinson went on to say,

I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.'

Amen.

I believe we will be adding that provision to the Miniature Drink Umbrellas and Plastic Fake Poop Act of 2011 [6].  A letter is on the way to my Congressman.

This all, of course, comes as a complete and total surprise to the White House, which responded,

There’s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis,” said a White House official who briefed reporters late Monday afternoon, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Yes, there is something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis.  Judge Vinson, who may be the first employee of the federal government to have actually read the bill, actually considered what the Constitution has to say about it.  How weird.

In love of liberty,
The Bulletproof Patriot

Response to Sen. Schumer's letter to the BATFE

This letter was written as a response to a letter from Senator Charles Schumer's office [1] regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) requiring the reporting of potential drug use of rejected military applicants to the FBI.

My response can be viewed as a formal pdf here and is much cleaner to read.

----------

M.A. Weimer

(address redacted)

Director Kenneth E. Melson

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

99 New York Avenue, NE   Mail Stop 5.S-144

Washington, D.C.  20226

18 January 2011

Director Melson:

I write today in response to a letter written to your office by U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, dated the 16^th of January, 2011.

I too have serious concerns regarding the tragic shooting that took place in Tucson, Arizona earlier this month in which Representative Gabrielle Giffords was gravely injured and others were either injured or killed.  I believe that while such an event does indeed require mourning and reflection, as well as an internal review of Arizona’s firearms laws where appropriate, this matter is best handled calmly, rationally, and locally.  Senator Schumer’s emotional plea for the imposition of new firearm reporting requirements is not only unnecessary, but without any Constitutional merit whatsoever.  While this tragedy was certainly senseless and savage, I am deeply concerned that the letter written by Senator Schumer is much more strongly indicative of the urgent need for a reexamination of whom we allow to serve in Congress.

My concern is first and foremost for the families of those killed or injured; I believe I join in a chorus of American voices wishing the Congresswoman and the injured a full and rapid recovery.  May the Lord heal her body and spirit and grant her a triumphant return to public office, or wherever she may choose to go.

My second concern lies with Senator Schumer’s ex post facto appeal to the Bureau to require the issuance of reports to the FBI of any applicant denied entrance to the United States Military resulting from the admission of prior use of illegal substances.  Senator Schumer asserts that such an admission, if entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICBCS), should prevent the individual from lawfully purchasing a firearm.

I must strongly question Senator Schumer’s logic, as the right to own a firearm is guaranteed to the People by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  This right cannot be denied to any individual without due process, a further protection of liberty which is afforded by the Fifth Amendment.  A simple admission to a military recruiter does not constitute due process, nor does it constitute the commission of a ‘crime,’ as no trial (and therefore no conviction) has occurred, and the individual should reasonably expect to be treated as innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

As if the Constitutional implications alone are not enough to cast serious doubt on the validity of Senator Schumer’s proposal, it is also not a crime to have been a former user of illegal substances.  A previous admission of drug use does not constitute current criminal behavior suitable to deny the individual the right to purchase a firearm unless a felony conviction has resulted, in which case due process would indeed allow for the suppression of his Second Amendment rights and therefore the lawful denial of his right to purchase a firearm.

In the absence of a felony conviction, the Congress and its agencies do not possess the Constitutional authority to prevent an individual from purchasing a firearm.  The State of Arizona, however, may indeed be able to prohibit the purchase of a firearm under such circumstances and the matter should rightly be decided in the Arizona legislature.

Regardless, the deplorable actions of one individual are not sufficient to curtail to any degree the liberties reserved to and enjoyed by the People of the United States.

 

Yours,

M.A. Weimer

  

cc:  The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

      Attorney General

      U.S. Department of Justice

      950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

      Washington, D.C.  20530

      The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
      United States Senator for New York
      313 Hart Senate Office Building
      Washington, D.C.  20510

Gun control from the brilliant

It has been two days since Rep. Giffords was shot in the head [1], and six others were tragically killed outside a Safeway in Tucson, Arizona, by a deranged Right-wing Tea Party Sarah Palin worshipping Glenn Beck loving Republican (Communist?) nutbag, who was apparently concerned about governmental “mind control” of grammar.  (…huh?)

As I have previously written [2], I had no intention of wading into the political aspects of this crime.  The only issue of real concern is that a member of Congress was shot, and six others were killed.  There is no excuse for this dirtbag – after a fair jury trial, should Jared Loughner be found guilty, he should be promptly executed for his crimes.

However, Progressives in Congress have already started churning up two legislative “fixes” to the problem of shootings of Congressional members (and we can surely trust government to effectively “fix” these types of problems – their track record is nearly spotless…)  The two solutions being readied to appear before the Congress are, in essence:

1.  Restrict free speech [3] to prevent language directed towards Congressional members that is perceived as “violent.”

     and

2.  More gun control [4], of course!

Rep. Cindy McCarthy has been salivating at the opportunity to re-introduce strict gun control legislation, particularly an extension (permanent?) of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban [5], ever since its expiration in 2004.  She has attempted to introduce the bill on several occasions [6] [7] [8], but the mood of Congress was not right to risk a strong backlash from gun owners, who legally possess some 250 million firearms [9].

That has changed today, however, as the tragedy of Rep. Giffords shooting has lead to hot emotional thinking trumping cooler logic – the perfect opportunity for Progressivism to seize upon and restrict the liberties of law abiding Americans even further.  In the infamous words of Rahm Emmanuel, “never let a good crisis go to waste [10].”

This comes on the heels of yet another abuse of governmental authority, as the BATFE has also passed a brand new regulation which will require licensed gun dealers to report the names of any person who purchases two or more rifles which have detachable magazines and are 22 caliber or greater within any five day period [11].  This seems to be a clear violation of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act [12] which prevents to creation of a federal gun registry, although the BATFE has already far exceeded this boundary and maintains several databases in spite of the law.

Is this even necessary?  How many crimes are committed with AR-15 style rifles?

This story was first reported by Politico [13], which I would suggest be read on its own.

To illustrate just how logical the politicians proposing this legislation are, I would like to comment on a few points made in the Politico article:

- “My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.

Well thank God.  If only Congress had “fixed” this problem BEFORE the shooting.  Oh well, at least it’s fixed now.

- “no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.”

What stockpiles of ammunition were used?  If the media reports are correct, the 9mm Glock Loughner used in the shooting had a 31-round magazine.  If two magazines were used (apparently he tried to change magazines and was stopped by a bystander), he might have had 62 rounds available to him.  This is only 12 rounds more than a standard 50-round box of commercial ammunition.  Hardly a “stockpile.”

If the purpose of this comment is to suggest that nobody should be able to purchase large amounts of the specific type of ammunition used by Loughner, which suggests some sort of jacketed hollow point, this is even stupider.  Defensive JHP ammunition is typically sold in boxes of 20 or 25 and is very expensive – usually costing about $1 per round.  To make matters even more confusing, can I ask how preventing “stockpiling” would have prevented this shooting?  How would it have prevented anything had the shooter had 1000 rounds of JHP in an ammo box at his house?  He certainly couldn't drag his "stockpile" along with him anywhere.

- “McCarthy’s spokesman confirmed the legislation will target the high-capacity ammunition clips the Arizona gunman allegedly used in the shooting, but neither he or the congresswoman offered any further details.”

Of course they didn’t offer any further details – they have none to offer, because restricting the capacity of commercial magazines makes no sense, either.  In a more subtle note, either Politico or McCarthy’s office have revealed themselves as novices when it comes to understanding firearms, as they used the word “clips” to describe what any firearms enthusiast would correctly call “magazines.”  Saying “clips” in this context falls under the same category as inserting language into the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that prohibits “barrel shrouds,” an item that Rep. McCarthy couldn’t even describe when asked [14].  In the same way, a novice may use the word “handgun” where the enthusiast would use the term “pistol.”  These are minor details, but they offer an insight into just how little McCarthy knows about firearms – yet she’s writing laws to restrict them.  Wonderful.


As if this weren't enough, Rep. McCarthy also chimed in when New York state was considering banning 50 caliber rifles.  As you can see, McCarthy explains that the gun cannot be used for hunting (why the hell not? Just because you wouldn't be able to pick up the pieces doesn't mean it can't be used!), so it must therefore be banned [15].  Nevermind that the 50 caliber rifle has a long history as an extremely long range weapon used extensively in competitive shooting [16].  Nevermind also that the principle purpose of the Second Amendment was as a check against governmental tyranny.  After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who said,

When governments fear the people, there is liberty.  When people fear the government, there is tyranny.  The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government [17].

To make the second video clip even a little more savory, a New York state legislator felt the need to one-up Rep. McCarthy's brave display of ignorance, stating that incendiary cartridges are "heat seeking devices [15]."  I kid you not - these are the people writing the laws we all must live under.  This explains a lot of why we find ourselves in the position we are in this country.
 

Now, according to McCarthy’s most recent statement in Politico, the solution to the shooting of Rep. Giffords would have simply been to “fix” the magazine size to limit the shooter to only 10 rounds (presumably), rather than 31.  So, only two people would have been shot, assuming approximately one third of the ammunition would have been available in a 10 round magazine.  Under this scenario, Rep. Giffords would have still been shot, as she was apparently the first target.  (But don’t even think about that – Progressives have thought this through for you already.  Magazine capacity restrictions will “fix” these problems.  It couldn’t possibly be that this shooter was a deranged psychopath – it was definitely the gun’s fault.)

As if this display of utter stupidity wasn’t enough, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) offered his well thought out statement on the magazine capacity restriction legislation:

- “The ability to buy a weapon that fires hundreds of bullets in less than a minute,” said Quigley. “He had an additional magazine capability. That’s not what a hunter needs. That’s not what someone needs to defend their home. That’s what you use to hunt people.”

Well, then I guess I had better reconsider the firearm I have been looking at purchasing, because it comes with two 17-round magazines standard.  How dare Beretta sell me magazines that are solely used to hunt people!  My God!  This gun could just run off by itself and hunt people down while I’m sleeping!  (This man is representing you in Congress, Illinois.)

Not to mention that a semi-automatic weapon could fire “hundreds of bullets in less than a minute.”  Now THAT is an important point to make.  A total of 30 bullets were fired, presumably, six of which killed someone, and several of which injured someone.  The fact that a deranged psychopath was shooting people isn’t the problem – the problem is that the gun he had could potentially fire “hundreds of bullets in less than a minute.”  Genius.  For the record, the Glock that was used in the shooting was a semi-automatic, meaning that it was self-loading.  The rate of fire is limited by how fast the shooter can pull the trigger and change magazines.  This is not the same as the “automatic” weapons that Rep. Quigley is trying to scare you into thinking of.

Clearly, the solution here is to not only limit the magazine capacity to 10 rounds, but also to prevent rapid firing.  Therefore, only single-shot firearms with 10 round magazines should be allowed… huh?  Trust Reps. Quigley and McCarthy – THAT would solve the problem.

All of this, of course, is nonsense, because gun legislation almost universally affects lawful gun owners rather than criminals.  Do you seriously think that if Loughner had only a 10-round magazine that he wouldn’t have committed this crime?  What if he had a single shot firearm?  What if he couldn’t buy jacketed hollow points and only full metal jacketed round-nosed bullets?  What if he didn’t have a gun?  Would he have just driven his car into the crowd and accomplished the same task?

The real question here is whether or not it is worth sacrificing the liberties exercised by 80 million Americans (only a fraction of a percent of whom have used their firearms to commit a crime) to potentially prevent one horrifying incident?

Unfortunately, travesties such as this are a very regrettable consequence of a free society.  But, they exist everywhere else, too.  The solution is not to attempt to restrict gun rights further, but to afford protections to those of us who lawfully own firearms to keep them with us wherever we go.  Have you read anything else about the person in the crowd who shot back at Loughner?  Why not?


In addition to all of this nonsense, the Fairness Doctrine is being brought back to life [18] as a possible solution to the problem of "right-wing violent rhetoric" in today's society (despite the complete lack of such rhetoric as an influence to Loughner, which I have discussed elsewhere [19]).


I find it funny, in a sick sort of way, how no matter what the problem is, Progressive policies that have been in the back pocket for years, are suddenly the perfect solution to the problem.  A Congresswoman is shot?  Ban high capacity magazines.  A federal judge is killed?  Ban scary-looking rifles with "barrel shrouds" and "heat seeking" bullets.  A nine year old little girl is killed by a maniac?  Revive the Fairness Doctrine to clamp down on "hate speech."  Amazing.  Progressive policies which destroy individual liberties in the name of a false sense of security are always the right solution!  If only we had known!

In love of liberty,

The Bulletproof Patriot

The Current Insurrection - Part 2

As if it wasn't enough to deal with a full weekend of Progressive stupidity, constantly (and without any facts whatsoever) rush to paint Rep. Giffords' shooter as some sort of Tea Partier, I had the pleasure of listening to my local Progressive talk station (760 AM) on the drive today.  It unfortunately became exceptionally clear while listening to the callers, as well as the hosts (notably David Sirota and Mario Solis Marich, Denver), that the myth of "violent rhetoric" only existing on the right-wing had somehow become etched in stone this weekend.

As Michelle Malkin has correctly pointed out [1], there are numerous examples of "violent rhetoric" coming from the Progressive left.  At risk of repeating myself or the hundreds of others who are sure to point these out on the internet, here are a few of the shining examples of Progressive love for their fellow man:

1.  Photo of a man aiming a rifle at a painting of Sarah Palin and her daughter, presumably kneeling after having shot some sort of animal.  The rifle is aimed at Sarah Palin's head.  Does this qualify as "violent rhetoric?"

2.  A cartoon of Sarah Palin being called a "MILP" (Mother I'd Like to Punch), and being punched in the face [2].

3.  Abysmal failure Sarah Bernhard defends [3] her comment regarding the gang rape of Sarah Palin.

4.  Stamps showing the assassination of President Bush.

5.  T-shirts calling for the assassination of President Bush.

6.  Deranged Progressive talk radio host Mike Malloy urges Glenn Beck to kill himself on the air.

7.  Progressive talk radio host Montel Williams calls on Michele Bachmann to kill herself on the air.

8.  And finally, the pinnacle of them all, the movie "Death of a President," which depicts the assassination of George W. Bush [4] [5].

I should note, for clarity, that these examples are not indicative of a "culture of hate" among all Progressives.  Progressives are not in any way responsible for what some deranged lunatic does on his own free will.  Lunatics exist in every party, and yes, that means that there are deranged lunatics on the right as well.

Why can't we be honest with each other rather than trying to place blame?  The important issue is not that talk radio should be silenced or that firearms should be further restricted.  The important issue is that a Congresswoman was shot, a federal judge was killed, and perhaps even more importantly, a 9 year old little girl was killed.

The girl, by the way, was born on September 11, 2001.

In love of liberty,
The Bulletproof Patriot

UPDATED: The Current Insurrection

Update (9 January 2011):  Well, well, well.  After a full day of grasping at straws to cast Rep. Giffords' shooter as a crazed Tea Partier, even to the extent of blaming SarahPAC's "target" map as an insinuation of violent rhetoric (see below), it turns out that Democrats have previously used their very own "target" maps [a]:

One of the states "targeted" by the DailyKos, below, is Arizona.  Oh no... DID PROGRESSIVES CAUSE THE SHOOTING OF REP. GIFFORDS BY RELEASING SUCH A HATE FILLED AND VIOLENT MAP??  As if this isn't PROOF ENOUGH THAT PROGRESSIVES ADVOCATE VIOLENCE, the DailyKos has also previously published a story suggesting violence against Speaker Pelosi [b]:

The DailyKos also couldn't help themselves from "targeting" Rep. Giffords in the past, either [b]:

SHOULD THE DAILYKOS AND THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR VIOLENT RHETORIC AND APPARENT ADVOCACY OF MURDERING THOSE WITH DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW??

Um, no.  They should not be, because "target" maps and the like aren't violent rhetoric.  They are illustrations using a phrase which Americans understand to mean that the Congressional seat is up for grabs and deserves more focus than the other races.  This just goes to show how one-sided the media is and how stupid the political discussion in this country has become.  The story here is that a Congresswoman was shot, and others around her were murdered - there is absolutely no excuse for this in the United States.

To that end, I formally petition God for a miracle - complete recovery for Rep. Giffords and the others injured, and for her prompt return to Congress.  Godspeed, and good luck.

- TBP

-----

Original post

While the rest of the press and blogs are busy immediately assuming that the gunman who shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona) in the head earlier today and killed several others is somehow affiliated with the Tea Party, conservatism, Constitutionalism, etc., purely because she happens to be a Democrat, I believe that it is much, much more important to make a point based on actual facts.  That said, I would like to begin very clearly with the following statement:

There is absolutely no excuse for violence of any sort against any member of Congress (or anyone else for that matter), regardless of political affiliation.  A functioning Republic demands the ultimate in individual responsibility - action on your frustrations is to be taken to the ballot box and nowhere else.

The shooting of Rep. Giffords and of the crowd around her is absolutely deplorable.  My prayers go out to her family and I sincerely wish her and the other injured a speedy recovery.  With any luck, Rep. Giffords will eventually return to her elected position and continue representing the People of Arizona's Eighth Congressional district.

If, after a fair trial, the suspect Jared Lee Loughner is found to be guilty by a jury of his peers, he should be swiftly executed for his crimes.  There is no room for leniency in a crime of this magnitude.

-----

I had not intended to write anything more than a simple statement of condolences about today's shooting, but unfortunately, the press is busy attempting to paint the shooter as some sort of crazed, Rush Limbaugh-listening right-wing nutbag without having even a single shred of evidence to suggest that this is the case.  Just so we're clear, if the suspect were in fact a right-wing nutbag, my condemnation of him would be exactly the same as it is now.  This man is in no part representative of anyone but himself.

I am actually quite surprised to see the amount of stories cropping up on the internet suggesting that Rep. Giffords' shooting was motivated by the Tea Party or some other right-leaning faction:

- Rep. Giffords' own father, when asked if she had any enemies responded, "Yeah - the whole Tea Party." [1]

The DailyKos, in suggesting an introductory paragraph the President might use in a speech, writes,

When political opponents are demonized and political disagreement is discussed in terms more appropriate to war, unstable individuals like [the Arizona shooter] are encouraged to act in violent ways.  When political opponents, like Sarah Palin, use gunsights and 'targets' to identify politicians they disagree with, they must be held morally responsible for the violence such over-heated rhetoric causes [2].

The DailyKos article goes on to say,

What we're going to be saturated with for the next week or so are the inevitable false equivalencies. We'll hear, for instance, how there are "nuts on both sides." Undeniably true. But there is no ubiquitous liberal - much less, left-wing - network of talk-radio stations spouting Two Minutes' Hate [note: this is a reference to 1984 - the "two-minutes hate" was used by the gigantic government "The Party" to indoctrinate the people - not exactly in line with small government Tea Partiers] 24/7. The collective voice of the right wing on radio and the Internet with its coded and uncoded calls to violence, of "2nd Amendment remedies," of cross hairs superimposed on states and on individuals simply has no visible counterpart on the left. When the right discusses the violent left, it must seek overseas examples or something from decades ago in America's past [3].

Paul Krugman of the New York Times has also blamed the shooting on conservatives without offering any evidence for his assumptions whatsoever [4]:

We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.

Just yesterday, Ezra Klein remarked that opposition to health reform was getting scary. Actually, it’s been scary for quite a while, in a way that already reminded many of us of the climate that preceded the Oklahoma City bombing.

You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.

Eugene Robinson, of the Washington Post, makes the assertion:

But today, I think we can say incontrovertibly, that violent political rhetoric and the threat of political violence in this country comes almost exclusively from the right [5].

The Center for American Progress [6] and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow [7] seem to suggest that Sarah Palin's PAC using a graphic with crosshairs over several Congressional districts across the country implied that SarahPAC was recruiting some sort of secret army to assassinate twenty sitting Congressmen.  Maddow's blog also suggests that Rep. Giffords' opponent Jesse Kelly's M15 machine gun shoot event during the campaign season may have had something to do with today's tragedy.  Evidently, Progressives must believe that Kelly used SarahPAC's secret army to kidnap sitting Congressmen to use as targets for the event - the handcuffs and chairs he used to strap the Congressmen kidnapped from SarahPAC's twenty districts, however, must have been made in China, because it appears that Kelly's event had to use paper targets.  Who would have guessed:

To her credit, Maddow also updated her original post with the following statement:

ADDING: As several commenters have noted, there's no indication that the alleged shooter was politically motivated. Even if the perpetrator turns out to have been seriously involved in political causes, which again there's no evidence of, his actions will likely remain senseless. What we can say is that today's shooting, whatever its motivation, comes after an election season that was marked by the language of violence, like Sharron Angle's call for Second Amendment remedies. And so today's literal violence in a political context will inevitably raise questions about the effect of violent rhetoric.

My praise of Maddow was short-lived, however, as she concludes her "no political motivation" update by suggesting that the "violence" of the last election cycle (i.e. Sharron Angle mentioning the 2nd Amendment as a remedy against governmental tyranny) may have played a role.

Does anyone else remember the 10-10 ad campaign advising that children who do not agree with radical environmentalism should be murdered [8] [9]?  How about when Keith Olbermann suggested murdering Hillary Clinton in a room to end the 2008 Democratic primaries [10]?  (Olbermann has apologized for the comment.)  What about Frances Fox Piven's recent call for a violent revolution [11]?  The violence in Europe recently has all been fueled by Socialists angry over austerity measures [12] [13].  Some idiot even threw himself over a balcony in the Romanian parliament in protest of governmental reduction of social welfare benefits [14].  To top it, French Communists have published a manifesto which specifically discusses violent revolution - the manifesto has become popular among the far left and the far right in the United States and offers advice to pursue radical communism, which includes the annihilation of the Police [15] [16].

So we're clear, Loughner did leave some quasi-political comments both in writing and on video.  The only statements he made which might suggest a motive were [17]:

I know who's listening: Government Officials, and the People.  Nearly all the people, who don't know this accurate information of a new currency, aren't aware of mind control and brainwash methods. If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn't have happen (sic).

and,

Firstly, the current government officials are in power for their currency, but I'm informing you for your new currency! If you're treasurer of a new money system, then you're responsible for the distributing of a new currency. We now know - the treasurer for a new money system, is the distributor of the new currency. As a result, the people approve a new money system which is promising new information that's accurate, and we truly believe in a new currency. Above all, you have your new currency, listener?

and,

You don't allow the government to control your grammar structure, listener?

and,

I didn't write a belief on my Army application, and the recruiter wrote on the application: None.

and,

The majority of citizens in the United States of America have never read the United States of America's Constitution. You don't have to accept the federalist laws.  Nonetheless, read the United States of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws.

and,

If property owners and government officials are no longer in ownership of their land and laws from a revolution then the revolutionary's from the revolution are in control of the land and the laws.

The property owners and government officials are no longer in ownership of their land and laws from a revolution.

Thus, the revolutionary's from the revolution are in control of the land and the laws.
In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can't trust the government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.

No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver!

No! I won't trust in God!

What's government if words don't have meaning?

I know what you're thinking:  But he mentioned CONSTITUTION!!!  HE'S A TEA PARTIER!!!

Right...


Based on the quotes listed above, Loughner is apparently a braindead atheistic moron who is concerned with government mind control, loss of both private and government ownership of land, fiat currency, non-acceptance of Federalism, and reading the "second United States Constitution," whatever that is.  Yep - he sounds like the typical God-fearing, free thinking Christian that accepts Federalism and the first United States Constitution and thinks that government has no place in ownership of land in the first place!

If we really want to boil down what political persuasion Loughner actually might take an interest in, one need only look at his list of "favorite books" on his YouTube page [18]:

Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

The first several are largely pulled from any high school summer reading list - who hasn't read Fahrenheit 451, The Odyssey, or The Old Man and the Sea?  The insight into what Loughner really might believe regarding political philosophy is found in the books,

The Communist Manifesto - Written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as the modern incarnation of communal living, i.e. Communism.

Mein Kampf - Written by Adolf Hitler.  While Hitler took many political positions through his years, mainly to side with whatever was popular at the moment, he wound up being the principle figure of the Nazi Party - the National Socialists.  Far from being a right-leaning ideology, as we're so often told by Progressives, Nazism was about gigantic, oppressive government.  Not exactly in line with the limited government motives of the Tea Partiers.  Nazism was clearly a religion on the left side of the spectrum (if you assume that the extreme of the left side is totalitarianism and the extreme to the right side is anarchy), as it tended more towards extreme government rather than no government.

The Republic - Written by Plato.  This is the first book that describes a Communist-esque system run by philosophers as the "ideal" system [19].  Ultimately, Marx and Engels likely lifted material thinking from Plato in founding modern-day Communism.

None of the books listed are popular with Tea Partiers.  Loughner never mentions the Tea Party, talk radio, Republicans, or Constitutionalism.  But - the three political books that he lists as "favorites" all enshrine Communism.

If there is an answer to be had, I believe we have it.

In love of liberty,
The Bulletproof Patriot

Update (10:53pm):  Apparently, a former classmate of Loughner's said [20] that he was "a political radical," and "left wing, quite liberal."  If this actually turns out to be true, I certainly am not going to be blaming Progressives for this idiot's actions.  He is responsible for himself.  I wonder how many corrections will be made to the "Tea Party" labeling?

Update (11:07pm):  According to CNN, Rep. Giffords offered her support to Arizona SB 1070 [21], and although she may have disagreed with some of its methods, she ultimately supported sending the National Guard to the border [22].  However, she also voted for the DREAM act [23], which would have legalized the children of illegal aliens who were brought to the U.S. after birth (even though when those "children" turned 18, they chose to violate US law by continuing to be present in the United States unlawfully).

A nation without a conscience

Well, the swearing in of the new, Republican-controlled House happened this week, along with the nation's first ever reading of the Constitution in the Congressional hall.  Shocking, I know, since all members are sworn to protect and defend that very document.

To be sure, about 10% of the Republicans are affiliated in one way or another with the Tea Party movement, and it was this movement (along with the bloodbath Progressivism suffered to a large extent in the 2010 midterm elections) that prompted the oral recitation of the country's founding charter.  You would think that more attention would be paid to the Constitution, as it places a fundamental constraint on the power of government, but such attention has been strikingly absent in the recent past.  (Also absent, apparently, were two Republican Congressmen [1], who thought it would be better to placate campaign donors than attend the swearing in ceremony in the House.  These Congressmen, Rep. Pete Sessions [IDIOT-TX] and Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick [IDIOT-PA] should be remembered in 2012.  It sounds like they need to be unemployed.)

The argument could be made that the late 18th century Congress didn't read the Constitution either - it was never established as a tradition by the founding generation.  Why would it have been?  They spent a considerable amount of time debating merits and principles, as preserved in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.  This was the generation that wrote it.  They knew exactly what was in it without needing to read it aloud.

The same is not true of the current generation of bureaucrats who we have, for some inexplicable reason, allowed to run loose in the halls of Congress unsupervised.  Passing Constitutional muster is not even considered when passing a bill, even when the bill falls far outside of Congress's legislative purview.

In fact, the current crop of puerile degenerates inhabiting Capital Hill can't even contain their cluelessness about the bills they are passing, let alone the basic principles of the one document that sets a Republic apart from all other forms of government.  Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) doesn't understand why he should even read the bills he votes on [1a], although he voted for the Health Care bill anyway (I hear the final 2,000 page bill was placed directly between Pam Anderson's boobs just so Conyers would pay any attention to it at all [1b]).  Speaker Pelosi couldn't even muster the usual fail proof excuse of "interstate commerce" when she was questioned where Congress derived the authority to pass the Health Care bill [1c], although she succeeded in providing the token "interstate commerce" excuse on her web page after the fact [1d].  And, given several months to brush up on the details of Congress's Constitutional authority, Rep. Conyers still failed to identify the source of Congressional power to enact the Health Care bill, instead identifying the "Good and Welfare Clause" as the source [1e].  This clause, in case you aren't aware, is found following the "Mike & Ike Clause" and immediately before the "Bit-o-Honey Clause."  I also have it on good authority that the "Pixy Stick Clause" is under review by the state legislatures, as well.

Such a salient defect in the governing body of the largest Constitutional Republic in history confirms a much bigger problem:  Progressivism has succeeded in nearly eliminating the foundational understanding that in a Republic, the power to govern is derived from the consent of the governed.  The People are granted their inalienable rights from their Creator, and then loan those rights to the Congress to legislate on their behalf.

The second basic principle which distinguishes a Republic from all others is that the rights of the minority are protected against being trampled by the majority.  Pay particular attention to this detail, because few truly understand it -

A Republic and a Democracy are not the same thing.  In a Republic, the minority retains the right to be heard and counted.  In a Democracy, the majority is free to run roughshod over everyone else, even if that represents 49% of the population.

The principle of Republic vs. Democracy is covered in detail in Federalist #10 [1f], which I highly recommend reading even more so than any of the others as this concept is of extraordinary importance to a proper understanding of Constitutional intent.

This is something you most certainly won't learn on Progressive talk radio or in Progressive literature - you are far more likely to hear lip service paid to our supposed "democracy," usually in the name of social welfare or some other emotional plea for government to step in, without a thought towards Constitutional authority, and solve some injustice in the name of moral conviction or necessity.  This type of behavior is destructive to the Federalist framework, because it forces government into the role of charity, where it clearly does not belong.  To illustrate this, we need to only turn to James Madison once again:

The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government [2].  - House of Representatives (1794)

Madison's assertion that Congressional charity is anathema to the defined legislative powers should strike immediate concern in every supporter of broad social welfare programs and the redistribution of wealth.  According to Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, federal Unemployment Compensation, or any other social program which moves money from one person to another, are unconstitutional.  They simply play no part in Congress's legislative duty, regardless of the mention of Congress's consideration to "promote the general welfare."

In this same vein, Franklin also offered his reasoning on charity as a part of federal public policy:

When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic [3].

A truer statement may have never been uttered.  Not only does Franklin brilliantly capture the implicit problem with wealth redistribution and government charity, he ties the concept directly to the antithesis of a Republican form of government.  This complements perfectly the larger point I established earlier - in a Democracy, the majority can simply drive right over the minority, take their money, and the minority has absolutely no recourse unless they can persuade some of those who participated in stealing their money in the first place to give it back!

Am I the only one who sees the exact same problem in the reasoning being offered to reject renewal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts?  I can't even begin to count the number of times I have heard the following lines of objection made by Progressives:

We will be able to make the case much more clearly that spending $700 billion over 10 years to extend tax cuts for people whose income averages well over a million dollars does not make sense [4].  - Joe Biden, Vice President (2010)

My number-one priority is making sure that we make the middle-class tax cuts permanent, that we give certainty to the 98 percent of Americans who are affected by those tax breaks [4a].  - Barack Obama, President (2010)

Do you want your children and grandchildren to go deeper into debt so that we can give a tax cut to the high end? I don't even know why this is such a big discussion. The middle class should have a tax cut [4b].  - Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House (2010)

The American People understand that with a $13 trillion national debt, it is absurd, totally absurd, to give huge tax breaks - millions of dollars of tax breaks - to the very richest people in this country who are already doing very, very well [5].  - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)  [Sanders is also a self-described Socialist and frequent (weekly) contributor to the very Progressive Thom Hartmann program [6] [7], and who is apparently very admired by the equally Progressive David Sirota [8]).

On a side note, Sirota also offers the following gem regarding Socialism:

Calling someone a "leftist"/"socialist" doesnt "refudiate" a factual argument. Its an admission that u have no factual argument yourself [9].

Apparently, Sirota isn't interested in using proper punctuation or taking his own advice (Progressives typically aren't - after all, there is already a "Gifts to the Treasury" address available [10] - why isn't it overflowing with all of the generous contributions to the federal government Progressives demand that everyone else be forced to give?), where he tweets [11] the following "factual arguments" [12]:

Many societies value outsmarting others. In Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin America, it seems our society prioritizes out-stupiding one another.

@JeffDomingues Seek professional help very quickly. You clearly need it. I also have a tin foil hat to sell you.

Only right wing tin-foil hatters would see 400 layoffs at NY sanitation dept & yet blame unions for NY's paralysis.

Granted, Twitter isn't exactly the best forum for detailed arguments, but I'd hardly call such passive/aggressive name calling a "factual argument."  Actually, I'd call it "an admission that u have no factual argument yourself [sic]."  (It's really difficult for me to write the word you as u, because I'm not 12.  Oops - that wasn't a factual argument.)

Does it strike anyone that of the quotes mentioned above by members of the current Administration, every single one commits the exact same offense that Madison and Franklin were warning against?  Between President Obama, Vice President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Sanders, we have leaders of both houses of Congress and the Executive branch clearly voting themselves other people's money without any semblance of shame.  Congratulations - Progressivism has taken a stranglehold on the Democratic party (and to a large extent on the Republican party as well)!  Rather than believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law, we have learned that it's acceptable in a free society to expect that you are entitled to your neighbor's earned fortune, simply by virtue of your own pathetic existence.

Are we no longer a nation of laws and not of men?  Or has Progressivism so destroyed our conscience that we are now a nation of cowards, unwilling to take responsibility for our own lives?

The Progressive mindset is complete.  We have succeeded in learning that the rich must pay for absolutely everything - after all, don't those sons of bitches deserve it?

In love of liberty,
The Bulletproof Patriot


Postnote (3:11am):  I'm a little concerned that I may have unintentionally cast doubt on the efficacy of the tin-foil hat.  Fellow EE's at MIT have put my mind to ease, however, with a brief empirical report on the frequency response curve of such a device [13].

Progressivism - all doubt removed

My drive to work takes me about 25 minutes.  Since I generally arrive at work between 7:00 and 7:15, I'm usually on the road around 6:45.  Fortunately for me, the only radio show on that is worth listening to (with the occasional exception of Pete Boyles on 630 KHOW) is the Bill Press Show [1] [2].  Bill Press is a seasoned Progressive talk radio host, who, at least lately, has been perhaps best known for comparing the Glenn Beck 8/28 event at the Lincoln Memorial to "granting Al Qaeda permission to hold a rally on September 11th at Ground Zero."  The full quote follows:

In a slap at both President Lincoln and Dr. King, not to mention the American people, the National Park Service has given Glenn Beck permission to hold a Tea Party rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28 – 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King gave his magnificent ‘I Have A Dream’ speech…If you ask me, that’s like granting al Qaeda permission to hold a rally on September 11 – at Ground Zero. What the hell were those bureaucrats at the Park Service thinking? [3]

Nevermind that "those bureaucrats" are explicitly prohibited from stopping Beck's rally, so long as it is peaceful (it was), as a result of the First Amendment, which guarantees not only Beck's freedom of speech, but also the right of the People to "peaceably assemble."  Even further, the First Amendment protects these freedoms explicitly when they are presented as a petition to the government for a "redress of grievances" [4].  Essentially, Bill Press has suggested that the federal government violate three freedoms explicitly guaranteed to Beck by the First Amendment.

You should also probably disregard the fact that Glenn Beck's audience has not murdered 3,000 people and that none of them had anything to do with Lincoln's assassination in 1865.  Sure, you may have heard Glenn Beck blamed many times (mostly in the run-up to 8/28, coincidentally) for supposedly encouraging or otherwise prompting his audience to violence (despite Beck's consistent record of explicitly promoting nonviolence over the years).  One of the best, and more recent blames was leveled at Beck and his audience on December 14th of last year (2010) by Progressive talk host Mike Malloy:

Another Glenn Beck killer on the loose today, this time in Panama City.  How does it feel, Glenn, to know that your rat bastards are out there doing exactly what you're telling them to do, huh?  Those dirty school board members, right?!  With their Atheistic science, and, uh, history, and all this other stuff that Beck and these vermin don't like. [5]

A quick Google search did not yield any results linking to any apology issued by Mike Malloy after his poorly constructed and researched smear.  As it turns out, the Florida school board shooter was, if anything, a Progressive - his short Facebook manifesto railed against the "rich" and linked to several well known Progressive websites, such as a 9/11 Truther website and mediamatters.org [6], an organization dedicated solely to the destruction of Fox News, as you will quickly learn from a brief visit to their website.

Malloy has apparently not learned from his previous errors (and calling these "errors" is sort of like calling intentionally burning someone's house down a "mistake"), as he has not only previously embarassed himself by an apparent lack of thinking, but has nearly single-handedly destroyed the honor of his family for generations to come with derogatory verbal nonsense such as this:

I really think this son of a bitch Beck is a threat to, to, to, well, to America, number one. He’s not a, he’s not a clown any more. This guy is really nuts, and he should be taken off the air and put some place very quiet and given the drugs that’s necessary to keep him sedated. When you are really pathological, pathologically nuts like Beck is, you don’t do it for the money, you don’t do it for the fame, you do it because you’re crazy. He pretty much is a dry-drunk, a dry-drug user. But he’s crazy. And it’s very easy in these days in this country to find equally crazy people just waiting for Jim Jones [a suicidal/murdering maniac [7]] – oh, I’m sorry – Glenn Beck to lead them into hell. And Beck is more than willing to do it. He wants to see murder and mayhem.

Now, frankly, Glenn Beck is a co-conspirator in this case in California. He should be jailed also and charged with co-conspiring with the poor dumb bastard Byron Williams who thought he was hearing the voice of God in an effort to commit murder at the Tides Foundation and against state troopers. Glenn Beck is a co-conspirator in this case. He should be in jail. He really should.

From today, Richard Scott McCloud (sp), of (?), Michigan, was arrested today on weapons charges, and is under suspicion of potential threats against President Barack Obama. So this Glenn Beck fan had a gun, a bullet-proof vest, a picture of Obama. He didn’t know what Obama looks like? This is how dumb these bastards really are. That’s a mind-set of a Fox boob would be assassin.

Glenn Beck is trying to get people to assassinate the President of the United States and his family. Beck is trying to have this occur. And he’s getting close to it. [Emphasis mine] [7a]

In his defense, Beck has long maintained that his family prays nightly for the safety of the President.  I do as well - God forbid anything happens to the President, regardless of who it may be.

Now, back to the original story:  Bill Press, who holds a similar seemingly unfounded disdain for Glenn Beck and anyone who dares listen to his radio show, was recently a contributor to a discussion on the Joy Behar Show (I didn't know she had her own show either), wherein Joy opened a particularly intelligent discussion by asking Press, "Do you think this Constitution-loving is getting out of hand? [8]"

Press responded with equal finesse:

There could be some benefit here, because I think most Republicans haven't read the Constitution, to be honest. I hope they listen carefully. There's some good stuff in there about the right of privacy they probably never heard before.  There's something in there that says, 'only Congress can declare war,' not a President of the United States.  I bet they've never heard of that before... [9]

This is absolutely mind boggling.  Most Republicans haven't read the Consitution, but Constitutional-scholar Bill Press is certain that there is "good stuff in there about the right of privacy" that the Republicans "haven't heard before"?

Well this is news to me!  The "right of privacy" is not found in the Constitution [10].  In fact, the word "privacy" is not found in the Constitution.  If anything, the protection of personal privacy is conveyed by the Fourth Amendment, which limits unlawful search and seizure, which I have discussed previously .  The courts didn't even discover this supposed right of privacy until 1928 - 141 years after the Constitution was written.  A much stronger argument can be made that personal privacy is protected by the 9th Amendment, which protects any rights of the People which are not explicitly mentioned within the Constitution from federal government intrusion [11].  This argument actually makes sense - but it runs contrary to everything else Bill Press believes about government, so that couldn't possibly be the source of the "right of privacy" he was implying.

Bill Press has opened his mouth and succeeded in removing all doubt [12].  It is abundently clear that Press is completely lacking in not only a basic understanding of what is contained in the Constitution (which is a relatively short document at a mere 4,440 words), but also in an understanding of the Constitution's intended purpose, which was to limit the powers of government to those which are "few and defined [13]," as contained within its pages.

I do not make a habit of name calling and personal chastising here, as I believe it is largely a waste of time and detracts from the seriousness of the topics otherwise discussed.  The definition of the word "fool" is "a person who lacks judgement or sense [14]."  Based on your analysis of the "right of privacy" and the Constitution, Mr. Press, you sir, are a fool.

This is not an uncommon problem, however, in the world of Progressivism.  Attacks on conservatives and libertarians (although usually leveled against the "Tea Baggers" or "Republicans") by Progressives claiming that the recent resurgence of interest in Constitutionally-limited governance is nonsense, are routine - listen to any Progressive talk radio program if you don't believe me.  Just don't expect to hear what Progressives "know" about the Constitution in these rants - it is usually entirely absent, which explains Bill Press's scholarly evaluation of the "right of privacy."

In a similar bout of nationally-aired mental diarrhea, the reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives at the opening of the 112th Congress has been called a gimmick, because "[The Constitution] has no power to do anything," and "the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago," according to Ezra Klein, an MSNBC contributor and staffer for the Washington Post.

His full statement reads as follows:

Yes, it’s a gimmick. [laughs] You could say two things about it. One is that it has no binding power on anything, and then two, the issue of the Constitution is not that people don’t read the text and think they’re following, the issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done, so I wouldn’t expect too much coming out of this. [15]

It isn't surprising that an MSNBC contributor (or Washington Post staffer for that matter) doesn't have any respect for the limits the Constitution places upon the authority of the federal government. There are plenty of other boneheads (read: Progressives) at MSNBC who have proven this over the years. It is funny though, since Progressives have determined that regular Fox News viewers are the "most misinformed" of any cable news viewers [16], because they, among other things, don't know that the Stimulus bill created three million jobs or that the health care bill is going to reduce the deficit. Never mind that a blogger at The Blaze has already destroyed this supposed study [17]. Or that national polls have routinely found Fox News to be the most trusted source of cable news [18]. Or that MSNBC was relied upon the least for election news in 2010, with only 12% of respondents identifying with the network (Fox News, on the other hand, had 42%) [19]. Or that Fox News took the title of "most watched cable news channel" for the ninth year running, beating out CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News combined [20]. Or that all of this was accomplished in the face of entire "media" organizations dedicated solely to reporting on Faux News's supposed improprieties [21]. Apparently Progressives' important, watchful, and caring reporting on the shameful Fox News is falling on deaf ears.

The Washington Post performance is almost as impressive as MSNBC's, declining in circulation in 2010 by nearly 6.5% [22]. Strangely, the newspaper constantly chided by Progressives as being too right-leaning, the Wall Street Journal, posted a gain in circulation of nearly 2%. I guess the People are just hungry for more Progressivism. Perhaps the best solution is to simply nationalize MSNBC into the new PBS. After all, who could possibly be trusted to faithfully report the news more than the federal government?
That said, I'd like to only very briefly address Mr. Klein's statement, as I have already been writing for two hours and frankly the brainlessness of Mr. Klein in this instance is alarming.  For Mr. Klein's benefit I will try to limit my vocabulary to only the 500 most used words in the English language [23], as I don't want this to become too "confusing" for Mr. Klein and the like to comprehend. Oops - I mean *read*.

This statement by Mr. Klein, perhaps more so than any other, shines a light on exactly what Progressives believe about the Constitution - it is worthless and has no binding power on anything. It can be safely ignored.  After all, who could possibly understand the language of the Constitution?  It's over 100 years old!
 
One final note:  The Republicans who are reading the Constitution at the opening of the 112th Congress may well be doing this as a gimmick.  However, they do so at their own peril.  The same people who voted them in will just as easily vote them out.  The time for partisan gimmicks is over.  Someone had better start telling the unvarnished, unappealing truth to the American People, no matter if that truth makes their party look bad.  The era of Republicans vs. Democrats has ended.  It is high time for the People to embrace Constitutionalism - then all of these battles over social issues, welfare, health care, etc. can be duly fought out where they belong - in your state legislature!

-----

UPDATE - Ezra Klein has issued a clarification of his original statement [24]:

Yes, the Constitution is binding. No, it’s not clear which interpretation of the Constitution the Supreme Court will declare binding at any given moment. And no, reading the document on the floor of the House will not make the country more like you want it to be, unless your problem with the country is that you thought the Constitution should be read aloud on the floor of the House more frequently. In which case, well, you're in luck!

... huh?

In love of liberty,
The Bulletproof Patriot

Postnote (10:21pm):  This article is 2,321 words in length, or 53% of the length of the Constitution.  It took me two hours to compose, so I assume that Ezra Klein will be duly confused by paragraph two.  Nobody could possibly understand anything more than 100 words in length.  (...huh?)

Postnote (6-Jan-2011):  With regard to the argument that the "right of privacy is read into the substantive due process clause of the 14th Amendment" and not by extension of the 4th or 9th Amendments, I have to wonder - does anyone else find it concerning that rights can be "read into" the Constitution?  The 9th and 10th (as well as the preamble to the Bill of Rights) clearly reserve ANY rights not specifically mentioned to belong to the People - the "reading in" of rights which already belong to the People by way of the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause suggests that the People don't have completely ownership of these rights.  This is a fantastic example of just how far Progressivism has extended into the Federalist framework.  My original response follows:

[The case for the 14th Amendment] could also be made, as could many provisions in the Bill of Rights other than the 4th and 9th Amendments – in fact, you are making essentially the same argument I am with regard to the 9th, except that the 9th is more clear because it specifically addresses unenumerated rights retained by the People. The 14th Amendment’s due process clause and it’s “substantive” implication has been used to “discover” specific rights which are generally regarded as being common liberties enjoyed by the public. In this sense, it supports a sort of common law, which under a (functioning) Federalist framework of enumerated powers is nonsense.

This only becomes an issue when the Constitution is assumed to convey to the federal government a general power to legislate, which Madison very clearly rejected, rather than a government which had only the powers to act in the areas specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. The “right of privacy” is completely unnecessary, as the federal government does not have the power to intrude on the privacy of the People to begin with. This is the argument that was made against the Bill of Rights – it was unnecessary, because the Congress could not wade into areas not specifically mentioned in Article 1 anyway. The inclusion of a Bill of Rights, as the argument went, would only serve to create the false impression that it was important to protect specific rights of the People, because the Congress would assume a general power to legislate. As such, the 9th and 10th Amendments were added to placate the states with this concern and to further establish that any rights not mentioned within the body of the Constitution were retained explicitly by the People (in the case of the 9th), and by either the People or the states (in the case of the 10th).

The larger point remains – there is no “right of privacy” expressed in the Constitution. This is precisely because that right was already assumed to belong to the People.

That said, I appreciate the honest questioning and comments - if anything, maybe we can learn something from each other.  A functioning Republic requires it.

- TBP

Murdered: A plea for decency and responsibility

In the third incident involving one of my wife's co-workers within the past 2 months (the incidents are otherwise unrelated), I have just found out that one of her closest co-worker's brother-in-law was shot to death last night while attempting to break up a fight in the restaurant in which he was employed [9 news story here].  This follows another shooting death in an incident involving the son of yet another co-worker, who was murdered before Christmas when his apartment was broken into in Denver.  I cannot properly express my condolences to these families who have lost members recently in senseless acts of violence.  The disregard for Human life seems to be growing by the day.

I express my deepest and most profound sorrow to the families affected.

Beginning today, those of us capable must take on a personal responsibility for providing for not only our own safety, but the safety of others against this kind of violence.  The Police force is obviously not enough.  In an effort to lead the charge, I implore whomever reads this to look into your state's concealed carry laws.  In Colorado, CCW permits are shall-issue (after passing a background check and submitting fingerprints to your local Sheriff's department).  In Colorado, you are also permitted by law to use deadly force against anyone who unlawfully enters your home, so long as you believe that there is an immediate threat to your person or your property.  You are also authorized to use deadly force in defense of another person if that person is in imminent danger of death or "great bodily injury".  These are covered in the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 18-1-704 [1].

Learn the law, learn to handle a weapon safely, and begin exercising your right to your own defense.  Unfortunately, we have reached the point where when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.  We must take care of our own safety and the safety of those around us.  There is simply no other option.

In love of liberty,
The Bulletproof Patriot

A promise to future children

I have been persuaded to publish the letter below.  It is intended as a letter to future generations.  Perhaps others will find some inspiration to write their own in kind.

To my future children:

The opening salvo in the war against the few remaining shreds of man’s freedom in the United States has commenced.  This shot across the bow has scattered the millions once galvanized against the tyrannical destruction of what was once called the American Dream – not the right to own a home, earn a living, or be made equal with your neighbors by way of social justice, but the chance to fully develop yourself into the person you choose to become, whoever that might be.  You were made with your own individual abilities, unique from everyone else.  You were made to succeed in your own way.  You were made from God’s stock.

Sadly, the American Dream, as it once existed, is dead.  It has been replaced with government dependence in the form of handouts to the undeserving, a restructuring of the family to value “all” families, whether assembled as God intended or not, and a lust for power by a self-established elite class under the guise of maintaining the social welfare.  Liberties have been sacrificed to the god of government all too willingly, and the People have accepted the pittance doled out to them that is just sizable enough to keep them quiet.  The liberties so many had hoped you would enjoy are fading.

In order to guarantee the freedoms of your future, I promise to lead the charge against this.

I promise that you will never be alone in this life.  I love you, your mother loves you, and your Father in Heaven loves you the most.

I promise that I will look to our family and to God for guidance on the important things in life, and not to government.

In the same regard, I promise to teach you to be independent and responsible for yourself.  You will never be dependent on a political party, group of friends, or anyone else to do your thinking for you.

I promise to always be in honorable pursuit of God’s will, wherever that may lead.

I promise to lead this family through all things, good and bad, with the close counsel and guidance of your mother.

I promise to love your mother as best as I am able and to set the best example I can for you of the way that Christ loves his Church.

I promise to take responsibility for the consequences of our own decisions.  If a correction of course is required, a correction will be made, no matter how difficult.

I promise to never give up, no matter how daunting the battle may be.

I promise to provide for you as long as I am able.  I promise that by the time I am unable, you will be prepared to provide for yourself.

I promise that you will be made ready to tackle the storms of this life.  Help others through their storms.  Use these victories to build up treasures in Heaven.

I promise that you can always rely on me.  When you have exceeded the limits of my ability, I promise that you can rely on God.

Build up your Heavenly defenses now.  Darker days are certain to come.

I promise to let you fail.  I promise also to be there when you have picked yourself up, dusted yourself off, and learned from your mistakes.  I promise you will be better for it.

I promise to punish you when necessary.  I promise it will be out of love.

I promise that the two most powerful words in any language are I AM.  Use them.  I AM _____.  Fill the blank in yourself.  If you don’t, someone else will.

Always stand where the Lord tells you to stand, especially when it makes you uncomfortable.  Be sure to keep your eyes open for miracles – they happen, you just have to pay attention.

Everything you need to be happy in life is contained within the walls of your home.  It eats with you, talks with you, and loves you.  God and family are the only things of any lasting value.

I promise that America is very much God’s country, too.  Keep her on the right track.  This will not be an easy task, but I promise it will be one worth pursuing.

I promise that the shining city on the hill still exists, although today it is covered by layers of grime and filth, perpetuated by our own negligence.  It is high time that we take to the streets with our families, friends, and neighbors, and scrub and polish until the American Dream once again shines as a beacon of hope to the world, visible from even the darkest shores.  America is at her best when she leads faithfully and compassionately.  She is at her best when she shines.

To this end, I resolve myself to keep up the fight.  This day, I too, with a firm reliance on divine Providence, pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor, so that you also will have the opportunity to live in freedom.

With love,

M

4 January 2011