Obama’s Tax Plan

This says it all.  No further commentary needed.

Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment By Chuck Baldwin

Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment
By Chuck Baldwin
March 3, 2009

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090303.html

According to ABC News (Feb. 25, 2009), “The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“‘As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,’ Holder told reporters.”

Holder also said that President Obama would seek to make the assault weapons ban permanent, close the “gun show loophole,” and ban “cop-killer” bullets.

At this point, I believe it is incumbent on me to say that both Eric Holder and Barack Obama have made a career out of doing everything in their power to strip the American people of their right to keep and bear arms. Even under the rubric of the abovementioned “few gun-related changes,” there is the potential for widespread assault against our Second Amendment.

For example, the so-called “assault weapons” ban is as phony as the Bush-Obama stimulus spending bills–and just as fraudulent. A semi-automatic rifle, which is incapable of automatic fire, is not an “assault weapon.” By definition, an assault weapon must be capable of fully automatic fire. A civilian AR-15-style rifle–in any configuration–is functionally identical to any semi-automatic hunting rifle. In fact, many hunters commonly use AR-15-style rifles for all types of hunting, both predator and big game. The term “assault weapon” is simply a dangerous-sounding moniker that makes it easy for a compliant media to intimidate the public and public officials into passing a ban against semi-automatic rifles.

Furthermore, does anyone believe that if Obama and Holder were successful in outlawing semi-automatic rifles, pump and bolt-action rifles would not also be targeted? Get real! I well remember gun control zealots during the Clinton years railing against bolt-action rifles, calling them “sniper” rifles. And once rifles are outlawed, how long would it be before handguns and shotguns would fall victim to a similar fate? As always, the issue for these people is not what type of firearm it is; the issue is the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms–any arms.

Of course, the “gun show loophole” is nothing more than the prohibition against private citizens selling and trading their own personal firearms. I would like to remind the Obamas and Holders of this country that liberty is not a “loophole.”

In the beginning, the private sale and trading of firearms was almost exclusively the purpose for which gun shows were started. Today, commercial firearms dealers dominate gun shows, but it is still a convenient marketplace for citizens to buy and trade guns. This is a freedom and right that is as old as the country itself. Shoot (pun intended)! I remember when we were free to buy guns from a Sears & Roebuck catalog.

And as to banning “cop-killer” bullets, what bullet is not capable of killing? Any bullet that is not capable of killing a good guy is not capable of killing a bad guy (be it two-legged or four). This is just another approach to the same goal: the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Obviously, any gun without a bullet is pretty much useless.

The Democrats went down this road in 1994. Are they really willing to go down the same road again? It looks like they are.

It was largely an aggressive gun control agenda that caused the Republicans to sweep both houses of Congress in 1994 and render Bill Clinton without a majority in either chamber. It was also an aggressive gun control agenda that caused Al Gore to lose the Presidential election in 2000. Even Bill Clinton publicly acknowledged that fact.

All of that said, however, the underlying reality is that it is the individual States that must ultimately be guardians of the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights, of course). States must be willing to resist any and all efforts by the central government to intrude upon their independence, sovereignty, and liberties. If this was not the case, why did the individual States not dissolve after the federal government was created by the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787? Why? Because the States were deemed to be superior entities. Superior in assignment. Superior in responsibility. Superior in nature. Superior in scope.

As James Madison said in the Federalist Papers, No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Therefore, when the federal government begins to intrude upon the rights and liberties of the people, it is the responsibility of the States to resist.  Obviously, the way the federal government tries to keep States in subjection is through bribery: by threatening to deny federal tax dollars unless States comply with their despotic machinations. And, sadly, most States have succumbed to this menacing temptation for far, far too long.

The good news is that States are finally beginning to fight back.

According to World Net Daily, “So far, eight states have introduced  resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

“Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.”

Pertaining specifically to the Second Amendment, the State of Montana, in particular, seems to have it all together. In anticipation of the recent Heller Supreme Court decision, a host of Montana’s senators and representatives–along with its Secretary of State– proposed a resolution stating “that any ‘collective rights’ holding in D.C. v. Heller will violate Montana’s compact with the United States, the contract by which Montana entered the Union in 1889.”

The Montana resolution recalls, “When Montana entered into statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution in 1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to ‘any person.’”

The resolution continues, “To be clear, the wording of the right to bear arms reservation in the Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it was in 1884.”

Furthermore, the Montana resolution says, “There is no question that the contract into which Montana entered for statehood was predicated upon an understanding that the people of Montana would benefit from an individual and personal right to bear arms, protected from governmental interference by both the federal and Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the parties to the contract.”

The resolution ended by stating sternly, “A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora’s box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation.”

In other words, representatives and senators in the State of Montana unequivocally put Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate the infringement of its citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. I don’t think I’m reading anything into the resolution by assuming that they were implying that they would secede before they let the federal government trample their Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I’ve just been told that New Hampshire may also be preparing to propose such a resolution.)

Montana has it exactly right!

Now it is time for every State legislative body in America that believes in the Second Amendment to step up to the plate and let Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the rest of these gun-grabbing socialists know that they will not tolerate even one more attempt to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms–and that includes any so-called “assault weapons” ban.

And let’s never forget that the purpose of the Second Amendment was not to ensure the rights of hunters, but of citizens to protect themselves–and their States–against the tyrannical tendencies of their own government.

P.S. If anyone wants to see firsthand testimony regarding the importance of the Second Amendment, I encourage him or her to watch this testimony given before Congress not long ago:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675

On Single Payer

Now that the election of 2008 has settled the issue of who Americans want in the White House and Congress, this blog needs to move beyond defining and defending liberal and conservative positions.  We need to use this space to discuss real issues facing real people both here in Unicoi County and throughout the country.

One such issue, and it’s an enormous issue, is the matter of health care.  This contributor is coming out fully in favor of Representative John Conyers’ H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, which creates a single-payer, publicly financed, privately delivered, universal health care program.

This program would essentially extend Medicare to all Americans, regardless of their income levels.  Go to http://www.johnconyers.com/print/244 for a detailed description of the proposed legislation.

Now we know that conservatives will scream “socialism”, hoping that the “red menace” emotions of the McCarthy years will still invoke fear and loathing in peoples’ minds.  (Yes, I’m old enough to remember the McCarthy years and the anti-communist witch hunts that characterized the era.)

But, as I’ve written before in this space, socialism is not the real issue.  We have lots of socialized institutions in our communities.  Our sheriff, our police, and our public roads departments are all socialized.  (And yes – I do get a sort of wicked pleasure out of pointing out that both the road superintendent and the sheriff are, respectively, the chairman and past chairman of the County’s Republican Party.)   All that really means is that we recognize that public roads and safety are in everyone’s best interests and therefore we all chip in, through taxes, to pay for them.

The real issue is whether or not we continue to spend over 30% of every health care dollar on insurance company (mis)management of the system, continuing a practice that effectively denies health care to millions of citizens.  The Conyers bill would cover everyone and would be paid for by a combination of fees and taxes that would be fair to all Americans – rich and poor alike.  Check out the web site for all the details.

Let Them Eat Pork

This illustrates perfectly the mentality of our elected leaders today.

Getting Back On Track

A picture is worth a thousand words.  Don’t you agree?

2008 COUNTY BY COUNTY ELECTION MAP

Can you guess where the major cities in the United States are on this map?

Saving the Environment

Some thoughts on saving the Valley Beautiful

                There is much talk in Washington these days regarding means by which America might save its economy and its environment.  I have a modest proposal that would contribute to both efforts.

                We should establish a mass-transit system in northeast Tennessee.

                The system, at first, would consist of buses and, later, of electric light rail lines.  This system would transport those who work, shop, or have other reasons to make frequent trips to Johnson City, Kingsport, or Bristol allowing them to leave their individual cars or trucks at home or a convenient commuter lot.  Commuter parking areas would be easily and cheaply established at various points in each of the upstate counties, thus allowing for shorter drive time from home to wherever the bus can be boarded.  A parallel system could be built between the three cities allowing for public transportation between them.  Each city already has a working bus system within its limits and a bus terminal from which one can get pretty much anywhere in the city. 

                I have no idea how many people drive – one or two in a car – to and from Johnson City from Erwin each day, but I have to believe there are a great many.  I am one of them.  Just to keep it simple, let’s imagine that 100 people, driving cars that average 20 miles per gallon, drive 20 miles each day to and from a job at ETSU.  Collectively, they would consume 100 gallons of gas per day.  If the same 100 people rode two buses, each getting 6 miles per gallon, they would collectively consume 6.8 gallons of fuel, thus saving 93.2 gallons per day or 466 gallons per week.  Even assuming the cost of the bus was about the same as the cost of gas, the savings in wear and tear on our autos would be significant, the reduction in exhaust gases would be enormous, and the pain felt in Saudi Arabia would be downright heart-warming.

                For a few years, at least, the bus system would be flexible enough to allow us to study patterns of use, preferred routes, and so forth.  It would also give us time to build (using the median between lanes of the freeway system) a light rail system of electric trains.  That would get us off petroleum and into sustainable energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal) for much of our daily travel.   

                Of course there would be some “downsides” in this proposal.  It would reduce tax collections (both sales taxes and motor fuel taxes) by quite a lot.  Legislatures and Congress would need to figure out how to replace those income sources.  It would require that we Americans become much more careful in planning our days and travels.  But I imagine that most of us would benefit from having to think, plan, and walk more than we do now.

###

Pelosi Believes One Way To Reduce Costs Is To Reduce The Number Of Babies Born

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC’s THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

[Source:  The Drudge Report]

As the economy sinks deeper in the current recession, let’s not address the waste in government spending as a way of reducing costs.  Let’s not examine and list priorities (such as national defense) in our spending and cut everything else until we are out of the recession.  Let’s use this opportunity to push our pro child sacrifice abortion agenda.

The United States has the leaders that it deserves.  I hope we, as a nation, wake up before it is too late…..if it is not too late already.

The Solution To The National Deficit

2nd Amendment Under Attack

The Second Amendment says

“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.”

The attacks on this right granted to us in the U.S. Constitution have started and Obama has not even taken office yet.  Read this story for more information.  Here are some of the details:

U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., is hoping to pass a firearm-licensing bill that will significantly rewrite gun-ownership laws in America.

Among the more controversial provisions of the bill are requirements that all handgun owners submit to the federal government a photo, thumb print and mental heath records. Further, the bill would order the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer and owner’s address in America.

You may want to read that again.  The bill is H.R. 45, a.k.a. Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.  If this bill passes it will be a major erosion on our Constitutional rights.  David Cordea explains the implications of this bill in this way:

“It will make it illegal for you to possess guns you currently legally own unless you go jump through their hoops, register yourself and obtain a license.” [Click here to read his article]

The time for our diligence in preserving our rights is here.  Do not give up.  Call, write, email, or fax your representative and tell them to oppose this bill.  Tell them how it is unconstitutional.  Tell them that you expect them to do all that they can to stop this and remind them that you will remember how they voted come next election.