Right Minded

Take a Good Look, America

2010-05-24T12:17:00.001-07:00

"Six weeks of vacation a year. Retirement at 60. Thousands of euros for having a baby. A good university education for less than the cost of a laptop.

"The system known as the European welfare state was built after World War II as the keystone of a shared prosperity meant to prevent future conflict. Generous lifelong benefits have since become a defining feature of modern Europe.

"Now the welfare state - cherished by many Europeans as an alternative to what they see as dog-eat-dog American capitalism - is coming under its most serious threat in decades: Europe's sovereign debt crisis.

"Deep budget cuts are under way across Europe. Although the first round is focused mostly on government payrolls - the least politically explosive target - welfare benefits are looking increasingly vulnerable.

"'The current welfare state is unaffordable,' said Uri Dadush, director of the Carnegie Endowment's International Economics Program. 'The crisis has made the day of reckoning closer by several years in virtually all the industrial countries.'"

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100523/D9FSPCAO1.html

The other side of the problem, using Germany as the example:

"Germany is shrinking — fast. New figures released on May 17 show the birth rate in Europe's biggest economy has plummeted to a historic low, dropping to a level not seen since 1946.

...

"According to a preliminary analysis by the Federal Statistics Office, 651,000 children were born in Germany in 2009 — 30,000 fewer than in 2008, a dip of 3.6%. In 1990, German mothers were having on average 1.5 children each; today that average is down to 1.38 children per mother. With a shortfall of 190,000 between the number of people who died and the number of children who were born, Germany's birth rate is well below the level required to keep the population stable."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1991216,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

2.1 is considered replacement rate. And that still may not be enough to pay for an expensive welfare state.

More birth rate estimates for 2010:

UK: 1.66
Japan: 1.2
Spain & Italy: 1.32
Russia 1.41

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html?countryName=Kazakhstan&countryCode=kz&regionCode=cas&rank=150#kz

Parallels

2009-07-30T09:30:00.000-07:00

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010608.cfm

"Democrats Purport to Seek 'Compromise' on Abortion"

That's not compromise; you can't comprimise your principles if you don't have any.

Just as in the distant past some called for the gradual abolition of the slave trade (other terms used were "regulation" or "moderation"), so today some are seeking "common ground" on the issue of abortion.

The following quote is from the (altogether amazing) book Amazing Grace by Eric Metaxas and is about William Wilberforce, the member of British parliament a couple of hundred years ago who was the key player in ending the British slave trade, slavery, and many more social ills, and who was also the man who basically (re)created the idea of a social conscience:

"Wilberforce saw much of what the rest of the world could not, including the grotesque injustice of one man treating another as property. He seems to rise up out of nowhere and with the voice of unborn millions--with your voice and mine--shriek to his contemporaries that they are sleepwalking through hell, that they must wake up and must see what he saw and know what he knew--and what you and I know today--that the widespread and institutionalized and unthinkably cruel mistreatment of millions of human beings is evil and must be stopped as soon as conceivably possible--no matter the cost."

Sound familiar? The only part I disagree with is what I put in italics because we actually don't all see what he saw. As has happened many times in history--and despite general agreement that all men are created equal--we keep redefining 'man' such that there are always those inferior beings who are property, and thus treating them as such is not evil and we are told to only think of the high cost to personal freedom if we do anything about it.

While I'm talking of abolition and slavery, do also note how the British abolition movement was an almost exclusively Christian movement at the time. Politically active, often rich, and (what we would now call) fundamentalist Methodists (and don't forget the Quakers) were at the center of the movement when no one else was. Good examples of those who were generally opposed to abolition were those with financial interests in the Trade (nowadays that would be single mothers who cannot afford a child as well as those who profit from leaving abortion as is), those who did not want to take unpopular actions that would curtail the freedoms of their constituents (i.e. your average American politician), those who take advantage of other people and often believe that certain people (usually of color) are inferior and should be exterminated (Planned Parenthood), and finally, the guiltiest party, the Church of England, which staunchly retained "the outward trappings and forms of religion--which were all well and good and would help keep the lower classes better behaved--but... [denied] religion any real power" (which would be your average mainline Protestant "church" today).

Now, I wonder if there is any movement in response to a social ill that is almost exclusively the cause of "fundamentalist" Christians....

The many adventures of the Czars

2009-07-22T13:53:00.000-07:00

In case anyone is feeling particularly proud of the direction our current government is heading I'd like to rain on your parade by telling you of the many adventures of some of Obama's appointed and pending-appointment czars:

1) Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren, the director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, "once floated the idea of forced abortions, 'compulsory sterilization,' and the creation of a 'Planetary Regime' that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet...."

It gets better. He "won the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president's chief science adviser.

"He was confirmed with little fanfare on March 19 as director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, a 50-person directorate that advises the president on scientific affairs, focusing on energy independence and global warming.

"But many of Holdren's radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com.

"The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.

"The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people. ['all' is apparently defined here as 'the ones we pick']

"Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates.

"Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile. [Has anyone read Francis Schaeffer?]

"To help achieve those goals, they formulate a 'world government scheme' they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an 'armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force' to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty."

Of course Holdren now denies that he actually believed this, especially since the book is very old and was written by three authors, but as Fox News points out:

"While Holdren and his co-authors don't openly endorse such measures on other topics, in [one] case they announce their disappointment -- "unfortunately" -- that women in the third world cannot [practically] be sterilized against their will, a procedure the International Criminal Court considers a crime against humanity."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/

2) Obama's 'Green Jobs' czar, Van Jones, apparently has a long history with communism. A blog, the Dakota Voice, did the hard work [here] of shortening quotations from a 2005 news story for me. The following shows some of his many adventures:

But that wasn’t enough to assuage his anger. Convinced that American society needed a wake-up call on race, Jones abandoned his plan to become a journalist, concluding that he would rather make news than report it. “If I’d been in another country, I probably would have joined some underground guerrilla sect,” he said.

…while Jones was observing the first large rally since the lifting of the city’s state of emergency [during the Rodney King riots], he got swept up in mass arrests. It was a turning point in his life.
Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.“
In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia. They protested police brutality and got arrested for crashing through police barricades.

“I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists — shudder, shudder — who are really committed to…”

His new philosophy emphasizes effectiveness, which he believes is inextricably tied to unity. He still considers himself a revolutionary, just a more effective one, who has realized that the progressive left’s insistence on remaining a counterculture destroys its potential as a political movement.

His plan now is to drop traditional communism and marxism and go for utopia via the "green jobs" approach.

3) Finally, we have Cass Sunstein, Obama's appointment for regulatory czar. His appointment "hit a new snag in his Senate confirmation process -- a 'hold' by Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who's says he's not convinced that Harvard professor Cass Sunstein won't push a radical animal rights agenda, including new restrictions on agriculture and even hunting.

"'Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of Mr. Sunstein's record troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal "rights" for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts,' the Republican's spokesman, Kevin McLaughlin, said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

"Sunstein [has said that] he 'would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals,' and that he believes the "Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self defense.'"

Note that Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga, has said (after hearing the above promise) that "Professor Sunstein comes highly recommended by a number of folks from the conservative side of the philosophical divide in this country."

How encouraging.

"One of Sunstein's top jobs would be to review and provide guidance for draft federal regulations at different federal agencies. It is a wide-ranging and largely unrestrained position in the executive branch.

"That's a large part of the reason Sunstein's positions on animal rights have become worrisome to his critics. Despite his assurances to the contrary, Sunstein has spoken stridently in favor of allowing people the right to bring suit on behalf of animals in animal cruelty cases and to restrict what he calls the more horrific practices associated with industrial breeding and processing of animals for food. [Is unprocessed meat somehow less painful for the animal??]

"In a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein also advocated restricting animal testing for cosmetics, banning hunting and encouraging the general public to eat less meat."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obama-regulatory-czars-confirmation-held-hunting-rights-proponent/

There are reasons some conservatives like him. For instance, he believes in using cost benefit analysis when analyzing regulations. For instance, if this were applied to Global Warming regulations like Cap & Trade (which will never actually happen), it means we'd never do anything about it because it would cost more to regulate than it would be worth. However...

"Though he is generally described as left of center, Sunstein's academic interests in regulation have led him to raise questions about the constitutionality of liberal favorites such as workplace safety laws and the Clean Air Act. He has embraced a controversial "senior death discount" that calculates the lives of younger people as having a greater value than those of the elderly."

Some liberals are upset that he would dare to put dollar signs next to government regulations (to see if they are actually worth spending money on), but he's willing to take the concept much farther and decide what people are worth, dead or alive.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/26/nation/na-sunstein26

More info on Sunstein:

Some conservatives bristle at what they see as Mr. Sunstein's paternalism: that most people don't know what's best for them and need nudges from on high. Rural Republicans are alarmed over his statements on the wisdom of a hunting ban and his suggestion that animals may deserve more rights in court.

It is liberals who appear the most uneasy about Mr. Sunstein's track record. He is a strong advocate for weighing the estimated costs against the benefits of regulation, a position that advocates fear could weaken efforts to strengthen federal rules on health and safety.

Mr. Sunstein has argued that the landmark Occupational Safety and Health Act, by giving too much discretion to federal agencies, could be unconstitutional. He has also been leery of the risks and rewards of strict measures to combat global warming.

"He thinks that people are irrational and overly phobic about risks," says Rena Steinzor, a legal scholar who directs the Center for Progressive Reform, a liberal group that focuses on regulatory issues.

"Mr. Sunstein, a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, is also well connected. Mr. Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power, is an Obama foreign-policy adviser. Solicitor General Elena Kagan hired him at Harvard. And at some future point in the Obama administration, he is seen as a possible Supreme Court pick."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124683695891298003.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And the best part of all of this is that two out of these three people are in power right now.

"CONTRACT AWARDED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RECOVERY.GOV"

2009-07-13T13:32:00.000-07:00

The federal website that supposedly is keeping track of the stimulus money, Recovery.gov, is getting a makeover. That is, up to $19 million dollars worth over the next 4 and a half years. Remember, this money is to revamp what is already there.

http://www.recovery.gov/?q=node/668

WASHINGTON—In a major step toward developing a state-of-the-art Recovery.gov website, a contract was awarded this week to Smartronix, Inc., a Maryland information technology firm. The company will build the new website for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, an independent agency that manages Recovery.gov and monitors spending under the $787 billion Recovery program.

The initial outlay, $9,516,324, covers many facets: redesign and construction of a new website; installation of hardware and software infrastructure; hosting and operations for the website; more robust data storage; an enhanced content-management system; and contract labor support and other features. If the Recovery Board exercises options under the contract, the cost could total $17,948,518 over a period ending in January 2014.

---

The only thing I like is this: "A mapping capacity that will allow users to search for spending all the way down to their own neighborhoods."

But I think an easier solution would be to outsource that money to individual spenders who will be responsible for the money and have to keep track of it themselves. That is, don't take the money from taxpayers in the first place!

Why scams don't go away (see why in 6 years and 10 months)

2009-03-25T23:39:00.000-07:00

Global warming. We're all going to die from it (they say). We're all going to pay to stop it (for sure). We all know it doesn't exist--or rather, that we aren't causing it. Now I don't want to go into a discussion on why this is. But frankly, one of the best reasons for me to think this is because the same people who love everything God hates are telling me that the earth will blow up in 6 years, 10 months, 1 day, and 16 hours. Yes, Rush Limbaugh does have a counter on his website counting down to when Al Gore said the earth will scorch.

But I digress. The reason I bring this up is because it bugs me how we're going to get out of this. If I may borrow a word from the environmentalist book, this trajectory is unsustainable. The media, scientists, and politicians will have to reverse course somehow when there simply is no argument to make anymore. However, these people will not be able to come out and say they were wrong. No one will be able to say that there isn't actually man-made global warming. Why? Because that would show the people that they cannot trust scientists and politicians in the first place to govern their lives!

We can't trust some agent from some lab in a white coat who comes out with some study that overturns 15 other studies that we long forgot telling us that peanuts are in fact harmful if we eat too many of them! Remember those kings of Israel who trusted in armies and bad council rather than God? Those kings didn't end up so well. Why do we consult lawyers to solve legal issues in the church? Why do we talk to "experts" with PHDs in Child Playground Equipment before going for a walk in the park? Those are exaggerations. However, have you ever watched the national news lately? There's a few stories on politics (sometimes the word 'stories' is all too appropriate), a story on a medical study that we must heed in order to live happy and healthy lives, there's always one with some expert giving some kind of advice, and then a sappy story at then about the life of a panda to tide people over to the next day.

Jeremiah 17: 5-10:

Thus says the LORD,"Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind
And makes flesh his strength,
And whose heart turns away from the LORD.
"For he will be like a bush in the desertAnd will not see when prosperity comes,
But will live in stony wastes in the wilderness,
A land of salt without inhabitant.
"Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD
And whose trust is the LORD.
"For he will be like a tree planted by the water,
That extends its roots by a stream
And will not fear when the heat comes;
But its leaves will be green,
And it will not be anxious in a year of drought
Nor cease to yield fruit.
"The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
"I, the LORD, search the heart,
I test the mind,
Even to give to each man according to his ways,
According to the results of his deeds. "

I think the "heat" is coming and all of America will be found to be a bush in the desert.

All that to say.....government officials, politicians, etc. all need an emergency to get their agendas through and gain more power. In fact they admit as much. They ADMIT to want to take advantage of emergencies or "emergencies." Take that $600+ billion set aside for universal health care.....a program that doesn't even exist yet. It's all there "just in case." They need to always have emergencies so they will never be able to back down.

So the question is...what will happen when there's no logical argument? Not even an illogical one. I have no idea. Are there any politicians out there who can help answer this?

So yes, I've been reading about global warming in one of my radical "textbooks" and would rather write about it than read it.

Anti-Western Inconsistencies

2009-02-07T23:45:00.000-08:00

If you are going to be anti-Western, please be consistent. Promises Not Kept by John Isbister is not. It is a required book for a class that I now regret signing up for. As the title suggests, the book is all about how evil the western world is for creating empires and bullying the poor third world countries. While there is much truth in this, Isbister is far from consistent and uses flawed arguments.

He says that the indigenous societies that existed before the imperial powers were doing just fine before we ruined them. In fact, it even seems that these countries weren't poor until the evil Europeans told them they were poor. He admits that the pre-imperialized societies were in fact poor by our standards. He also says that they were just fine that way. But apparently once they were occupied and oppressed they became poor. In other words, we could sum up his opinion like so: "Poverty is evil. Of course, in traditional standards these people are not poor---their culture was rich, even though they were starving. If we only didn't tell them that..."

The real big issue I have with this worldview is that liberals are quick to decry Western influence in the Third World (yes, I used a politically incorrect term) but are the first to push for running into these nations and teaching everyone birth control methods and how great abortions are. For example, our new President's third executive order was to allow for federal TAXPAYER money to fund international abortions.

As if that weren't bad enough, people like Isbister say that "The imperialists brought with them public health measures that lowered mortality and caused the unprecedented population explosion in the third world." He actually thinks that that is a BAD thing! Seriously, he does. If you read the whole context of the chapter he is saying that LESS death is another imported evil western action. I'm sorry, I didn't know that valuing life was bad. But wait! He says the evil imperial powers killed countless millions....and that's bad, but of course only in the context of people over and below a certain age. Because we all know that those are the real people. Who needs the old, the weak, the young anyway?

Isbister also has a tendency to say, in effect, "The following are some suspect statistics that could be wrong but I am going to use in my argument anyway...." Oh, and I also love it when he basically says, "There's no data on this, but if there was, it would say_____."

And one must not forget religion! We have a moral responsibility based on common humanity, he says, to deal with poverty. The disease of poverty must be cured! After all, most conflicting religions say so. That's his opinion. Essentially, and I'm exaggerating a bit for effect, he's saying: "Because all religions believe that we should be nice to the poor, including religions that believe in one god, two, three, none, 66, and 205.1, we can therefore surmise that the United States government should increase its foreign aid, especially for abortions."

He also blasts trickle down and then admits that it works on like the same page.

All of this to say that I'm upset that this is required reading. And, my response: If you are going to decry the injustice of the Western, "Imperial" nations...please don't turn around and tell the third world to kill their young.

Guess what my other book's worldview is? If we only had the right policies the world would be perfect. The great modernist, Jeffrey Sachs...

The Second Amendment

2009-01-19T00:16:00.000-08:00

Last semester I wrote a constitutional law paper about the Second Amendment. I figured I'd share it seeing how I spent a whole week working on it and only two people in the world have read it. A waste of time, in my opinion.

I also happen to think it's an extremely relevant topic--if an imperfect paper. I know the formatting is messed up, but this ain't no word document.

The Second Amendment

"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.” Amendment II of the United States Constitution.

The debate over the Second Amendment in modern times has typically been over whether it was created to allow the states to run militia organizations or to prevent the federal government from taking away the individual’s right to bear arms.[1] However, the original question during the deliberations over the Bill of Rights was whether or not the Amendment was even necessary to the constitution at all.[2] Even though the Second Amendment was merely created to console Anti-Federalists who were afraid of the potential power of the federal government, the amendment itself is unnecessary because the individual right to bear arms was largely assumed during the time of our nation’s founding; thus, while historically the Court has rarely ruled on the Second Amendment and even then not in any clear manner, its more recent interpretation of the amendment as an individual rather than collective right is taking into proper account the original intent of the Founders.

Constitutional Deliberation:
How to Best Protect Liberty

When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia on May 25th, 1787, one of the important issues that they had to settle was the extent of the new federal government’s military power.[3] The question was how to give the government enough authority to be able to properly execute its role but limit it so that the liberty of the people would not be in danger. The history before the Founders was clear: they had first-hand examples of how easily they could take the nation to the extremes of either too much or too little governmental power.
On the one hand, revolutionary Americans complained that the British were unfairly exercising power by, for example, quartering troops in their homes during times of peace.[4] Or as far as the right to assemble a militia, “Americans remembered that General Howe’s redcoats marched out of Boston to seize the militia’s gunpowder and weapons.”[5] It was for these reasons and more that Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776, listing at length the “repeated injuries and usurpations” committed by King George against the colonies.

On the other hand, the Confederation, the first attempt the Americans made at government, failed because it was entirely too weak and thus could not govern the largely independent states:

How is the government under the Articles of Confederation to be
classified? In some respects, it was like [Benjamin Franklin’s] “league of
friendship” or loose confederation among independent states, each with
practically undepleted sovereignty. The Articles
specifically provided for the “sovereignty, freedom and independence” of the
separate states, evidence that the states were regarded in theory as the
ultimate repositories of sovereignty.[6]

According to James Madison’s records of the debates of the convention, one of the delegates, Mr. Randolph of Virginia, listed the “defects” of the Articles of Confederation:

...First, that the Confederation produced no security against foreign invasion;
Congress not being permitted to prevent a war, nor to support it by their own
authority. Of this he cited many examples; most of which tended to shew
[sic], that they could not cause infractions or treaties, or of the law of
nations to be punished; that particular states might by their conduct provoke
war without control; and that, neither militia nor drafts being fit for defence
[sic] on such occasions, enlistments only could be successful, and these could
not be executed without money.[7]

Thus, some of the questions the delegates faced during the debates of the Constitutional Convention were how much power the federal government should have over the militia and if it was to be the only military force in the country. Mr. Gerry, for one, believed that the “existence of the State” may depend on the nature of the militia under the new constitution.[8] He and other Anti-Federalists were on exactly the opposite side of the spectrum from Alexander Hamilton, who proposed giving the federal government complete control of the militia.[9] Doctor McClurg raised the question of how the President would enforce the laws: “Is he to have a military force…or to have the command of the militia, the only existing force that can be applied to that use?”[10] Mr. Mason “hoped” there would be nearly no peacetime standing armies and thus argued that the militia should be federally regulated and “prepared for the public defence [sic].”[11] Arguably, Mr. Mason also intended the militia to be the enforcing-arm of executive authority. As the debate continued, one proposal was made to limit the army to a set amount of men, another delegate again brought up the idea of having no standing army, and then another a proposal to just limit the appropriations available to build an army.[12] Eventually the majority came to accept that a standing army, while still highly feared, was necessary as the militia had a history of lacking uniformity across the states and were believed to be ineffective at achieving results.[13] In the end, despite strong opposition from those who feared the stripping of state authority (Mr. Gerry, Mr. Dayton, and Mr. Luther Martin—to name a few), virtually all power over the militia was handed over to the federal government—with the exception of reserving the appointment of officers and “the authority of training the militia according to the discipline of Congress” to the states.[14]

In sum, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention created what might appear to be a threat to liberty, as it chose a unified, federally controlled militia over the relatively weak and diverse state militias while at the same time granting the federal government the power to build peacetime armies. However, the Constitutional Convention did not attempt to solve this dilemma.[15] So how then would the liberties of the people be secured?

The Original Assumption of the Right to Bear Arms

Quite simply, “An armed people remained a free people because they are the last redoubt against a hostile government’s tyrannical advances.”[16] This was an understanding largely assumed by the Founders and thus not widely spoken of; however, there are various reasons why it is more than simply reasonable to infer from the original intent of the Constitution and Second Amendment the individual’s right to bear arms.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, three of the most important proponents of the Constitution, argued the case for ratification in a series of pamphlets that soon became known as The Federalist Papers.[17] In Number 46, James Madison claimed that the people are the factor that controls the power of both federal and state governments as they have the advantage “over the people of almost every other nation” of being armed. [18] Further, if a “regular army” were formed, “still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.”[19] The relative size of the forces that would rise up, he argued, would vastly outweigh such an army.[20]

Similarly, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Number 29 that “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped….”[21] To this end he even went on to say that the militia should be assembled once or twice a year and believed that this kind of well regulated militia would be used in addition to the standing army for national defense and the protection of liberty from a powerful federal government.[22] Since he was well aware that the militia was to be regulated by the federal government, it is clear that he meant the same individuals who participate in the militia—the people—would be well trained and armed in case of any need to defend liberty.

It should also be noted how the Anti-Federalists believed the militia would be run into the ground in neglect. In case this were to happen, George Mason wished that “there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power.”[23] Similarly, at the ratification convention in Virginia, the well known Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry said, “The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it.”[24] By that he meant simply that a well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. He opposed the ratification of the constitution because he thought the militia would be abandoned by the federal government. To counter this, the Federalists argued that the state and federal governments had the concurrent power of arming the militia. At the same Virginia convention Mr. Nicholas wrote:

But it is said, the militia are to be disarmed. Will they be worse armed than
they are now? … The power of arming them is concurrent between the general and
state governments; for the power of arming them rested in the state governments
before; and although the power be given to the general government, yet it is not
given exclusively…. It is, therefore, not an absurdity to say, that
Virginia may arm the militia, should Congress neglect to arm them.[25]

By no means does the evidence end here. Some Founders explicitly stated that there is an individual right to bear arms. For example, Thomas Jefferson: “And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”[26] George Mason said, "…divine Providence has given to every individual…the means of self defence [sic]."[27] He further asked, “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people….”[28] “The militia,” agreed Samuel Adams, “is composed of free citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights.”[29] George Washington, one of the nation’s foremost Founders, wrote: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite.”[30] Patrick Henry also had something to say about this: “the great object is that every man be armed….Every one who is able may have a gun.”[31] Finally, Noah Webster, perhaps better known as the author of the dictionary in his name than as a Federalist, wrote of the right to bear arms:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in
almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce
unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and
constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any
pretence, raised in the United States.[32]

In addition, some state constitutions prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights already contained guarantees similar but clearer than that in the Second Amendment. For example, Pennsylvania’s Constitution provided that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state….And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”[33] Similarly, the 1792 constitution of Kentucky quite simply stated: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence [sic] of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”[34] Numerous other states had other provisions, such as that of Mississippi’s 1817 constitution: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence [sic] of himself and the State.”[35] In sum, nearly all states—45, to be exact—have enacted constitutional provisions guaranteeing a right to bear arms: “Nearly all secure (at least in part) an individual right to keep some kinds of guns for self-defense. Some date back to the Framing; some have been enacted in the last four decades.”[36]

The Constitution was written vaguely enough that, without some sort of guarantees of personal freedom, it could be interpreted to give the government ever increasing powers.[37] Thus as the Federalists were pushing for ratification of the Constitution in at least the minimum of nine states, they were only able to convince enough hesitant votes by promising that the first national congress would pass a Bill of Rights preserved to the people.[38] For example, Madison was only elected to the Virginia state ratifying convention by assuring the Virginia Baptists that such legislation would be pursued.[39] Thus having the security of an armed populace was not enough in order for the Constitution to pass and the Anti-Federalists had to be assured of the curtailing of the federal government’s power. The Federalists were willing to do this, but they argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because “the draft Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to infringe on fundamental rights, an enumeration of certain rights may imply a lack of protection for others, and Americans would not allow their rights to be infringed despite the lack of a bill of rights.”[40]

Without even looking at the development of law, it is already clear how unreasonable it is to deduce from history that the Second Amendment was only reserving the right of the people to bear arms solely in the militia. After all, the delegates to the convention themselves granted the federal government the power to decide how to arm the militia. Mr. King—part of the committee that took into consideration the clause that became Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 granting Congress the power to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining” the militia—responded to Madison’s claim that ‘arming’ did not “extend to furnishing arms” by clarifying that it included the power to:

Provide for uniformity of arms, but included the authority to regulate the modes
of furnishing, either by the militia themselves, the State Governments, or the
National Treasury; that laws for disciplining must involve penalties, and every
thing necessary for enforcing penalties.[41]

Thus it is clear here that although the militia could be allowed to bring their own firearms to serve, the federal government could provide all that they need while in service and certainly could prescribe which weapons were acceptable. Therefore, claiming that the Second Amendment only grants those in the militia the right to bear arms is illogical, as it could have been more clearly stated by saying: “The right of the militia to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Further, since the Anti-Federalists were already upset that the Convention took most authority over the militia away from the states and gave it to the federal government, it seems dubious that they would then oppose the Constitution on the grounds that the militia might be disarmed, as Luther Martin argued and as has been previously discussed.[42] In sum, the militia consisted of the people who bore arms, could be called into service by federal government and thus subjected to rules and regulations of Constitution while in service, but still could bear arms regardless. As William Bennett summarized, “The Second Amendment—still controversial in our day—meant what it said.”[43]

The Supreme Court’s Approach to the Second Amendment

Unlike many other areas of Constitutional law, the Supreme Court has tended to avoid dealing much with the Second Amendment. There have only been a handful of rulings that have touched on the interpretation of this amendment—some only indirectly.[44] First it should be noted that although most of the Bill of Rights amendments have been incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, one of the exceptions is the right to bear arms: “If the Court does extend its reach to the states, that decision will generate a great many questions about the appropriate balance between public safety and private liberty that the Framers of the Second Amendment had no reason at all to consider.”[45] But even if that is so, it may be the only way to restore the individual right to bear arms to the way it was. In an article in the Missouri Law Review, Michael Anthony Lawrence argued that when the Court limited the Second Amendment to the federal government in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), it “betrayed the will of the people” and continues to do so to do this day. [46] “The Court's proper role in this scheme is to act as merely a guardian of the Constitution.”[47]

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) reaffirmed Cruikshank but recognized some limitations on the states:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the
reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of
the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well
as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional
provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing
arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for
maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their
duty to the general government.[48]

Presser, like other cases, can be interpreted both ways: by some as precedent for the collective rights understanding of the Second Amendment,[49] and by others as promoting the individual rights viewpoint.[50]

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was for hundreds of years the Supreme Court’s “only important decision interpreting the scope of the right to keep and bear arms.”[51] Its ruling was the first to deal with the question of the Second Amendment and the federal government by upholding the National Firearms Act of 1934, “which prohibited possession of,
among other weapons, a sawed-off shotgun without first paying a federal tax.”[52] In Miller, the Court evaded making a clear ruling one way or another on regarding a collective or individual right—instead, it concluded:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a
"shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time
has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right
to keep and bear such an instrument.[53]

The Court ruled not in favor of the collective rights argument, but that the Second Amendment should be interpreted in the context of the militia. In recent years, lower Courts have begun to formulate clearer decisions regarding the Second Amendment and interpreted Miller, Cruikshank, Presser, and other cases to match their approach. In particular, they have interpreted the amendment as a guarantee of an individual right. In United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals “issued a lengthy and scholarly opinion that rejected the states’-rights interpretation adopted over the years by all of the other courts of appeals that had ruled on the issue.”[54] The Court held that Miller was decided not on the basis that there was no individual right but that a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” was not intended to be one of the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.[55] The Court explained:

…the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and
bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and
are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether
the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia.[56]

Finally, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), the Court held that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”[57] The ruling, according to the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia, overturned a Washington D.C. statute making it a “crime to carry an unregistered firearm,” banned further registration of handguns, and also required “residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, ‘unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device’ unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities.”[58] In his conclusion, Scalia recognizes the problem of violence associated with firearms, but makes it clear that there are other constitutionally valid methods for Washington D.C. to solve the problem, such as regulation.[59] He wrote:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is
perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this
Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.[60]

It should be noted that this case did not do more than recognize the original intent of the Second Amendment. Washington D.C. is not a state. The next logical step in the development of Second Amendment case law is to incorporate it through the Fourteenth Amendment, as many other rights have already been done.

With the historical evidence available, “the closest one can come to a collective right model,” George Mocsary wrote in the Fordham Law Review, “is that the founders intended the tools of violence to be in the hands of individuals, who can come to the aid of their states if the states are threatened by the federal government.”[61] There simply is no solid historical argument for interpreting the Second Amendment as only guaranteeing the right to bear arms in the context of the militia, as some claim.[62] Furthermore, logically it would seem that the right to bear arms can only be considered a collective right if it is first an individual right. In other words, the point at which the government threatens to take away an individual’s right to properly defend himself from a threat is the point at which he is most in need of his last means of defense. What the Supreme Court has begun to recognize about the right to bear arms is that it is the one constitutionally preserved right that all others depend on. Once the people no longer have the right to bear arms in the defense of liberty, the American Experiment is at an end.

Footnotes

[1] George A. Mocsary, "Explaining Away the Obvious: The Infeasibility of Characterizing the Second Amendment as a Nonindividual Right," Fordham Law Review, 76, (2008): 2113-2175, 2114.
[2] Nelson Lund, "To Keep and Bear Arms," in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Edwin III Meese, Mathew Spalding, and David Forte, eds., 318-322 (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), 318.
[3] William J. Bennett, America: The Last Best Hope, (Nashville: Nelson Current, 2006), 117.
[4] Robert Allen Rutland, The Birth of the Bill of Rights: 1776-1791, (Durham: Seeman Printery, 1955), 25.
[5] Bennett, America: The Last Best Hope, 142.
[6] Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, the American Constitution: its Origins and Development, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1948), 103.
[7] James Madison, Journal of the Federal Convention, Special Edition (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1898), 60.
[8] Ibid., 132-133.
[9] Ibid., 187.
[10] Ibid., 397.
[11] Ibid., 551.
[12] Ibid., 555.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid., 590-591, 754.
[15] Nelson Lund, "To Keep and Bear Arms," 318.
[16] Bennett, America: The Last Best Hope, 142.
[17] Ibid., 127.
[18] James Madison, “Federalist No. 46,” in The Federalist, ed. by Sherman F. Mittell, 304-312 (Washington D.C.: National Home Library Foundation, 1937), 310-11
[19] Ibid., 310.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Alexander Hamilton, “Federalist No. 29,” in The Federalist, ed. by Sherman F. Mittell, 175-182 (Washington D.C.: National Home Library Foundation, 1937), 178-179.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Jonathan Elliot, Elliot's Debates. 2nd Edition. Vol. III. V vols., (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & co.; Washington, Taylor & Maury, 1836), 380.
[24] William Wirt Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891), 529.
[25] Elliot, Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III., 391.
[26] B. L. Rayner, Sketches of the Life, Writings, and Opinions of Thomas Jefferson, (New York: A. Francis and W. Boardman, 1832), 259.
[27] Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason, 1725-1792, (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892), 410.
[28] Elliot, Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III, 425.
[29] David C. Williams, The Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment, (London: Yale University Press, 2003), 61.
[30] Robert J. Cottrol, ed., Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment, (Routledge, 1994), 611.
[31] Mackubin Owens, "Organizing the Militia," in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Edwin III Meese, Mathew Spalding, and David Forte, eds., 141-142 (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), 141.
[32] Paul Leicester Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, (Brooklyn: B. Franklin, 1888), 56.
[33] David M. O'Brien, Constitutional Law and Politics, 7th Edition. Vol. II, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2008), 374.
[34] Eugene Volokh, “State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms,” Texas Rev. of Law & Politics, 11 (2006): 191-217, 208.
[35] Ibid., 209.
[36] Ibid., 192.
[37] Mocsary, “Explaining away the Obvious", 2116.
[38] Bennett, America: The Last Best Hope, 127.
[39] Ibid., 129.
[40] Mocsary, Explaining away the Obvious, 2118.
[41] James Madison, Journal of the Federal Convention, 589.
[42] Jonathan Elliot, Elliot's Debates. 2nd Edition. Vol. I. V vols., (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & co.; Washington, Taylor & Maury, 1859), 372.
[43] Bennett, America: The Last Best Hope, 142.
[44] Lund, “To Keep and Bear Arms,” 321.
[45] Ibid., 320-321.
[46] Michael Anthony Lawrence, “Second Amendment Incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities and Due Process Clauses,” Missouri Law Review, 72, (2007): 1-72, 4-5.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), 265.
[49] Lawrence, “Second Amendment Incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities and Due Process Clauses,” 69.
[50] Mocsary, "Explaining Away the Obvious: The Infeasibility of Characterizing the Second Amendment as a Nonindividual Right," 2157.
[51] Lund, “To Keep and Bear Arms,” 321.
[52] Mocsary, "Explaining Away the Obvious: The Infeasibility of Characterizing the Second Amendment as a Nonindividual Right," 2136.
[53] U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), 176.
[54] Lund, “To Keep and Bear Arms,” 321.
[55] United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), 224.
[56] United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), 264.
[57] "District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008)," The Oyez Project, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/ (accessed December 05, 2008).
[58] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), 1.
[59] Id., 64.
[60] Id.
[61] Mocsary, "Explaining Away the Obvious: The Infeasibility of Characterizing the Second Amendment as a Nonindividual Right," 2174.
[62] Nathan Kozuskanich, "Originalism, History, and the Second Amendment: What did Bearing Arms Really Mean to the Founders?," University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 10, (2008): 413-446, 415.

Bibliography

Bennett, William J. America: The Last Best Hope. Nashville: Nelson Current, 2006.
Cottrol, Robert J., ed. Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment. Routledge, 1994.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008).
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008)." The Oyez Project. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/ (accessed December 05, 2008).
Elliot, Jonathan. Elliot's Debates. 2nd Edition. Vol. III. V vols. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & co.; Washington, Taylor & Maury, 1836.
—. Elliot's Debates. 2nd Edition. Vol. I. V vols. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & co.; Washington, Taylor & Maury, 1859.
Elliot's Debates: The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Vol. 3. 5 vols. Washington D.C.: United States Congress, 1836.
Ford, Paul Leicester, ed. Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States. Brooklyn: B. Franklin, 1888.
Hamilton, Alexander. "The Federalist No. 29." In The Federalist, by Sherman F. ed. Mittell, 175-182. Washington D.C.: National Home Library Foundation, 1937.
Henry, William Wirt. Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches. Vol. III. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891.
Kelly, Alfred H., and Winfred A. Harbison. The American Constitution: its Origins and Development. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1948.
Kozuskanich, Nathan. "Originalism, History, and the Second Amendment: What did Bearing Arms Really Mean to the Founders?" University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, no. 10 (2008): 413-446.
Lawrence, Michael Anthony. "Second Amendment Incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities and Due Process Clauses." Missouri Law Review, no. 72 (2007): 1-72.
Lund, Nelson. "To Keep and Bear Arms." In The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, by Edwin III Meese, Mathew Spalding, and David Forte, eds., 318-322. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005.
Madison, James. "Federalist No. 46." In The Federalist, by Sherman F. ed. Mittell, 304-312. Washington D.C.: National Home Library Foundation, 1937.
—. Journal of the Federal Convention. Special Edition. Edited by E. H. Scott. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1898.
Mocsary, George A. "Explaining Away the Obvious: The Infeasibility of Characterizing the Second Amendment as a Nonindividual Right." Fordham Law Review, no. 76 (2008): 2113-2175.
O'Brien, David M. Constitutional Law and Politics. 7th Edition. Vol. II. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2008.
Owens, Mackubin. "Organizing the Militia." In The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, by Edwin III Meese, Mathew Spalding, and David Forte, eds., 141-142. Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886).
Rayner, B. L. Sketches of the Life, Writings, and Opinions of Thomas Jefferson. New York: A. Francis and W. Boardman, 1832.
Rowland, Kate Mason. The Life of George Mason, 1725-1792. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892.
Rutland, Robert Allen. The Birth of the Bill of Rights: 1776-1791. Durham: Seeman Printery, 1955.
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).
United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)
United States. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
Volokh, Eugene. "State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms." Texas Rev. of Law & Politics, no. 11 (2006): 191-217.
Williams, David C. The Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment. London: Yale University Press, 2003.

Atkinson 2010

2009-01-08T18:46:00.000-08:00

Let's get this show on the road.

During his convalescence [leg injury], Atkinson said, he's thought a lot about running for governor. He has yet to officially throw his hat in the race, but he's preparing for it.
"I'm training for a big race in 2010," he said.
He said the grassroots organization for his 2006 primary campaign is still intact and will help if he decides to run again.
"I've kept our work alive," he said.

YES!!!

Another State Sen. who has worked with Sen. Atkinson has also told me that he thinks Jason will run again. Of course he could be planning to run for another office--such as Congress, as was suggested as a possibility on Blue Oregon--and I'll support him anywhere, but we need him as Governor. It's also said U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith and Congressman Greg Walden are potential candidates. So the coming year or so will be really interesting.

I might even come out of my hole and blog again. I'll be working at the Capitol for some months and I get the feeling that being around there, I can't help but be overflowing with political opinions. That is, more than normal.

Republicans at this time are in a dismal state ('state' as in 'condition', but I suppose one can interpret that to mean the State of Oregon as well). But our weakness will be our greatest strength because we can only go up. We "hold no statewide office for the first time since 1859" and the House and Senate are controlled decisively by Democrats. So what have we got to lose?

Now's our chance to clearly define our values and policies, choose strong, charistmatic candidates (have I mentioned State Sen. Jason Atkinson yet?), and set them before the people of Oregon.

Does Obama have a racial challenge or is the media racially challenged?

2008-05-23T22:40:00.000-07:00

Even as he closes in on the Democratic nomination for the presidency, Sen. Barack Obama is facing lingering problems winning the support of white voters--including some in his own party. In a new NEWSWEEK Poll of registered voters, Obama trails presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain 40 percent to 52 percent among whites. Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama's challenger for the Democratic nomination, also trails McCain among white voters but by a smaller margin, 44 percent to 48 percent.

I wonder. Is it whites being racist by not choosing Obama or blacks being racist by choosing a black over a white person? I have no idea what the answer really is and frankly I don't think it matters. The media's constant pursuit of biases reveals a rather limited worldview. I rarely think about the fact that Obama is black, or that Hillary is a woman, or how old McCain is until they bring it up. I wonder why we can't just look at these people in light of their records and platforms instead of using differences that don't change how they would be president.

And does the media think that constantly bringing up the fact that some people won't vote for Obama because he's black, for example, will change anything? If people are racist, they are racist and its up to them to get over it. Obama can't just woo racism right out of people, even if he can hire fainting women.

Obama is black, Hillary is a woman, McCain is old. Get over it Newsweek.

Question from a gas guzzler

2008-02-25T23:33:00.000-08:00

If gas prices are supposed to rise during the winter because of increased demand for heating oil, and if gas prices are supposed to rise during the summer (not to on mention on holidays) because of increased traveling and other reasons, when are they not supposed to rise? The media couldn't possibly be wanting me to be in fear of rising gas prices 24/7/365, could they?

Believe me, I understand the problems with high gas prices. I literally pay between $150 and $200 a month on gas due to my v6 Chevy and a decent commute. Of course the car was free so I'm not going to complain, I just want you to know I have as much right to whine about the evil oil companies as the next guy if I would so choose to.

NEWSFLASH: MCCAIN, OBAMA LOOKING TO WIN PRIMARIES

2008-02-19T10:10:00.000-08:00

THIS JUST IN:

Wisconsin and Hawaii become the latest battlegrounds in the struggle for the Democratic presidential nominee Tuesday, while Republican Sen. John McCain is looking for victories to finally knock his last remaining major rival out of the race.
In the Democratic presidential race, Sen. Barack Obama is looking to increase his lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in the race for delegates with wins in the Wisconsin primary...

Isn't it sad when that's the beginning of a news story? Because the headline ALREADY says the contests are in Wisconsin and Hawaii, all of the text above is worthless to anyone who has watched 10 minutes of news in the last couple months. No, I could not have guessed that McCain is looking for victories. No, I could not have guessed that Obama is looking to increase his lead. I suppose most people who read\watch CNN are ignorant, or at least that's what CNN must think.

When life = true, blog = false

2008-02-15T22:44:00.000-08:00

So I've been virtually non-existent here for about a year and I think it's about time that I reestablish some sort of claim to this blog. I figure that I should at least remove myself from the COBRA and other blog rolls if I'm not actually writing, but I'd rather attempt to get back in the habit of using what little I know about politics to write opinions here. I also want to reinstitute the policy of attaining political news from more than talk radio and MSNBC.com (hehe) so I'm going to start up (or at least attempt) regular blog reading at the very least.

What happened is life I suppose. College has a way of sapping time, especially for one who takes extra long to complete assignments. Also, whenever I get angry enough at the media or government to write an opinion, being a member of generation Y, any rant is liable to end up on Facebook--not here. I was also a little politically apathetic for a while when I was neither involved in an amazing campaign such as Atkinson's, nor was I taking any sort of political science class (which always inspires opinions out of me).

But now I'm going to George Fox University studying political science. I'm also commuting a little over a half hour each way--leaving plenty of time to input talk radio. I'm also taking a poli-sci course with a former legislator and have been following the primaries closely of late. So while I haven't found an amazing political candidate to hit the streets for (and get inspiration from) at this point, I've still been feeling more in tune with times of late.

What I'm saying is that I feel like I want to get back into the game to the best of my ability. I can't expect much because before I know it I'll be assaulted by a test or paper, but one can hope, no?

I'm also really wanting to participate a lot more in the political process, be it volunteering at the county GOP HQ like I've done before or an internship with the first left-wing legislator I can find. ;-) Speaking of county GOP...anyone have any info for me on Washington County? I recently moved here so I'm unfamiliar with the political terrain (not that I was especially in tune with Clackamas County). That is, other than the fact that I need to learn Spanish...FAST.

Congress working hard

2007-10-29T08:57:00.000-07:00

...to keep their 11% approval rating:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — Shortly after winning a majority last year, Democrats triumphantly declared that they would put Congress back to work, promising an “end to the two-day workweek.” And indeed, the House has clocked more time in Washington this year than in any other session since 1995, when Republicans, newly in control, sought to make a similar point.
But 10 months into the session, with their legislative agenda often in gridlock with the Bush administration and a big election year looming, the Democrats are now planning a lighter schedule when the 110th Congress begins its second year in mid-January.
The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, told fellow Democrats this week that the House would not be in session next year on Fridays, except in June for work on appropriations bills.
...
“Is this a reward for our accomplishments in 2007?” asked Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip.

Mr. Blunt knows how to get to the point...

Greenspan Criticizes Republicans

2007-09-14T23:36:00.000-07:00

And rightly so (from reading the beginning of the article):

In a withering critique of his fellow Republicans, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir that the party to which he has belonged all his life deserved to lose power last year for forsaking its small-government principles.
...
Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

What a clear and excellent way to put why we have an even worse congress right now. And of course a lack of fiscal discipline is just one problem that the RINO congress had..

'08

2007-08-13T00:17:00.000-07:00

I've basically narrowed down my choices for president in 2008 to one of these three candidates:

Mitt Romney
Fred Thompson
Mike Huckabee

I definitely know more right now about the first so I'm no where near decided yet. Each has his own pluses and minuses of course. Some are more electable than others (which I think should not be a deciding factor in the primaries at least), and some at least appear more conservative than others.

Although I am far from deciding, I can make a couple of observations. I think Mike comes across as the most trustworthy and honest of the three right off. I am 75% sure Romney would make a great president--but not so sure the other guys won't be better because of some positions on issues that they have which I might agree with better. All of them seem to have at least decent chances at making it through the primaries....but Mike definitely has an uphill battle. In other words, I think it's possible for him to win the primary...but not very likely. But as I said, that won't stop me from supporting him if need be.

The Revolution of the Hierarchy Conception

2007-07-26T00:17:00.000-07:00

"An excursus into how things used to be, and what has become of traditional thought in Western culture."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jcNBkQXpY0

By Joel Martini. A voice of reason in an age of nonsense. This is an excellent 8 minute video by a great friend of mine done for his senior project in high school. Please leave a comment on Youtube if you appreciate his hard work as much as I do.

Apologies

2007-07-20T13:12:00.000-07:00

I know I've said this before, but I'm going to say it again. I'm sorry I've gotten way out of the loop on all things blogging (and political as well), but I'm going to try again to get back in touch. Part of the problem is I am most interested in politics when I am taking a Poli-sci class, and that hasn't happened for quite a while.

However, next month I am transferring to George Fox University in Newberg where I will be majoring in Political Science. So you can expect to be hearing from me in years ahead. I hope to meet Former Senator Mark Hatfield while I'm there because I know he still teaches, or is at least a guest speaker in some classes.

I might as well make it known now that I am not solidly in any one's camp as far as the 2008 elections. I'm thinking Fred Thompson is a good possibility while Mitt Romney is the best of the leading moderates. But I really don't have someone I'm ready to buy a t-shirt from yet, if you know what I mean. Last year it didn't take much for me to be convinced State Senator Jason Atkinson was someone to support in the governor's election. I'm hoping I'll be as convinced of one of these people in time as I was (and still am) of him. My only fear is there's no one like him in the Presidential arena, and so far I think that fear is not unfounded.

"10 things you should know about gas prices"

2007-06-07T16:05:00.000-07:00

10 things you should know about gas prices

"If you believe the experts, the oil companies aren't lying to you; it really is supply and demand. And no, it isn't price gouging by any legal definition; it's just the normal profit taking. "

I agree with almost everything in this well written article on MSN of all places. And to think it is on the front page of MSN! There's still a little bit of a problem at the end but for the most part it is excellent.

Pork-cutting Democrats, hard at work

2007-04-23T11:43:00.000-07:00

Good to know your vote counts for something. Here are the choicest parts of an article by the AP: (wait until the best part at the end)

WASHINGTON - Defying a fresh veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass legislation within days requiring the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday.
The legislation also sets a goal of a complete pullout by April 1, 2008, he said.
...
Negotiators for the House and Senate arranged a late-afternoon meeting to ratify the timetable that Reid laid out. The demand for a change in course will be attached to a funding bill that is needed to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
...
There is no doubt that Republicans in Congress have the votes to sustain Bush's threatened veto.
That would require Congress to approve a second funding bill quickly to avoid significant disruptions in military operations.
...
Democratic officials have also said they intend to add a minimum wage increase to the war funding bill. Key lawmakers announced agreement late last week on a package of business tax breaks to accompany the boost in the wage floor, which would total $2.10 cents an hour in three equal installments.
Apart from the clash over war policy, Bush has pledged to veto the funding bill if Democrats go ahead with plans to include billions of dollars in domestic spending.

Yes, let's pass a bill that includes funding for the troops, a timetable to pull them out of Iraq, a hike in the minimum wage, tax breaks for businesses, and a plenty of bridges to nowhere all at the same time! Efficiency at its finest.

Of course, any decent President (i.e. most or all Democratic Presidents before the 60s and most or all Republican Presidents throughout U.S. history) would veto this bill, so Congress is setting the military up for a funding collapse that will be their responsibility to deal with.

FYI

2007-04-18T22:10:00.000-07:00

Here's an e-mail I just received:

On behalf of Free to Choose Media, I wanted to send a belated thank you for your online comments this past January regarding Milton Friedman. We are the producers of the Free to Choose series and The Power of Choice biography.
I'd also like to alert you to our newest documentary titled "The Ultimate Resource," which will premiere on HDNet next Tuesday, April 24 at 10PM EST. I apologize for the short notice, but I was hoping you might share this with your readers. In short, we travel to China, Bangladesh, Estonia, Ghana, and Peru and show examples of how people (thank you Julian Simon) - when given the incentives and the tools - are proving they can apply their free choice, intelligence, imagination and spirit to dramatically advance their well-being and that of their families and communities. The program features 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, Hernando de Soto, James Tooley and Johan Norberg.
For more information including pics and video previews, visit us at http://www.freetochoosemedia.org
Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Rick
Rick Platt
Free to Choose Media / www.freetochoosemedia.org
2002 Filmore Avenue, Suite #1
Erie, PA 16506 USA
email: rick@freetochoosemedia.org
main office: 814.833.7140
www.freetochoose.net / www.ideachannel.tv / www.ideachannel.com / www.izzit.org
Our mission: "To use easily understood and entertaining popular media to reach inquisitive minds regarding the value and interrelationship of personal, economic and political freedom sustained by the rule of law."

Bank of America Boycott

2007-02-16T10:28:00.000-08:00

A few days ago I wrote this post about Bank of America making credit cards available to people without Social Security Numbers. Well, here is an interesting e-mail I just received about that:

Illegal Immigration Coalition to Boycott Bank of America!
February 16, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
(866) 329-3999 or WilliamG@alipac.us
http://www.bankofamericaboycott.com/
http://www.illegalimmigrationboycott.com/
The National Illegal Immigration Boycott Coalition (NIIBC), which includes over 100 organizations, is launching a boycott of Bank of America because of the bank's offer to issue credit cards, mortgages, and accounts to illegal aliens in the US.
"People are already canceling cards and accounts with Bank of America over this news," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "The goal of the boycott is to get tens of thousands of Americans to complain to BOA, ask Congress for action, and to cancel their accounts, until this bank respects public opinion and federal law."
Several online polls show over 80% of the American public disapprove of Bank of America's decision to offer credit cards to illegal aliens, with no Social Security numbers and no credit history.
"It is a slap in the face to every American struggling with credit card debt and rocky credit scores," says William Gheen. "Bank of America needs to realize that the citizens of America run this nation, not big business and the current law state it is a felony to aid and abet illegals inside the US. We want Bank of America charged and the decision makers responsible for this to face fines and jail time. We want the Rule of Law restored in America!"
The NIIBC launched a boycott of Miller Brewing and their London based parent company SABMiller six months ago. Since that time, Miller's American sales have dwindled.
The netsavy anti-illegal immigration groups are launching a website to assist the boycott at http://www.bankofamericaboycott.com/ Citizens are encouraged to visit the site, sign the petition, and take action!
The coalition is comprised of over 100 non-racist organizations such as 9/11 Families for a Secure America, The Conservative Voice, Latino Americans for Immigration Reform, USAPAC, IllegalAliens.us, and many others.
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) is now one of the largest national organizations fighting against illegal immigration and serves as Director of the NIIBC. ALIPAC is a multi-ethnic organization that enjoys the support of many LEGAL immigrants. Supporters are organized in all 50 states. For more information, please visit http://www.alipac.us/
###
Paid for by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
http://www.alipac.us/
Post Office Box 30966, Raleigh, NC 27622-0966
Tel: (919) 787-6009 Toll Free: (866) 329-3999
FEC ID: C00405878

Now, I don't necessarily agree with everything they are saying (like trusting in online polls alone), but I'm on board with the general idea.

The Middle East's forgotten democracy

2007-02-15T16:57:00.000-08:00

Can you believe this:

To date, no coalition solider has died or even been wounded in the northern territory controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government.

I knew it is not nearly as bad in the north as in Baghdad, but I didn't know that. You want to know more? Read "The Middle East's forgotten democracy," by State Senator Jason A. Atkinson from here in Oregon.

It's well worth the time.

Credit for illegals

2007-02-13T12:25:00.000-08:00

That's right, according to today's Wall Street Journal, Bank of America now offers credit cards to people who don't have Social Security numbers. I don't have an online version of the story, so all I can quote is what I can type before Spanish class, ironically:

In the latest sign of the U.S. banking industry's aggressive pursuit of the Hispanic market, Bank of America Corp. has quietly begun offering credit cards to customers without Social Security numbers -typically illegal immigrants.
In recent years, banks across the country have begun offering checking accounts and, in some cases, mortgages to the nation's fast-growing ranks of undocumented immigrants, most of whom are Hispanic. But these immigrants generally haven't been able to get major credit cards, making it hard for them to develop a credit history and expand their purchasing power.

Well, maybe I should burn my SSN and apply at Bank of America because I haven't been able to get a credit card from Paypal due to my lack of any credit history (i.e. I'm not in debt).

Anyway, I believe the story says that applicants pay a fee around $99 that they will get back 3 to 6 months later, if they make all their payments and stay within the $500 credit limit. It also says their APR is 21.24%. So, not the best credit card out there by a long shot, unless you are like me and don't plan on going into debt--which is not likely according to the stats...

But the point is...here's a company taking advantage of an opportunity that shouldn't be there. Am I saying that Bank of America is not at fault for meeting a need? NO! What they are doing is rewarding illegal behavior. But the issue isn't their fault, they are just making it worse.

By the way, there is a Bank of America location here in Oregon that has signs that are ONLY in Spanish. Talk about target market analysis gone wrong. I would encourage them to reconsider the name of their bank. Try: "Bank Of The Americas" because that's what they are becoming.

An Inconvenient Spelling

2007-02-11T22:45:00.000-08:00

Here's a Myspace message asking people to sign a petition requesting Al Gore to run for President in '08. It was written marvelously:

Sign the petition here...
Because it just makes sense to have an environment-concious, all ready rightfully elected, nobel prize nominee to be the leader of the United States of America!

Well, OK, it's just a simple little recruitment message\spam. But...it should prove to be amusing to examine it more closely:

1) "Concious" is not the correct way of spelling "conscience," but that's OK; everibody m4k3s spelin’ amd gramer erors sumetimes.

2) Being "environment-concious" is no big deal, assuming Global Warming is to be feared. Lots of people say climate change is a problem. Does that mean they are going to do anything about said fiction? Not likely. Not even Gore will stop his gas guzzling, as we all know already. So being "environment-concious," if correctly spelled and everything else, is like either saying, "nice earth we've got here," or "nice earth we used to have." Making a "concious" thought about something doesn't make a world of difference. Although in this case I couldn't care less, though I always prefer politicians of whatever stripes to act the way they speak. That makes it easier to be for or against them.

3) "...All ready rightfully elected..." Last time I checked it was spelled: "already." Despite that, lots of Presidents have been rightfully elected, surprisingly enough. Even the Presidents who chose the Supreme Court Judges who ruled the verdict that eventually led to the current President being elected were themselves elected by those people with the paper thingies...you know, those sometimes-in-Spanish (at least here in Oregon) things they call ballots. So yeah, some president Gore would be if he doesn't accept the fact that there is a Constitution.

4) "...nobel prize nominee..." Oh my! We have a nominee! Now we must all hail him. No really... Why didn't people vote for Milton Friedman while he was alive? I think someone who actually won the Nobel Prize in Economics would have made a more capable President than someone who was just nominated for a nobel. Good for Gore for getting nominated, but don't vote for him because of it.

Well, it is fun to be back to blogging. I hope to delve into this world frequently once again. I'll admit, it's a lot easier to tear apart other people's arguments than to try to solve the problems of the world on my own. It's not that I haven't tried, but it's that I haven't yet succeeded.

And I'll also admit that I probably use spell checkers a lot more than the guy who wrote the above statement.

The minimum wage and me

2007-01-10T15:21:00.000-08:00

MSNBC BREAKING NEWS E-MAIL:

"The Democrat-controlled House voted Wednesday to increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, bringing America's lowest-paid workers a crucial step closer to their first raise in a decade."

ha. ha. ha. That smells of approval.

I would add to that sentence the following:

"...and bringing inflation to the doorstep of consumers everywhere."

Of course here in civilized Oregon we've already advanced to a minimum wage of something like $7.80 or whatever. I don't even care. I've been trying to get a job for a number of weeks now and I really wish I didn't have that silly law in the way. Why? Since I am looking for a low-level job to start with, I wish they could start me out without much in the way of wages so that I could get raises based on how well I preform, not based on how many Democrats in Salem have legislative power.

"...bringing America's lowest-paid workers a crucial step closer to their first raise in a decade." (from the news alert)

And making it harder for people like me to get out of the 4.0% unemployment waiting list and get into the private sector.

Let it be known that I want the minimum wage laws to be ABOLISHED. The definition of a market economy includes the fact that there are big winners and big losers, based on how well each member performs. It's up to individuals, charities, churches, and especially the losers themselves to help the people that failed to harness the power of capitalism the first time around.