verum planto vos solvo

The Constitution: Is it outdated for the 21st century?


Liberal "nut wank" Bill Mahr notwithstanding, some have questioned the relevance of the U.S. Constitution in modern times. After all, it was written by men (and only men) at a time when the populous was mostly uneducated and unsophisticated about matters of government and individual rights. (some things haven't changed much). While the Declaration Of Independence is the flowery manifesto of American independence, the Constitution is the user guide how to make the American experiment work. Written at a time when the leading technology was bees waxed candles, the nuts and bolts workings of the constitution are timeless. Sadly, I've even heard a few conservatives question the relevancy of the constitution these days - to the point of suggesting it may be time for a new U.S. Constitution to reflect the changing times. They are wrong.

We need not attempt to create it's successor. The constitution is the blueprint for national and individual success. But the constitution is not a "living document" as some would have you believe. It is stone. It cannot be re-interpreted for the convenience of the moment or partisan political whims. For instance, the founders knew the failings of human nature. That's why the 1st and 2nd amendments are what they are. Freedom of speech (and religion) along with the right of free men to bear arms, are the two most important amendments. They knew that a free society, a Representative Republic as we are, would require individual freedoms to protect its longevity. And they feared that a tyrannical government, even a freely elected one, could run roughshod over the people. The people would need the tools to make certain that didn't happen. And if it did, the people would have the means to throw off the shackles that enslaved them. Those two amendment guarantee and make certain that ability lies with the people.

The problem isn't with the Constitution. It's with those who find the Constitution too restraining. Well, it's supposed to be restraining. While it allows for new amendments when required, it has rock solid purpose and clearly definable law. Amendments are not to be added or changed willy-nilly. That's why it requires the government to run the gauntlet of procedures in order to change or add an amendment. The Constitution is specifically designed to restrain government, not promote it's expansion. It exists to limit the power, size and scope of the federal government. Hence, the 10th amendment which reserves significant power to the states - which the federal government has usurped in the last 100 plus years. Take some time to read the 10th amendment, then tell me if you think the federal government has overstepped it's intent. Uh huh.

Unlike other country's constitutions, ours doesn't approach the rights of the people as being granted by the government. The founders recognized that any right that can be granted by the government, can be taken by that same government. They understood that rights granted by God, cannot be taken by man. Hence the phase unalienable rights. The approach was different from anything prior. The constitution also lays out the format for electing officials, which branch of government has what powers and the mechanisms for a functioning republic. It is often clumsy but it does work. And it would work much better if certain people would let it alone. The current President uses Executive Orders as a way to bypass congress which is clearly the legislative branch of government. The President's ability to use Executive Orders and actions were never intended to circumvent congress and create defacto law. Sadly, he's not the first Chief Executive to do this.

We have been given a great gift. That gift must be protected from those who would use it for partisan purposes. And to do that properly, it must be understood. I'm not a constitutional scholar. But you don't have to be one to appreciate the simplicity and grandeur of our constitution. It's really quite a simple read. The founders meant what the said and said what they meant. It's written in ink and paid for in blood. And designed for a free people who will cherish and protect it. It will endure long after you and I are gone just as it was intended. Written for the ages, it requires no rewrite. It just needs to be followed.



7 is the new 30. At least where guns in N.Y. are concerned in New York

New York state Governor, Andrew Cuomo (D) announced sweeping new gun control laws in his state. Among the new laws was one that limits a gun's magazine capacity to 7 rounds. If you've been wondering what the "safe number" of rounds in a gun is - apparently it's "ten" - at least according to the New York Governor. Empire State residents can now rest easy. Your neighbors will no longer be menacing you with a 30 round magazine in their rifles. Of course, this new law doesn't apply to the criminal element of New York seeing how they have been very disrespectful to gun laws to date.

My semi-auto Ruger 9mm handgun holds 15 rounds in it's magazine. If I wanted to, I could fire those 15 rounds, drop the magazine, insert another and rip off another 15 rounds in about 2 seconds longer than a full 30 round magazine could. This legislation was intended to make citizens feel safer. Well, do you? Of course not, because its all window dressing. A law abiding citizen with a 30 round magazine is a threat to no one - except someone intent on harming him. However, a criminal with a 5 round magazine is a threat to all of us. Then again, so is a criminal with a knife, harpoon, bowling pin, coffee grinder or spatula. There is no safe number of rounds in a magazine in the hands of a demented person, gangbanger or punkass criminal. Your elected officials would have you think otherwise.

Along with some states, the Obama regime will attempt to force more gun laws in an attempt to reduce violent gun deaths. Unfortunately, the overwhelming amount of these new regulations will be aimed at the law abiding gun owner - not those who are actually committing these deaths. Chicago had over 500 gun related deaths in 2012. How many do you think were committed with legally owned firearms? Very, very few because gun laws in the windy city are among the strictest in the nation. Its the criminal element that is causing these deaths. And so-called high capacity "assault weapons" account for less than half of 1% of ALL gun related deaths. Yet you would be led to believe its astronomical. Why are they so focused on these weapons? Facts are stubborn things, seldom reflecting the viewpoint of the anti-gun lobby. But they are facts non-the-less.

Some don't understand why a large capacity magazine is necessary. For me, the argument is simple. If 30 round mags are made illegal, gun deaths wont go down because as stated prior, criminals don't obey laws. Limiting people to 7 round mags wont help either for the exact same reason. Eventually some well meaning liberal politicians will suggest that only 5 round magazines should be legal - with the same results. When these efforts fail - and they will, what will they want next? I shudder to think. And that's why the line must be drawn here.

Its been estimated that criminal activity is thwarted anywhere from 1 to 2 million times a year in the U.S. just by an armed citizen presenting a firearm in their defense. Liberals will say that number is grossly exaggerated. Fine. Then even if we use the "official" number that law enforcement uses, we're still approaching 500,000. (The discrepancy is that often people don't "report" their experiences to law enforcement) You may wish to remain unarmed and that's fine with me. But I will not surrender my constitutional rights - none of them and especially the 2nd amendment. It is the one that assure the others will survive. Nor will I rely upon the reaction time of the police to come to my aid should I need them. The amount of time it takes the Police to respond to a 911 call is 14 minutes. My bullet travels at 1200 feet per second. When time is of the essence, which one would you want to rely upon?

Senator Obama voted against the 2006 debt ceiling. Cites "failed leadership"

A long, long time ago  (2006) in a galaxy... well right here, Senator Barack Obama voted AGAINST raising the debt limit. But it gets better. He cited the "failed leadership" of the current administration. You can't make this shit up. Fortunately, we don't have to. Barry keeps forgetting that the Internet forgets nothing and we have access to it. But also voting against it back then were a couple of rodeo clowns with the last names of Reid, Biden and Schumer. Their reason? We just can't keep spending above our means. Then they vote for any and all kinds of spending when one of their own gets in the big house. But a trillion here a trillion there, next thing you know we're talkin' real money.

Now Obama uses fear (yes, again) to get what he wants. And what does he want? Spending. More spending. He's as predictable as he is consistent. At today's press conference he tells America that if the debt limit isn't raised, seniors may not get their Social Security checks and veterans may not have access to the care they deserve. At no time did he say that he and members of congress wouldn't get paid. (Gotta' have priorities)  The GOP offers to raise the debt limit but they want some spending cuts. Barry says "oh noooooooo". Can't reduce spending now. Millions of non-tax paying Americans are depending on him spending money we don't have. We have a $16.3 trillion national debt. A $1.1 trillion budget deficit and he says we can't cut a dime. Nope!

In government's infinite wisdom, departmental spending is automatically raised 5% each year. Do you get a mandatory 5% raise every year? The GOP wanted to reduce the mandatory increases. The big "O" said NO. The federal government just can't do without that additional yearly increase. Nope! They just can't! Not that they tried, mind you. Obama will demonize anyone who wants to reduce spending and who else would that be besides those dastardly Republicans. I still can't believe more than half of America voted to re-elect this train wreck. But from what I've heard, there's a coronation, err, uh inauguration next week. And you're paying for some of that too. Hey, it's only money.

Liberal hypocrisy finds a home in suburban New York.

Two New York county suburban newspapers decided to get cute last week and post the names of legal gun permit holders. Fabulous. They article was named "The gun owner next door. What you don't know about weapons in your neighborhood". 44,000 people are licensed to own handguns in the three counties mentioned. (Permits are not necessary for shotguns and rifles there) This was done in an effort, so the story goes, to make Putman and Westchester county residents safer by being more knowledgeable about who has guns in their neighborhoods. Of course what would really make those residents safer is to know who the illegal gun owners are. But alas, illegal gun owners, i.e. gangbangers, rapists, thieves, carjackers, convenience store robbers and home invasion perpetrators don't register their guns. (That's why they're called "illegal". See how that works?) 

This was an effort to embarrass and expose people who have committed no crime other than legally exercise a specific constitutional right - which apparently annoys these two suburban newspapers. But these papers actually put every non-gun owner in Putnam and Westchester counties at risk. Now the criminal element knows exactly which homes and families are not defended. Should any of these non-gun homes be robbed or homeowners attacked, I hope the homeowners attempt to sue the newspapers for putting them at risk. As for me, I wouldn't mind at all if my local newspapers printed my name as a gun owner. In fact, they could print that I also have a concealed carry weapon permit. That way the vermin out there would know I'm not an easy mark. I might be armed today. Or perhaps I'm not. They've got a 50-50 chance against me. And should they attempt entry into my home, their ratio at success drops considerably.

These newspapers would find it insulting if an organization of an opposing viewpoint were to list the names and addresses of citizens whose activities they opposed. But in a moment of ultimate hypocrisy, the newspapers have employed armed guards to protect them since the names were listed. Even though no actual threats were made. Liberal hypocrisies. They're everywhere. You don't even have to look hard.

Can we finally say the "S" word?



The handwriting on the wall was so easy to see. So legible. But so many just didn't want to see it. I have resisted using the "S" word for four years but no more. Now I shall call him exactly what he really is. I say it loud, proud and without reservation. "Barack Obama is a Socialist!"  If anyone had even the slightest of doubts, it was vanquished today when he agreed to increase spending by $680 billion and taxes by $60 billion. We are now guaranteed $1 trillion annual deficits forever - something unheard of before the Emperor Obama's reign. George W. Bush was criticized by Obama for having a $480 billion deficit. That looks pretty tame now, doesn't it. Barack Obama doesn't care a wit about deficit spending. It doesn't even show up on his radar of concerns. He is only interested in expanding the size, scope and intrusion of the federal government at any and all cost, so he can continue his "social justice" campaign.

The rich, now defined as those making over $400,000 a year will pay more in taxes but so will you. The Payroll tax hike will cost you more. Obamacare taxes will start showing up everywhere starting January 1, 2013, costing you more. Taxes are increasing in hidden places that will affect middle America like never before. But hey, this is what 51% voted for and elections have consequences. Obama promised a class warfare. You just didn't expect you would be part of the class he was waging battle on, did you? Every campaign based on fear needs a boogieman. For Obama, that was the rich. They weren't paying enough and he was going to make sure they did. Well, he got his tax increases on the rich and you weren't even collateral damage. He planned on taking up your tax burden all the time. After all, anyone with half a frontal lobe could figure out that hiking taxes on the top 2% wasn't enough to balance the sheets. In fact, that wouldn't even come close. So you had to kick in some bucks too. But here's the kicker - even with the increased revenue, he's still going to increase spending by $680 billion and borrow 46 cents of every dollar we spend. Up from 40 cents just 2 years ago. And he ain't done yet.

 The Emperor has no interest in controlling spending. He never did. His agenda is to spend us into social justice nirvana. By the end of his reign, our national debt will exceed $21 trillion. Just to jog your memory, it was $9 trillion when he took office. When the debt reaches $25 trillion, many economists say that's the level at which our debt will be unsustainable. Hyper inflation will take over. Drastic measures may need to be introduced and I can guarantee you these are not measures anyone is going to like nor want. At least you got free birth control. I hope it was worth it.