Priviledges or Immunities

David Hardy, over at Of Arms and the Law points to an essay by Marcus Cole. In the essay, Cole pays tribute to 4 black Americans who made the McDonald case possible: Frederick Douglas, his father, Clarence Thomas, and Otis McDonald. It's a powerful, and moving essay. Go and read it.

Note that only Clarence Thomas took Gura's arguments seriously, and points the way to overturning the Slaughterhouse Cases decision. It needs to be done. Right now, the doctrine of stare decis means that even if a decision is made wrongly, the longer it stands the more it becomes untouchable. The Slaughterhouse cases are just such decisions. The only way to correct them is for the Justices to go back and look at what the Constitution actually says. Until that happens, our Constitution will be subject to being interpreted out of existence.

The First American Dictator

Robert Miller has an interesting piece up at the American Thinker today entitled Government by Diktat that argues we are no longer a nation of laws, but of men. Faceless men to be exact.

When do we count ourselves among those ruled by a dictator? Personally, the day Obama took over the auto industry, I decided then that we were living under dictatorship. It has apparently taken more evidence for others. But one person I spoke to did not feel that even now we were living under a dictatorship.

Some people have their heads in the sand. To those people, I say wake up! Look at what is happening around you. Look at what is being withheld from you by the media here. And if it is happening with the Jeremiah Wright story, what else are they not telling you. We are now living under a [Progressive/Marxist/Communist/Fascist/Latest Name By Which They Go] dictatorship. It happened while you were sleeping.

The Real Reason for Gun Control

Kevin Williamson has an excellent article over at the National Review Online entitled Coyotes In the State of Nature. No, it really isn't about Coyotes. A quote:

People have a visceral reaction to guns, which is why the reactions to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago have been so emotional. One extraordinarily telling reaction came from David Ignatius of the Washington Post, whose response was headlined: “The Supreme Court Gun Decision Moves Us Toward Anarchy.” Mr. Ignatius wrote: “My biggest worry with Monday’s Supreme Court decision is that by ruling, in effect, that every American can apply for a gun license, the justices will make gun ownership much more pervasive in a society that already has too many guns. After all, if I know that my neighbor is armed and preparing for Armageddon situations where law and order break down (as so many are — just read the right-wing blogs) then I have to think about protecting my family, too. That’s the state-of-nature, everyone for himself logic that prevails in places such as Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Mr. Ignatius here is remarkably forthcoming: He is not worried about guns in the hands of criminals, but about guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, people who are willing to apply for a permit and jump through the bureaucratic hoops re­quired of gun buyers. His nightmare is not an America in which criminals run amok with Glocks, or even an America in which gun permits are handed out liberally, but an America in which “every American can apply for a gun license.” Never mind the approval of licenses, the mere application gives Mr. Ignatius the howling fantods. It is wonderfully apt that he references the “state of nature” in his criticism, imagining a Hobbesian version of life in these United States: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, permeated by the aroma of cordite. Mr. Ignatius, like Thomas Hobbes, is casting his lot with Leviathan and makes no apology for it.

I won't spoil the ending for you. You'll just have to go and read it. It's short. But I will tell you that the masks are coming off. What was once hidden is now spoken of quite openly. Let those who have eyes, see.

Rant: Idiotic Bumper Stickers

Below is a rant. I freely admit it, and if you, dear reader, are averse to such things, then turn away now.

I saw a bumper sticker while out driving that had the word "tolerance" written with a variety of symbols from different religions. My blood started to boil, but then I thought about it. What is it about such advertisements of others complete ignorance that makes me mad? Does it affect me that this nitwit wants to drive around with "tolerance" on his rear end?


Frankly, such bumper stickers make me angry because of the implied superiority of such people. I have talked to people who smugly say things like "all religions teach essentially the same truths." No. They don't. Buddhism, for example, teaches that man becomes god, while Judeaism teaches that God created the universe and each creature in it, including man. They both can not be right. Then there are the Gaia worshipers, who anthropomorphize animals, while denying that man belongs here at all. Such a belief system is so at odds with Christianity, that again the both can not be correct. The truth is that the "tolerance" sticker types don't truly believe in anything except themselves. If they want to feel all warm and fuzzy because they have a corner on tolerance, fine. But when they interfere with my free exercise of religion by law, they are showing their own hypocrisy.


And they have, and do interfere with my free exercise, and that of millions of others as well. Children are not allowed to pray in school today because some intolerant SOB filed a lawsuit that finally reached the Supremes and allowed them to stand the Constitution on its head and declare that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means just the opposite. Children, and adults had been previously allowed to freely exercise their religion in schools, but were now denied. Since that case, the ACLU has continued with a vengeance to take down each and every symbol of Judeo-Christian religion that occurs outside of a church building, including monuments to the 10 Commandments and even the crosses that appear on the seal of Los Angeles. If the ACLU ever figure out that Los Angeles means "The Angels" then I suppose the city council will have to change the name of the city.

Each Christmas, a uniquely Christian holiday, I am reminded constantly that because everybody is not a believer, my exercise of the holiday must be muted. Where's the tolerance there? Why is it that my holiday has to be hijacked by a bunch of non-believers and turned into the "Winter Holiday?" If they don't like it, they don't have to participate. Why is it that I have to tolerate their non belief, but they don't have to tolerate my belief?

Now the President is going around yakking about the "freedom to worship." Of course, he is trying to change the language and get us all talking on his terms, as leftists always do. But worship is only one part of living a Christian life. We also must testify to others, and lead by example. A disciple of Christ must daily walk in His footsteps. The Constitutional language is the correct one: exercise. Don't be fooled by the President's "freedom to worship" language bender.


So what does it mean, to "tolerate?" Tolerance means that I may not jail you, or kill you, or otherwise act in a way to legally harm you or your property. I don't have to agree with you, nor do I have to find your beliefs acceptable. I don't even have to let my children play with yours. All that is required is that I don't interfere with your life, liberty, and property. So how did we get from "tolerate" 50 years ago, to "non-judgementalism" today? Doesn't everyone make judgements? Even the decision to be non-judgemental is itself a judgement. And since the basis of such a decision is that all judgements are equal, the why doesn't the "tolerance" crowd try tolerating my Christianity for a change.

End of rant.

What's ACORN Up To?

A recent FOX Opinion piece puts the blame on felons for the election of Al Franken to the Senate. Part of the problem is that Minnesota refuses to purge the voter roles of the felons. The FOX piece implies that since felons vote Democrat, the Democrats in power are loathe to take them off the list. True or not, the facts seem incontrovertible that had they not voted, Norm Coleman would be in the Senate instead. I will also leave aside, for the moment, what the association of Democrat politicians with felons says about Democrat politicians.

Now, having dead people show up at the polls, or felons, or any number of other dirty tricks is old time stuff. The Democrats have been at it for years, but to be fair, some Republicans have engaged in such shenanigans as well. The Republic has survived. What ACORN was up to, however, enrolling vast numbers of people who couldn't otherwise be bothered to become registered to vote, and who wouldn't have a clue who or what to vote for had not ACORN told them, seems a magnitude greater form of electioneering. And while ACORN disbanded, I don't for a minute believe that they have gone away, or changed their tactics. They have just buried themselves deeper, in some other false flag operation, and are setting up shop to do it all again.

Who is watching ACORN, or whatever name it goes by today?

Because here's the thing: the moment that the average American voter thinks that his vote doesn't count; that, like the Minnesota voters, someone has come in illegitimately and cancelled out his or her vote, the likelihood of civil war goes way up. Some people already believe that elections are rigged and refuse to participate. What do you think happens when the Tea Parties become convinced of the same thing? In rigged Iranian elections, the people rioted. It was unfocused, and so eventually put down. After all, the government had guns and the rioters only had rocks. Here, I think it may be a different story.

So, who is watching ACORN?

Update: Also check Western Rifle Shooters Association for a look at this topic of just how much we can expect to do with electoral politics.

Could Kagan Nomination fail?

Probably not, but passing it would be another sign that the people in power just don't care what you and I think. Rosslyn Smith has a short analysis of the situation in the Senate over at the American Thinker here

40% of people oppose confirming Kagan, and 39% approve, while 20% just don't know according to a Rasmussen poll. But the interesting part comes in the form of gun owners, who according to Smith, are not being fooled a second time. Actually, Ms. Smith, a number of us weren't fooled for a minute the first time, but I digress. Gun owners are riled, and a number of Senators running in tough elections are supposedly scared.

We'll see whether they're more scared of us, or Obama.

"Void of Desire"

Finally, there is this piece from Doctor Zero: Green Economics and Void of Desire. The Doctor has a way with words:

Of course, that’s not how the “Green Economy” works. Consumer decisions are driven by false information, batted into their faces with rotting hockey sticks by con artists and fanatics. Most of the decisions aren’t made by consumers at all. The government created the Green Economy through propaganda, regulations, and subsidies. Many on the Left, including the President, have openly stated their desire to push gas prices higher, so Americans will behave according to the designs of the environmentalist movement.

Go read the whole thing.