January 10, 2013

The Dictatorship Continues…

Executive orders were not meant to provide a president with designs on monarchy a way to realize his dreams via a vehicle by which he could ignore the House, the Senate and the Court and simply dictate his personal doctrine, via whim, to the American people.

Yet, here we have a president who is doing just that, cranking out an executive order whenever he is not satisfied with the dictates of the Constitution or the legalities of United States governance.

As we know, President Obama is purportedly preparing another one of his executive order specials to step on the Second Amendment without consideration of any possible interference from those pesky members of the other branches of government.

A Washington Times article by Andrew Napolitano pretty much defines the issue.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.


The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Above emphasis mine.

Read the entire piece, it’s as good a pro-Second Amendment article as I’ve seen in the course of this latest attempt by the left to deprive us of one of our most basic rights.

by @ 10:02 am. Filed under The President & His Veep, The Second Amendment

October 15, 2012

What a Dysfunctional Administration!

From Red State:

While the room temperature IQs at MSNBC spent Friday celebrating Joe “Rain Man” Biden’s illusory victory in Thursday’s debate, the White House spent the day trying to un-four-letter-Anglo-Saxon-word Biden’s performance.

Lotsa’ luck, fellahs and fella-ette.

1. Libya. Joe Biden probably told what he believed to be the truth Thursday night as no sane government would trust Biden with confidential, much less Top Secret, information. In his epic performance he managed to contradict the sworn testimony of at least two senior State Department officials given to Congress this week. In an article titled “Analysis: Biden rekindles controversy over administration’s Libya statements“, the Chicago Tribune notes:

The Obama administration’s latest verbal bungle over the chain of events leading to the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, rekindled the controversy over the incident on Friday and offered new ammunition to Republican opponents.

In Thursday night’s vice presidential debate, Vice President Joe Biden insisted that “we weren’t told they wanted more security” at the ill-fated U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, where U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens died.

Biden’s statement, at least on the surface, appeared to contradict congressional testimony less than 48 hours earlier from State Department officials, and offered a fresh opening for Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney, who has repeatedly sought to attack the White House over the issue.

Best advice from any really experienced liberal, here, would probably be “Wake up and lie right.”

2. Taxes. A center piece of the Obama regimes never ending quest to reduce the American middle class to penury is the tax plan to hit the wealthy with higher taxes to make them ostensibly pay their fair share. According to the regime, earning $250,000 per year makes you a marked man. Never mind that many families composed of a police officer or fireman and a teacher could easily fall into this category, for certain a couple of mid-level civil servants would qualify. In the debate, the wild-eyed Joe Biden made his claim:
“The middle class will pay less, and people making a million dollars or more will begin to contribute slightly more,” the vice president replied. “We’re arguing that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire. Of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, 800 billion dollars of that goes to people making a minimum of a million dollars.”
The only problem here is that this is simply not true. Friday the White House had to revise and extent the Vice President’s remarks to the extent of forcing the hapless spokesmunchkin, Jay Carney, lie yet again to the White House press corps.
“Biden was describing the same policy that has long been his and the president’s — that the Bush tax cuts should be continued for the middle class and expire for those making more than $250,000,” the official said. “When he mentioned millionaires, he was providing an illustration of how much of the high-income tax cuts go to those making $1 million or more. If you take a look at the transcript and numbers below, it’s clear he was referring to a proposal that allows all the Bush tax cuts above $250,000 to expire.”
Indeed, the revenue figures Mr. Biden pointed to — raising $800 billion — only apply to the bigger tax increase.

One wonders whether Biden actually knows what the president has done and proposed to be done over the past four years.

Ha Ha!

Tofinish, this column at PJ Media by Victor Davis Hanson is a must read.

Hopefully, bye bye Biden…

by @ 11:04 am. Filed under Election 2012, The Debates, The President & His Veep