Thursday, February 09, 2017

Racial Bigotry in Charlottesville

The recent 3-2 vote to remove the statue of General Robert E. Lee from Lee Park was a stupid waste of time. According to Virginia Code:

"If such [war memorials] are erected, it shall be unlawful for the authorities of the locality, or any other person or persons, to disturb or interfere with any monuments or memorials so erected, or to prevent its citizens from taking proper measures and exercising proper means for the protection, preservation and care of same."

This whole "discussion" about history and racism has been constructive, however.  It has exposed the charlatans that would use race as a weapon to promote their political ends.  When the City of Charlottesville established a Human Rights Commission a while ago, it was a government solution in search of a problem.  It has not come up with any instances of human rights violations in its history.  How could it?  The city is run by progressive Democrats.  When a 16 year old female decided that she felt threatened by the General Lee statue, the City Council of Charlottesville decided to push for the removal of the statue.  City Council even went so far as to instruct the "Blue Ribbon" Commission to recommend removing the statue after the commission failed to initially make that recommendation.  The first report recommended adding other statues and memorials to Lee Park, and leaving General Lee in place.

Unfortunately, the vote to remove the statue won because Council member Bob Fenwick changed his vote to "yes" from a previous "no."  Not because of any study of the law or rational deliberation, but because he felt bad that some people had allegedly made racially bigoted comments to his fellow Council Member Wes Bellamy (Bellamy is black).  Fenwick claimed he had a copy of one of the alleged emails at a recent Council meeting, but declined to read it in front of the children who were present.  Fenwick also failed to enter any of these emails or comments into the public record.

There are so many things that the City Council of Charlottesville should be addressing, such as improving roads and traffic, or the economic welfare of the community, or any number of other real issues.  We do not need to invent fake issues.

Wednesday, February 01, 2017

Immigration and the so-called "Muslim Ban."

What is the purpose of immigration for the host nation?  To be a benefit to the host nation.

Does anyone who is not a citizen of the United States have a "right" to enter the United States?  No.

Do the Congress and the President set and enforce immigration policy for the United States?  Yes, it is called the Plenary Power Doctrine.

Federal policy on immigration has been founded on the “plenary power doctrine,” which holds that the political branches — the legislative and the executive — have sole power to regulate all aspects of immigration as a basic attribute of sovereignty.

Where did the list of 7 countries come from?  The Obama Administration.  80% of majority Muslim populations are unaffected by this travel ban.

Are Muslims legally in the United States affected by this?  No.

Get over it.

Monday, February 22, 2016

The case against Kasich, as if he were a contender in the first place

Update 5/16. Kasich is a sorry excuse.  He should have dropped out sooner.  Still better than Hilary, which doesn't say much.

As a native of central Ohio, I have a deep and abiding dislike for the clownish Governor Kasich.  As a congressman, he never missed any opportunity to jump up and down in front of the local media to promote his latest minor accomplishments.  That anyone can take him seriously as a candidate for President is at the same time amusing and disturbing.

Kasich has some conservative positions, yes, but he plots a rather small area on the Buckley scale (x: degree of electability, y: degree of conservativism).  A somewhat high vertical "electability" scale, at least in Ohio, and a really narrow horizontal.

Where shall we begin?  Recently, he has been endorsed by Tom Ridge, the former homeland Security Secretary and previous governor of Pennsylvania. Kasich was very excited about this, despite Tom Ridge's rather lenient stance on abortion.  From Red State:  Ridge "...specifically ordered his State Department of Health to stop inspections of abortion clinics in order to burnish his pro-life credentials." Kasich was not in favor of a bill in Ohio to protect babies born alive after a botched abortion.

Kasich is a promoter of ObamaCare.  Further, he signed Ohio's $50 billion Medicare expansion into law.  He has even used the Bible, specifically Matthew 25, as justification for this.

Kasich has a limited respect for the second amendment.  He helped the Democrats pass the so-called assault weapons ban in 1993, earning an F rating from the NRA.

Kasich appointed a homosexual rights activist who had worked to overturn Ohio's homosexual marriage ban as the state's Republican Party Executive Director.

Kasich is soft on immigration laws, supporting a "pathway to citizenship" and "birthright citizenship." He uses the terminology of the left, refusing to utter the proper term, illegal alien.

Kasich used the dubious business tax "credit" to bribe businesses to move to Ohio.

To be continued...

Sunday, February 14, 2016

Justice Scalia, RIP.

The body is not even cold, and the old guard media is already jumping up and down about the Senate doing its duty to at least reject an Obama appointment in a confirmation hearing.

To be perfectly clear, the duty of the Senate is not to automatically jump into confirmation hearings as soon as there is a vacancy on the court.  Yes, elections have consequences, and even a lame duck President can push forward a person he wishes to appoint to the court.  Appointments are a shared power:  the President, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court...". The Senate is fulfilling its constitutional duty by stating no confirmation hearing shall occur until after the inauguration of the new President.

Scalia would have told you this himself.  RIP.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Ted Cruz for President

The true consistent conservative in the race for President of the United States is Ted Cruz.  His record is thoroughly conservative, based on our constitutional principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and limited government. I challenge anyone who believes otherwise to make the case.

Any other candidate who wins will only continue our current problems.  Some would actually make things worse:

Donald Trump:  He believes in the idea of America, and he does not take any crap.  This is a good thing.  However, he may be more narcissistic than the current occupant of the White House.  He likes to play both sides of the fence so he can "make deals" and "get stuff done." Crony capitalism will only get worse under the leadership of the man who gave $60,000 to re-elect Mitch McConnell.

Bushruboiokasich:  Slightly more or less crappy versions of Bush 41 and 43.  More and bigger government, managing the decline and eventual societal collapse.

Hillary Clinton:  Are you kidding?  Corrupt to the core, and an accomplice to murder.  Ought to be wearing an orange pantsuit in Leavenworth.

Bernie Sanders:  It is depressing to see a dandruff flaked booger-eating socialist old fool of a man actually polling in double digits.  Believes in equality, sure, but equality of outcomes, not opportunity.

Disagree?  Better bring your A-game.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

The Militia Act of 1792

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

Does anyone truly doubt that Amendment II to the U.S. Constitution establishes an individual right? Men were required to provide themselves with suitable arms under the Militia Act. The arms were not issued to the individuals, but purchased or otherwise acquired by each person. Common weapons that can be carried by a man in his hands, not artillery pieces.

You're so stupid. That was over 200 years ago.

The founders did not want a standing army. The militia - armed, free citizens defending their own property - were the first line of defense. When the muster was over, the militia would disband into individual citizens who returned - with their own arms - to their homes. Individual homes (and persons) were defended by the same weapons used to defend the Nation against invasion.

That's such an antiquated notion. Nobody is going to invade us today, and we have police and military people to defend us!

What about our border with Mexico? We are under perpetual invasion through our southern border. 911 takes time. The military takes even longer. And police have NO DUTY to protect you, only to respond to a crime in progress. A "crime in progress" could be you at the bad end of a stickup, or worse, a shooting like the recent events in Arizona.