Predictions for gays in the military

Here’s what’s coming next.
Watch for a *cough* *cough* totally unforseeable constitutional challenge to Section 2(e) of the bill, which states:

No Private Cause of Action – Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to create a private cause of action.

Once that section’s excised with surgical precision by a sympathetic lefty judge (Vaughn Walker to the lavender courtesy phone, please!) … Katie bar the door.
The gay activists in uniform will then sue to be allowed to marry, notwithstanding Section 2(d) of this bill, which states:

Benefits – Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” and referred to as the “Defense of Marriage Act”).

Once 2(d) is gone & a few suitable test couples get hitched, retire, & file for marriage-related benefits in the civilian world, guess what’ll be next on the chopping block?
DOMA.
After that inconvenient law is out of the gay activists’ way (phone call for Judge Walker on line 3) they’ll demand more than “tolerance.” They’ll demand financial benefits & federal protection for gay “marriage,” state laws be damned. Why? They can’t cite national security, because effective national defense matters not one whit to these activists. No, they’ll simply cite the full faith and credit clause found in Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Game over. It’ll be “Sit down, shut up, & hand over those wallets, you hateful bigoted Christianist breeders.”
This. Is. Their. Goal.

U.S. military weakened by gay activists

With the passage of today’s lame duck bill, it would appear the ban on open homosexuals in the U.S. military will soon be repealed. Not long from now, it will be official military policy to endorse and celebrate homosexual behavior.
I find it interesting that none of the homosexual activists pushing this agenda of social engineering and the destruction of marriage have bothered to address what happens if things go horribly wrong, as many have predicted. If open homosexuals end up being a net burden on the military’s ability to accomplish its mission (that is, to kill our enemies and break their stuff), then how do we undo this?

Flat out evil

If this CNN report is accurate, then the military’s got at least one ideal candidate for the death penalty.

Murder merits swift punishment. Next issue: why didn’t any officers stop this?

What’s the next step beyond McDonald v. Chicago?

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided (in McDonald v. Chicago) that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right that all state/county/city governments are obligated to protect, you’re likely wondering what to add to your personal arsenal. Should you expand your shopping list beyond handguns and rifles?
In 2003 I wrote a detailed research piece for a law school class on firearms law. I went way back and looked at sources like the transcripts of the debates during the Constitutional Convention, the constitutions of various states, letters and speeches by the Founding Fathers, and I discovered what they thought about keeping and bearing arms. They understood the Second Amendment to allow the private ownership of military weapons. All military weapons. Period.
Here’s a summary of my research:

The Right To Keep And Bear ... What?Everyone knows that rifles, pistols, and shotguns are “arms,” but what about other weapons like clubs, knives, swords, artillery, bombs, missiles, or weapons of mass destruction? Although this question sounds silly at first, Larry Arnn of the Claremont Institute once remarked that if the courts interpreted the Second Amendment as they do the First Amendment, we would all have the right to own nuclear weapons. Some scholars think this kind of reading of the Second Amendment means that “individuals may keep and bear … whatever ‘arms’ they desire.”
So does our Constitution recognize your neighbor’s right to park a brand new M-1 Abrams main battle tank in his driveway? Should we permit gun shops to hold tent sales offering great low prices on military-grade flamethrowers and nerve-gas-tipped artillery shells? Must the U.S. Government allow you to carry a “suitcase nuke” to avoid violating your fundamental Constitutional rights, even if you might trip while carrying it and level a city block?
Part I of this article summarizes the recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that acts as the point of departure for this journey into the “what-ifs” of the right to keep and bear arms.
Part II looks at the decision’s inconclusive treatment of what “arms” means, and explains why the “textualism” school of constitutional interpretation should control the search for the meaning of “arms,” instead of the “living document” or “framer’s intent” schools.
Part III explains what the Founders and their informed contemporaries understood “arms” to mean in their day: that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep and bear any and all weapons, no matter how destructive.
Part IV brings that definition forward to modern times and identifies the unacceptable social risks posed by private citizens’ possession and use of today’s most powerful weapons.
Part V makes some tentative and preliminary suggestions for a Twenty-Eigth Amendment limiting individual access to excessively destructive weapons that threaten society, while preserving the common-sense meaning of the individual right protected by the text of the Second Amendment.

Read the whole thing and then tell me that “arms” doesn’t include a .50 caliber machine gun or an M-1 tank. You probably won’t like it (I don’t completely like it myself), but unless you’re willing to let the courts twist the meaning of the Constitution in whatever way they want, you’ll have to agree with my conclusion.

Eric Holder did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night

Claiming to have fired in self defense, an American border guard on duty fatally shot a Mexican citizen trying to cross into our country. In response the U.S. Attorney General is conducting … a civil rights investigation?!

Federal officials confirmed that a civil-rights investigation was opened into the shooting of Hernández, who died on the Mexican side of the river from a bullet wound to the head.
Civil-rights investigations can look into crimes committed by law enforcement officers in the course of their duties.

The video shows an encounter that begins when a group of men try to cross a border fence near the railroad Black Bridge, just west of the Paso del Norte Bridge connecting Juárez to Downtown El Paso.
A Border Patrol agent is seen arriving on a bicycle, and rocks are allegedly being thrown at the agent while he tries to detain a man on the U.S. edge of the river. The agent is seen pointing his handgun. Three gunshots are heard.
Hernández can then be seen lying on the ground at the foot of the Black Bridge on the Mexican side of the mostly dry river. It is not shown if Hernandez was throwing rocks.

Lionel HutzThere’s no way he was in America when he was shot, and then ducked back across the border before dying. People with mortal gunshot wounds to the head aren’t exactly renowned for climbing fences or crossing rivers.
The Department of Justice should definitely investigate the shooting, since the agent may have committed a crime and/or a human rights violation. But how can Holder accuse the agent of violating the dead kid’s federal civil rights? The dead kid was not an American. He was a Mexican. In Mexico. Does 42 USC § 1983 cover him too?! Apparently our top cop learned the law from Lionel Hutz.
I move for a bad court thingy.

A simple question for progressives (#16)

These were all ratified together, by the same people, at the same time, with the same understanding of English. You’ll find my simple question below.

U.S. Constitution
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
U.S. Constitution
Amendment II

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.
U.S. Constitution
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
U.S. Constitution
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
U.S. Constitution
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The concept of a right retained by a state is clearly expressed in the Tenth Amendment. If the founding generation meant to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to the states alone and not to individuals, they could have have used that language in the Second Amendment. Instead, they used the language of individual rights.
How could the term “the people” have meant “individuals” to the founding generation in all of these Amendments except the Second?

Video: Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) displays his ignorance

Watch the clip and you’ll see yet another example of an elected official who doesn’t bother to understand his job.

Article I, Section 1
U.S. Constitution

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Amendment I
U.S. Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Shame on Frank LoBiondo for not even having a pocket U.S. Constitution handy. Nobody would have objected if he had pulled out a copy of the document, because it would have demonstrated that he cared enough to check it. What a fool.
I hope moments like these happen at every town hall meeting in America for the next ten years.

Column on anti-Obama coup is just plain nutty

I say the following as a retired U.S. Coast Guard commissioned officer who swore and upheld a solemn oath to defend the Constitution.
Newsmax’s John L. Perry is either nuts, a naïve fool, or a childish attention-seeker. His latest column speculating on the possibility of a U.S. military coup to unseat President Obama fails the most basic B.S. test. Perry hasn’t the first clue about how our military’s leadership understands its oath of office, nor does he demonstrate even the most rudimentary comprehension of our Constitution.
By publishing this bilge the editors at Newsmax have forever beclowned themselves.
More commentary:
Cassandra cracks open a can o’ whupass

Try actually reading the Constitution

Washington Post reporter Alec MacGillis doesn’t like the power wielded by U.S. Senators from states with small populations. He writes:

The Senate Finance Committee’s “Gang of Six” that is drafting health-care legislation that may shape the final deal — without a public insurance option — represents six states that are among the least populous in the country: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine, New Mexico and Iowa.
Between them, those six states hold 8.4 million people — less than New Jersey — and represent 3 percent of the U.S. population. North Dakota and Wyoming each have fewer than 80,000 uninsured people, in a country where about 47 million lack insurance. In the House, those six states have 13 seats out of 435, 3 percent of the whole. In the Senate, those six members are crafting what may well be the blueprint for reform.
Climate change legislation, which passed in the House, also faces daunting odds. Why? Because agriculture, coal and oil interests hold far more sway in the Senate. In the House, the big coal state of Wyoming has a single vote to New York’s 29 and California’s 53. In the Senate, each state has two. The two Dakotas (total population: 1.4 million) together have twice as much say in the Senate as does Florida (18.3 million) or Texas (24.3 million) or Illinois (12.9 million).
Was this really what the founders had in mind? One popular story tells of Thomas Jefferson asking George Washington what the Senate’s purpose is. “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” Washington asked in return. “To cool it,” Jefferson replied. To which Washington said, “Even so, we pour legislation in the senatorial saucer to cool it.” A nice tale. But what if the coffee gets so cold that no one bothers to drink it? Or if the Senate takes its coffee black in a country that opted overwhelmingly for sugar and cream?
Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota (pop. 641,481, third smallest), chairman of the Budget Committee and one of the Gang of Six, does not see any problem. Asked whether it is appropriate that his vote counts as much as those of senators from states 20 times as large, he was flummoxed. “One would hope that people would support the Constitution of the United States,” said Conrad, who was reelected with 150,000 votes in 2006, when Virginia’s Jim Webb needed 1.2 million votes to win. “This was the grand bargain that was struck when the Founding Fathers determined the structure and form of the United States Congress.” He added: “Are you proposing changing the Constitution?”
Well, maybe. Regardless, there’s nothing wrong with taking a closer look at how things came to be the way they are. The fact remains that, hallowed as it is, the Senate is as much a product of bare-knuckled, self-interested politics as last week’s fight over military earmarks.

This is so damn simple to refute that my head hurts (probably due to banging it on my keyboard after reading this garbage). Apparently, neither MacGillis nor his trusty fact-checking editors bothered to read Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which sets forth the rules for changing that Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Mr. MacGillis, your entire essay was an exercise in futility. To answer your question, yes, the Founding Fathers did actually construct the Constitution with ironclad protection for each State’s equal representation in the Senate, even if every other State wants to strip it away through the amendment process.
This ain’t rocket science.
Hat tip: This Ain’t Hell

A simple question for progressives (#10)

Since we presumably still live in a nation of laws and not of men, and since the U.S. Constitution is still the supreme law of the land, I ask you to first read these small portions of that document, after which I’ll pose my question.

U.S. Constitution
Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

U.S. Constitution
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

U.S. Constitution
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Given the above supreme law of the land that sets out the enumerated powers of Congress, on what basis does Congress have the authority to enact Obamacare?

Don’t tell me it’s justified because it’s a good idea, because it’s fair, because it’s in my interest to want it, because Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP already exist, because Obamacare will save money, because I’m a heartless hateful warmongering homophobic puppy-killing raaaaacist, because America wants Hopenchange© … just tell me how Congress can possibly have the constitutional authority to enact Obamacare.

Wisdom from a master of the obvious

From the blog of the lefty group Upper Arlington Progressive Action:

We know how important the Supreme Court is to the success of progressive initiatives. We need to keep our eye on where the top nine are moving.

Of course it’s important to you nutballs. It’s the only way to advance your most cherished agenda items, since they’d never pass muster in Congress (much less any public initiative or referendum).

Imagine a Brevity Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

It might read something like this:

No law, bill, resolution or any act of Congress shall exceed 2000 words, including all footnotes, amendments and signatures. Congress shall not vote on any item longer than that. Each item requiring a vote shall be read aloud in its entirety in session to a majority of members. Those not in attendance may not vote on the item.

Certainly worth discussing, no?

On the loss of $800+ worth of plants

I just caught the lawn care company applying Round-Up to every plant under 2′ tall in my beds. Just lost $400+ of wildflowers, perennials, baby shrubs, and any large plants hit by the windblown spray. No wonder last year’s starts (also $400+) all died too.
I’m drafting an itemized bill now. If they refuse to reimburse me, they’ll learn how foolish it is to pick a fight with someone who buys bandwidth by the megabit.

Sotomayor deserves a grilling by the Senate

Since when does this …

The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . . .

… mean “rubber stamp approval“?

Judge Sotomayor on “relative morality”

Here’s another disturbing quote from Sonia Sotomayor’s infamous speech in 2001:

I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.

The emphasis is mine. What in the world does she mean by “relative morality” here? Moral relativism? If so, how can she be trusted to impartially uphold the law?