Oppose S.843

Another idiotic assassination attempt on the Second Amendment, another round of emails to my elected mis-representatives.

I recently moved to Texas from the pitiful little state of New Jersey. I did so for many reasons, one of which was to reclaim my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It seems, however, that my erstwhile Senator, Frank Lautenberg, has not given up on his quest to infringe upon my rights.

I'm sure Lautenberg's hatred of firearms stems from his younger days as a Tory during the American revolution; he should do well to remember how badly the whole gun control thing worked out in 1775. But I digress...

I write to urge you to OPPOSE S. 843 (To establish background check procedures for gun shows).

Thank you.

I'm sure my two Senators (Hutchison and Cornyn) will do the right thing.

Update I (4/25): More on this abomination.

Update II (4/25): Reply from Sen. Cornyn:

Thank you for contacting my offices. Your correspondence has been received, and we will respond to you as quickly as possible. A copy of your message is attached below for your records.

If you need immediate assistance regarding an urgent problem you are experiencing with the federal government, visit the "Help With Federal Agencies" section of the website for details on how to proceed so that your difficulties are brought to my attention as soon as possible.

If you are seeking information or services from my offices that are NOT related to my Legislative duties, please visit my "Services For Texans" section for more information.

Warmest Regards,
U.S. Senator John Cornyn

Update III (4/27): Reply from Sen. Hutchison:

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control legislation and the protection of law-abiding citizens' right to own firearms. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

While we all support the strongest measures to ensure that guns do not end up in the wrong hands, I believe that one of the most powerful deterrents we have is the consistent, full enforcement of the numerous laws that already address many aspects of the problem. For instance, there are more than a dozen laws at the state and federal level that deal with the use, carrying, ownership, or trafficking of guns, and we must prosecute without qualification those who violate these laws.

Rather than usurping the rights of law-abiding citizens, I believe we should vigorously prosecute those who use guns to commit crimes. I have worked to enact federal anti-crime legislation that imposes tough minimum sentences on those convicted of using firearms to commit crimes, prevents early parole for violent criminals, and provides federal funds to build new prisons and fund local law enforcement. I will continue to support legislation that fights crime and upholds our Second Amendment rights.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller. I submitted an amicusbrief to the Court in support of affirming the District of Columbia's gun ban as unconstitutional, and was joined by 55 Senators, 250 House members, and the Vice President of the United States. This historic decision will affect gun laws throughout the country that try to unjustly undermine our rights under the Second Amendment.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

Well, OK then...

Williams on Secession

The great Walter Williams sums it up:

Perry is right when he says that there is no reason for Texas to secede. There are indeed intermediate actions short of secession that states can take. Thomas Jefferson said, "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." That suggests that one response to federal encroachment is for state governments to declare federal laws that have no constitutional authority null and void and refuse to enforce them.

While the U.S. Constitution does not provide a specific provision for nullification, the case for nullification is found in the nature of compacts and agreements. Our Constitution represents a compact between the states and the federal government. As with any compact, one party does not have a monopoly over its interpretation, nor can one party change it without the consent of the other. Additionally, no one has a moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. That's not to say there is not a compelling case for obedience of unconstitutional laws. That compelling case is the brute force of the federal government to coerce obedience, possibly going as far as using its military might to lay waste to a disobedient state and its peoples.

Finally, here's my secession question for you. Some Americans accept and have respect for the Tenth Amendment, which reads, "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." Other Americans, the majority I fear, say to hell with the Tenth Amendment limits on the federal government. Which is a more peaceful solution: one group of Americans seeking to impose their vision on others or simply parting company?

Emphasis mine.

(h/t: Reason)

Right-Wing Extremist

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Code Red!

In light of the shocking revelations presented in the recent report on Right-Ring Extremism, Janet Napolitano has announced a restructuring of the Dept. of Homeland Security advisory system to better reflect the current threats to America:


Duck and cover.

Of Extremists, Secession, and Disavowal

Democrats: Texas gov should disavow secession talk

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - A group of Texas Democrats says Republican Gov. Rick Perry was reckless when he suggested at an anti-tax rally that fed-up Americans may one day want to secede from the United States. They said Thursday that he should disavow such talk. Democratic state Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco says talk of secession is anti-American and that some people associate it with racial division and the Civil War. Perry's office did not immediately respond Thursday. Answering a question from The Associated Press at an anti-tax rally Wednesday, Perry said he doesn't think Texas should secede. But he said the federal government was thumbing its nose at the American people and added, "who knows what might come out of that."

Well, I think the Democrats should disavow socialism and reaffirm their commitment to states rights and limited federal powers. But they're not going to do that, are they?

If "some people" mistakenly associate our legitimate concerns about the Federal oligarchy overstepping its Constitutional limitations for "racial division," it only proves how out of touch and irrelevant they are.

What exactly did Perry say? The widely reported quote in question is hardly a rally cry for secession:

"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

This is what has Leftoids outraged? Please.

As for this Dunnam character, I'll the opportunity to vote against him next time his name shows up on a ballot. I've already written to him urging his support of Texas House Bill 1803 (Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the campuses of institutions of higher education); a wrong vote on that issue and his seat is toast anyway.

Regarding secession: Do I believe the Tenth Amendment upholds a state's right to secede from the Union? Yes, 100%. Do I believe Texas is going to secede? No -- certainly not yet. Is Rich Perry pandering for votes? Probably. Are his remarks being blown out of both context and proportion by the Left? Yes... and most of those doing so are doing it for the single reason of making Perry and the state rights advocates look like loony separatists. They should study their history.

Our founders were loyal Brits, most of whom were initially opposed to colonial independence; they were dragged into the independence movement slowly by the increasing suppression of their rights as free men by an overpowering government who took them for granted and treated them as serfs. Independence was only a serious consideration after all other avenues of addressing their grievances were exhausted and ignored by the Crown and Parliament.

The fate of our Union lies -- today, tomorrow, and always -- squarely in the hands of the federal government. Good, hard-working Americans are finally taking notice of the way D.C. takes its citizens for granted and they are speaking out. Our government has forgotten who works for whom, and who should fear whom. The Tenth Amendment is clear: "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." There is no language in the Constitution that specifically allows for secession; neither is there any language that prohibits it.

For the Left's part, their reactions to both Perry's statement and the Tea Party phenomenon are more concerning to me. With their silly Homeland Security and MIAC memos tucked firmly under their arms along with "Rules for Radicals" and "Das Kapital", they label as a "right-wing extremist" and a "terrorist threat" anyone who distrusts the government, who holds strong Tenth Amendment views, who owns guns or supports the Second Amendment, who wants lower taxation and responsible government spending -- basically, anyone who voted against Obama.

That's right, folks -- we're all Timothy McVeighs now. Funny, though... our "terrorists" get executed; theirs get pardons and tenure, and the unwavering support of the Left.

Speaking of "right-wing extremist terrorist threats" -- thank God this guy's off the streets... (h/t: Codrea):



Any questions about why people no longer trust our government?

Sovereignty

“Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.” - Sam Houston

Why Republicans Are The Minority Party (Part MCXVII)

Witness Spencer Bachus (R-AL):

Bachus discussed a number of topics in his speech Thursday morning. He did not give the response some small city officials were hoping for when they asked if he would oppose all gun bans.

Instead, he said, it may be necessary to ban some assault weapons to keep hunting rifles and guns from being outlawed.

How would Spencer feel about giving up some of his First Amendment rights -- say, the freedom to exercise his religion -- in order to protect other First Amendment rights, like his right to open his mouth to release his flatulence about gun rights?

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is not about target shooting. If you believe that it is, you are not fit for elected office.

He said he is discouraging those who ask him whether they should arm themselves in preparation for economic or government trouble ahead. "I think peaceful, nonviolent protest is the way to go," he said.

Sure. And when citizens attend peaceful, nonviolent protests and are categorized by their government as extremists and homegrown terrorists, then what?

This DHS report warns of the terrorist threat from those who "are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely."

Wow... that sounds just like me! Now I'm a Homeland Security terrorist threat! See you at the re-education camp, folks. But I digress... back to Bachus:

He said he also believes it is a threat that the criminals will begin out-gunning the police officers. He said everyone should also be aware of the role weapons are playing in the recent multiple shooting tragedies around the country.

I'm concerned about criminals out-gunning the police, too. But I am far more concerned about criminals out-gunning me. I do not and will not rely on the police or any other government agency for protection of my rights, life or property. They are under no obligation to protect me; this is a fact. Why should I depend on them?

If others want their lives to hinge on a 9-1-1 operator or a police officer who might be 30 minutes away, that is their choice; I would oppose any and all legislation to prevent them from doing so. Just don't interfere with my right and my duty to protect myself and my family by telling me which and how many guns I may own.

Obama Wins Illegal, Immoral War Against the Pirate-African Community

I just fucking knew it was all Bush's fault:

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., offered his praised of the military but also said that piracy had long been neglected by the Bush administration.

"I am elated by the safe rescue of Captain Richard Phillips and the crew of the Maersk Alabama and I thank and congratulate the Navy SEALS and others whose remarkable efforts resulted in a successful end to this troubling situation," Feingold said. "While the episode involving the crew of the Maersk Alabama had a happy ending, piracy off the coast of Somalia will assuredly continue since it is a symptom of the state collapse in Somalia, which presents a much greater and more dangerous problem. For years, Somalia's growing instability was neglected by the Bush administration and the international community. The new administration must not make the same mistake."

Feingold, as we all know, is a deceitful cocksucker. Anyone with a modicum of decency and honesty would understand that Bush "neglected" to do somethingthing about Somali piracy during his term because they never successfully took a US-flagged vessel until last week. Isn't it Feingold's despicable leftoid ilk that castigates its own country whenever it takes action "unilaterally?" Isn't it his party that condemns America when it tries to be (as you derisively call it) "the policeman of the world?" Oh, right -- that's only when it's a Republican CINC.

Fact #1: All the vessels that have previously been victims of high-seas piracy off the horn of Africa were under flags of other nations.

Fact #2: These nations did nothing to defend their ships and country except acquiesce to the demands of the thugs, pay out the ransoms as demanded, and further embolden the fucking pirates.

And this was Bush's problem how, exactly? Was the United States supposed to act on the behalf of Hong Kong? Of Panama? Of Denmark? Of the fucking Fwench? Are American soldiers and sailors now supposed to defend citizens of all the gutless countries of "the world community" who would rather pay ransom money to thugs than rescue their own people? Last I remember, the United Nations was in charge of "peacekeeping" in Somalia, not Bush. Oddly, I don't hear any mention of UN "neglect"...

Memo to Feingold: You're a dickless scumbag. What happened to the outrage against America that you and your so-called "world community" constantly spewed at Bush every time he did anything on behalf of America's allies? And now... this is all Bush's fault because he didn't launch what you and your miserable fucking ilk would surely have denounced as another "immoral, illegal, unilateral war against a nation that didn't attack us." You make me want to puke.

Sure, Bush does deserve some blame; after all, wasn't it Bush who denied his troops proper armor, then humiliated the US military by declaring defeat and pulling out of Somalia after they shot down a couple of Blackhawk helicopters and killed 18 American troops in Mogadishu?

Oh, wait... that wasn't Bush. Never mind.

Of course the lapdog media hacks are now hailing The Messiah-Hero for "his" success in his "first national security test". Wow, that was some test: four teenagers with AK-47s and a dinghy against a US Naval frigate, and the mightiest naval power in human history had to stand by for three days while Dear Leader "mulled" the situation and weighed "the intentions" of the pirates.

Make no mistake: the Navy snipers are the real heros. They performed brilliantly, as expected; it is their success, not Obama's. This rescue could have, and should have, been done exactly 5 minutes after the US Navy arrived on the scene, but not for the pussyfooting and hand-wringing in Washington. And for all this, the leftoids want to unroll the "Mission Accomplished" banner? Why not a fucking ticker-tape parade while we're at it?

Sorry, I'm not ready to proclaim Obama as the greatest military leader since Alexander the Great, not just yet -- let's talk after he orders air strikes on Iranian and North Korean nuclear reactors. Or is that too nuanced a "National Security Test" for the left? Instead, how about the next time a DC cop busts a drunk driver, Obama can be hailed for his successful handling of his "first Domestic Terrorism test."

The Free and The Unashamed

I didn't write this... but I wish I had.

= A Declaration of Separation =

==== To The Governments & People of Earth: ====
We claim the right to exist, and we will defend it.

We do not seek to overthrow anything. We do not seek to control anything. We merely wish to be left alone.

All we ever wanted was to live in peace with our friends and neighbors. For a long, long time we bore insults to our liberty; we took blows, we did what we could to avoid injury and we worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed.

We no longer see any benefit in working through the world’s systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for us, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish us. We hereby reject them all. We hereby withdraw from them all. We hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity.

We now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. We will not initiate force, but we do reserve the right to answer it. We did not choose this – it was forced upon us.

==== To The Governments of Earth: ====
You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions, of our travels and even our identities. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era.

Understand clearly: We reject your authority and we reject your legitimacy. We do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon us and no legitimacy. We have forsaken you. We are no longer your citizens or your subjects. Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not.

We are not merely angry young people. We are fathers and mothers; aunts, uncles and grandparents; we are business owners and trusted employees; we are mechanics and engineers and farmers. We are nurses and accountants and students and executives.

We are on every continent.

This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life.

For long decades we sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. We took no actions; we suffered along with everyone else. But after having our limits pushed back again and again, we have given up on your systems. If our fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. We will not try to stop them. We, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon us.

- From now on, when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. We are happy to live quietly.

But if you come after us, there will be consequences. You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do.

You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.

==== To The People of Earth: ====
We seek nothing from you. We do not want to rule you and we do not want to control you.

All we wish is to live on earth in peace. As always, we will be helpful neighbors and generous acquaintances. We will remain honest business partners and trustworthy employees. We will continue to be loving parents and respectful children.

We will not, however, be sacrificial animals. We reject the idea that others have a right to our lives and our property. We will not demand anything from you, and we will no longer acquiesce to any demands upon us. We have left that game. We reject all obligations to any person or organization beyond honesty, fair dealing and a respect for human life.

We will shortly explain what we believe, but we are not demanding that you agree with us. All we ask is that you do not try to stop us. Continue to play the game if you wish; we will not try to disrupt it. We have merely walked away from it.

We wish you peace.

==== To Those Who Will Condemn Us: ====
We will ignore you.

We welcome and seek the verdict of a just God, before whom we are willing to expose our innermost thoughts. Are you similarly willing?

We would stand openly before all mankind if it were not suicidal. Perhaps some day we will have to accept slaughter for our crime of independence, but not yet.

Your criticism and your malice are much deeper than mere disagreements of strategy or philosophy. You do not oppose our philosophy, you oppose our existence. Our presence in the world means that your precious ideals are false. Some of you would rather kill us than face the loss of your ideologies, just as those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human.

You present yourselves to the world as compassionate, tolerant and enlightened, but we know that your smooth words are costumes. Oh yes, we know you, servant of the state; don’t forget, we were raised with you. We played with you in the schoolyard, we sat next to you in the classroom. Some of us studied at the same elite universities. We watched as you had your first tastes of power. We were the boys and girls standing next to you.

Some of us were your first victims. We are not fooled by your carefully crafted public image.

==== What We Believe ====
#1: Many humans resent the responsibilities that are implied by consciousness. We accept those responsibilities and we embrace consciousness. Rather than letting things happen to us (avoiding consciousness), we accept consciousness and choose to act in our own interest. We do not seek the refuge of blaming others, neither do we take refuge in crowds. We are willing to act on our personal judgment, and we are willing to accept the consequences thereof.

#2: We believe in negative rights for all: That all humans should be free to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not intrude upon others; that no man has a right to the life, liberty or property of another; that we oppose aggression, fraud and coercion.

#3: We do not believe that our way of life, or any other, will make life perfect or trouble-free. We expect crime and disagreements and ugliness, and we are prepared to deal with them. We do not seek a strongman to step in and solve problems for us. We agree to see to them ourselves.

#4: We believe in free and unhindered commerce. So long as exchanges are voluntary and honest, no other party has a right to intervene – before, during or after.

#5: We believe that all individuals should keep their agreements.

#6: We believe that honestly obtained property is fully legitimate and absolute.

#7: We believe that some humans are evil and that they must be faced and dealt with. We accept the fact that this is a difficult area of life.

#8: We believe that humans can self-organize effectively. We expect them to cooperate. We reject impositions of hierarchy and organization.

#9: We believe that all humans are to be held as equals in all matters regarding justice.

#10: We believe that the more a man or woman cares about right and wrong, the more of a threat he or she is perceived to be by governments.

#11: We believe that there are only two true classes of human beings: Those who wish to exercise power upon others - either directly or through intermediaries - and those who have no such desires.

#12: Large organizations and centralization are inherently anti-human. They must rely upon rules rather than principles, treating humans within the organization as obedient tools.

==== Our Plans: ====
We are building our own society. We will supplement traditional tools with networking, cryptography, sound money, digital currency and anonymous messaging.

Our society will not be centrally controlled. It will rely solely on voluntary arrangements. We welcome others to join us. We are looking for people who are independent creators of value, people who act more than talk, and people who do the right thing because it is the right thing.

We will develop our own methods of dealing with injustice, built on the principles of negative rights, restitution, integrity and equal justice.

We do not forbid anyone from having one foot in each realm - ours and the old realm - although we demand that they do no damage to our realm. We are fully opposed to any use of our realm to facilitate crime in the old realm, such as the hiding of criminal proceeds.

We expect to be loudly condemned, libeled and slandered by the authorities of the old regime. We expect them to defend their power and their image of legitimacy with all means available to them. We expect that many gullible and servile people will believe these lies, at least at first.

We will consider traps laid for us to be criminal offenses.

Any who wish to join us are encouraged to distribute this declaration, to act in furtherance of our new society, to voluntarily excel in virtues and to communicate and cooperate with other members of the new society.

Free, unashamed men cannot be ruled.

We are The Free and The Unashamed.

What more to say? Except, of course, "Amen!"

To Protect and Serve

A little sample what we have to look forward to in the new & improved Former United States of America...



"Freeze and drop your Constitutional rights!"

Why I Support Human Cloning.

Can we get 535 copies of this guy for our Senate and House of (mis)Representatives?

But they support the troops!

Not merely satisfied with plans to disarm American citizens, our new hopey-changey overlords (whose patriotism cannot be questioned, mind you) now plan to disarm the American military, too:

Gates to cut several major weapons programs
By ANNE GEARAN - The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates is proposing deep cuts to some big weapons programs such as the F-22 fighter jet as the Pentagon takes a hard look at how it spends money. Gates announced a broad range of cuts Monday to weapons spending, saying he plans to cut programs ranging from a new helicopter for the president to ending production of the $140 billion F-22 fighter jet.

Not enough change for you? But wait -- there's more!

Barack Obama's new offensive against nuclear weapons - Radical drive among series of measures to improve security

Barack Obama yesterday announced a radical drive aimed at ridding the world of nuclear weapons, as the focus of his European visit switched from financial to geopolitical security.

"In Prague, I will lay out an agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama said yesterday after arriving in continental Europe for the first time as president. "The spread of nuclear weapons or the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet," he warned, adding that suspected rogue nuclear states, such as North Korea or Iran, may only be persuaded to abandon their quests if the big nuclear powers set an example.

"We can't reduce the threat of a nuclear weapon going off unless those that possess the most nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia, take serious steps to reduce our stockpiles," Obama said. "So we want to pursue that vigorously in the years ahead."

A "radical drive" indeed! No better way to improve security than by eliminating the nuclear deterrent that has kept the free world free since 1945. I'm sure Iran and North Korea will follow suit soon after our unilateral disarmament is complete. I'm sure.

Perhaps Obama will lead the way towards a safer world by disbanding his Secret Service detail (after all, they carry guns, and guns cause violence) and fly coach from now on instead of using that relic of the Cold War, Air Force One, with all those unnecessary air defense gizmos.