Hat tip: Chris Lynch.
Today is the 241st anniversary of our Declaration of Independence from the tyranny that was the British crown against the colonies.
And, it will be celebrated with fireworks, picnics, barbeques and other family get-togethers. Some parades and even some solemn remembrances.
We should acknowledge this day, but we should also remember tyranny never stops, and government never stops growing unabated.
YES! WE HAVE A BILL OF RIGHTS! – but how many of them are forgotten or stepped-on today?
Freedom of Speech? Hardly. Colleges and university restricting or stopping speech with which they disagree WHOLESALE!
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms? I will acknowledge much improvement has happened over the past 20 years in this area, but we must not sit on out laurels. Just this past week, the Supreme Court declined to hear how possession (carrying) of weapons outside the home factors in. Leaving an erroneous District Court finding to stand.
Search and Seizure? Do we even have a Fourth Amendment, anymore? Blanket wiretapping of cellular phone and Internet communications. DUI checkpoints. The TSA. Anyone see any warrants affiliated with these actions?
Trial by a Jury of one’s Peers? Seriously? How often?
And don’t even get me started on seizure of assets and jury nullification!
I thank God that we didn’t elect Barack 2.0 (aka Hillary). This doesn’t mean that the current White House occupant is close to being a diamond in the rough.
He is a populist, and certainly NOT a libertarian! And surrounds himself with statist conservatives.
We have won some battles, but are nowhere close to winning the war.
In fact, Curran’s line was somewhat different. What he actually said, in a speech in Dublin on July 10, 1790, was:
“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.”
And, according to Jefferson scholars there is “no evidence to confirm that Thomas Jefferson ever said or wrote, ‘Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty’ or any of its variants.”
Whoever said it, it is TRUE! Stay vigilant, My Friends!
Happy Independence Day
Regular readers of GiA know I’m no sports fan. It’s only when a sports figure does something of note (as with many of the Olympic athletes) or does something onerous (as with some Olympic athletes) that it gets my attention.
This Kaepernick guy apparently refused to stand for the National Anthem at the last game. And, in spite of the firestorm of controversy reacting to his remaining seated, said he will continue not to stand. Until things change regarding the oppression of Blacks in the United States.
He’s Black. His parents are White. He makes NINETEEN MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND LIVES IN A MANSION.
What could have happened? What oppression?
A quick search (on Duck Duck Go) regarding the National Anthem situation made it appear his protest was all about injustice done to Blacks. BLM stuff. A subsequent search adding the term ISLAM brought forth stories that Kaepernick converted to Islam during the off season – probably because his girlfriend is a radical Islam radio show personality…
Funny how the more narrow Internet search failed to mention this conversion. And the ‘news’ outlets in the broader version consisted of bloggers and sketchier news outlets (IOW, NOT CNN, NBC and such. WND for example).
Which brings me to my point. Many of the folks leaving comments on the National Anthem story demand that Kaepernick be forced to stand. As repulsive as his behavior my be, forcing someone to stand in ‘free’ Republic doesn’t sound like an appropriate response to me.
I’m a big believer in free markets. And voting with one’s feet, TV remotes and wallets. And via Email and post if necessary.
If you don’t want to support this clown, don’t watch his game, buy his team’s foam fingers or products advertised. Hit ’em where it hurts.
I LOVE this Republic and her Anthem. Singing along with my hand over my heart sometimes brings me to tears.
But forcing someone to stand – that smacks of fascism, and certainly doesn’t paint a portrait of the Land Of The Free.
I don’t care what religion he is. But, it IS interesting that the mainstream media has been soft-pedaling that information.
I’m speaking of this Republic.
With Rome, it was either when the Ottoman Turks took Byzantium (Constantinople) 1453 AD or when a barbarian deposed the last western Roman emperor 476 AD (ancient history About.com)
My Western Civilization professor said it began with (and I’m quoting here) “Moral decadence and pleasures of the flesh!” (to the cheers of the 400 or so horny underclassmen)
What is/was the beginning of the end of this Constitutional Republic we know as The United States?
The Whiskey Rebellion? (1791)
The Civil War? (1861)
Federal income tax (1913)
Direct election of Senators? (1913)
Establishment of the Federal Reserve? (1913)
The National Firearms Act (1934)
Or is it an amalgamation of these and many other things, eating away at our Constitutional substance, punctuated by further federal government oversteps such as Ruby Ridge and Waco? No-knock warrants, followed by airport searches and sobriety checkpoints. Massive surveillance of our electronic communications. Prohibitions of Speech seen as ‘politically-incorrect’. The killing of Blacks by police – whether or not legitimate actions – spun by self-serving propagandists into an ersatz race war?
Now followed by widespread racial civil unrest, punctuated by acts of terrorism against civil authority.
I’m certain all ‘civilizations’, be they primitive neolithic cultures like the American Indian when the White man first laid eyes on him, or the Romans, or the Christian Turks all thought they would endure forever.
And so have most of we Americans.
I guess the true question isn’t what was the tipping point.
It’s what do we do NOW?
Yes. That’s exactly what it is.
MURDER as a political act.
Murder is illegal. Murder toward a political end is illegal. Assault with intent to commit murder is illegal. Use of firearms by criminals is illegal. Evading the police after the act is illegal. Hiding perpetrators and evidence is illegal. Hindering prosecution is illegal.
Some folks will focus on the motivation of the perpetrators. Is it a ‘hate crime’? WHY would the bad guys do such a thing?
As far as I’m concerned, when it comes to motivation, I DON’T CARE! Hate crime is code for ‘you are not thinking correctly – report to the reeducation camps‘. I’ll be a truant, thank you. What I think Is MY business! An assault remains an assault. A murder a murder.
Like them or not, The Police are the thin blue line between most communities and anarchy. Sure most homogenous communities would have some crime with or without the police. My white-bread college town doesn’t have too much crime. Under-age drinking; drug use and related offenses. But what about minority communities with a fractured social structure? South Chicago, for example? Where the crime is largely Black-on-Black?
So, where does such criminality to attack police come from? Certainly from police abuse against minorities, real and imagined, as propagandized by certain political movements (communists, anarchists, Black power advocates) – politicians and community organizers meeting with their leaders, and making anti-law enforcement statements(!)
And there we have it. If these ‘reverends’, ‘community organizers*’ and politicians actually stood up for non-violence, peace, and brotherhood. And facts. Perhaps acts such as occurred in Dallas would not have happened.
Facts. That recent shooting where the Black man had a gun. And a violent criminal record. Not unlike that Missouri guy. The tall, athletic guy, with a history of strong-arm-robbery, going for the security guy’s gun.
Do we not think that certain powers won’t utilize Dallas as yet another stepping stone toward abridging the rights of the law-abiding?
Double-secret probation, if you will? Making it MORE illegal?
Our focus should first be on the good thoughts and prayers for the deceased, injured and their families. Second, on bringing the perpetrators to justice.
And third, on stopping crime in fractured neighborhoods. Instead of just letting them fester.
A tall order, I know.
So, no indictment will be recommended by the FBI to the DOJ of presumable candidate (former) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
This is my shocked face.
The FBI Director’s statement regarding ‘no intent’, of course is bogus. Petraeus had no intent. The Espionage statute specifically says intent is not required.
The fix is in.
The Clinton Machine, and their ill-gotten millions, remain in force.
And the only other real choice is a populist demagogue.
Be Afraid, America!
Pay no attention to the federal statute above, or the serial rapist behind the curtain!
All we have left is the Libertarian Party. And they’ll be lucky to get 1.5% of the popular vote!
I’m more tough than I used to be – but hardly a marathon-running spec ops guy. I’ve beaten cancer (2x) and a serious car wreck.
Frankly, most days just walking is a challenge. 😦
But, I read about these bubble-wrapped snowflakes in colleges, demanding safe spaces to share their feelings, because they say a chalk writing on the pavement in support of a presidential candidate with whom they disagree distresses them!
And that makes me sick!
THEN, I read about THIS guy (courtesy of my friend Borepatch)
Associate Supreme Court Justice Scalia has passed away.
Having said this (from The Wall Street Journal)…
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday at the age of 79, will be remembered as one of the court’s most influential, trenchant and controversial voices. Below are a few outtakes from some of the more influential and notable opinions from his storied, 30-year career on the court.
•D.C. v. Heller (2008) By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s blanket ban on handguns, ruling for the first time that the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms in one’s home. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion.
There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
• Kyllo v. U.S. (2001) The court ruled that the government couldn’t use thermal imaging technology to detect a suspected marijuana-growing operation without a warrant. Justice Scalia wrote that the use of sense-enhancing technology not in public use to gain information within the home constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws “a firm line at the entrance to the house…That line, we think, must be not only firm but also bright which requires clear specification of those methods of surveillance that require a warrant. While it is certainly possible to conclude from the videotape of the thermal imaging that occurred in this case that no “significant” compromise of the homeowner’s privacy has occurred, we must take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment forward.
• Printz v. U.S. (1997) The court held, 5-4, that a federal law requiring local law enforcement to conduct background checks on gun purchases was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia wrote that the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer federal programs.
Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
• Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) The court ruled 6-3 that public schools could randomly drug test student athletes. Justice Scalia wrote that the privacy interests compromised by giving urine samples under the district’s policy were negligible.
Just as when the government conducts a search in its capacity as employer (a warrantless search of an absent employee’s desk to obtain an urgently needed file, for example), the relevant question is whether that intrusion upon privacy is one that a reasonable employer might engage in, see O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709 (1987); so also when the government acts as guardian and tutor the relevant question is whether the search is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake. Given the findings of need made by the District Court, we conclude that in the present case it is.
• RAV v. City of St. Paul (1992) Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in which the court struck down St. Paul, Minn.’s crime banning “hate-crime,” for violating the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee.In so doing, the court tossed aside charges against a group of teenagers that burned a cross in the yard of an African-American family.
The dispositive question in this case, therefore, is whether content discrimination is reasonably necessary to achieve St. Paul’s [p396] compelling interests; it plainly is not. An ordinance not limited to the favored topics, for example, would have precisely the same beneficial effect. In fact, the only interest distinctively served by the content limitation is that of displaying the city council’s special hostility towards the particular biases thus singled out. [n8] That is precisely what the First Amendment forbids. The politicians of St. Paul are entitled to express that hostility — but not through the means of imposing unique limitations upon speakers who (however benightedly) disagree.
* * * *
Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone’s front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire.
The Internet is rife with both praise and derision for this Justice. I shan’t post the hateful texts here. There is Great Fear amongst the conservative and libertarian elements of society that without his swing vote, and Constitutionally-measured opinions, that ‘we’ (civil libertarians, gun owners/carriers, and American Society at large) are doomed. Doomed to the progressive, post-Constitution era of further governmental intrusion on rights, and final loss of the America in which we were raised.
His body wasn’t even cold, when The President announced he would find a suitable replacement, and (some) Republicans suggested The Senate block ANY appointment for the next eleven months (until the next President could be sworn in)!
In other words, politics as usual.
God Save The United States Of America (while I’m still allowed to post this!)
or rather, stinkin’ permits!
Last week, the Attorney General in Virginia decided to cancel reciprocity with 25 other states. The uproar around the country among gun enthusiasts was considerable. This brought up, once again, the issue of a national reciprocity law, which, as I pointed out, would be unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.
Now, in no way was that post meant to suggest that I am not a fan of universal reciprocity for carry permits. In fact, I believe that insofar as a government has the right to place prerequisites on the exercise of my civil rights by requiring that I obtain a permit to do so, then no government has the right to decide that the decision of any other government is null and void in its jurisdiction.*
But, given that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to regulate carry permits, or the carry of guns, how then do we accomplish this?
I mentioned in my last posting that one argument cited for government mandated reciprocity is the Driver’s License system. After all, they argue, since my driver’s license is recognized by other states, my carry permit should be as well. While I agree with that premise, most people who argue this route don’t realize that this is the result of an agreement between the States, not because of any law.
What, then, should be our answer?
For me it is simple: abolish the carry permit system altogether.
Why? Because it’s unnecessary, under any understanding of the Second Amendment.
And yet, states require carry permits, and most of us think nothing of it. In fact, we make a big deal of it. “Look at me!” we rejoice. “The Government has acceded to grant me its begrudging permission to exercise a right already guaranteed under the Constitution!”
Naturally, the anti-gunners will argue that without a permit system any criminal would be allowed to carry a gun. How would we be protected from such a thing?
And yet, it should be obvious that criminals carry a gun now without permits. The law does not change their actions, because, by definition, they are criminals.
So, how do we get the permit system revoked?
Unfortunately, we white Americans are going to have to be honest about our white forefathers, and be honest about how it all began – as a way to keep guns out of the hands blacks. So to make the permit system go away, we have to show how racist the whole system was, and how that discrimination carries over to today, by allowing the government to know just who owns guns.
Think about how effective this would be, to tie in the carry permit system with the images of Jim Crow, the Confederacy, and the KKK.
Can we do this? Yes. Will we do this? I don’t know, but I hope so. Because, honestly, it is the best route to national reciprocity – by making every American equal.
(from Fill Yer Hands, in full)
Out of the hands of Blacks, and undesirable foreigners. (Sullivan Law)
Control is control is control. It’s what statists, of all flavors, want.
If you are not reading Peter Grant (Bayou Renaissance Man) daily, may I say your daily blog reading is – in the very least – incomplete!
For those of us interested in personal security and safety…
In today’s racially charged climate, with criminal flash mobs an ever-increasing problem in many cities, the average urban shopping mall now qualifies as a “stupid place” to be. (!!!)
In 2013 four Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, in a chilling foretaste of what could happen in any city in America at any time. I wrote about it that same day. I urge you to read the warning I gave then, and ask yourself the same questions I posed on that day. They’re as relevant as ever they were.
Now Foreign Policy brings us an in-depth report on what happened that day in Nairobi, complete with many eye-witness and participant accounts. It’s the next best thing to a security briefing on what you might confront any day now in an American shopping center. I have no faith whatsoever that our police and security forces could stop such a thing from at least getting started. I hope and trust they’d do rather better at shutting it down before it got out of hand: but if the attacking party is larger, or better-armed, or their assault is timed to coincide with mass street protests that draw too many cops away from the danger zone . . . who knows?
We already know that fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and/or their sympathizers are trying to infiltrate the United States. Some claim they’ve already done so. None of us know the facts . . . but I guaran-damn-tee you, they want to. Nairobi was a foreshadowing of what they’d like to do to the Great Satan, America itself. Go read the Foreign Policy article in full, and ask yourself: if something like that goes down tomorrow, in my town, and I’m there, what am I going to do about it? Am I prepared to deal with it? If not . . . why not?
The Quote of the Day (Month, Year) from the wonderful Tamara!
We used to do assimilation. You would move here and we would hate you and make you live in ghettos and organize political parties against you, and your kids would learn our games and our songs and our language and move out of the ghettos and be our tradespeople. And your grandkids would be our doctors and lawyers and aldermen and would forget your language and we would add your food to our menus and take one of your holidays and hang it on our wall as a trophy and use it as an excuse to get drunk every year.
But not any more. Now assimilation is imperialist and racist and bad. Indeed, in Europe, which is several kilometer markers further down this road than we are, assimilation is actively discouraged. No, no, Mr. Refugee… You don’t need to learn the language; you’ll never be one of us anyway. You just sit there and let us feed you and keep you like a zoo animal to look at and remind ourselves that we don’t feed you into ovens anymore like our parents did because we’re so much better now.
We’ll see who cracks first, the guests or the hosts, but sooner or later, somebody’s getting loaded into cattlecars, because that’s how things go in Europe.
AMEN Sister – Sadly…
Coming soon to an America near you!