archives

rights

This tag is associated with 30 posts

About This ‘No Transgenders In The Military”…

First of all, I’ve no skin in this game.

I’ve never been able to serve, nor am I transgender.

I was classified 1-A when I initially registered for the draft, even with my fused right hip and leg being shorter.  My osteopathic surgeon sent my draft board a letter, and I was ultimately classed 4-F.

Not that I didn’t want to serve.  The plan was do a stint in the Marines, become a cop, then a fed.

To serve my country, AND to be able to carry a concealed weapon nationwide.  It was a different time.

But my leg disability put the kibosh on all that.

THEN, I was in college, and thought maybe R.O.T.C.?  The interview went like this, “Walk this way.  Now walk back this way.  You can’t march, get out!”

So much for my military career.

But, my personal life disappointments aside, there’s another point to the story.

Joining the military is NOT a RIGHT – It’s a PRIVILEGE!

And the military makes the rules.  They want every human involved to meet a minimum standard of ability.  The idea is if soldier one falls on the line, they can be replaced with soldier two.  Uniformity. (My apologies to the sailors, airmen, Marines and coasties.)

The services don’t want to be concerned with the 0.3% of Americans with unusual chromosomal makeup.  Or the larger percentage who feel they are a different gender than their biology dictates.

If you want to serve, fine.  Find another way to serve.

If you are trying to join to get the government to pay for gender reassignment surgery, forget it.

Bradley/Chelsea Manning

Advertisements

Cutting To The Chase On This Rights Thing

One of the neatest things about getting to know folks through this Internet thing (and sometimes, if one is lucky, meeting them in meatspace!) is finding folks who are one’s intellectual superior – from whom one may learn.

I’m a pretty bright guy.  Despite the fact I squandered my education and made some poor life choices.  Things are as they are.  I do appreciate the higher-educated, more erudite folks I’ve been fortunate to befriend on the Internet.  Sometimes (as in the cases of Tam, Borepatch, Brigid, Peter and others) I learn something!

This is from the magnificent Kevin Baker (of The Smallest Minority) (with whom I have been lucky enough to meet and shoot!), in part:

So I’ve cut way back posting here, but I’m still occasionally answering stuff over at Quora.  Seems a waste to let this one vanish in their bit-buckets, so here’s a question-n-answer with an associated comment thread I did recently.

The question was:

Why are guns a right in the US, meanwhile education and healthcare are not?
The question is not about whether or not the government will prevent you from having an education/healthcare. My question is about why education and healthcare aren’t considered in the constitution.

I stumbled onto it fairly early, so there weren’t many answers, but most of them talked about how the Constitution conferred rights on citizens, etc. Here’s my answer:

Oy vey. After reading the current answers (there are eight not downvoted enough to be hidden) it becomes blindingly obvious that our free “education” system has failed pretty dramatically. As one student stated “I Was Never Taught That Knowledge.”

The fundamental question is “What is a ‘Right’?”

Several people here state that education is a right, or that healthcare is a right.

No, they’re not.

While I’m not an Objectivist, I think Ayn Rand was correct when she stated:

A ‘right’ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life.

As others have stated, “guns” aren’t a right, the right to self-defense – protection of one’s own life – is. The right to keep and bear arms is its corollary, for if denied the tools of that defense, the right is essentially stripped.

Education? You have the right to study anything you wish. What you don’t have is the right to make someone teach you. Health care? Same thing. You have the right to take care of yourself, but not force others to care for you.

Because forcing others violates their rights.

So why is the right to arms listed in the Bill of Rights, but education and healthcare are not? Because the Constitution is a legal document that establishes the limits of power of a governing body. If the Constitution were a document that said only what government could not do, it would be infinitely long. Instead, the body of the Constitution itself lists the powers that the Federal government has, and the mechanism under which those powers are established, maintained and exercised. The Bill of Rights is a (limited) list of things that government is warned explicitly not to trifle with, and a warning that there are other such rights not so listed.

The Tenth Amendment, too, is a limit that basically says “Only powers defined here belong to the Federal Government. Everything else is a power reserved to the States or The People. Hands off.”

So of course that’s the first one that got folded, spindled, mutilated and incinerated.

So what do we gather from this? That EDUCATION and HEALTHCARE are not in the purview of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It’s not the job of the Federal Government to provide these things, subsidize these things, or regulate these things except as they affect interstate commerce. (A clause that has been stretched to obscene lengths ever since Wickard v. Filburn.)

It doesn’t matter if they seem to be good ideas. Those powers were not given to the Federal Government by the Constitution. They’re (as you observed) not mentioned in that document. They’re among the “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” And they’re not rights.

But they are most definitely powers.

You should really visit Kevin’s blog, and read the whole post (The Smallest Minority-link)

He doesn’t post often, but when he does, it’s GOLD!

 

 

Rights

A good friend (and former co-worker) has been posting on FB regarding the schism in American Politics.

Those who believe Rights are given to them by government, versus those who believe Rights are inherent, and only partially enumerated by government.

And the piling-on and discussion brought me back to the ubiquitous question – WHAT constitutes a Right?

There’s the Right to keep and bear arms

The Right to free speech, assembly and worship

Trial by jury

The Right NOT to self-incriminate.

Due process

The Right to legal representation

Speedy trial

No search without a warrant (I know, pretty funny!  Given the NSA, FBI, DHS, Border Patrol, DUI checkpoints, etc.)

But, then, folks pile on…

The ‘Right’ to Drive?

The ‘Right’ to Health Care

The ‘Right’ to ‘Free’ College

The ‘Right’ to a base income from government

Gay rights

Women’s rights

Animal rights

The right to privacy

Ad infinitum, ad nauseaum…

Subscribing to a libertarian philosophy, I believe in self-ownership, and by extension, personal property.  And the non-aggression principle.  Neither persons (or corporate persons or governments) may deprive me of my self-ownership (life, liberty or property) without due process of law.

This includes my labor and the fruits of my labor (taxation is theft).

AND compelling me to support someone else involuntarily is also! (paying for anothers’ health care, college, income.  Redistribution of wealth (socialism/Fabianism/communism) are methods by which this is achieved.

NOT compatible with our capitalistic constitutional Republic.

NOW, if I CHOOSE to help others voluntarily with the fruits of my labor, that’s a whole ‘nother thing!  Then it becomes my choice.

What does this mean for the ‘right’ to drive?  Well, if that person purchases fuel, which has road use taxes, I suppose.

What do you guys think?

Parsing The Constitution

I always thought my public school education from the 50s and 60s was enough to get me by.  Certainly more learned than the folks who deliberately misunderstand the three-fifths compromise and the electoral college. And forget those college professors lecturers who taught communism in Constitution classes! (Who could I mean?)

I have often used the argument of the phrase ‘promote the general welfare’ as an argument against both welfare and enforcement thereof.

Thought I was pretty smart in so doing.

Now, here comes (or rather came) Judge Story’s interpretation regarding ‘the general welfare’.

From long before most of us were born!

“Thus we find in our conclusion that there is no general welfare clause in the Constitution;

that the power of Congress to legislate for every object which in their opinion might be for the benefit of the people, pressed by Mr. Hamilton in the Convention, was six times, directly or indirectly, rejected by that body; and, in spite of that, his followers have sought to con­strue these words as meaning what the authors of the Constitution had six times successively rejected; while Judge Story’s construction lands us in the same morass, a government of unlimited power, though he reaches it by a different road.

These facts show that a large majority of the Com­mittee of Eleven that reported these words to be in­corporated into the first clause of §8 Art. I were strongly opposed to the views of Mr. Hamilton and those of Judge Story that lead to the same end, tho’ by different routes, a government of unlimited pow­ers!”

**************************************************

This speech was delivered before the annual meeting of the Georgia Bar Association at Tybee Island on June 2, 3, and 4, 1927.Mr. PRESIDENT and gentlemen of the Geor­gia Bar Association: I make no apology for presenting to you today as the subject of my address a technical and abstruse question, be cause it involves the foundation stone of our form of Government.

The subject to which I invite your attention may be put in this form, “Judge Story’s position on the so-called General Welfare Clause of the Con­stitution of the United States.”

The words “the general welfare” are to be found in two places in the Constitution—in the preamble thereto and in Article 1, section 8, clause 1. All reputable writers concur in the statement that the words of the preamble to the Constitution consti­tute no grants of power, and therefore our investigation is confined to the words as found in Article 1, section 8, clause 1. which reads,

“The Congress shall have power lo lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Apparently, lots of wisdom existed before I was born!  😛

courtesy of Free North Carolina
______________________________________________________
(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
I would ask all of you bloggers out there to at least make the effort to post a link to www.projectwelcomehometroops.org/#22kill

22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY

Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #6 of 22)

Control Means CONTROL!

(from Say Uncle)

Australian Style Gun Control

The police took a T-shirt launcher from a basketball team because it’s a weapon.

 

I can’t comment.

It’s A Trust Issue

(copied in full from my friend Old NFO)

The rest of the story… On how badly BO’s executive orders on gun changes are…

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is moving forward with more gun restrictions under President Obama’s new executive action. The ATF’s latest regulations would affect trusts and legal entities seeking to make or transfer a firearm.

The new rules would define who is the “responsible person” at these organizations that must comply with background check requirements. The current regulations target individuals who apply for guns. But the new rules would expand these regulations to an estimated 231,658 “responsible persons” at these trusts and legal entities. The ATF estimates the rule could cost industry as much as $29 million each year to comply with.

Such trusts have typically been used by collectors, to reduce NFA processing time. This rule change does replace the requirement for prior endorsement by a jurisdiction’s Chief Law Enforcement Officer for transfers to individuals with one for the CLEO to be notified of all NFA transfers.)

The FEDREG link is HERE. The official title is: Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm.

It’s read it and weep time… Pretty much obviates most of the existing trusts. I’m having mine re-written to bring it more in line (if possible) with the new rules.

So, there we have it.  Further obfuscation by the Administration with regard to EVERY CITIZEN’S CIVIL RIGHTS.

Can you imagine the outrage if such restrictions had been placed by government fiat on Freedom of the Press or Speech?

Sickening.

Black Lives Matter

…and so do others of any color, and cops! – Guffaw

Then there’s THIS (from Kevin Baker):

“…no political will in the country to address inner-city violence.”

As I’ve said here and on other fora, if you really want to do something about homicide by firearm then you need to pay attention to who’s doing the killing, who’s doing the dying, and where it is taking place.  ProPublica has an article out, How the Gun Control Debate Ignores Black Lives, on this topic, and the title to this post is THE pullquote from it.

Some other choice selections:

In 2012, 90 people were killed in shootings like the ones in Newtown and Aurora, Colorado. That same year, nearly 6,000 black men were murdered with guns.

Mass shootings, unsurprisingly, drive the national debate on gun violence. But as horrific as these massacres are, by most counts they represent less than 1 percent of all gun homicides. America’s high rate of gun murders isn’t caused by events like Sandy Hook or the shootings this fall at a community college in Oregon. It’s fueled by a relentless drumbeat of deaths of black men.

Gun control advocates and politicians frequently cite the statistic that more than 30 Americans are murdered with guns every day. What’s rarely mentioned is that roughly 15 of the 30 are black men.

Avoiding that fact has consequences. Twenty years of government-funded research has shown there are several promising strategies to prevent murders of black men, including Ceasefire. They don’t require passing new gun laws, or an epic fight with the National Rifle Association. What they need — and often struggle to get — is political support and a bit of money.

Lost in the debate is that even in high-crime cities, the risk of gun violence is mostly concentrated among a small number of men. In Oakland, for instance, crime experts working with the police department a few years ago found that about 1,000 active members of a few dozen street groups drove most homicides. That’s .3 percent of Oakland’s population.

Two weeks after Obama unveiled his plan, (Pastor Michael) McBride and dozens of other clergy members, many of them from cities struggling with high rates of gun violence, met again with staffers from Vice President Biden’s task force.

The mood at the January 29 meeting was tense. Many of the attendees, including McBride, felt the president’s agenda had left out black Americans.

“The policy people working for Biden worked with the reality of Congress,” said Teny Gross, one of the original Boston Miracle outreach workers who now leads the Institute for Nonviolence Chicago. “What they were proposing to us was very limited and was not going to help the inner city.”

Gross said he “blew a gasket.” The clergy members in the room were pleading for help. “We bury hundreds of kids every year in the inner city,” Gross recalled them telling the administration representative. “Some of the solutions need to apply to us.”

A staffer said that the political will of the country was not focused on urban violence, several ministers who attended the meeting recalled.

“What was said to us by the White House was, there’s really no support nationally to address the issue of urban violence,” said the Rev. Charles Harrison, a pastor from Indianapolis. “The support was to address the issue of gun violence that affected suburban areas — schools where white kids were killed.”

The Rev. Jeff Brown, from Boston, was angered by the administration’s calculated approach. “When you say something like that and you represent the President of the United States, and the first African-American President of the United States, you know, that’s hugely disappointing,” he said.

It would seem that Obama’s a huge disappointment to a lot of people.

RTWT.  And especially the comments.

  • Avatar

    Of course, most of those black-on-black murders are related to the drug trade. When you’re dealing in a product whose sale has been prohibited by government fiat, and a dispute in the course of business arises, you can’t just take the other guy to court. It should come as no surprise that many of them seek out “alternative means” of dispute resolution.

    • Avatar

      That depends on whether you believe the article, which states:

      “But it’s not drug deals or turf wars that drives most of the shootings.

      “Instead, the violence often starts with what seems to outsiders like trivial stuff — ‘a fight over a girlfriend, a couple of words, a dispute over a dice game,’ said Vaughn Crandall, a senior strategist at the California Partnership for Safe Communities, which did the homicide analysis for Oakland.

      “Somebody gets shot. These are men who do not trust the police to keep them safe, so ‘they take matters into their own hands,’ he said. It’s long-running feuds, Crandall said, that drive most murders in Oakland.

      “Men involved in these conflicts may want a safer life, but it’s hard for them to put their guns down. ‘The challenge is that there is no graceful way to bow out of the game,’ said Reygan Harmon, the director of Oakland Police Department’s violence reduction program.”

    •   
    • Avatar

      “Rule No. 1 – To solve a problem, you first have to define the problem …”

      Rule No. 1 – To solve a problem, you first have to recognize and admit what the problem is.

      There. Fixed it for you.

      For blacks in America, the “problem” is that race shouldn’t matter, but the “solution” is to behave as if race is the only thing that matters. This is known as “hypocrisy” in those who understand what they are doing, and “stupidity” in those who don’t.

      Avatar

      Two blogs I read regularly dealing with the topic are as follows:

      http://stuffblackpeopledontlik…

      http://www.jameslafond.com/

      James LaFond is mordantly funny and an acute observer of the situation. At the right side, he lists the topics under categories – the Harm City and the Blog are the two most relevant but his Modern Combat category is worth a browse.

      From reading these blogs, the BIG 800 pond gorilla in the room is the refusal of the black community to take responsibly for their own behaviour and their automatic defence of black criminals. The mainstream media and politicians support their viewpoint and the “more of the same” approach that has lead to the situation is demanded (and delivered). More money, more welfare, more police backing off etc.

      Rule No. 1 – To solve a problem, you first have to define the problem …

  • Avatar

    “… including Ceasefire… [w]hat they need — and often struggle to get — is political support and a bit of money.” This unbelievable crock of fantasy monkey shit destroys any chance this article had of credibility with me. The state of Illinois, specifically comically incompetent governor Pat Quinn, gave the Chicago branch of these thieves over A MILLION dollars to do something about the shooting in Chicago. What did they do with it? Well, nobody knows, because there was no accounting made. No demand for results. No accountability for the money. It just vanished. And there hasn’t been a bit of difference made in the shooting in Chiraq.

      
    • Avatar

      “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

      Avatar

      “What they were proposing to us was very limited and was not going to help the inner city.”

      Why would the Democrats want to do that? The violence is the excuse they need to reduce us all to total helplessness in the face of their tyrannical ambitions.

      Put another way, their goal is not to fix the problem, it’s to destroy freedom. The problem of inner city violence is not actually a problem to these ideologues, it’s a tool, an opportunity, an excuse to “take advantage of” so they can take guns from free men. If they actually fixed the problem it would destroy their ability to achieve their true objectives.

  • Avatar

    Political Will, my friends, is what worked so hard for decades to create the problem. The War on Drugs, the Great Society, all the Community Organizing to keep people pissed off, hopeless, divided, feeling like victims and voting Democrat; these things are the fruits of Political Will. Surely you don’t expect Political Will to drop everything it’s worked so hard for generations to accomplish and suddenly work in the opposite direction.

    So just who is this Political Will person whom you all seem to believe has absolute power to solve problems? I tell you he’s a trouble-maker and good for nothing. Political Will seeks power, money and influence for the purpose of keeping people from solving their own problems, and now you expect him to solve the problems he created? This crisis, it seems, is not going to waste for it is leading to calls for more government action. Perfect success!

    Who was it who became famous for saying “the mindset that created a problem is not the one that’s going to solve it” or something to that effect?

    And so I am given to wonder whether we are all insane.

    Maybe we need to be asking ourselves what we are doing to solve these problems, rather than childishly tugging on the coattails of those who helped cause them.

    (…)

     

 

Brady Working With The Government? Naw.

A Brady Campaign ‘Gun Owner Data Base’?

It’s been noted that the individual involved in suing various online retailers over the Colorado movie theatre shooting and who now owes $220K is a Brady employee (6 months after the event). Something interesting was noted on his Linkedin Profile:

Experience

Brady Campaign & Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Manager Organizing Department Brady Campaign

Brady Campaign & Center to Prevent Gun Violence

January 2013 – Present (2 years 4 months)San Antonio, Texas Area

* worked in the organizing department doing outreach to victim/survivors of gun violence* Led the department in adding names of gun owners to data base
* Worked closely with communications department to connect with national media to do television
interviews related to gun violence.
* Lobbied national and state congressional legislators to pass reasonable restrictions on gun
ownership.
*Designed and implemented training programs on gun basics and how to engage gun owners for
Brady chapters.
*Did inspirational talks to grass roots volunteers in Washington state in their efforts to pass
legislation for background checks on all gun sales.
*Spoke at fund raising events.

Led the department in adding names of gun owners to data base?  What?  So what exactly is this Brady ‘Data Base’ that they’re adding names to?  Why are they creating it? What is its purpose?

Inquiring minds want to know.

They aren’t the only ones.  Could The Brady Bunch (and their fellow travelers) be conspiring to circumvent federal law by obtaining data which they then share with the federal government?
NAW.  Not possible.

h/t Days of our Trailers

Stepin’ Fetchit Meet Myra Breckinridge

from Never Yet Melted (in part):

Rodrigo Kazuo and Meg Perret found their classroom environment at Berkeley hostile, even when their professor was lecturing on Karl Marx (!), because the Western canon is exclusively composed of works by dead, white, European males, not a single person of color or transgendered individual makes the cut.

Because a majority of founders of Western thought were gay, Black women…

Sigh.

BTW, have you noticed more ‘persons of color’, homosexual, transgendered or perhaps gender-confused folks in your favorite television shows of movies?

I have.

NOT THAT I CARE, PARTICULARLY.

I remember my Father (who had some bigotry issues) railing against the infusion of Black folks in 60’s and 70’s TV in much the same way.  He said it was much the same in the 40’s and 50’s with Jewish people.  They went from being 3% of the population, to a significant minority of those in entertainment media.  (He, of course, forgot that the only work many Jewish folks could get was in the entertainment field!)

And it was much the same with Black folks.  13% of the population, but represented numerically larger in the entertainment media in the 70’s.

NOT THAT I CARE, PARTICULARLY.

My questions are these:  Does the actor bring quality to the role, or further the plot?  Or were they just added because of political correctness?

And now we have this infusion of gay/transgender etc. folks.  Some are quite entertaining, but in my humble opinion, some are just over-the-top.  And included for shock effect and/or political correctness.

Which does a disservice both to them in their sexuality or color, and to the audience by their inclusion for political reasons.

Stepin’ Fetchit meet Myra Breckenridge.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some folks I find clever, and entertaining, regardless of ethnicity or bent.  Others are just plain annoying.  I won’t give you specifics – you probably have your own.

A couple generations ago, Black people were largely invisible, or stereotyped, and gays (etc.) were just flamboyant characters.  No mention was made of their sexuality.

But now it seems we’re out of the box, for certain.

There’s a popular cable series about polygamy.

What’s next, pedophilia and bestiality?

Where do we go from here?

We should be inclusive of different cultures and sexuality.  As long as it reflects percentages and social mores.

Of course, I’m a libertarian.  (Until mandated) I can always change the channel.

A Right Is A Right Is A Right! Right?

Alphecca brought us this:

Or vice versa. Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr examines the hypocrisy of Eric Holder and the left:

Imagine if voter ID laws were as rigorous as gun regulations found in many of America’s major cities. In order to vote in such a scenario, citizens would be forced to take a day-long class (at a cost of $100 or more) about the basics of the U.S. government and electoral process. They then would be required to take a competency test (only available at inconvenient locations during normal working hours) on the current election’s issues. Finally, after paying a non-refundable processing fee of $100 to score the results, they would then be forced to wait months for the actual voter registration card — which could be rejected for any reason — to arrive in the mail. If a voter decided to seek the help of a tutor to help ensure his non-refundable processing fee was not wasted by a possibly failing grade, he would have to be prepared to shell out another $100.

Much, much more at the link.

Which, of course, opens the whole Pandora’s Box about Rights.  What IS a Right?  What Is a Privilege?  And most importantly…

WHO DECIDES?

There are some folks who believe DRIVING is a RIGHT.  Germany just extended college education FREE to all!  Does that make college education a RIGHT?

I know, I know – who PAYS for all of this?

pandoraPandora’s Box, indeed!

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…