"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Its Almost Halloween as the Ghouls of the Left Celebrate the Death of 2000 Soldiers


Will Malven
10/26/2005

Did you hear it?  Do you hear it?  The ghoulish cheering from the Democrats and their base groups like DemocraticUnderground, People for the American Way, MoveOn.org, and from their shining celebrities, Cindy (Look at Me) Sheehan and Michael Moore as they celebrate the 2000th soldier’s death in Iraq is a disgusting manifestation of their Machiavellian dreams.  After all, to them the death of 2000 American soldiers is a small enough price to pay if they can get themselves elected into office.

Congressman McGovern (Dem. Mass.) described it this morning as a “milestone.”  What a sad thing for an American Congressman to say.   For an American Representative to be so coldly calculating and so unsympathetic is disgusting.  Disgusting maybe, but entirely predictable for Democrats, there is no bad event or loss of American life that can’t be turned to their advantage.  Mind you, they don’t really care about the soldiers or the American people, only what they can gain politically from their deaths.  This attitude is not hard to understand; hatred motivates them.  They live and breathe hatred.  They hate President Bush with a passion that defies logic.  They hate Conservative voters and openly and continually denigrate them as “stupid” or “ignorant” or “uninformed.”  Their contempt for their fellow Americans is a sad testimony to their ambitions.  If you don’t agree with their point of view, you must either be “stupid” or evil.  It is beyond their imagination that anyone could disagree with them and still be intelligent, caring, and motivated by good.  The depth of their hatred is frightening.

If you listen to them speak, you will hear lies.  Every time they say that we went to war for a lie, it is a lie.  Every time they say, as Representative McGovern said this morning, “President Bush said that Iraq was an imminent threat,” it is a lie.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

--President Bush, State of the Union Speech, January 28th, 2003

Every time they say that Al Qaeda was never in Iraq, as Mr. McGovern said this morning on C-span, it is a lie. Every they tell us that President Bush told us Iraq had nuclear weapons, it’s a lie. 

“The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”  [Ibid]

Every time Democrats say that our original decision to go into Iraq had nothing to do with building a democracy, it is a lie. Everytime we are told, as we were by Representative McGovern this morning that the President told us that this would be an easy or quick campaign, it is a lie.  In the President’s own words:

“My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger...We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people...A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.”

--President Bush,  Speech to America, March 19th, 2003

Democrats lie so often and easily that one has to doubt they even know the difference between the truth and a lie.  In their opposition to the Iraq War and their hatred of President Bush they have become “positively unhinged.”  Of course it’s not just Democrats celebrating, our “unbiased” MSM have been out in front cheer-leading the approaching “milestone.”

What?  You don’t think they are celebrating?  Try this on for size.
“The milestone [there’s that word again] came amid growing anti-war sentiment in the United States, and activists planned a series of demonstrations...Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war protester who lost a son in the war, began demonstrating Tuesday in front of the White House. MoveOn.org, a leading opponent of the war, planned candlelight vigils across the country in remembrance of troops who have died.”
Los Angeles Times, October 26, 2005

Or read this from the New York Lies, Dang!  Times!  Times!  (I have such a hard time with that paper’s name) in an International Herald Tribune article by Brian Knowlton:

“The deaths of 2,000 Americans is [sic] being seized by antiwar groups to underscore their arguments for withdrawal from Iraq, even as polls show most Americans now believe the war was a mistake.”

If Democrats are speaking, they are lying.  There is method to their madness, because they know that if they tell the truth they will be laughed out of the room.   When Americans are told the truth about the war in Iraq, they support it.  It the Democrats truly explained their concept of governing: socialism and pervasive, invasive government, gun confiscation, abortion on demand, the abolition of all Christian symbols in public, and surrender to the terrorists, they would only receive about 20-25% of the vote.  That is why they must lie.  Democrats and Liberals do not believe in capitalism, they don’t believe in freedom, and they don’t believe in America.  They believe in World Government, redistribution of wealth, and enslavement to the government.

Don’t think their celebrating?  I give you Senator Edward (the Killer) Kennedy.  He described Tuesday’s news of the 2000th death as an “auspicious day.”  I guess anyone who can leave a young woman to die of drowning could call the death of 2000 American soldiers “auspicious.

God save us from Democrat’s “auspicious” days.

God Bless Our Troops and Their Families, may we never forget or disgrace their sacrifices.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Understanding The Second Amendment, Pt. 1

Will Malven
10/10/2005

In arguing with a Liberal about the Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, one frequently encounters a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is not a grant of rights to the citizens; it is a restriction of the rights of the government. It delimits governmental rights, stating “this far, and no further.”

The Bill of Rights was one of the most debated and fought over subjects at the Constitutional Convention. There was by no means unanimity as to the need or even the desirability of having a Bill of Rights. Historically, bills of rights were lists of rights not surrendered to the crown. In other words, for the purpose of being governed the people surrendered their rights, their sovereignty, to the Government (whether King or State), reserving only those rights enumerated by the bill of rights. In America, the people surrender nothing. Americans cede nothing to the state, thus have no need to reserve rights for themselves. “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.” That says it all. It is “We” the citizens who have the sole possession of any and all rights. Alexander Hamilton, himself an opponent of the concept, describes the concerns of the anti-Bill of Rights group eloquently in Federalist No. 84. Hamilton argues against having a bill of rights in this way [Emphasis added]:

“I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but could even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.”

Those who favored a bill of rights did so because they feared that the state would at some point assume possession of all rights if the most important ones were not set out clearly in a bill of rights. They felt sure that the Bill of Rights would not be interpreted as an exhaustive enumeration of rights, and that the judiciary would protect against such an expansion of government. You see, our forefathers were presented with an almost insurmountable problem; it is the natural order of things for governing bodies to seek to increase their power to control the people (nature abhors a vacuum). To use modern vernacular, it is a “Catch 22.” How do you prevent government from usurping the rights of the people without implying that they have the right to do so? In having the privilege of hind sight, it is obvious that Hamilton was far more prescient than those who favored a bill of rights. The judiciary has not only failed to prevent the encroachment of government on the unassailable rights of the people, they have conspired with Congress, over the last 70-80 years, to do so by issuing some of the most egregious decisions enabling such usurpations. They have failed utterly in their duty to protect the people from oppression by the federal government. They have instead been complicit in that oppression.

I ask you, do we not see Hamilton’s above reasoning in the efforts of some among us to restrict the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms? Has not this same precise logic against which he warned, been used over and over again by anti-gun groups and Congressional Liberals like Ted (the Killer) Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein and John (Frenchy) Kerry in their efforts, some of which have succeeded, to limit access to certain types of firearms or, in some cases, to any firearms at all? Are not the federal laws which are in effect against the ownership by citizens in good standing of automatic weapons, short barreled weapons, and various other small arms, a direct result of this kind of thinking? What about the Federal Assault Weapons Act passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and signed into law on September 13th, 1994 by Bill Clinton? Does it not, by its very existence, assume a right of the Government to impose restrictions precisely as Hamilton warned? How is it that a power not given to the government anywhere in the Constitution can be so wielded? Citizens are also confronted by the unconstitutional absolute restrictions of gun ownership imposed by municipalities like New York City and Washington D.C. These laws come about precisely because of the kind of reasoning Hamilton foresaw. People like the folks from the anti-Constitution, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence routinely argue that the first clause of the Second Amendment “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” was offered by the authors of the Amendment as the sole justification for the right to keep and bear arms. And they even go so far as to assert:
“The ‘militia’ was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 - hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.”

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...” -- Tench Coxe Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

"... who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."--George Mason, Elliot Debates at 425-426

If you’ve any doubt as to which of these interpretations is correct, I suggest that those of the two gentlemen and their contemporaries who were there at the writing, approval, and signing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights carry a great deal more weight than the questionable judgment of some political hack employed by a biased party (the Brady Campaign) over 200 years later.

The despots in waiting of the Brady Campaign claim that the militia was seen as the protection of the individual states from the federal standing army. Believe it or not, this is actually partially correct, but it fails to go far enough, because it begins with the assumption that the need for a militia was the only justification for the right to keep and bear arms (more on that later).

“The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias”

Further and at last they unbelievably assert:

“In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century.”

Such temerity by a so called “American” advocacy group. In their zeal to strip all American citizens of their right to possess firearms, they assume that any possible reason for a citizen to own a firearm no longer exists. We’re crime free now. That’s it, Sarah Brady has spoken. We no longer need the Second Amendment. Let’s toss it on the trash heap of history. O.K. Sarah, as soon as you begin walking unescorted along the streets of Washington D.C. and other high-crime areas to prove to me that American citizens are now completely safe. No more need for firearms, we’re safe now, Sarah has said so. Such proposals are so asinine as to be laughable; except I am not laughing because, unfortunately, idiots like those at the Brady Campaign and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence are serious. In the face of evidence, in spite of it, that police response times to reports of violent crime can be as long as an hour or even more they insist that there is no need for a firearm. They are firm believers in the Monty Python order of Battle...”Run Away, Run Away!” I guess they figure that children and old people should fend for themselves as the able bodied flee for their lives. Well, I mean they believe in abortion so that explains the children, and I suppose they believe in euthanasia which would explain the elderly. So, problem solved.

But of course the militia argument is but a side show, a diversion of the Leftist anti-gun movement from the real question as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the deeper question as to exactly how important the Bill of Rights is in “granting” us the rights which we already possess. The real question is whether of not there is a fundamental, irrevocable right of the people to keep and bear arms, free of any government restriction whatsoever. In part two, I will cover this and attempt to make a conclusion.

It is truly amazing that as one continues to read more and more of the writings of the founders of this great nation, the mounting awareness one has of the vacuous and insubstantial nature of the arguments of the Leftists. They truly haven’t a clue.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!
This assertion, made by a modern day lawyer in the employment of the Brady Campaign drawing his own flawed conclusions based on his understanding of American history runs contradictory to the understanding of the forefathers who wrote and lived the Constitution 200 years before [Emphasis added]: