Posts Tagged ‘supreme court decision’

Obama For 2nd Amendment

March 9, 2010

Or is he? While we sit around like the accused at a felony trial waiting on the Supreme Court to issue its decision what else has been going on? An article by Anthony W. Hager in the American Thinker sums it up nicely. H.R. 45? Still hanging around. H.R. 257? Up and coming. S. 1317? What the heck is that? Better have a look because it could be misconstrued to apply to you, also, I believe it’s unconstitutional.

All very lethal pieces of “legislation” for the 2nd Amendment but nothing compared to the piece of… the treaty that Chairman Zero is planning to sign with the communists at the UN. Mr. Hager, in his article doesn’t give it much mention, or respect, but a piece of crap like this could make it very uncomfortable for us until our individual States stand up to the feds via 10th Amendment legislation. And this would be a worldwide thing with our communist Kenyan Presidents signature on it. Could Interpol show up at your door? I don’t know. Anyway, until next time, screw environmentalists.

The McCain-Feingold Act

January 21, 2010

The McCain-Feingold Act was ruled unconstitutional today by the Supreme Court. What does this mean? Well that is a complicated answer. McCain-Feingold in itself is not that old (2002), but the crux of the act hearkens back to the turn of the twentieth century when robber barons used their wealth to elect politicians that would do their bidding.

Valid arguments can be made both ways. It is, after all, freedom of speech, but who’s speech? Who speaks for the SEIU, GM, the AFLCIO, or GE? I rather think the First Amendment protection of free speech applies to individuals. Does that include individual entities? Then the questionable aspects of the candidate being beholding to the corporation or organization that funds the ad comes into play, as was the case with the robber barons.

I think the ruling is correct. The freedom of speech must be preserved. But this freedom must apply only to individuals. The individuals hiding behind these corporate and organizational names should not be insulated from prosecution and law suits by the same laws that allow them this freedom of speech. An individual should be put forth to stand accountable for the good as well as the bad if an organization desires this kind of consideration from the American people.

A case in point is when I worked for a large automobile manufacturer I was required to belong to a union, even though I did not want to. The union donated to the Democrat Party. I did not like that either. If this is the case I should have been able to bring suit against the individual who made this decision. Does that sound fair? I don’t recall a vote at the union hall to see if we were going to donate. They just did it.

Let’s look at that logically. I had to pay a portion of my income to a group just to keep my job. That sounds like the old protection money the gangsters took from merchants so they didn’t put them out of business. Next they took that same money and gave it to a cause that I not only did not believe in, but at the time, worked against (I was a Republican). What’s that quote about a man being made to pay for something he abhors?

At any rate, we’ve gone back in time about a century on this law. Is that good? I don’t know. It seems like it should be so why do I have all this fear?

Second Amendment

October 6, 2009

Shall not be infringed. We’ve been over this before. I’m getting e-mails and seeing articles about this supreme court decision being “of paramount importance to American citizens”. They ask, “whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments.” I’m here to tell you you’re darn right it does pilgrim. Shall not be infringed does not specify the feds so it extends to your mailman, the pharmacist you get condoms from, the local sheriff and the pizza delivery guy.

I was told in an e-mail that I “urgently needed to demand that┬ámy State Attorney General file an Amicus Brief stating that he agrees that the individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and applies to all 50 states.” Is this hype to get me to donate to their cause? I think so because in the next sentence they asked me for money as well. It was from the Second Amendment Foundation, one of the parties bringing suit against the City of Chicago. That in itself was enough to get me to donate so why all the hype. Are people really so lethargic that they won’t defend these rights? If so perhaps they don’t deserve them.

Remember Patriots, freedom isn’t free. Nothing is. There are no free lunches. Nobody rides for free. How many ways can you say it? If you want to and you can afford it I suggest you google the Second Amendment Foundation and help them defend your freedom. And I’m still considering that Amicus Brief thing.

Oral argument will possibly be scheduled early this coming winter, with a decision expected by June 2010.