Tag: hillary clinton

The True Source Of the Second Amendment

 

Second Amendment

It amazes me just how many Americans do not understand the concept of Second Amendment Rights and where  this American right originates.  Even American’s who support the Second Amendment, own firearms, join the NRA, and exercise their rights under the Second Amendment daily often misunderstand its origins.  

What is scary to me, however, is that the left-wing liberals certainly seem to, at least on one level, understand the reason that the Founding Fathers  wrote Second Amendment and included it in the Bill of Rights.  That is why they are so intent on eliminating the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

Of  course, you have to understand that most liberals in this country are not liberals at all … at least not in the true sense of the liberal ideology.  True liberals, as a general rule, would not support gun control because it is a violation of a personal freedom ….  and all liberals certainly claim to strongly support individual freedom.  This is the root of their support for the gay movement, women’s rights to murder 1.37 million American babies each year, legalizing drugs, PETA, terrorist’s rights, and the drive-by media’s right to commit libel and slander against conservatives with impunity while openly supporting their chosen liberal politicians during elections.  

In this country, the term liberal is most often used to hide the true identity of anti-American movements.  The ACLU, for example, originated as a communist organization dedicated to bringing about a peaceful transition  to a communist American state.  When the ACLU’s founding members discovered that the term communist was working against them because of the stigma attached to it, they simply changed their name.  

Many other “liberals” in this country are simply socialists; but because this term also still has a stigma attached to it, they choose to hide behind the term “liberal.”  

Then we also have the liberal “fascists”  … like Barack Obama quickly seems to be turning out to be.  What kind of government allows private ownership of business, but tells you how to run them …..   look it up!

So, what does this have to do with gun control.  Despite the fact that many cool-aid drinking liberal followers live in a dream world where we all sit around the global campfire singing Kumbaya,  their leaders (the movers and shakers of the liberal elitist movement) are actually very intelligent.  They understand that, with the exception of California and the New England states, the backbone of real America is still made up of bitter common folk who cling to their Bibles and their Guns;  and … that these bitter (or shall we say Freedom Loving Rugged Individualists) simply do not want to live in a socialist (or a fascist) nanny state.  Their solution, then, is to lie, cheat, misinterpret, play on fears, elect any and all rabid anti Second Amendment politicians (or  judges) they can find, use their control of the mass media, and otherwise work to dissolve our Second Amendment rights.

 

America's 1st Freedom

 

Because of this on-going assault on the Second Amendment, we often hear some really odd soundbites such as

its people like you who will hand the White House over to some COMMI DEMOCRAT, who will elect some liberal Supreme Court Justices … and they will destroy the Second Amendment  

or even such nonsense as …  

the jack-booted feds will roll you up like an old carpet.  If you think you can resist them then you will join the ranks of the Branch Davidians and the martyrs of Ruby Ridge.  All the good sheeple will fall in line … or die.  

Rhetoric such as this is silly and misses the point entirely.

Implicit in comments such as these is the idea that our rights, including those validated under the Second Amendment, are somehow granted to us by the 9 old men and women on the Supreme Court; or from our legislature; or from our president.  Implicit in these comments is the idea that the right to Keep And Bear Arms actually comes from the Second Amendment itself.  This is a fallacy.  The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, the legislature, and the presidency are all thing created by men, and thus, they can be taken away by other men.

 

Liberty

 

The truth is that the Second Amendment (and the other rights listed in the bill of Rights) simply acknowledges and allows us to protect our Inalienable Rights to “Life, Liberty, and  the Pursuit of Happiness.”  Depending on your personal belief system, these rights would be granted to us as either Natural Rights based on our condition of being Human Beings …. or as Divine Rights granted to us by God.  

Such rights are yours from the moment of your birth and cannot be taken away by other men … unless you allow that to happen.

Of course we can write our congressmen, join the NRA or the GOA, write letters to the editor, argue cases in court, and work hard to elect pro-gun legislators … and we should certainly be doing all these things.  However, our Second Amendment rights are not based on the outcome of these mechanisms.  Those “liberals” currently in power like Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Emanuel Rahm, Harry Reid, Janet Napolitano, Sarah Bradey, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and soon to be Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor among others, would certainly want to have you believe that it does; and will certainly work to convince you that it does … but, in truth …. it does not.

Our Right To Bear Arms rests entirely upon our willingness to stop, by whatever means necessary, anyone who attempts to confiscate them. What these other mechanisms do is simply postpone any coming day of reckoning … which is certainly worth doing as long as it is feasibly possible.  

However, any political or governmental entity acting to confiscate or deny an honest, law-abiding American citizen the right to keep and bear arms is acting in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a legitimate government agency.

 

God given. Not negotiable.

 

And for those of you who will certainly, without thinking or doing any research, chime in and exclaim … “but that’s not what the Second Amendment means” …  “its about militias, not individuals” … ” it is outdated because it was written 200 years ago” …  you should remember that your precious Freedom of Speech was acknowledged and guaranteed at precisely the same time

… and take the time to look at and actually read some of the historical quotes listed below.  You might gain some “intelligence.”

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322) 

“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789) 

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America” – (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.) 

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]) 

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) 

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169) 

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) 

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) 

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) 

“the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.) 

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888)) 

“…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)) 

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.) 

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.) 

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1) 

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) 

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829) 

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) 

“The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87) 

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..) 

“The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,…taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386) 

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646) 

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) 

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) 

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)) 

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939) 

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) 

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson) 

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington) 

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967]) 

“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894]) 

“…the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,) 

“Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.” (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]) 

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]) 

“Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame.” (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato’s Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755]) 

“The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes.” (Dwight, Travels in New-England) 

“What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.) 

(The American Colonies were) “all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them.” [George Mason, “Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)] 

“To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed…to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless…If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country.” (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823] 

“It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.” (James Madison, “Federalist No. 46”) 

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833]) 

“The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” (Edward Abbey, “The Right to Arms,” Abbey’s Road [New York, 1979]) 

“You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you….There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”) 

“You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”) 

“As much as I oppose the average person’s having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved.” [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.] 

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] 

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)] 

” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] 

“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)] 

“The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)] 

“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] 

Wal-Mart Joins Michael Bloomberg’s War On Law-Abiding Gun Owners!

Wally World To Police Gun Owners!

Walmart & Bloomberg

I have always disliked shopping at Wal-Mart for several reasons: First, because they put local retailers out of business. Second, because they are so big they can dictate to their distributors the prices they will pay for the merchandise they sell …. often causing their distributors to go out of business. Now I have another reason … and I will no longer shop at Walmart …. period!

Wal-Mart recently joined New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s war on law abiding gun-owners by attending a gathering of Bloomberg’s anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, to announce a series of changes to the way in which Wal-Mart will handle future firearm transactions. At the gathering, J.P. Suarez, chief compliance officer for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., stated: “The costs are, we think, part of what it takes to be responsible.” Suarez also added, “This is not a signal that we’re getting out of firearms.” Well, I think they may as well be … I hope their firearms sales fall through the floor.

Once these changes have been instituted, firearm purchases at Wal-Mart will involve getting a video record of the sale, which the chain will then keep on file . It seems Wally World is now getting into the law enforcement market and effectively creating its own video database of gun purchasers. Wal-Mart also is giving its employees the discretion to deny the sale of a firearm to anyone who has ever had a firearm traced by BATFE for any reason …. including those who have had a firearm stolen that was later used by a criminal in the commission of a crime.

I say anyone who gets video taped buying a firearm at Wal-Mart deserves what they get!

Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President, said, “I view it as a public relations stunt that stigmatizes law-abiding firearms purchasers exercising their constitutional freedoms. I honestly think it’s a corporation trying to curry favor with politicians as opposed to doing anything meaningful about stopping crime.”

I agree with Wayne LaPierre’s comment.

And … I think all American gun owners should boycott Wal-Mart permanently!

I, personally, will never give Wal-Mart another dime of my money. It is time for the 80 million law-abiding gun owners in this country to start making a stand against these consistent, and unconstitutional attacks on our Second Amendment Rights by liberal elitists whatever stripe they choose to hide behind.

Clinton and Obama Now Support The Second Amendment?

As Democratic Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battled each other at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia last week, the debate moderator Charlie Gibson, from ABC News, opened the debate on the gun issue by stating, “Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual’s right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.” (Sound familiar to you? It does me!) “Why don’t you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?”

Hillary answered with her typical stream of generic generalizations, but manage to be clear on at least one position stating, “I will [also] work to reinstate the assault weapons ban,” also noting that, “the Republicans will not reinstate it.”

Gibson then asked Obama about the Heller case which is now before the United States Supreme Court, and specifically whether he thinks the D.C. gun ban is somehow “consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms.” Obama’s response was, “ I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”

Mr. Gibson again asked, “But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?”, while Barack Obama was very evasive and never really gave a straight answer, causing the moderator to comment, “I’m not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama.”

Senator Clinton was then asked, “Do you support the D.C. ban?” Hillary, too, was very evasive but did state that she wants, “to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining…” firearms law. Again Gibson pressed her about the D.C. Gun Ban, “But what do you think? Do you support it or not?”

“Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms,” she said.

“Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?” asked the Charlie Gibson.

“Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don’t know the facts,” Clinton concluded.

At least Hillary Clinton was right about that.

The fact is that neither candidate joined more than 300 of their congressional colleagues in signing a brief in the Heller case in support of the Second Amendment, and both candidates’ records are well documented and show, without doubt, that they’re both radically anti-gun. For either of them to now even attempt to convince Americans they support gun-owner’s rights is absurd. If neither one of them can plainly state that a ban on guns in the home for self-defense runs contrary to the Second Amendment, one can have little doubt that either candidate believes any gun law would.

John McCain Shows Some Uncommon Sense!

John McCain

John McCain says he wants to leave the door open to discuss and consider any viable proposals to address the troubling situation in home financing.McCain stated, “I will not play election-year politics with the housing crisis …. I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now.”

With that statement, Senator McCain suggested that he would also be open to potential solutions that did not originate on the Republican side of the isle. McCain went on to say that he would, “consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits” and that he “will not allow dogma to override common sense.”

That being said, Senator McCain also stated there were limits on how far he was willing to go.

“I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers,”

Thank you John McCain … couldn’t have said it better myself!

McCain also stated that, “Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.”

John McCain is seeking to show his grasp of the country’s economic troubles — and counter the notion that he’s not up to the task of leading a nation on the brink of recession.

Senator McCain has acknowledged, perhaps honestly, in the past that he knows less about economics than he does about national security and foreign policy … and of course, Democrats have gleefully seized on such remarks to argue that McCain is inexperienced with the domestic issues that voters care about most.

Frankly, I must admit that I fail to see how Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton’s stated plans to spend billions upon billions of dollars to provide more social welfare services and bailouts shows any real keen understanding of the nations economy either, but perhaps I am just slow on the uptake. I do not need a crystal ball, though, to see drastic tax increases needed to fund this “nanny state” nonsense should either of them get elected. Hillary Clinton stated herself, that America could not afford her many projects.

While Senator John McCain is quietly seeking to prove his economic credentials and to continues to generate a healthy buzz in the media about his candidacy …

Hillary Clinton

… Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton continue to ratchet up the racism, hate, and mud-slinging, while fighting tooth and nail … by hook or by crook … for their party’s nomination.

Barack Obama

Senator McCain opened a recent meeting with a nuts-and-bolts explanation of the conditions that caused the housing crisis and financial market problems.

“A lot of Americans read the headlines about credit crunches and liquidity crises and ask: ‘How did we get here?”, Senator McCain said.

He answered that question in simple yet accurate terms that show a real common sense understanding of American economics and domestic issues.

McCain stated that lenders became complacent as housing prices continued to rise and lowered their standards. They began lending money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back. Some buyers, McCain said, bought homes they couldn’t afford, hoping they would reap the benefits later of higher home prices. Meanwhile, he said, the housing market lacked accountability and transparency, and “the initial losses spawned a crisis of confidence in the markets.”

Looking toward the future, McCain stated that any government assistance to alleviate the housing crisis must be temporary and must be accompanied by reforms designed to make the system more transparent and accountable.

We do need to prevent a repeat of this crisis. This is simply a replay of the Savings & Loan crisis of the 1970s. Unethical Americans make bad choices out of greed, when the inevitable happens they blame the president, and then seek a bailout from the government … we cannot, as a nation, afford to have this happen again and again!

McCain also stated, and I agree, that no assistance of any kind should be given to speculators, or people who bought houses to rent or as second homes.

In the short term, he called for the country’s top accounting experts to meet to discuss current the accounting systems and stated that the country’s top mortgage lenders should pledge to do everything possible to help their cash-strapped but credit-worthy customers.

“They’ve been asking the government to help them out,” McCain said of lenders. “I’m now calling upon them to help their customers, and their nation, out.”

Its about time we got some plain truth and common sense from one of our candidates!

Democratic Death Knell

Sen. Barack Obama’s use of the phrase “typical white person” on a Philadelphia radio station has drawn waves of criticism. Is his use of such a phrase really shocking or surprising … given the flavor of the church Obama has been a member of the last twenty years? Not to me!

In the speech, the Democratic presidential hopeful spoke of his white grandmother “who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street” and who voiced stereotypes “that made me cringe.” Obama said his grandmother is simply “a typical white person who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred into our experiences that don’t go away, and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society.”

Seriously, folks … Barack Obama basically called all white people racist! Who is this presidential hopeful trying to fool? The Rev. Jeremiah Wright would be proud of his protege!

Just think … Hillary Clinton can’t even mention the word ‘black’ in the same paragraph with Barack Obama without being labeled a racist … and Obama gets away with calling all white people racist!

This just keeps getting better and better.

Inclusiveness and Diversity?

AND … I THOUGHT CONSERVATIVES WERE SUPPOSED TO BE THE RACIST PARTY!

Wait … which party like to categorize by race? … Which party still pushes affirmative action policies that continue to promote hiring decisions or college entrance decisions based on race, gender, sexual preference, religion and/or ethnicity rather than skills and qualifications?

Maybe the “democratic” chickens have come home to roost!

I wonder what Bill Cosby, Sir Charles Barclay, Allen Keyes, Justice Clarence Thomas, or Halloran Hilton Hill think about all this?

Diversity – Because we can’t call it “Racism” anymore!

It is interesting that 37% of Hillary Clinton’s supporters say they will not vote for Barack Obama should he win the nomination, and 26% of Barack Obama’s supporters say they will not vote for Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination. That seems to be a big boost in numbers for McCain, which ever of the two win the nomination!

Is the Democratic Party self-destructing?

Obama / Clinton

Some claim that the Democrats did that back in 1972, when George McGovern and his left-wing hippies took control of the party. There have been nine presidential elections since then … and the Democrats have lost 6 of them. They are out there on the far left fringe and simply out of touch touch with the real American people of this country … and they have been for years.

Historically, the Democratic Party has always made the wrong moral choices. Before the Civil War, it favored slavery and … after the Civil War, it supported racial segregation (which is why I have always wondered why so many Black Americans tend to vote for democrats). Now … the Democratic Party supports abortion, homosexual marriage, and politically correct racism (termed diversity).

Many Democrats are beginning to fear that the increasingly bitter battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could bring real trouble for the Democrats in November. They are especially concerned that the primary contest is creating deep rifts that will divide the party no matter who wins the nomination. This is evidenced by the fact that among those polled, 37% of Hillary Clinton’s supporters say they will not vote for Barack Obama should he win the nomination, and 26% of Barack Obama’s supporters say they will not vote for Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination.

For some unknown reason, African Americans do constitute a key voting bloc for the Democratic party. By launching personal attacks on Obama, the Clinton campaign does run a real risk of alienating black voters in the fall. That could be fatal in a close race against the Republican nominee, John McCain.

On the other hand, if Barack Obama hits back, he runs the risk of alienating women voters who make up over half the Democratic base. Any lack of turnout among women voters would be devastating to the Democrats’ chances for success in November.

A new Zogby International poll released last week showed Republican candidate, John McCain leading both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in trial heats of the race.

Also surprisingly, that same poll found that independent voters believe that McCain is better equipped to deal with the economy, an issue that many observers thought would benefit Democrats.

And that poll was taken before Obama gave his speech on race.

While the speech is playing to rave reviews from the liberal media commentariat; cooler political heads are waiting to see how it plays with voters who have had time to re-think t their views on Obama’s candidacy. Polls taken after Obama’s speech still show Clinton is widening her lead over Obama in Pennsylvania.

Another sign is that the Democratic Party failed to reach a resolution over seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan last week. This failure will help ensure that the matter will continue to fester and that may, in fact, jeopardize the Democratic Party’s chance of carrying either state in the November election.

The Zogby’s poll, taken on March 13 and 14, shows John McCain leading Hillary Clinton, 47 % to 39 %. Independent spoiler, Ralph Nader, gets 6 %. The rest are still undecided or voting for non-viable candidates.

The same poll also shows John McCain ahead of Barack Obama, 45 % to 39 %, with Nader getting 5 %, and the rest similarly scattered.

This poll has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.

When asked which of the candidates would be best able handle the nation’s economy, independent voters gave the stamp of approval to John McCain; 29 % of them said McCain would be better, 21 % said Hillary Clinton would be better, and 21 % said Barack Obama would be better.

“There’s a lot going on here,” said pollster John Zogby in an interview. “The question reveals what happens when the Democratic Party is badly split.”

John Zogby also said McCain hasn’t spelled out much of an economic-recovery plan, other than saying the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent. John Zogby also said that McCain once joked that he didn’t know much about the economy.

While what Zogby says about McCain may be true, must of us realize that economically speaking, all Clinton and Obama really know how to do is … raise taxes and spend more of our hard earned money! We cannot afford either of them!

John McCain As The Alternative Choice?

John McCain does, for the time being, seem to have the upper hand with independent voters and, it looks like … at least in this election … whoever wins the independent voters wins the election.

This primary contest is taking a huge toll among Democrats. Hillary Clinton’s ad attacking Obama over national security may have, in fact, hurt both Democrats. When Zogby asked voters the question: Which candidate do they want to answer the phone in the White House at 3 a.m.?

Their answer was: John McCain.

Specifically, in a McCain-Obama race, the Zogby poll shows that 56 % say they want McCain to pick up the phone, while only 35 % say Obama. Similarly, in a McCain-Clinton match-up, the poll shows that 55 % want McCain to answer that phone, and only 37 % want Clinton to answer.

And, as mentioned earlier, polls also indicate a growing number of Democrats would be dissatisfied if their candidate lost. Back during the Iowa caucus campaign, many Democrats in the state said they liked all their choices and were having a hard time deciding. Now, there are about a fifth of the Democrats who support one of the two finalists who say they’d be dissatisfied if the other won the nomination.

And … the collapse of Hillary Clinton’s push to hold do-over primaries in Florida and Michigan means the issue could go to the floor of the national convention for what would be a highly emotional battle. And … that would also mean that the superdelegates are likely to be the ones who pick the Democratic nominee.

The loser’s supporters will have real trouble accepting that turn of events.

The Democratic party should have learned its lesson in 1968! Because American voters do understand that a party that can’t run its own affairs … can’t run the country, either.

Color Blind Elections Anyone?

As I watch the campaign unfold and I see Barack Obama surge into the lead ahead of Hillary Clinton, I cannot help but be a little relieved. It is not that I would actually want Barack Obama to win the election, it is just that I think he is a lot less of a danger to America than Hillary Clinton.

Jack Cafferty, a political commentator/analyst for CNN says that Hillary Clinton’s “career and resume are beyond impressive.” I can’t help but wonder where he gets his information. Even Dick Morris, a former close adviser to Bill Clinton during his presidential campaign, stated that Hillary Clinton has no experience and should not be elected president.

Let’s face it. She is a two-and -a-half term Senator who was married to a president who was basically a sexual predator. Her much vaunted attempt to cure the nation’s health care woes as the First Lady amounted to exactly zip, and the records of what she did in the White House while her husband did not have “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinski have been sealed … why?

A little less than impressive to say the least!

Lets see … she has played the race card, the gender card, the plagiarism card, and now … Hillary Clinton is playing the “courting Obama’s delegates” card! It seems Bill has called some of Obama’s delegates … enraged over Obama’s growing lead.

She is certainly power hungry, ambitious, ruthless, corrupt, unethical and … a tax and spend socialist masquerading as a liberal.

This humorous page, at illseed.wordpress.com, though claiming not to be anti-Hillary Clinton, seems to sum up the many faces of Hillary Clinton nicely.

You know, I can’t help but wonder how the nation’s voters will respond to Barack Obama in the November election. As much as I hate to say it, I think race will play a big part in this election whether we want to admit it or not … and whether it should or not!

How many black Americans will vote for Barack Obama simply because he is black … and not because of where he stands on the issues?

How many white Americans will not vote for Barack Obama simply because he is black … and not because of where he stands on the issues?

It is an interesting question I think … and it will be interesting to see what happens.

America, or being an American, is not about race … folks! It is about an idea … a dream … a belief!

Americans believe in things like inalienable rights, personal liberty, personal responsibility, equal opportunity, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to protect and defend yourself and your loved ones.

Teddy Roosevelt once said there is no room in our country for hyphenated Americans. I believe he was right!

Whether you are Black, White, Chinese, Indian, Iranian, German, Irish, Italian, Honduran, Mexican, or whatever … you either believe in these ideals or you don’t. If you do, then you are an American (in spirit … if you live in another country).

And simply put … if you don’t … you are not an American (even if you do live in this country)!