Tag: Nancy Pelosi

Perhaps a Little “Poetic Injustice”?

English Barack Obama signing the Patient Prot...

I hate to see anyone get the shaft! This is also not a fluke … this same kind of story is cropping up in the news more and more frequently.  I do think, however, this is a little “poetic injustice” and folks like these got exactly what they voted for!

San Francisco architect Lee Hammack says he and his wife, JoEllen Brothers, are “cradle Democrats.” They have donated to the liberal group Organizing for America and worked the phone banks a year ago for President Obama’s re-election.

Since 1995, Hammack and Brothers have received their health coverage from Kaiser Permanente, where Brothers worked until 2009 as a dietitian and diabetes educator. “We’ve both been in very good health all of our lives – exercise, don’t smoke, drink lightly, healthy weight, no health issues, and so on,” Hammack told me.

The couple — Lee, 60, and JoEllen, 59 — have been paying $550 a month for their health coverage — a plan that offers solid coverage, not one of the skimpy plans Obama has criticized. But recently, Kaiser informed them the plan would be canceled at the end of the year because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The couple would need to find another one. The cost would be around double what they pay now, but the benefits would be worse.

“From all of the sob stories I’ve heard and read, ours is the most extreme,” Lee told me in an email last week.

I’ve been skeptical about media stories featuring those who claimed they would be worse off because their insurance policies were being canceled on account of the ACA. In many cases, it turns out [2], the consumers could have found cheaper coverage through the new health insurance marketplaces, or their plans weren’t very good to begin with. Some didn’t know they could qualify [3] for subsidies that would lower their insurance premiums.

So I tried to find flaws in what Hammack told me. I couldn’t find any.

Hammack recalled his reaction when he and his wife received a letters from Kaiser in September informing him their coverage was being canceled. “I work downstairs and my wife had a clear look of shock on her face,” he said. “Our first reaction was clearly there’s got to be some mistake. This was before the exchanges opened up. We quickly calmed down. We were confident that this would all be straightened out. But it wasn’t.”

I asked Hammack to send me details of his current plan [4]. It carried a $4,000 deductible per person, a $40 copay for doctor visits, a $150 emergency room visit fee and 30 percent coinsurance for hospital stays after the deductible. The out-of-pocket maximum was $5,600.

This plan was ending, Kaiser’s letters told them, because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. “Everything is taken care of,” the letters said. “There’s nothing you need to do.”

The letters said the couple would be enrolled in new Kaiser plans that would cost nearly $1,300 a month for the two of them (more than $15,000 a year).

And for that higher amount, what would they get [7]? A higher deductible ($4,500), a higher out-of-pocket maximum ($6,350), higher hospital costs (40 percent of the cost) and possibly higher costs for doctor visits and drugs.

When they shopped around and looked for a different plan on California’s new health insurance marketplace, Covered California [8], the cheapest one was $975, with hefty deductibles and copays.

In a speech in Boston last week [9], President Obama said those receiving cancellation letters didn’t have good insurance. “There are a number of Americans — fewer than 5 percent of Americans — who’ve got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident,” he said.

“Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad-apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received, or use minor preexisting conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy. So a lot of people thought they were buying coverage, and it turned out not to be so good.”

What is going on here? Kaiser isn’t a “bad apple” insurer and this plan wasn’t “cut rate.” It seems like this is a lose-lose for the Hammacks (and a friend featured in a report last month [10] by the public radio station KQED.)

I called Kaiser Permanente and spoke to spokesman Chris Stenrud, who used to work for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He told me that this was indeed a good plan. Patients in the plan, known as 40/4000, were remarkably healthy, had low medical costs and had not seen their premiums increase in years. “Our actuaries still aren’t entirely sure why that was,” he said.

While many other insurance companies offered skimpier benefits, Stenrud said, “our plans historically have been comprehensive.”

Kaiser has canceled about 160,000 policies in California, and about one third of people were in plans like Hammack’s, Stenrud said. About 30,000 to 35,000 were in his specific plan.

“In a few cases, we are able to find coverage for them that is less expensive, but in most cases, we’re not because, in sort of pure economic terms, they are people who benefited from the current system … Now that the market rules are changing, there will be different people who benefit and different people who don’t.”

“There’s an aspect of market disruption here that I think was not clear to people,” Stenrud acknowledged. “In many respects it has been theory rather than practice for the first three years of the law; folks are seeing the breadth of change that we’re talking about here.”

That’s little comfort to Hammack. He’s written to California’s senators and his representative, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., asking for help.

“We believe that the Act is good for health care, the economy, & the future of our nation. However, ACA options for middle income individuals ages 59 & 60 are unaffordable. We’re learning that many others are similarly affected. In that spirit we ask that you fix this, for all of our sakes,” he and Brothers wrote.

Consumer advocate Anthony Wright said it’s important to remember the way the insurance market worked before the act was passed, when insurers could deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. “It’s impossible to know what the world would have looked like for these folks in the absence of the law,” said Wright, executive director of the group Health Access.

“We certainly had an individual market, especially in California which was the Wild Wild West, where there was huge price increases, cancellations, a range of other practices.

“That doesn’t mean that there were certain people who lucked out in the old system, who wound up in a group with a relatively healthy risk mix and thus lower premiums,” he added. “The question is: Is health insurance something where people get a rate based on the luck of the draw or do we have something where we have some standards where people who live in the same community, of the same age, with the same benefit package are treated equally?”

Wright said discussions should focus on how to provide consumers like Hammack with assistance if they barely miss qualifying for subsidies.

So what is Hammack going to do? If his income were to fall below four times the federal poverty level, or about $62,000 for a family of two, he would qualify for subsidies that could lower his premium cost to as low as zero. If he makes even one dollar more, he gets nothing.

That’s what he’s leaning toward — lowering his salary or shifting more money toward a retirement account and applying for a subsidy.

“We’re not changing our views because of this situation, but it hurt to hear Obama saying, just the other day, that if our plan has been dropped it’s because it wasn’t any good, and our costs would go up only slightly,” he said. “We’re gratified that the press is on the case, but frustrated that the stewards of the ACA don’t seem to have heard.”

by Charles Ornstein

It is amazing to me that, like Lemmings, they still gulp down their daily allotment of cool aid and continue to worship and follow Dear Leader!  The old saying is, “Be careful what you wish for … it might come  true!”

ObamaCare: Killing An Already Dying Economy!

Barack Obama signing the Patient Prot...

Can you say … Duh!  The Affordable Care act (ObamaCare), Obama’s only real achievement since becoming president in 2008, is in real serious trouble. A new AP poll finds that only 1/3 of Americans support his takeover of our nation’s healthcare system.

Many small businesses have already had to start cutting employee hours or even have been forced to have layoffs to avoid the business-killing regulations imposed by ObamaCare.  This has not helped an already terrible economy.  To make matters worse, the recovery has also been further stalled by uncertainty as Obama’s massive tax hikes (you know, the ones Nancy Pelosi had to “pass” the bill to see were hidden in it) have slowly come into the light.   But then, Pelosi can just exempt herself from ObamaCare … can’t she.  Handy … isn’t it!

Small businesses aren’t the only ones trying to mitigate Obama’s jobs-killing rules, either. Even unions have begun to understand how bad ObamaCare will be and have started making noises … and asking if it should be repealed.

Remember Obama’s claim that his new law would lower medical costs for all? Now, even the government is admitting that costs will actually go up as a result of ObamaCare. In fact, insurance rates and healthcare costs are skyrocketing as the full effect of ObamaCare is beginning to be realized.  Maybe somebody should have read it before Congress rammed it on through!  Ironically, Sen. Democrat leader Harry Reid just recently asked for even more money for ObamaCare.

Some elected Democrats are running scared over their support of ObamaCare, worried that it will cost them their seats.  And it should!  Republican or Democrat, we pay our representatives a six-figure salary to do their jobs … which should, I would think, include reading and understanding the legislation they are voting to pass.

ObamaCare is making healthcare costs go up,  is already making healthcare harder to get, is already driving doctors out of the field, is driving up the costs of business, depressing wages, and is hurting our already delicate economy.  We have Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their group of radical, non-reading left-wing thugs to thank for that!  Remember that in 2016!

The Great Socialist Gun Grab!

Gun-control-experts1-600x350

Tell me … how many of you really believe the government can keep you safe?  How many of you will be assigned your own personal security team?  Barack Obama, Diane Feinstein, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi all travel with bodyguards armed with … “gasp” … guns!  Why is it ok for them to have the protection firearms provide … but not you?  Are their lives more valuable to them than yours is to you?  Will the country not survive without them … so therefore, they are the privileged few … the only ones who deserve to be protected?

Or … maybe in their eyes, we are not all created equal in the eyes of the Lord.

Like glorified Snake Oil salesman, Obama and his administration want to sell you the idea that only the government can keep you free and safe.  But to Obama and his big-government socialist cronies, the truth hidden behind all the trappings is that to them, it is simply about obedience to their laws (legal or otherwise) and to your betters … a benevolent dictatorship!  This is kind of funny in a way because Obama runs one of the most lawless administrations in the history of our country.

The vigorously renewed liberal elite’s assault on the 2nd Amendment is being wrapped in the guise of protecting the American people from criminals and is capitalizing on the raw emotions brought on by recent shooting tragedies such the two that occurred in Aurora, Co and Newtown, CT.  These were tragic events and I do not in any way belittle them. My heartfelt sympathy goes out to the victims and their families.  However, the highly emotional context of this situation makes people very susceptible to government-sponsored knee-jerk reactions and quick fixes like blaming and banning the gun; while ignoring the shooters, their history, mental illness, etc.  They also ignore the fact that most of these shooters obtained their weapons illegally!   In the minds those evil or mentally ill in our society who murder the innocents among us; obedience to gun laws is the very last of their thoughts.

mcveigh

Therefore, passing laws that take away the ability of law-abiding Americans to protect themselves against criminals is not the right answer, the smart answer, or the Constitutional answer.  The hard reality is that, because the federal government refuses to do its job of protecting its citizens along our southern border, we have ranchers in Texas, New Mexico, California, and Arizona fighting pitched battles with Mexican Cartel drug runners and human traffickers. Obama’s administration even uses the sequestration, which is in reality a very, very minor cut in the growth of government spending, as a politically expedient excuse to cut funding for Border Patrol Agents.  The real “irony” is that the drug runners and human traffickers are heavily armed with “assault weapons” provided by Obama, Eric Holder, and the ATF during operation “Fast and Furious!”   So what is the solution according to Obama and the liberal elites?  Simple … disarm the ranchers!  Common sense would tell you that the venerable old double-barrelled shotgun suggested by good old Uncle Joe “gun-expert” Biden would be wholly inadequate to the task these ranchers are left on their own by the Anointed One to complete.  No, the real truth is, that for Obama and the ruling liberal elites, banning guns is the politically expedient answer.

obamacaesar

The truth is that, historically, all governments have feared individual freedom.  God gave us freedom (the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) and the government systematically tries to take it away!  I have always subscribed to the theory that all government is evil,  and that the American form of democratic government is just the least evil form.  The Founding Fathers knew that for this new Nation to survive, it needed a means to control its destiny, protect its citizens, and protect its interests.  It needed a government of some form.  They worked hard to design a government with a system of checks and balances to keep the government from getting to big and enslaving its citizens.  Was it a perfect government?  No!   Just the best one going!  But the Founding Fathers also understood that, by its very nature, government negates freedom and liberty;  and that the bigger it gets … the more freedom it negates.  That is why George Washington said that government is not reason or eloquence … it is force. And, that if the government gets its way, it would have a monopoly on force!

However, individual freedom was the essential key that made America the unique, prosperous, and wonderful experiment it was.  It was this idea; that personal freedom comes as a gift from God and thereby comes first … that made American special.   This very same idea led to the end of slavery, to civil rights, and to modern ideas of equality for all people … disregarding race, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, creed, or sexual preference!   Again … is it perfect?  No!  Did it take time?  Yes!  But it happened and it continues to improve!  But, too many people have such short memories!  These ideas did not come from government … they came from “We the People!”  Americans usually had to fight the government to change the status quo!  Democrats fought hard to keep slavery intact!  Democrats fought hard against civil rights legislation!   A Republican even had to call out the Nation Guard to see civil rights legislation enforced.  As Ronald Reagan said, government is not the solution … it is the problem!

To those of us who believe in the U.S. Constitution, this gun-debate is not about the law (or even about a new bunch of gun laws that good old Uncle Joe Biden say the government has no time to enforce anyway).  To those of us who believe in the U.S. Constitution, this debate is about personal liberty and personal responsibility in a free society.  And the real, ugly truth that Obama and liberal/socialist elites do not want Americans to know is that …  it is the exercise of one specific personal freedom; the freedom to defend yourself and those you love when the police cannot and the government will not, and the freedom to use weapons to repel tyrants if they take over our government …that Obama, his big-government socialist thugs, and their doting Hollywood elitist buddies fear the most!  Do you ever stop and wonder why communist dictators and fascist tyrants such as Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez are so attractive to liberal elites such Jack Nicholson, Stephen Spielberg, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Kevin Costner, Susan Sarandon, Oliver Stone, Chevy Chase, Courtney Love, and Harry Belafonte?  And, that just perhaps, it is the same reason they are so equally enamored with Barack Obama?

Simply put, government always compels, restricts, and takes away.  Thomas Jefferson understood that when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.”  According to Jefferson, the only reason the Founding Fathers created a “federal” government was to protect these same rights, and then, as a further protection … they hammered out the U.S. Constitution to keep the federal government contained.  But there have always been those opposed to this idea.  There are always those who like to rule those around them … and they often buy power by promising those who prefer, or are at least willing, to be ruled that they will take care of them with entitlements.  Vote for me and I will give you a house, food stamps, free government schools, a free cellphone, free lunch, free government television programing, a free chicken in every pot, free this, free that.  I ask you … what will happen when the government runs out of its “free Obama money,” and begins to implement austerity measures such as we saw in Greece and some European countries?  Riots, looting, violence, crime!  I will keep my guns thank you!

Those in the ant-gun crowd cannot point to a single case when restricting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens has stopped criminals, the mentally ill, or the down-right-evil from killing innocent people. Criminals by their very nature do not obey laws, and the mentally deranged do not recognize any external restraints on their own behavior because they cannot distinguish between right and wrong; and cannot be reasonably expected to do so in the future either!  Hence, the “not guilty by reason of insanity” plea!

On the other hand, the American Revolution was successful in great part due to the fact that Americans were armed and did not fear the use of weapons.  I am very sure King George III later wished he had stripped the colonists of the means to defend themselves.  Had King George III and his Parliament passed and enforced the kinds of laws Obama, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, and a few others want to enact; laws that told them who among us owned guns, that limited the capacity of those guns, and limited the amount of ammunition one could possess … our Founding Fathers could and would have been hanged for treason!  One of the true stories of the American Revolution which is not taught in our public schools is that the colonists actually had superior firepower to the Kings forces. British soldiers carried the standard issue smooth-bore musket, which propelled a lead ball (or several of them) less than 100 yards from the shooter with very little accuracy.  The colonists, however, had the long gun(sometimes known as the “Kentucky” or “Tennessee” Long Rifle) which propelled a single lead ball up to 200 yards (about 2 times farther than the British soldier could shoot) and with much greater accuracy.  It is no wonder that by 1781, King George III had lost enough men and money to surrender!

pa_long_rifle31

During World War II, the American federal government constantly worried about a Japanese invasion of the West Coast.  This impart led to the successful attack at Pearl Harbor.  Politicians would not listen to front line commanders, and worried about their own safety!  When, after the war was over, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was asked why Japan never invaded the U.S.   He replied that they had determined it would be a suicidal attempt saying,” You cannot invade the mainland United States.  There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”  I always wondered why anyone in their right mind would be for gun bans and confiscation … seeing it was such a historic deterrent to the invasion of the United States!

 imagesCA0WR9AO

And … a great many Americans are alive today because they had the means to protect themselves from murders, rapists, home invaders, etc.  Their stories are out there to!  You just never hear about them from the Obama lap-dog media!

The real lesson in all of this is that a free people cannot remain free very long  by permitting the government to take their freedoms away …   even when it is a temporary, popularly elected government that can later be unelected.  Simply stated, the anti-American liberty faction, composed of Obama, his big government thugs, rich liberal/socialists, Hollywood elites, and their entitlement addicted voting block  … want your guns!  Of course, Gabby Gifford’s husband and other liberal elites get to keep theirs!

Obama and his administration are deceptively trying to present this as some kind of benevlent big government action designed to protect the many law-abiding citizens from the few violent criminals by taking away the rights of the many law-abiding citizens (Does anyone else see the apparent flaw in this logic … or is it just me?). Obama will use any means, U.S. Constitution be damned, to create burdensome and intrusive registration laws, laws that restrict the capacity of weapons and  quantity, and quality of ammunition, and their latest trick … laws that impose financial liability on law-abiding gun manufacturers and sellers for the criminal behavior of a few users to make gun ownership so hard and so burdensome, that law-abiding gun owners will simply roll over and give up.

What Barack Obama, like King George III, does not understand is that the more you try to restrict freedom … the more you create the desire for it in.  The more you tax an already overly taxed citizenry, the more resentment grows.  This is what caused the first American Revolution.  Hopefully, history will not repeat itself as it so often does.  But then, perhaps this is why the Department of Homeland Security is so busily buying 1.6 billion bullets and 2,700 light-armored tanks!

Michelle Obama Says, “Let Them Eat Cake!”

Bruce Springsteen, Michelle Obama and...

Well, not in so many words … but actions really do speak so much louder than words. Of course, Michelle Obama is just like her husband. Barack Obama says one thing, which his drive-by-media propaganda machine dutifully reports! And then, he proceeds to do something entirely different, which his drive-by-media propaganda machine never, ever call him on. So Michelle Obama shows up at the Oscars to present the “best movie” award in a dress costing more the two months salary for most Americans and where a bunch of narcissistic, arrogant socialites are given $45,000 (more than the average annual salary of many Americans) gift bags. As Billy Crystal so aptly stated, “Nothing can take the sting out of the world’s economic problems like watching millionaires give each other golden statues.”

Don’t you just love how the “Hollywood élite” look down their collective noses at us and arrogantly spout liberal progressive political maxims at Americans who love their country, and then ask for massive handouts from their pal Obama and his administration to subsidize their next movie? Millions and millions of dollars are given to Hollywood millionaires to help them make more movies, and thus making themselves even more wealthy. And … they want to point at Mitt Romney for being one of the “evil rich”?  Are American voters so stupid they actually buy this crap!?

Did I watch the Oscars … no, I did not! Most of those people make me sick to my stomach!

So while Michelle Obama is out schmoozing with her rich socialite liberal buddies … Barack is enlisting Janet Napolitano, Nancy Pelosi, and other major league liberal liars to run around screaming the world is coming to an end because of sequestration (which by the way, was Obama’s brain child). It is hilariously and yes, sadly, funny! Most Americans know we need to cut federal spending! But, the first time there is actually a chance that a little cutting may actually happen … the government screams doom, gloom, and the end of civilization as we know it … and the Obama’s loyal media lap-dogs gleefully spread the “official nonsense” around. And, of course, the cool aid drinkers dutifully join in Obama’s next manufactured national catastrophe and they begin their moaning, and wailing, and gnashing their teeth!

Meanwhile, back in the real world that most of us try to live in … here is the truth about the proposed sequestration numbers. It is not even a cut … it is barely a slowing of growth of federal spending!

Courtesy of Obama’s own Congressional Budget Office:

Sequestration Cuts?

Obama Administration’s Incompetence Knows No Bounds!

Obama-Biden Transition
Obama, Holder and Clinton … An Axis of Incompetence?

Despite the best efforts of Obama’s administration and his liberal lap-dog media to keep things covered up, the facts surrounding the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi are slowly coming out.  Only two conclusions can be logically drawn from the facts slowly coming to light:  Either Obama is completely incompetent or he is guilty of serious criminal neglect in his duties as President.  He and his administration are directly responsible for the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three other Americans killed in the terrorist attack on 9/11.  Maybe he should have attended a few more security briefings than fund raisers?

Issa, R-Calif., and Chaffetz, R- Utah, state that they have information from an individuals “with direct knowledge of events in Libya.”  These individuals state that U.S. diplomats in Libya made repeated requests for increased security for the consulate in Benghazi and were repeatedly turned down by officials in Washington.

While Obama and his cronies still try to spin the story that this well-orchestrated attack was simply a spontaneous popular protest to a YouTube video clip, the facts point to a very different conclusion.  This attack was actually the latest in a series of attacks, about 13 separate incidents since April according to experts, on Western diplomats in Libya over the last several months.  Here are just a few examples:

  • In April, a gun battle erupted about 2 miles from the consulate between an unidentified armed group and forces loyal to the transitional government.
  • On April 6, two Libyans who were fired by a security contractor threw a bomb over the consulate wall.
  • On June 6, a bomb blast blew a in the security perimeter big enough for 40 men to get through.
  • Just weeks before the attack, the unarmed Libyan guards at the consulate, employed by the British contactor, Blue Mountain Group, were warned by family members to quit their jobs because there were rumors of an impending attack.

Of course Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, an Obama administration expert on “man-caused disasters” and what the proper U.S. response to “overseas contingencies” should be … when asked about the security measure in Libya on September 11th, stated; “Let me assure you that our security in Benghazi included a unit of host government security forces, as well as a local guard force of the kind that we rely on in many places around the world.”

I am sorry … but that is frightening!  So where were they?  This laughable level of security is typical world-wide?  I would think a “reduction in the security profile doesn’t seem consistent with the threat on the ground.”  Unless … maybe it was to try and persuade American voters that Muslims love us now because Obama is President.

And where was Obama … at a fund raiser in Las Vegas?

Couple this ridiculous, incompetent security fiasco in Libya and its resulting American deaths and Obama administration coverup … with the recent facts coming out  the Obama administration lies surrounding Fast and Furious … and it gets even scarier!

Now we hear about another 57-odd American guns … walked across the Mexican border  by the ATF with no means of tracking them.  And … that it was not just Arizona’s border … but also involved Texas and Florida!  And that some of these guns were used in a brutal massacre by  a Mexican drug cartel … resulting in the deaths of 16 high school students and 12 more being injured!  The truth is … we were never supposed to know about these guns.  And … we would not have … except that they screwed up badly and a Border Patrol Agent got killed.  Those guns were snuck across the border by Obama’s administration so that when one was eventually used in a crime … Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Eric Holder could point to it and say, “See … we need to register, confiscate, and ban private ownership of guns in America!”

Kind of sheds a bit of light on … and makes sense of … Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s stubborn support of the U.N. arms control treaty efforts … doesn’t it!

And … just a comment about Obama’s liberal lap-dog press/campaign publicity team.  The liberal media has truly become an enemy to America … and a free Democracy.

The Founding Fathers wanted and created a free press … to serve as a watch dog on the government and to protect the people from government excesses.  I remember when it did not matter whether you were a Republican or a Democrat … the press was on your ass … they were truly government watchdogs.  Now they are simply another one of  Obama’s publicity tools!

It is bad enough when the liberal media works tirelessly to shield their Messiah from any negative press (despite its truth or accuracy); while savagely attacking any challenger with innuendo, half-truths, and out-right lies.  But when the press begins to decides which, or what, “truth” the American people should hear … then they are no longer a free press!  They are simply the willing tool of a dictatorship.  And … they have become the enemy of a free people!

Just a few random musings ….

~ On Nancy Pelosi’s statement that we need to pass the Health Care Bill to find out what’s in it … please tell me I am not the only one who sees the shear idiocy of this statement! I cannot help but believe that George Washington would have just sat across the table from this moron shaking his head … completely at a loss for words … thinking “We shed the blood of honorable men for this?”

~ As our “impartial” news media is giddily starting to hyperventilate in joy when reporting on a march of perhaps 100,000 pro-amnesty activists on Sunday, March 21, all of us need to remember that amnesty is about keeping 8 million jobs in the hands of illegal aliens and OUT of the hands of unemployed Americans.  Actually … maybe President Obama was really referring to illegal aliens when he was promising to save jobs during his campaign.  I wonder how many of these illegal aliens voted for Barack Obama with the assistance of ACORN?

~ In responce to the report by ESPN that President Obama plans to ban sport fishing in many of America’s territorial waters, many bloggers who support Obama are now reporting the initial report was a hoax and that ESPN lied.  I hope they are right, because  according to one report, despite taking only three percent of the saltwater fish harvested each year, the recreational fishing sector creates nearly half the jobs associated with domestic saltwater fisheries.  I cannot help but wonder, though, how such a “hoax” of a story got started.

On a more serious note:

My last post titled “If Only God Were Not …” created a real outrage for at least two atheistic bloggers and inspired some pretty venomous comments.  I am glad it stirred the pot because that was the intention.  While Americans certainly do believe in religious freedom … and we defend the right of its people to practice their religion in peace and security (and that includes the freedom to not believe), America was founded as a nation based on Christian principles.  If that were not the case, we would not have had the lines:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

included in the Declaration of Independence.

We would not have had, after the Revolutionary War, the Founders continuing to hold public days of prayer and appointing chaplains for both Congress and the armed forces.

We would not have had “In God We Trust” on our national currency, “One Nation Under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance, and “LAUS DEO,” which is Latin for “Praise be to God” inscribed on top of the Washington Monument. We would also not have had the Ten Commandments play such a prominent position in the art and architecture of the Supreme Court building.

Sadly enough, in the past, the Supreme court has ruled that the Ten Commandments may be displayed outside on government property but not inside the courthouse. The liberal Supreme Court Justices on the bench at that time relied upon a false interpretation of the doctrine of the separation between church and state.

The 1st Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” 

The first clause of this Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  Notice that, at the same time, it places no restrictions on the states, only on Congress

The 10th Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  This means that the federal courts actually have no authority to rule in this matter.  

It is clear, according to the 1st and 10th amendments, the power to make laws respecting and establishing religion is reserved for the states alone, making both of the Ten Commandments displays that have previously been ruled un-Constitutional and ordered taken down by federal courts … actually not even under their jurisdiction.  It is really sad that some members of the Supreme Court clearly do not understand the very Constitution of the United States they have sworn to uphold and protect.  

I know … maybe they just don’t have time to read it!  You know … like Congress does not have time to read the bills it passes.  After all, as Pelosi says, they have to pass them to find out what is in them! 

Oh wait … darn … the Constitution is only a few pages long.  Surely even our more liberal or secular-minded Supreme Court Justices can find time to read it … unless, of course, they can’t read; and  I am sure that is not the case.  Could it be they have some kind of political agenda?  Of course not.  I am just being paranoid!

So … is all this just whining about the “good ole days” gone by?  It is my wish to inflict Christianity on those who chose to not believe?  Not at all!  I do, however, want to be able to say Merry Christmas and to have Christmas be a celebration of the birth of Christ … and not be simply a commercially driven and almost obscene spending spree that you are made to feel guilty if you do not participate in; and that takes many Americans until the following June to recover from.  I should be able to have a Cresh on my lawn in Tennessee and not insult some lawyer from the ACLU based in California somewhere, and to not have my children’s religious beliefs insulted or ridiculed in public schools.  

Has the Christian majority in this great country simply given up and given in to liberal secularism run amok?  I certainly hope not. 

We have witnessed over the last several decades the slow but steady shift to a more secular America.  What have we gotten from this? 

Our children can no longer say the Pledge of Allegiance or mention God’s name in our schools; but they can get free condoms, birth control pills, and abortions without parental consent.  And if some members of our government get their way, those abortions will be paid for with tax dollars collected from Christian taxpayers.

Our government wants to ban us from giving a misbehaving child a disciplinary swat on the butt, but wants to hold parents accountable for unruly children.  And no … this is not a defense of child abuse!

Our country is in deep financial trouble caused, for the most part, by greed.  Greed on the part of many corporate executives, greed on the part of many Wall Steet traders, greed on the part of corrupt government officials like Barney Frank (D – MA), Chris Dodd (D – CT), John Ensign (R-NV), John Murtha (D-PA), Charles Rangel, (D-NY), our Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner, and others.  Could it possibly be that some of the Christian lessons on greed got left out here?

Our current adminsitration’s answer is to put these same people in key positions of power, print more money just as fast as they can, and vote themselves still more money to consolidate their power by buying votes (remember the more recent verison of the Louisana Purchase involving Sen.  Mary Landrieu) to push their agendas like big government, socialized healthcare and the eradication of individual rights.  What do you think Nancy Pelosi is planning on doing with all that stimulus money (about $500 billion) that has not yet been spent? 

I think some of it should be used to buy every Congressman a copy of the Constitution of the United States, a Bible, and a copy of David Ramsey’s book Financial Peace, a non-denominational, common sense,  Christian-based approach to financial planning.  It sure couldn’t hurt!

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)]