Here comes another story from Colorado. SWAT officers invade a home, with guns drawn, to drag an 11 year old off to see the doctor. Add this one to my list in a previous post and we are seeing an increasing use of police to ‘enforce’ the government’s views on parenting. Do parents have any rights left? Are we just baby sitters for the Nanny State, serving at their whim?
Happy Bill of Rights Day Everyone!
Lets start off the day with the Bill of Rights Institutes’ interesting facts:
The National Archives Bill of Rights site should already be in your bookmarks. You have read it lately, haven’t you? While you are at it, have you read it to your kids?
No Looking Backwards reprints the Bill of Rights. , The War On Guns tries to find a better word than Happy. The Other Side of Kim also reprints them. The Ready Line also wishes everyone a Happy Bill of Rights Day.
And then we have Tim Lynch’s post over at Cato @ Liberty - He goes through the amendments and covers how nearly every one is being violated by our current government.
It’s a depressing snapshot, to be sure, but I submit that the Framers of the Constitution would not have been surprised by the relentless attempts by government to expand its sphere of control. The Framers themselves would often refer to written constitutions as mere ”parchment barriers” or what we would describe as ”paper tigers.” They nevertheless concluded that putting safeguards down on paper was better than having nothing at all. And lest we forget, that’s what millions of people around the world have — nothing at all.
And to top it off, go buy a bunch of Pocket Constitutions and give them to your friends and family for Christmas. Don’t forget the kids, our founding documents are surprisingly easy to read and understand — that is as long as you’re not a Lawyer, pointy-headed intellectual, or liberal activist.
Right wing Nut House brings us Liveblogging from the Continental Congress. Here are the events from July 2, 1776, and today’s events are being blogged here. It appears that there were some fireworks before they adjourned for the night. He reports that -
Update:Liveblogging today - “The declaration of American independence was approved unanimously in Congress just a few minutes ago.”
Great excitement! Mr. Ruttledge and Mr. Adams had a knock down, drag out shouting match over the slavery section I quoted above. Ruttledge feels personally insulted by the passage and threatens the unity of the Congress unless it is stricken from the declaration. Adams believes that we can’t ignore the issue of slavery. To do so makes us hypocrites in the eyes of the world.
What to do? Both men have a point. By condemning the slave trade, do you not also condemn those who buy the slaves? And how is it possible to claim our own country on the basis of freedom while keeping millions in bondage?
I sure hope that they can hold this together! It would be a disaster if we were to come this close.
Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
(Continued)
According to this NYT article the latest idea to come out of the Big Apple is to require a city permit and $1M insurance for people who want to take pictures or movies in the city!
The proposed rules would apply to:
City officials are claiming that it would not apply to tourists or families on vacation. But in typically totalitarian fashion the rules don’t actually say that they are exempt, leaving it open for interpretation and abuse.
Mr. Dunn [of the New York Civil Liberties Union ed.] suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague, and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing the rules. In a letter sent to the film office this week, Mr. Dunn said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, “where people routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or film.”
I am reminded of this quote from Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
Is that the kind of man you want to elect as President of the United States? I certainly don’t want a man who thinks that ‘Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.’
The quote comes from a NYT article by way of Dave Markowitz.
This article comes from President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus via the Financial Times -
As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.
The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.
The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.
Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).
Is life so dear,
or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for me,
give me liberty or give me death!
- Patrick Henry at the second Virginia Convention, on March 23, 1775, in St. John’s Church, Richmond.
Patrick Henry was born on May 29, 1736, in Studley, Virginia. He was a brilliant orator and an influential leader in the opposition to British government. As a young lawyer, he astonished his courtroom audience in 1763 with an eloquent defense based on the doctrine of natural rights—the political theory that man is born with certain inalienable rights.
On his twenty-ninth birthday, as a new member of Virginia’s House of Burgesses, Henry presented a series of resolutions—the Stamp Act Resolves—which opposed Britain’s Stamp Act. The Resolves were adopted on May 30, 1765. He concluded his introduction of the Resolves with the fiery words “Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third—” when, it is reported, voices cried out, “Treason! treason!” He continued, “—and George the Third may profit by their example! If this be treason make the most of it.”
Read more about Patrick Henry here at the Library of Congress
From Argghhh! comes a reminder that today is the anniversary of the end of the siege at the Alamo. You can read more about the history here at the Alamo website.
The final assault came before daybreak on the morning of March 6, 1836, as columns of Mexican soldiers emerged from the predawn darkness and headed for the Alamo’s walls. Cannon and small arms fire from inside the Alamo beat back several attacks. Regrouping, the Mexicans scaled the walls and rushed into the compound. Once inside, they turned a captured cannon on the Long Barrack and church, blasting open the barricaded doors. The desperate struggle continued until the defenders were overwhelmed. By sunrise, the battle had ended and Santa Anna entered the Alamo compound to survey the scene of his victory.
While the facts surrounding the siege of the Alamo continue to be debated, there is no doubt about what the battle has come to symbolize. People worldwide continue to remember the Alamo as a heroic struggle against overwhelming odds — a place where men made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. For this reason the Alamo remains hallowed ground and the Shrine of Texas Liberty
Keith Henson, an outspoken critic of Scientology, has reportedly been arrested for jokingly referring to ‘Tom Cruise Missiles’ in a USENET discussion several years ago. Bloggers are just starting to pick up on the news, with postings asymptotia, freekeithhenson, Instapundit, MondoGlobo and Weblogsky.
Looks like another example of the so called Church of Scientology throwing their weighty lawyers at a problem. Their insistence on secrecy and censorship doesn’t lend much credibility to their religious claims.
This comes in from Mr. Completely:
For months Democrats said they wanted to take the country in a new direction.
If the stock market is at a new all-time high and America’s 401K’s are back, what’s the “new” direction?
* If unemployment is at 25-year lows, what’s the “new” direction?
* If oil prices are plummeting, what’s the “new” direction?
* If taxes for Americans are at 20-year lows, what’s the “new” direction?
* If federal tax revenues are at all-time highs, what’s the “new” direction?
* If the federal deficit is down almost 50 percent, what’s the “new” direction?
* If home valuations are up 200 percent over the past 3.5 years, what’s the “new” direction?
* If not a single terrorist attack has occurred on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001, what’s the “new” direction?
* If 75 percent of Al Qaeda’s leadership is either dead or in custody, and cooperating with U.S. Intelligence officers, what’s the “new” direction?
Just asking………..
“My first thought was, what a great pity that another nation should be added to those aggressors who choose to limit our freedom…I find myself at the age of eighty, an old woman, hanging on to the tail of the world, trying to keep up. I do not want the driver’s seat but the eternal verities. There are certain things that I wish to express: one thing that I am very sure of is that hatred is death, but love is light. I want to contribute to the civilization of the world but…When I look at the holocaust that is going on in the world today, I’m almost ready to let go…”
Lena Jamison, “What A Great Pity,” December 9, 1941
John Lomax, interviewer
Read more about the attack at Library of Congress
It seems that the phrase ‘its for the children’ can be used to justify almost any law you want to get passed. But this case is reaching a new low:
In a federal indictment announced this week, the U.S. Department of Justice accused Pierson, 43, of being a child pornographer–even though even prosecutors acknowledge there’s no evidence he has ever taken a single photograph of an unclothed minor.
It sounds like some prosecutor has a vendetta against Pierson, or maybe he forgot to pay his kickback money to the local goon squad last month.
First Amendment scholars interviewed Wednesday raised questions about the Justice Department’s attack on Internet child modeling. They warned that any legal precedent might endanger the mainstream use of child models in advertising and suggested that prosecutors’ budgets might be better spent investigating actual cases of child molestation.
If they continue down this path they are going to have to start tossing the parents of beauty pageant contestants into jail as well. Have you seen how they dress up their 8 year old girls? I don’t like the sexualization of pre-teens, but there is nothing illegal about it. Using the excuse that these pictures might attract a pedophile is just an excuse for a grand-standing prosecutor to try and make a name for themselves. If you accept that argument then you ought to be calling for a dress code in your local shopping mall, have you seen how girls dress these days?
Prosecution of real child pornography is a good thing. I especially like the sting operations that snare a pervert showing up for a tryst with a 12 year old and finding a TV camera in their face. But go after the real criminals. By going after people who are obviously engaged in a lawful business you are confusing the definition of what real child porn is.
Hat tip to Bob Thompson, who has this to say:
As Ayn Rand pointed out fifty years ago, the goal of all these ridiculous laws is to make all of us criminals, because the government can control criminals. Arbitrary and selective enforcement means we’ll all be afraid to do anything at all for fear of being arrested. Am I now to be imprisoned if I take a photograph of my 13-year-old friend Jasmine and some government dolt decides it’s too sexy? That’d be a nice way to force critics of the government to shut up, now wouldn’t it?
Plaintiff in Dallas Federal Lawsuit Says U.S. Gun Control Laws Unconstitutional
U.S. Citizens Overseas Unfairly Restricted from Gun Ownership, Suit Says
11/15/2006 12:20:00 PM
To: National Desk
Contact: Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, 425-454-7012, Bill Mateja of Fish & Richardson P.C., 214-747-5070, or Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky PLLC, 703-835-9085
DALLAS, Nov. 15 /U.S. Newswire/ — A United States citizen who now lives in Great Britain has joined with the country’s leading gun owner rights organization in a federal lawsuit that says nonresident citizens are unfairly being targeted by existing laws that restrict gun ownership to those who live in the U.S.
Attorneys William B. Mateja, a principal in the Dallas and Washington, D.C., offices of Fish & Richardson P.C., and Alan Gura of Alexandria, Va.’s Gura & Possessky PLLC, filed the federal claim today on behalf of London, England, resident Maxwell Hodgkins and the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.
Hodgkins, a 31-year-old real estate broker, is asking for a legal injunction that would prohibit federal officials from enforcing several “vague and ambiguous” gun control statutes. A Dallas native, Hodgkins is an avid gun collector and sportsman who legally owns and stores firearms in the U.S. and holds related permits for weapons possession and concealment.
Mateja previously served in the current Bush Administration as senior counsel to the U.S. Deputy Attorney General. Among other duties, he oversaw the Justice Department’s violent crime efforts, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and President Bush’s Project Safe Neighborhood. Prior to that, he served as lead counsel in the notable Second Amendment case U.S. v. Timothy Joe Emerson.
The statutes in question ban the receipt, sale and purchase of firearms by U.S. citizens who claim legal residency outside the U.S. Expatriates cannot buy guns, and while they can receive guns for “lawful sporting purposes,” they cannot do so for lawful self-defense while visiting the U.S. The suit claims that these laws violate the Second and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Although Hodgkins has not been arrested or prosecuted, his attorneys say he could face federal charges should he attempt to access his guns in the U.S.
“These laws serve no useful purpose,” says Gura. “If Mr. Hodgkins may safely have a gun for target practice or hunting, he can certainly have a gun for other lawful purposes.”
Alan Gottlieb, founder and vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, says: “The firearms rights of American citizens do not become null and void simply because an individual lives in another country. There is no public safety rationale for laws or regulations that prohibit law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights while they are on American soil. We cannot allow a legal environment to exist where the exercise of a civil right by an American citizen anywhere in the United States is conditional to that person’s country of residence.”
According to recently uncovered KGB documents the disingenuous Senator from Massachusetts attempted to conspire with the Soviet Union to undermine the reelection campaign of President Ronald Regan.
In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan’s foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.
The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party.
In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy’s offer. Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Kengor claims in his book.
Update: Michelle Malkin has updates on this over at Hot Air here and here.
WHEN in the Course of human Events,
it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
On a hot, stormy July night a group of men met in Philadelphia to debate what would become one of the most important documents in human history. Thunder crashed outside as the moderates argued that they were not ready for independence. Then John Adams spoke “with a power of thought and expression that moved us from our seats”, according to Thomas Jefferson. No record exists of what was said that night, but we have the results. Initially 9 of the 13 colonies voted for independence, with New York in support but waiting for instructions from their constituents, Delaware was split and Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted no. After a day and night of debate and negotiations the vote for independence was 12 with New York still waiting for word from home.
On July 4th the delegates approved the final version and John Hancock’s famous signature was the first of 56 to be placed on the Declaration of Independence. As he signed the document Hancock reportedly said, “We must be unanimous; there will be no pulling different ways; we must all hang together”. To which Benjamin Franklin replied, “We must all hang together. Or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
These steps were not taken lightly, and their success was not certain. At the time of the signing the invasion of Canada had failed, the British were sending 2000 troops to attack Charleston, South Carolina and 150 ships had been sighted off of New York [1].
WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
These were not men of little means. When they signed and pledged their Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor they had much to lose. Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr.’s essay Americans Who Risked Everything recounts what happened to the 56 signers:
Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.
July 4th is the day we celebrate, but Independence is what we are celebrating. It seems to me that all of the advertisers have forgotten the reasons behind all the parades and fireworks. The meaning is further obscured by the “Happy 4th of July” greeting, which to me is just as insidious as “Happy Holidays” replacing “Merry Christmas”. Instead why don’t you respond with “Happy Independence Day”, reminding yourself and others just what it is that we are celebrating. Remember that this isn’t just another day of the month, day off from work or paid holiday. This is the foundation of freedom that we are celebrating today.
Is there any doubt that without the United States of America we would have lost two world wars and millions of people would still be under the oppressive control of communist and fascist dictators? Is there any doubt that the world, that humankind, that you as an individual are better off because those brave men stood up and declared to the world - “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!”
So go out there and have a happy Independence Day. Remember those who fought, died and lost everything so that we may live in the freest nation that this world has seen. And while you’re at it, go out there make some noise of your own.
References: [1] Liberty! : The American Revolution
Blogger and 2nd Amendment Rights Activist Joe Huffman took a trip in the wayback machine to an event from January 2000 when he testified at a King County Board of Health meeting on “Firearms as a Public Health Issue”. The meeting went about as expected, even though his comments did make it onto the radio. But it was this revelation that caught my attention:
At that time many gun rights leaders thought we were just fighting to slow them down as best we could. They didn’t say that in public of course. But in private, when no one was within earshot they would tell the insiders, the people whose loyalty wasn’t in question and asked the right questions. They told me it wasn’t going to be possible to stop them or reverse the tide. We were fighting a lost battle they said. Another 10 years and it would all be over except for the shouting. The courts wouldn’t help us and the 2nd Amendment would just be a vestigial organ that in another 10 or 20 years after that no one really knew what it had ever meant.
They though we were going to lose the war! But look where we are at now - we have 46 states where you can get a concealed weapons permit, 2 more that obey the Consitution, and only 2 left! No, CPL isn’t the end, but it is an indication that the people are on the right side and that they can convince their politicians to do the right thing. I’m not going to be hapy until I see the 2nd Amendment respected in all 50 states (ie. no permit required), but we are making progress in that direction.
