Richard Disney

I think so many Americans have become dependent on government largess that they forget the meaning of Independence Day.

The 4th of July is celebrated because after the American Colonies had petitioned the King of England for redress without favorable consideration for many years, the Colonial leaders made the decision that unjust rule was sufficient reason for a People to rule themselves.

Everyone should read the Declaration of Independence at least once a year and this is a great day to do it!

Don’t just read the resounding opening lines– read the whole thing.

Read the damning point-by-point indictment of King George’s gross misrule and petty tyrannies.

“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

(Realize that those were fighting words that could have put the signers of the Declaration to death.)

So definitely enjoy the blessings of liberty! Enjoy the cook-outs, the fireworks, the beer, and the guns too. Remember to shoot the guns before drinking the beer!

Raise a glass or two to the health of our Armed Forces, to the glory of the United States, and damnation to our enemies.

Tags: independenceday, 4th of july, liberty, armed forces, declaration of independence, king george, tyrannies, cook-outs, fireworks, beer, guns, shoot

Hat Tip: Op-For.com

The recent recognition by the  U.S. Supreme Court of the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right in the DC v. Heller case was a recognition of The Founding Fathers‘ original intent. The Bill of Rights was written specifically to limit the power and scope of the Federal Government and to protect individual rights.

Nowhere is the intent of the Founding Fathers clearer than in James Madison’s original proposed wording for the Bill of Rights:

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.

No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The rights of the people to be secured in their persons; their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.”

After reading the original version of the Bill of Rights one must question the judgment of the dissenting Supreme Court Justices.

Tags: scotus, u.s. supreme court, 2nd amendment, gun rights, gun control, individualism, individual rights, guns, bill of rights, james madison, original version

The Supreme Court ruled that an individual has the right to own a gun. With that being established, one should not need a license to exercise a right.

Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:14 am

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.

SCOTUSblog » Court: A constitutional right to a gun

Tags: supremecourt, scotus, constitutional right, individual right, guns, gun, ownership, keep and bear arms, united states

Hat Tip: First Friday Collective

The eligibility of John McCain to be President of the United States is getting some more buzz after an article asking that question was published in the New York Times. Ed Morrissey who is moving to Hot Air published a post analyzing the New York Times article.

I think that the New York Times will publish anything they can, whether it is true or not, to denigrate John McCain. I don’t like that The Times is questioning whether McCain is eligible to be President but unfortunately, I think they have a point. As I said in a previous post about the same issue, McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone brings into question whether or not he is a natural born citizen of the United States or whether he is a naturalized citizen. Based on my experience in the military overseas and how law is currently interpreted I think McCain is naturalized. McCain’s eligibility to be President will only come into question if a candidate or a political party files a law suit. It is debatable whether a candidate or political party would risk such a move. I contend that if McCain is leading by a big margin or in fact wins the general election, then McCain’s political opponents will have nothing to lose by filing a law suit questioning his eligibility.

It will be interesting to see if McCain’s eligibility even becomes an issue and if so, how it pans out.

After Mitt Romney announced his pull out of the 2008 Presidential Race at CPAC 2008, the only viable candidate left standing is Senator John McCain. In what state does this leave the Republican Party? Unfortunately both the Democratic and Republican parties continue their march away from limited government and individual liberty and toward growing government reach and individual dependence on the Federal Government.

Unlike when Ronald Reagan communicated individualist conservative values to lead many Democratic voters to vote for him, John McCain embodies the movement of the Republican Party to embrace more Collectivist notions in hopes that they can outbid the Democrats in the purchase of votes from constituencies that think it desirable to become more dependent on Government largess. As the saying goes, “Any government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything away.” A growing number of Americans now falsely perceive their rights to stem from what Government chooses to let them have rather than being “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” as recognized by the Declaration of Independence.

As the two dominant American political parties move toward competition as to which party can spend more taxpayer dollars for more pork dumped on more voters, what is a defender of Constitutionally limited government and individual liberties to do?

According to Human Events online, McCain is planning to open his address to CPAC 08 this year with a video featuring Ronald Reagan. After noticibly skipping CPAC last year and attaching his name to multiple causes that are decidedly un-Conservative; the Reagan video will most likely be met by a chorus of boo-birds in the audience.

One merely needs to remember two words…McCain-Feingold, to know that McCain is no Reagan.

Hat Tip: Tom Kovach at Military.com

I did not know until today that Senator John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. I lived in the Republic of Panama for over 3 years while in the U.S. Army. Interestingly, I was just talking with a friend about the Panama Canal and how the Panama Canal Zone used to be a possession of the United States like American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are today. An interesting question is raised by an article over at Military.com. Is a Puerto Rican or a Guamanian eligible to be President of the United States? If John McCain wins and is inaugurated as President the answer would be yes because the exact same circumstances apply.

Is someone born in a possession of the United States considered a “natural born citizen“ as defined by the U.S. Constitution? John McCain has not been known as a strict interpreter of the Constitution especially in lending his name and efforts to the McCain-Feingold legislation which restricts political speech prior to elections of all things. What part of “Congress shall make no law…” does McCain not understand? Senator McCain’s ability to bend or ignore the Constitution makes more sense relative to his citizenship status and his run for U.S. President.

According the Constitution, there are only three requirements for an individual to be President of the United States. The Constitution says:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Although there is no doubt that John McCain is a citizen of the United States, the question is if he is a “natural born citizen” and eligible to be President of the United States. McCain is only the third person in the history of the United States where the citizenship question has applied. Prior to John McCain only Barry Goldwater who ran for President in 1964 (born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. Territory) and George Romney who ran in 1968 (born in Mexico to U.S. parents) have prompted the question of natural born citizen status and eligibility for the Presidency.

During the current Presidential primary (or the 2000 primary) I had heard no mention of the McCain eligibility issue until now. The litigious nature of past Democrat Presidential candidates (like Gore in 2000) should make one have no doubt that if McCain ends up winning the general election there will be a motion made to the Supreme Court as to McCain’s eligibility to hold the Presidential (or even Vice-Presidential) office. It would be very disturbing indeed to see a Democratic victory for the Presidency by the Democrats successfully proving the winner ineligible in court.

It is easy to see yet another reason for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to endorse John McCain because of Schwarzenegger’s own naturalized citizenship status and his reported desire to seek the Presidency in the future.

Nevada Assemblyman Ty Cobb Jr. was elected in the very conservative District 26 by claiming to be a staunch conservative. By endorsing Senator John McCain in his candidacy for President, Ty Cobb is not sustaining a conservative reputation. Senator McCain has been on the Democrat side of many debates including amnesty for illegal aliens, not sustaining the Bush tax cuts and the “Gang of 14″ in the U.S. Senate. The action that proves John McCain is not conservative was initiating and promoting for the McCain-Feingold legislation which is among the most blatantly unconstitutional legislation ever passed.

Ty Cobb was once my opponent during the District 26 primary election which he won handily. I have supported him on some occasions such as when he cast the only vote against the Democrat Nevada Assembly Speaker in 2007.

One must judge people, not by their words but by their actions. Unfortunately, Ty Cobb’s actions in endorsing Senator John McCain and hosting a wine-tasting event for him here in Reno, Nevada, indicate a willingness to disregard the First Amendment to the Constitution just as when Cobb took a position against ballot initiatives during his District 26 Assembly campaign.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is as follows (emphasis mine):

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.

What part of “Congress shall make no law” does John McCain not understand? And does Ty Cobb Jr. understand that endorsing McCain does not make one appear to be conservative?