Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
It's not FROM the pen of Mama Liberty, but it's passed on BY her...
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare... It would
subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the
limited government established by the people of America; and what
inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a
step, it is incumbent on us all to consider."
—James Madison, Speaking in the House of Representatives,
I guess James Madison wasn't as bad as some have claimed over the
years.... NOT that I'm a huge fan of his!
This was posted to NewsVine by SteveH. I liked it so much, I am
shamelessly posting it to this rant. HOWEVER, if you wish to comment
about it and you are a Viner, make your comments at the
#10. I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry
whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd. #9. I vote
Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of
gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15%
isn't. #8. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a
better job of spending the money I earn than I would. #7. I vote
Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is
offended by it. #6. I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible
to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to
protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also thankful that we have
a 911 service that get police to your home in order to identify your
body after a home invasion. #5. I vote Democrat because I'm not
concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep
all death row inmates alive and comfy. #4. I vote Democrat because I
think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and
Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from
those who paid into it. #3. I vote Democrat because I believe that
businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They
need to break even and give the rest away to the government for
redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit. #2. I vote Democrat
because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution
every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas
past the voters. ...
And the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better to
pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own
because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish here in
America. We don't care about the beetles, gophers or fish in those
I add another reason to vote Democrat—I leave it to you, dear reader,
to decide it's place in the lineup—I vote Democrat because then I can
ban the very things I deal in, thus increasing my profit margin when I
then break my own laws and continue my dealings.
The interviewer is not very articulate, but he sure got an honest
answer from the anti-Constitutional Democrat, now didn't he?
That's right, Mr. Democrat—tell the
constituents to go fuck themselves. It is my hope that it is YOU who
has fucked himself... right out of an elected office.
Remember Mark Witaschek? The DC man arrested for "unregistered ammo"
for possessing a misfired shotgun shell, cleaning kit, and bullets for
a blackpowder firearm? Well, the cocksuckers convicted him.
On March 26th Mark Witaschek's trial over his possession of a
shotgun shell in his Washington, D.C., home took a turn, and he was
found guilty of "attempted possession of unlawful ammunition" over 25
muzzleloader bullets which were also in his house—these are lead
and copper bullets
to The Washington Times, Judge Robert Morin ruled on the muzzleloader
bullets when the prosecution team could not figure out how to open the
shotgun shell to see if there "was powder inside." Morin shook the
shell and listened to it and "said he could not hear any gunpowder."
Concerning the muzzleloader bullets,
said, "I am persuaded these are bullets. They look like bullets.
They are hollow-point. They are not musket balls."
Morin "sentenced Mr. Witaschek to time served, a $50 fine, and
required him to enroll with the Metropolitan Police Department's
firearm offenders' registry within 48 hours."
Mark—copy Connecticut and New Jersey gun owners. "I will not comply!"
This is absolutely unacceptable. He has lost a Constitutional right
because of anti-Constitutional laws, a brain dead judge, and
head-hunting cops. In the capital of the land of the formerly
free and the home of the no longer brave.
Coming soon to a town near YOU!!
This crap should
scare the hell out of ALL of us, and piss us off, as well. Police are
getting farther and farther away from any semblance of
Constitutionality. The suspect is black. The occupants are white.
Right there, the moment the cops saw white faces rather than black
ones, they had a huge clue they were in the wrong house. Instead, they
did the following:
David was seized and shackled. Connie and Aaron were also dragged
from their home. Neighbors who were drawn by the commotion poked their
heads out and were ordered to go back into their rooms.
But wait! There's more!
At the request of the neighboring Nampa Police Department, which
received the tip, a tactical team from the Caldwell Police Department
conducted what they call a
check" that was actually a
SWAT-style raid. The Caldwell PD claimed knowledge of "the presence of guns at the premises"—which,
standard "threat matrix," supposedly justifies a paramilitary assault.
Although the officers claim they were dealing with a "homicide in
audio of the incident documents that the
officers didn't know the specific apartment number—which means that
the door-kick on the Johnsons' home—which could easily have
resulted in a homicide—was the product of a whimsical guess.
Gerst is a young black man. The police had his description, but
they didn't have his address. David Johnson is a middle-aged white
man. This distinction was so obvious that it wouldn't have been missed
even by the typical police officer within a few seconds of the door
If the police had knocked on the door and announced their presence—as
they are required to do, by law, unless there is evidence of
imminent danger to an innocent person—they wouldn't have terrorized
an innocent family in a near-midnight raid, nor would they have
inflicted significant and expensive damage to the property of an
economically marginal household.
Furthermore, if the
no-knock raid was supposedly justified for "tactical" reasons, by hitting
the wrong apartment door the cops surrendered the element of surprise.
In the legal response filed on behalf of its local enforcement
caste, the City of Caldwell denies that the unlawful attack on the
Johnsons' home inflicted "damages" to their property, or violated
their rights in any way. Because this near-midnight raid was carried
out according to established "policies and procedures," the City
insists, the assailants are swaddled in the impenetrable cloak of
These Gestapo tactics make me sick. If Writs of Assistance were enough
to trigger 1776, what the fuck does this type of action merit? These
wrong address, no-knock warrants terrorize, injure, and kill dozens
every year. And decent, law abiding citizens who kill one of these
invading terrorists wind up charged with murder of a cop, while if a
cop kills the homeowner during one of these raids they have "qualified
It's sure nice to see that my birth-state still gives forth people
with the balls to live by their principles.
to GunsSaveLives.net, Colandro said a ban on magazines larger than 10
rounds would impact law-abiding citizens—rather than
criminals—because it would turn "one million law-abiding, tax-paying
citizens into criminals" if signed into law.
He then called lawmakers' attention to Connecticut, and said, "One
million gun owners in New Jersey are also going to say, like our
brothers and sisters in the north, that 'we will not comply.' And I
can tell you here and now, 'I will not comply.'"
He added: "You can write these laws against us tax-paying,
law-abiding citizens, but we're not going to follow them."
I sure hope he follows through....
For the last few weeks, I have been singing the praises (well, sorta)
of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite their refusal to go far
enough, they HAVE overthrown several key components of
Kahleefourneeyah's CCW laws, including throwing out the requirement to
show you have a "legitimate need" for a carry permit. Today, they
showed they have not lost their anti-Constitutional anti-gun chops.
On March 25th the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a San
Francisco law that requires "handgun owners to keep their weapons
locked up or on their person when they are at home." The court also
upheld a ban on the sale of hollow-point ammunition within city limits.
However, "San Francisco residents can still obtain them outside the
city limits and bring them back [into the city] with them."
The Wall Street Journal, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the
requirement to keep a gun locked up was not onerous because "a modern
gun safe may be opened quickly. Thus, even when a handgun is secured,
it may be readily accessed in case of an emergency."
Regarding the prohibition of the sale of hollow-point ammunition
within city limits, the court upheld it because it "affects only the
sale of hollow-point ammunition, [but] San Franciscans are still free
to use and possess hollow-point bullets within city limits."
Isn't it nice to know some things haven't changed? (sarcasm, don'tcha
Let us revisit ID for a wee bit. But first, a disclaimer—I do not
support the entire concept of government issued ID. I do not have ANY
DESIRE whatsoever to "prove" my right to engage in business dealings,
operate a motor vehicle, buy, carry, or possess a firearm, open a bank
account, or get married. There is one, and only one, place I feel I
need to prove who I am, and that's before I vote. Otherwise, who I am
and what I am doing is none of the government's business. Now, to the
fun. Obama and his merry band of anti-Constitutionalists have been
screaming to high heaven that requiring ID in order to vote is racist,
un-American, and un-Constitutional, because it is somehow a poll tax
to require a $10 piece of plastic in order to vote. It's just "too
hard" for minorities to get an ID, so requiring one disenfranchises
the poor little poor people. Guess what? Obamacare requires you to
present photo ID in order to get your "free" Obamacare.
I just returned from two doctor visits for a checkup and a
follow-up test. These were my first doctor visits since Obamacare took
effect. Guess what both medical offices asked me for before any doctor
could see me or any medical test could be done?
Official government-issued photo ID.
You cannot see a doctor or receive your free Obamacare without ID
to prove it's really you. A health insurance card won't do the trick,
simply because the medical office needs to prove you are in fact the
person whose name is on the insurance card.
I questioned the nurses at both offices. They verified no one can
collect their "free" Obamacare services from any doctor without
showing ID. And since everyone is now required to have health
insurance (or is given free insurance), the government is requiring
that everyone have a photo ID.
Does that make Obama and the Democrats racists? No, what it makes
them is hypocrites who are in total fear of fair elections that they
know they have no chance of winning—no chance, that is, unless they
cheat. Don't look now, but Obamacare just opened the door for voter ID.
This is where the younger generation screams, "Busted!"
Let's take the hypocrisy a step further. Every single Democratic
voter must be lining up to get his photo ID so he can get his free
Obamacare. So the argument that poor and minority Democrat voters
don't have ID, or shouldn't be "burdened" to get it, is out the window.
I think this is where the younger generation screams, "Double
Now, whether Wayne is a reputable or reliable source in your opinion
is moot. I, too went to the doctor today. I've been using this doctor
for 5 years, the practice as a whole for 30. I was required to show
"valid photo ID" to get my care, even though my insurance is NOT
through an Obamacare website, subsidy, grant, or government agency.
When I asked Lisa (who I have known for 10 years now) why I had to do
this her answer was "These new rules caused by Obamacare. I have to
photocopy the ID and keep a copy in your file. Then, from now on, we
are supposed to check your ID every visit, and verify that it is the
same as last time, or see what may have changed, and why."
Ahhh, DiFi is at it again.
Constitutional law. It bans weapons that are not nazis running around
Idaho shouting "White Power!". It's about citizens, armed and willing
to defend this country from enemies foreign and domestic, and in
extremis, defend this country against the government. In addition,
isn't it funny that she's against people importing "military style"
weapons. I guess she doesn't care about....
Fellow San Franciscan Democrat, State Senator Leland Yee, arrested by
the FBI for agreeing to smuggle in and sell fully-automatic M16s,
AK47s, and man-portable missiles.
Senator Yee often used the used car salesman's trick of selling
appearance rather than performance. To the public, Yee sold the flat
black of a plastic rifle as being "a military style weapon". Yee knew
better. To the FBI buyer, Senator Yee was precise when he asked and
guaranteed delivery of fully automatic weapons along with shoulder
fired missiles. Yee sold public safety to the public media while
seeking to privately profit from public violence. Stated simply, Yee
sought to disarm ordinary citizens while he funneled guns to
Another fucking hypocrite Democrat. Now, let me be blunt—I do not
support, endorse, or agree with the NFA '34 (which created the entire
"Class Three" concept of firearms) or any other
gun control law
Victim Disarmament Laws. I do not have a problem with civilian
ownership of fully automatic weapons, silencers, sawed off shotguns,
or other "destructive devices". Just as I support the free enterprise
system known as drug dealing, I support ANY civilian who chooses to
break the laws about full automatic weaponry. But do NOT spend your
time passing ever-more draconian laws prohibiting something while
using those laws to drive up the price of YOUR business selling that
something. I also note that he never actually imported ANYTHING. Now,
the corruption charges are enough to oust the bastard....
Please, my friends, keep up the good work of pointing out mistakes.
I'm only human, after all! Sooo, to the reason for that comment. Last
week, I included the following line—
Well, excuse me, but if the person is not adjudicated mentally
incompetent, WHAT FUCKING RIGHT DOES THE STATE HAVE TO STEAL
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED PROPERTY?
My new friend, John L, took me (gently) to task. He said the following-
Enjoyed your rant at
but did you go far enough when you said, "Well, excuse me, but if
the person is not adjudicated mentally incompetent, WHAT FUCKING RIGHT
DOES THE STATE HAVE TO STEAL CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED PROPERTY?"
I'm very worried that the government will adjudicate as "mentally
incompetent" anyone who, for example, thinks that guns should be used,
in extreme circumstances, to defend basic rights which statutory law
I would rather live in a society in which nobody has the authority
to disarm anyone for being mentally deficient, with all its attendant
risks, than to live in one in which that label can be applied, with
all its implications, by untrustworthy men (i.e., human
I was not clear enough, nor did I take into account the current
mandated thinking of Obamacare-compliant doctors that gun ownership is
a health problem, that firearms ownership is a sign of possible
paranoia, and that having served in a war zone is a sign of mental
illness. Once these things are taken into account, I recant my former
statement, and amend it thus.
Well, excuse me, but unless a person has been committed to an
insane asylum for life, what fucking right does the government have to
take away his Constitutionally protected private property? In
addition, is it the government's right even then? No, the MOST the
government should be permitted to do (and I don't really agree even
with granting it this much power) is to take them away from his/her
immediate control, and surrender them to their guardian/custodian.
I tire of repeating myself, but it seems that once again, I must. The
title of the linked article is wrong.
"Gun Owners: 'Will Not Comply' with
Unreasonable Registration" There is NO such thing as a "reasonable
restriction" on a right that "Shall not be Infringed". I am
sick and fucking tired of lying assholes trying to claim that there is
somehow a reasonable restriction on enumerated rights. The fact that
certain morons have tolerated them does not make them reasonable. It
IS your right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And if it causes
harm to anyone and there is NOT a fire, your ass is sued into
bankruptcy. But it is STILL your right. As to "Well Regulated", well,
I have an answer to that, too. Two of them, in fact. First, "Well
regulated" meant, in the parlance of the times, well trained and in
good working order, NOT licensed and controlled when dealing with
militias, especially since one of the two militias (the irregular
militia) was trained (or regulated) solely on an individual basis.
Second, the whole "militia has been replaced by the National Guard, so
you have no individual right to own and carry weapons is shot down two
ways—first, by the phrase "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear
Arms Shall not be Infringed" specifically states it is an individual
right, not a collective right superseded by the formation of a
National Guard. Second, if this were the correct interpretation of the
2nd Amendment, then the following: A well-trained orchestra, being
necessary to the artistic life of a free state, the right of the
people to own and play musical instruments shall not be infringed
means that only members of the state orchestra can own and play a
flute.That being said, I like the solidarity being shown by gun owners
across the country.
Mike, this is a good start, but it doesn't go far enough.
Pro-gun legislation which would allow "teachers, parents, and
school visitors to have guns concealed and locked in their cars in
school parking lots" is awaiting Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's (R)
"Wait a minute Mr. Liberal Psychopath, I need to run to the car to get
my gun so I can protect the kids!" isn't good enough. And yes, I meant
it—almost every single mass shooter has been a Democrat or at least
liberal leaning nutcase.
I'm gonna have to re-think my stance on the Ninth Circuit CoA. Three
excellent decisions on the 2nd Amendmentin as many months.
With the case Baker v. Kealoha
(9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2014), the Ninth Circuit
ruled that Hawaii's restrictions were just like San Diego County's and
the rules would have to be reworked to conform to earlier court
Law professor Eugene Volokh notes that gun rights advocates cannot
start celebrating just yet because various cases are still making
their way through the courts and these decisions could be overturned.
But he also says that the law has been moving in the direction of
expanding Second Amendment rights, not restricting them, so the
is on the wall" for gun control fanatics.
From Volokh's lips to the court's ears.
Many people send me links to many things, but one of my best
link-sources is Gene, also known as "The Gunny". He got me hooked on
DC Clothesline, Freedom Outpost, and a host other sites. He sends me
links every day to articles I might find interesting, and many of them
wind up here. So, while I also find a lot of these links in my own
cruising through these sites, Gunny's input tells me I'm reading the
right ones (and sometimes, missing the good ones!) Semper Fi, Gunny!
And many thanks, as well. If any of you have similar sources, pass'em
Last summer, at the county fair, I caught flack from passers-by for
expressing my disgust at the county sheriff's new toy—a matte-black
Hummer with a pintle-mount for a machine-gun or other military
equipment. The stormtroopers manning the vehicle, proudly displayed at
the county fairgrounds, were decked out in black paramilitary
coveralls, tactical holsters, and had face-obscuring "riot masks" hung
on hooks. And apparently, many communities around the country are
starting to agree with me.
While some communities have welcomed such acquisitions amid
increased concern over mass shootings, others have balked at the idea.
As RT reported
last year, residents in Salinas,
the Facebook page of their local police
department after it obtained a heavily armored vehicle capable of
withstanding rifle fire and minefield explosions.
"That vehicle is made for war," mentioned one commenter at the
time. "Do not use my safety to justify that vehicle," another one
wrote. "The Salinas
Department is just a bunch of cowards that
want to use that vehicle as intimidation and to terrorize the citizens
of this city."
That's exactly what these military vehicles are used for.
Idaho's governor signs bill telling the federal government they'll get
no help in Idaho enforcing federal anti-Constitutional laws.
"Protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed,
through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws,
rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective
date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens'
rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State
It also criminalizes any action by employees of the state that violate
"Any official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a
political subdivision thereof who knowingly and willfully orders an
official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political
subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency order,
law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in
subsection (2) of this section upon a personal firearm, a firearm
accessory or ammunition shall, on a first violation, be liable for a
civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) which shall
be paid into the general fund of the state..."
Hear Hear!!!! May this be the first of many to come....
The legislation rests on a well-established legal principle known
as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government
cannot force or coerce states into implementing or enforcing federal
acts or regulations—constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering
doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to
1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone. According to that
doctrine: "The Federal Government may neither issue directives
requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the
States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to
administer or enforce a federal regulatory program...such commands are
fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual
"Don't Tread On Me" indeed!
And finally, our Quote of the Week—
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most
governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right
within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are
kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is,
under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not
already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
—Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 Commentaries
on the Laws of England.
So I end this rant with the thanks I send out to those of you who
responded with kind thoughts over the death of Gracie. Not one person,
no matter how much I have fought with them, no matter how vitriolic
our contacts usually are, said anything other than some variation on
"I'm so sorry for that loss. I hope your family is well." Yes, we are,
and little Chewie, the pup who rescued us, is fitting right in.
Good night, Gracie. :(