May 27th, 2011 11:58 pm |
by Marc Gallagher
Big Government, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Debt, Election, government spending, Gun Control, Liberty, Maven Commentary, patriot act, Rand Paul |
Rand Paul, not even 1 year in the U.S. Senate, is already creating a legacy for himself. And if you believe in the Constitution and the human liberty it protects then it looks good, very good. Paul has been steadfast and fearless when it comes to remaining true to his campaign promises. This is an anomaly in the float-with-the-current like a rotten log cesspool that is Washington DC circa 2011.
Paul has pushed for balancing the budget aggressively, stood up for consumer choice, and all the while doing everything in his power to cut government spending. Now, he’s revealing his diamond-tough huevos by going up against the whimsical idiot-savants of hypocrisy in his own party and the truth-bending emotionally-charged demagogues on the other side. His only allegiances are his promises and the U.S. Constitution. If enough of his peers in DC started doing the same our Founding Fathers might stop rolling over and over in their graves to salute the flag once again.
Listen here to Rand Paul discussing recent renewal vote on The PATRIOT Act with everyone’s favorite Neo-Conservative whipping boy, Sean Hannity (from Hannity’s radio show). Near the end Rand Paul reveals who he may vote for in the upcoming POTUS 2012 election and touches on his own potential aspirations for that same office.
March 21st, 2011 11:49 pm |
by Mike Miller
Activism, Big Government, congress, Constitution, DownsizeDC.org, Gun Control, patriot act, Second Amendment |
The “library records” provision of the so-called Patriot Act could also be known as the “gun records” provision, because it also allows the FBI to seize the forms you use to buy guns.
This infamous provision, Section 215, is a direct assault on your Fourth Amendment rights because it allows the FBI to obtain personal information about you, without a warrant and without your knowledge.
Section 215 is set to expire in May, along with two other provisions. But Congress will probably renew these provisions unless it hears from YOU.
Tell Congress to repeal the ENTIRE Patriot Act, and renew NONE of its provisions.
You may borrow from or copy this letter . . . Read More »
June 28th, 2010 3:26 pm |
by Mike Miller
Activism, Gun Control, Liberty, Politics, Second Amendment |
Just the other day I outlined the perfect example of why I believe the NRA is no friend of those who value the Second Amendment. Less than two weeks later, it appears they’ve done it again.
According to redstate.com:
Internal Senate emails confirmed by NRA Board Members are highlighting just how far the National Rifle Association has fallen.
The organization recently collaborated with the left to obtain a carve out of the DISCLOSE Act, legislation designed to silence bloggers and outside interest groups like tea party activists. This was a first amendment issue and the NRA gladly took a position and campaigned for its members to take a position on the DISCLOSE Act.
One of the NRA’s chief arguments was that it needed the carve out to be effective in its advocacy of Second Amendment issues. But here’s the problem: these internal Senate emails confirmed by NRA Board Members show that the National Rifle Association’s management team has explicitly and directly told the NRA’s board they are prohibited from testifying about second amendment issues during the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings.
That’s right: the foremost gun rights lobby in the nation is prohibiting its board from testifying in the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings about the second amendment.
Read the rest at redstate.com…
June 28th, 2010 10:18 am |
by Marc Gallagher
Activism, Constitution, Court Cases, Gun Control |
Just minutes ago the Supreme Court of the United States delivered their opinion on McDonald v. City of Chicago. The Court has decided that the 2nd Amendment does apply to the states in a 5-4 decision.
Here are the results according to the SCOTUS blog:
- Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded
- Gun rights prevail
- The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense
- Stevens dissents for himself. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
- The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard
- The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.
- Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2d Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause.
- Thomas thinks the Amendment is incorporated, but not under Due Process. He appears to base incorporation on Privileges or Immunities.
- The difference between the majority and Justice Thomas doesn’t affect the fact that the Second Amendment now applies to state and local regulation.
- Full Opinion is here.
- It should be noted that, in the guns case, the Court says explicitly in Alito’s opinion that it would not reconsider the Slaughterhouse cases, which almost completely deprive the Privileges or Immunities Clause of any constitutional meaning.
- The opinion leaves the fate of the Chicago gun ordinance in the hands of the 7th Circuit on remand.
The ramifications of the opinion will play out in the gun rights vs. gun control debate going forward. This case (McDonald v. Chicago) was filed the day after the Heller decision was announced back in 2008. It will be interesting to see what new cases get filed given the results of this case. The gun rights lawyers are taking a step by step approach in their fight for the right to keep and bear arms.
This is pretty much what was expected. It appears Justice Thomas is the only one with the guts to use the Privileges or Immunities Clause which would have had far-reaching implications for law outside of the gun rights world. More later as the analysis begins.
June 27th, 2010 11:50 pm |
by Marc Gallagher
Activism, Banking, Big Government, Civil Liberties, congress, Constitution, Court Cases, Economics, government spending, Gun Control, Liberty, Market Regulation, privacy, Rand Paul, Rand Paul Interview |
We interviewed Rand Paul the first time back when he was trailing Trey Grayson in the Kentucky GOP primary by 11 percentage points according to polls at the time. As everyone now knows he ended up winning the primary and the first money bomb (or blast) is scheduled for tomorrow (June 28th).
Dr. Paul was kind enough to take time out of his insane campaign schedule to answer some questions for us. Check out Rand Paul’s second interview with Liberty Maven below.
And don’t forget to participate by donating during the money bomb!
Donate at RandPaul2010.com now.
LM: Immediately following your landslide victory over Trey Grayson in the primary, the left-leaning media began attacking you and the attacks have not eased up. Thinking back, prior to your primary victory you probably anticipated being attacked from the left, but did you believe the attacks would be so unrelenting and national in scope as they have turned out to be? Do you fault yourself for inviting the initial attacks a bit, by agreeing to go on Rachel Maddow’s show the day after your victory?
Rand Paul: Our election night victory was spectacular. We won by 24 points. Over 500 people gathered for our victory. We had satellite TV trucks from every network and did 15 national interviews the next day. But it didn’t take long for the media to decide that they were going to be less than neutral after our victory. Since then it has been relentless attacks from the left-wing media in Kentucky and the left-wing media nationally. I joke with people that it was like Dickens wrote in the Tale of Two Cities: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. But the good news is that the polls still show us with a double digit lead, despite all of their attacks. I think the mood of the country is for reigning in big government, for controlling the deficit, and for bringing attention back to a government that should be restrained by the Constitution.
It’s always easy to look backwards and say I could have, or should have done one thing or another. In retrospect, going on a Left-leaning network that apparently had an agenda since they had been discussing it all afternoon and misconstruing my position was probably not a good idea.
Read More »
June 27th, 2010 5:58 pm |
by Marc Gallagher
Civil Liberties, Constitution, Gun Control, Individual Responsibility, Liberty, states rights |
The Supreme Court will release its opinion on the McDonald v. Chicago gun ban case on Monday. The opinion will decide whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the states.
From the SCOTUS blog:
The first opinion that could emerge is a historic ruling on gun rights, resolving whether the Second Amendment restricts the gun-control powers of states, counties, and cities, and not just the federal government’s powers (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 08-1521). That’s because the author of the opinion (according to Tom’s analysis) could be Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. He is the most junior Justice likely to announce an opinion Monday, and opinions are usually released in reverse order of the authors’ seniority.
Most watchers believe the opinion will be against the gun ban and in favor of applying the 2nd Amendment to the states, but it will likely not be as far-reaching as most gun rights advocates would like. This puts it in similar territory as the Heller case. Tom Goldstein, offers his thoughts regarding the likely outcome, also from the SCOTUS blog, in a prediction article:
The next case is McDonald v. City of Chicago, which presents the question whether the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is “incorporated” and therefore applies to state and local gun regulation. McDonald was argued in February, and the only Justice not to write from that sitting is Justice Alito. He therefore likely has the Court’s opinion.
Justice Alito was a member of the five-Justice majority that recognized a Second Amendment right outside the context of militia service in the Heller case. He therefore is a likely vote for finding incorporation. At oral argument in McDonald, Justice Alito seemed quite doubtful about the City’s efforts to suggest a narrow ground for ruling.
I predict that Justice Alito will write the Court’s opinion in McDonald recognizing that the Second Amendment is incorporated. But given Justice Alito’s sensitivity towards law enforcement, I doubt that the opinion will call into question a broad swath of firearms regulation.
We’ll post an update once the opinion is released tomorrow.
Last year I wrote about my own thoughts on “Incorporation” of the 2nd Amendment in this article.
June 15th, 2010 4:01 pm |
by Mike Miller
Big Government, congress, Gun Control, law, Liberty, Politics |
While I am a gun owner and a strong proponent of second amendment rights, I’ve never been too fond of the National Rifle Association. They aren’t all bad, but I am seriously turned off when they make compromises with our rights, the latest of which is a doozy. It appears that the NRA has made a deal with Nancy Pelosi and other House Democrats, signing away our first amendment rights. In return, they (not we) get an exemption from the draconian regulations.
‘Shotgun Sellout’: House Democrats cut special deal with NRA
House Democrats held a shotgun wedding between campaign finance “reformers” and the National Rifle Association today in announcing a carve out for the powerful gun lobby in a bill responding to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.
The “Shotgun Sellout” exempts large organizations from the most burdensome regulations of the DISCLOSE Act, “Democratic Incumbents Seek to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections,” while pistol whipping genuine grassroots groups.
“The Democratic majority has decided that established, powerful interest groups should be exempted from the proposed draconian regulations, while small advocacy groups should have their voices silenced by the DISCLOSE Act,” said Center for Competitive Politics President Sean Parnell. “Exempting the National Rifle Association from these regulations while local groups such as the Oregon Firearms Federation would face stifling regulations if they choose to exercise their First Amendment rights simply cannot be considered ‘reform.’”
“This sort of special carve out for an established interest group is just the kind of insider manipulation that gives the public the sense that Congress is unresponsive to the concerns of ordinary Americans,” said Allison Hayward, CCP’s Vice President of Policy. “How can it be that invasive and onerous disclosure requirements are proper when applied to small, regional interest groups but not large, wealthy national groups?”
“This exception could serve to entrench political organization, discourage local participation in civic groups, and undermine the civic involvement that Alexis de Tocqueville identified as uniquely American and one of America’s great strengths,” she added.
According to Capitol Hill sources, the Rules Committee will likely hold a Wednesday hearing to advance the DISCLOSE Act to the House floor by the end of the week.
Read the rest here.
May 17th, 2010 6:30 am |
by Marc Gallagher
Activism, Big Government, Civil Liberties, Commentary, Gun Control, Liberty, Maven Commentary, terrorism |
Yes, it is true I’m a big fan of permitting terrorists to own guns. What?, you may ask. Apparently, that is the attack being used by some in our almighty government who hope to infringe upon our right to defend ourselves.
Consider this recent Senate Homeland Security hearing on Capitol Hill:
On Tuesday, as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Lieberman held a hearing to give Lautenberg and King the opportunity to promote their bills S.1317 and H.R.2159, to prohibit the possession of firearms by people on the FBI’s “terrorist watchlist,” and Lautenberg’s S. 2820, to maintain records of approved instant background check transactions for a minimum of 180 days. The watchlist bills further propose that a person seeking relief in court from these new restrictions would be prevented from examining and challenging “evidence” against him, and that the judge deciding whether the person had been watchlisted for good reason be limited to summaries and redacted versions of such “evidence.”
So we are to rely on our government to come up with a list of people who they decide is a terrorist or has terrorist “leanings”. Well, we already are relying on our government to do this, and like many things the government gets involved in, this too is a big fat failure.
Read More »
April 1st, 2010 5:00 am |
by Marc Gallagher
Activism, Commentary, gold, Gun Control, Individual Responsibility, inflation, Libertarianism, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Philosophy, precious metals, silver |
The three G’s are always important but their demand rises, for good reason, during times of extraordinary economic duress. America is going through such a period right now.
Unfortunately, such times also bring out the crazy and confused too. Recently, we have read about shootings at the Smithsonian and Pentagon in DC. A man flew a plane into an IRS building in Austin, TX. A militia group was arrested for plotting the killing of police officers in an attempt to cause an uprising against the U.S. government.
While some attempt to accuse and reveal loose associations between these lunatics and those of use who truly do believe in liberty, we know the truth. They never were and never will be libertarians. They acted, not in self-defense, but on their own twisted apocalyptic emotions.
Moderation should be the watchword when it comes preparation for a future darker than the past. Working on obtaining the three G’s is a good step in that direction.
Read More »
January 7th, 2010 11:03 am |
by Mike Miller
Big Government, congress, DownsizeDC.org, Gun Control, Politics, Polling, Taxes |
D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
There’s a famous cartoon of a bird trying to eat a frog. The bird has the frog by the head but can’t swallow it because the frog has the bird by the neck and is choking the life out of it.
Think of the bird as the Democrats, and the frog as either the cancerous healthcare bill, or the poor beleaguered American taxpayer.
We think the Democrats are going to choke on this healthcare bill, or, if they finally pass it, the voters will strangle them in the coming election. Meanwhile . . .
We should demonstrate the same “never say die” attitude as the frog in the cartoon. The fight isn’t over, even when it looks like the politicians are about to swallow us. Please send another letter to Congress opposing the healthcare bill.
You can borrow from or copy my sample letter . . .
Read More »