WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court’s decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The new case tests whether last year’s ruling applies as well to local and state laws.

While this is good news for hopeful gun rights activists it raises questions for die hard Constitutionalists. The dirty details of “incorporation” reveals some divisions among us. I’ve previously discussed my own thoughts on “incorporation”, but I can certainly understand the opposing viewpoint. The question came up earlier this year when the states rights argument was utilized by the anti-gun rights Senators in reference to the Thune amendment that would have permitted concealed carry reciprocity between the states.

The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court has a very good chance of voting in favor of 2nd Amendment incorporation. Perhaps, the more interesting thing, similar to Heller, will be what the majority opinion says at the conclusion of the case.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“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.”

- The Second and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Originally published August 25, 2009 at http://towneforcongress.com/economy/right-to-bear-arms-plank

At no point would I vote for limits of any sort on the right to bear arms as a federal congressman. There is simply no authorization in the Constitution that delegates this power from the people and the states to United States Congress. States and localities can decide details for themselves based on state constitutions, local preferences and the US constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

As for my personal view, I have spent several years of my life in China, which bans guns, and this changed how I personally view this issue. There are four exceptions to China’s rule, and the first three naturally belong to the State. The power to use force against citizens is retained by the armed forces, the police, and the banks’ security personnel who transfer the paper currency.

China’s fourth exception is, of course, the criminal class, and they are not disposed to leaving victims alive since the penalties (if caught) are severe. I believe Americans should always be very wary of efforts, especially good-intentioned ones, to regulate the right to own guns and bear arms. One should always remember that unscrupulous individuals, just like criminals in China and everywhere else for that matter, will always avoid and find ways to violate the legislation as they commit theft and assaults.

I believe the only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights life, liberty, and justly acquired property against aggression. I also respect the natural rights of those who do not bear arms, and the rights of individuals to forbid the presence of arms in their homes or privately-owned places of business or worship. I am against prior federal acts to control gun ownership as the consequences are often unintended.

Let me be clear and speak plainly. The Second Amendment is NOT about shooting game or even defending your home. It is not even about retaliating when assaulted by criminals; these are all protected de facto. Read it again: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment protects your natural right to freedom from tyranny by using force.  It matters not if the tyrants come from our own government.

_______________________________________________________________________

Jake Towne is running for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania’s 15th District in the 2010 election as a citizen unaffiliated with any political parties. Jake also writes at www.LibertyMaven.com and www.CampaignForLiberty.com. A master campaign presentation for internet viewing is available. A novel campaign website built by Raging Debate, TowneForCongress.com has recently opened. [Reach the Author Here!]

_______________________________________________________________________

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.

Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito. Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.

Summary of Articles and Bibliography for Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution (8/7/2009)

Pledge to donate now! Then be sure to DONATE on August 20th.

Yesterday a new scientific poll was released showing that Rand Paul trails the establishment GOP candidate by only 11 percentage points. Rand showed up with 26% to Trey Grayson’s 37%. This is a very strong showing for an anti-establishment candidate challenging a career politician. There are still 9 months to go before the May 2010 GOP primary in Kentucky. This poll proves the viability of Paul. Grayson now has to prepare himself for a dogfight. A lot can happen in 9 months.

Here is our short interview with Rand Paul from earlier this week.

LM: Starting off with a bit of a personal question, what was it like growing up in the Ron Paul household? Was he as strict with his children as he is with following the Constitution?

Rand Paul: All the kids were into sports. My older brother was a nationally ranked swimmer and my younger brother played baseball in college. I swam for a non-scholarship program at Baylor. My earliest memories are of discussing politics with my father’s friends. I always gravitated to the adult conversation.

LM: Who is your favorite Founding Father and why?

Rand Paul: Jefferson. Of all the founders, he seemed to be able to articulate the message of liberty and limited government best. Like many of us he was imperfect and I wish he had been more committed to liberty for all without regard to race. Jefferson also, was personally not so fiscally sound with his own finances. While I am repelled by Adams support for the Alien and Sedition Acts, I do admire his New England work ethic and personal frugality.

LM: Who is your favorite American President and why?

Rand Paul: same (as above)

LM: You’ve mentioned that you support term limits in recent interviews. Does this mean you support a Constitutional amendment to institute term limits or are you of the opinion that term limits should be a personal decision for each office holder? If you get elected, how many terms will you serve?

Rand Paul: I support both a Constitutional amendment and/or legislation if it could be done Constitutionally. Voluntary term limits have not worked because the good Congressmen kept the pledge and went home and the creeps broke their pledges and stayed. Also, only a very small percentage, maybe ten to fifteen, ever were elected with a voluntary pledge.

LM: Health care reform is the latest fight on Capitol Hill. Recently, the Obama administration has modified its position a bit on the “public option” by suggesting they’d be open to non-profit health insurance cooperatives. Is this compromise something you could vote for as a Senator?

Rand Paul: No

LM: Why or why not?

Rand Paul: I am opposed to the government deciding what kind of insurance policies are legal. I have a Health Savings Account, presumably this policy will not be approved by the government coop.

LM: What can you say to your potential constituents to ease their minds about the potential for Washington corrupting you as it has done to so many in the past?

Rand Paul: I am not a career politician. I will vote against pork barrel spending and happily return to my job as a physician if the electorate tires of that stance.

LM: On your web site’s issues page, you have some very strong words favoring gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. Would you vote for any kind of restriction on guns such as trigger locks, waiting periods, background checks, or closing the “gun loophole”?

Rand Paul: No

LM: Are you a gun owner?

Rand Paul: Yes.

LM: Your father has signed on to a bill (HR.2267) sponsored by Barney Frank. This bill, in essence, makes online poker legal, but regulates/licenses it at the federal level. Do you support such bills? What is your view on this bill and Internet regulation in general?

Rand Paul: I am opposed to Federal regulation or taxation of the Internet.

————–

If you are a liberty-loving American supporting Rand Paul truly is a no-brainer. With the publication of this interview we at Liberty Maven officially endorse his candidacy in the 2010 Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky.

With a little luck and a lot of money (please donate to his campaign!) we hope to be endorsing him in the general election this time next year.

Download audio file (jasonlewis-talks-rp-08122009.mp3)

The Left is attempting to minimize the dissent running rampant at “town halls” across the country. Now a chain email has been initiated by the White House to debunk what they call “lies” about health reform efforts. To this I ask what happens when these so-called lies turn out to be true? Haven’t we had enough denying economic reality? Supporters of this kind of health reform argue that it’s not a single payer plan and that the government’s public option will compete fairly with private insurance companies.

The truth is that at first it is not a single payer plan. The problem is that it constructs the framework and greases the wheels for a near future migration to single payer. It’s the typical incrementalism found in the Fabian Socialist movement.

Nancy and Steny held hands and denounced dissenters at town hall meetings as “Un-American”. The White House pushed them away with a stick.

And now for some random thoughts, tweets and quotes for the week:

• We need to free our dependency on foreign oil, but we mostly need to free our dependency on domestic government!

• We are teaching a new generation that hard work doesn’t pay… unless the recipient is the government.

• The Right stabs you in the face, the Left stabs you in the back. I want to support those that do not stab at all.

• Don’t play their game. Don’t argue for the right to dissent. Just practice it.

• Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up. – Picasso

• Disciples be damned. It’s not interesting. It’s only the masters that matter. Those who create. – Picasso

• Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. – Harry Truman

And finally this weeks most appropriate quote:

Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive – John F. Kennedy

Have a lovely weekend!

The man mentioned that he voted for Ron Paul when he was interviewed by Chris Matthews so Ed wanted to get Ron Paul’s perspective on the “incident”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YpM60Kvwmk

For more information on the event they are discussing see “An Invisible Footnote on the Second Amendment.”

See the following video from MSNBC reporting the story while it was happening:

The sign he happens to be holding doesn’t help calm fears about this man’s intentions, but think about it. If he were intending to do harm to anyone why would he be advertising that he has a weapon? He attempts to clear things up a bit when he was a guest on Hardball later in the day.

It seems to me that Chris Matthews comes off looking more crazy than the guy with the gun in this segment.

Some have suggested Kostric was doing it just to provoke. I agree, and I think that is a wonderful thing. If it takes this kind of peaceful provocation to open eyes and minds then I’m all for it.

Kostric was later interviewed by Dave Ridley of The Ridley Report where he discusses his experience.

The last time I read the 2nd Amendment it didn’t end with “shall not be infringed unless somewhat near where the President of the United States will be in 90 minutes.”

No, William Kostric is not crazy gunman. He just believes that if we don’t exercise our rights from time to time we will lose them. I do too. America needs more people like him.

For raw video of Kostric and his encounter with police see the following video.

The host Tom Gresham interviewed The Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb about the 9th Circuit Court’s decision to re-hear the case where it decided that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the states.

Gottlieb discusses the ramifications of the 9th’s decision. Interestingly enough he suggests it may not be a bad thing and he suspects the Supreme Court will take up the 2nd Amendment Incorporation question regardless of what the 9th does.

Listen to the audio below.

Download audio file (gresham-on-gottleib-incorp-08092009.mp3)

First, here is some audio from Guntalk, a weekly radio show hosted by Tom Gresham of Guntalk.tv, a wonderful resource for all gun-owners.

Gresham reveals the details of the previous incorporation-related cases and a new development that could have a bearing on whether or not the Supreme Court takes up the question. Before it was a no-brainer for the high court to hear the case, but now the 9th Circuit Court appears to be trying their hardest to make it a “brainer”. Listen to Gresham lay it all out in the audio below.

Download audio file (gresham-on-incorp-08022009.mp3)

Originally, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were a set of restraints on the federal government. The states pretty much had free reign on the laws they could enact. The states were governing themselves prior to the ratification of the Constitution. Our Founders (for the most part) tried to avoid trampling on states’ rights to self-govern. The amendments passed following the Civil War, particularly the 14th, set the stage for the trampling to begin.

In the 1890’s a series of Supreme Court decisions (for the first time) held that most of the Bill of Rights was enforceable against state governments. Applying the Bill of Rights to the states is called “incorporation”. The question then becomes should the Bill of Rights be incorporated (or apply) to the states?  (more details on Incorporation).

Upon first learning of the incorporation concept I was confused and had some questions. Didn’t the 10th Amendment make incorporation a non-starter? Then again, if the Bill of Rights was set up to enumerate (and protect) our own natural (or God-given) rights then how could those first 10 amendments not apply to the states? I’ve come to learn that there are at least two parallel universes where these kinds of questions get answered. There is reality where normal people live and work, and there is law where every letter of every word gets analyzed into oblivion.

The Supreme Court has ruled that just about every one of our first 10 amendments applies to the states. The 2nd Amendment is not the only exception but it is in the extreme minority. The Heller decision last year paves the way for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of incorporating the 2nd amendment to the states because of the following wording found in the decision:

“We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ’shall not be infringed.”

Since the court recognizes that the right to bear arms is a pre-existing right, that it existed prior to the Constitution, it appears I found an answer to one of my questions. Yes, the 2nd Amendment does enumerate a natural human right. Of course, we already knew it did. Now it seems the Supreme Court knows it too.

I’m not one to favor letting the federal government stomp all over states’ rights, but given the 10th Amendment, and the plain truth that the Bill of Rights protects rights we already have as human beings, I’m strongly in favor of incorporating the entire Bill of Rights.

The problem is that our federal government ventures outside the scope of the Bill of Rights when wielding power over the states. That list includes conducting raids and arresting non-violent drug offenders in California even when state law says it is legal, coercing the states to abide by the federally mandated 55 MPH speed limit in the mid-1970’s by threatening to hold back federal transportation funds, and many others.

Recently, an amendment to force reciprocity on states to allow concealed carry permit holders to cross state lines legally while carrying failed in the Senate. This is one of those cases that would never even come up had we been following the 2nd Amendment as written. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t distinguish between concealing a gun and carrying it openly. This is why I supported the amendment even though it could be argued that it usurps some states’ rights.

I’m in favor of any law that makes an effort to enforce, in whole or in part, the Constitution of the United States of America. Such efforts give me hope that someday it will be the supreme law of the land once again.

While I practiced and preached my own right to not own a gun for most of my life, recently I became a new gun owner. As I become more acquainted with firearms I’m starting to believe that owning and knowing how to operate a gun is a political declaration. The open carry of a firearm is like holding up a sign in public that reads: I demand to be free. Of course, many self defense experts will preach using concealment as the preferred method of carrying a self-defense weapon. With concealment you have the element of surprise and you are not advertising yourself as a “first target” for a would-be attacker. Still others argue that openly displaying a firearm can be a deterrent in itself. I suppose it all depends on the attacker’s state of mind.

Enough of my yammering… watch the excellent Rev. Blanchard below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o86JTxJ9myU

I can’t help but wonder if Norm Coleman had defeated Al Franken and if Arlen Specter didn’t switch parties the required 60 would have been reached. Both Franken and Specter were among the 39 who voted ‘No’.

After some thought I realized there is a valid argument that this amendment could violate states rights. The argument is based on a bit of a “catch-22″ built-in to the amendment. In short, the amendment would allow concealed carry permit holders to “violate” the state laws that apply to obtaining a permit. For instance in some states the law is such that in order to get a permit one has to pass a live firing test. The amendment would nullify that rule for someone who enters the state from a state that does not have such a requirement.

That being said, there’s something to be said for thinking of it like one thinks of a driver’s license. The laws governing obtaining a driver’s license differ in each state, yet we don’t seem to have a problem allowing reciprocity for cars crossing state lines as long as the rules of the state are obeyed.

And what about the 2nd Amendment? The entire debate should be rendered moot if we actually followed the 2nd amendment. Isn’t it true that humans have a natural right to defend him/her self from harm? After all the Bill of Rights does not grant us rights, it merely affirms our natural human rights. We had the right to defend ourselves from harm pre-Constitution.

Below I’m including the remarks from Virginia Senator Jim Webb delivered yesterday during the debate on this amendment. He was one of several Democrats who voted for the amendment. As one of his constituents I thank him for doing so. I’d like to be thanking him for also cosponsoring S.604 to fully audit the Federal Reserve, but he hasn’t done that yet. I hope in time he does so.

In the meantime, enjoy his strong and thoughtful arguments on the amendment today.

—————————————————————-
Senator Jim Webb’s Floor Remarks on
Thune Amendment, Amdt. 1618 to S. 1390
July 22, 2009

“Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. I believe it is reasonable and is not as draconian in its implications as many of my colleagues, whom I greatly respect in terms of their concerns, are anticipating.

“I would also say there has been a lot of misinformation on the Senate floor about this amendment, to the effect that it will allow felons, people who are mentally defective, and other dangerous individuals to carry weapons on the streets of American cities, and also to buy up hordes of guns and to transport them into places, as Senator Schumer mentioned, like New York City.

“My colleague from New York gave as an example, in his terms, a Crip or a Blood moving to Vermont, establishing residency, then bringing a permit down into New York and being able to carry a weapon with impunity. I think the reality of that particular situation is that the gang members already have their guns. They don’t need this bill. In fact, this amendment has protections that would prevent those who engage in criminal activity such as gang members from taking advantage of this legislation. And the people who need this bill are the ones the gang members might be threatening.

“With respect to standards of conduct, aspects of criminality, and issues of mental health, it’s important to note that there is a federal floor underneath this amendment that guarantees that certain standards will be met, regardless of varying state standards.

“If you read the amendment, it states that “a person who is not prohibited from Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who meets other conditions then may be granted reciprocity

“If you go into federal law, and I am going to read from 27 CFR Section 478, this is the current standard in terms of being able to possess a firearm or ammunition.

“Anyone who:

· Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year may not possess a firearm;

· Is a fugitive from justice;

· Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

· Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;

· Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

· Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

· Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;

· Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;

. or anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm. In addition, a person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm.”

“Those, Mr. President, are the federal guarantees, the floor under which this reciprocity legislation operates.

“Senator Lautenberg has said in his comments that passing this legislation is akin to allowing someone from another state to come into your state and follow their own speed limits. This is not true. The amendment specifically provides that anyone carrying a firearm into another state must follow the laws regarding firearm usage in that state.

“I quote from the amendment:

“In a state that allows residents of the State to obtain licences or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to thesame laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issues a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.”

“I would say, Mr. President, that the better analogy at work here is the driver’s licensing process itself. States decide the conditions under which a license can be granted, but the nature of interstate travel allows licenses issued in another state to be recognized across the country, so long as the holders of those licenses obey the laws of the state in which they are driving.

“I also keep hearing that this amendment will increase the number of purchases of hand guns and other weapons. I’d like to clarify for this body as someone who holds a concealed carry permit. A permit to carry does not automatically allow anyone to purchase a firearm automatically. One still has to go through the entire background check as if you did not have a permit. Illegal firearms sales are a separate matter for this body to address, one that we clearly should be focusing on, but they fall outside the parameters of this amendment.

“Mr. President, the issue of gun usage in America understandably divides people, usually along the lines of those who believe any relaxation of gun laws will benefit criminal and violent activity, versus those who believe that gun laws need to be modified in order to allow law-abiding people to defend themselves. I have a great deal of empathy for those who have been the victims of gun violence, and I have worked with citizens groups as well as our governor in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings to focus our approach.

“We have made significant improvements in our laws since then, including working to modify privacy laws as they relate to mental health matters, which was the primary concern in the Virginia Tech shooting and also to improve the instant background checks. I will continue to work in these areas.

“I also believe very strongly that the violence we see on our streets and in our neighborhoods must be addressed. But very little of that violence has ever been caused by those who seek permits to carry. As I mentioned before, the people who are perpetrating that kind of violence already have their guns. Their access to those guns is a matter we all should focus on. But few criminals are going to go down to the county courthouse and file for a permit. Those who seek permits to carry and who are within the federal guidelines specifically addressed in this bill seek to do so in order to protect themselves from the violence we see on our streets. I would say, when I look at this amendment, a couple of clear examples come to mind.

“One is my father, who in his later years lived in Florida and then Arkansas and would drive alone in his car to visit me and my brother who lived in Minnesota. It was usually at least a two day journey. My father was older, he was by himself in his car. He was a classic target of potential criminal activity. He carried a weapon, a firearm, when he traveled. When he stopped at night, went into a motel, he brought that weapon with him. You check into a motel, you’re 77 years old, you’re by yourself, people are going to start looking at you. I don’t think that people who are in that situation need to wonder if they’re committing a felony by having to defend themselves when they’re in that situation.

“Something else that comes to mind are all of these truck drivers that we see on the roads any time we are on the interstate. These are independent contractors, they are making a living the hard way. They constantly cross state boundaries. They have to worry about whether their truck is going to break down, they have to wonder sometimes where they stop, whether they might be victimized if they sleep in the cabin of their truck. They can legally carry, many of them, in their own state. Do they have to worry if they cross into another state boundary and pull over for the night that if they’re trying to defend themselves, they’re committing a felony? This is the type of situation that I believe this legislation is attempting to address.

“I believe it will have a beneficial effect, I believe strongly that we need to work together in this body to address other situations of gun violence in this country. I am glad to add whatever insights I can have to this body in order to do so.

“I support this legislation and intend to vote for it. I yield the floor.”

—————————————
(Thanks to Kimberly Hunter, Webb’s Press Secretary, for providing his remarks.)

Does the Thune Amendment actually violate states rights?

It does not. It can be thought of as applying the laws of state driver’s licenses to concealed carry permits. The summary of the amendment makes it clear that it requires that the carrier follow the laws of the state in which he/she is carrying:

A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

Yet every Senator opposed to the amendment is falsely arguing that it violates states rights?

Incidentally, I applaud my own Senator, Jim Webb, for supporting the amendment against the wishes of his Democratic colleagues.

The vote is supposed to occur about an hour from the time of this writing. I’ll write more following the vote.

Make no mistake that is what Barack Obama wants to do. Whether he actually can accomplish it is another story. For more details on the new case and its history see this excellent article from Reason. Let’s all hope that the Supreme Court takes the case and does the right thing.

Ron Paul is one of the leading advocates of interpreting the 2nd Amendment as written. No surprise there, but does he actually put his money where his mouth is? Of course he does. Here are three gun-related bills he introduced a few weeks ago in the House:

H.R.3022 : To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans. This bill repeals various gun control laws already on the books, including background checks and child safety locks.

H.R.3021 : To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.

H.R.3023 : To provide for the safety of United States aviation and the suppression of terrorism. This bill would allow employees of airlines to carry guns in order to protect themselves and their passengers.

I especially like that last one. September 11th may have turned out differently had the pilots been armed. They say that 9/11 changed everything. Well, if pilots were armed it may have changed nothing. No justification for the Iraq war. No justification for the Patriot Act. No justification for warrantless wiretaps. And so on.

Gun control is certainly important but in the age of Obama there seems to be 3 major efforts that liberty lovers need to do everything in our power to stop. All of them directly affect our economy in bad ways. Together they are a recipe for economic armageddon.

1. Cap and Trade: This bill needs to fail in the Senate after already passing in the House. We all know why it’s a bad idea. In fact even some of those who voted for it in the House know it’s a bad idea but voted for it anyway. I wish Ron Paul would name names.
2. Government Health Care: Obama says the government is going to “compete” with the private sector. The market will react by forcing people toward using government health care until all the competitors are gone. Obamacare is really just a migration plan toward complete socialized medicine. How much is it going to cost to provide health care for 130 million more Americans and where will the money come from?
3. Stimulus, Part 2: There’s a renewed effort under way to push for another stimulus program. We haven’t even spent more than 10% of our previous stimulus money and we already want another one? Obama used fear tactics to push his first one through. It had to be done right then, yet months later we’ve only spent 10% of the money. The only effective shovel ready Obama project is the one that is shoveling bullshit from the White House directly into our ears.

Fighting this evil recipe for economic armageddon should be first on your liberty to-do list.

And on that “up” note here are this week’s random thoughts, tweets, and quotes:

• Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what the f**k happened. – @rebelyid on Twitter

• In the U.S. every day should be Independence Day. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty!

• I wonder how many would show up if we had a memorial/funeral for the Constitution. Not “celebrity” enough I guess.

• Screw Al Qaeda, there are at least three other Al’s that need to be stopped, Al Franken, Al Sharpton, and Al Gore.

• If people automatically think that strict adherence to the Constitution is “crazy” then Ron Paul will never be considered sane.

• G8 all agree to attempt to control the weather. Mother Nature laughs.

• I cringe at the word “regulation” more than any other imaginable swear word.

And finally, my favorite, passionate Frederic Bastiat quote:

Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

and with that… Have a wonderful weekend!