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.

Download audio file (randpaul-hannity-05262012.mp3)

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 . . .

The FBI already had powerful tools to combat terrorism before the Patriot Act. The FISA court would allow the FBI to obtain records of suspected terrorists from motels, car rental agencies, storage facilities, and similar businesses.

But the Patriot Act’s Section 215 dangerously broadens this power. Now, the FBI can . . .

* Merely claim, without providing ANY evidence, that the information it seeks is “relevant” to a terrorism investigation
* Acquire personal information on anyone, including U.S. citizens not suspected of terrorism (or any other crime)
* “Gag” institutions and businesses so they can’t tell people they are being investigated
* Obtain even the most private information, such as emails, medical records, library history, and gun purchase forms

Section 215 violates not only the Fourth Amendment, but also the First and Second Amendments. The federal government has no business knowing what I read or how many guns I own.

The Justice Department’s own Inspector General has found that the FBI uses Section 215 powers tens of thousands of times per year, mostly targeted at innocent Americans.

This makes me suspect that the real purpose of Section 215 isn’t to protect me, but instead to allow the FBI to spy on, intimidate, and blackmail people it doesn’t like, just as it did in the J. Edgar Hoover days.

If you don’t want to be compared to J. Edgar, then don’t allow the FBI the power to invade the privacy of innocent Americans. Oppose renewal of Section 215. Instead, repeal the Patriot Act!

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

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…

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.

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.

LM: Do you believe that there will still be a “Tea Party” movement in 2013 if Obama is defeated by a Republican in 2012?

Rand Paul: I think the Tea Party Movement has staying power. I think it is an extraordinary movement because it wasn’t started by any one political leader or famous person. It truly started by itself in every individual city in Kentucky and every individual city across the country. One of the problems of it getting bigger is that they all are not connected, but it is also one of the beauties and powers of the movement is that it has so much spontaneous involvement of individual citizens around the country.

Whether or not it will last beyond that, I think it will have influence in the November elections and from that will decide. I think that it’s had a great influence in nominating Mike Lee in Utah and Sharon Angle in Nevada, and nominating me here in Kentucky. So there are at least three big statewide races that I think the tea party had great influence in.

LM: Last week the financial regulatory effort made headway with the Dodd-Frank “compromise” bill. The stated goal of the bill is to prevent another financial crisis. President Obama touted the new agency created by the bill by saying, “Now there will be one agency whose sole job will be to look out for you.” His remarks remind me of Reagan’s famous quote: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

Do you believe the newly created regulatory agency will truly be independent?

Rand Paul: No, and I would have opposed it had I been in Congress at the time. I think one of the things that the bill does is codifies and extends the government’s promise to bailout businesses that fail and I think that is a bad idea. I think that it’s great in capitalism that companies make profit, but when they are doing a poor job they should suffer from their poor decisions, not the tax payers.

LM: Do you believe the bill will be successful in thwarting the next financial crisis?

Rand Paul: No, and I think it may encourage more bad decisions and more crisis [and it will] allow businesses to make decisions where they do not have to suffer from the repercussions of bad decisions.

LM: I have described your candidacy as a kind of gateway drug for conservatives who may deem your father’s beliefs too extreme. I say this because you seem to have a unique ability to unite many libertarians and many neo-conservatives under the same umbrella. It is probably way too early to ask this question especially since you haven’t been elected to the Senate yet, but many of us in the liberty movement consider you to be a potential future presidential candidate. Much has to happen between now and that possibility, but is it something that you may consider should the opportunity present itself? Would you rule it out?

Rand Paul: Right now I have to focus on winning my first political office, so it’s hard to think about any other office. I do want to be part of a national movement that changes the way our government operates and right now I have to keep focused on the first objective and that’s winning the senate seat in Kentucky.

LM: Monday (June 28th) the Supreme Court is going to offer their opinion on the McDonald case. The case will decide if the 2nd Amendment applies to the states. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I recall, you have come out in support of applying it to the states.

Last year the Senate narrowly voted down an effort to institute nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity among those states that have concealed-carry provisions. Would you support such an effort if it came to the Senate floor again? How do you think the Supreme Court will rule in the McDonald case?

Rand Paul: I hope the McDonald case will find that we do have a 2nd Amendment right not to have cities or states prevent gun ownership. I do support concealed-carry legislation.

LM: You helped establish an eye clinic to operate on the less-fortunate and under-privileged in Kentucky. That is not something the Left and your opponent like to mention between their attacks on you, for obvious reasons. I realize the information is available on your website, but could you elaborate more on the clinic, your role in establishing it, its ongoing activities, and how it has helped people?

Rand Paul: I’ve been a member of the Lions Club for 17 years. About 15 years ago I formed a clinic called the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic. We see patients who don’t have insurance for routine eye exams as well as help them to buy eye glasses. In addition we do surgery for people who don’t have insurance at either a discounted rate or sometimes no cost. We’ve also brought children up from Central America and done surgery at no cost for them through our Lions Eye Clinic. It’s a way I see of giving back to the community.

LM: In my day job I fix computers and networks. I don’t have a single certification to do so, yet somehow the computers end up fixed. Recently, you have been attacked because you are no longer “board certified” in your profession as an ophthalmologist, yet you have a fledgling practice and have performed countless successful surgeries. Why are you not board certified and what does it have to do with you being a good or bad Senator?

Rand Paul: I took my board certification when I finished my training and passed it on the first try. I passed my boards three times during my residency. But I had a dispute with the board because I felt if re-certification was good for the public that all ophthalmologist, regardless of age should re-certify. They made a rule then only the younger ophthalmologists would re-certify. I made the point that if re-certification is good, perhaps the older physicians may need re-certifications more than the younger ones.

I’ve been practicing for 17 years, I’ve done over 5,000 cataract surgeries and have given good quality service to my patients here in the community and I think that is recognized. I think people take political cheap shots at me because it’s easy to take shots at me because the polls show they are well behind us and probably can’t beat me. They will continue to attack me in a personal nature and I think that is unfortunate that this type of activity occurs in politics.

LM: The media has treated you as a villain and your opponent Jack Conway has been treated with kid gloves thus far. Your primary campaign demonstrated that you fight back when you get attacked. Conway has had some questionable business dealings and campaign contributions as evidenced on the Jack Conway 2010 web site. Do you believe the media will eventually reveal these Conway flaws with the same vigor they are using to find fault and nitpick every single word you have ever said? Aren’t the Left the ones who want to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine?

Rand Paul: I think we’ll have to do a lot of the description of my opponents record through paid media, because I don’t think that the print media in Kentucky will objectively look at his record. There are several things that are troubling in his record. I think one of the most troubling is that he’s been deciding the utility rate cases, whether your rates go up or down, while receiving contributions from the utility companies. This appears to me to be a conflict of interest and shows very poor judgment from someone who is in office. I also think his reputation and past as a malpractice attorney suing doctors will not be very popular once that is well known in the state.

It’s kind of interesting that the Left feels that talk radio is so conservative now that they want to force radio stations to give them equal time. It doesn’t sound very much like they’re in favor of the 1st Amendment with trying to institute the Fairness Doctrine. I’m absolutely opposed to the Fairness Doctrine.

LM: There has been a litany of anti-freedom laws passed and unconstitutional policies made in recent years. Obama has continued many of the Bush policies regarding foreign policy. I recall Judge Andrew Napolitano saying, in an interview prior to Obama entering office, that he had hoped that Obama would be good on civil liberties and overturn (as he promised during his campaign) the Patriot Act or at least allow it to sunset. The Judge’s hope was unfounded when it was extended again. What is your position on the Patriot Act in particular, and executive power as it pertains to civil liberties, in general?

Rand Paul: I think that one of the tragedies of the 20th Century is that Presidential power has grown dramatically and Congressional power has correspondingly diminished. I think that the Patriot Act was a mistake, because I think that the 4th Amendment is a precious part of the Bill of Rights and we should protect the 4th Amendment. We don’t want to have unreasonable search and seizure of our houses without a judge’s warrant. That is a very important safeguard that was diminished by the Patriot Act. I think that the American people, if we were allowed to explain to them that the necessity of the 4th Amendment in protecting you from an overzealous government, would be on our side on this issue.

LM: You have the first big money bomb of your general election campaign coming up on Monday, June 28th. In addition to the money you will raise on that day, how much money overall do you think you’ll need to raise in order to beat Jack Conway in November and become U.S. Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky?

Rand Paul: We’ll need to raise between seven and ten million dollars in the next three to four months, which is a daunting challenge. I think we can do it if the Liberty movement will continue to support our money-bombs.

———-

This ends our second interview with Dr. Rand Paul. As he says, he’s going to need 7-10 million dollars to win. We liberty-lovers can help him on his way by donating right now.

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.

‘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.

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.

For instance, in 2008 CNN reports on a pilot who was on the “terror” watch list:

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) — James Robinson is a retired Air National Guard brigadier general and a commercial pilot for a major airline who flies passenger planes around the country.

He has even been certified by the Transportation Security Administration to carry a weapon into the cockpit as part of the government’s defense program should a terrorist try to commandeer a plane.

But there’s one problem: James Robinson, the pilot, has difficulty even getting to his plane because his name is on the government’s terrorist “watch list.”

This is not an isolated case. There have been numerous cases of mistaken identity where suddenly completely innocent people have found themselves on the “government’s” terror watch list. Here’s a more recent case of an 8-year old boy found on the list:

Najla Hicks, a photojournalist who was once cleared to fly with Vice President Al Gore, said the family was amused by the mistake at first but that quickly wore off and seven years later they are still trying to clear it up.

“I understand the need for security,” she added, “But this is ridiculous. It’s quite clear that he is 8 years old, and while he may have terroristic tendencies at home, he does not have those on a plane.”

The incompetence of so-called “watch lists” demonstrate the primary idiocy in any law attempting to prohibit guns from those on these government lists. However, there is perhaps an even stronger argument against infringing on the rights of government-labeled “terrorists” like innocent airline pilots and young children.

Do you think terrorists give any consideration to any law prohibiting them from doing anything? If that were the case the Twin Towers may still be standing today.

By nature, terrorists are criminals. Time, effort, and money spent on passing laws that will end up only applying to innocent people is time, effort, and money wasted. All of which are in short supply these days.

Ignoring their predilection for using bombs, not guns, yes, I’m absolutely in favor of permitting terrorists to own guns. If they are permitted to own guns then law-abiding citizens will be permitted to own guns and in the end, the law-abiding citizen is the best deterrent to terrorism.

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.

Guns – Guns are the great equalizer when it comes to defending yourself and your loved ones. I once feared guns. Now, guns are a part of my everyday life. Naturally, owning a gun isn’t enough. You also need to own ammunition for your gun. This was a problem last summer when the demand for ammunition skyrocketed following the election of gun-grabber Barack Obama.

As the demand went up supplies were severely limited and prices went up significantly as well. As I grew weary combing through all the big online ammo retailers for available ammunition at reasonable prices I came up with an idea.

Wouldn’t it be neat if there were a search engine specifically designed for ammunition shopping? I brought the idea to my friend and Liberty Maven colleague, Mike Miller, and a few months later we had an incredibly useful tool to help people find ammo for sale at multiple online retailers at once. You can search by caliber, grains, manufacturer, keyword, and sort it by cost per round. We call it AmmoSeek.com. Check it out and send us some feedback on the site.

Following the rise in ammo prices caused by the increasing demand for ammunition reveals to us the importance of the second ‘G’.

Gold – To put it simply, gold is money. Its value has never gone to zero. It is an insurance policy against inflation. It’s also very important to realize what it is not. It is not an investment. It’s not something to be traded like a stock. It is something you purchase, take ownership of, and store somewhere safe, just in case the future ends up being darker than the past.

With the Federal Reserve intent on printing obscene amounts of paper “money” it is hardly a stretch to believe that in the not too distant future every paper dollar you own will be worth less (perhaps much less) than it is worth today. Gold is a store of value. Trading in your paper money for gold and/or silver is a wise move no matter the price. Remember, you aren’t investing, you are purchasing an insurance policy when you buy precious metals.

I (and many many others) purchase our gold and silver from APMEX. They have great customer service and have excellent prices.

Gardens – Man (or woman) cannot live by precious metals and firepower alone. We need to eat and Au and Pb aren’t very appetizing nor all that healthy for longevity. This is where cultivating a vegetable garden becomes essential.

Making a self-sustaining garden can be done by seed-saving. Your harvest each year includes more than eating the delicious fruit and vegetables from your garden. You also harvest the seeds and save them properly for next year’s planting. We purchase our seeds and get our knowledge of seed-saving from Southern Exposure Seed Exchange. They have excellent customer service and their catalog is probably one of the most informative of any seed supplier.

Even if the dark future never materializes there is little doubt that your life will be more complete for having pursued the three G’s – guns, gold and gardens.

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 . . .

I’m very upset that the Democrats seem determined to subject us to the same mis-governance that caused the Republicans to lose their positions of power. Please take note of the following facts, from Rasmussen Reports . . .

* 58% of Americans say Congress is doing a poor job: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance
* The number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats has sunk to 35.5%, a 7 year low: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

I think this is because the Democrats, in their infinite arrogance, seem to determined to pass a cancerous healthcare bill that 52% of the American people still oppose: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Equally bad, the Democrats are continuing to behave exactly like the Republicans did. The Democrats promised us transparency, but have repeatedly failed to deliver it. They are now going to reconcile the Senate and House healthcare bills behind closed doors: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/healthcare-senate-house-democrats-obama.html

Nevertheless, we know exactly what will be happening behind this veil of secrecy. We know that deals will be struck to . . .

* Provide additional corporate welfare to special interests, like the insurance industry
* Reward powerful members of Congress
* And use our tax money to bribe other members of Congress to secure their votes

We know how you people operate, because the transparency you seek to deny us always ends up being provided anyway, courtesy of the Internet. For instance, we know about the special deals, rewards, and tax-funded bribes that were stuffed into the Senate bill . . .

* $100 million in extra Medicaid money for Louisiana, requested by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
* $100 million in Medicaid funding for Nebraska, to buy the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).
* Corporate welfare that also went to bribe Senator Nelson, for the benefit of Mutual of Omaha and other Nebraska insurers.
* $100 million for a medical center to reward Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)
* Senator Bill Nelson (D-Flo.) got a special deal that will allow Floridians to avoid the cuts to their pricey Medicare Advantage program that citizens from other states will have to endure.
* Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.) grabbed special Medicare coverage for people who may have been exposed to asbestos while working in a mine in Libby, Montana.
* Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) won more Medicare money for the kind of small hospitals that are common in his state
* Senators Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, both North Dakota Democrats, got higher Medicare payments for hospitals and doctors in their state
* The Democratic Senators from Hawaii secured higher payments to hospitals that treat large numbers of uninsured people.
* Michigan’s Democratic Senators won higher Medicare payments for their state as well as reduced fees for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
* And the socialist Independent, Sen. Bernie Sanders grabbed larger Medicaid payments for Vermont.

Dana Milbank has exposed the whole rotten story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/21/AR2009122102861.html

So much for equal treatment under the law. The American people fired the Republicans when they behaved this way, and they’re probably going to fire the Democrats too, later this year. But it’s not too late for the suicidal Democrats to save themselves. They can start by . . .

VOTING DOWN THE HEALTHCARE BILL!

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

And please consider making a contribution to further our work.

Perry Willis
Vice President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

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)