USA Today Vote on Second Amendment

I had this message emailed to me today:

USA TODAY IS TAKING A POLL ON 2ND AMENDMENT - GUN CONTROL

Obama's new Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with U S A Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the interested friends you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms. Here's what you need to do:

VOTE

The Question is: " Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?"
Answer choices are: Yes or No or Undecided then click on V OT E now white tab!

Obama's First 100 Days -- Connecticut Political Leadership Phone Numbers

The Democrat's and the Obama administration have no respect for the US Constitution, and the people of this country know it.

In Connecticut (my home state), requests for pistol permits are at all-time highs. In the town of Southington, permit request have already surpassed the total requests for the past 2 years, and we are only in April.

Nationwide, gun and ammo sales are soaring.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the people of this country have already sniffed out the attack on the US Constitution lead by Barack Obama, specifically his plans for attacking our second amendment rights.

Don't stand idly by and let it happen. We can feel the assault on our rights is coming (based on the permit and sales data), so be sure to do something about it. Fight for your legal rights. Join the NRA. It's not expensive. You can find a link to the NRA in the "Favorite Links" area of this website. Your membership comes with your choice of 3 good magazines. There are 60 million gun owners in the US today, but only 4 million active members of the NRA. This needs to change.

The left is great at demonstrating, protesting, and working up firestorms for their favorite issues (think of the anti-war protests during the Vietnam war, and even more recently the protests of the Iraq war). It's much easier for the left to cause disruption because they don't hold themselves to the rules of respect, decency, or even law (think of the criminals that tried to disrupt the 2008 Republican National Convention, or the criminal that recently attempted to hit best-selling writer Ann Coulter with a pie while she delivered a speech at a college campus). However, it's time for us on the right-of-center to take action with our voices, actions, and money.

The NRA is not just about guns. It's about protecting our Constitutional rights. If one of our individual civil rights (the second amendment) can be attacked, repealed, or destroyed, what's to stop them from moving on to other rights they don't like, such as freedom of speech (think Fairness Doctrine), freedom of peaceable assembly (think of the total disdain on the left for the recent "Tea Party" protests), and on and on and on.

I recently attended a game dinner held at a local church. The cost was $40 per ticket. The food started at 5:30 PM and did not stop coming until 10:30 PM. The menu included bear meatballs, venison steaks, venison lasagna, wild mushroom soup, pheasant, rabbit, goose, salmon, venison chili, and many other great dishes. It's one of the local highlights of spring in northwest Connecticut. I dare say there was possibly not one Obama voter in the crowd of 200+. If there was one, they would never admit it! The organizers of this dinner provided a list of phone numbers of local politicians so the voting public could remind our political leaders to honor the oath they took to uphold and protect the Connecticut and US Constitutions. I've provided a copy of the list below:

To Help Fight For Our Gun Rights Call:

1-800-842-8267 CT House of Representatives - D

1-800-842-1423 CT House of Representatives - R

1-800-842-1420 CT State Senate Democrats

1-800-842-1421 CT State Senate Republicans

1-800-406-1527 Gov. Jodi Rell

1-202-224-2823 U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd

1-202-224-4041 U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman

Risk of Confusing Ideas with Politics

I had an interesting conversation with a relative following Easter dinner this past Sunday. He is a long-time conservative who is a member of the Republican party. Like many conservatives and libertarian-leaning Republicans today, he has become frustrated and disenchanted with the GOP. He's approaching the point of defeat. His anger and frustration are directed at the Republican party, not the liberal Democrats. He feels that the Republicans have left him. This is not an uncommon theme these days among conservatives. Many conservatives would admit that the Republican party is lacking direction. The troubling thing about my relative was that his frustration with the GOP caused him to question his core principles. He was questioning capitalism. He was considering the benefits of socialism. He was sipping the Kool-Aid. Due to his distaste for our present group of politicians, he was ready to turn his back on all traditional politics only flail about aimlessly hoping to find something on which to politically attach himself. He had lost his compass.

Questioning yourself is not a negative thing. It's a sign of a healthy and true thinker to question, update, and revise views base on learning and life experiences. However, the reason my relative was questioning his beliefs was not a valid reason. He was confusing the Republican party with conservative beliefs. These two entities are separate. The Republican party can certainly make mistakes. The GOP is a political party, so by definition, it is influenced by politics. Politics involves compromise to get things done and to win elections. A core set of ideals is not compromising. They are bedrock. Regardless of what the Republican party does or does not do, conservative principles do not change. Conservatives principles are founded on equality, liberty, our founding documents, enumeration of powers, and limited government (among other things). Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Regan are titans of conservatism. Historically, the Republican party has tended to align with these conservative principles, but there is never any guarantee. For various reasons, the party may not always stay true to these principles. However, if these principles are truly part of your core beliefs, your DNA, then the actions of any political party should not impact those beliefs.
So, question yourself. Explore. Read. Learn. Revise. But don't let the politicians impact your value system.

Hartford Tax Day Tea Party

Tea parties are popping up all over the country. There are over 400 tea parties planned for tax day, April 15th, to protest bloated government spending, overbearing government intrusion, and the continual attack on the rights of the individual.

In the spirit of 1773, when patriots also protested oppressive government, consider joining your fellow countrymen in a show of strength, liberty, and independence. Information below:

What: Tea party protest

Where: North steps of the Capitol building, Hartford CT

When: 12-2 PM, April 15th 2009

Government Violated A-Rod's Trust

Note: Author is a Red Sox fan.

Alex Rodriguez has a right to be mad. Out of 104 players that tested positive in the supposedly secret and anonymous 2003 MLB steroid testing, his was the only name leaked from the court sealed results.

The government and MLB is presently on a steroids witch-hunt with pending criminal investigations against retired star pitcher Roger Clemens and out-of-work star outfielder Barry Bonds, as well as actual charges filed against all-star infielder Miguel Tejada. However, investigation into the government leaks of supposedly anonymous tests that were sealed under court order have been slower in coming. Perhaps something is in-process on this, but thus far, not much is being mentioned about the lies told to players regarding the testing. The players union agreed to the testing under the auspices that the results would not be shared. This has clearly been violated. Furthermore, the court order sealing the results has also been violated.

This is not just a matter of embarrassment for Alex Rodriguez and the union. This will impact A-Rod financially. His name has been sullied which will certainly cost him endorsement money. If the travails of Mark McGuire are any indication, this could also cost A-Rod election into baseball's hall of fame. It's hard to come down on the side of illegal drug users, but even criminals have rights. This information should never have been made public.

Some may argue that A-Rod took the illegal drugs, so he's getting what he deserves. The argument is that regardless of how it come out, and regardless of the repercussions, in the end justice is served. To me, that's not the issue. A-Rod's rights were violated. He, and all the players in MLB were lied to. If the testing was truly for the purposes of understanding the impact of steroids, samples should have been collected without traceability, i.e. no identification should have been put on the samples to trace a particular sample back to a particular player. The samples should then have been destroyed. Major League Baseball, lead by the commissioner, has struck out on this one.

I rarely come down on the side of unions, but I hope the players union sues MLB for this violation.

MLB is one thing, but what's the government's culpability in this matter? The results were sealed under court order. Courts are part of the judicial branch, and the last I checked, the judicial branch is part of the government. In my mind, the players, specifically A-Rod, may have a case against the government. The government was responsible for keeping the results secret. They were entrusted with this data. They broke that trust. What if the blood tests showed a player had an embarrassing disease or condition not related to baseball performance that he wished to keep private? Would it be acceptable for that information to be leaked too? This situation is a great argument for the civil libertarians that are against the government collecting data on citizens. This plays into the whole government sponsored health care debate. President Obama is presently pushing for a program to digitize all patients health records to improve medical industry efficiency. Based on how well the government kept the MLB steroid testing data, would you trust this same government to keep your health records safe? Imagine your health records are leaked to your employer. Imagine your insurance company dropping you after getting a look at your government leaked health records. In the state in which I reside, they require a finger print in order to own a hand gun. I can understand the good intentions of such a rule, but I don't want the government to even have my fingerprint data on record. Who's to say that this could not be inappropriately used against me in the future? People scoff, but it could happen. I may sound a bit paranoid, but take a moment to consider all the corruption in government brought to light just in the last year (e.g. Blogo, Geitner, Dodd, Frank, Daschle, Hartford mayor Perez, former CT governor Rowland, ACORN etc, etc, etc). I may fall on the paranoid side, but someone who thinks the government is fully on the "up-and-up" is naive.

This is yet another example of why the government can not be trusted. They can not be trusted with our personal data, our medical data, or our dollars.

Right and Wrong Is Irrelevant This Time In Israel-Gaza Fight

Why there is any question as to what the US stance should be in the current fight between Israel and Hamas is baffling. In an increasingly complicated world, the citizens of the United States have seemingly lost sight of who is the enemy. Back in the “good ole days”, determining the enemy was easy. In WWII the Germans and the Japanese were clearly the enemies. Through the cold war the Soviet Union and communists were the enemies. Now, with the end of the cold war and the fall of the Soviet Union it appears people are not able to see the enemy. Let me help remind everyone: Muslim-based governments and Islamic extremists are THE enemy! They are responsible for nearly every military conflict across the world. Hamas represents Muslim-based government, terrorism, and extremism. Israel is the ONLY responsible government in the Middle East.

Imagine you are walking down the street and you see a fist fight between Adolf Hitler and The Pope. Would you stop to figure out who started the fight? No! You don’t care who started it, or even who’s right and who’s wrong. You would immediately help The Pope.

In this way, the citizens of the United States should be fully backing Israel in their fight against the Hamas terrorists. We don’t even need to know all the details to know this is the right think to do. It’s possible that Israel may have taken some inappropriate actions that could put them in the wrong. In this fight, it does not matter. If you think the Middle East is unstable now, imagine the Middle East if the one free and viable government in the region were removed.

2nd Amendment Protects Citizens From Incompetence As Well As Tyranny

The recent shooting in Mumbai, India could have been controlled. The bloodshed could have been significantly reduced, and maybe eliminated. The Islamic terrorists in Mumbai walked though the crowded city unimpeded by anyone. Due to laws making it close to impossible to get a firearm in India, the security guards in the various hotels and buildings were unarmed. The few police that were not fleeing only had bamboo sticks in which to fight back. Citizens only had stones in which to hurl at the attackers.

You can search the blogosphere and find several sites pointing out how if the Indian citizenry had the right to own guns, this disaster could have been largely abated. Putting that fact aside, regardless of what the citizens could have done had their rights not been impeded, the Indian government had absolutely no police or security force equipped to handle such an incident. Mumbai had no SWAT teams. No special forces units. They did not even have armed police officers! This goes beyond gun control. This is plain incompetence.

Imagine what the police response would have been to a similar incident in an American city. The terrorists my have been able to attack one place, but they would never get out. Even if the citizens did not defend themselves, police and SWAT teams would have surrounded the attackers in minutes. Streets would have been cordoned off. Snipers would have been on rooftops. Tear gas canisters would have been at the ready. A serious police force did not even arrive in Mumbai until the next day. Can you imagine gunmen running around Manhattan without any police resistance for an entire 24 hours?! It would never happen because the governments (local, state, and national) have some level of competence when it comes to fighting crime. It is hardly perfect, but comparatively, it is excellent.

Previous to this tragic incident, I had only thought of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution as a tool against government tyranny. However, after this incident I have come to realize that the Second Amendment is indeed protection against government incompetence as well as tyranny. It's now evident that the Indian government cannot be trusted to competently protect their citizenry. Therefore, the Indian people, and all people, should have a right to keep and bear arms similar to the rights spelled out in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Episodes such as the Mumbai shooting, and 9-11, prove the danger of putting too much blind trust in government to provide protection for you and your family. A person needs the right to protect themselves in situations in which the government cannot.

Governmental Erosion of Personal Liberty -- Connecticut Town Institutes Smoking Ban on Public Street

As Reported in the Hartford Courant: Bristol, CT -- Bristol Considers Smoking Ban On Public Streets

-

I'm not a smoker. I never have been and I never will be, so as far smoking goes, I have no horse in this race. However, I am a citizen that is concerned with governmental intrusion into our lives. Smoking is generally unpopular, so it's an easy target. When government over reaches it's bounds in any direction, it's dangerous for all of us. An attack on the freedoms of one group encroaches on the freedoms of all.

The town of Bristol, Connecticut has banned smoking on a small town road (Newell Road), and is considering implementing a smoking ban on all city streets that boarder parks, schools, libraries, and hospitals. Outside. A total ban. OUTSIDE folks!

Smoking generally does not bother me (as a non-smoker) as much as it tends to bother other non-smokers. I tend to agree that smoking bans in indoor public venues are generally a good idea. However, when is enough enough?! The nanny-state already "protects" us from ourselves with seat belt laws, transfat bans, indoor smoking bans, "unhealthy" snack bans in schools, and various blue laws. Now they are moving to smoking bans outside in public places?! We're not talking about an outdoor concert or the like where people are gathered outdoors in close proximity. We're talking about a general ban.

I've written about bans before on this blog. I don't like them. Bans are dangerous. My frustration is that the general public seems to willingly give up their personal liberties with nary a peep.

This smoking ban may be unconstitutional. What's worse is that it just makes no sense. Who is the mayor of Bristol trying to protect? With huge budget deficits facing the state of Connecticut, and perhaps the town of Bristol, perhaps the mayor should be concerned with real issues rather than attacking personal freedoms for political showmanship.

Majority Should Not Rule On Gay Marriage

You may have heard that Connecticut (my home state) became the third state to allow gay marriages. The state supreme court ruled in favor of gay marriage in a 4-3 split decision. This quick post is not about the issue of gay marriage. If you wish to read the details of the Connecticut decision, you can go to the Hartford Courant, or some other news source, to get the full story. I've included a link below.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-gaymarriage1011.artoct11,0,5399554.story

This post is about understanding the risk of tyranny of the majority.

One of the arguments put forth by gay marriage opponents in Connecticut is that gay marriage is not supported by the majority of voters in Connecticut. Their argument is that courts should not decide the issue. They wish to put it to a state-wide referendum, knowing full well that gay marriage would be rejected in such a referendum.

At first glance, one might argue that a state-wide referendum makes sense. After all, this is a democracy. Majority rules, right?

However, even in a democracy there are some issues that can not be left up to the people. This might seem to some like democratic blasphemy. However, I leave you with this thought: What would have been the outcome if the issue of slavery were put to state-wide referendums in the mid-1800s?

Our founding fathers were wise to understand the risks of a direct democracy. I hope that risk is still understood today.