They are Coming for our Guns

Anytime there is a nationally reported shooting you can always count on the lefty gun-grabbers to start falling out of the rafters and, in unison, begin screaming for even more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.

Notice I didn't say more restrictions on criminals, because the gun-snatchers don't care about criminals and their guns. After all, no gun law ever passed has ever kept a gun out of the hands of a determined criminal, and they know this, but it doesn't matter to them. Besides, the government pretty much knows who and where the criminals are, and they can round them up anytime they like.

No, the guns they fear and are working toward grabbing are the guns owned by you and me.

In the wake of the tragic shooting that recently took place in Tucson, the anti-gunners have wasted no time in pushing for even more restrictions on firearm ownership. Of course, further restrictions will do nothing to prevent future Tucsons from happening, but it does get the American sheeple more and more used to the idea of firearm regulation by the federal government - never mind that the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate firearms to begin with.

In the days leading up to President Obama's SOTU address, many lefties in the MSM were expressing hope he was going to propose tougher gun restrictions. I, too, was expecting Obama to do so, but for whatever reason, that didn't happen.

That is not to say that the current administration isn't planning on exploiting the Arizona tragedy to further advance their anti-gun agenda. On the contrary, they are presently gearing up to do exactly that.

Via newsweek.com (emphasis mine):

At the beginning of his State of the Union address, President Obama tipped his hat to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who’s now recuperating in a Houston medical facility. But throughout the hourlong speech, he never addressed the issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy—gun control—and what lawmakers would, or should, do to reform American firearm-access laws.

[...]

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

Tuesday night after the speech, Obama adviser David Plouffe said to NBC News that the president would not let the moment after the Arizona shootings pass without pushing for some change in the law, to prevent another similar incident. “It’s a very important issue, and one I know there’s going to be debate about on the Hill.”

You will find the rest at this link.

I am not aware of any state that allows people who have a history of mental instability to legally purchase a firearm. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but I would be willing to bet it is a fairly rare occurrence. And even if a background check causes a licensed dealer to reject the sale, that isn't going to stop the would-be criminal from obtaining a firearm from other sources. No law that could ever be written would prevent that.

Many of my fellow conservatives appear to be taking comfort in the fact that the republicans now have control of the House of Representatives, and this somehow means there will be no further restrictions imposed on gun ownership for at least the next two years.

I'm not so sure about that, as if there is one stark lesson history has taught us about government, it is that the larger and more powerful government becomes, the more corrupt and tyrannical it becomes, and the party affiliation of those running it doesn't seem to matter all that much.

Our founders new how evil and tyrannical big government could be, which is why they strove to place limits on it in our nation's founding document.

Sadly, we have strayed so far from that original ideal that we now have government taking half of what we earn and giving it to others, bureaucrats telling us what kind of cars we may own, what kind of light bulbs we may use, what we can and cannot eat, how much energy we may use, what doctors we can and cannot see, and molesting our daughters and feeling up our wives at our airports.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

The way things are going in America these days, I can easily envision a day when our God-given 2nd Amendment rights might very well be the only thing standing between us and a tyrannical, oppressive government. However, if we continue to allow said government to chip away at those rights, we are going to wake up one morning and find ourselves to be little more than government slaves.

Don't think it can't happen here. As recently as five years ago, I didn't think something like Barack Hussein Obama could happen here, either.

SCOTUS Upholds 2nd Amendment - Barely

The ruling was 5-4 in favor. What concerns me is that four of the nine justices sitting on the highest court in the land are all reading, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"  and seeing something else.

This one was a little too close for comfort.

Make that way too close.

Illegal Criminal Invaders Threaten to Kill Americans

Somehow I do not think this is going to end well.

For them, I mean.


(h/t: My freind Eowyn at Fellowship of the Minds)

Kagan the Kommie Gun Grabber

Via Bloomberg.com:

Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.

Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the high court this week, made the comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against hearing the District of Columbia man’s appeal.

The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”

You can read the entire article here at this link.

Hmm. She is a devout socialist, and isn't too fond of freedom of speech, either.

This woman has absolutely no business sitting on the highest court in the land.

FBI Raids in Three States

Via Foxnews.com:

ADRIAN, Michigan -- The FBI said Sunday that agents conducted weekend raids in three states and arrested at least three people, and a militia leader in Michigan said the target of at least one raid was a Christian militia group.

The raids took place in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio, the FBI said. Federal warrants were sealed, but a federal law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity said some of those arrested face gun charges and officials are pursuing other suspects. Some of the suspects were expected in court Monday.

FBI spokeswoman Sandra Berchtold confirmed the FBI had been working in two southeast Michigan counties near the Ohio state line. FBI spokesman Scott Wilson in Ohio said agents arrested two people Saturday after raids in two Ohio towns.

A third arrest made in northeast Illinois on Sunday stemmed from a raid Saturday just over the border in northwest Indiana, both part of an ongoing investigation led by the FBI in Michigan, according to a statement from agents in Illinois.

It wasn't clear what prompted the raids, but Michael Lackomar, a spokesman for the Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia, said one of his team leaders got a frantic phone call Saturday evening from members of Hutaree, a Christian militia group. They said their property in southwest Michigan was being raided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, according to Lackomar.

You will find the rest of the story at this link.

Detnews.com has more on this here.

My friend Eowyn at Fellowship of the Minds has still more here.

I don't know what to make of this as yet, as there isn't much information available. More will probably be coming out tomorrow after those who were arrested make their court appearances.

This could be a legitimate law enforcement operation by the feds, or something else.

One thing is certain: I am going to be very interested in seeing exactly what laws these people will be alleged to have violated.

I am quite sure I will not be alone in that.

(h/t: Everybody who emailed this story to me)

Creeping Freedom and Liberty

Via Jeremy Lott at Real Clear Politics:

I first began to see the full scope of these victories last month when I had lunch with a serious libertarian historian of campaign finance law. It was the eve of the Citizens United decision, which would effectively scrap most restrictions on independent campaign spending by individuals, groups, and corporations. He told me that if the ruling came down as expected -- and it did -- then he might have to find himself a different line of work. Mission accomplished.

The lawsuit that tore down most of our restrictive campaign finance laws was brought by a conservative filmmaker with an ax to grind against Hillary Clinton. The basis of arguing against that law was laid out by libertarian legal scholars who pointed out that the free speech clause of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law...") is clear. Libertarians argued that the case against prohibiting corporations from taking part in campaigns was specious. It didn't matter if it was an individual speaking or people speaking corporately. The real rub was whether the government can silence speech.

And they painted the argument that money isn't speech as a bit of liberal naivete. After all, money makes the mass exercise of speech possible. Wendy Kaminer wrote in The Atlantic that "as a practical matter, money is speech" and, the clincher, "Few reproductive choice advocates would insist that money isn't choice."

As with the First Amendment, so with the Second. The 2008 Heller decision, which finally and unambiguously stated that law abiding U.S. citizens have a "right to keep and bear arms," was the result of several lawsuits, included one launched by scholars associated with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, and argued by libertarian lawyer Alan Gura. Cato thought its role in the case so important that it commissioned the book Gun Control on Trial.

You will find the entire article at this link.

While these may be small victories against ever-advancing government tyranny, they are victories just the same, and I find them to be not a little encouraging given this nation's often seemingly steadfast determination to imitate the Roman Empire in committing suicide.

I have often said that America was founded by people who were essentially libertarians, and if this nation is to be saved, it will be libertarian principles that ultimately save it.

There may be hope for America yet.

(h/t: Boortz.com)

Photo credit: ncrider.com.

N.C. Town to Residents: To Hell with the Constitution

In case you have been snowed in without power and haven't heard, on Friday, the residents of King, North Carolina, came under a "state of emergency" declared by the town's City Council due to the approaching bad weather.

This state of emergency automatically activated a state law that, according to the town's Chief of Police, automatically installs a curfew, restricts the sale of alcohol, and prohibits the transport of firearms in vehicles if a "driving ban" is called for as part of the "emergency."

A driving ban was included between midnight and 5am in this case, meaning that town residents were only allowed to bear arms on their own premises, and were thus prohibited from transporting them in their vehicles.

You can see the WXII12.com story here.

Here is an interesting video I found on YouTube:



Of course, many residents of the town were incensed at having their constitutional rights shat upon in such a tyrannical fashion, and expressed their displeasure in no uncertain terms.

Hopefully the residents of King, as well as citizens all across North Carolina, will now realize that elections do have consequences, and respond by removing the idiot politicians who are responsible for this unconstitutional action from office at their next opportunity. Perhaps sooner.

I see what happened in King this weekend to be a stark precursor to what life in Obama's Amerika could very well be like in the near future, as given the tyrannical leanings of those currently in power in D.C., I could easily envision something like this happening on a national scale.

The lesson here is that those of us to whom freedom and liberty still matter must remain ever vigilant, lest something similar happen to us.

You can read more about it here.

Cass Sunstein Must Go

I am not sure exactly what rock Comrade Chairman Obama found this goober of a "Regulatory Czar" under, but I think it is long past time this freedom-hating waste-of-sperm was run off for good. How he came to attain his lofty position, as well as which congressional idiots voted to confirm his rising thereto, matters not at all at this point.

He has to go. Like yesterday.

Via WND:

In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing."

Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate "extremists who supply conspiracy theories" to disrupt the efforts of the "extremists" to propagate their theories.

I think you get the idea.

You can read the entire WND article here.

This goober-cheese takes far-left radical to a heretofore unseen level.

Obviously the 1st Amendment is totally lost on this mindless moron, as it is to the former community agitator who appointed him. The fact that Barack Hussein Obama placed him in his current position should have freedom-loving Americans hitting the streets in droves, not just in protest of Sunstein, but of his Oval Office benefactor, who took an oath upon his inauguration to preserve, protect, as well defend, the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Obama is failing miserably in all three areas.

Cass Sunstein is clearly a kook, and has no business occupying a place of authority in a free republic.

Though our founders were not aware of Cass Sunstein specifically, they were not a little unfamiliar with his type.

Perhaps that familiarity was what helped ultimately prompt the 2nd Amendment.

Will Hasan's Rampage Mean Yet Another Assault on the 2nd Amendment?

It seems every time there is a senseless shooting (and even times when they are not so senseless) there is no shortage of gun-grabbers waiting in the wings, gearing up to use the latest tragedy to try and push through a new wrinkle intended to further interfere in our constitutional right to "keep and bear arms."

Never mind that no gun law ever written has kept a gun out of the hands of a criminal who sought one, but that doesn't matter to the anti-freedom crowd, and make no mistake, that is exactly what they are.

You see, it has never been so much that we 2nd Amendment supporters love guns so much as it is that we love freedom, and if you have even been paying any attention at all to the history of the last 300 years or so, those who surrender their firearms soon after forfeit their freedom, and some their very lives.

What happened at Ft. Hood was indeed a tragedy, and could have been stopped much sooner than it was, but not because of the availability of firearms, but due to the lack of them.

Via Reason.org (emphasis mine):

When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan started shooting up the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Pfc. Marquest Smith dove under a desk. A.P. reports that “he lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun.”

Neither Smith nor the other victims of Hasan’s assault had guns because soldiers on military bases within the United States generally are not allowed to carry them. Last week’s shootings, which killed 13 people and wounded more than 30, demonstrated once again the folly of “gun-free zones,” which attract and assist people bent on mass murder instead of deterring them.

Judging from the comments of those who support this policy of victim disarmament, Smith’s desire for a gun was irrational. According to Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, “This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.”

Note how the reference to “a heavily fortified army base” obscures the crucial point that the people attacked by Hasan were unarmed as a matter of policy. Also note the breathtaking inanity of Helmke’s assurance that “more guns” are not “the solution to gun violence.” In this case, they assuredly were.

You will find the entire article here.

To me, the one glaring irony in this tragic occurrence is that, on one of America's largest military installations, and eight years into a war, it took a civilian police officer to drop the rampaging goon, but not until he had caused the deaths of fourteen human beings, and the wounding of nearly forty others.

If someone chooses not to own a firearm, that is just fine with me, but I don't want anyone else, especially the government, making that decision for me.

I have a sneaking suspicion that along the way, several of the gun-grabbers out there are going to find themselves cowering under their bed one night, frantically dialing 911 and praying the government is going to arrive in time to save their ass, along with those of their loved ones.

I bet more than a few of them will be wishing, just as Pfc. Smith did, that they had a gun.

Montana to Feds: Back the Hell Off

The State of Montana is calling BS on federal gun laws in a really big way, and it appears they are willing to invoke their 10th Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States, if necessary:

The law provides guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana would not require any federal forms; silencers made and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered; and there would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required.


The idea is spreading quickly. Tennessee already has a similar law, and similar plans have been introduced in Alaska, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Minnesota and Michigan. Lawmakers in nearly 20 other states have such plans in the works.

You can read the entire WorldNetDaily article here.

All I can say is God bless 'em and more power to 'em.

I just wish my home state of Georgia was on that list.

McCain Decides Against Sotomayor

As I noted previously, Sen. John McCain was somewhat befuddled as to whether or not he was going to cast his Senate vote to confirm a racist gun-grabber for a seat on the SCOTUS.

He apparently has decided to vote no:



What I find difficult to understand is, what exactly was it that took him so long to make up his mind?

Of course, Sotomayor is going to easily slide right into a seat on the SCOTUS, as the Senate is currently controlled by a party that has all but forgotten the highest law in the nation, but I would prefer that no republicans, not even RINOs like McCain, vote to help put her there.

Nice to see that at least one RINO got this one right.

McCain Undecided on Sotomayor?

Gee, what a surprise:

Sen. John McCain says he is still on the fence when it comes to voting for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

McCain says he is examining Sotomayor's record as an appeals court judge to decide whether she understands the limits to judicial power. He voted against her when she was nominated to the appeals court.

A Senate vote is expected this week.

You can read the rest of the Newsmax.com blurb here.

As a freedom- loving Ammurrican, I am having a really hard time understanding what there is to be undecided about when it comes to this racist, gun-grabbing, constitutionally challenged SCOTUS nominee.

To me, it's really quite simple:

Just say no.

Who Says Ingenuity Is Dead In America?

You hear it all the time these days, especially from your older relatives, that good old Ammurrican ingenuity is dead and buried forever. They say we have gone soft, gotten lazy, and have just become generally a mediocre kind of nation, no-longer interested in sending people deep into space to explore other planets, nor even creating a better mousetrap. Permanent malaise has set in, some will say.

Too a certain extent, I believe this is true, but I suspect many innovations that could be brought about have been stifled not so much due to the lack of creativity on the part of the American people, but instead due to heavy-handed, pain-in-the-ass, nanny-state government regulations, as well as the massive herds of trial lawyers milling about, just waiting for the next Corvair, Pinto, or faulty can-opener to hit the market.

With our economy heading straight for the abyss, one of the more difficult businesses to be in right now is the automobile/truck business. With millions of Americans losing their jobs, much higher lending standards now in place, and the occasionally spiking gas prices, selling vehicles is a tough job.

I should know, because that is what I was doing up until last October. I was new to the business, and still learning the tricks of the trade, as the industry I had been in and around for nearly three decades, the engineering/land surveying/construction business pretty much went to hell here in 2007. Unfortunately, $4+/gal at the pump, the mortgage "crises," and the resulting credit crunch combined to knock me out of my new career choice.

I knew I could sell cars, as I had sold enough to convince myself that I could make it in a "normal" market, but we weren't in a normal market. As the showroom traffic soon reduced to a mere trickle, and credit started getting really tight, I wasn't able to get most of the customers I did have qualified for the financing.

Well, one truck dealer in Missouri has come up with an interesting way to boost his showroom traffic, and hopefully sales, in these tough economic times.

His pitch? Buy a truck and get an AK-47 for free.

Yep, just buy a truck from Mark Muller, owner of Max Motors in Butler, Mo., and he will hand you a voucher for a free AK-47, or the gun of your choice from your local firearms dealer, so long as it is $450 or less.

Of course, you will have to pass the required federal background check in order to receive your voucher, so there is no need for you convicted felons and such to rush upstairs and start frantically packing for the drive out to Missouri, as you will be wasting your time-not to mention a lot of expensive gas.

Personally, I'd probably go for a Glock in something like, say, .45 ACP, but that is just me.

I think this is a great idea on the part of Mr. Muller, and if I lived out in Missouri and was in the market for a new truck, I would definitely have to scope out his dealership.

After all, ingenuity such as his deserves to be rewarded.


(h/t: Mike Sargent @ NewsBusters.org)

Sotomayor Is a Gun Grabber, but the NRA Can't Make Up It's Mind

Yeah, right. You could have knocked me over with a feather (emphasis is mine):

The National Rifle Association says it has very serious concerns about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor based on her rulings on weapons rights.

But NRA Executive Director Chris W. Cox tells senators in a letter that his group is not yet ready to officially oppose Sotomayor.

Cox says Sotomayor's ruling as an appeals court judge that the Second Amendment prohibition against curbs on the right to bear arms only limits the federal government — not states — is extremely troubling. He says the judge has been "dismissive" of gun rights.

The letter urges senators to question Sotomayor on the Second Amendment during upcoming hearings. Cox says the NRA will oppose confirmation if her answers are hostile or evasive.

You can read the entire Newsmax article here, but I have posted the relevant part above.

So, Cox says the NRA is not yet ready to oppose this woman?

When will they be ready? Will it be after she is seated on the SCOTUS and votes to uphold a repeal of the 2nd Amendment?

This woman has no business having a seat on the highest court in the land.

Now you know why I left the NRA back in the late 1990's, and haven't looked back since.

Do Gun Grabbers Ever Sleep?

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has introduced legislation ostensibly designed to make it tougher for firearms to fall into the hands of anyone that is considered to be a "known or suspected dangerous terrorist."

To those not "plugged in" to the way government thinks, at first glance, H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 seems perfectly reasonable, as who would possibly object to putting up road blocks to keep firearms out of the hands of those who harbor ill intentions?

The problem is, government gets to define who among us actually falls into the category of a "known or suspected dangerous terrorist."

This proposed legislation:

... permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any "known or suspected dangerous terrorist." The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is "appropriately suspected" of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general "has a reasonable belief" that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.

Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being "dangerous."

"[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process," objected Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "A 'known terrorist?' Look, if the guy has committed an act of terrorism, we shouldn't have to worry about him being able to buy a gun; he should be in jail!"

Pratt further warned WND of the potential overlap of H.R. 2159 and a recent DHS memo that warned against potential violence from "right-wing extremists," such as those concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty.

"By those standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists," Pratt said. "This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."

You can find Drew Zahn's entire WorldNetDaily article here.

The way this clearly unconstitutional bill is worded, it might just mean that we conservatives could very well be denied our God-given, constitutionally-protected 2nd Amendment rights, based on the opinion of a liberal government bureaucrat.

Stay tuned.

Kill Bill HR 45

Former Black Panther and current Democrat congress critter from Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush has introduced HR 45, the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009, a bill clearly designed to screw with law-abiding gun owners in every conceivable way.

Some of the provisions contained within this hideous piece of legislation include:

• All firearms must be eventually registered, not just new ones
  
• All firearm owners must be licensed by government
  
• You must supply a current driver's license
• You must be fingerprinted
• You must supply a social security number
• You must be willing to submit to a physical and mental exam any time the government chooses
• Each time you buy or sell a firearm, the sale must be recorded, and you will be charged a $25 fee for updating your records
• The government will have the right to enter your home and check to see if you are storing your firearm(s) in a manner the government finds acceptable
  

There is much more, and you can read the entire bill here.

I am not going to get all hot an bothered over this just yet, as Bobby Rush isn't exactly a congressional leader, and he himself was convicted in 1969 on an illegal weapons charge and spent six months in the slammer. As of this posting there are no co-sponsors of HR 45.

My guess is it will languish and be left to die in committee, as the American people are in no mood for additional gun control measures at the moment, particularly those that are so obviously aimed at future confiscation, as Rush's bill so clearly is.

Per his Discoverthenetworks write-up linked above: (bolds are mine)

Rush is also among the staunchest congressional supporters of gun control. He has proposed legislation that would regulate the sale and purchase of bullets. "Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned," said Rush, "…that's the endgame."

-Yes, I am quite sure you would, you freedom-hating, gun-grabbing hypocrite.

As noted above, I doubt this lunacy will ever make it out of committee, but given my observations over the last 107 days, anything is possible with this current crop of congress-critters, not to mention the fondness for all things totalitarian exhibited by the Obama administration.

Nonetheless, this most definitely bears watching.

Cass Sunstein: Freedom Hater of the First Order

While the White House and its dog-washers in the Main Stream Media (MSM) has the American-Idol watching American sheeple all hot and bothered (as in distracted) over the "coercive interrogation" of our enemy's operatives (who wish to convert or kill every man, woman and child in this country) low-flying lunacy in the skies above New York City, and the swine flu "crisis," our 44th POTUS has nominated a man by the name of Cass Sunstein to head up the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

This man has all the qualifications required to warm the heart of even the most tepid Obama supporter: (bolds are mine)

• In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.
  
  
• In his book "Radicals in Robes," he wrote: "[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms."
  
  
• In his 2004 book, "Animal Rights," he wrote: "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …"
  
  
• In "Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer," he wrote "[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture."

Yeah, this man comes complete with "kook" tattooed to his forehead.

But there is more, as Sunstein appears to have a real problem with the 1st Amendment as well: (bolds are mine)

Sunstein first proposed the notion of imposing mandatory "electronic sidewalks" for the Net. These "sidewalks" would display links to opposing viewpoints. Adam Thierer, senior fellow and director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom at the Progress and Freedom Center, has characterized the proposal as "The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet..."

"...We propose a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the e-mail you're about to send is angry and caution you, 'warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. do you really and truly want to send it?'" they wrote. "(Software already exists to detect foul language. What we are proposing is more subtle, because it is easy to send a really awful e-mail message that does not contain any four-letter words.) A stronger version, which people could choose or which might be the default, would say, 'warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. this will not be sent unless you ask to resend in 24 hours.' With the stronger version, you might be able to bypass the delay with some work (by inputting, say, your Social Security number and your grandfather’s birth date, or maybe by solving some irritating math problem!)."

Yeah right, Sunstein, that'll be the day.

Not surprisingly, our 44th POTUS, who never once uttered the word freedom during the two-year long campaign, and who got hooked up with this gomer at the University of Chicago Law School, thinks right highly of Mr. Sunstein: (bolds are mine)

"As one of America's leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics," said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. "He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration's regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team."

Constitutional scholar? Sounds more like a Constitutional slaughterer. At least Obama managed to get one thing right, even without his teleprompter:

This is most definitely a crucial stage in our history, and is rapidly approaching damn near critical.

You can read WorldNetDaily's full article on Sunstein here.

Seton Motley at NewsBusters has more.

I don't have to tell you that, as a freedom-loving American, Cass Sunstein scares the hell out of me. As I see it, this man has no place in a position of authority in anything even loosely resembling a free country.

Friends, over the last three-plus months, our hard-won freedoms and liberties have come under assault unlike any other since the founding of our nation. If the American people do not start to catch on to what is really happening to the America we all know and love, and soon, we are going to all be waking up one morning in a very different country, and many are going to be wondering what the hell happened?

Sunstein is an Orwellian nightmare looking for a place to happen, but he cannot get in without Senate approval. I urge you to contact your U.S. Senators, and let them know that, outside of being Bo Obama's official dog-washer, this man has no business holding a position of authority anywhere in the federal government.

The American Conservative Union has started a website called STOPSUNSTEIN.COM, where you can sign a user-editable petition.

While I am sure Obama's Blackberry has the names of hundreds more just like Sunstein, and he would undoubtedly pick another lackey just like him, we can at least send the message to Washington that we aren't going to just bend over while the freedoms that so many of our ancestors fought, and often died to preserve, are taken from us.

Last time I checked, We the People are still in charge of this country, not Them the Government.

The San Francisco based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not exactly known for its conservative decisions. In fact, they aren't even known as followers of U.S. Supreme Court precedents, as it is one of the more liberal federal appeals courts in the nation, so much so that many refer to it as the 9th Circus Court.

What completely shocked me was its recent ruling that came out mostly (gasp!) in support of the 2nd Amendment.

No joke.

(Bolds are mine)

The new ruling from the usually liberal 9th Circuit said Alameda County in California was allowed to ban guns at its facilities, but in general the 2nd Amendment provision for Americans to keep and bear arms applies not to just federal gun limits but local rules as well.

Bob Unruh over at WorldNetDaily has the whole story here.

Sometimes, life truly is stranger than fiction.

Loading Your Own May Soon Be Verboten

Yep, our Imperial Federal Government is at it again, trying new and ever more inventive ways to interfere with the 2nd Amendment rights of us law-abiding Americans.

Apparently President Obama is interested in reviving the "INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS" treaty, which was signed by Bill Clinton during his presidency, but was never ratified by the Senate.

Should this treaty be put into place, you could very well be required to have a government issued license to load your own ammo.

What is even worse, it would allow Obama to by-pass congress completely and impose any restrictions on gun owners that he wishes.

Bob Unruh has a complete write up on this at WorldNetDaily, which you can read here.

Why is it I see another one of those middle-of-the-night Senate votes coming up?

Is Our Constitution Headed for a Re-Write?

Imagine the sudden loss of your God-given and Constitutionally guaranteed right to express yourself freely. Imagine government agents rousting you from your slumber and curtly informing you that they are in your home to search for and confiscate any and all firearms. Imagine you are arrested and charged with a crime then denied legal representation.

Sound unthinkable? After all, this is the good ol' United States of Amurrica, you say. Why, nothing like that could ever happen here, right?

Many people might not think so, but some believe we are far closer to this happening than most of us want to even think about.

The American Policy Center has issued an alert warning that we are but two states away from convening a Constitutional Convention (CC). Thirty-two states have already voted to convene, ostensibly to insert a balanced budget amendment into our founding document. Once thirty-four states have voted in the affirmative, Congress has no choice but to then convene a CC.

Oh, but what could possibly be wrong with a balanced budget amendment, you ask? Actually, plenty, but that isn't the issue here. The real problem is, once a CC is convened, there are virtually no set rules as to how it is to be conducted.

It would essentially mean the Constitution would be up for grabs, and our rights along with it.

If a balanced budget amendment is what people are after (and I am opposed to it, personally) there is a much safer way to add such an amendment to our Constitution without opening it up for mass modification, if not its very destruction.

Given the PC times we live in, when American citizens are quite literally losing their livelihoods for using words and phrases some find offensive, and others are finding themselves unemployed for simply contributing to a political cause some do not agree with, I can easily see an attempt by those who hate freedom to modify or eliminate the 1st Amendment altogether. What a colossal blow to our freedoms that would be!

As for the 2nd Amendment, how long do you think it would last if a CC was convened in this day and age? Not long, I'd say.

And what of our property rights? Just take a look at the damage Ruth Bader Ginsburg did to those in a SCOTUS vote not too terribly long ago. Thanks to the rights protected by our Constitution, that hideous eminent domain ruling is just possibly headed for reversal somewhere down the road. Should our Constitutional right to own property be taken away, any chance of a future reversal would instantly evaporate. What is more, the avenues government could then use to separate us from our property would most likely widen substantially, and could easily swerve into some unexpected directions.

What would be in place to stop it?

I can easily see the rabid freedom-haters among us gladly getting involved and, in their zeal to right every perceived wrong in this country, feverishly go about re-writing our founding document from top to bottom, and there is virtually nothing Congress can do about it once the process starts.

Just think, none of our cherished rights would be safe if a CC were to be convened in this day and age. Not one!

Just last week, a vote to convene a CC was delayed in Ohio, thanks mostly to the efforts of many freedom-loving real Americans who fully understand the danger that our Constitution, not to mention our very way of life, would be in should a CC actually take place in this country. An interesting video of those proceedings can be found here.

What I found not a little disconcerting is that a fairly extensive internet search turned up a veritable dust storm of coverage in the libertarian and, to a lesser extent conservative blogosphere, as well as on a handful of conservative internet news sites, but there was virtually no mention of it anywhere in the MSM.

Of course, I should have known that any hopes that the self-appointed "watchdogs of the people" would be of any help at all in aiding us in our effort to preserve our increasingly fragile freedoms would be decidedly misplaced. I am quite certain a sizable majority of the media would dearly love to see our founding document altered or re-written, if not done away with altogether.

I will be keeping an eye on this, as I have seen a blurb or two here and there suggesting that some other states might soon be considering a vote in this area as well. In these decidedly insane times, anything can happen at any time.

For God sakes, stay awake, people!