Friday, October 31, 2014

WaPo's O'Brien: Fed Shouldn't Have Ended QE

by JASmius



Why, Matt?  Did Janet Yellen wring that emergency toner appropriation into the House Continuing Resolution after all?:

Most economists agree that the Federal Reserve did the right thing in announcing an end to quantitative easing (QE) Wednesday.

Some think the Fed should have acted sooner, but very few think the central bank should continue its bond purchases. Washington Post blogger Matt O'Brien is one of them.

Is it because the dollar still has value left?  Double-ply bathroom tissue versus the single-ply of pretty much every other Western currency at this point, which is the only factor generating the illusion of the dollar's purported "strength"?

"The fact that it's ending QE3 despite still-low inflation and still-high, though declining, unemployment, signals that the Fed is eager to return to normalcy," he writes.

He thinks "still-low inflation" is a bad thing, folks.  Which tells me he doesn't do his own grocery shopping or pay his own electricity bill.

And pal, unemployment is many things, but it isn't "declining" anywhere outside Red Barry's etch-o-sketch.


"The Fed, in short, looks much more hawkish. And that's not good, because, as Chicago Fed President Charles Evans explains, the 'biggest risk' to the economy right now is that the Fed raises rates too soon."

Biggest risk to the Democrat Party, maybe.  That way the electorate would see how crummy the Obamaconomy really is by throwing Wall Street into the same sinking ship out of which Main Street has been frantically bailing seawater for the past six years.  The solution of Messrs. O'Brien and Evans to which would evidently be to drill more holes in the bottom of the ship to allow the water to run out on its own.

QE is no magic bullet, but it's quite effective, O'Brien says. "Especially at convincing markets that the Fed won't raise rates for a while, which is all it should be saying right now, because the only thing worse than having to do QE is having to do QE again."

Three times isn't enough, Matt?  Have you applied this logic to your sex life?

In other words, he adds, the Fed "should do everything it can to make sure the economy lifts off from its zero interest rate trap before it pulls anything back."

You mean like this, Matt?



Remind me never to retain you as my travel agent.

Muslim Burns 11 Year Old Girl Alive For Wearing Lipstick

by JASmius

Where's Miley Cyrus's wrecking ball when you really need it?



BREAKING: Cop-Killer Hiding In Pennsylvania Woods Captured

by JASmius

Pennsylvania State Police, ending a seven-week manhunt, have captured a man accused of ambushing two troopers, leaving one dead and another seriously injured. Eric Frein, 31, was taken into custody Thursday, state police said. Frein was found near an abandoned air strip in Tannersville, Pennsylvania, where they received a report of a man going in and out of an empty hangar. U.S. Marshals in the area caught Frein when they witnessed him trying to go back into the hangar. Frein was arrested without incident, and authorities later found a sniper rifle and pistol stashed nearby. Frein was then transported to the Blooming Grove barracks to be booked and await arraignment - the same police station where he allegedly shot dead a state trooper on September 12.Pictures of Frein in the back of a police cruiser show him nursing a bleeding wound to the bridge of his nose. It's unclear how he sustained the injury. And after 48 days on the run, Frein was remarkably clean shaven. At a press conference held Thursday night, officials broke down the events leading up to Frein's capture. They said a group of U.S. Marshals was searching the area near the abandoned Birchwood Resort in Tannersville, about 35 miles southwest from the scene of the shooting last month. Around 6pm, the group observed Frein walking towards the airport hangar in the middle of the field and ordered him to stop.





Hagel Calls Obama's Syria Strategy "Chickenshit"

by JASmius



"John, you do know that the President's Syria strategy is chickenshit, don't you?"

- Comment from Commissar of Defense Charles "Chuck" Hagel to Commissar of State John "Genghis" Kerry, caught on hidden HSR microphone

Or something like that.  Hagel may have said it "in so many words," but that was the gist of his sediments.  Oops, I mean sentiments.

What we know for sure is that the Regime is suffering from an acute shortage of chicken salad at the moment:

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last week sent a blunt memo to National Security Advisor Susan Rice criticizing the administration's strategy in Syria.

And she'll be dutifully lying about it on every talking head program this Sunday morning, right on schedule.

According to the New York Times, Hagel personally wrote a two-page detailed analysis in which he asserted that the policy outlined by President Barack Obama was in danger of failing because it does not outline how the United States will manage its approach to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

One senior official told CNN that he was "expressing concern about overall Syria strategy" and that the main message of the memo was "we need to have a sharper view of what to do about the Assad regime."

So let me see if I've got this straight: A year ago The One wanted to pretend to "do something" about Boy Assad that would have benefited ISIS, but backed down because even such martial pretense would have triggered a genuine war with Syria, and probably Iran and Russia as well; and now The One is pretending to "do something" about ISIS, including in Syrian airspace, that is benefitting Boy Assad, and Commissar Hagel is being a Republican chickenshit by pointing out the baying irony.

Good thing he did so in a "private memo," huh?  Wouldn't want that to get out to the public, would they?

So what chickenshit strategy is Hagel recommending?:

The official did not give further details about Hagel's views but did not disagree with the idea that the U.S. has much to lose in its war against the Islamic State (ISIS) if it fails to address that element of the strategy.

Hagel has so far refrained from making his concerns public. The official told CNN that Hagel continues to support the Pentagon's plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels.

Which signed a non-aggression pact with ISIS over a month ago.  And as memory serves, arming what the White House thought were "moderate Syrian rebels" is what gave birth to ISIS to begin with.  Because there were not, are not, and never will be any such thing as "moderate Syrian rebels".  They're all jihadists and they all hate us and want to kill us all.  They're just elbowing each other to be first in line at the head-chopping block.

Darth Queeg and his mini-me sound a lot more sensible at first until you realize that they're not talking about glassing Syria entirely but merely providing air cover for the "moderate Syrian rebels" against Assad airstrikes, more or less guaranteeing the very fate - war with Syria and probably Iran and Russia - that Generalissimo Hussein, in his inadvertent wisdom, averted a year ago.  Which would redound to the benefit of both ISIS and Boy Assad and another humiliating defeat for the U.S. since, after all, Barack Obama is only capable of pretending to fight any war, other than against white people, Christians, Tea Partiers, conservatives, and Republicans.  Which I thought was why Commissar Hagel called his boss "chickenshit" in the first place.  "In so many words".

Wait'll he does go public with his "criticism".  And when his inevitable White House memoir comes out.  He already knows exactly how Lurch feels:

The description of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a "chickenshit" by an anonymous U.S. official....

....that was ABSOLUTELY NOT John Kerry....

....as quoted in a U.S. magazine this week was disgraceful and damaging, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday.

Netanyahu on Wednesday condemned the comment from an unnamed official....

....that was ABSOLUTELY NOT John Kerry....

....in the Atlantic, which added to tensions between his government and the Obama administration, particularly over settlement building in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem.

....which the White House ABSOLUTELY BELIEVES is "chickenshit"....

"We condemn anybody who uses language such as was used in this article....

....near an open microphone where any reporter could overhear it....

...." Kerry told an audience at the annual Washington Ideas Forum in his first comment on the issue. "It does not reflect the president, it does not reflect me, it is disgraceful, unacceptable, damaging....

....because we know where the microphones for the Oval Office taping system are located."

"I have never heard that word around me in the White House.....

....because I keep my hearing aid turned down at the office....

....I don't know who these anonymous people are who keep getting quoted....

....I thought the President told me where all the open mics were....

....but they make [my] life much more difficult," Kerry added.

And the punchline?  Okay, the final punchline?

The controversy came just ahead of a White House meeting on Thursday between Susan Rice, national security adviser to President Barack Obama, and Yossi Cohen, national security adviser to Netanyahu.

Think this chickenshit was any accident?  I mean, all Rice would have done is lie incessantly to NSR Cohen.  Bibi got used to that chickenshit years ago.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Douglas V. Gibbs: Television and Public Speaking

By Douglas V. Gibbs

As seen on television, and all over the World Wide Web:

In 2014, Doug made appearances on Fox and Friends a couple times, Hannity on Fox News Channel twice, The Rick Amato Show on One America News, Al Jazeera, ARD German Television, and various local television and radio news broadcasts, in connection with the demonstrations in Murrieta that turned around busloads of disease infected illegal immigrants.

Doug took the angle of a concerned citizen wishing to protect the receiving population from disease, crime and terrorism, as well as exhibiting a constitutional point of view, indicating that the issue was a case of the White House trying to force its agenda upon a locality.

On July 3rd, Doug appeared on the Rick Amato Show.  He had been scheduled to be on the show a week prior for other reasons.  When the Murrieta Protests erupted, the appearance on One America News became all about the Murrieta Immigration Protests.  Doug was one of three members of a visiting Grassroots Panel.  Video is forthcoming.


Fox and Friends first asked Doug to be on the air with them on July 4th, after a local Fox News reporter had already interviewed Doug at the protest location.  Jesse Watters interviewed Doug that morning, trying to understand why, of all cities, Murrieta was chosen as the processing station for the overflow of illegal aliens being flown in from Texas.  View the video HERE.


After the interview was over, while Doug was headed back to Murrieta in the car Fox News had assigned to him, a producer from Fox and Friends called him and asked if he could be on the show again, but this time with his legal immigrant wife, who was born in Mexico, and immigrated here legally as a child with her parents.  Doug and Virginia were on Fox and Friends the following Monday Morning, July 7, 2014.  Video HERE.


On Monday, July 7, Doug also appeared on Hannity, not as a guest, but in a clip Sean put on his show where Doug was interviewed by Fox News on July 4 (the same clip that alerted Fox and Friends about Doug's involvement) during the protest on Independence Day.  The clip also appeared on a number of other Fox News Channel shows.  Video forthcoming.


The following day, on July 8, Doug appeared on Hannity again, but this time as a guest to battle wits with an unarmed opponent who supports illegal immigration, Enrique Morones.  As you can see, the wind was having its way with Doug's hair.  See the video HERE.



Al Jazeera America television asked Doug to be on the air on July 9.  The interview was confrontational, but Doug stuck to his main points regarding his wife being a legal immigrant and how illegal immigration is opening the door wide open at the border, making the admittance of these law-breakers unfair to people like Virginia who has gone through the process legally.  He also explained how, from a constitutional point of view, the immigration laws are in place to protect the receiving population and Doug's participation was primarily regarding the problem of incoming diseases, and the potential of criminals and terrorists crossing the border unimpeded.  Video is forthcoming.


Prior to the national coverage, Doug also appeared on a number of local broadcasts for a dozen seconds at a time, including The CW Channel 6 in San Diego, and ABC 10 in San Diego.


Subsequently, Doug also performed as a public speaker at a number of events, as he normally does, but this time able to add the Murrieta Protests to his presentation.






-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

NFL Week 9 Kickoff

by JASmius



The bad news for the New Orleans Saints?  They got off to a horrific start in 2014, mainly on the "strength" of a defense that, compared to last year, is performing at a level that would cast the term "underachieving" to unimagined depths of euphemization.

The good news for the New Orleans Saints?  They play in the NFC South, a division in which no team currently has a winning record, and no other team's defense is even as good as that of the Saints.

The best news for the New Orleans Saints?  They're playing the Carolina Panthers, a team so pathetic they couldn't even beat the Champs last Sunday, while Drew Brees and company are coming off their belated breakout (and blowout) win over the Green Bay Packers.

This one won't be close, and it will be even uglier for the good fans in Charlotte.

New Orleans* (-2)
Carolina

Gun Rights: Temecula Constitution Class

Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Temecula Constitution Class Handout, 10/30/2014                            

41669 Winchester Rd.
Temecula, CA




Lesson 17

Militias and Standing Armies

2nd Amendment: Keep and Bear Arms
The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns.  Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights is your responsibility.  Like anything else you own, if you give away your rights, or allow someone to take them, they may still belong to you as an unalienable, God-given right, but you have given up all access to them, and can no longer exercise those rights.

In the Washington, D.C. v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.

During the early years of the United States under the United States Constitution, the Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights.  Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The States have Original Authority, meaning that all powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution.  The first seven articles of the document did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power.  The 2nd Amendment simply confirms that.  The argument then becomes about the potential tyranny of the States.  If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights?
The State constitutions, and the people, hold the responsibility of restraining the States from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.  The Founding Fathers were not concerned with a tyranny of the States because the State governments are closer to the people, and therefore the people have fewer legal and political obstacles when acting to ensure the State governments do not infringe on individual rights.

Complacency, then, becomes our greatest enemy.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Understanding that the Framers expected their posterity to be informed problem-solvers, while recognizing that basic human nature would invite complacency and the rise of a tyrannical government, it becomes clear why the Founding Fathers put so much importance on gun rights.

In early American society the need to be armed was necessary for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, protecting one’s property, facilitating a natural right of self-defense, participating in law enforcement, enabling people to participate in an organized militia system, deterring a tyrannical government, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and hunting.

The right to keep and bear arms is not merely about protecting your home, or hunting, though those are important, too.  The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which could include a potentially oppressive central government.

Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 articulated the necessity for keeping and bearing arms clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.  The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

Some will argue the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past.

The National Guard now serves as the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but an unorganized militia also exists.

Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both "organized" and "unorganized" civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia.  While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist.  The Founding Fathers would have likely included in the definition of unorganized militia, “All able-bodied citizens capable of fighting.”

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, bringing to the surface the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government.

The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States.  The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the federal government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.

The decision by the Supreme Court, in this case, makes all State laws on fire arms null and void.  Applying the 2nd Amendment to the States means the 2nd Amendment is supreme over any and all State laws on firearms, and according to the 2nd Amendment, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  If “shall not be infringed” applies to both the federal government and the States governments, then all persons are allowed to possess a firearm.  The words, “shall not be infringed” carries no exceptions.

The reason the 2nd Amendment is absolute in its language is because it was intended to only apply to the federal government.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, but the States retain the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the needs and allowances of the local electorate.

The U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government except where specifically noted otherwise.

In reference to McDonald v. Chicago, I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or state what they have to do, even if on the surface it is for a good cause.

If we give the federal government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what stops them from doing the opposite later?  This case created a precedent of allowing the federal government to dictate to the States and cities what they have to do, and that kind of federal intrusion constitutes great danger to State Sovereignty.

Breaking down the language used in the 2nd Amendment assists in clarifying what the original intent was.

The 2nd Amendment begins, “A well regulated Militia.”  The immediate understanding of that phrase by the average American in today’s culture recognizes it as meaning, “A militia under the control of the government,” or “regulated by government agencies,” or “managed by federal law.”

All of the above definitions are wrong.

As discussed regarding the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, the word “regulated” does not mean “controlled or restricted by government.”  The definition used by the Framers, and the one that fits best with the context of the period, and the principles of the Constitution, can be found in the 1828 Webster Dictionary.  Webster defined regulated as: “To put in good order.”  Some historians state that the word “regulate” in the 18th Century meant “To make regular.”  The word “restrict” was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of “regulated,” revealing that today’s most common definition was the “least used” definition during the time of the writing of the United States Constitution.

Since “regulate” did not mean “to control and restrict,” but instead meant “to put in good order,” that means a well regulated militia is one that is in good order.

The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order.  The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes.

To put the militia in good order, Congress was required to create standards for the militia to follow.  The authority to Congress regarding this power is revealed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, where the Constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power. . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

The next part of the 2nd Amendment reveals that a well regulated militia is “necessary to the security of a free State.”

The word State, in that instance, means “individual, autonomous, sovereign State.”  In other words, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free Massachusetts, a free Pennsylvania, a free Virginia, a free New York, a free Ohio, a free California, and so on.

Necessary to the security of a free State.”  A militia is necessary, not just recommended, to the security of a free State.  Security against whom?  A foreign invader?  Isn’t that what the standing army was supposed to be for?  Why would States need militias, capable of being called up by the governor of the State, for their “security,” and to ensure that security is for them to remain a “free State?”

Foreign enemies were a concern, but not as much of a concern as a tyrannical central government.  Thomas Jefferson so distrusted a central government that he suggested there would be a bloody revolution every twenty years.

… can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted?  I say nothing of it's motives.  They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.  God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.  The people can not be all, and always, well informed.  The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.  If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.  We have had 13 states independant 11 years.  There has been one rebellion.  That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state.  What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?  And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?  Let them take arms.  The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.  What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?  The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is it's natural manure.” -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

The Declaration of Independence also states that the people have the right to stand up against their government should it become tyrannical.  In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence it reads:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government walks hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms.  How could it ever be logical that the right to keep and bear arms could ever be influenced or restricted by the very government that that right exists to protect the people against in the first place?

Terms:
Arms - Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part of a militia.

Collective Right - Rights held by a group, rather than its members separately.

Declaration of Independence - The unanimous formal Declaration of the thirteen united States of America declaring their freedom from Great Britain, dated July 4, 1776.

Individual Right - Rights held by individuals within a particular group.

Organized Militia - A well trained militia that is in good order that operates under the authority of Congress, able to be called into actual service by the executive authority of a State, or by the Congress of the United States; National Guard, Naval Militia, State Militias.

Original Authority - Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.

Regulated - To make regular; to put in good order.

State Sovereignty - The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.

Unorganized Militia - Able-bodied citizens of the United States, or those who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States, who are members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Questions for Discussion:

1.  In your opinion, what are the most important reasons for the right to bear arms?

2.  If the courts, or the federal government, were to redefine gun rights as being a collective right, how would that affect our individual right to keep and bear arms?

3.  Is a militia necessary in today’s society?  Why?

4.  Why did the Founding Fathers see it as necessary to prohibit the federal government from any authority to prohibit the right to keep and bear arms, but felt it necessary to allow the States full authority over gun regulations?

5.  In McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to cities and States.  How does that open up the opportunity for the federal government to further regulate firearms?


Resources:

10 USC § 311 - Militia: Composition and Classes, Cornell University
Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

McDonald v. City of Chicago, United States Supreme Court:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal
Constitution (Philadelphia 1787), The Federalist Papers: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/noah-webster/noah-webster-an-examination-of-the-leading-principles-of-the-federal-constitution-philadelphia-1787

The Tree of Liberty Quotation, Monticello - TH: Jefferson Encyclopedia:
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...(Quotation)

Washington, D.C. v. Heller, Supreme Court of the United States Blog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/


3rd Amendment: Quartering

The Founding Fathers feared a centralized government with a powerful military.  One of the final straws that began the road to the American Revolution was the Quartering Act of 1765 where the colonists became required to house and feed the British troops they despised.  The Quartering Act enabled the British Empire to exercise greater control over the populace.  It was also known as one of the Intolerable Acts.

The Quartering Act served as a major reason for the writing of the 3rd Amendment, which reads: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Tyrannical governmental systems use unwarranted influence through military means.  To guard against the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power, the Framer’s concerns about standing armies became evident in the 3rd Amendment.

To help the populace protect themselves, and be able to enforce the 3rd Amendment, in case the federal government violated the clause, the Founding Fathers also gave us the 2nd Amendment: “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 concept of a Militia that is not a federal army is the realization that the United States will not be one where there is a standing army that can be used against its citizens.  Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 gives the Congress the power to raise and support armies, but limits them to no more than two years funding.

When a military arm of a tyrannical government can compel the citizenry to house the military machinery of defense, a police state is present and liberty is at risk.  Such was the reasoning behind the 3rd Amendment.

Until the Revolutionary War, the American States had no military, and the militias were populated by the colonists.  The Constitution gave the U.S. Government the authority to build a military for the defense of the union.  A military establishment, in the minds of the Founders, was a potentially dangerous thing.  The Founding Fathers desired to protect the union, but did not desire that the American military become an authoritarian tool of a potentially tyrannical federal government.

Terms:
Intolerable Acts - A series of laws passed by the British Parliament against the American Colonies in March of 1774.  The British Parliament referred to these laws as the Coercive Acts.  The acts were primarily designed to punish the colony of Massachusetts for defying British policies, and more specifically, for the Boston Tea Party.  The Intolerable Acts caused outrage among the Americans, which led to the calling of the First Continental Congress in September of 1774.  Among the actions taken by this united Congress was a boycott of British goods.  The Intolerable Acts were called “impolitic, unjust, and cruel,” and included the Boston Port Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, the Quartering Act, the Quebec Act, and the Administration of Justice Act.

Police State - A system where the government exercises rigid and repressive controls through strong law enforcement or military control.

Quartering Act of 1765 - Act passed by the British Parliament in 1765 that stated that British troops in America would be housed in barracks and in public houses unless and until the number of troops overwhelmed the facilities, at which time, the troops could be housed in private commercial property, such as inns and stable, and in uninhabited homes and barns.  The quartering would be without compensation and, in fact, owners would be required to provide soldiers with certain necessities such as food, liquor, salt, and bedding, also without compensation.

Standing Army - A professional permanent army composed of full-time career soldiers who are not disbanded during times of peace.


Questions for Discussion:

1.  Why did the British pass the Quartering Act of 1765?

2.  How did the Americans respond to the Intolerable Acts?

3.  Why did the Founding Fathers have concerns regarding standing armies?

4.  How does militias protect against the formation of a police state?


Resources:
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Madison’s Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution –
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).

Quartering Act, U.S. Constitution Online:
http://www.usconstitution.net/quarteringact.html

The Declaration of Rights and Grievances, U.S. Constitution Online:
http://www.usconstitution.net/intol.html


Copyright 2014 Douglas V. Gibbs


Hard Starboard Radio: The Phantom GOP Senate Panacea



Congress should have more partisanship about ideas and less about the legislative process - but of course, Harry (G)Reid won't; Not that anyone’s paying attention, or believes Jim Geraghty's misplaced optimism, but the thinks GOP House candidates are set for a great cycle; Taking the Senate would give the GOP control of the legislative process, and that would mean very little, given that their first order of business would be to restore full minority party rights; And if even it did, remember who has the veto pen in addition to his pile of Imperial Executive decrees; The Big Bad "Lone Wolf" dodge; The Secret Service scandal about which you haven't heard; and the latest Obama disaster, also about which there's been nary a peep - until now.

A disquiet follows my soul at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Multiple North Carolina Democrat Campaign Workers Mining Illegal Kay Hagan Votes

by JASmius

Throw North Carolina in with Illinois and Maryland.  And unlike the latter two, the Tar Heel State's Senate race is a prime candidate for election theft.

A stunning undercover video exposes a reckless disregard of election law in North Carolina. Multiple campaign operatives and workers, both democrats and republicans, encourage felony voter fraud.

A Project Veritas Action operative poses as an enthusiastic wanna-be voter, who also happens to be a non U. S. citizen. When she asks campaign managers and other campaign operatives if it is okay if she votes they all say yes, no problem.

Greg Amick, Campaign Manager for Mecklenburg County Sheriff hopeful Irwin Carmichael, says, ‘it shouldn’t be an issue at all.” Martin Kelly, the father of Superior Court Judge candidate David Kelly adds, “If they registered her, then she can’t get in trouble. All they can do is say no. They can’t do anything else.”



Officials: Dozens of Ex-Gitmo Prisoners Joining ISIS

by JASmius



Naturally.  Barack Obama has turned Gitmo (and the American people themselves, though not the same extent as Europeans) into ISIS's triple-A minor league franchise, after all, the same way he's turned ISIS into the jihadist New York Yankees:

Former Guantanamo Bay detainees may have joined up with the Islamic State or other extremist groups within the Syrian border, according to senior Defense Department and intelligence officials.

It's not known just how many released detainees have joined ranks with the Islamic State (ISIS), al-Qaida, or its affiliated al-Nusra Front in Syria, but sources told Fox News that at least twenty to thirty may be involved.

Other former detainees are helping the groups from outside through financing operations and support for their propaganda campaigns, the sources said.

Much of the ISIS propaganda to date includes the heavy use of social media to actively recruit new fighters and spread the militants' jihadist message to people around the world.

In a sane world, this wouldn't be considered "news".  Really, what else would anybody with three brain cells to rub together expect sprung jihadists to do?  The Islamic State has reversed all the gains, all the achievements of, for all intents and purposes defeated "the Great Satan" in Iraq, is laughing hysterically at Barack Obama's phony air campaign against them, is steadily, inexorably overrunning the entire Middle East, and eventually far beyond....



....with absolutely no reason to believe that they won't be even more successful than they already expect to be, and certainly no reason to think that the West in general or the U.S. in particular will make any genuine effort to stop them.  If this were not so, released Gitmo detainees really would be going home to polish their camels or whatever.

But then, if this were a sane world, no Gitmo detainees would have been released, Iraq wouldn't have been abandoned (as Afghanistan soon also will be), Syria and Iran would also have been liberated over a decade ago, and Barack Hussein Obama would never have been elected POTUS in the first place.

I know it's depressing, but we must always remember the context surrounding these demoralizing events.

But take heart, my friends; at least there is some room for gallows humor:

The news that some of the prisoners leaving Guantanamo are joining militant forces may complicate President Barack Obama's inaugural promise in 2009 to shut down the facility, which was opened in the wake of the 9-11 attacks.

"May"?  Again, in even a semi-sane world, that would read "will".  But we don't have even that level of collective mental faculty:

A senior administration official said earlier this month that Obama is considering the use of executive power to override a congressional ban on bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States, which would allow him to achieve his goal of closing the detention facility.

The official, speaking under conditions of anonymity to the Wall Street Journal earlier this month, said the president is "unwavering in his commitment" to closing Guantanamo before he leaves office in two years, and considers the closure part of his presidential legacy.

Any American president would (1) not be turning loose illegal enemy combatants in the middle of a long war that is years (decades by now, thanks to him, assuming he even keeps up the pretense of resistance) from concluding, and (2) would self-evidently recognize that he does not have the legal or constitutional authority to "override Congress" on closing Gitmo and effectively surrendering to the Islamic Fundamentalists.

But Barack Hussein Obama isn't an American president; he's a foreign-minded, Marxist-Alinskyist, jihadi-symp dictator, one that We, The People inflicted upon ourselves not once, but twice.  And as the saying goes, "elections have consequences" - even the ones that destroy for all time the constitutional federal republic that made them possible.

Apple CEO Tim Cook Proud To Be Homosexual

by JASmius



I don't think Jimmy Z is quite understanding what "Mr." Cook is getting at in "his" Bloomberg Business Week column.  "He"'s not puffing "him"self up over "his" "achievement" in jamming "his" coaxial cable into other "men"'s USB ports (or vice versa, if "he"'s a "catcher" and not a "pitcher").  It's the cultural statement it makes, a major corporate CEO (the "evil robber barons" of society in any other context, remember) "coming out of the closet" and unabashedly "hugging the root".  It's straight out of Romans 1:32: "[A]nd although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

Most likely it's a corrupt public relations ploy to curry favor with the tyrannical "First Gay President".

Or so I gather from some of the jaw-droppingly insane rhetorical inversions "Mr." Cook burbled forth:

Cook says that while he never denied his sexuality, he never publicly acknowledged it, either.

Stop the tape.  Now what was wrong with leaving it at that?  Don't ask, don't tell.  Tim Cook is choosing sexual perversion and eventual eternal damnation, at least for now, but that's "his" choice to make.  It had (past tense; now it's the entirety of his professional identity) no requisite bearing or effect on the performance of "his" duties as Apple CEO.  I've said this many times, and I'll reiterate it here and now: In my 26-year accounting career I probably had at least one homosexual colleague, and perhaps more.  I know there was one individual that everybody suspected of "putting from the rough," but none of us ever inquired.  Why?  Because it wasn't any of our business, any more than you would ask your production manager how wildly his wife's boobs jiggle when she's riding him cowgirl style.  Privacy is inherent to romantic intimacy.  Some things are not - or ought not be - the topic of public discourse.

Until now.  Now Tim Cook isn't the CEO of Apple, "he"'s the QUEER CEO of Apple.  Company directives have probably already gone out to all Apple employees requiring them to emulate the boss's "lifestyle" on penalty of summary termination.  And it really it wouldn't have to be that, er, "explicit"; certainly the message has been received loud and clear by any evangelical Christian employees Apple may still have: "Your kind is no longer wanted here; get out."

Don't think so?  Remember what happened to Brendan Eich last spring?

"So let me be clear: I'm proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me," Cook said in the article. [emphasis added]

Which "god" would that be, Tim?  The Great Cosmic Trouser Trout?  Next thing you know the Lavender Lobby will be saying that the LORD Himself is "gay," and they'll be re-writing the Holy Bible in their own Dirty Sanchez image.  Indeed, that, along with outlawing heterosexuality and mandating homosexuality, are about the only items they have left on their "shopping" list.

Tim Cook has made the biggest "splash" in the bathhouse, but "he" wasn't the first:

Cook's public declaration that he is gay comes a little more than two months after Robert Hanson — the former CEO of American Eagle Outfitters Inc. — wrote a piece for Time in which he talked about being an openly gay man for as long as he's been in business and running companies.

Hanson is currently the CEO of luxury jewelry brand John Hardy.

There are no other publicly gay CEOs of major companies. United Therapeutics Corp. CEO Martine Rothblatt, who was born male and is now female, has been open about her transgender status.

They're just the vanguard, purple penguins.  There'll be plenty more sexually confused CEOs where they came from, and a like rising "tide" of anti-Christian persecution to match.

It harkens back to this Scriptural passage:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the LORD knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.

Ultimately, God will win.  But it's going to get unimaginably worse before it ever gets better.

Ebola Killed The Democrat Party?

by JASmius

We wish, Wayne....

While Ebola has so far done very little damage to the American people (with only one person in America dead), Ebola's chief victims appear to be President Obama and the Democratic Party. Obama's response to Ebola has finally convinced the electorate that Obama is dangerous to our health.



The operative phrase above being "appear to be".  We heard all of this in 2012 as well, Mr. Root - how did that election turn out?  Believe me, next Tuesday will be no different.  The "wave" is, alas, all in your imagination.

Democrats Panic Over Anti-Obama Surge? Fear Losses In Blue States?

by JASmius



Meh.  Color me as extremely skeptical. There are at least three reasons why. See if you can identify one of them in the following quote:

Desperate Democrats are rushing to save suddenly vulnerable House incumbents, even in states where President Barack Obama cruised to double-digit victories, amid fresh signs of Republican momentum less than a week before the midterm elections.

The once friendly terrain of New York, California, Obama's native state of Hawaii and adopted state of Illinois all now pose stiff challenges to Democrats who are determined to limit their losses next Tuesday.

Really? Seriously? Donk House seats in New York, California, and Hawaii are now in play? I suppose there are "red" enclaves in the Empire and Acapulco Golden States to where "wave" year upsets are not completely outside the realm of possibility, but Hawaii? Uh-uh. Not buying it. Sorry. And even if this is another "wave" year for the GOP (of which I am far from convinced), ain't no wave is gonna sweep any Aloha seats into the Republican column short of a comet strike.

Why did I leave out Illinois, you may be asking? This is why. And you're never going to convince me that the Democrats' national voter fraud operation isn't up and running on maximum overdrive in New York, California, Hawaii, and each of the forty-five other States across the fruitless plain.

This isn't to say that the Dems are going to shock the world and retake the House. Even Crazy Nancy Pelosi isn't being that publicly delusional. But the idea of the GOP picking up an additional ten to twenty House seats is, plainly and simply, absurd. They'll gain, or lose, a single-digit handful, but the House balance of power will remain pretty much unchanged.

You may have also picked up on the fact that I haven't yet mentioned my third reason not to expect a GOP "wave" on the House side.  Here's a hint: It has nothing to do with fundraising or TV/radio/Internet advertising:

The [Democrat] party is relying on a big get-out-the-vote effort after registering 80,000 new voters in battleground districts.

That sentence should send a chill down the spine of every Pachyderm who remembers 2012.  Recall that the GOP didn't get financially buried in that cycle; the party was competitive with Democrats up to and including Team Messiah on fundraising and campaign expenditures and media ad buys and the like. But if there was a factor that was more critical to the Donks' triumph at the presidential level and their running of the table in Senate races than voter fraud, it was their GOTV machine. Their registration of "new voters" and prowess at getting them to (multiple) polls to vote (multiple times) was nothing short of awesome. It was something Republicans are incapable of even coming close to replicating, even without the aspects that are reminiscent of a Michael Jackson Thriller video....



....and with two more years to have refined and developed the process further, I have no doubts - and neither should any of you - that it will be more than sufficient to enable House Democrats to at least break even, and certainly prevent their suffering any upsets on their own "turf".

There is one other thing that needs addressing: the notion that Barack Obama is "political ebola" for Democrat congressional candidates.  While that's probably true to an extent, I think it's overrated in its likely impact on next Tuesday's election results.  Indeed, the logic of the proffered dynamic is that The One's alleged unpopularity would actually matter if he was at the top of the ballet; since he isn't, this factor will have a minimal impact at best, methinks.  And I'm speaking as one who believes that if there was an Obama-Romney rematch five days from now, Red Barry would win yet again, and probably by a bigger margin than he did two years ago.

We on the Right continue to make the mistake of looking at the current and forever reigning Imperial Monarch by conventional yardsticks of popularity and job performance.  What's his approval number on this issue or that?  Which party is favored on this issue or that?  But none of those metrics apply to King Hussein.  Remember why he was elected and re-elected: the color of his skin.  It really is that simple.  Barack Obama was handed the keys to the kingdom because he's (half) black, he was re-elected because he's (half) black, and he'll remain in the White House for the rest of his natural life because he's (half) black.  Even if he faced another election ever again he would never, ever lose, because too many American voters don't want to be the targets of the stigma of "racism" for having "lynched" the First Black President.  His is the Affirmative Action Presidency.  As such, the usual rules of politics do not apply to him.  Even if he was "incompetent" as opposed to a malevolent, foreign-minded, revolutionary political cancer, his every "failure" and scandal will always be excused, just as they always have been, by his overabundance of skin pigmentation.  It's why, even if B.O. does leave voluntarily on January 20th, 2017, the Democrats will never nominate anyone but women or minorities for POTUS ever again.  So either way, they will never relinquish the White House ever again, either.

It's that factor, if any, that will "trickle down" to congressional Democrat candidates on November 4th, not his purported polling anathema.  LIVs and NIVs will simply always be much more forgiving of and trustful in them than they will ever be of Republicans.  Indeed, I question whether Republican "waves" are even possible anymore.

Did I mention my final Senate predictions will go live here at midnight PST next Tuesday?  You won't want to miss them, at least if you're of a....prudent mindset.....