Not The Constitution Guy

Michael Bastasch wrote about Bill Nye the Science Guy and how he misquoted the Constitution this past Saturday (and has evidently done that before) with regard to science. Bastasch says this is why they do not call Nye the Constitution Guy.

What did Nye say? At a rally for science on Saturday (a rally where people showed up to protest cuts to the federal budget in some of the science areas like the bogus man made global warming) Nye quoted only part of the Constitution to give the impression that the federal government had some Constitutional duty to provide funds for science. Nye made this claim:

“And it is interesting to note, I think, that Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution refers to the progress of science and the useful arts”.

Which mirrored what he said in a 2015 Vox interview:

“Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says the government shall ‘promote the progress of science and useful arts’”.

There is one small problem here and that is Nye is not giving the entire phrase from the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 lists eighteen things Congress is authorized to do and among those is:

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

This power deals with copyrights and patents. It allows for the granting of these things for limited duration (though successive limited grants were not deemed unconstitutional) in order to promote the sciences and the arts. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the taxpayer (which is where federal money comes from) is supposed to PAY for the sciences or the arts.

Our nation spends a boatload of money on many things not authorized by the Constitution. If we do not get a handle on this then the people marching in the rain in DC for the government not to cut taxpayer funding of the sciences will not have to worry. There won’t be money for anything at all.

Liberals are good at leaving out parts of the Constitution. Like Nye did with the sciences and the arts, liberals always leave out the second part of the Establishment Clause. The part of the First Amendment that states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, is often used by liberals to claim that nowhere in government (or in most of society it seems) is religion allowed and they do this while conveniently leaving out the second part of the clause that reads, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. They do this because they are infringing on your right to freely exercise YOUR religion. Liberals are good at ignoring the things that do not fit their point of view.

I know that people who live off government or are not responsible have no concept of how things are supposed to work. The reality is these folks want others to pay for things through the forced taking of their money.

It is a crying shame that people are not bright enough to see what is happening. I know there will be screams to tax the rich but the rich pay most of the taxes now. If you took all the money that all the rich people had you could run our government for three months but then you would not get any more money because you took it all. Government (and by that I mean the politicians and the people who suckle at the teat of government) has an insatiable appetite for the money of others. Record amounts of money come in and government spends even more.

Bill Nye is a big government person and by misquoting the Constitution a guy who alleges to teach people in fact misleads them and causes them to be ignorant.

Bastasch is right. There is a reason they do not call Bill Nye the Constitution Guy.

The shame is there are countless politicians and citizens who fit that bill as well.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


It Is A Spending Problem

The United States has a published debt of 19 TRILLION dollars. This does not include the 100 TRILLION or so in unfunded liabilities that we cannot possibly hope to pay for. The government wants us to believe that it needs to tax us more so it can pay for these things. They would have us believe that there is nothing they can do unless we pay more because this is what it costs to run government.

Barack Obama and his regime have added nearly 10 TRILLION dollars to the debt which means, by his own definition, he is unpatriotic.

The problem is not that the government does not extort enough from us. The reality is the government takes far more than it needs to accomplish its CONSTITUTIONAL responsibilities. The problem is our government has gotten itself involved in all kinds of things for which it has no authority and no responsibility. Social programs are the bulk of the government despite the fact there is no authority for them in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly defines the role of the government and what it has authority over. Those authorities do not include health care, education, welfare, college and many other items too numerous to mention.

The bottom line is we spend too much. The federal government took in a record amount of tax revenue in the first part of this year and still managed to spend over 400 BILLION more than what it received. IT IS OUT OF CONTROL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPENDING that is causing the problem.

We now have people running for the presidency who want to add even more debt to the ledger. Bernie Sanders wants to give away everything for free (by free he means other taxpayers foot the bill) and Hillary Clinton wants to add another TRILLION dollars to the budget (for more unconstitutional spending) and pay for it by increasing taxes ONE TRILLION dollars (likely more).

This must stop. All the ancient politicians in DC will be dead and gone when the ticking time bomb they set off explodes and causes the collapse of our nation. They and their families have profited quite nicely by gaming the system and then they will die off while the rest of us suffer the consequences.

We need to reduce the size of our government and end ALL unconstitutional spending and we need to do it yesterday.

You might think it is all free and the rich can pay or we can tax our way out of it but that thought would be wrong.

And when the SHTF the leeches thinking such thoughts will be the first to suffer and the first go.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


The Second Amendment Deals With An Individual Right

A piece is posted at Bill by a writer named Dorothy Samuels (the site indicates it was originally posted at The Nation) gives us this writer’s opinion that the Second Amendment was never meant to protect an INDIVIDUAL right to a firearm. She indicates that the Conservatives on the Robert’s Court twisted the words and meaning of the Second Amendment and ignored the prefatory phrase; a well-regulated militia, in order to invent a right out of thin air. Her assertion is that it was well established that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right.

I do not agree with her but as an aside, where was her outrage when the Robert’s court, led by John Roberts, codified Obamacare by changing a penalty to a tax?

Ms. Samuels could not be more wrong. It is important when looking at the Constitution to look at the words the people who wrote it used. It is important to read what they discussed about the document.

With regard to the Second Amendment the Founders were clear that it protected the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. There is no doubt the militia is mentioned and it is important to note that each citizen can be called into service for the militia (at that time men of a certain age). There is no guarantee they ever will but their right to keep and bear arms still exists. If they are ever called they will be properly trained (which is what well-regulated means) to defend the state.

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

The second phrase reads; “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The phrase The People means the body citizen. It does not mean the militia, it means the citizens or the people. The preamble to the Constitution starts out We The People and no one is foolish enough to suggest that this means only those called into the militia.

If Ms. Samuels and those who think like her believe that only the militia should be armed then we need a lot more people carrying firearms. Title 10 US Code Subsection 311 defines the militia as;

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. Cornell Law

Many quotes of the Founders can be found here. It is worthwhile to look at them and see what they had to say about individual liberty and freedom and how firearms kept and borne by citizens was important. Note that the quotes discuss the people and their right to bear their PRIVATE arms.

“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one [sic] who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

I would also point out that the first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights. Some extend to industry like the media, institutions like religion and to the states and the people of those states. When it all boils down these are individual rights that are protected for the people from their government. The body of the Constitution already addresses standing armies, the Navy and the militia. If Congress intended for arms to only apply to the militia then it would have addressed it in the body and not in the portion that was designed to protect individual rights.

Ms. Samuels claims her position is well established. I say that the opposite was well understood a long time ago so much so that it needed not to be addressed. However, the common thought was displayed in the Dred Scott decision which reads, in part:

It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went [emphasis mine]. Wikipedia

Now the Scott decision was a horrible one and dealt with slavery. The issue about firearms was only presented as a parade of horribles the court said would happen if Negroes (the court’s words, not mine) were allowed to be free (to be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens). However, it clearly shows that the court was concerned that a ruling freeing Scott would give him the same rights as citizens and among those was the right to keep and carry firearms wherever he went.

There is no doubt that it was well established, contrary to Ms. Samuels claims, that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right so much so it was stated as an afterthought in the Scott decision. It was well known that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual one, that was never in doubt. It concerned the court that Scott would be allowed to do that which free men were already allowed to do.

So it is clear that Ms. Samuels is incorrect. She and those who dissented in Heller are the ones on the wrong side of history. Firearms are not responsible for the problems of society.

People are and the response, all too often, from people like Ms. Samuels is to punish those who had nothing to do with the problem.

It is un-American and it is unconstitutional.

All you have to do is read what the Founders wrote and look at the real history of the nation, not the common core crap they are teaching these days.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


O’Malley Gun Control Plan Dismantled

As governor of Maryland Martin O’Malley pushed through gun control measures that violate the US and Maryland Constitutions and he assured the morons who follow him that this would make life better and safer. The only thing O’Malley accomplished was to make it tougher for the law abiding. Criminals in Maryland still get firearms and they still shoot people. Led by Democrats the criminals in Baltimore riot and destroy with impunity.

Martin does not dislike firearms. He was perfectly happy with all the armed State Police officers who protected him and his family. He is just not too keen on everyone else having firearms. He is a typical liberal who thinks that he is better than everyone else and that he knows how to run other people’s lives. He is wrong but in his little brain he thinks he is not only correct but that people love him and think he is brilliant.

O’Malley (or O’Moron as I like to refer to him) will unveil his anti-gun platform as he tries to out liberal the other morons running for his party’s nomination. Let us take a look at his platform and dismantle it. Each item of his plan is presented and then I will comment.

Using procurement contracts to advance gun safety by requiring manufacturers that seek federal contracts to make design changes. O’Malley says the changes will “advance gun safety and improve law enforcement’s ability to trace firearms. These include hidden serial numbers that cannot be defaced, micro-stamping, magazine disconnect mechanisms and other next-generation safety improvements.

The last thing first. Being able to track firearms is only effective for tracking those legally owned. If firearms are stolen or obtained via other illegal means they might be able to track back to an individual but not necessarily the person who used the firearm illegally. As for forcing firearms manufacturers to make design changes in order to secure government contracts, what happens if none of them do so? Suppose the gun makers decide not to make changes and not to bid on contracts for government purchases? What happens when government can’t get firearms because of this insanity? I think fewer government agents having guns is a great idea and would applaud any manufacturer who told O’Malley to pound sand. Imagine a President O’Moron {{{shudder}}} who has Secret Service without firearms because no one would buckle to governmental pressure. The government should not be using OUR money to force compliance. Imagine how O’Moron would react if a contract required a company bidding on a government contract to NOT provide abortion services in its employee health care?

Ending the federal defense of gun dealer immunity by stopping enforcement of a 2005 law that O’Malley says protects irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits by victims and families of victims of gun violence

Irresponsible by whose definition? There are already laws that define how gun dealers must act and how they must conduct business. If they are doing things incorrectly then they should be fined or lose their license. But a blanket statement such as this opens the door for lawsuits based on some arbitrary idea of irresponsibility. Someone could be shot with a legally purchased firearm that was later stolen and an idiot like O’Moron would claim the dealer should have known it would get stolen so he is irresponsible and therefore subject to litigation.

But hey, let’s take this idea a little farther. The government at all levels allows the sale of tobacco and alcohol. The government should not have immunity from lawsuits by those affected by its irresponsible permission for the sale of tobacco and alcohol. The government KNOWS people will be harmed by these products and that is why there are warnings on the labels of tobacco and alcohol products. So the government is being irresponsible in allowing these items to be sold. Based on what O’Moron thinks about firearms dealers the government should not have immunity from lawsuits by those harmed by these products.

Strictly enforcing existing bans on gun ownership for domestic abusers and stalkers, to “disarm those convicted for committing domestic violence

This is a tricky one. The first thing that needs to happen is that we ensure people who did not actually commit domestic violence or stalking are not convicted or charged or discriminated against. A single incident that involves two people might be domestic violence or it might not. By all means, if a person is involved in domestic violence then that person (he or she) should not be allowed to own a firearm. But before we take away this right we need to make absolutely certain and there should be a method to regain that right if circumstances warrant it.

The reality though is we already have laws that prohibit these folks from owning firearms. If these people decide they want a firearm they will get one. No law preventing the ownership of a firearm will prevent a person who wants to get one from doing so. Protective orders and orders banning a person from owning firearms are only pieces of paper that will not prevent a person from getting and using firearms. These work no better than gun control laws because those inclined to break the law will do so. This is more of a method for government to define what a person did as domestic violence and then remove guns that way. How will government strictly enforce this as O’Moron wants? It can’t enforce the gun control laws liberals have already enacted. If they could Baltimore and Chicago would be safe places instead of shooting galleries. The best thing to do would be to ensure the victims of such violence can get and carry a firearm for protection. But O’Moron opposes this. Once again, you are not as important as he and his family.

Banning so-called “cop killer” ammunition by working to close loopholes that O’Malley’s campaign says “have made hundreds of kinds of dangerous cartridges available for sale.” The campaign says he will act in his executive capacity as president to tighten current regulations

This is one of those slippery slope deals in that he can ban “cop killer” ammunition and then define all ammo as cop killer. There are bans on the manufacture of certain types of ammo and those laws should be good enough. If manufacturers are making this ammo then they need to be dealt with. But let me be clear, if government agents are allowed to have this ammo then so should the general population. Once again O’Moron talks about tightening current legislation as if that will stop people from breaking the law. It is illegal to buy, sell, possess or use Heroin but people do so every day and no law has ever stopped that. People can buy ammo from other countries and get it in here. If we can’t stop millions of illegals from walking in we sure as hell won’t stop illegal guns and ammo from getting in (though with Obama and Holder it went out of the country instead).

A new “electronic alert system” to inform local law enforcement officials when those who are prohibited from purchasing firearms attempt to do so. The campaign says the system will be “modeled on the FBI alert system used when fugitives purchase guns” and will help law enforcement officials identify which attempted sales to prosecute

This is Mickey Mouse stuff. What happens if a person is unaware that something in his past prevents him from owning a firearm and he attempts to buy one? Would not it be more prudent for the dealer to inform the person and tell him who to contact in government to see if this can be rectified? Then a notation can be made that the person was so informed and if that person attempts to buy firearms later then the police could be notified? In fact, it might be better for the dealer to inform the police of the first attempt and that the person was notified and then for the dealer to notify law enforcement of any subsequent attempts. If the system were properly annotated and working correctly this would be quite easy. O’Moron is looking for a bigger government boondoggle to further gum up the works.

Requiring the safe storage of firearms in homes by issuing and enforcing federal rules that make clear safety standards for gun locks and safes

Here is the short story. What I do in MY house with MY property is none of the government’s business and I will not be regulated by them. The reality is there are two ways to determine if you did not secure your firearms the way people like O’Malley want you to. The first is for there to be a problem with the firearm (like a child getting it and shooting someone). The second is government coming to check. Government will NOT be checking in my house to see what I do with MY property. Responsible people do not leave firearms in an unsafe manner. Yes, we hear some stories about some kid getting a gun from under a bed and shooting himself or someone else but the story usually involves a firearm that was not legally owned by a person who should not have it. Regardless, if you want to leave a loaded shotgun in the corner of a room, that is YOUR business.

Strengthening enforcement and audits of licensed dealers to ensure that they are in compliance with the law. The campaign says this action includes “conducting background checks of gun dealer employees; ensuring that dealers who have their licenses revoked do not become unlicensed sellers without first liquidating their inventories; and using audit inspections to check dealer inventories for stolen guns

This is harassment of licensed gun dealers. They already have to comply with a mountain of laws and paperwork. They get inspected and they have to renew their licenses regularly. I am fairly sure most, if not all, of this is in place. I would also imagine that a dealer runs a serial number before purchasing a firearm so it would be unlikely that he would have a stolen one in his possession.

Martin O’Moron is an elitist who thinks that responsible people should not have firearms and should have their lives run by people like him, you know, their betters. He is a low life cretin who infringes upon the rights of law abiding citizens for political gain and so that he can control them. He is not bothered by the firearms that protect him but he does not want others to have that protection.

Given the rumors of O’Malley’s extramarital affair(s) perhaps he should spend more time taking care of his own life and less time getting in our business.

I do not like this troll and I sincerely hope he is never elected to another office. It is time for him to get a real job and earn money that did not come from the sweat of OUR brows.

To paraphrase George W Bush, you are either with the Constitution or you are against it. If you are against it then you are a domestic enemy. My oath says I have to protect against people like you, Marty….

MOLON LABE Marty, you little twit.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


What Happens If the US Defaults?

The United States is supposed to be the world’s superpower and the dollar the world’s currency but America is unable to control its spending. Despite taking in record amounts of money the federal government continues to spend even more.

We have 18 TRILLION dollars of debt but we have over 100 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. These are things the government has promised but cannot pay for. When the day comes for those items to be paid the US will not honor the obligations because it will be unable to.

The war cry from liberals is to tax the rich more. The wealthy folks in our country pay most of the taxes. The bottom 47% of earners pay NO federal tax and often get back more than was withheld in an income redistribution scheme overseen by the IRS.

Taxing the wealthy would not solve the problem. If we confiscated 100% of the money the wealthy have the government would run out of that money in a few months. Then there would be no more to take and we would still have huge bills to pay.

China, among other nations, holds a lot of our debt. If China ever called for us to pay them everything back we would go under. The Chinese could collapse our economy, and thus our nation, and it would never have to take a hostile act to do it.

We are in serious trouble and it is getting worse. Soon, if things do not change, we will be like Greece.

The government there is looking at every possibility to solve its financial woes and that includes confiscating money from citizens and limiting their access to their own money. The US has schemes and one of them is to confiscate all the money in the various retirement plans throughout the nation. Doing so would give the government TRILLIONS of dollars to spend. It would keep us from defaulting for a while but it would leave everyone penniless. We would all be wards of the state.

Nanny state types will insist it is for the greater good and that the money confiscated can pay bills and be used to evenly pay every person a retirement. It would allow them to redistribute to the poor who have little or no retirement money saved while forcing those who saved to accept small amounts and live meager lives in retirement.

This of course assumes that the public will not revolt and stop this from happening by any means possible. That is a distinct possibility since people do not like their money to be screwed with. The poor who stand to gain will likely support it as will politicians who want to enslave even more people to the government plantation. Those who stand to lose will likely not take any action lying down.

The unrest will make for an environment where any enemy can take advantage and start trouble.

This all because our government can’t live within our means. This because our government insists on spending money on things that are not authorized by the Constitution. This because the tax system is screwed up and complicated and because the money that is confiscated from the people of the states is held over the heads of the states to gain compliance with ever increasing federal rule.

We need to abolish the IRS, change to a simpler tax system where EVERY wage earner pays (and we all pay the same percentage) and we need to harness the out of control government to force it to only spend money on things it is allowed to spend on.

Troubling times are coming and we will all pay a heavy price for the things our arrogant government is doing.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog