The Lesser Of Two Evils

This article from Campaign For Libertyis almost exactly what I have been telling my friends and family for years. one of my professors at Bible College used to rant and rail against this "choosing the lesser of two evils" philosophy, saying that it was like running out of gas, and deciding whether to put sand or water in your gas tank.

The Lesser of Two Evils?
By Adam de Angeli



The Lesser of Two Evils is Really the Greater Evil
I recently read a member post that argued that one must sometimes support the lesser of two evils. The author explained it with a metaphor, by saying that, on the one hand, if offered two unhealthful foods, one could refuse to eat either of them, but if being forced to choose between an unhealthful food and poison, one would have to take the unhealthful food to avoid the poison. Likewise, he argued, having no choice but John McCain or Barack Obama, he should have voted for John McCain rather than the third-party candidate.

It is a popular, understandable belief; an intuitive tactical judgment. But upon close examination, it is principally due to this belief that our politicians get away with betraying us.

Indeed, it is essential for success that we defeat acceptance of the lesser of two evils. Therefore, let us examine what's wrong with supporting the lesser of two evils.

The common counter-argument that everybody is fond of is the saying, "the lesser of two evils is still evil, and I cannot support evil." It's glib, and weak. It does not stand up to the original argument. One could respond, "so cut off your nose to spite your face, but if tyranny is inevitable I prefer to minimize it." That would be a valid counter-argument.

Therefore, let us discard the "I just can't support evil" rebuttal. It's useless, and it is used in place of much more important observations.

Another potential counter-argument, much rarer but noted by C4L political trainer Michael Rothfeld, is that it demoralizes people to be told they must choose between bad or worse, and we shouldn't be working to demoralize people. We have all met people who refuse to be involved in politics because "the whole business is just dirty" or something like that. It truly is depressing when the candidate on "your side" is almost as bad as his opponent. As Rothfeld says: "If you're telling someone they need to support John McCain to stop Barack Obama, or to support George Bush to beat Bill Clinton, who's the fool there?"

This is an interesting argument, but it also performs rather poorly against the lesser-of-evil argument. It doesn't tell us anything we don't know, or contradict the argument. Yes, it is demoralizing when you have to hold your nose to vote. That notwithstanding, one would argue, wouldn't it still be preferable to have a lesser evil? The author of the post mentioned the Scott Brown election. Even though Scott Brown's a neocon, he reasoned, isn't that better than a Ted Kennedy?

A third potential counter argument is that you cannot achieve your political goals by rewarding those who vote against you. John McCain had an atrocious record of campaigning against gun rights. Had he won the election, what kind of message would have been sent to Republicans around the country? That they can be bad on gun rights and the people who care will vote for them anyway.

Rothfeld notes an example: Following the Columbine massacre, the NRA "A"-rated governor of Colorado, Bill Owens, introduced a set of anti-gun bills and a ballot initiative against gun shows (1). When a reporter asked Owens whether the move would alienate his conservative base, Owens arrogantly laughed, "what are they going to do, vote Democrat?"

This argument addresses the major problem with supporting the lesser evil: it leads directly to unaccountability. In this way, this argument is pretty tough. However, it still does not directly address the major argument about the lesser of two evils, which is that less evil is still preferable. Even if it does demoralize us, even if it does send a bad message to politicians, even if it is morally offensive, it is still pragmatic.

However, this third potential counter-argument is one aspect of the larger, vital argument, and the one that must be made whenever the "lesser of two evils" argument is made:

It just isn't true at all.

Is Barack Obama really so much worse than John McCain? I see nothing in John McCain to suggest it. On every major issue, John McCain is with Barack Obama. Both are utterly pro-war. Both staunchly backed the massive bailouts. Both vote routinely for expanding government. Both demonstrate utter disregard for privacy, for property, and for individual liberty. Both share the same Gun Owners of America rating (F--).

Indeed, the major difference between Obama and McCain is not their policies, but their party affiliation and the public's reaction to them.

And that is why, one could argue, John McCain had to lose.

If McCain had won, there would have been no rejection of neoconservatism, no repudiation of the Bush years and the immense harm he inflicted on our country and around the world. The Republican Party and the Republican politicians would see that they could get away with everything.

There would have been no tea parties. Where were all the principled conservatives during the Bush years, when he doubled the size of government, passed a prescription drug bill that increased the obligations of Medicare by $8 trillion (2), and signed the tyrannical PATRIOT Act?

Like a forest fire rejuvenating the soil for future growth, or like a recession to correct market distortions for future prosperity, a down-and-out Republican party is one that is ready to listen to us and learn what must change for them to bounce back. They aren't shrugging us off anymore, and that's a positive change.

Let's look now at the Scott Brown victory. Is a neocon better than a Kennedy? Hardly, if you ask me. More important, however, this comes on the heels of the victory in New York's 23rd district for a weak candidate, and victories elsewhere that portend a Democrat bloodbath in November. In Michigan, a special state Senate election saw a statist Republican take a seat from a Democrat. What message is this sending the Republican Party?

The message these victories send to the Republican Party is, "we don't need to change anything, just let them wail under the Dems for a year and come running back into our arms."

I don't think the Republican Party has been in the wilderness nearly long enough yet. Let the Democrats have the reins a little longer, so they won't be able to blame the hardship of the Obama years on "just cleaning up the mess that was left for us." Let them see how hollow Obama's rhetoric of hope and change truly was. Let them learn what you get when you settle for "anybody but Bush." For their part, the Republicans need to be shown that an ideological change on their part, and a renewed commitment to principle, will be required for them to return to power. And only then may the conservatives take power and send the socialists into the wilderness.

Turning now to a race in Michigan, there is a Secretary of State election coming up. All of the candidates on both sides are lousy on Real ID, as is the retiring incumbent, a Republican. It's certain that no matter who wins the election, the next Secretary will be bad on Real ID. So what is more beneficial to us, having a Democrat or Republican win the election? Well, if the Republican wins, it is, first of all, yet another signal to the GOP that they can take our support for granted. And second of all, if we go after the next Secretary of State on the Real ID issue, what relationship with mainstream conservatives is preferable: them resenting us for attacking a Republican who is surely saving Michigan from ACORN, or them happily joining us in clubbing a Democrat over the issue?

Rothfeld quotes an Ohio legislator, Ron Hood, putting it this way: "It's not the devil in horns and a tail I fear; I know to run from that guy. It's the devil in a suit quoting scripture that I worry about."

Really, which do you prefer: an out-and-out socialist like Obama, or a crypto-socialist like George W. Bush?

Yes, the coming years are going to be rough under Obama. They would have been rough anyway. But being in the minority is sometimes a good thing. This is the best climate for political organizing for liberty in the last decade. This is a fertile climate for developing resources and building our movement.

What, then, is left to say of the "lesser of two evils" argument? Rothfeld calls it "the biggest lie in politics." Politicians use it to keep the base in line when they betray them. Parties use it to keep the herd from leaving the ranch. But sadly, it is an appealing argument, and many well-meaning and political activists will accept it, without realizing how embracing it actually sets the cause back.

When people make the argument, never hold them at fault for it. It's a perfectly understandable belief, just one that must be corrected. And it is one that all groups geared toward liberty should avoid making.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr Day

You know, it just figures that worthless a$$ Conyers was the one who teamed up with the labor unions to make this a "holiday" back in the 80's. Yes, I know it was Reagan who actually signed it into law, but this was after a lot of pressure by the Left for him to "do the right thing." Believe me, I'm old enough to remember the political atmosphere of the 70's and 80's. I remember Race riots very well, as we had a few at our school. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr worked and sacrificed (and died) trying his best to give Blacks an equal shot at employment, housing, and other Rights and privileges that we Whites take/took for granted.

If you are Black (and don't you dare give me that PC "African-American" crap. If you weren't actually born in Africa, and are now a naturalized American citizen, you aren't "African-American." You are a whiny-a$$, PC poser who probably uses this term as some means to boost your self-esteem because you are a freaking ignorant hoodrat living in a roach-infested crackhouse, which is somehow "Whitey's" fault. Listen, no matter how hard your life may be in the projects, it is nothing compared to the living conditions you would face if you actually lived in Africa. You think you've got it hard here, where you are coddled and privileged beyond the wildest dreams of most Third-Worlders? You wouldn't last a week in the continent you so proudly display on your crappy, overpriced designer clothes and racist license plates. So suck it up, Nancy-boy, and get used to the fact that you are an urban (or suburban) American Black. Maybe your Great-great grandparents came from Africa, but you know what? That was them--it sure as heck ain't you, driving around in your POS car with the $3,000 stereo and rims. My Great-great grandparents came straight off the boat from Germany. My great, great, great grandfather owned a castle, but you won't catch me making any claims to nobility or pretending like I have some affiliation with The Fatherland. I was born here, my children, parents and Grandparents were born here, and we are all (God blessed) American citizens, and proud to be so! I know exactly three African-Americans, and all three of them are as pale as I am.)

As I was saying--if you are Black, and you really want to honor the memory of the man who gave so much to make sure that you and your "peeps" wouldn't have to sit at the back of the bus, be excluded from the same education provided to Whites, and be able to have equal (not elevated, may God damn Affirmative Action) job opportunities as Whites, for the same pay as Whites, then this day--of all days--should be the one day you show up to work and just throw your heart and soul into it. Dr. King lived and died to get you this Right. Don't you think the very least you could do to honor him would be to actually show up for work--on time?

If you really want to honor Dr. King, then you should be absolutely outraged at the thought of "The Man" giving you a handout--whether it comes in the form of HUD, or Affirmative Action, WIC, Welfare, or any of the other entitlement-mentality, government-funded ills that plague our society. Seriously, with all the stereotypical caricatures levelled at Blacks: lazy, shiftless, irresponsible, immature, unreliable, barely-literate quasi-human beasts more interested in "hooking up" for some OPP than in being responsible for their own progeny--do you really want to commemorate this day by not going to work? Really?? How about honoring him by speaking proper English, instead of some Ghetto slang Ebonics? How about honoring him by taking pride in your home, your possessions, and position in the world? Take care of your house, your neighborhood, and your kids. Don't be content to live in squalor in some crime-ridden rathole, and definitely don't exacerbate the condition by propagating it!

Don't you think it behooves you to make this the Day Of Days where you show up everybody by giving 100% -- by taking pride in your work ethic and your heritage of hard work and overcoming adversity?

One of my professors/pastors in Bible College used to say that if Black people really wanted to honor Dr. King, they would want this to be a day where they went to work and everybody of other ethnic backgrounds stayed home. I credit him with most (if not all) of the thoughts and concepts I have written above. Before you get all bent out of shape and call him a racist, I tell you truthfully that he is a proud Que-Dog, and one of the most upstanding, intelligent, Godly men I could ever hope to know or emulate.

If he were here, he would tell you the same as I will--GROW UP !

A Disturbing Parallel

These are actual police mugshots




Just think about this for a second:
Did you ever see anyone arrested wearing a Bush T-shirt?

...or for you older guys, an Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, or even Nixon, or Bob Dole shirt..?



There MUST be a message here...

Anybody?

Praise For Confederate Generals Lee And Jackson

Here is an excellent article by Pastor Chuck Baldwin


January is often referred to as "Generals Month" since no less than four famous Confederate Generals claimed January as their birth month: James Longstreet (Jan. 8, 1821), Robert E. Lee (Jan. 19, 1807), Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson (Jan. 21, 1824), and George Pickett (Jan. 28, 1825). Two of these men, Lee and Jackson, are particularly noteworthy.

Without question, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were two of the greatest military leaders of all time. Even more, many military historians regard the Lee and Jackson tandem as perhaps the greatest battlefield duo in the history of warfare. If Jackson had survived the battle of Chancellorsville, it is very possible that the South would have prevailed at Gettysburg and perhaps would even have won the War Between the States.

In fact, it was Lord Roberts, commander-in-chief of the British armies in the early twentieth century, who said, "In my opinion, Stonewall Jackson was one of the greatest natural military geniuses the world ever saw. I will go even further than that--as a campaigner in the field, he never had a superior. In some respects, I doubt whether he ever had an equal."

While the strategies and circumstances of the War of Northern Aggression can (and will) be debated by professionals and laymen alike, one fact is undeniable: Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson were two of the finest Christian gentlemen this country has ever produced. Both their character and their conduct were beyond reproach.

Unlike his northern counterpart, Ulysses S. Grant, General Lee never sanctioned or condoned slavery. Upon inheriting slaves from his deceased father-in-law, Lee freed them. And according to historians, Jackson enjoyed a familial relationship with those few slaves that were in his home. In addition, unlike Abraham Lincoln and U.S. Grant, there is no record of either Lee or Jackson ever speaking disparagingly of the black race.

As those who are familiar with history know, General Grant and his wife held personal slaves before and during the War Between the States, and, contrary to popular opinion, even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves of the North. They were not freed until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed after the conclusion of the war. Grant's excuse for not freeing his slaves was that "good help is so hard to come by these days."

Furthermore, it is well established that Jackson regularly conducted a Sunday School class for black children. This was a ministry he took very seriously. As a result, he was dearly loved and appreciated by the children and their parents.

In addition, both Jackson and Lee emphatically supported the abolition of slavery. In fact, Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." He also said "the best men in the South" opposed it and welcomed its demise. Jackson said he wished to see "the shackles struck from every slave."

To think that Lee and Jackson (and the vast majority of Confederate soldiers) would fight and die to preserve an institution they considered evil and abhorrent--and that they were already working to dismantle--is the height of absurdity. It is equally repugnant to impugn and denigrate the memory of these remarkable Christian gentlemen.

In fact, after refusing Abraham Lincoln's offer to command the Union Army in 1861, Robert E. Lee wrote to his sister on April 20 of that year to explain his decision. In the letter he wrote, "With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the army and save in defense of my native state, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed . . ."

Lee's decision to resign his commission with the Union Army must have been the most difficult decision of his life. Remember that Lee's direct ancestors had fought in America's War For Independence. His father, "Light Horse Harry" Henry Lee, was a Revolutionary War hero, Governor of Virginia, and member of Congress. In addition, members of his family were signatories to the Declaration of Independence.

Remember, too, that not only did Robert E. Lee graduate from West Point "at the head of his class" (according to Benjamin Hallowell), he is yet today one of only six cadets to graduate from that prestigious academy without a single demerit.

However, Lee knew that Lincoln's decision to invade the South in order to prevent its secession was both immoral and unconstitutional. As a man of honor and integrity, the only thing Lee could do was that which his father had done: fight for freedom and independence. And that is exactly what he did.

Instead of allowing a politically correct culture to sully the memory of Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson, all Americans should hold them in a place of highest honor and respect. Anything less is a disservice to history and a disgrace to the principles of truth and integrity.

Accordingly, it was more than appropriate that the late President Gerald Ford, on August 5, 1975, signed Senate Joint Resolution 23, "restoring posthumously the long overdue, full rights of citizenship to General Robert E. Lee." According to President Ford, "This legislation corrects a 110-year oversight of American history." He further said, "General Lee's character has been an example to succeeding generations . . ."

The significance of the lives of Generals Lee and Jackson cannot be overvalued. While the character and influence of most of us will barely be remembered two hundred days after our departure, the sterling character of these men has endured for two hundred years. What a shame that so many of America's youth are being robbed of knowing and studying the virtue and integrity of the great General Robert E. Lee and General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson.

Furthermore, it is no hyperbole to say that the confederated, constitutional republic so ably declared by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and codified into statute by the U.S. Constitution of 1787 was, for the most part, expunged at the Appomattox Court House in 1865. After all, it was (and is) the responsibility of the states to be the ultimate vanguard of liberty. Without a tenacious, unrelenting defense of liberty by the sovereign states, we are reduced to ever-burgeoning oppression--which is exactly what we see happening today.

Thankfully, freedom's heartbeat is still felt among at least a few states. State sovereignty resolutions (proposed in over 30 states), Firearms Freedom acts (passed in 2 states--Montana and Tennessee--and being proposed in at least 12 other states), and official letters (Montana), statements (Texas Governor Rick Perry), and resolutions (Georgia and Montana) threatening secession have already taken place.

Yes, freedom-loving Americans in this generation may need to awaken to the prospect that--in order for freedom to survive--secession may, once again, be in order. One thing is for sure: any State that will not protect and defend their citizens' right to keep and bear arms cannot be counted on to do diddlysquat to maintain essential freedom. It is time for people to start deciding whether they want to live free or not--and if they do, to seriously consider relocating to states that yet have a heartbeat for liberty.

I will say it straight out: any State that will not protect your right to keep and bear arms is a tyrannical State! And if it is obvious that the freedom-loving citizens of that State are powerless to change it via the ballot box, they should leave the State to its slaves and seek a land of liberty.

I, for one, am thankful for the example and legacy of men such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. They were the spiritual soul mates of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They were men that loved freedom; they were men that loved federalism and constitutional government; and they were men of courage and understanding. They understood that, sometimes, political separation is the only way that freedom can survive. Long live the spirit of Washington, Jefferson, Lee, and Jackson!



Copyright © 2010 Chuck Baldwin

Identity

How do you identify yourself? So many people are caught up in finding their identity in a culture, an ethnicity, or a political affiliation. Many others find theirs in their job, hobbies, or in some other temporal activity.

This should not be the case for anyone who considers themself a Christian.

Anyone who claims to belong to Christ (the original definition of Christian, i.e. "Christ-ones") should find their identity in Jesus Christ first, foremost, primary, and overshadowing all other aspects of who they are and where they find meaning & identity. As Christians, our entire life is all about Jesus Christ and the cross. The cross of Christ sets us apart; it defines us and gives us an identity. It also tells us about the God who called us and gave Himself up for our sacrifice. He revealed Himself in His love, mercy, justice, and wrath through the cross. Through it, we have been redeemed, reconciled, and made a people for His glory. We have a new identity as His people, and as such, our old ways of life should no longer exist. We have identity and purpose only through the cross.

Through the cross of Christ, we are made a "royal priesthood;" people who have free audience with the sovereign of the universe.
Our new identity also includes a new ethnicity. We are no longer "red and yellow, black and white," but are now "holy" (1 Peter 2:9). In light of this, our lifestyles should be radically changed. We have an entire new family that has been sovereignly chosen by the One who chooses and acts perfectly. As God's own possession, we should realize this unity and be more tightly knit than any other community of people. As family, we should yearn to fellowship and get to know one another, building stronger and deeper relationships. This would also serve the twofold purpose of building up the body and glorifying the God who chose us in Christ.

News Release From Mike Murphy: Legislation To Protect CCH Information

This is good news, though there are a couple points I find bothersome. First of all is his mention that he is the only candidate with an A+ rating from the NRA. My disappointment with the NRA aside, the problem here is that some of the other candidates running for Dan Burton's 5th Congressional District seat are not career politicians and have had no opportunities to introduce Pro-2A legislation.

My second--and much larger--concern is that Mr. Murphy still has not replied to the Quiz For Prospective Politicians that I sent to Luke Messer.


December 30, 2009
Mike Murphy acts to protect 2nd Amendment Rights
Today I announce my intention to file legislation in the Indiana General Assembly that will protect the privacy of those with firearm carry permits in the state. The residents of the 5th Congressional District deserve a representative in Washington who will stand up for their rights. I am the only candidate in this race with an A+ rating from the NRA, and have a strong and dependable legislative record when it comes to supporting the 2nd Amendment.

The proposed legislation would make the information on a firearm carry permit application, as well as the name and address of the person holding the permit, protected information. The information would not be public record and would be available only to law enforcement officials for legitimate law enforcement purposes.

In my eight terms as an Indiana State Representative, I have consistently defended the 2nd Amendment. I have introduced an average of nearly one piece of new firearms-related legislation for each legislative term I have been in office. This bill was crafted partly in reaction to widespread publication of the races, ages, and other personal statistics of gun carry permit owners across the state on various newspapers' websites. Although I understand and respect the legitimate interests of journalists and other organizations, I am worried about the privacy and safety of Hoosiers.

Displaying the demographics of Hoosier gun owners on the internet is a clear danger to gun owners. Publishing carry permit information helps criminals target streets where there are low numbers of permit holders, and can also set up homes for gun theft. Either way it compromises the safety of Hoosiers. Ultimately, this legislation seeks to protect gun owners and non gun owners alike while still giving law enforcement access to necessary information for legitimate law enforcement needs.

I will continue applying Hoosier common sense and Heartland values to any debate in Washington, especially when it has to do with your Constitutional right to bear arms. To see more of what I hope to accomplish in Washington, please log on to my website at www.mikemurphycongress.com.

Merry Christmas

Chinese Dissidents, Gun Owners & Cockroaches

BEIJING – A Chinese court sentenced a prominent dissident to 11 years on Friday — the longest term ever handed down for subversion charges, according to rights groups that say it signals the government will take an increasingly hard line against activists in the year ahead.

The sentencing of Liu Xiaobo, after he called for sweeping political reforms and an end to Communist Party dominance, also drew diplomatic criticism, with the United States saying it went against international norms.

Liu was the co-author of an unusually direct appeal for political liberalization in China called Charter 08. He was detained just before it was released last December. More than 300 people, including some of China's top intellectuals, signed it.

The verdict was issued at the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court in Beijing after a two-hour trial Wednesday in which prosecutors accused Liu of "serious" crimes.

The vaguely worded charge of inciting to subvert state power is routinely used to jail dissidents. Liu could have been sentenced for up to 15 years in prison under the charge.

Perhaps the most disturbing piece of political-speak in the article is this tidbit from the US Embassy's first secretary, Gregory May:

"Persecution of individuals for the peaceful expression of political views is inconsistent with internationally recognized norms of human rights," May said.

Ouch! Really?! So how much longer will it be before those of us who were spreading "fishy rumors about healthcare reform" find ourselves under more than just verbal attack? Remember, according to Hillary Clinton and Janet Napolitano, those of us who adhere to a literal interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are already considered "Domestic Terrorists." Likewise for those of us who have membership in 2A groups, such as the GOA, JPFO, and the NRA. Ron Paul supporters are also "domestic terrorists," and in case anyone has forgotten, the US PATRIOT Act hasn't lapsed. All the power that GWB "needed" to fight against our perceived enemies by means of sidestepping and ignoring the Constitution is now held and wielded by a man whose entire platform of "hope & change" has been a front for dismantling America and turning our nation into a Socialist State. Those of us who find ourselves on any of the aforementioned rosters have been boldly labeled as "the enemy" by the administration currently in power, who--it might be added--have been quick to label BHO's detractors "racists."

Domestic Terrorists. Racists. Un-American. Nazis.

Does this tactic of dehumanizing your opponent remind you of anything?

Cockroaches, perhaps?

Happy Bill Of Rights Day

Here is an article from Dr. Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty


December 15 is neglected by most Americans for its historical significance as the anniversary of the Bill of Rights. Even worse, American politicians neglect the actual Bill of Rights on a day-to-day basis.

Whether or not the Bill of Rights can ever be an effective means of limiting the government is open to debate. However, the Bill of Rights does offer a fairly good outline of a free society, and it shows how far our country has strayed.

In an America with a full respect for the Bill of Rights, there would be no Federal Communications Commission regulating the airwaves and forbidding certain speech, no Federal Election Commission limiting how much Americans can donate to political candidates or what they can say in independent political ads, no Food and Drug Administration harassment of pharmaceutical and wine producers regarding their commercial speech, no federal laws that have anything to do with religion whatsoever, and no federally established "free-speech zones."

There would be no federal laws disarming Americans, prohibiting airlines from allowing pilots or passengers to carry guns on planes, or limiting how much ammo or what kind of firearms people can buy and own.

There would be no Patriot Act, no secret searches, no spying on telecommunications without a warrant.

There would be no civil asset forfeiture, no horrendous eminent domain abuses, no kangaroo courts, star chambers and phony hearings for the accused.

There would be no torture in America's "terrorist" dungeons.

There would be no federal laws against starting a business without a license, buying and selling drugs, competing with the government to provide its "services" at a better cost and higher quality, or seceding from the central state.

There would be no federal programs not authorized by the Constitution: no Departments of Energy or Education, no Medicare or Social Security, no Federal Reserve or Selective Service, no farm subsidies or corporate welfare.

We've come a long way, haven't we?

If either the ninth or tenth amendment alone had full recognition, almost everything now done by the federal government would come grinding to a halt. A government that obeyed the Bill of Rights would cost a small fraction of its current size, and would not require an income tax to fund. The young would be liberated from Social Security and any fear of conscription ever coming back. The streets would be safer, free from the violent crime augmented by the War on Drugs and gun control. America would no longer have a higher per capita prison population than Saudi Arabia, Russia and North Korea. The free economy would be unleashed to produce the largest revolution in technology and commerce and greatest increase of the American standard of living since the Industrial Revolution. The productive sector would no longer be persecuted by the political class for producing too much, not enough, or not according to the specifications of central planning.

Many if not most political tensions would be decentralized down to the state level, and after that, competition and experimentation among states would likely point the way to the benefits of liberalizing and shrinking government at all levels.

The blessings of free association would again sweep America, as people's rights to hire, fire, work for, and enter business and organizations with whomever they wanted would allow economic productivity to balloon, and religious, ethnic and racial hostilities to decline. Immigration would no longer be seen as such a threat as decisions to associate or not to associate would be left to the states and, much more ideally, private-property owners.

Healthcare would be more affordable and of a higher quality. The price of food staples would plummet, as the feds would no longer subsidize clumsy agricultural practices with price supports, and even the poorest workers would have far greater access to necessities and luxuries than almost anyone in the history of the world.

Many tens of thousands of federal employees would have to find honest work.

With the Bill of Rights respected and enforced, the War on Terror as we know it would be impossible. The federal government would no longer have any powers not delegated to it by the Constitution -- rendering such unconstitutional projects as Iraq and Afghanistan totally prohibited. Americans would stop dying in foreign wars, and foreigners would have far less reason to attack the United States.

Americans would become more responsible, tolerant, caring, cooperative, industrious, wealthy and safe. A lot of problems would still exist, but without the amplification that they now get in the political process.

If today you hear an elected official mention the Bill of Rights -- a politician besides Ron Paul, that is -- try to imagine which Bill of Rights he's referring to. Which Bill of Rights is it that allows for three-and-a-half-trillion-dollar budgets, airport Gestapo, thousands of gun laws, a federal war on drugs, No Child Left Behind, bailouts of Wall Street, stimulus spending, Obamacare, Cap and Trade and McCain-Feingold? Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that the president can disqualify suspected terrorists from their rights to a trial, an attorney, and due process?

The officials who violate the Bill of Rights are breaking the very law that supposedly brings their jobs and the government that employs them into existence. And yet we are supposed to take them seriously when they talk about "the rule of law," "law and order," and "justice."

I celebrate Bill of Rights Day, not out of some delusion that we have the enumerated and unenumerated freedoms protected by the document, nor with some nostalgia for a past when the Bill of Rights was perfectly obeyed. It never was. George Washington and John Adams violated the Bill of Rights. Ever since Lincoln, the document has suffered major violence, and eight years of Bush and one year of Obama have probably done more harm to the freedoms in the Bill of Rights than this country has seen in several generations.

But Bill of Rights Day is still a good time to think of that document, which comes as close to a perfect founding legal charter for a free society as any in the world. Celebrate Bill of Rights Day, if only to think of the great freedoms that might exist, that could exist, and that can exist, one day, in fuller force and greater glory than ever before.

Big Bird Calls BS On BHO

Response From Luke Messer

Last month, I sent a letter to Luke Messer, one of the contenders for Dan Burton's Congressional seat. Today, I received a reply from Mr. Messer. My original questions are in bold italic.

Thank you for your questions and for the time you take nearly every day to help others learn about the importance of the 2nd Amendment. You have a particular talent for explaining these issues in a way that others can understand. Please see my responses to your questions below:



1. You state on your website that you intend to "preserve our freedoms." How, exactly do you intend to do this? Where do you stand on REAL ID and PASS?
As far as "preserving freedoms," I believe our founding fathers did that quite well in the US Constitution. So, as a Congressman, you can count on me to stand up for our Constitutional protections everyday.

Like many other freedom loving Americans, I have serious concerns about REAL ID. I recognize the post 9-11 national security problems that lead to the passage of REAL ID. However, in my opinion, we have yet to address these security issues in a way that respects constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties and the principles of federalism, makes economic sense, and contributes to national security and public safety.

One of the biggest philosophical problem with the Real ID Act is that federal government agencies have a blank check to define "official purposes" in which they may reject a person's ID. As a result, enforcement powers are guaranteed to get out of control somewhere down the road. In addition, the bill is an unfunded mandate, and I don't agree with unfunded mandates.

From what I have read about PASS, it is a positive step away from Real ID and an attempt to reconcile many of the tougher technological requirements. However, I continue to have many of the same concerns about PASS that I have about Real ID.

Overall I believe it is reasonable to have guidelines that help the states reach a common standard, but I am a believer that the best government is the government closest to the people. So, I am not in favor of a national ID that supersedes the states' current responsibility for ID.

2. What do you think we need to do, if anything, to secure our borders?
America shares a 2,000 mile border with Mexico and any talk of meaningful immigration reform starts with doing a better job securing that border.

Given today's modern technologies, this goal is achievable. Unfortunately, to date, the federal government has failed in its responsibility to do this important job.

Border security is the essential first step to immigration reform for at least three reasons: First, control of our borders is an essential element of any sovereign nation. Second, conditions along the border mock the rule of law. Third, America 's innate sense of fairness will make it difficult to even consider further immigration reforms until we know that our borders are controlled.

It is unfortunate that it may take an act of congress insisting on secure borders to do what the President already has authority to implement.


3. What, if anything, should be done about Illegal Immigration? What of those already here in America? Do you support allowing them to live and work here, sending them back, or some other sort of penalty?
I have not talked to one single American who believes illegal immigration is good for our country. Frankly, some of the biggest opponents of illegal immigration are the folks who worked hard, played by the rules and came to America legally.

There is no doubt in my mind that our country needs an aggressive plan to deal with illegal immigration. It has been estimated that our country's population of illegal immigrants now exceeds 11 million. If you talk to folks who work in law enforcement or health care and government services, they will tell that illegal immigrants are placing a very real burden on the law abiding taxpayers of both our small towns and large communities. This is not just a big city problem anymore.

Amnesty is not the answer. It will only worsen the problem because it will cause more people to come here illegally with the hope of someday having their status adjusted. Admittedly, this is a difficult challenge because of the incredible number of folks here illegally. However, I could not support a program that gave amnesty to people who are already in America illegally. Like Mike Pence and others, I would require that anyone currently in the country illegally must leave and come back legally, under the terms of the guest-worker program. To come back legally, they would need to demonstrate a job opportunity in the U.S.

America became the world's great melting pot through legal immigration. Through legal immigration, we became a country second to none with the greatest minds, hardest workers and the kindest hearts in the word. Any immigration reform should, therefore, recognize that our country is a land of immigrants, and encourage legal immigration and a temporary worker program which reflects our labor needs in both the high-tech and agricultural sectors. Additionally, our policies must underscore the importance of learning English, American civics, and respecting the values of our great democracy.

4. You state that you are "A rated by the NRA." What rating does Gun Owners of America (www.gunowners.org) rate you?
I do not currently have a rating with gunowners.org, but we are proud of our A rating with the NRA. When I was in the Indiana General Assembly, I had a 100% voting record on pro-2nd Amendment issues.

5. Since we are on the topic of firearms, I have some questions for you concerning the 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges the birthrights of all Americans?
Yes

6. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state?
Yes, while the Bill of Rights originally only applied against the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extends all of provisions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. The right to keep and bear arms is one of these fundamental rights.

7. Do you believe that the Constitution is, as President Obama has described it, a "living document" subject to the interpretations and exigencies of our present time?
No. The purpose of having a written Constitution is so that its words remain the same. Every provision of the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original meaning of its terms. These principles of freedom are timeless, and as relevant today as the day they were written.

8. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider Constitutional.
The Founding Fathers believed that the Second Amendment secured the right to keep and bear arms for every law-abiding and peaceable American. As such, it has long been accepted that people duly convicted of violent felonies have forfeited their right to keep and bear arms as a consequence of their dangerous crimes.

9. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional.
Chicago gun ban.

10. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?
The historical scholarship on this creates several questions. The Founding Fathers believed that arms should be carried openly, because in their time it was widely believed that only people engaged in nefarious activity concealed their weapons from public view. Since the Second Amendment, like every provision of the Constitution, must be interpreted according to the original meaning of its terms, the record is inconclusive whether "the right to keep and bear arms" included carrying them concealed from view in 1791 when the Second Amendment was adopted, or in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. I do, however, strongly support concealed carry laws, and believe that we should enact legislation in all fifty states to ensure that every law-abiding American has the means to defend himself as he goes about his daily business. Every American has the right to self-defense.

11. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern?
I would need additional information regarding how you define that term. For example, a 9mm Beretta has been the sidearm for the U.S. Army, I believe, for many years, and I certainly support people having the right to possess semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns. The term "bear" in "right to keep and bear arms" has always been understood to extend to firearms that an ordinary man could carry ("bear") on his person as he walks. This does not extend to double-barrel anti-aircraft guns, for example, as these are far too heavy for a man to lift. Likewise, the Founding Fathers distinguished "arms" from "ordnance," so they believed that cannons, mortars and other weapons that used explosive rounds and other such objects were outside the definition of "arms," so items such as RPG launchers would be excluded from the Second Amendment. I support lineal descendents of eighteenth-century firearms as encompassed within the protections of the Second Amendment, which would include firearms that take advantage of subsequent technological advances in weaponry. I oppose all modern efforts to ban firearms such as high-power rifles, as these are clearly within the constitutional definition of the right to bear arms.


12. If so, will you use the authority and prestige of your office to publicly urge your fellow Representatives, as well as President Obama, to cease and repeal their efforts to restrict or infringe in any way upon firearms ownership?
Yes, I will support and promote every bill that advances the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and will vigorously oppose, without compromise or apology, every bill that violates the Second Amendment.


13. Do you support or oppose registration of weapons? Why?
Oppose. Part of the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect citizens against the possibility, however far-fetched it may seem today, of a regime that seizes power in this country in violation of the Constitution, and maintains that reign through force of arms. The Shot Heard Round the World on April 19, 1775 is such an example, where the British, under the command of Lt. General Thomas Gage, were attempting to confiscate the colonists firearms in Concord, Massachusetts. The American Revolution started with an attempted gun grab. History has shown that an essential part of such developments is that the government must confiscate all weapons from the people, and to do that they must know who has what. There is no legitimate reason for government to have records of gun owners in a central database that they could access at any time.


14. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? Why?
My answers to Question #6, #10, #11 and #13 address this point in part. I would add to that point that licenses should not be required to carry firearms openly (as opposed to concealed), because the Founding Fathers considered that part of the Second Amendment. I addressed my thoughts on concealed carry above. I believe we should aggressively pursue robust, shall-issue concealed carry laws in every state to ensure that law-abiding Americans can defend themselves.


15. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?
Every Federal law that is unconstitutional, such as the current Federal regulation banning the possession of firearms within National Parks.


16. If elected, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?
Yes. I will join, sponsor or co-sponsor proposed legislation that advances the Second Amendment, and will vote against every anti-Second Amendment bill at every opportunity.