2nd Amendment

There have been, of course, many comments in response to stories in the press. I have made several comments myself.

I decided to pull out the sections relating to "Militia" from the Constitution, surrounding text, etc. Below is what I found. My 'parts' are in bold italic.

Article. I.      - Congress, House and Senate
Section. 8.    - Reads, in part

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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 the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[[ Sounds to me like the Militia is doing the work of the National Guard; because the Army and Navy are listed separately, these are clearly NOT the same thing. Therefore, we probably should treat the two entities (Militia and N.G.) as the same. However, in those days, the Militia was ‘average people’, bringing to the battle their personal arms. That has not been done for many decades, but instead we use the National Guard. However the intent of the comment is clear, and I think we do still have on the books the right of the state to draft individuals into a ‘posse’, or similar ‘organization’; if that is a ‘fact’, it would mean that all people MUST be allowed to own guns, in whatever form that would be useful to the state, including (maybe especially) AK47, AR15, or similar weapons. ]]

Article. II       - President
Section. 2.      - Reads, in part
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[[ Again, the Militia is listed as a separate entity, and belonging to the “several States”; and so again it falls into the category of ‘National Guard’ or other ‘called up’ force. ]]

Amendment II
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 people must have arms so they can be called up to serve as needed. ]]


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[[ Here again the Militia, and the Army and Navy, are listed as separate. Also note that the Militia has ‘special entity status’ when “in actual service in time of War or public danger”. Clearly denotes that the government expects to use the Militia and therefore that is should be ready to serve. You can’t serve (hold and shoot a gun effectively) if you don’t own a weapon first. ]]



While some may try to say I am using the Constitution’s Sections “out of context”, I have included the complete text, including surrounding text, for completeness and to allow full context to be gleaned. I summarize:

In addition to the National Guard, the Militia is ‘average people’ who own and can bring to battle their own weapons. As the people could be used in War, the weapons should be similar to those used in War; such weapons include everything from handguns to AR15 and AK47. Therefore, any law suppressing the ownership of any gun, or causing undo restrictions (such as NC demanding that the police act like a ‘character reference', and that without it you can’t get a gun), is unconstitutional. Even if the Government is willing to supply weapons at the time of 'call up', there is no provision in the Constitution for such action, and therefore no allowance for restricting weapon ownership.


This 'no restriction' would also include local governments, like Chicago (D.C. was recently changed to 'allow'), telling people inside City limits that they can't own handguns, and that "no guns within 'x feet' of schools", because the Constitution explicitly states that we can own weapons.

The only exceptions that could be allowed is ownership by criminals, and the mentally infirm, though even those exceptions may need an Amendment to affirm them.

Drill, Baby, Drill -- but do it safely.

While I agree that you must go after BP, freezing assets would mean they could not operate the business, therefore NOT be able to pay for cleanup, pay workers, businesses hurt by all of this. Better would be to pressure them to not pay but a minimal (if any) dividend, and divert any other money possible to Americans hurt by their actions. Further, hit them too hard and they will declare bankruptcy, and then we get only a few billion from asset sales - years later.

Then we need to prosecute officials for unsafe practices, or whatever else we can, including 'wrongful death' since the shortcuts caused 11 people to die. That would INCLUDE MMS people who didn't do their job, took bribes, etc.

Last (and needs to happen ASAP) is to pass laws that mandate procedures for operation, record keeping, etc, so this never happens again.

We MUST drill offshore. But we need to have the utmost care in how it is done. Sen. Sanders (VT) is saying "no" to offshore. But that is where the oil is, and all other options are either too costly (including enriching our enemies) or decades away from being enough to power America.

(Sent to Rep. Kissell, D, NC on 6/15/10)

OBAMA Admisistration -- just how STUPID ARE THEY?

Let me first say -- I would have voted for someone ELSE if there was a decent candidate. 

TODAY (6/10/10) the news reports say that President Obama says British Petroleum (BP)  must pay for ALL other laid off workers, even those out of work because Obama has placed a 6 month moratorium on all oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

WHAT? I can't agree that any company be forced to pay for something the Government 'decrees' like this. Should there be a moratorium? YES - until ALL of the rigs are checked thoroughly for all safety procedures, that ALL 'blow out preventers' (BOP) are fully TESTED and verified by regulators, and the same with all other things related to the drilling platforms, AND the production platforms, performing "as claimed". And that all procedures are FILED with the government, and that they meet the highest possible standards worldwide.

BTW - lawyers say that the filing requirement "as built" is NOT the same as filing the actual AS IS on the platforms. BULLSHIT. Any common sense would say that they MUST file paperwork for AS THINGS ARE, not as they "might be."

But for the GOVERNMENT to stop a company (in this case, multiple companies) from doing it's work for months, and then demand another company PAY ALL THE WORKERS -- THAT IT NUTS. It might sound OK to some radicals, but will NEVER stand up in a court.

Is BP at fault for the disaster in the Gulf? YES - 100% YES. Should they pay for cleanup, for other businesses like shrimpers, deep sea fishermen, hotels, etc, that can't work while the oil pollutes the waters? YES.

But for them to pay the workers of Anadarko, Shell, and ANY other because OBAMA said 'you can't drill here for whatever random time period I declare' will NEVER be done.

If this Administration keeps making up crap like this, BP may well declare bankruptcy and walk away from the entire thing. The Obama administration needs to GET REALISTIC about this situation.

Now that I think about it - maybe they WANT all this to fail. If they are 'in cahoots' with the oil industry, by making these demands, they are forcing the bankruptcy, and therefore the NON-payment by BP. All of this will cost about 5-10 years of profits. Few companies could ever sustain this, and none will do so willing.

Long-Term Unemployment: No Help For The 99ers

A response to the 'Titled" HuffintonPost story about Unemployment Benefits running out.


The country has been run into the ground. Give away things while the economy is good, lower taxes while it is good. And waste - waste more than you put to use. That is the mantra of the 2 parties.

But then when things are bad, there are no reserves to get you through the rough times. Sorry that schools stopped teaching economics decades ago, and replaced it with "keyboarding" (typing on computers that do the formatting for you). Sorry that we encouraged americans to spend more than they make.

"Lower taxes" on the people so they will spend more. "Lower taxes" on companies so they will make more, but when you can't buy with the air you breathe, the companies go under.

We are in this fix because they ruined the schools - most can't count change much less balance their living expenses. Because they kept tempting us with 'pretty things' instead of teaching the lessons that our earlier generations learned the hard way - work, save, buy with some and save for a 'rainy day'.

Today, we are getting drenched, and few are prepared.

To some less educated, it may sound like I am blaming those out of work. I am not. I am blaming a system that taught us all the wrong lessons. I am blaming "the rich get richer" and "let them eat cake" crowd; and the people who taught us not to care.

"Stuff Happens" - thanks Rand Paul (racism), Don Rumsfeld (war), etc

What a nice quote, cleaned up from "Shit Happens" for TV. Rumsfeld said this about the Iraq war not going well, I think.

NOW Harry Shearer, on Huffington Post, puts it in context for comments made by Republican Rand Paul that appear to be his supporting racism (in the name of personal freedom), blame shifting from BP, and other things. ---

Was the explosion on the oil rig in the Gulf an accident? YES
Was the plan for handling what happened next an accident? YES

UUMMM -- well, let me take that back. There was no REAL PLAN, just a bunch of people in government positions who let BP and all the other oil companies do whatever they wanted, government workers who took home their large paychecks, went on family vacations, and when they went to their government office used the day to download porn, make copies of porn onto DVDs that YOU paid for with tax dollars, and in every other way possible did exactly what big businesses want them to do - which is nothing that interferes with them making billions of dollars.

SO -
You get what you PAY (and VOTE) for - in this case, Americans have voted repeatedly for the same bastards to be in power, answering to the dollars, and power, thrust into their pockets. And for "workers" who (while a 'minority in number') have a huge, negative, impact on our lives.

AND - Was it a stupid comment by Rand Paul? YES. 

And I hope he is defeated in the general KY election for thinking that racism should be allowed because of "freedom". What some idiot does in his house, we can not and should not control. But when his actions affect others (like "you can't eat here", "you can't sleep here", "you can't pee here"), then Government, and BETTER PEOPLE, need to step in and stop it.

Oil Spill may be Impossible to Clean

For article in USA Today --  on Yahoo -----

IN WIKI - search for "oil spill" and you find ---
Dispersants act as detergents, clustering around oil globules and allowing them to be carried away in the water.[12] This improves the surface aesthetically, and mobilizes the oil. Smaller oil droplets, scattered by currents, may cause less harm and may degrade more easily. But THE DISPERSED OIL DROPLETS INFILTRATE INTO DEEPER WATER and can lethally contaminate coral. Recent research indicates that some dispersant are toxic to corals.[13] ******* (I put in the CAPS section)*******
*****************
NOTE that the dispersants do EXACTLY as I speculated over the past few days in other posts - the "plumes" underwater are a direct result of huge amounts of the chemicals used at the source of the spill.

So if it is a known fact, why are they "surprised" to find that oil released into the water as a steady stream will clump together in "plumes"?

It is clear that NO ONE in government (because industry certainly would not want to do it) ever did a decent study of what happens when you use dispersants at the source instead of places like beaches (like Alaska where it was so hard to clean it all up) and other already contaminated places. And if they never studied it, why have the OK'ed the use of massive amounts?

This is not just an Obama problem; it comes through 60-70 years of governments not wanting to interfere with big oil. Great job Washington Bureaucrats.

The AMT is UNFAIR To All

I got a newsletter from "my" senator, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), the other day. It read, in part -

On Monday, I introduced the Children of Fallen Warriors AMT Relief Act, a bill that will remove the punitive burden that is currently imposed on the children of fallen servicemembers by our outdated tax code. Under our current tax laws, the children of a fallen servicemember who receive an annuity from the Uniformed Services Survivor Benefit Plan can unintentionally become subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). This bill recognizes that the children of fallen soldiers have already sacrificed enough for their country, and ensures that they are not subject to the AMT. 


SO I SENT HIM A MESSAGE BACK, (and sent it to "my" Representative) as follows -

In your latest newsletter, you mentioned that you introduced an Act to keep children of fallen soldiers from being subject to the AMT.

That may be a good thing, but you could have saved EVERYONE ELSE along with them by simply changing the AMT to be indexed to inflation, with the RATE INDEX ONLY retroactive to when the AMT started, and any "refund" to taxpayers good only to 2008 (even though I would get money back if it went back to 1999, I recognize that the country needs the income from the past decade).

SO - how about it? How about introducing a BILL to make this a law?"