Heller, the Second, DHS and the gun ban

The AR15 is a rifle that has been singled out by the gun control advocate as signifying all that is wrong with gun ownership. Yet, one person’s ugly, menacing, and unsuitable for this or that, is another’s functional, practical, effective and just plain fun. No one ever said the AR is pretty, but it is an effective and useful tool.

Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has made the point of the argument by those who own AR15s, as to the purpose of the rifle. The argument has been made by the gun control advocates that the alleged assault rifle that is the focus of the ban proposals is not a personal defense weapon, but a weapon of war. DHS’s Request for Bid (RFP) for 7,000 "Personal Defense Weapons" (PDW) for close quarters battle (CQB) demonstrates the hypocrisy and absurdity of the government’s position on military style rifles.

The rifles sought by DHS are the ubiquitous AR15 at the heart of the ‘gun ban’ proposed by President Obama and Senator Feinstein, with one major difference. The rifles in the DHS Request for Proposal (RFP) are also select fire, meaning that like the military issue M4, they will have a full auto and/or 3 round burst and a single shot capability. Other than that one feature, the PDW requested by DHS will be indistinguishable from the AR15 in common use.

The interesting aspect of the DHS RFP is the fact that DHS is specifying select fire weapons, when a few years ago, DEA purchased semi-automatic AR15s. Why has the government decided to upgrade the federal police agencies to provide a firearm equal to the military M4 carbine? Do we want federal police agencies, which are civilian police agencies carrying full auto weapons? Especially, given the increasing number of innocents wounded or killed by police officers?

Those companies responding to the DHS RFP are undoubtedly those same companies that now produce the AR15 in its hundreds of varied configurations. The same companies demonized by the gun control groups and our liberal politicians.

The AR15 has become America’s most popular rifle for a reason. It is simply a good weapon for sport shooting and self protection/self defense. Estimates of the number in private possession in the U.S. are as high as 3,750,000. The self defense use is obviously an attribute recognized by the DHS and civil police agencies that is in agreement with the use by the law abiding civilian. That it is used in so few crimes so as to be statistically irrelevant is another fact that argues against any ban.

Popular three gun shooting competitions are a test of skill using the AR15, semi-auto pistol and 12 gauge riot gun. Women also compete in these contests. The AR is simply fun to shoot.

The civilian AR15 is incapable of being modified to fire in other than a single shot (one round per trigger pull) mode due to changes in the sear design to prevent a full auto capability from being enabled by simply dropping in a military M4 or M16 sear. Therefore, the AR15 is a true personal defense weapon and sporting arm, and not a military ‘assault’ rifle, as claimed by the gun control lobby.

The civilian AR15 is a single shot, semi-automatic, gas operated, magazine fed military style rifle. Semi-automatic means that the gases expelled by the powder burning in the cartridge are used to automatically actuate the bolt of the rifle to extract and expel the empty cartridge case and to move the bolt back to compress a recoil spring in the butt stock that then moves the bolt forward to engage and push the next cartridge from the magazine into the rifle’s chamber and acts to cock the rifle. Military style rifle means that the AR15 outwardly shares many of the same attributes of the military M16 rifle or M4 carbine. The major difference is in the fire control limitations built into the AR15. However, the AR15 can use military issue 30 round magazines, and the same 5.56mmX45mm ammunition issued by the military for the M16/M4. Some versions are configured as rifles capable of firing the larger 7.62mmX51mm .30 cal (.308 caliber) military ammo. The USCG uses a variant that is chambered for .50 cal Beowulf for CQB for boarding suspected drug smuggling vessels.

The impact of this rifle upon the firearms industry and the American shooting public has been incredible. Literally millions of Americans enjoy ‘tricking out’ their AR15 rifle. The hundreds of modifications that can be made in terms of sights, optics, rails, hand guards, stocks, grips, slings, match triggers, weapons lights, flash hiders, muzzle breaks, barrel lengths, magazine types, and different caliber configurations are varied and wide ranging. This adaptability to fit the desire of the shooter allows the rifle to be personalized according to the taste and needs of the owner. Thousands of Americans are in business or employed in those businesses that support the AR15 in all of its various configurations.

The war drives much of the innovation, because most of the accessories were developed as a result of the combat experience and needs of our troops. American innovation and applied technology have made the AR15 the most flexible and adaptable weapon in modern firearms history.

The desire to eliminate the AR15 and high capacity magazines for both the AR15 and semi-auto pistols may be a goal of President Obama and the gun lobby. Effecting such a ban on either the type of firearm or the magazine capacity may be a problematic.

Heller held that ". . . United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. . . . Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

In its December, 2012 ruling, the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Illinois ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional. The court further reinforced Heller by finding that one’s Second Amendment right extended to carry beyond the home:

"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense."

How any reasonable or prudent individual could conceive the AR15 or any semi-auto hand gun "unusual" or not in "common" use is simply unimaginable and incomprehensible, given the proliferation of these types of firearms throughout the civilian, security, police, and military sectors. What is in "common" use are the same weapons issued to civil police and used for the same purpose as the civilian uses them: personal defense and self protection. The AR15 used by civilians and civil police are very similar in terms of configuration and equipment are very similar to the M16/M4 of the military.

All weapons qualify as dangerous, whether a knife, sledge hammer, or firearm. That aspect of the argument is simply without merit.

The AR15 is in "common" organized militia use today with the various 32 USC §109(c) State Defense Forces (SDF) of the various States. The SDF volunteer soldier is required to provide one’s own weapons, ammunition, gear, uniforms and to also bear the cost of training to the benefit of the State. The SDF is paid only when called to State Active Duty. The SDF is the State only component of the organized militia. The Alaska State Defense Force is authorized under AS 26.05.100, its purpose under AS 26.05.070.

The unorganized militia comprises those who do not belong to either the National Guard or the State Defense Force of their State. The unorganized militia member also has an obligation to maintain a military grade arm suitable for militia use, such as the AR15. The member of the unorganized militia, like the SDF volunteer, is expected to provide their own arms, ammunition, and gear, when called up to serve by their governor. Under Alaska statutes, that authority rests with the governor under AS 26.05.110, with the militias defined under AS 26.05.010. All states have similar statutes denoting the organized and organized militias and the authority of the governor to call them up for State Active Duty.

The usual militia use is for the individual to have an AR15 or similar type of military style rifle of good quality in 5.56mmX45mm or 7.62mmX51mm with enough military compatible magazines to allow up to a 200 round individual soldier ammunition load out, depending upon caliber. The ability of the AR15 to utilize standard military issue magazines (30 round for 5.56mm ammo) is extremely important with respect to the ability of the organized and unorganized militia to use military stores in a major natural or man made catastrophe.

The State Defense Forces would be charged by the governor of their respective state to support the National Guard and to aid in restoration of order and to provide security. A call up of part or all of the unorganized militia may be necessary to supplement the NG and SDF forces. Therefore, commonality of the militia weapon with military issue rifles and carbines as to ammunition, magazines, operator controls and sighting procedures are extremely desirable and important to the effectiveness and usefulness of the militia during a time of duress. The AR15 unquestionably meets these criterion.

The "common use" finding in Heller renders irrelevant the President’s and Senator Feinstein’s arguments regarding the capacity of magazines. The so called "high capacity" magazine is in lawful common use by the civilian, military and police user. Therefore, any argument of the magazines being ‘unusual’ is moot.

The arguments of gun control advocates against the AR15 and firearms ownership in general are based not in substance, but founded in emotion and "I think"–opinion. The facts of "common use" should carry more weight in the discussion than how the AR15 impacts esthetically and the emotions imparted upon viewing it. And, those aspects speak to the mental condition of the viewer, and does not reflect negatively upon the rifle.

It is incredible that the law abiding would be penalized, because of an emotional response to an inanimate object, tens of thousands of which are in common use daily. This would be similar to outlawing sharp kitchen knives by the length of blade. Or, attributing an accident involving fatalities to an SUV, rather than the driver of the SUV. More crimes have been committed by criminals or the mentally unbalanced using knives than using rifles.

FBI crime statistics for 2011 show 356 crimes committed using rifles, and 1,659 using knives or other sharp instruments. This is a far more compelling case for the banning of knives than is made for the banning of a particular type of rifle.

The Second Amendment states:

"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 argument of the liberal gun control advocates that the Framers never anticipated firearms like the AR15 is specious and without merit. The Framers used the term "Arms" to denote that the people’s arms were to be as capable and comparable to those used by the military of the time and into the future. In using ‘arms’ rather than stating ‘musket’, for example, the Framers anticipated the continual evolution of weapons’ technology for the common soldier, and, thereby, for the people. It is incredible to believe, as is asserted by gun control advocates, that our personal weapons are not to be as contemporary, as capable and state of the art as those used by the military, given the citizen’s duty as part of the organized or unorganized militia. The AR15 and the semi-automatic hand gun are simply the current iteration of an ongoing, evolutionary individual weapons development process.

Whether intentional or not, the genius of the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in using the term "Arms" is indisputable in their allowing for that ongoing evolution of weaponry so that our Second Amendment rights would never be obsolete.

President Obama and Senator Feinstein are wasting the peoples’ time and money with the red herring of their proposed gun ban and magazine bans. The "common use" stated in Heller defeats the premise of their actions.

The AR15 is not "unusual". It is in common use by the millions by private citizens, security and civil police, all for the same purpose: self defense, and sport shooting. Even DHS recognized this common use in their RFP.

For more information:

Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"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."

Constitution of the State of Alaska:

Article 1 §19:

"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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

Alaska Statutes:

AS 26.05.010

AS 26.05.070

AS 26.05.100

AS 26.05.110

D.C. v. Heller, 478 F3d 370

SCOTUS Heller decision from Cornell University Law School:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Moore v. Madigan, 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals:

http://www.nraila.org/media/10814375/stevensopinion.pdf

Estimates on the number of AR15 rifles in private ownership

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

Human Events:

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/02/the-ar-15-the-gun-liberals-love-to-hate/

FBI Unified Crime Report 2011:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain.pdf

FBI crime report tables, note: click on the table number to see the table you are interested in viewing.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense-data

Pelosi' Solution for Fixing the Economy: Abortion

If you are looking for new ideas with respect to the state of the economy and social issues, look no further than http://www.whitehouse.gov/. There, you will not find any new ideas, but you will find a blueprint for change that is definitely socialist and nothing new.

Worse, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has let the cat out of the bag. One of the major solutions to the economic downturn is . . . abortion.

Killing the unborn will save the states money over the life of that child. Therefore, rather than pay for child care, health care, and education, the solution is to kill the kid before the baby is born. (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpbc.htm, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87161)

Hitler had a similar solution.

Stalin had such a solution.

Pol Pot and Rwanda were the most recent examples of this solution.

Killing while still in womb makes it easier to kill once out of the womb.

Yes, grandma Pelosi, let us continue to encourage the killing of someone else's kid. Not yours.

Yes, Pres. Obama, you pat your daughters on the head and smile in pride, but condone the killing of the unborn of others.

Too many white, black and latino from unwed moms who bought into the idea of sexual freedom at the bidding of your party, Mr. Pres and Madam Pelosi. Too many underage. Unprepared. Lacking maturity and judgment for their actions, but encouraged and sold out by adults seeking to use their misery to build power.

I am disgusted and angered that the leadership of this country could embrace such an abhorrent act as abortion as a solution to an economic downturn.

I further believe that this is an example of the "change" and the "new ideas" of the Obama crew, God help us.

There is nothing new here. Just more death and misery.

Save, don't spend.

Went to Japan on business in 1999, after participating in a State of Alaska sponsored environmental trade services mission to Korea. This was a year after the big bubble burst there that George Soros precipitated with the run on the Bank of Thailand the previous year.

I saw people in Korea begging on street corners. In Osaka, I saw families living under park bridges. Not since the end of WWII had Japan seen so many homeless.

What did Japan do to respond to the economic mess created by over borrowing and bad loans to the zaibatsu? They did what they always do. They tightened their belts, spent as little as they had to, and saved the rest. In three years, Japan was in much better shape, and there was hope and industry began to move back into profitability.

Japan did not try to spend its way out of a recession. The average Japanese sacrificed. They scrimped, saved, and spent only what they had to. The banks became solvent from the savings of their customers, not from government buying into them.

Businesses suffered, but they repaid their loans, and the government of Japan recovered from the scandals that rocked Japan when the banks began to fail.

We gaijin are not so disciplined. Although, I think most of us understand that one does not spend one's way out of the proverbial hole, we are an undisciplined bunch of immediate gratification freaks who demand an instant solution without any pain. The dems filled the void with promises of immediate massive government spending, and messages alluding to an undefined "change" in something. What is to change, other than removing all barriers to spending, has yet to be disclosed by Pres. Obama.

Instead of letting the free market determine the survival of the fittest, government under Bush stepped in to restore solvency to the insolvent. I guess we had to ensure that the Saudis and the PRC did not lose any money.

The gaffs of government had contributed to the undermining of free market principles with the sub prime mortgage insanity--largely a liberal attempt to show poor folks who could not otherwise own houses that even if they could not really afford to do so, that they could own a house. The strategy, I am certain, was cynical and designed to get them to vote dem in gratitude.

Rather than let this situation sort itself out, Congress, which created this mess in the first place, along with a President who had forgotten the principles of his Harvard MBA, misappropriated massive amounts of the tax payers' money to no good end. The moguls on Wall Street and the real estate speculators had their butts bailed out with little cost to themselves. No pain. Instant gratification. Why, the mere appearance of inconvenience was enough to cause billions to be poured into the need to attend spas and retreats to undo the stress of mismanagement on a scale not seen in modern times. The bail out is entering phase II with the dems and Obama's $1Trillion package.

By howling continually about how bad the economy is, all Bush's fault, of course, the main stream media has fueled fear and uncertainty and played this mess right into Pelosi et al's hands in Congress and a win in the Presidency. What was going to be an unpleasant situation, but not a full blown crisis, became exactly that with the media's help. Convincing the instant gratification crowd who questioned not what they were being fed by the liberal press through the generation of fear was wildly successful.

All of sudden, this economic down turn, which has been on the horizon for some time, for many reasons--the inflated price of oil was one, the overvaluation of real estate another, and government excess certainly a contributor--became the worst financial downturn since the Great Depression of the 20s and 30s.

Bovine offal.

Again, the propagandists fed the fear--you are broke, we are all broke, we are going to be homeless, we are going to starve!; unless we all vote for . . . Obama.

Yes, we can! Change!

Change what and do what?

The reality is that Jimmy Carter was the worst President we have ever had, and 18% INFLATION happened on his watch. That period was far worse than what might happen during this mess. And, if anything is made worse, this go, it will because of the attempt to spend our way out of the inconvenience of spending less and saving more.

One of the consequences of the Obama/Pelosi $Trillion plan, is inflation. Print more money, and the money is worth less. Takes more to buy everything.

The only good thing to come out of this mess is that FINALLY after 8 years, the Republican Congress is starting to sound like Republicans and starting to QUESTION this excess by government! 8 years too late! However, at least it is happening.

In two years, we the people will have the chance to change the face of Congress. By then, the impact of the $1Trillion feel good extravagance will be felt in terms of interest rates and inflation. Those who voted for "change" will begin to understand that the change referred to was spend more and tax more, and to heck with consequences.

There are two opposing viewpoints as to how all of this will play out with respect to the dems and Rs. Phyllis Schafley wrote that her belief is that this is similar to the Clinton win of 1993 and the subsequent reversal of Congress to an R majority in 1996 due to the spending of the Clinton Administration. After which, Clinton became centrist. Dick Morris in his recent opinion feels that the strategic impact of any amnesty, the massive federal spending, and the transfer of wealth from the haves to the newly amnestied have nots along with everything that we naturalized citizens cannot get until we reach 65 will entrench the dems for the long haul, that the R party is now relegated to the bin of history for all practical purposes. Morris' article was disturbing in its downbeat, but excellent in its setting forth the strategy.

I am hoping Schafley is more right than wrong.

I do agree with her assessment that we as a country are more conservative than Obama's win and the dem win in Congress demonstrate, that this win was a backlash.

One thing is certain in my mind. The dems will fail in their economic stimulus, as spending and transfer of wealth is not the way to respond to what's happened. Overspending, over extending, and giving homes to those who could not pay for them was the catalyst. Now, the response is overspend, overtax, and take the money from those that still have any, and give to those who are here illegally by making them legal through amnesty, thereby inflating the money supply and cheapening our citizenship. And, let those who could not pay for their house, keep the house, anyway. How does any of that make sense?

Taxes depress industry and penalize self initiative. Government takes in more money when taxes are reduced. Even the Russians figured that one out.

Taking money from the guy who works and giving to the guy who does not, will not work, either.

Me and mine. We gonna pay things off, save, invest in firearms and ammo, and work on the garden.

In the mean time, I suggest the R party figure this out, keep acting like Rs in Congress, and elect only Rs that promise to uphold the party platform.

The dems are on a course to bankrupt this country and to spread our illusion of wealth to those undeserving.

Thank you God, I ain't got any to spread around!

The right Reverend Lowery . . . a man who sees only the past.

Well, today it is snowing/raining/freezing meaning slick roads.

I listened to our new President. I am heartened by his speech.

I am mortified and angry over the divisive nature of Rev. Lowery's benediction. Where does this guy get off telling us that racism is still rampant after 64 years of affirmative action and being told white is bad, every color is downtrodden and oppressed by whitey? He prays for a country where black will not be asked to step to the back of the line and brown will stick around?

Well, I was heartened. Now, I am disappointed.

Bigots come in all colors and religion does not temper the bigot. Rev. Lowery is a bigot. One of those who wants the past to continue, so that they have affirmation for their own small minds.

I am an American, not a bigot. I am an American, not whitey. I am Apache and Cherokee along with the Dutch, German, Irish and Scot. I, like my PRESIDENT, am an "other". I am an American. However, all one will see is the light skin, but I tan a deep brown. : )

How dare this man say "white will embrace right".

What the heck does that mean?!

Screw him and all like him. His attitude was disgusting.

That moron would not know equality if it hit him in the face. All he sees is the PAST.

Please, Lord, deliver us from these fools, in CHRIST's name I pray, amen.

Note that he did not close his prayer with Christ's intercession. Some reverend.

My dog has it right. She cares not what color I am. She cares . . . well, there are times when she stays upwind . . . but you get the idea.

When are there no longer going to be victims?

When will we just be Americans?

Let us hope for a better day.

A day when we are all Americans.

Not this or that.

Arrest Bush . . . for what? Being our President?

I read in Fox News and elsewhere the howl of the demagogues to arrest George Bush.

For what?

Successfully prosecuting a war against terrorism?

For buying into every idiotic spending measure the dems wanted?

Bush was more liberal in his spending policies than he was conservative. Government grew under him faster than under any other President since Roosevelt.

The vote was too close to be called a democratic mandate for anything, other than a change of officers at the top.

What now prompts people on the left to now call for arrests of our highest officials?

Especially, since Pelosi/Reid et al voted for the war and the Patriot Act, etc. How does that history reconcile with the reviling by the mad dogs on the left now calling for the arrest of Bush for his part in prosecuting a war that their party leadership supported?

Such incredible partisanship and lack of intellect sounds more like the mob in Revolutionary France, rather than the exuberance of an educated citizen of the 21st century USA.

The only place George Bush showed his true R roots was in his prosecution of war. He did it right, and the U.S. is safer than any other country. France, Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Spain and Italy all have suffered at the hands of their extremist Islamic populations. Both Great Britain and Spain actually had their own mini-9-11 with the London and Madrid Station bombings. The rest of the countries have suffered riots and other outrages against good order because of cartoons and other perceived insults to . . . Islam.

What those ideologues on the left need to remember is that this country was founded upon the rule of law. That law begins with the Constitution. All of our leaders, military personnel, federal officials, and federal employees swear an oath to defend that Constitution.

Most of us will not see any political party or the elected official therefrom change, rearrange, or otherwise reduce in import, impact, hierarchy, or authority that august declaration of our rights and the clear and timeless construct of our republic.

My God. Where was the publication of any such outrage, arrogance, stupidity, traitorous, and illegal demands for heads on a pole before the palace gates when George Bush, Ronald Reagan, or any other R President took office?

Only with mad dogs on the left does one get this kind of rhetoric.

The anti "hate speech" anything but our hate speech and anti-Christian anything crowd.

I am disgusted that the world has to see this kind of third world trappings of despotism upon the eve of our first half black half white President taking office.

I fear that with their idol in office, and with the likes of the Pelosi/Reid cabal in Congress, the more radical elements of the left may be moved to try to make their drug induced dream reality.

Let them be warned.

Too many died for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and for ideal expressed in "one nation, in God we trust, indivisible with liberty and justice for all" for any true citizen to tolerate such drivel and to ignore any unlawful act on the part of our government, just because a the political party in power is driven to excess by its radical anarchists.

The 2d Amendment stands against any who harbour such desires, as does our rule of law.

Let ideologues like Jose Rodriguez of the Arrest Bush morons howl all that they want. Their insanity is protected free speech. Protected by the very Constitution that they believe should be changed to meet their political and social viewpoint. So long as that is all that they do . . . howl, that is.

Ain't freedom grand?

Obama's Speech today . . . what?!!!!

I am sick of the dems crying that there is something wrong with the U.S. That somehow, this nation is in perilous straits, and that only Barak Obama can somehow lift us out of this turmoil and conflict. That our economic woes are so bad, our children may starve without dem help! Why, we must spend ourselves back into economic prosperity by taxing the rich and the not so rich and the working and everybody but the illegal alien sucking the life out of our health care system . . . and, well, . . . you get the idea.

What a croc of pure unadulterated male bovine offal.

Who voted overwhelmingly for the bail out of the Wall Street billionaires' club?

Who cried for the economic stimulus package that benefits only those guilty of the greatest theft of money the world has ever seen--all of which can be largely lain at the feet of Barney Frank and Henry Waxman, not to mention Pelosi, Reid, et al. And, Bush, who signed the legislation without reservation.

What a croc.

I am not a citizen of a broken country.

I am not in need of my government's anything, except for that government to secure the borders, to insure the defense of this country, and to provide roads.

The rest of the government's interference is largely the duplicity and illusion through an interstate commerce act that gave the federal government no rights to interfere in the business of the State's except for interstate commerce. That was Congress acting with the duplicity of the Supreme Court. An expansion of federal power not granted by the Constitution, btw.

Why are so many tearing us down who know better?

"Yes we can!" the Obama supporters chanted during the race to the White House. "Yes we can . . . what?", the rest of us wondered.

Bush did not leave the U.S. in any worse condition than he found it. The military is certainly better off, even for the war.

Jobs were up, until the dems had to cover their butts over the housing mortgage scandal that they perpetrated upon this country. And, yeah, Bush signed the legislation. Just trying to be a "compassionate" conservative.

There is nothing wrong with the U.S.

Those in Congress and the White House both created the sub prime mess and encouraged it to buy votes. The party affiliation does not matter.

The same shortsightedness is still being exercised with respect to the issue of immigration and the insanity of continuing to invite radical Islam into this country in the face of the turmoil, pain and suffering of the people where it is in power.

In spite of that cynicism on the part of our political leadership, we are going to be just fine.

We would be better off even sooner if we got together and threw a bunch of double dealing investment bankers and most of Congress into the Hudson River right along with the rest of the trash.

Oh, yeah.

Just read, learn, and talk. You will figure it out sooner or later.

Those that want to "do it all for you", such as Barak Obama and Nancy Pelosi, they are the ones you must watch.

For theirs is the philosophy of "do not do as we do, but do as we say" and "what's yours is ours" to give to someone else who did not earn it in the first place.

On Obama's eligibility . . . was he born a U.S. citizen?

I have read several articles reporting on court challenges to Obama's eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States. These challenges seem to be focused upon the premise that he was born outside of the U.S., under a foreign flag.

What is disturbing to me is that given Obama's knowledge of the challenges, he has never publicly held up his birth certificate and said "here it is, now shut the f. . . up!". Or words to that effect. Instead, he has obfuscated, delayed, refused, and otherwise given credibility to his detractors on that issue. Why?

That is indeed the question.

The issue is raised under Article II of the Constitution:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. "

The questions raised before the courts regarding Obama seem to revolve around the primary issue of his having been born on U.S. soil. Obama's Kenyan grandmother raised the issue when she represented that she had witnessed his birth in Kenya. Meaning, Obama was born with a dual citizenship at best and certainly as a Kenyan at worst. The secondary issue questions his 14 years a resident within the U.S. prior to age 35. His mother was alleged to have been just 18 or under 18 at the time of the birth thereby disqualifying Obama from taking his mother's citizenship, and that he was well over 18 when he returned to the U.S. from Indonesia bringing into focus the 14 year residency issue.

In stark contrast to Obama's obfuscation of the issue, the former V.P. nominee of the Republican Party, Gov. Sarah Palin, was forced to endure an incredible insult to any mother, much less a woman running for national office, when she was challenged to provide proof that she bore and birthed her latest progeny. Sarah Palin submitted to that indignity and provided proof to the national press that the baby was indeed hers. That bone was then tossed aside by the press once and for all.

It has been incredible to me that the press even raised that issue, but by stark contrast still continues to ignore the challenges to Obama's qualifications based upon citizenship. Is the press trying to imply that the qualifications set forth in the Constitution of the Untied States are to be ignored?

Our President to be does not seem to feel that he should submit to the demands of those who have sought to have the issue adjudicated at least twice before the Supreme Court and now, before several state supreme courts challenging the electoral collage of those several states regarding Obama's qualifications as to his eligibility under Article II of the Constitution.

All he has to do to end any debate is to offer up his birth certificate.

Obama obviously has a passport. That requires a birth certificate as proof of citizenship. Therefore, why is that evidence not submitted for public scrutiny to end any argument?

Were Obama an R, the liberal press would still be howling at the top of their headlines about how he was ineligible to be president. The court challenges would be all the news that we would be allowed until the issue was settled one way or the other. That is the hypocrisy of the left.

Why has Barak Obama not put this issue to rest by simply producing his birth certificate?

Why?

Beats me. Certainly makes me wonder. Especially, after what Sarah Palin went through.

Talk about a double standard. . . .

Over 200,000 U.S. citizens have signed a petition requesting an investigation into Obama's citizenship. I was one.

The website of one of the attorneys challenging Obama is interesting. If the facts presented bear witness, Barak Obama is not a U.S. citizen: www.obamacrimes.com/justthefacts.html

Either our Constitution is the arbiter of qualification, or we have become the mob to throw up law when it pleases and to ignore same at our convenience.

Nah. Too many guys died defending the Constitution, too many died to make it happen in the first place.

No one is above the law, not even Obama.