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

The petition for the rights of the unborn

A national movement has finally hit Alaska. This movement seeks to extend Constitution protection to the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to the unborn. Given former Governor Sarah Palin’s avowed pro-life stance, one wonders if Governor Sean Parnell will add his voice in support of this initiative?

Thus far, Parnell has stood firm on Palin’s policies and even moved forward with a few of his own. Parnell has strongly advocated support for education by promoting an educational policy that would give those with a B average a choice of college or a technical vocational school. He has supported increasing the Village Public Safety Officer program, encouraging increased recruitment to fill vacancies in the program. He also called for increasing the Alaska State Trooper presence to an additional 2 troopers in Bethel, a regional hub, an additional 2 troopers in Nome and one in Nome. At the AFN convention, he also called for increased education along with increased enforcement to curb the endemic of violence and sexual abuse in the villages. Parnell has also called for increasing tax credits to the tourism industry to try to stimulate that sector of the economy. Unlike Sarah Palin, his predecessor, Parnell has yet to speak out on the issue of whether or not the State should be in the business of killing babies in the womb.

The impact of this initiative would raise the awareness that sex has consequences. At present, the female under U.S. law may abort a pregnancy, even if her spouse or male partner disagrees with that decision. Statutory rape in many cases of minor pregnancies goes unreported, as Planned Parenthood, which opposes this initiative, has time and again ignored the law in such matters, counseling always to abort the unborn in such cases. Never once, counseling to prosecute for the abuse and victimization of the minor female.

Statistically, it is rare for a 13 year old girl to be impregnated by having sex with a minor male. The male’s age in such cases seems to run from 18 to 42, with the average age of those males victimizing young girls being in the 20s to early 30s. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, that icon of the ACLU, has advocated that the age of consent for females be lowered to 12.

This victimization of the underaged female, and the failure of society to remark or to react with condemnation point to the success of the goal of the liberals who want to use our children for sex toys. This success is marked by the revealing clothes young girls wear, MTV, the ever younger indoctrination of our young in public schools about sex and alternative lifestyles, and the advertizing and music that they are inundated with. The exploitation and current depravity of Britney Spears is heralded as a role model for young girls. In schools, girls display colored bands to denote what they are willing to do or what they have done sexually.

Abortion is part of the desensitization of society to the taboos associated with how we view and treat our young, subject to our individual and societal moral compass. Which compass is usually a product of exposure to religion at some point or another. After all, we term our system of religion and law Judeo-Christian.

The homosexual agenda shares in the goal of the liberal establishment that seeks to breakdown morality and the family to accomplish recruitment for casual sex at ever younger ages. One of the most notable examples is the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), supported by Kevin Jennings, President Obama's director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools (OSDFS).

Another byproduct of abortion is the current illegal migrant worker situation. These are foreign nationals that are in the U.S. illegally, who are taking jobs, benefits and resources that are rightfully the purview of the naturalized U.S. citizen and their children. Abortion has created the demand for labor by terminating approximately 45 million Americans before birth, too many in the last trimester of the reproductive process. We have killed those before they are born who would otherwise be there to replace an aging and diminishing U.S. workforce.

Abortion has created paradoxes in our law that has resulted in the paradox of those who kill the unborn being hailed by the liberal establishment as heroes. On the other hand, the unborn who is considered viable, but killed in a car wreck caused by a drunk driver becomes a victim and subject to the protection of the law as a count of manslaughter or second degree murder.

Our governor could define his moral compass to the Alaska public by speaking in support of this initiative. Let us hope that he does so in the near future.

Parnell and Alaska's Sovereignty

Maintaining the sovereignty of Alaska in the face of increasing federal encroachment upon State’s Rights is the paramount mission of the Governor. Any federal regulation, law, or edict needs to be strictly reviewed by Gov. Sean Parnell’s Administration with respect to the duties of the federal government under the Constitution of the United States and with respect to the 10th Amendment.

Alaska is not like the lower-48 States. We are isolated geographically from the United States. Unlike Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the other territories of the U.S., notably Guam and American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Alaska is not in a temperate climate. Alaska is also at the end of the logistics highway in priorities of any sort, other than locking up our land to please some moron Outside who believes that a lungful of mosquitoes or no-see-ums is preferable to the specter of Alaskans being able to drive to Nome.

Alaska’s lands are locked up. The last land transfer to the Feds was in their favor by over 1,900 acres so that a road could be built between the communities of Cold Bay and Kings Cove. A long standing and very expensive situation that could have been resolved many years ago, but the liberals would rather people die than have access overland by improving an existing trail that predated a federally mandated wildlife refuge. A solution that would have cost maybe a couple of hundred thousand dollars. The trail was passable by 2 wheel drive pickup in the summer and 4 wheeler year round. Instead, the feds built a $30,000,000 clinic in Kings Cove.

Unfortunately, that did not resolve the problem. Some folks just became too ill and had to be medivaced by air to Anchorage. The problem was that even the Untied States Coast Guard, with its HH60 Huskies, would not fly into Kings Cove. The weather made flying in with these state of the art rescue helicopters too dangerous. Nearby (14 miles) Cold Bay had an all weather runway that could accommodate jets. The only alternative was to move the patient to Cold Bay by boat.

After many years of bureaucratic haggling, tens of millions of dollars wasted, the federal government finally agreed to allow a corridor through the edge of the wildlife refuge using the existing trail. The cost to the State of Alaska for this was over 2,000 acres and tens of years of controversy and hardship for those in Kings Cove needing medical evacuation over 14 acres of incursion upon the wildlife refuge, as most of the trail is outside of the refuge.

Land transfers from the long ago Alaska Native Settlement Claims Act (ANSCA) take many years to accomplish, many of which have yet to be resolved. Affecting this seemingly never ending process is the Alaska National Interest Lands Act (ANILCA).

ANILCA lands were overlaid between ANSCA lands and nearby villages, making it impossible for the village corporations to exercise development of their lands. Costly land transfers had to be effected, some of which are still being worked on yet today. Usually, these land transfers are in the feds favor.

ANILCA lands also stand astride many passes in Alaska, making construction of overland roads impossible. Under ANILCA, motorized transport of any kind is prohibited, except for those Natives living on lands adjacent to ANILCA lands. Modifications to ANILCA allowed them to hunt using motorized vehicles.

ANILCA is so restrictive otherwise, that no rights of way for the State were provided for to build any roads through ANILCA lands to connect communities in the State. Even RS 2744 rights of way are meaningless if they cross ANILCA lands. Lose an engine on your airplane and be forced to put wheels down or floats down on ANILCA lands or waters, and you can lose the aircraft to the feds.

ANILCA, enacted during the Carter Administration, have constituted a major impediment to Alaska being able to do what other States have done in developing a rational surface transportation infrastructure. Alaska, because of ANILCA and the federal government taking over management of federal lands, contrary to the Alaska Statehood Compact, is not equal in the Union of States.

I thought our former Governor Sarah Palin would address this issue. She promised that she would fight the unfairness contained in ANILCA. Instead, she formed the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet now managed by a federal EPA employee. Something Gov. Sean Parnell has decided to continue.

Rep. Harry Crawford (D-Anchorage), who announced his intent to run for the U.S. Congress against Rep. Don Young (R), says that ANILCA is established law and precedent. Of course, Rep. Crawford is from Louisiana. Crawford came to Alaska for the Trans Alaska Pipeline construction in 1975. While he may think he is an Alaskan, he is far from it, given his views on ANILCA.

Rep. Young may have aspersions cast upon him from the Dems, he is still Alaska’s best voice and only voice in the congressional House.

The additional restrictions placed upon 190,000,000 acres of federal land by ANILCA are an affront to the sovereignty and dignity of the State of Alaska. ANILCA is a breach of our Statehood Compact.

It is time Alaska, given its recent resolution regarding sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, challenge the restrictions under ANILCA regarding rights of way and the impediments imposed to the development of the State.

Governor Parnell needs to take the bull in Washington by the horns and either gut the sucker, or throw it out of the way so that Alaska can get on with the business of connecting our communities overland, and accessing the resources Congress recognized were necessary to the development of the State in the Statehood Compact.
---CORRECTION MADE 9/14/2009 Cold Bay, not Icy Bay. As many times as I have harped on that situation, one would think that I would get it right.

Our rights are now . . . selective

A recent decision of the 7th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Chicago’s hand gun ban.

The decision of the 7th Circuit in favor of Chicago in maintaining its hand gun ban revolved around the idea that the Second Amendment does not have to be obeyed by States and their subdivisions of government. According to the 7th Circuit, States, counties and cities are exempt from obeying the Constitution—but only where Second Amendment rights are concerned.

The Chicago decision puts the 7th Circuit at odds with the 9th Circuit (!), which ruled last year that the Second Amendment applied to the States and lower subdivisions of government.

This decision brings into sharp focus the self-deluding mindset that sets the liberal apart from the conservative. To liberals, the Constitution is perverted to fit their world view, without respect to what the Framers intended. If the liberal mind cannot conveniently find the context under the Constitution that supports their goal, they invent penumbras to enable their ideological desire.

One has to remember that the individual rights enumerated in the Constitution merely affirm individual rights conferred upon a free people by our Creator. These rights were not conferred by man, to be given or revoked at the whim of any political power or despot.

The assault upon talk radio demonstrates that the First Amendment does not protect political speech in the liberal mind, but only serves to protect the policies and ideology of the party in power. Under a Democrat regime, talk radio must be “fair” and “equal” in its presentation of the issues.

Can you imagine our Forefather’s reaction to a demand by the Crown for “fairness” in the presentation of their arguments for independence from England?

The Crown’s idea of fairness was the bayonet and hangman’s noose.

President Obama’s, Sen. Harry Reid’s and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s idea of “fairness” is to silence the opposition once and for all. How far they are willing to go is demonstrated in the unrelenting assault upon the Second Amendment and the perversion of the First Amendment into an instrument of political repression.

During the closing days of the presidential campaign, then Candidate Obama stated those rights that he considered “individual” rights. He excluded the Second Amendment in that dissertation.

The recent selection of appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court further demonstrates Pres. Obama’s subtle intent to scuttle any impeding Constitutional authority. By appointing a judge in whose opinion the Constitution is a work in progress ensures that the liberal agenda will be interpreted favorably, no matter the wording of the Constitution.

Awhile back, I wrote on Pres. Obama’s incredible refusal to divulge proof of his citizenship qualification required by Article 2 §1 of the U.S. Constitution. My point was that if this requirement could be ignored, then so could other articles of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

The First and Second Amendments and Article 2 are under assault in the Democrats’ expression of power.

It was a liberal Supreme Court majority that did most of the damage where the Ninth Amendment was concerned.

How long before any of the 1st through the 15th Amendments become inconvenient to those in power?

Obviously, the First and Second Amendments already are.

How long before the “Crown” resorts to the bayonet and the hangman’s noose to silence opposition?

The intent of the Framers of the Constitution and the arguments of that creative process have been well documented leaving little doubt as to the limitations imposed upon government intended.

There can be no compromise where the Constitution of the United States is concerned. It means what it says, and it only means what is stated.

The government cannot restrict that which was conferred by our Creator. To do so is to confirm the reason and need for the Second Amendment.

Regardless of party label, beware the political power that acts to silence the opposition.

Above all, beware the President who ignores the Constitution.

Educate your children as to the meaning and rights affirmed by the Constitution. Every family, and every citizen should have a copy of the Constitution.

There is no other document in the history of this world that confers upon a people the power to prevent government excess. The balance between the peoples’ freedom and government power
is maintained by the Second Amendment.

Shielding us from Terrorism

President Barack Obama told the graduating class at the United State s Naval Academy that if the United States upholds its values, that doing so will shield us from terror.

The question his speech raised with me was simply: To which values was he referring?

To President Obama and his party, killing babies in the womb is a right under the Constitution. How will the slaughter of the innocent shield us from terrorism?

To President Obama and his party, viewing pornography in public libraries is a right under the Constitution. How will this value “shield” us from terrorism?

To President Obama and his party, Christian values and morality are hateful and bigotry, with those practicing the religion characterized as aberrant. What is the value in this case that will “shield” us from terrorism?

To President Obama and his party, the traditional family is something to be despised and attacked at every opportunity. How will breaking down 10,000 years of human behavior “shield” us from terrorism?

To President Obama and his party, exercising free political speech in opposition to his and his party’s policies and initiatives is something that should be silenced. Since when is silencing the opposition anything but political repression?

To President Obama and his party, the 2d Amendment is not what it says, and the American people should be disarmed, so that those in power need not fear the many. This is definitely a “value” that those who hate us fear. Why then, does this value of the right of self defense and insurance against government overstepping scare the liberal mind so?

To President Obama and his party, Speaker Nancy Pelosi lying about what she was briefed on regarding interrogation techniques employed against terrorists is a value to be upheld. How do lies “shield” us from terrorism?

Conversely, the defense of the American people after 9-11 by former administration officials is suspect and subject to investigation for possible criminal indictment. How does this political hypocrisy, amounting to an outright purge of the previous administration’s appointed officials, “shield” us from terrorism?

To President Obama and his party, the rape of the American taxpayer is the spoils of political war. The outright blatant influence by Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein to benefit their husband’s businesses and the blatant influence by Rep. Jack Murtha of Haditha accusation fame to achieve the award of sole-source contracts to his nephew by the Pentagon should bring criminal indictments, not silence. Will this blatant corruptionl “shield” us from terrorism?

To President Obama and his party, the Great American Revolution and the sacrifice of our Forefathers in creating the United States are to be viewed with embarrassment and regret. How will this rejection of our history “shield” us from anything, but divisiveness from within and deepen the contempt of our enemies?

To President Obama and his party, diversity is something to be valued above unity and patriotism. That the American culture is inferior and to be placed second to any other corrupt, backward, repressive culture and religion. How will this weakening of pride and confidence in ourselves as Americans serve to “shield” us from terrorism?

The values that will shield us from terrorism are simple. The 2009 Class of our military academies understand these three words only too well: DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY. That and the American values that are so often ignored these days by those who benefit from overwhelming government overreach into every aspect of our lives: self-reliance and responsibility for one’s actions. These are the only values that will shield us from those who hate us.

After all, it is this President who eschewed the values imparted by our Judeo-Christian heritage by stating that the U.S. is not a Christian nation. Yet, the Ten Commandments are the underlying foundation of western juris prudence. The very rule of law that was the point of the President’s speech.

Talking about values protecting us is specious. Acting against the threat is duty. Fighting the enemy according to the rules of war is honor. Doing so is acting in defense of country.

Pres. Obama’s and his party’s values and those of his troops are ultimately at odds.

President Obama and the Constitution

I have followed with interest the controversy over Pres. Obama’s alleged failure to meet the requirements of Article II § 1 of the Constitution of the United States. This alleged failure involves Pres. Obama’s unwillingness to demonstrate his birth in the United States. Art. II §1 requires that our President be a naturalized citizen.

One can serve in the Congress without being a naturalized citizen, but the Presidency is reserved for naturalized citizens, only.

The issue raised about Pres. Obama’s place of birth is of great importance. If we are a nation which prides itself in being a nation of law, with the Constitution held as the ultimate authority, then Art. II §1 cannot be ignored. If it so ignored in this case, then the specter of a selective interpretation of the Bill of Rights comes into focus. No article can be said to be unimportant or “outmoded” or “outdated”.

I believe that we all realize that the Constitution presents at times an inconvenient and troublesome bar to the goals of the party in power. Hence, the continued selection of judiciary that continually tries to reinterpret and reinvent the Constitution with legal artifice that is designed to serve a political ideology rather than recognize the preeminence of the Constitution as our supreme law of the land.

Recently, a young man who is a long time friend of my son stated to me that the issue of Obama’s birth was moot, as “we had voted (Pres.) Obama into office.

This young man, like those who voted for Obama, feels that his election is a fait accompli by virtue of the outcome of the Electoral College and the popular vote.

In spite of many court challenges to disclose such information, no State has yet disclosed that Pres. Obama made any demonstration of his qualification under the Constitution to the Electors for that State.

Pres. Obama has an obligation to those who voted for him to demonstrate that he is truly qualified. To date, he has adamantly refused to do so, going so far as to spend over $1,000,000 in legal fees to prevent any disclosure of his birth records, his college entrance documentation, and records of his entry into Indonesia at a time when U.S. citizens were barred entry by the State Dept.

By contrast, Gov. Sarah Palin was subjected to the most humiliating and demeaning sort of examination by the press in their demand that she demonstrate her motherhood of her latest progeny. The affront was outrageous, but our Governor complied with that insulting, demeaning, and egregious demand.

Yet, in the case of Obama’s constitutional qualifications, the press has been silent or outright scornful in their comments.

Paradoxically, our President, the guy who promised “change,” has refused to simply stand up at a press conference, hold up his true birth certificate, and say “here it is, now shut up about this!”. Instead, the legal interference continues.

Our forefathers recognized that the rule of law cannot be suborned to party ideology; otherwise, our republic will deteriorate into a rule of whim, no better than the meanest oligarchy or dictatorship. Our rights would then exist by whim of the party in power, and subject to that party’s interpretation.

To answer my son’s friend, the popular vote cannot supersede the Constitution’s requirement of naturalized citizenship. The mob cannot rule. We are a nation of law, and that law is the Constitution. Pres. Obama is subject to that law, not an exception to it.

Every judge, federal official, congressman, federal law enforcement official, and every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine, both officer and enlisted, swear an oath to uphold and to defend . . . the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

It is this imperative that requires the current President to demonstrate that he meant to uphold his oath by publically providing proof of his qualification to hold the office of the Presidency. He owes this to every American, whether they voted for him or not.

Gov. Sarah Palin stepped up under the most egregious and demeaning of circumstances, especially since she literally had no legal obligation to comply with the outrageous demand on the part of the press.

Why cannot Pres. Obama stand up and present his birth certificate demonstrating his qualification under the Constitution to hold the office of President, and thereby end this controversy about his place of birth?

First Obama, now Hillary? A Constitutional Crisis?

First came the challenges to Barak Obama's qualifications under Article II of the Constitution regarding the legitimacy of his claim to naturalized birth in Hawaii. Now, it appears that Hilliary Clinton may be in conflict with our Constitution as regards her ability to be appointed as Secretary of State: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87451

The issue with Hilliary is that she was a Senator who voted on not less than three pay raises for the very office to which she was appointed. This fact should have prohibited her from being appointed as Secretary of State.

The danger in overlooking the restrictions in our Constitution regarding qualifications to hold office or to be appointed to an executive office are profound in their impact. If these restrictions are overlooked, then it can be reasonably argued that they no longer apply by virtue of ignoring them. That's how our law works. Conduct can be as persuasive as a written article in our Constitution. Ignore an article of the Constitution, by acting in violation without obedience, and the courts will consider it moot.

How is the Constitution being subverted and minimized?

By terming provisions out of date, in need of change to reflect changing social and moral values, by ignoring them altogether as alleged in the court challenges to both Obama's citizenship and Hilliary's acts as a Senator impacting the pay in her current appointment.

Therein lies the danger to you and me. Ignore, minimize, and subvert, and our protections and rights have been usurped without our permission. After all, this is a government by the people, of the people and for the people, right? Or is it?

You willing to fight to defend the Constitution, or sit on your fat butt and watch soap operas and allow our heritage and rights to disappear?

The 2d Amendment is an amendment targeted by the Obama regime. The 2d Amendment was the only amendment not named by the new President of United States as being in an individual right. He named the 1st, the 4th, and the 9th in particular as being individual rights. He overlooked the 2d. And, I believe, given the manner in which he answered the question put to him during the debate, that he excluded the 2d Amendment purposefully. Check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/ and look at his legislative priorities. Control and restrictions on firearms is a major initiative according to his agenda.

It was Obama's response in delinating which rights he believed were "personal" and "individual" that caused me to take better notice of what was being said, and not being said on his part. I now listen very closely to what this guy says.

Thus far, it is not much, just fluff and fear mongering.

What is extremely important in this discussion is that Hilliary and Obama both swore an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, both as United States Senators, and then, again upon taking the oath of their respective offices. It is unclear as to whether or not Obama is in violation regarding Art. II, but it is clear that Hilliary's appointment as Secretary of State certainly stands in contravention of the intent of the Constitution. She could not be appointed to any executive office having been a sitting Senator voting on pay raises for that very office to which she was appointed.

What is clear, is that there is an overt attempt to ignore and to circumvent the intent of the Constitution by the democrat political machine.

Our Constitution cannot become a capricious application of law, it must be held inviolate and the supreme law of the land, or it is ineffective and the tool of the oppressor. In which case, one must be that much more distrustful of the intent of the new regime with respect to our rights and upholding the intent and the law that is our Constitution.

Take away the Constitution, and the U.S. becomes like every other oligarchy in the world. The citizens of Commonwealth countries have no free speech, no right to keep and bar arms, no guarantees of any kind, except to due process under certain situations. We have these rights and they should be defended to the death.

Arlington National Cemetary is filled with those who died to uphold and protect our Constitution.

We should be wary of any leader who turns his or her back on any provision of the Constitution, and of any official who purposefully subverts the law to their purpose of attaining power.

If you want to learn more about the Constitution . . . :
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
http://www.house.gov/house/Educate.shtml
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/
The Federalist Papers are on-line via Google. Search "Federalist Papers" or "U.S. Constitution"

Alaska's Budget

There is no solution in sight for the fiscal shortsightedness practiced by our state government since the completion of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System in 1978. Once oil started flowing, the State of Alaska became an oil junkie that cannot seem to wean itself clear of satisfying every special interest that holds out its hand.

Ignored completely in this frenzy to satisfy these demands to NGOs are the requirements set forth under the Constitution of the State of Alaska regarding the duties and responsibilities of government.

The Constitution of Alaska requires that state government provide for education, use of natural resources to the best benefit of all, to provide for the public welfare—such as public safety, roads, airports, bridges, and harbors--and the public health, and to expend appropriated monies in these regards to the benefit of all Alaskans. More particularly, monies can only be appropriated by the State for the public purpose. (Art IX, Sec. 6)

I believe that it can be reasonably argued that in giving money to every outstretched hand, the Legislature violates the intent of the Constitution of the State of Alaska.

Where is the public purpose in giving money to the every NGO that stretches out its hand or has a purpose that has a focus or requirements that confer the benefit of those funds upon a few rather than the many?

I do not believe that the State of Alaska should be appropriating money or giving grants to any entity other than government subdivisions, and then only for the purpose of funding education, public safety, building and maintaining infrastructure, and public health considerations--meaning inoculations against disease, clinics, health aides, doctors, nurses, equipment, and, maybe, subsidizing health insurance for children.

These public health considerations should be designed to promote health and preserve life, not to provide for abortions or to support those NGOs feeding off the killing of the unborn.

The issue of public welfare should be served by creating jobs through the use of our resources, the creation and maintenance of infrastructure—roads, harbors, and airports—and providing for public education and public safety.

The idea of public welfare was never intended to include gratuitous grants to any NGO or other entity that stretched out its hand for a purpose that focused mainly to promote or otherwise benefit a few. Let these people gather monies from their own members, and not the State.

The same restrictions should apply to subdivisions of the State that receive state funds. There should be no passing on of any State funds for any purpose other than that which is intended by the Alaska Constitution.

Gov. Sarah Palin campaigned on a constitutional foundation. If the expenditure was not provided for in the constitution, then she stated that she would oppose that use.

The Legislature cannot be trusted to be so objective. The legislator stays in office by pleasing his/her constituents. Some of whom use those very monies granted to these NGOs to influence our politicians at every level of government. A use that is both illegal and unconstitutional.

Any budget item should first be scrutinized as to the constitutional validity of the expenditure, and then face scrutiny regarding any spending priorities as the second test. If the constitutional test fails, then there can be no further argument regarding that expenditure.

To focus upon the constitution first in examining a budget item would relieve the governor of criticism for those line items that are clearly intended to buy favor by benefiting a few, and not benefit the State as whole.

It is time the government of the State of Alaska gave priority to the Constitution of the State of Alaska in all areas of funding determinations.

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?

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.

SARAH PALIN IS THE REAL DEAL.

Sarah Palin is the real deal. She is not made up, coached, or otherwise a construct of anyone other than her environment, upbringing, and moral foundation. She is first and foremost an Alaskan. Her values are immutable, and her ethics firmly established. You will not see Sarah changing her view on the basics.

Sarah is a constructionist when it comes to interpreting the constitution. She believes that the constitution of the United States says what it means, that there are no penumbras, or intepretations of language that is not there or adjustments made to satisfy a liberal mindset. What was written and adopted by our forefathers, is immutable.

Sarah is pro-life. Period. She will not change her views on that issue to get a few votes. I heard her express that sentiment to a lady on Alaska's PBS radio station when running for governor. Sarah simply expressed that she would not change her views on abortion and that she and the listener would simply agree to disagree on that subject.

Sarah is hard core 2d Amendment individual rights.

Sarah is a hunter and fisherwoman who partakes of Alaska's bounty.

Sarah is a strong family oriented individual with sound and solid family values.

Sarah is also a fiscal conservative and someone who believes that government should serve and do no more than what the constitution allows.

Sarah Palin is absolutely not racist. Her family is of mixed heritage, Alaska native and whatever a "Palin" is. (big smiley face goes here.)

How do I know these things?

I supported Sarah's run for governor. I wrote articles in support of her candidacy, and I butted heads with the local pundits who opposed her candidacy.

Sarah will not back down in a fight.

She can be counted on.

Sarah Palin is the real deal.