U.S. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion For Divided Argument In McDonald v. City of Chicago

Friday, January 29, 2010
NRA-ILA

On Monday, January 25, the U.S. Supreme Court granted NRA’s motion to allow it to participate in the upcoming oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to grant our motion,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to ensure that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to every law-abiding American in every state. We are hopeful that the Court will share our view that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the states.” Read Article Here.

State Option If Congress Attempts To Force A Health Bill Through ‘Reconciliation.’

(Directed toward Kansas Citizens, but other states have either passed or are working on similar legislation). For those who aren't, I suggest they begin to work on something similar.

The latest news on the federal level is there will be an attempt to force a health care bill through a process known as "reconciliation." What is “reconciliation?”

“Reconciliation is a legislative process in the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Introduced in 1974, reconciliation limits debate and amendment, and therefore favors the majority party.” Wikipedia.

In Kansas, we need to quickly act to introduce a Health Care Freedom Amendment. It will be much more than sending a message. If passed, it will be an amendment to the Kansas Constitution, acting to preserve the freedom of Kansans to provide for their health care without government coercion.

You can read the entire proposed amendment here.

Mary Pilcher Cook, Kansas State Senator for District 10, is sponsoring the bill, and is currently asking other Kansas State Senators to co-sponsor the concurrent resolution now. She must have their signatures by Friday so they can show they support the bill before it gets introduced.

Once introduced, they will receive a number for the Health Care Freedom Amendment and Kansas citizens will be able to access it through the Kansas Legislature's website (http://www.kslegislature.org).

“We should work to get at least 27 co-sponsors,” Mary says, “because that's how many votes are needed to pass the bill. A proposed constitutional amendment requires two-thirds vote of each House to pass before it can be placed on the ballot for a vote of the people. So far we have 14 signatures.

“Even if your senator has already given their signature, they need to hear from you so they know you support the amendment. Ask them if they would help co-sponsor the Health Care Freedom Amendment.Click here for web site.

“State Rep. Peggy Mast is working to get signatures on the House side, so please contact your Kansas State Representative as well and ask them to co-sponsor the proposed legislation.

“The Senate and House Health Committees are planning on having a joint hearing on the Health Care Freedom Amendment on Tuesday, Feb. 9, and the time is yet unknown, but will likely be around 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

“Hearings are held so citizens and lobbyists have the opportunity to testify, but first we need to get the signatures from the State Senators and the State Representatives.

"Thank you for your help!

"In honor of your liberty,
Mary Pilcher Cook"

Health Care Bill Cannot Be Defended Constitutionally

Judge Napolitano v James Clyburn Debating Constitutionality of Federal Health Care



This video shows the liberal philosophy that the Constitution is a 'living document,' permitting the federal government to do whatever it will. Liberals are totally blind to the intent of the original Constitution, and the damage mis-interpretation brings.

Real Significance of Roe V Wade Not Understood

The real impact of the 1973 Supreme Court decision has escaped the understanding of the collateral damage it has done to the United States and its citizens, as both sides celebrate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Opposing sides mark 37 years of Roe v. Wade

By CARL MARIO NUDI - cnudi@bradenton.com

SARASOTA — The 37th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion brought activists on both sides of the issue to the streets Friday.

Nearly 350 people, some with pro-choice signs, others with rosary beads, walked around the Planned Parenthood Regional Headquarters, 736 Central Ave. Source Here.

Both sides are wrong on the real damage the decision has caused. It was another nail in the coffin destroying state's rights. It took the right of each state to determine whether or not abortion would be legal or not, as each state decides for itself what murder, rape, extortion, and other laws mean and the punishment for their infractions.

The decision violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enacted to prevent this kind of action by any of the three separated powers of our government. To put it bluntly, Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. This decision should be returned back to the states.

We have a lot of unconstitutional laws, such as the multitude of anti-gun ownership and carrying of personal firearms, which have been passed by both the federal and state governments. This coming November is the time to rectify these unconstitutional laws and decisions.

Alan Keyes on the Second Amendment and gun rights

Ask your family and friends to watch this video. The leftist news media leaves out a lot of details in reporting use of guns in thwarting criminals.

PRAY FOR THE PEOPLE OF HAITI

My heart is heavy for the people of Haiti. Let's set aside our problems for a day, and pray for a people in a lot of hurt and need.

Federal Gun Laws: Constitutional or Not?

This morning I came across an article which answered some of my questions about Federal Gun laws--Rick

ARE FEDERAL GUN LAWS CONSTITUTIONAL?

By Michael LeMieux
January 8, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
© 2010 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved

If “We the People” are the creators of the government, and the government is authorized arms, then in order for the people to maintain their position, in relation to the government, they too must be armed. If the servant government (servant of the people) has arms, and the people do not, then the roles are reversed for the people can not resist a government that has become tyrannical.

This same logic applies to self defense. If the law abiding citizen does not have the means to resist a lawless adversary, then the will of the adversary becomes the law. Our Congress had formally passed an “assault weapons” ban. The stated goal was to remove the arms used by gangs, drug smugglers, and extremists. How many of us really believe that anyone in any of the aforementioned groups, who owned an “assault weapon,” would get rid of those weapons, just because the Congress passed a law? However, many law abiding citizens did, in fact, give up their arms so as to remain “law abiding.” The end result is no change for the criminal element and a disarming of the citizen. This has happened, without exception, with EVERY gun law passed by Congress. In this regard, every gun law, by definition, aids the criminal and penalizes the law abiding citizen.

The Second Amendment, arguably the most contentious of all the Bill of Rights amendments, however, is the least tried in the Supreme Court. It simply 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. Read Article Here.

During the past few years I have researched the Constitution, which we were taught in the 1940s through 1950, when I attended grade and high school, I have come to a more clear understanding of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

Prior to the Civil War, both the North and the South used their state militias to fight the battles of the conflict. The North used Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution to incorporate northern state militias into the Union forces. "The Congress shall have power to ... "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years... To provide and maintain a navy... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...."

The South seceded, and as they wanted to remain a separate nation, it was not an insurrection. It was not a 'civil war,' but a 'war between the states.'

The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members or units under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States. ... Established under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code, state National Guard serves as part of the first-line defense for the United States. Source: Wikipedia.

Under the Constitution, the militia (now called the National Guard) may only be called into duty by the federal government in three specific situations. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the Congress is given the power to pass laws for “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The militia was intended by the Founders and Ratifiers to be defense force and nothing more. Tenth Amendment Center.

In conclusion, I believe the federal government, under the National Guard Act, incorporated in laws of 1903, violated the original provisions of the U.S. Constitution in the 'acquisition' of state militias into federal service as the "National Guard."

I believe the states were mandated by the Second Amendment to form militias under the authority of the state governors, regulated, and to have every able-bodied man owning his own weapon. This is the only way the Second Amendment can be literally taken, and not "interpreted" by those who would destroy the amendment and its purpose.

In conclusion, any state, any government or private institution, churches, and our own very homes, if deprived of personal weapons, might as well post a sign to law-breakers: "welcome. This place is declared a criminal enterprise zone."

The Georgia House To Adress Carrying Weapons On College Campuses

I saw an interesting article from the CBS Atlanta News this morning as I perused the latest news.
--Rick

Should Guns Be Allowed On College Campuses?
Bill In Ga. House To Address Packing On Campus
by Katie Brace, CBS Atlanta News Reporter

POSTED: 11:53 pm EST January 6, 2010
UPDATED: 10:51 am EST January 7, 2010

ATLANTA -- Georgia lawmakers are about to debate an emotional issue, gun control. A proposed bill would expand where gun owners can bring their guns. Under the House Bill 615, those with a gun permit could carry on public colleges and universities (Read Article in cbsatlanta.com.

From school shootings over the past several years, it only seems rational that institutions should choose certain individuals who are trustworthy to carry concealed weapons on campus. Had this been a policy, deaths and injuries in school shootings would have been prevented or minimized.

Also, concerning the shootings at Ft Hood, All active duty military personnel should be required to be armed.

In today's shooting in St. Louis, even if one person on duty had a personal weapon, the killing and injuries could have been prevented or limited. I now expect to see more articles to be written by gun-control supporters and public officials putting forth new laws making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to carry personal weapons.

Every time I see the picture of a gun with a circle and a slash across it on the entrance of a business indicating that no weapons are allowed in the premises, I think the sign should read, "This business has now been designated as a criminal enterprise zone." Why do I feel less safe when I shop there?