Tag Archives: Founding Fathers

When idiots have guns

Idiots in Asheboro, North Carolina left a handgun where their two-year-old son found it, placed it in his mouth, and shot himself.


According to news reports, Randolph County Sheriff’s Det. M. Reynolds said the father rushed his son to Randolph Hospital, where he was then transported to Brenner Children’s Hospital in Winston-Salem. Reynolds said the latest information from the hospital was that the child was expected to survive.

Reynolds said the family — mom, dad and three older siblings — were at home at the time.

“This was a very tragic accident. It is so fortunate that the little boy is expected to survive,” Reynolds said.

This is a very tragic accident which was extremely preventable; first by the idiot parents not having bought the bloody gun in the first place, and secondly, once the idiot parents bought the bloody gun they should have locked it up. Once their son recovers, at the very least, these two morons should be charged with child endangerment; oh but wait, we can’t do that, the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure idiots could own whatever weapon they wanted. That being said, just because you can own a gun doesn’t mean you should.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 20, 2013 in Guns


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The right-wing Hitler gun myth?

For those who will insist on continuing to use the “Hitler” reference in their argument to allow American citizens to own whatever gun they desire, or that the Founding Fathers meant for the Second Amendment to change with the times.


First, way to use the already debunked right-wing Hitler reference; one can only hope you’d know he never made any speech in 1935, or any other year where he said, “This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”

Second, the truth is no gun law was passed in Germany in 1935. There was no need for one, since a gun registration program was already in effect in Germany; it was enacted in 1928, during the Weimar Republic, five years before Hitler’s ascendancy.  But that law didn’t “outlaw” guns, it restricted their possession to individuals who were considered law-abiding citizens, and who had a reason to own one. And there’s no reason to consider that law particularly significant, either since the NAZIs didn’t seize control of their own country at the point of a bayonet, they used a much more potent weapon: propaganda. One can also hope you’d realize that no matter how well-armed German Jewry might have been it wouldn’t have been able to resist the military might of the Third Reich. Many did try and were murdered anyway. It’s the same lunatic thinking that some new wonderful band of “patriots” is going to stand up to the United States military and “take back the guvmint”.

Third, the Second Amendment was to make possible the defense of the colonies as a whole through providing for a “well regulated” militia; meaning all the “able-bodied” men would be prepared when called up, with the same caliber musket, as well as sufficient quantities of powder and ball. The Founders never intended a large standing army as Britain had been able to use in its attempt to control the colonies, thinking it the basis of tyranny. Men like Washington and Adams intended the new nation would have a very small standing army and in time of war the “citizen soldier” would be called upon to swell its ranks. It was not put into place to provide the “common man” the ability to overthrow the government, nor to be able to defend his home against marauding zombies. It also wasn’t put into place to provide the “common man” with the ability to hunt since Founders couldn’t care less who had a “squirrel gun” or a hunting rifle, it was a given you’d have the right to hunt and to provide food for your family.

So, you want guns to hunt with – fine, no problem. You want guns to defend your home – fine, also no problem. However, you don’t need assault weapons and high capacity magazines to do either of those things.

You want your assault rifle and high capacity magazine to have a revolution – fine, have it. But stop threatening it and do it, that way me and millions of others like me will be able to fulfill our oath and “protect and defend” our Constitution against the “domestic” enemy the right-wing fringe has become. If you’re going to have your revolution please start and let the rest of us move on in this much needed change of gun fantasy in this nation.

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 11, 2013 in Guns


Tags: , , , , , ,

Beware; Reverend Ricky Perry wants to make fundamental changes to the Constitution?

Republican Tea Party (GOTP) tool and presidential hopeful, Ricky Perry, wants to change the United States Constitution – no big surprise considering his penchant for declaring if Texas didn’t like what the Federal Government was doing it would secede; but Perry has a couple of ideas specifically designed to appeal to his far-right wing conservative base, but basically to no else.

According to the Associated Press (AP), Ricky laid out his “proposed” innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington; and he has occasionally mentioned them on his bright shiny new campaign trail.

First, Ricky believes we America should abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.

While the revered “Founding Fathers” – who are generally thought of by conservatives as being infallible – wrote the Constitution – also considered perfect and not open to change or “modern” interpretation – there are times when uber-conservatives like Perry feel the Supreme Court’s checks and balances needs to be severely restricted or eliminated altogether. It’s one of those constitutional anomalies of today’s uber-conservatism; the Founders and the Constitution are not open to interpretation unless you’re a far-right conservative Christian male.

Article III of the Constitution reads, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

Ricky however believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds – no doubt with the marked exception of “Citizens United” – and that members of the judiciary are “unaccountable” to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want.

Well duh Mr. Wizard; the judges are supposed to be independent from the pressures of elections and from being subject to the pressures of constantly needing to court an electorate. Federal Courts – especially the Supreme Court – swing from left to right, and back again, over time as Democratic or GOTP presidents appoint justices. This is not a bad thing but gives a very healthy balance to the system. In spite of what Ricky and other right-wing talking heads preach and believe, if the Court was always uber-conservative it would sooner or later lead to a form of far-right Christian Shariah law, which is not what the Founders envisioned. Just as conversely, the Court shouldn’t always be progressive either. Balance is what keeps us free, and imbalance would lead to servitude.

“[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability,” Reverend Perry says, “There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority.”

Or, we could replace the senior Justices as they die or retire? If Judges and Justices act inappropriately, such as ruling on big name money fat corporations donating whatever they want to campaigns while your wives are connected as lobbyists or sitting on boards, then the Congress can remove them through impeachment. Perry wants to make changes that would prove dangerous.

Ricky also believes that the so-called overreach of the judicial branch could be fixed by simply giving Congress the ability to veto Supreme Court decisions.

Allow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy,” he preaches.

I can almost hear what he’s really thinking, “If the Congress could’ve overridden Brown v. the Board of Ed then we wouldn’t have that uppity boy in the White House and y’alls children wouldn’t be going to school with Black, Mexican and them sped kids.”

But wait, destroying the checks and balances of the courts isn’t all Ricky wants to do. President Ricky would seek to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment which gives Congress the “power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

“It should be abolished immediately”, Perry says.

He’s also called the Sixteenth Amendment “the great milestone on the road to serfdom,” and that “it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.”

This is after-all a secessionist talking, so it’s to be expected, and no doubt Perry would love to have the Federal Government ask “mother may I” every time it passes legislation or enacts a new law, but that’s not how things work. There’s something called the “supremacy clause” which allows the Federal Government to do what it believes is best for the entire union, if we did things the way Perry envisions we’d be returning to the era of nullification, something that was done away with when the South lost the Civil War.

Perry also wants to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment restoring the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate. Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913, the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry believes – as does Glenn Beck – that supporters of the amendment at the time were “mistakenly” propelled by “a fit of populist rage.”

“The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment),” he claims.

Once again, this is the secessionist in Perry speaking, it’s part of his southern thinking that the people aren’t bright enough to be able to determine who sits in the upper chamber of our bicameral Congress, and that only those elected to state legislatures have the proper upbringing and education to make such heady decisions.

On another note, this is a classic example of right-wing arrogance, claiming that “The American people mistakenly empowered …” who is this red neck southern secessionists to decide that the American people mistakenly did anything?

Perry’s “most important,” plan, is to require a balanced budget amendment.

“The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution–now–to restrict federal spending,” Perry declares. “There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional ‘balanced budget amendment’ or a straightforward ‘spending limit amendment,’ either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let’s use the people’s document–the Constitution–to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington.”

Ah yes, the holiest of conservative holy grails, a balanced budget amendment. Of course, there are two things here: first, it shows Perry’s economic ignorance to proclaim the federal government should operate just like American families; the federal government operates under macroeconomics, while families operate under microeconomics. Second, how does a balanced budget amendment guarantee federal spending won’t increase and hence everyone’s taxes in order to comply with the needs of balancing the budget? You can’t write in some number the government can’t spend over, and thus you’d have to remain with a generic amendment protecting nothing but mandating the federal government raise taxes in order to balance the budget. In effect this is fluff and nonsense.

And then there’s the right-wing uber-conservative Christian Sharia law changes to the Constitution, which everyone knows was established by men who were all as devote evangelicals as Perry, Bachmann and Palin are.

Reverend Perry has changed his mind from last month’s statement that he was “fine with” states like New York allowing gay marriage, he is now declaring that he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.

“I do respect a state’s right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that,” the Reverend told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. “I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, ‘Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here’s the way you do it’.

In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry’s broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.

And coincidently, like the gay marriage issue, Reverend Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Rev Ricky said he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was “so important…to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers.”

So, here we have the second great anomaly of current conservative double speak; they will declare with one side of their mouths that the Federal Government needs to stay out of private citizen’s lives, but will then speak out of the other side of their mouths declaring it should be able to intrude into any unchristian facets of citizen’s lives; hence they preach their Evangelical Christian Sharia law and want the Federal Government to impose religious beliefs upon the entire population. Perry – like Palin and Bachmann – is a tool of the evangelical right and a secessionists and has no business ever living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 20, 2011 in 2012 Election


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

John Quincy Adams a Founding Father?

John Quincy Adams – the sixth president of the United States – was born 11 July 1767; the Declaration of Independence was signed 4 July 1776; when the document was signed giving birth to these United States, John Quincy wasn’t present. His father John Adams and even his uncle Samuel Adams were there, but alas young John Q was not. Why wasn’t he there? Because he was only eight years old, and as Clarence Thomas so recently pointed out, young John Q. wouldn’t have had any civil rights or liberties to declare. John Quincy Adams was eight years old when the nation was founded; when the “Founding Fathers”, founded it. You can’t be a founding father when you’re eight, and when you’re not there, and that’s a fact.

But when has Republican/Tea Party (GOTP) hopeful Michele Bachmann (aka Krazy) ever cared about facts? After all she was born in the same town as John Wayne (actually it was John Wayne Gacy an infamous serial killer). At a recent campaign stop Krazy declared that John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father. She also claimed the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery, but that of course is also a misstatement. Remember the whole 3/5 of a person thing?

But why worry about a few misstatements of historical accuracy? After all she only wants to be president, and it’s not like she gave a fanciful recreation of Paul Revere’s ride complete with nonexistent shots and bells and had Revere making his famous midnight ride to warn the British?

Problem is this is how the Tea Party – and its celebrated candidates – views history; incorrectly. And few seem to either notice or care. We live in an era when uber-right wing talking heads imagine themselves as being the intellectual equals of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington and Thomas Paine, complete with rewriting these men’s political philosophies in updated language – meaning to suit the talking heads own agendas. For instance in today’s politically charged right wing world, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal …” would be translated to say, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all white male conservative Christian Americans are created equal …”

Tea Party members, and their candidates, are attempting to rewrite history, some deliberately, and some out of ignorance – Palin and Bachmann – in an attempt to make our country into something the Founders never intended; an oligarchy with fabulously wealthy conservatives pulling all the strings and determining our collective political futures. Why do Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck all think Citizens United was a wonderful ruling? Because they fashion themselves to be part of the wealthy class, they see it as the opportunity to run things while never running for office. Why do Tea Party members think it was a great thing? Because they all believe one day that Lotto ticket is going to pay out big.

Rewriting history to serve one’s political purpose is criminal – conservatives’ attempting to speak for what the Founder’s true intent was to suit their own political and financial ambitions; rewriting history out of ignorance – conservatives attempting to speak for what happened, and for what the Founder’s true intent was and getting it completely wrong is just sad. But it’s even sadder when all the Tea Party members attending events and watching on FOX PAC nod right along with Bachmann and Palin as they get it wrong.

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 6, 2011 in 2012 Election


Tags: , , ,