Killing the Messenger

We do not need a convention to change the Constitution - we need to observe the Constitution we already have. [More]

Been sayin' that for years about the Con-Con con. So naturally, it's an unpopular opinion among some who wish to be leaders. That's why those who are successful at exposing the new dangers that will be introduced by the "if we could just come up with the right incantation we'd get this spell to work" crowd must be ignored.

Or if that can't be arranged, disparaged and dismissed...

The Con-Con Con

Convention Supporters’ Myths about State Control of Delegates – Publius Huldah [More]

As if the problem lies within the Constitution, as opposed to those who deliberately pervert and ignore it. As if anything happens politically without "compromise." And as if abuses and disregard won't happen again, regardless of any magic incantations proponents think they can devise.

We're being conned.

A True Con-servative

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in his opening remarks, sought to play down fears of second amendment infringement. [More]

That's because the guy's a pro who understands:

“The confidence game — the con — is an exercise in soft skills. Trust, sympathy, persuasion. The true con doesn’t force us to do anything; he makes us complicit in our own undoing. He doesn’t steal. We give.”

That's why his shills work the crowd. Gun owners will continue giving him their support and votes as he gets the states to do his dirty work, maintaining the illusion that his hands are clean.

On Conferred Rights

Friend, attorney and Second Amendment activist Peter Mancus has turned up an interesting case in his research, Capen v. Foster, wherein it was declared:

"[I]n all cases where the constitution has conferred a political right or privilege, and where the constitution has not particularly designated the manner in which that right is to be exercised, it is clearly within the just and constitutional limits of the legislative power, to adopt any reasonable and uniform regulations, in regard to the time and mode of exercising that right, which are designed to secure and facilitate the exercise of such right, in a prompt, orderly, and convenient manner;"

"Now," Peter writes, "think in terms of the Second Amendment and how it ends, '...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.'

"My point(s): 1) The Second, by declaring that this is a right that belongs to the people which shall not be infringed, conferred a right which 'designated the manner in which that right is to be exercised,' namely, it may be exercised to the fullest, without regard to time and place and mode restrictions; and 2) Based on that, and a ton of Rules of Constitutional Construction, e.g., no word or phrase is surplusage and all words and phrases must be given full weight and read in context, etc, no legislature has any constitutionaly legitimate power to impose a prior restraint against the exercise of this right; 3) The Congress and State legislatures retain the legitimate power to punish a civil negligent or criminal abuse or misuse of this right but they cannot, per the US Supreme Court, treat 'the right of the people' and/or 'shall not be infringed' as meaningless verbiage that does not impose meaningful limits on Congress or the State legislatures; 4) The Framers put in the Bill only that which they deemed to be important--fundamental, foundational; 5) The Second guaranteess, or at least codifies, a fundamental right that has always been binding against Congress and the States, from the get go, period."

I think Peter is on to something. I did have one concern that I wrote back to him about and urged him to address:

Main Entry: con·fer
Pronunciation: k&n-'f&r
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·ferred; con·fer·ring
Etymology: Latin conferre to bring together, from com- + ferre to carry -- more at BEAR
transitive senses
1 : to bestow from or as if from a position of superiority (conferred an honorary degree on her) (knowing how to read was a gift conferred with manhood -- Murray Kempton)
2 : to give (as a property or characteristic) to someone or something (a reputation for power will confer power -- John Spanier)

This reflects all too typical judicial arrogance and/or total misunderstanding of the purpose of the Constitution, i.e., to define the delegated structure and powers of the national government, and of the nature of the Bill of Rights demanded by the anti-Federalists.

The Framers understood rights to be “unalienable,” and “endowed by our Creator.” If they are “conferred,” they are done so by “Nature’s God,” not by a government document.

The Framers understood and held “these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal,” which makes it impossible for one group to “confer” rights to another, as that, by definition, requires them to be bestowed from a position of superiority.

In fact, the view of government expressed here is exactly backward: Government is the servant. Government is conferred powers, bestowed from those in a position of superiority, i.e., the people.

So the Second Amendment does not confer to me any right to keep and bear arms—it merely articulates and recognizes that right, further stating it shall not be infringed. The limit is again on government, not on me.

So when you say: “The Second, by declaring that this is a right that belongs to the people which shall not be infringed, conferred a right which…” you are ceding this important concept to the enemy.

This is an important point and not mere quibbling over word choices. As you point out, “no word or phrase is surplusage and all words and phrases must be given full weight and read in context…”

I think your other points have much merit. I just think that this business of conferring rights also needs to be pointed out, and you shouldn’t fall into the trap of using “conferred” in your arguments, unless it is to point out the fallacy of the concept.

Deliberately Ignoring the Cure

 First of all, there is no problem the US currently suffers that could not be solved merely by obedience to the Constitution. It’s really as simple as that, which is why the Constitution has been edged out of relevance over the past few decades. [More]

And that's why I think Con-Con promoters are so wrong.

Say, Here's an Idea...

Maybe we could have a Con-Con or something... [More]

Seeing as how NRA, quite properly, assessed campaign finance limits were well within the scope of that "single issue," perhaps they're ready next time to give Wayne's "true champion of the Second Amendment" the "F" he deserves.

More on the Con-Con and a Rant

We talked about it here.

Chuck Baldwin explains why they're so dangerous.

I understand the Ohio vote has been delayed. None of the legislators saw fit to get back with me--I guess they thought I might be a bit peeved.

But here's a question for you, who come here regularly every day, because I presume you get some value out of it.

I asked readers to join me (I never ask for anything I don't give myself), to send an email. I even provided all the addresses.

How many did?

Apathy is the most frustrating thing I confront. It's a bigger threat than anything out there. And I have to wonder what someone will do if they won't even take a minute, literally, to send a simple email.

I've answered dismissals about "preaching to the choir" before, the first time, I believe, in my article "You Say You Want a Revolution?" published by GUNS AND AMMO back in 2001:

If only this assumption was true. We would be invincible!

The choir is comprised of the volunteers up there doing the work, singing. These are the people who learn the music and the words and the programs. They take significant time out from their demanding professional and personal lives to practice, to learn and to perform. And they’ll do it again next week, and the next.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are, at best, spectators. They may occasionally attend a service, they may even put a couple dollars in the plate when it’s passed, but to actually put forth time, effort and financial support on a continued basis, to do real work and make real sacrifices, is something they typically find reasons for not doing.

So it takes a special person for me to acknowledge as being a choir member.

I'm also reminded of a quote from Mr. Churchill.

I bring this up because I see the vast majority of gun owners, maybe, say, 97%, dismissing "threepers," sometimes with great contempt. Just the other day I saw myself characterized with the words "spittle-flying screaming about all the 'cowards' that won't start killing jack-booted thugs at the issuance of a traffic ticket."

I approached my accuser privately (and politely, I might add) and asked to see where I've done that, or even anything close to it to make it a fair caricature. For some reason he won't reply.

For the record, I'm doing what I can, and have been for years, to work toward restoration of the Republic through petitions for redress, political involvement, the legal system, the media...

The ironic thing is, if we do reach the much-mischaracterized "Vanderboegh scenario," it will be because many who decried it the loudest didn't hold up their end of the deal and actually do concrete work toward those political and legal results they tell us will be our salvation.

The rant is almost over. At the risk of alienating and driving anyone away, I'll say this flat out: If you're not doing something proactive on a regular basis to try and promote Liberty/discourage tyranny, you're part of the problem. It's not my place to tell you what to do, it's your place to find something that enthuses you and do it.

This week and the next and the next....

[Via W-3]

News Flash!

All three branches of government are actively subverting the Constitution! [More]

I'm not trying to diminish the guy, and it's wonderfully refreshing to hear such talk coming from a "leader," but thing is, some of us "followers" have been bangin' those pots and pans for decades.

Lee, by the way, is rated A+ by both GOA and Numbers USA. I'm disappointed to see  his book being tied in as paving the way for a Con-Con when his major premise is the other side cheats and gets away with it all the time -- this write-up makes it appear that way by saying his book "could play a role in the building effort to hold a Convention of States to pass constitutional amendments aimed at limiting Washington's power." I'm not getting why that sentence was put in, as other sources say Lee "is concerned about a convention creating the potential for a barrage of bad amendments.”

UPDATE: Oath Keepers has more on "Why the Article V Convention Must Be Opposed."

Grassroots Activists Derail Con-Con

Imagine that. A "threeper" working the political side of the street.

If you only listened to some, people who were silent on this, incidentally, you wouldn't think we did that.

Not trying to renew a fight--only trying to correct the record.

The Con Con

Right seeks unprecedented convention to amend Constitution [More]

Not all of us.

[Via Felix B]

About That Con-Con

First, the Second Amendment must be revised to allow restoration of the assault-style weapons/ammunition ban, universal background checks and comprehensive gun bans in high-crime areas ... Second, a new amendment must be fashioned to relieve federal political candidates of the burden to raise campaign funds ... To implement these recommendations, a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution -- called for by two-thirds (currently 34) of the state legislatures -- is one of two processes authorized by Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution whereby the Constitution may be altered. [More]

Figures this self-impressed hive insect worked for Lautenberg.

And to think some on "our side" want us to stick our heads on that block...

Make No Mistake

[More]

This is what the domestic enemies are trying to destroy by smearing it as "racist" and by cowing image-conscious and gutless corporations into submission.

Make no mistake, anyone who capitulates will still be slated for elimination whenthe time is right and the power is there. It's what communists do, and silencing their opposition will only serve that agenda.

This isn't about Horowitz supporting a "Con-Con"-- which I'm glad to find even he admits "there were indeed risks involved." Indeed.

This is about totalitarians and their useful idiots demanding to control which thoughts may be expressed and shared, enabling them to do what totalitarians do.

Make no mistake, this is about shutting you and me up and then down.

[Via Mack H]

The Immunity Syndrome

Forgive a detour into nerdland, but my argument about strictly academic thinking in yesterday's "Con-Con" post reminded of a Star Trek episode, "The Immunity Syndrome," where the ship Intrepid, manned by Vulcans, has been destroyed. Dialog between Kirk and Spock:

S: Their logic would not have permitted them to believe they were being killed.
K: Explain.
S: Vulcan has not been conquered within its collective memory. The memory goes back so far that no Vulcan can conceive of a conqueror. I knew the ship was lost because I sensed it.
K: What did you sense?
S: A touch of death.
K: And what do you think they felt?
S: Astonishment.

Our collective memory does not allow most to fathom that they personally could end up in a mass grave.

About That 28th Amendment

I keep getting these:

[Click to enlarge]

Really?

Got a link to a credible source? Can the veracity of the claims be proven? No? Then why forward it and ask for me and others to do the same?

And the "solution" is a Con-con? (And  by the way, the 2/3 requirement is met before 38, so this even fails at fourth-grade math).

It takes literally seconds to see this is BS that's been around for a while.  Meanwhile, how many have been sucked into believing it and wasting their time and the time of others that could have been spent on productive pursuits? And why shouldn't someone's credibility be shot if they do as asked?

This kind of gullible pseudoactivism is irresponsible and destructive.  It doesn't help, it hurts.

Please pass that on to anyone asking you to blindly follow them over the cliff.

Win-Win-Win!

It's a big club and you ain't in it.

Memos on Alleged Saudi-Affiliated Support of the 9/11 Attacks [More]

Minus 28 "classified" pages, of course.

WarOnGuns Correspondent Laocoön responds:

Disgusting, worse because it's not surprising. FBI had an informant living with two of the terrorists. Of course, like Sergeant Schultz in Hogan's Heroes, he supposedly knew nothing, and he was unavailable for interview. The Jihadis were well hooked up with the Saudi government, princes, diplomats, etc. To the extent the Saudi govt & ruling class wasn't directly responsible, it's still responsible for creating the conditions for Saudis to organize the attack, spreading and funding anti-Western and anti-Jewish hate, madrasas and so forth.

Even now, few people ask why so many millions of Muslims are here in the first place, when there were virtually none before 1960. The neo"con" game is to literally treat the "war on terror" like a game with a handicap: Keeping Muslims out in the first place would be too easy. No challenge, no fun, no material for idiot shows like "24", and most importantly: no excuse for preemptive quagmires, foreign adventures, "nation-building" scams, or a massive "security" state that tracks and spies and gropes American citizens and treats us all as potential terror suspects. So the game is, flood the USA with millions of Muslims, then try to nip the inevitable attacks in the bud. With millions of immigrants belonging to an inherently violent, intolerant, aggressive, oppressive religion, a large percentage of whom therefore support Sharia and Jihad (even many "moderates" sympathize with terrorists - and breed them), it's impossible to stop all the attacks. But the few attacks that slip through keep Americans on our toes, eagerly bent over for more "security", preemptive quagmires, foreign adventures, corrupt "nation-building" scams, and a bigger Military Industrial Complex. Doctor's Orders! And the neo"cons" can say we need to bring in even more Muslims to help us "fight" the "war on terror" and foil "homegrown" attacks by the Muslims they already brought in. Finally the icing on the caca, Republicans get "cheap labor", PC-whipped neo"con" prostitutes like David Petraeus can sell their souls, Democrats get future votes and accelerated, irreversible "multicultural" terraforming. Win-win-win!

What do you think, "conservatives"?  Grover?

An American 'Con'servative

People on the pro-gun side, however, tend to carry on like fire-breathing fundamentalists at a tent revival. They meet any proposal to restrict weaponry or ammunition, no matter how sensible, as an attempt to give a toehold to the devil. [More]

It is, you dunderhead! Note he doesn't flesh out specifically what he considers "sensible".

Sterile bee queen Rod Dreher,  writing in the Brit press instead of his own magazine, would have "conservative" drones expend their efforts fruitlessly, and ultimately suicidally, by following him.  And this is a guy who writes with an apparently straight face "To the extent that I care about economics and foreign policy, I would be likely to vote Obama."

And just to let you know what else he and his ilk consider reasonable and sensible, note: 

If you’re a conservative fed up with the narrowness of thought on our side, we could use your financial help in building up this institution.

Meaning be more like anti-gun neocon hero Bill Buckley.

Which means focus on the "con" in "The American Conservative." And reject them as utter frauds.

Taken by Stormy

Stormy Daniels sues Trump for defamation over 'con job' tweet - She says she was harmed by a Trump tweet that accused her of 'a con job' [More]

What kind of job wouldn't it be defamatory to accuse her of?

This is actually quite a chilling development -- if public figures can sue over something like this, then will calling some prominent gun-grabber a liar produce similar results?

With Friends Like These

How A Proud Gun Owner Running For Congress Became The ‘Enemy Number 1’ Of The NRA [More]

By being a gunkapo?

And Enemy Number 1?  Hey guy, the line wraps around the block.  Get in the back of it and wait your turn.

One of the lying tactics fascists at sites like Opposite Day Think Progress pull is recounting the guy's "pro-gun" achievements. like they approve of them. So they show the guy being a hunter, just to con the Fudds.

Separating makes targets easier to pick off.

Hedging Bets at Castle Schwarzenegger

Maria Shriver -- wife of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and a member of the powerful Kennedy political clan -- on Sunday endorsed Barack Obama for US president, just days after her former-actor husband backed Republican John McCain.

It's called playing both ends against the middle, but more than that, it's a continuation of the deception that there are two ends:

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

The utter inability of some to admit the con job spelled out by Carrol Quigley in "Tragedy and Hope" speaks more to abdication of any line in the sand than anything else. We have a chance at peaceful revolution, a true easy way out, and it is, for the most part, disparaged and scorned.

The Common Good

This appeal to what advocates call "private property rights" ignores the fact that the common good — and a commonwealth such as Virginia is, by definition, devoted to the common good — is, in the order of things, a principle of a higher order, in specific instances, than private interests. [More]

Who wrote that, Marx or Mao? It sounds suspiciously like the tried and true leftist con of using the "general welfare" clause to justify EBT cards and other coerced wealth transfers.

The way to ensure the common good is by respecting individual freedom.