Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Federal Flight Deck Officer Program Improvements

While it persistently exceeds its constitutional authority by bailing out businesses and individuals who are failures and by excessively intruding into free enterprise, the federal government is falling short in one of its most important roles -- that of protecting the people from attack.

The Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program is an essential part of today's airline security system. Pilots volunteer to obtain training and designation as federal officers -- on their own time and at their own expense -- so they can carry a gun on the aircraft they fly thereby protecting the aircraft from hijacking.

However, the FFDO program is unnecessarily crippled due to various factors including an inadequate budget, flawed policies, and the failure of at least one department of the federal government to do its job.

Armed airline pilots are the most cost-effective aviation counter-terrorism effort, but the FFDO program is constrained from achieving its full potential without legislation addressing these issues:
Budget Inadequacy - Despite a 100-fold growth of the program over the first year’s operation, the FFDO budget remains at the same $22 million it was seven years ago! Because of inadequate funding, the TSA is turning away pilots who want to volunteer in the fight against terrorism. It costs only $15 per flight to have a trained FFDO aboard compared with $3300 for other law enforcement officers.
Standard Law Enforcement Weapons Carriage Protocol - The thousands of Federal Flight Deck Officers that are already on international and domestic flights can meet a call by the president for more federal officers on flights by simply changing their carriage protocol. Currently, FFDOs are required to have their weapons locked whenever outside of the cockpit. This locking requirement, cited by a DHS Inspector General report as being an unsafe practice, prevents FFDOs from serving as counter-terrorism force multipliers when travelling in the cabin or through airport terminals. A DHS working group has determined that a mere 8-12 hour training period would provide any additional instruction needed.
International Flight Restrictions - The flights that pose the greatest aviation terrorism threat are those on international routes. When a pilot has just one international segment on a 5-day trip, he generally finds it impractical to carry his duty firearm for the entire trip because of the international restriction on that one segment. That leaves every flight he operates unprotected because of the current international restrictions. While the law establishing the FFDO program specifically authorizes FFDOs to perform their mission on international flights, the State Department has failed to negotiate pertinent agreements with any foreign nation.

Congress and the Whitehouse must ensure these problems are resolved immediately.

In a letter to Congress, the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) has also addressed some of the long-standing deficiencies in the FFDO program. Congress and the Whitehouse must take the necessary actions to remedy these deficiencies immediately.

Firearms and Firearms Training

"Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." — Hubert Humphrey (Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb 1960, p 4)

"A citizen who shirks his duty to contribute to the security of his community is little better than the criminal who threatens it." — Robert H. Boatman

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." — Bible, 1 Timothy 5:8

"If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I've no problem shooting them." — Angelina Jolie (quoted in the New York Daily News, 1 Jun 2008)

"Why carry a gun? It's a lighter burden than regret." — Tim Schmidt

"Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that not to defend that life when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one's duty to one's community." — Jeffrey Snyder (A Nation of Cowards, 1993)

"And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies. And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion." — Book of Mormon (Alma 43:46-47)

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." — Colonel Jeff Cooper

"Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle." — Bible, Psalms 144:1

"Firearm safety - It’s a matter for education, not legislation." — Author Unknown

"I will teach my children weapons and warfare, so they might teach their children science and law, so they might teach their children art and literature." — Unknown Greek

"Women must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself." — Susan B. Anthony, Jul 1871

Click below to learn more about training at FrontSight.

Front Sight Trained

"A cold gun barrel is bad for the soul." — Blaine Nay

Click here for more gun quotes.

Monday, March 29, 2010

United Socialist States of America

"One of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free....One day, as Norman Thomas said, 'We will awake to find that we have socialism.'" -- Ronald Reagan

"We will bury you!" — Nikita Khrushchev while addressing Western ambassadors at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow on November 18, 1956

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." — Paul (Bible, Ephesians 6:12)

"I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country." — General Moroni (Book of Mormon, Alma 60:36)

Recommended books:
The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military
The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military

The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke
The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke

Many Veterans Are Wrongfully Denied Gun Rights!

According to the Congressional Research Service, more than 140,000 military veterans have been disarmed because of health-related information that is now being used to disqualify them from possessing a firearm. Typically, this determination is made solely at the discretion of government psychiatrists and bureaucrats without due process! The affected veterans are not even notified of this egregious act! (That kinda sounds lie the old USSR, doesn't it?)

I was assured by my congressmen that the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (HR-2640/S-2084) that was signed by President Bush in 2008 would rectify this problem. As I expected, it did not. (Why am I not surprised that my congressmen would mislead me?)

If the government is willing to use health information to prohibit our military veterans from owning guns, how many more millions of Americans will be denied the right to own firearms -- without due process -- now that ObamaCare has been enacted?

Senator Richard Burr has introduced S.669 (Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act) to restore gun rights to those veterans whose rights have been denied without due process. Congress and the Whitehouse must ensure this bill becomes law immediately!

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

News article: Record numbers now licensed to pack heat

Here's a good MSNBC story on concealed carry (with hints of paranoia by anti-gun interviewees thrown in):

Record numbers now licensed to pack heat.

Vote in the poll near the end of the article on page 3. After voting, you'll get a chance to read comments left by previous poll participants.

Those who voted anti-gun seem to be consistently afflicted with ignorance, paranoia, or both. For those with a willingness to learn, ignorance can be fixed. Since it is a mental illness, paranoia is a bit harder to deal with.

Since carrying a gun is an activity best reserved to those who are of sound mind and who know how to safely handle firearms, and since anti-gun people typically seem to be either paranoid or ignorant, it is wise for those who are anti-gun to not have a gun.

That is no reason for those of us who do not exhibit a tendency toward mental illness and those of us who are not stuck in stubborn self-imposed ignorance to be similarly restricted.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Another fight against federal usurpation of power

I am pleased that Utah's Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has joined litigation to stop federal control over the health care and health insurance sectors of the US economy.

Whatever problems that exist in these sectors of the economy are a direct result of unwarranted and unwise government obstruction and manipulation of free enterprise. As President Regan said, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Congress and the President claim that they have authority to impose control over another 1/6th of the economy because the Constitution allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. That claim manifests a profound and distorted misapplication and deliberate misunderstanding of the interstate commerce clause. The founders intended for the federal government to ensure that commerce between the states be unimpeded by tariffs and other restrictions -- not to impose total control over the economy or to control every aspect of our lives under the guise of regulating commerce!

I wholeheartedly support Utah's long-overdue fight against federal usurpation of power.

Monday, March 22, 2010

The vanishing Bill of Rights

Through divine guidance, this nation's founders created a constitution which was designed to not only define the structure of our government, but, more importantly, to control its power. Our constitution was based on the belief that rights are God-given, intrinsic in man, and retained by the people -- not gifts retained by the government to be doled out, even rationed, by its officials. Naturally, this concept places great individual responsibility on the people and, especially, on our political leaders to use those rights wisely and to respect the rights of others. That is what made this nation great.

Our political leaders, like all members of our military, all take a sacred oath to protect and defend those rights -- not just selected rights, but all of them.

But, it seems that many of our politicians no longer believe the people have the intellect and judgment to make such decisions and therefore, they must make our decisions for us or at least restrict the options in our decision-making.

Consequently, over the past few decades, our government has steadily usurped and restricted our rights and liberties. The attitude of many people seems to be that if this results in the erosion of some rights and freedoms, so be it -- as long as the economy is doing well.

I am very concerned about this steady erosion of essential personal rights in this nation. Here is a tiny sample:
• If a person attempts to use his constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech to peacefully express his "politically incorrect" opinion on certain subjects, he is liable to be jailed under federal antiracketeering laws.
• Under the guise of controlling crime (particularly drug crimes) countless innocent citizens have been deprived of property without due process. This confiscation of private property is even taken for public use without just compensation!
• Today, we have over 23,000 laws in this nation restricting the constitutionally protected right of ownership and use of firearms. None of these gun-control laws has done anything to control the behavior of criminals. In fact, violent crime is highest where guns are most tightly restricted. The only true result of gun-control laws is to degrade the constitutionally guaranteed right of law-abiding individuals to own firearms. And many in politics, the news media, and show business want even more anti-second-amendment laws!

We are steadily reaching a point where the only rights and freedoms we'll retain will be those which offer no threat to an ever-expanding government. These ever increasing restrictions on our freedoms are nothing less than big-government style responses to emotional reactions to the symptoms of societal decay rather than carefully reasoned solutions to the underlying causes.

If politicians who seek to restrict our freedoms were to have any courage at all, they would introduce constitutional amendments to do so. Instead, they use the courts, executive orders, and "pass the buck" to bureaucratic agencies to modify our rights and freedoms.

Which of our freedoms is next? Which parts of the Bill of Rights do we really want to keep?

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken (In Defense of Women, 1920)

"Those who would place security over liberty shall deserve, nor receive either." -- Benjamin Franklin

"What diminishes a liberty you despise will inevitably diminish a liberty you cherish." -- Tom Gresham

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Guns in School

An overlay map showing the extent of gun-free school zones (see 18 USC 922(q)) shows how the law places anyone carrying or transporting a gun at high risk of continually committing a federal felony. Yet, this prohibition does nothing to stop crime of any kind, especially in school zones. What the law does do is provide a safe work environment for criminals bent on harming school teachers and their students. This law has left millions of school employees and children defenseless.

Fortunately, Utah law allows persons who are trained in the safe handling of firearms and in the laws related to the use of deadly force and who pass a background check to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm. In Utah, this permit allows the carry of a concealed firearm within these gun-free school zones -- including the classroom. To me, common sense says the best and most cost-effective control on violent crime, whether at home, the workplace, school, or church, is the presence of law-abiding, trained citizens as provided by the Utah concealed firearm permit process. The cops invariably arrive just in time to do nothing more that conduct an investigation and hold a press conference.

Banning guns on the campuses of public schools and colleges will not keep guns off the campus. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law -- even gun laws! If a disgruntled student or teacher chooses to shoot up the campus he or she does not care whether guns (or any other weapon) are banned or whether he or she has a concealed firearms permit.

Crimes and upset students are a behavior problem -- not a gun problem. Statistically, more crimes are averted or stopped by the mere presence of a gun than are committed by a gun -- even on college campuses. Statistically, per capita violent crime is highest in those cities and states that have banned guns. Guns are generally banned in all school zones nationwide, yet school shootings still happen. Why? Bad guys don't obey laws -- even gun laws! (Even in Great Britain and Australia, where handguns are completely banned, the criminals still manage to get them.) Imagine the difference if the bad guys knew that there was even a 1% chance of encountering a teacher or other adult trained in the use of a gun and carried it. Utah law allows for that added level of security.

Recent high profile murders in schools in Canada and the US prove that “gun-free school” laws are a delusional scheme to make hoplophobes feel good but do not deter criminal attackers. Instead they seem to lure psychopathic killers seeking to harm others, while minimizing the risk that they may encounter an armed victim. The Columbine shootings happened despite numerous state and federal laws being violated by the killers. In response, Colorado added more gun ban laws. The federal government then enacted “gun-free school” laws. Experience shows that they did no good. We should no longer tolerate any attempts to disarm law abiding citizens with silly schemes that criminals will never obey. Tragically, there will be school shootings again, but they will happen with, or without any gun laws anyone can think of. Disarming victims is not the solution!

I discourage engaging into a hostile environment or situation. However, the ability of a school employee to carry a firearm may mitigate such situations and will, at the very least, afford individual protection for the carriers themselves. If those carriers have control or responsibility over a classroom full of children, that same protection will tend to encompass those children as well. The weapon must be under the carrier's control at all times. It must be maintained quietly and discreetly.

I recommend that if an employee (armed or not) is in her classroom or other securable location and becomes aware of a violent situation that she immediately close and lock her classroom door after gathering all adjacent students into the classroom. This will be her and the students' shelter. If that employee has access to a firearm she should only engage the intruder if her classroom shelter is breeched.

In the wake of the nation's recent rash of school weapon incidents, I offer my Utah concealed firearm instruction at a discount to all school employees in Utah's Iron county as well as to college students over age 21 in Iron county.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Common-Sense Gun Laws

You hear the call all the time from those who would ban guns: "We need to have common sense gun laws!"

Well I agree, we do need common sense gun laws.

For instance, if the barrel on my shotgun is over 18 inches it's legal. If it's 17 3/4 inches long I could face 10 years in jail. A 16-inch rifle barrel is okay. That makes no sense.

My car is required by law to have a noise suppressor on it so I don't annoy the neighbors. My gun is forbidden by law from having one. That makes no sense.

In some states if a rifle has some extra plastic on it, it's illegal. That makes no sense.

In some states if my pistol is a different color, it's illegal. That makes no sense.

Criminals who are prohibited from possessing firearms need not register their guns because requiring them to do so would violate their 5th Amendment rights. Law-abiding gun owners in some states, however, must register their firearms. That makes no sense.

In some states it's illegal for me to carry a gun. Criminals don't obey the law, I do and am unarmed when attacked. That makes no sense.

If a used firearm was made after 1898, it may not be transferred to a person in another State without the assistance of a Federal Firearms Dealer. If it was made before 1898, no dealer is required, even if the firearm is the same design and caliber. That makes no sense.

In some states if a magazine holds ten rounds it's legal. If it holds eleven it's illegal. That makes no sense.

In some of the states where a new 11 round magazine is illegal, a magazine with even larger capacity that is old enough is legal. That makes no sense.

In some states if a restaurant makes 50% of its revenue from alcohol it's legal for me to carry there. If it makes 51% revenue from alcohol it's not legal for me to carry. That makes no sense.

In my some states it's legal for me to carry a concealed handgun. It's illegal for me to openly carry one. That makes no sense.

If a machine gun was made in 1985 it is legal for me to own if I pay a tax on it. If it was made in 1987 it is illegal to own. That makes no sense.

An owner one of the above pre-1986 machine guns can legally set it up in his front yard across the street from a school, load it, and point it at the school. But, he can't put any unloaded firearm in his car parked in the street in front of his house except under certain specific conditions. That makes no sense.

If a juvenile safely shoots a handgun or even simply handles handgun ammunition under the supervision of his dad, both can go to jail unless the youth also has written parental permission. That makes no sense.

If my revolver uses black powder, it is not considered a firearm. If it uses smokeless powder it is a firearm. That makes no sense.

A Ruger Charger is legal. The exact same parts on an identical receiver that started as a 10/22 are not. That makes no sense.

A dimple in the grip is required for a Springfield XD pistol to be legal to import. That makes no sense.

A Keltec pistol can't be imported, but is perfectly legal to build and sell in the US. That makes no sense.

I can legally carry a concealed handgun in approximately 30 states, but I can only buy a handgun in one state. That makes no sense.

There are over 23,000 local, state and federal gun laws in the USA. None of these mostly non-common-sense laws has done anything to stop criminals from behaving as criminals. These laws, and their proponents, have only harmed law-abiding people.

So yes, please, let's have some common sense gun laws. We can start by getting rid of all the ones that make no sense.

In fact, one of the very few gun laws that really makes sense that I know of was adopted by the federal government on December 15, 1791 as a part of the Bill of Rights.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Once again, the NRA compromises on gun rights

I have been a Life/Endowment/Patron member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) for some 35 years. My wife also is a life member. We are such because we are firm supporters of the US Constitution and the rights it guarantees. We have the impression that the NRA is the foremost leader in the movement to protect the Constitution.

I enjoyed attending the 2009 NRA Annual Meeting in Phoenix and the 2008 Gun Rights Policy Conference, also in Phoenix. I was especially pleased by the hearty welcome Phoenix and Arizona gave not only to the NRA and its members, but to their guns as well. As expected, that welcome was reciprocated by absolutely no incidents involving the firearms we gun owners brought into Phoenix, its convention center, and other venues.

My wife and I were eagerly looking forward to attending the 2010 Annual Meeting in Charlotte, NC, too. But, we have been saddened to learn that the NRA has chosen to hold this meeting in a venue which is hostile to the rights that the NRA stands for!

Also, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has chosen to hold its 2010 Gun Rights Policy Conference in one of the most anti-gun cities in the nation!

In doing so, the NRA and the SAF are asking its most faithful members and supporters to subsidize anti-rights policies and laws with their hard-won earnings.

My wife and I consistently refuse to patronize any business which rejects our right to carry a personal defense firearm. We honor their right to establish their own conditions for being on their property by taking our money elsewhere. So, we have decided we won't attend the 2010 NRA Annual Meeting in Charlotte or the 2010 Gun Rights Policy Conference in San Francisco. This year, we will continue to take our money where we are more welcome and where people show by their acts that they truly cherish our Constitutional rights.

We will reconsider our decision to boycott the 2010 NRA Annual Meeting in Charlotte and the 2010 Gun Rights Policy Conference when the management of each of the venues that will benefit by hosting the NRA Annual Meeting agree to allow lawful carry of a personal protection firearm or if they agree to provide absolute safety for all persons who are disarmed by their anti-rights policies and/or laws.

Yes, we know that the NRA and other gun-rights organizations try to move their meeting/convention venues around to make the meetings more accessible to members and that this inevitably results in venues with a no-guns policy. In the future, we expect the leadership of the NRA, the SAF, and all other gun-rights organizations to use better judgement in selecting venues for all future board, staff, and member meetings. And, whenever faced with an anti-gun policy, they should take advantage of the opportunity to do a little educating!

The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong
The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong

Monday, March 15, 2010

Why do we keep reelecting idiots?

I have long contended that two-thirds of voters (both major parties) are idiots:
• One third of the voters study the issues. They get the news from radio, TV, and newspapers. They know what's going on in the community, state, and nation. They know the agendas and objectives of the candidates. They debate the issues with educated and informed neighbors, family and friends. In the process, they make an informed decision.
• One third of the voters get their information from "news" sources such as National Enquirer, People Magazine, Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien monologues. They can quote lines that comedians have put into the mouths of the candidates the comedians don't like. They talk to neighbors, family and friends who are similarly informed. They know who the winners are on "Survivor" and "American Idol". They have no idea what the issues are are or what the candidates stand for. But, they sometimes know the names of the darlings of the mainstream media. They might even know the skin color of some candidates.
• One third of the voters go to the polls with absolutely none of the above information. They only vote because they think it's their right and duty to do something, even if it's wrong and destructive to liberty.

Here is the result:

We have the government we deserve.

Please, Nevada, get rid of Reid!
Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual -- or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. — Samuel Adams

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Stop Health Care "Reform" Now!

When one sees the absolute corruption that it takes to get the current health care reform bill passed, how can anyone possibly feel good about its passage? Think about all the earmarks (and even at least one judicial nomination) that have been included to bribe resistant congressmen to vote for this bloated attack on the Constitution and liberty!

I know there are a few in congress that really want this disastrous legislating. But I have to believe that the vast majority of congressmen know it is bad legislation and wrong for the nation. The surely must understand that bigger government is not the solution to big government problems!

Every congressman has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution -- an oath which I expect them to honor. When challenged on constitutionality, all Speaker Pelosi can say is, "Are you serious?"! She knows this legislation goes far beyond the authority given by the people and the states to the federal government. Sadly, She, and a few other congressmen simply don't care about constitutionality or even right and wrong. They want power and will do everything necessary to get it.

The current approach to heath care is dead wrong. The correct fix is to cut government meddling in the free market -- not destroy it more than it already has been. All prominent legislative efforts to "reform" the health care business and the health insurance business must be stopped at all costs!

Health care is expensive for 3 reasons:
1 - Advanced technology that saves lives and improves quality of life.
2 - Excessive litigation.
3 - Excessive government regulation.

Reason #1 is good. Reasons #2 and #3 are bad. Congressional legislation being pushed by Congressional leaders will destroy #1 and enhance #2 and #3.

Congress has no Constitutional authority to regulate health care or health insurance to the level it does.

Congress must immediately abandon all current health care reform efforts. Then, it must step back and ask three simple questions:
1 - What is wrong with health care and health insurance?
• Excessive regulation that impedes competition and unnecessarily increases costs.
• Excessive litigation and outrageous settlements and judgement.

2 - What needs to be done to fix it?
• Restore and encourage competition in a free market.
• Eliminate legislation and regulations that interfere with a free market.

3 - What does Congress have Constitutional authority to do?
• Almost nothing that it has already done.

Congress must then undo all the federal legislation that interferes with a free market in health care and health insurance.

Congress must rescind all legislation and regulations for which the federal government had no Constitutional authority to implement. This included eliminating programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP.

Congress and the state legislatures must ignore the trial-lawyer lobby and implement meaningful tort reform.

There are some in Congress who seem to believe that health care "reform" is a done deal and therefore promise to undo the mess after the 2010 election. That is too late! The time to undo the mess is now! Any congressman who does not do everything possible to stop this train wreck now is a part of the problem.

Neither Congress nor the President has authority from the Constitution, the people in general, or the States to take the hard-earned money from one person to use it for the welfare of another. To do so is nothing less than theft under color of law. I hereby forbid the President and every member of Congress from acting in my name to ever commit theft in my name.

The health care "reform" legislation now before Congress is nothing less than theft for the purpose of buying the votes of the non-productive people of this nation. No congressman is worthy of his office who does not fight against this legislation with all the strength he can muster. No congressman is worthy of his office who indulges in or accepts either tacitly or explicitly or by default the trickery and outright bribes that the president and congressional leaders are using to get this horrendous legislation passed.

I expect every congressman with a moral compass to fight this legislation. A simple "no" vote is not enough. We can teach a monkey to do that. A few amendments to make the legislation slightly less evil (such as the Stupak abortion amendment) is not enough. We need every decent congressman to fight the entire bill! Stop health care "reform" now!

Bigger government is never the solution to big government problems! Stop health care "reform" now!

Recommended books:
The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom
The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom

How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America
How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America

More Hoplophobia* on a College Campus

I am deeply concerned that a respected and peaceful Utah Valley University student, Nick Moyes, was confronted and unreasonably detained by police on the UVU campus simply because he was lawfully carrying a firearm:

Deseret News
Fox News
Daily Herald
Associated Press

According to the above Daily Herald article, the UVU chief of police said Mr. Moyes could not open-carry on campus without written approval and if he openly carries again, he could have his weapon confiscated and be charged with disruption of school activities. UCA § 53-5a-102 specifically denies the UVU chief of police any such power or authority. Although it happens far too often, there is no excuse or reason for any police officer or chief to be a bully.

Like all Utah Concealed Firearm Permit holders, Mr. Moyes has been certified by the FBI as one of the good guys. To possess a Concealed Firearm Permit, he had to undergo a background check, training in firearms safety and handling, and training in the laws regarding deadly force and the use firearms (something UVU police officers, including the chief, all apparently need more of). Having met those standards, UVU staff and students can be confident that Mr. Moyes is no threat to anyone except to a violent attacker. How much does the UVU administration and campus police know about the non-permit-holders on the campus?

In their official statement on this incident, the university administration declared that, absent a law specifically allowing open carry, it must be restricted. The administration, therefore, seems to believe we can only do what we are allowed to do -- that we can only do what we have government permission to do! That position is contrary to the our nation's founders' concept of individual liberty where government exists only to secure and protect God-given human rights -- not to ration them!

I assume that by now, the UVU administration has learned that this issue may not be the hill they want to die on. So, I urge the UVU president to ensure all UVU law enforcement officers, including the chief, are immediately and properly trained in the law regarding the lawful possession of firearms on state college campuses. These laws include:

Utah State Constitution, Article I, Section 6
UCA § 53-5a-102
UCA § 63-98-102
UCA § 76-10-500
UCA § 76-10-505.5
UCA § 76-10-523
• There is no law in Utah which addresses or restricts open carry in any way. If anyone can find one, add it to this list.

Mr. Moyes deserves an immediate, full, and sincere apology from the university, from the officers involved, and from the chief of the campus police.

The really silly aspect of banning guns on a college campus or anywhere else is that the ban only affects law-abiding people. Those who want to shoot up the school (a la Virginia Tech) will simply ignore any gun restriction. Ironically, a few days after this UVU incident, two people were shot at Ohio State University -- a gun-free zone. You see, criminals by definition don't follow the rules! That's why Nick Moyes needs a gun in school.

* Hoplophobia: From the Greek hoplon (weapon) plus phóbos (terror). An unreasoning, obsessive neurotic fear of weapons as such, usually accompanied by an irrational feeling that weapons possess a will or consciousness for evil, apart from the will of their user.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Obama Nominates Another Enemy of the Constitution!

Barack Obama has nominated University of California, Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Like nearly all of Obama's other nominees, Liu is the wrong person for the job. Why? Liu seems to believe that rules (ie the US Constitution) are made to be broken.

Liu feels the Constitution is open to creative manipulation to impose meanings not intended by the Founders and heretofore undiscerned by all the greatest legal minds. He believes that judges have a right to impose their values on the nation from the bench.

According to Liu, "Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change...as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation."

His words indicate that judges are free to adapt the Constitution to the times. But what really happens is the Constitution is repeatedly ignored and judges impose their own values upon the nation instead.

He also believes we must subjugate our values to the values of the world: "...the Constitution's text and principles must be adapted to changes in the world..."

Liu distinguished himself during the Alito confirmation process by delivering patently demagogic opposition to the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito mostly, it seems, because Alito is a true Constitutional scholar who adheres to originalist views on the role of the judiciary. Liu's statements manifest a constitutional scheme in which judges, and only judges, make policy on everything.

A recent study showed that many Americans consider our founding documents “obsolete.” That opinion, however, comes from people in two categories:
1 - Those who have never read or studied the document,
2 - Those who, like Liu, disagree with its principles of individual liberty, separation of powers, and limited central government.

Anyone who has read and studied the US Constitution knows that it has a built-in mechanism for adaptation -- an amendment process. There is nothing in there that authorizes any judge to do the amending!

The Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee must make its determination on whether Liu correctly understands the Constitution and is willing to abide by it. Obama should already have made that determination. The fact that he nominated Liu clearly indicates that "Constitutional Law" Professor Obama cares nothing about the Constitution. The Constitution is like sun-block: It only works when it’s applied correctly. Liu does not seem to be that sort of judicial candidate.

Liu clearly is a radical activist who wants to move the courts and our country in the wrong direction -- further away from the Constitution.

The authors of the US Constitution wisely provided for Senate confirmation of all presidential nominees. The purpose of this confirmation process is to protect the US Constitution and the liberties it guarantees from an activist and power-hungry administration and from activist judges such as Goodwin Liu. Therefore, Senators must make all decisions regarding presidential appointees based not only on the nominee's professional qualifications but more importantly on his/her respect for the Constitution and not on whether he/she is politically correct (politically cleansed).

On taking office, every Senator takes the following oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Senators do not take an oath to any political ideology, political party, party leader, king, president, or even the desires of constituents! They take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (ie Goodwin Liu and most other Obama nominees). In recent decades -- and especially during the current administration -- the Senate has done an utterly horrible job in protecting the US Constitution because Senators make their decisions based on political ideology and even race -- not the nominee's qualification, Constitutional discipline, or his/her potential effect on liberty.

Clearly, the Senate must expedite confirmation of presidential nominees who have a solid record of applying the original intent of the Constitution and halt consideration of all nominees from any administration who do not respect the rule of law or who are hostile to any individual liberty guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Compromise is giving in to the enemies of liberty. There must be no compromise!
He who does not punish evil commands it to be done. — Leonardo da Vinci

I urge the Senate to oppose the nomination of Goodwin Liu for any judicial position. I consider a vote for him is the same as a vote against the Constitution.

Friday, March 5, 2010


Wow! The self-righteous media relations arm of the Dumocrat Party (mainstream news media) sure gets testy when Republicans copy Dumocrat tactics!

No Congressional Seat for DC!

S.160 and HR.157 (A bill to provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives) would make the District of Columbia a congressional district.

Article I of the US Constitution clearly states, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States....The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...."

Clearly, S.160 and HR.157 violate Article I of the US Constitution because the District of Columbia is not a State and was never intended to be a State. The fact that these bills have been introduced is prima facie evidence that congressmen do not care what the Constitution says. These bills must be rejected based on their unconstitutionality.

On taking office, every Senator takes the following oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Congressmen (as far as has been disclosed to the public) do not take an oath to any political ideology, political party, party leader, king, or president. They take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Yet, here they go, violating the Constitution!

This legislation is a perfect example of why we commoners are fed up with our arrogant and out-of-touch representation in Washington DC.

S.160 and HR.157 must be defeated overwhelmingly. I also oppose any effort to amend the Constitution to give The District of Columbia a seat in Congress. No State, including Utah, needs another congressman enough to justify violating or amending the US Constitution!

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Signs of Spring

In spite of the snow today, summer's almost here. We can now see the deer moving around in the neighborhood.

Yep, won't be long.

SB-11 (Utah State-made Firearms Protection Act)

The Framers designed the US Constitution to allow federal regulation of international and interstate matters. No authority was ever delegated to the federal government to regulate internal matters reserved to the States.

The interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution gives Congress authority to "regulate" (to bring order, method, or uniformity to) commerce among the states, or to make regular the commerce among the several states. There is no federal authority whatsoever to regulate commerce within any state.

SB-11 (Utah State-made Firearms Protection Act) draws a line in the sand to remind the federal government that commerce within Utah is none of the federal government's business. Unfortunately, this bill only addresses one small segment of intrastate commerce -- guns which are made and used only within Utah.

Utah now needs to take a stand against the federal government on all intrastate commerce. It is clear to me that when our local WalMart brings products into Utah from other states or from overseas, they may be "regulated" by authority given in the US Constitution's commerce clause. However is clear to me that when I go to WalMart to buy any of those non-Utah-made products, I am making an in-state transaction and my local purchase does not fall under federal interstate oversight or regulation.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees that I have a right to possess and use that item within or outside Utah with no interference from the federal government. I also have a right to sell that product to anyone in or out of Utah who has a right to possess that product provided the sale is private -- not commercial. For example, whether I buy a camera, a set of tires, or a firearm from my local WalMart, I am making a local, intrastate transaction -- not an interstate transaction and my purchase and non-commercial disposal of that item is none of the federal government's business -- even if I use it or sell it outside of Utah.

While it is disappointingly limited in scope, SB-11 is a good first step. I thank the legislature and Governor Herbert for taking this step.

Recommended book:
The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution
The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution

Principles vs Politics

There once were two basic philosophies of representative government:
1 - An elected representative was strictly that, a representative of the people who was to act and vote according to the wishes of his constituents.
2 - His constituency elected him because of his wisdom, experience, knowledge, and education. The people trusted him to decide what was best for the people and the State/nation.

Soon, the parties to which elected officials belonged became a power unto themselves. Using that power, they began to direct the voting of the members of their respective parties to achieve the ends of the party rather than of the people. Each major party has its leaders who "whip" its members into line on all major issues. There is little tolerance for independence and principle. The goal is party power -- not liberty.

Occasionally we see a few representatives show a bit of independence, but that is rare. Such principle-minded representatives (ie Ron Paul) become quickly outcasts in the legislative community.

Because of this party loyalty and lack of principle, opposition to wrong-headed bills is largely invisible or weak or altogether non-existent. Simply making a short speech on the floor of the House or the Senate is not enough effort. Attaching a few small amendments to bad bills is not enough effort. Simply casting a "no" vote was not enough effort.

We commoners (whom state and federal legislators purportedly represent) expect and demand every congressman to fight for what is right and oppose all that is wrong. Instead, because politicians rarely stand on principle, legislators compromise on nearly everything. Compromises always move the state and the nation in the wrong direction.

I am disgusted that many congressmen accept bribes (earmarks/pork) from party leaders in exchange for their votes. I am disappointed that a majority (perhaps all) of congressmen and state legislators owe their loyalty to their party and to party leaders and not to the US and States Constitutions which they have sworn to defend.

Recommended book:
When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country
When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country