Stop being victims

Blacks are voting at greater rates than whites. Women outnumber men at colleges. Is it time to have outreach and affirmative action for white males? Or maybe drop the victim crap in general and just understand that individuals makes choices and group results are only an artificial concept.

One of the big dividing lines between traditional American culture and modern liberalism (i.e. liberalism since the 1960s) is the believe in group victim status. Americans, throughout most of our history, have believed that they were responsible for their own lives.

This I still believe. It doesn't mean that we act only for ourselves. In fact, traditional American culture was extraordinarily characterized by volunteerism and individuals voluntarily working together for common goal. The difference was that it was a choice THEY made.

Traditional American culture was generous and welcoming. We took in more immigrants than any other country in the world and they became Americans. The most important thing we asked of ourselves and others was that we be useful. We judged people by what THEY did, not by who their fathers were or by the group they came from. This was good. This IS good. This is what made America an exception in the long run of benighted places, where you were judged by "your people" rather than by your accomplishments.

Liberalism actually started with this too. American liberalism grew from the American experience. The idea was to give people a chance. This is still something liberals and conservatives share. But liberals started to go farther. They analyzed groups and wanted to make things come out equal. Giving people a chance is American from the start. Being concerned that groups come out equal is not.

We need to move forward to a new freedom, which will not include much emphasis on group membership, except groups that people voluntarily join and can leave when they want. In other words, you are born into America, not a hyphenated group of Americans.

By liberal standards, if one group is voting more, it must mean the other is suppressed. If one group is "under served" in university, it must mean there is discrimination. So now that the balance had shifted, what do they do?

Posted by Christine & John at May 9, 2013 6:22 AM
Comments
Comment #365555

When you wrongly believe that you know what is in the best interest of everybody, a false sense of victimhood is what brings you the votes. You ‘say’ you care, you promise ‘freebies’ and you condemn all who do not believe in special treatment for those you pretend to care about.
For liberals, it’s all about getting the votes needed to “transform” our once great nation into something it was never meant to be.

Posted by: kctim at May 9, 2013 9:16 AM
Comment #365556

Socialism is stealing American rights on a Federal level. The only way we are going to be able to keep our Constitutional rights is through the states. Here is a perfect example of how states have to treat socialist power grabbers like Eric Holder (Obama’s long arm of the law):

Kansas passed SB 102:

“SB 102 establishes the Second Amendment Protection Act.

First, the bill excludes from federal regulation any personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas. The bill provides that for as long as any such personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition remains within the borders of Kansas, it is not subject to any federal law, regulation, or authority.

Second, the bill prevents any federal agent or contracted employee, any state employee, or any local authority from enforcing any federal regulation or law governing any personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas, provided it remains within the borders of Kansas. In the process of a criminal prosecution, the bill precludes any arrest or detention prior to a trial for a violation of the Act.

Finally, the bill allows a county or district attorney or the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief in court to enjoin certain federal officials from enforcing federal law regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.”

AG Holder threatened the State of Kansas to which Kansas responded:

“AG Holder wasn’t amused that his stormtroopers would be opposed by the state, though. Some fear that his fury stems from the fact that he is trying to set up rules on how to put down dissent among the states.

Kansas authorities, though, were not cowed. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach sent a letter right back to Holder telling him in no uncertain terms that his un-Constitutional actions are not welcome in the Sunflower State.

Mr. Kobach assured Holder that his state wrote its law to withstand his assaults as well as any Constitutional challenges that might befall it.”


http://www.scribd.com/doc/139146961/Kansas-Secretary-of-State-Kobach-Responds-to-Eric-Holder

We are seeing the attempted dismantling of our Constitutional rights.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 9, 2013 9:22 AM
Comment #365558

CasperWY-
Supremacy clause. Separation of powers. Commerce Clause. You praise these people as defenders of the constitution, but they are violating it on a fundamental level.

What you celebrate here is bold defiance and contradiction of Liberals. That’s all. In the end, though, that’s not a consistent interpretation of the constitution, nor a viable model for the law.

And this socialism thing? It’s a psychotic delusion. It’s the Republicans using the strongest charge of extremism they can levy and not get laughed at, to convince people like you that because the Republicans are no longer in charge, the nation’s going to go to hell in a handbasket.

That’s it. You’re being played for suckers by people desperate to hold onto power, by people who don’t want you to notice, say, that you’re electing a Congressman whose last job as elected official ended in a ridiculous scandal.

Take a chill pill, and actually read the Constitution.

kctim-
This nation is meant to be, per the framer’s efforts, what it’s people can agree for it to become. They were smart enough not to try and predict the future, and left room for things to change.

Folks like you need to realize that nothing is permanent in a representative democratic republic like ours. Ours was and is a nation built to change, not to be bound to ancient tradition for arbitrary reasons. Mechanisms are built in to moderate that change, but they’re not there to prevent it.

The right has to shed this hero’s complex its got, which has it thinking that it’s the GOP’s job to simply halt any shift back from where they had things, from where they liked it. Y’all had your chance. Now others will have theirs, sooner or later.

But if you opt for later, let me tell you what happens: the change will be worse for you, more sharp and sudden. It will simply be a matter of votes moving past a threshold in one house or another, and this long, bitter, exhausting political battle in Congress finally taking its toll.

Y’all could have moderated it, if you’d wanted to, but you wanted total control instead, and the long term fight for that, I believe, will be a losing fight.

C&J-
The Conservatives want dumbed down Americans. They want Americans that function basically at the level we did in the fifties, folks who don’t question religion, who don’t question what the folks up on top in industry say, don’t worry about things like the environment, don’t question the foreign policy, just “support the troops” which is another way of saying that they support the war without questioning whether its working or not, or whether it should have begun in the first place.

When you have smart people at work, you get minds whose logic can pierce the dogmas, and upset the former balance of things. People don’t leave well enough alone, don’t stay decently put like they’re supposed to.

The last generation, I believe, conservatives and liberals alike, rebelled against the establishment, rebelled against the discipline, the authorities. I believe this is partly justified. We did need to loosen up a little bit, open our minds somewhat. But we overcorrected on both sides, I think, and now the correction must take place on both sides.

On your side, the correction has to be one of hewing closer to what is provable, what is substantive. In the question to overturn Darwinism, overturn the dominance of secular origin theories in schools, the religious right has encouraged an atmosphere of hostility towards science.

On the other side of things, among the Wall Street faction of the party, the discouragement of STEM education has different roots, as the companies really just don’t want people knowledgeable enough to question what they’re doing, or at least trusting enough of scientific authority to believe them. So, the business faction of the right has painted a picture of scientists as a Marxist fifth column, or a least a bunch of milquetoast pantywaists getting in the way of the manly pursuit of prosperity, of free enterprise.

We need to realize that in this country clinging to your mediocrity, celebrating it, while relaxing in its way, is poisonous to one’s prospects. If you want to be treated special, to earn more and do more significant things with your life, you got to step beyond being just another schlub.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 9, 2013 11:06 AM
Comment #365559
Take a chill pill, and actually read the Constitution.

Stephen, please show me the part of the US Constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate gun ownership within state borders.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 9, 2013 11:53 AM
Comment #365562

Stephen

“Per the framer’s efforts,” there were limits placed on what government could do and the control it had over the people. “Per the framer’s efforts,” there is a process that was to be followed in order to change those limits and control, something your people avoid in your quest to make everybody and everything, the same.

Folks like me realize that while change may be an absolute, it must be done with respect to what made our country great: our Constitution and the individual rights, freedoms and liberties that it guarantees.
Folks like you believe those things come secondary to your desires and you have discovered that by instilling a false sense of victimhood, some people will gladly give up their individual rights, freedoms and liberties to get what they desire. Folks like you need to understand that not everybody is willing to do that and that we will fight you tooth and nail.

The left needs to shed this hero’s complex they have that makes them wrongly believe that they know what is best for everybody and that they can protect everybody from themselves.

Folks like me aren’t fighting to simply prolong what you believe to be the nations inevitiable liberal transformation, we are fighting to stop it.
The way to fight it is to preserve what’s left of our rights and to chip away at all the damaging liberal policy already destroying our country. Chip away at treating people differently and start treating everybody equally. Chip away at liberal regulations that stiffle business. Chip away at the liberal belief that individuals are second to government.

Folks like me don’t want to moderate your liberal policy, Stephen, we want to end it because Y’all refuse to respect us and moderate it yourselves.

Posted by: kctim at May 9, 2013 12:24 PM
Comment #365566

Stephen

RE the 1950s - I suggest you read a little more about that decade. It was a time of positive social change and economic progress. Crime rates were low. Millions of Americans entered a prosperous middle class, bought their first homes. Millions more became the first in their families to go to college. The worst unemployment rate of the decade was as high as the BEST we have experienced since Obama took office. In fact, unemployment remains at or below 3% for almost two years. After President Eisenhower ended the Korean war, we enjoyed peace.

I would not want to “go back” to the 1950s. We have become much richer as a nation and we have lots more options. But we have built on the achievements of Americans of that time and people like you should be grateful. You can work less because they gave you so much.

I do not want to “go back” but I would like some of the low unemployment rates, low crime rates, great opportunity etc.

I won’t bother even commenting on the rest of your silly stereotypes about conservatives. You really are unteachable in this respect. I will comment only about your “science”. Someone like you who opposes GMOs on the basis of unscientific superstition has no business criticizing anyone.

Posted by: C&J at May 9, 2013 7:36 PM
Comment #365569

Stephen Daugherty; I don’t quite know how to respond to your ignorance. You are so blinded by the liberal agenda; you are so filled with the idea that government is the solver of all problems, that you would sit by and watch the country’s demise. You revel in the fact of small socialist victories; of higher taxes, of more government spending, of taking away 1st and 2nd amendment rights, and of the “Big Brother” attitude permeating America. You make ignorant statements like this to C&J:

“The Conservatives want dumbed down Americans.”

This has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. You have absolutely no facts to back this up. On the contrary, it is the ignorant Democrat masses who have no knowledge of how government works, of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Right, of taxes and sending. The occupy Wall Street crowd who are ignorant bastards. They exist only for the free things given to them. The Democrats are responsible for 1/6th of the country living on welfare and/or food stamps. Over 20 million Americans are drawing SS disability. You say conservatives want to dumb down Americans, and yet it is the Democratic Party who succeeds only through their masses of ignorant followers. Stephen, I can back up what I claim:

This video shows Obama supporters will support banning any right as long as you say it’s for Obama? All I have to do usually is just mention the keywords, ‘Will you support Obama,’ and their eyes light up and they’re literally signing their rights away.


Mark Dice got Obama voters in Southern California to support stripping Americans of their 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 7th amendment rights just by saying that it’s for Obama:


Is it a sad day in America where people who actually vote for Obama don’t care about the Bill of Rights at all? Isn’t this evidence that all Obama did was prey on the most ignorant and gullible members of society in order to become President of the United States?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgzOpJSpAMs

Tell me Stephen Daugherty; who are the dummies?

“And this socialism thing? It’s a psychotic delusion. It’s the Republicans using the strongest charge of extremism they can levy and not get laughed at, to convince people like you that because the Republicans are no longer in charge, the nation’s going to go to hell in a handbasket.”

No Stephen, socialism is not a delusion…it is the goal of the left. You are so diluted that you can’t understand your side is destroying this great nation. It’s certainly not the strongest charge that can be made. I could say your side are ignorant son-of-a-bitches and that still wouldn’t be strong enough. Your side hates this country. You hate everything it stands for. You think we have been unfair to the rest of the world, you think we have stolen the world’s resources, you are ashamed that the American people are successful and the rest of the world is poor, you hate that we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights, you think we should live under the same rules as European countries, you believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are flawed and therefore should be changed. The sad thing Stephen is this…you think we are upset that the Republicans are no longer in charge; that’s not true, we are upset that Democrats and Republicans are in bed together, destroying this country and stealing our rights. I see this Stephen, I understand what our nation is losing; but you Stephen are so blinded by your partisanship that you can’t say anything against Obama.

“That’s it. You’re being played for suckers by people desperate to hold onto power, by people who don’t want you to notice, say, that you’re electing a Congressman whose last job as elected official ended in a ridiculous scandal.”

Stephen, I have the ability to understand the constituents of the SC 1st District chose to vote in a man, flawed though he may be. I do not presume to tell any district who to vote for, because I do not live in those districts. But you, on the other hand, want to dictate to every district and every state, who they should vote in office. This is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy. But, this is the mindset of the left.

“Take a chill pill, and actually read the Constitution.”

I know the Constitution Stephen; I raised my right hand and swore to defend and protect it…have you? Stephen, your “much talk” is hollow. You can talk all you want and you can try to make yourself sound important, but until you have given your word to protect and defend the Constitution, you have no idea what you are talking about. Until you have served of foreign soil and defended our rights and until you have come back to this country, knowing the freedoms we have, you will never have an understanding of what it means to be an American. You have had everything handed to you and you have not had to defend anything. Someone else has paid all the price for you. Does it bother you Stephen to know that other people paid the price so that you could sit behind a computer screen and talk out your ass?

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 9, 2013 9:56 PM
Comment #365610

“Take a chill pill, and actually read the Constitution.”

Stephen Daugherty, I have read it, supported and defended it, and believe it.

You are the one who has a problem with the Constitution, not me. Tell me Stephen, have you read it, supported and defended it, and believed it? Or are you going to come back with some double talk about how you believe it, but?

Posted by: CasperWY at May 10, 2013 1:14 PM
Comment #365614

Stephen does not refer to the Constitution of the United States. I believe he has reference to the Constitution of the old USSR.

BTW Stephen, do you support the admin in the Benghazi affair? How the admin lied over and over again? How the top man in Libya was not consulted in the compiling of a state dept report headed by Pickering/Mullen?

Obama and his admin makes a Wisconsin fisherman look like a piker. No offense meant to C&J

Just for the record. I have returned for only a short stint. My health issues have only slightly improved.

Posted by: tom humes at May 10, 2013 1:55 PM
Comment #365615

Stephen, In response to your dumb comment about air craft. A F18 Hornet could fly at mach1 and has a range of over 1200 miles plus the Navy has A6 tankers that could refuel those air craft in flight. Those air craft can be used in support of ground forces or in the case of Benghazi repel those attackers so I encourage you to get facts before you stick your foot in your mouth.

Posted by: KAP at May 10, 2013 2:11 PM
Comment #365616

Welcome back Tom Humes, hope you are feeling better. Nothing has changed since you were away; Stephen Daugherty is still an Obama apologist and still worships him as the messiah.

Regarding the Benghazi affair; yes Obama lied repeatedly, but SD will never concede that Obama lied unless the messiah Obama (bless his holy name) (may peace be upon him), admits he lied to the American people. It’s the Republicans fault, it’s the whistleblowers fault, and last of all, it will be the liberal media’s fault; but it will never be Obama’s fault.

Since you have been gone, Stephen has made a complete ass of himself many times and has absolutely no credibility left. Even C&J have given SD over to a reprobate mind.

Posted by: George at May 10, 2013 2:22 PM
Comment #365619

Rhinehold-
The general consensus is A) That any trade that affects a national market, like the gun trade clearly is, is covered under interstate commerce, and B) Nullification is bunk.

So, in essence, Commerce Clause, and Supremacy clause, the commerce clause owing to the fact that Kansas’ gun industry could conceivably have an impact on the national gun industry.

kctim-
You can monologue on what I’m supposed to be out to do, or maybe you can pay attention to what I actually say.

The easiest way for the Republicans to moderate the Democrats would be to encourage and accept bipartisan deals. This would not only force Democrats more towards the center, as the left rebels against the centrism, it would also mean there’s actual law out there more like what Republicans want. Though you wouldn’t see complete representation of what Republicans want, you would see partial representation, proportional to the Republican’s pull in those bodies.

But Republicans insist on getting their way with numbers that cannot simply force their policy on everybody. And so, their effect on the law is as nullified as the Democrat’s. No loss, but no win, either, and with the matters that lead to the GOP’s failure at the polls unresolved, the Republicans are sliding back from their current level of power.

What happens if the trends of 2012 continue? You can’t always get the anger of a 2010, especially with the hardship of that time slowly fading away, the economy improving. And do you really want to count on an election that could just as easily turn against you?

The long and the short of it is, Republicans aren’t exactly spreading out roots to secure them in the soil of the American electorate. They’re sticking to a narrow profile of people, and pushing their buttons like a 1980’s video arcade player on crack.

The transformation is happening, and its deeper than just politics. You have a generation of Americans who were promised the moon by the generation before them, and ended up with somebody’s butt in their face instead. And all they can see is the right wing getting in the way, time after time, doing nothing constructive, and in fact doing some pretty dangerous things with our country.

You may not care to hear it, but that’s my real opinion, unfiltered by a ****load of stupid propaganda which bears little resemblance to anything I’ve ever expressed.

C&J-
I do not believe that we can revisit the fifties, however much we would want to. Technology and society have rearranged themselves. Rather than try to establish an equilibrium that the fifties had for reasons that cannot now be reproduced, I believe we should make peace with the character of the times we live in now.

By the way, that low unemployment rate was that way in part because our government supported our industries and people had disposable income. We hadn’t yet exported our jobs overseas, or put ourselves naively at the mercy of an international market without shaping it to the interest of the average person first. We had also not gotten into the Vietnam war, nor bought into the guns and butter theory of waging a war. That tax cut people like you reference when it comes to Kennedy was of taxes kept high in order to pay off our Korean War debts, and those of WWII.

As for opposition to GMOs? All I’m going to say on that matter is this simple principle: both the claim that these plants and animals are safe and that which says they are not are claims that must be examined scientifically. Just because I’m not going to adopt the kneejerk position that GMO is bad (I actually have little concern for whether the grains or vegetables I eat are “frankenfood”), doesn’t mean that I adopt its logically contradictory position.

Which is to say that I would like folks to take enough care with how these GMOs are created, tested, and marketed so my lack of concern doesn’t turn out to be naïve.

I have plenty to worry about in my life as I grow older, and God willing, one day I will have a family of my own to get concerned about. I would rather not have to worry about a whole bunch of other things that are, for the most part, out of my control.

DSP2195-
Your proof is a featurette on FOXNews?

My degree is in telecommunication. Which means, somewhere along the way, I learned the basics of editing. The technical term is montage.

It’s one of the primary tools of propaganda in film.

Let’s say you want to do a featurette on how stupid people are about American History. Sort of like what Leno does.

Let’s say out of ten replies, seven are actually on the money. Do you include those? No. You put up the three dumb answers. Like my old professor said, everybody’s working on partial information. If you never show them the footage of people refusing to sign, or blowing him off entirely, or whatever, it doesn’t exist for your viewer.

There are, as of right now, about 37 million residents in California. 3.8 million of them live in Los Angeles.

If you really look, you can find quite a number of people to sign your petition, and then edit it together. You don’t need a majority of California liberals at all. Just show a few, and if they’re all you show, the bias will be as unquestionable as it is invisible to your captive audience of viewers who think they have to watch stuff like this to get the truth.

I’m not ignorant. That’s your problem. I know the techniques you’re using better than you do.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2013 2:59 PM
Comment #365620
Supremacy clause. Separation of powers. Commerce Clause. You praise these people as defenders of the constitution, but they are violating it on a fundamental level.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 9, 2013 11:06 AM

It’s ironic when I read Stephen Daugherty’s posts he always comments on things that his party is guilty of but then attributes the transgression to the Republicans. It’s like he’s looking at himself in the mirror and doesn’t like what he sees.

I believe the Supremacy Clause has only to do with powers granted to the federal government via amemdments to the constitution. To assume supremacy over the states simply by saying the federal government is superior amounts to tyranny. There’s a process to follow in the Constitution ie. Article 5. Stephen Daugherty’s “opinion” of the constitution, which is what it is since Roosevelt stacked the supreme court in his favor, is wrong on so many levels.

In Stephen Daugherty’s head he is superior to other party’s members. He thinks that anyone who disagrees with him must first see things his way, and second agree with him, before he can agree with them. Roosevelt and other Democratics think the same way. The supremacy clause does not give the federal government carte blanche to do what it seems fit. The supremacy clause allows the federal government the ability to enforce the rules layed out by the constitution and the amendments as per Article 5. That’s it, Stephen Daugherty. It doesn’t mean Michelle Obama says we must eat more greens, therefore we must eat more greens. If Michelle Obama wants us to eat more greens she must submit legislation to be aproved via. Article 5.

The Separation of powers is irrelevent in the matter of Kansas and their gun laws.

The commerce clause has been bastardized by Roosevelt to reflect the Democratic’s mindset of the Supremacy clause. The commerce clause is to guarantee free trade between the states. Roosevelt stacked the Supreme court and got an “opinion” that the commerce clause can go to the individual wheat farmer and tell that individual wheat farmer he must sell his wheat to the collective and then purchase that same wheat from the collective at a price Roosevelt’s collective sets before he can feed it to his livestock or bake a loaf of bread to feed his family. This farmer has nothing to do with commerce between the states and should not be influenced by the federal government, but because the federal government has been controlled by Democratics for so long it’s “opinion” has become commonplace. That “opinion” can change.

Mark Dice has proven how easy it would be to change it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgzOpJSpAMs
Thanks for the link, DSP2195

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 10, 2013 3:35 PM
Comment #365621

CasperWY-
Why do your beliefs about what the Constitution means get put up on a pedestal? They aren’t the Constitution themselves.

I believe in the Constitution. I think it’s a wisely constructed document. I have few if any major revisions in mind for it. That’s the beauty of not having a strangled kind of system for interpreting it. Common sense can prevail, rather than be torn to shreds by pedantic requirements that are more political and partisan than related to the document.

tom humes-
If I’m not mistaken, the whole controversy seems to be over what the Administration said or believed when, with the implication that if they didn’t immediately assume that it was terrorism, regardless of the evidence (which might point to militias like those that supported Qaddafi, or extremists rioting, rather than just merely al-Qaeda style terrorists).

In which case, it just seems like this is all just a bunch of political BS, and I don’t care for it. As for the top man in Libya not being consulted?

That’s sort of like a Police Chief not being consulted about corruption investigations that could end up implicating him.

KAP-
An F/A-18 is a supersonic plane, true enough, but what are you putting it on target for? What’s your target? And how well is a Jet fighter going to be able to deal with that?

You can call my comments moronic, but on what grounds? I’m not questioning how fast one of those puppies can travel, I’m questioning what it’s military value would be for the situation. How would it make it better, and how could it make it worse?

There are limits to how well you can respond from thousands of feet up, especially when your only options are high caliber machine guns, bombs, and missiles.

So, tell me, what would be their use?

George-
I find it just lovely how you like to comment about how I’m apt to defend Obama, and like to promote your false claims of my idolatry towards him.

Why is it your arguments always engage my credibility, without reviewing the evidence that should be the grounds for my credibility, or lack of same? Are you just that arrogantly convinced that your beliefs are untouchable, that no right-thinking human could believe otherwise than you do?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2013 3:59 PM
Comment #365622

The left has used the “Commerce Cause” as a means to interfere in all aspects of our lives.

Stephen, are you saying that if a man was on the street with a camera and a microphone and was asking “willy nilly” all people on the street questions about how the government works, that the low information democrats would know more than republicans?

This is a ridiculous statement. It is a well know fact that Republicans know more about the operation of government than the low information democrat crowd.

Here is a Pew Research Poll conducted a year ago, entitled “What the Public Knows about the Political Parties”, and guess who won. You got it Stephen…Republicans:

http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 10, 2013 4:11 PM
Comment #365623
any trade that affects a national market, like the gun trade clearly is, is covered under interstate commerce

Stephen, the law clearly states that it would only affect sales of guns that are manufactured, sold and bought within the state boundaries of Kansas. Therefore it would not apply to ‘interstate commerce’ since it would not be affecting interstate commerce. It also states that once one of those guns leaves the state, it is subject to any and all US gun laws.

The decision I think you are basing your view on Wickard v. Filburn, which detailed the sale of wheat (or lack of sale). Wheat is sold throughout the entire country. However, if a specific weapon is made, sold and purchased only within the confines of the specific state, does it affect the commerce of all other guns that are sold outside of the state?

There are some limitations to the regulation of interstate commerce in regards to gun limitations. You see, the laws on guns are NOT economic. They are not made to regulate any gun market. In the WIckard v Filburn case, the law that was violated was one DESIGNED to keep prices stable. Not only is this NOT the purpose of gun laws, but it is also not the effect of allowing guns within the state to operate within the state…

It is not an INTERSTATE COMMERCE question at this point. If the federal government wants to make the law an interstate commerce one, then it can’t limit it as it has…

It’s an interesting question. Basically, to say that the federal government can regulate anything and everything for any reason whatsoever would mean that there are basically no valid things as states anymore, let’s just get rid of the states completely I say.

Of course, one has to wonder why, if this is the case, there was a need for a constitutional amendment to block the make and sale of alcohol within the US… Seems that the federal government had the power all alone.

Some thing to note…

“You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” - T. Jefferson

The first nullification law was, in fact, written by T. Jefferson and James Madison during the Alien and Sedition Acts.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/kentucky-resolutions-of-1798/

Of course, Madison gives us a little better insight into that law and how it cannot be just a single state that can nullify a federal law, but there is a lot of discussion we can have on that at a later time.

In the end, one has to wonder if the law’s specific limitation to guns made, sold and bought within the state boundaries, is an issue or not. It is an interesting legal question…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 10, 2013 4:22 PM
Comment #365624

BTW, to back up my point, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

The Court summarily dismissed any consideration of the first two categories and concluded that the resolution of the case depended only on consideration of the third category—regulation of activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The Court essentially concluded that in no way was the carrying of handguns a commercial activity or even related to any sort of economic enterprise, even under the most extravagant definitions.

The opinion rejected the government’s argument that because crime negatively impacted education Congress might have reasonably concluded that crime in schools substantially affects commerce.

The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:

“To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”

The Court specifically looked to four factors in determining whether legislation represents a valid effort to use the Commerce Clause power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce:

Whether the activity was non-economic as opposed to economic activity; previous cases involved economic activity.

Jurisdictional element: whether the gun had moved in interstate commerce.

Whether there had been Congressional findings of an economic link between guns and education.

How attenuated the link was between the regulated activity and interstate commerce.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 10, 2013 4:25 PM
Comment #365625

WW said of Stephen:

“It’s ironic when I read Stephen Daugherty’s posts he always comments on things that his party is guilty of but then attributes the transgression to the Republicans. It’s like he’s looking at himself in the mirror and doesn’t like what he sees.”

WW is correct and proof of this can be found in all of Stephen’s responses, example:

“Are you just that arrogantly convinced that your beliefs are untouchable, that no right-thinking human could believe otherwise than you do?”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2013 3:59 PM

This comment is exactly what Stephen believes about his own comments, but he twists things around to accuse others of what he himself believes.

It is Stephen who is arrogantly convinced that his beliefs are untouchable. If you notice Stephen’s comments, he makes this claim all the time. The reason; because Stephen cannot understand the concept that he could be wrong.

“George-
I find it just lovely how you like to comment about how I’m apt to defend Obama, and like to promote your false claims of my idolatry towards him.”

I simply read your comments Stephen; You are like Chris Matthews, who, at the very mention of Obama’s name experiences a tingle up his leg. The definition of Worship for Webster:

”: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence.

: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem ”

Stephen, this is how you feel about Obama. You may say, I don’t believe he is divine; but isn’t your defense of his every word an admission of his divinity? Don’t you cling to his every word as gospel? Can you list a comment where Obama was wrong? I rest my point.

Posted by: George at May 10, 2013 4:30 PM
Comment #365626

“In which case, it just seems like this is all just a bunch of political BS, and I don’t care for it. As for the top man in Libya not being consulted?

That’s sort of like a Police Chief not being consulted about corruption investigations that could end up implicating him.”

You don’t know what is going on apparantly.
I won’t call you stupid, but I will call you ignorant.

Th man in Libya was in direct contact with those traitor in WDC and gave them real time information concerning an attack on our consulate. They were not allowed to even try to rescue our people. They were ordered not to, even tho they had experienced people to go on these types of missions.

There were actions taken that had never been allowed to be done before.

Posted by: tom humes at May 10, 2013 4:38 PM
Comment #365627

“I believe in the Constitution. I think it’s a wisely constructed document. I have few if any major revisions in mind for it. That’s the beauty of not having a strangled kind of system for interpreting it. Common sense can prevail, rather than be torn to shreds by pedantic requirements that are more political and partisan than related to the document.”

“Wisely constructed”, but flawed.

“Few if any major revisions”, but revisions need to be made.

“common sense can prevail”, as long as we agree with the left.

The Bill of Rights guarantees Americans the right to own guns under the 2nd Amendment. The SCOTUS has upheld that right, and yet you Stephen do not believe Americans have that right.

The 1st Amendment guarantees the right of free speech, and yet you Stephen believe that conservative radio and television should be controlled, or at least met with a government subsidized liberal media.

The 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion, and yet you Stephen support that military chaplains should have their preaching and teaching controlled by government.

And the list goes on.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 10, 2013 4:44 PM
Comment #365629

Stephen

“or maybe you can pay attention to what I actually say”

You say that you believe folks like me fighting for our beliefs is a “losing fight.” That we must compromise with the leftists because you believe the trend points towards more leftism.
My response is that we have already moved too far left and it is now time for us to fight against that, rather than accept your style of government in pieces.

Sigh.
I do pay attention to what you say, I just wish you would do the same.

Posted by: kctim at May 10, 2013 6:01 PM
Comment #365630

kctim, there is such corruption in this administration. Not only does Stephen believe that folks like us are losing; but he has also made a joke of the concerns we have. In the election cycle of 2012, complaints were made that the IRS was targeting conservative groups. Stephen and the rest on the left cried “Black Helicopter” conspiracy theories. Well, now we find that the Obama IRS was targeting conservative groups. But they apologized; like that is going to make things right. Last year, the head of the IRS categorically denied these things were taking place and now the same lying leaders of the IRS are blaming the intrusion of our rights on the payroll personnel and not the political appointees. Wait a minute; “I lied last year, but today I’m telling the truth”, sure they are. And what’s worse is that it is this corrupt IRS that is responsible for implementing Obamacare. Does that scare the crap out of anyone? What the IRS did was illegal and heads should role. leadership heads.

All I can say is thank God some of these reporters have grown a set of balls. Jay Carney faced a furious press today. Obama had lied to the press and set them up. He has been treated with kid gloves and I expect the WH is not a happy house tonight. I also expect a Friday night dumping of documents; hoping they will not be seen.

This is a continued practice in the Benghazi report; just as the Obama administration blamed the IRS fiasco on low level employees, the Obama administration is trying to blame Benghazi on the CIA.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 10, 2013 6:35 PM
Comment #365631

Good points Casper, but the lies go far beyond that; Stephen Daugherty wants us to think that Conservatives are ignorant.

The justice department did a study of gun crime in America. It’s not been talked about because the Obama administration has done their best to make Americans believe gun crime is up, according to Pew Research. Conservatives do not believe this an never did; it is the low information ignorant masses, the democrat voters, who believe this lie. And to top it all off, the idiot Nancy Pelosi said it was the assault gun ban that dropped gun crime, but the justice departments research was crimes committed with hand guns and not assault weapons. It’s a constant barrage of lies and misinformation for this administration. It is fact and not fiction and the left, like Stephen Daugherty and others on WB, eat it up as absolute truth. I think we have reached a turning point; I think the American people are finally understanding what Obama really is.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-07/news/sns-rt-usa-gunsstudyl2n0do29f-20130507_1_gun-crime-justice-department-injury-prevention

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 10, 2013 6:53 PM
Comment #365638

Stephen

“All I’m going to say on that matter is this simple principle: both the claim that these plants and animals are safe and that which says they are not are claims that must be examined scientifically.”

They have been tested, over and over. W/o any indication of a systemic problem. What you are advocating is the “precautionary principle,” which the Obama administration specifically rejected, rightly indicating that it was unscientific.

So in this particular case it is science, Obama and me against you and the hysterical left.

Posted by: C&J at May 10, 2013 10:05 PM
Comment #365640

DSP2195-
What I’m saying is that a person editing the program can be selective. As in, selective to the point of leaving out all the interviews that worked against their point.

The Selectivity can also work towards misinforming people, too.

You talk about folks being less well informed about who was President at a certain time, and while deplorable, that’s not nearly so worrisome about being misinformed about what’s right in front of you.

If you watch Fox News, you are far more likely to believe that Bush’s claims, that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, an ongoing collaboration with al-Qaeda, that he was involved in 9/11 were true. As in, you are more likely to believe it NOW.

You are more likely to believe that Obamacare is a government takeover, even though not one of the big insurance giants is being nationalized. You are more likely to believe that there’s some sort of Death Panel that’s going leave the elderly out in the cold, or kill poor baby Trigs when they’re born retarded. The bill specifically bars illegal immigrants from benefits, and does not provide for taxpayer funding of abortions, but these are things FOXNews viewers believe.

It’s a propaganda outlet, and better yet, one sold as the only reliable source of information. Viewers become little hot-house flowers, unable to feel comfortable with any other news source, because the number one message that they market is this: you can’t trust anybody else but us.

And that’s your only message, really, as you peddle your movement’s misinformation.

That’s why you’re constantly demeaning me. You’ve been taught to argue by sinking other’s credibility. But that is a propagandists way of doing things, and propaganda is no foundation for policy, nor for political action in its face.

Rhinehold-
The question, in terms of state boundaries, I guess, would be something like “Could the federal government overrule states on concealed carry, or open carry?” Lopez, a case I’m familiar with, rejected the ban on carrying around schools on the grounds that the schools (which produce workers for our economy) were part of interstate commerce.

So, looking at that, I don’t see the applicability. The trade in weapons is obviously interstate, and gun sales of weapons manufactured within those states obviously have a substantial effect on the market. I can argued as was argued in Wickard v. Filburn that enforcing such an exception would help to defeat the purpose of gun regulation everywhere in America. I mean, what if somebody in Kansas manufactures a machine gun, for sale to somebody else in Kansas? You could build yourself a nice arsenal of otherwise restricted weapons, and other states could do the same.

That would severely undermine any regulation of the gun industry, defeating the purpose of national regulation of the industry under interstate commerce. In fact, it’s clearer here than with Wickard, in which the guy was actually only growing grain to eat for himself, not to sell within the state.

As far as I can tell, and this is after a quick search, the point of the 18th Amendment was more along the lines of scope than anything else, which is to say that rather than having the law apply among the states (of which there were a number already “dry”), it would apply throughout the nation. It’s the same motivation that guides anti-abortion amendments.

As far as nullification goes, the constitution says two things: one, that the courts decide how to interpret the laws (meaning they judge whether a law contradicts the second amendment or not, not the legislature), and that where the federal government has a claim to authority, its authority overrules everybody else’s authority

As far as the Tenth Amendment goes, it’s irrelevant at the point you establish that it falls within the Federal Government’s purview.

As far as the expansion of that purview goes?

I guess the best way to put it is, as our society has advanced in communications and transportation, interstate, and even international trade have become more the rule, and less the exception. Just look around your hometown, and try to see a business that runs purely within your state.

States still have a lot of sway on things like corporate law. There’s a reason people incorporate in Delaware. States still manage a lot of their affairs. It’s just that business doesn’t operate anymore like it did in colonial days, when corporations weren’t these immortal legal persons.

George-
Oh, I do believe my beliefs are touchable. I do my best to research my points first, and to respond informed, rather than uninformed, because I know that whatever delusions I might have about being able to argue my way out of a mistake, the people I’m trying to convince could easily be unconvinced by a big mistake on my part.

And you’ll notice I take the time to respond to my critics, not merely disparage them.

But it’s strange that of all the issues you have to choose from, from questions of where the supremacy clause applies, to the nature of federal/state jurisdiction, the matter you feel it most important to discuss is ME.

Do you think that alone is able to defend your positions? Do you think yet another conservative badmouthing a Democrat is going to make your policies look good, your politics more sympathetic?

tom humes-
So, your answer is to send the several members of the protection detail protecting the folks in Tripoli, whose job it is to take care of the State Department employees there, and send them hours out of the way in Benghazi’s direction?

What happens if there’s an attack on Tripoli? Do we then have TWO diplomatic security disasters on our hand, not just one?

And no, there was no way, despite how ignorant you think I am, to get those security detail members that far in enough time to save those people.

And tell me, how long after the invasion of Iraq was it that the UN delegate to the place was killed in a Terrorist attack?

You seem to want to dictate what is said by everybody, and because you’ve set that only certain policy responses are appropriate. The Right’s gotten spoiled in terms of controlling things, and the patience of folks beyond the right for having their views dictated to them has grown thin.

CasperWY-
There was once a fellow name Kurt Gödel, and what he did was basically destroy all hope of a complete and consistent logical system that had no unprovable statements within it.

That’s what he’s famous for. His Incompleteness theorems rocked the world.

When he became an citizen in 1947, having emigrated to the United States after the Nazis took Austria over, the story goes:

On December 5, 1947, Einstein and Morgenstern accompanied Gödel to his U.S. citizenship exam, where they acted as witnesses. Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution, one that would allow the U.S. to become a dictatorship. Einstein and Morgenstern were concerned that their friend’s unpredictable behavior might jeopardize his chances. Fortunately, the judge turned out to be Phillip Forman. Forman knew Einstein and had administered the oath at Einstein’s own citizenship hearing. Everything went smoothly until Forman happened to ask Gödel if he thought a dictatorship like the Nazi regime could happen in the U.S. Gödel then started to explain his discovery to Forman. Forman understood what was going on, cut Gödel off, and moved the hearing on to other questions and a routine conclusion.[16][17]

And the fatal flaw, of course, is that the Constitution can be amended at any time, completely consistently with its rules, to become a dictatorship, if its people so wish it.

Flaws exist in everything mankind makes. My sense, though, is that if it works, we should go with it. That is, of course, a flawed point of view, and admittedly imperfect.

We’re not going to get a perfect system. It will always count on us being reasonable. It will always count on the better angels of our nature. We cannot merely let political dogma or any other system run things. We must be awake, and we must keep ourselves aware of the consequences of things we do, not merely secure and self satisfied in our own logic.

Yes, it’s flawed, but I would grant the point that no other system that would replace it would not be flawed, so I see no reason to cast it aside.

Few if any revisions means that I am in no hurry to add on additional amendments, unlike some Republicans here who want, like the proponents of Prohibition, to use the Constitution to impose their vision of America, religious or secular, on everybody else. I’m not even that keen on things like Amending the Constitution to declare that campaign finance money isn’t speech, or to reverse the Citizens United decision at a Constitutional level.

Of course, you wouldn’t interpret it that way. For a person who demands the Constitution be read at face value (albeit with your interpretation required, to be valid), you certainly feel free to read a hell of a lot into what I say!

Common sense? Well, you and I both have our idea of what common sense means. We’re sort of biased in that way. But really, what I’m talking about is not throwing inane decisions in the courts that, while true to the letter of the law, leave legacies of awful outcomes. Citizens United is a good example, but so is that eminent domain decisions a while back.

Judges should be free to focus on, encouraged to focus on bringing about decisions that don’t have ugly, stupid consequences, if they can help it.

As for the last three?

I’ve never said people don’t have the right to own guns. I just don’t consider it a mandate that they must be able to get any and all guns of any level of firepower.

I have also never said that Conservative radio and TV should be controlled. However, I don’t see anything wrong with folks who are using public resources for private benefit having to give member of the public the opportunity to respond to the people expressing themselves politically on the radio, or on TV. I don’t seen any need for a subsidized liberal media, although I do support public television and public radio.

As for the last point?

Look, A military chaplain isn’t there to proselytize for their own religion, but to help the soldiers with their spiritual needs. I’ve heard too many stories of folks on the right trying to turn our military’s schools and organizations into forces for their own churches’ benefits. This is nation built on the notion that ours is a country of no religion in particular, and all religions brought together in peace and harmony.

Too often, though, folks who claim themselves Christians try to use their power to coerce and pressure others into becoming like them.

I think a Muslim, and Atheist, and a Buddhist should be able to participate in our armed forces without having to take **** for not being Christian. And if they are Christian, they shouldn’t have to take **** for not being the kind of Christians these people prefer. The military is supposed to serve all Americans, not help consolidate the power of a few.

kctim-
I believe the losing fight isn’t for your beliefs, its for the preservation of things as they have been. You can always figure out a better adapted way of lobbying and advocating for your beliefs. It’s just that the tactics, the rhetoric, the whole fevered opposition aren’t working.

Does it not strike you that despite 2010, the GOP’s in a fairly mediocre position?

As for paying attention to what I say? No, you have this idea that when I say A, I mean B, and the frustrating thing is, I honestly, sincerely insist that I really do mean A, not B, and I am still not heard.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2013 10:24 PM
Comment #365644

Stephen Daugherty, why does anyone even waste their time talking to you. You make no sense. You must sit in front of a computer screen for hours just thinking of non-relevant stuff to write.

Everything I said about you is true. Deny it if you want. You are a liberal, an elitist, and you think you are smart and everyone else is stupid. You think you are God’s give to humanity. You can’t talk without telling everyone of your degrees and qualifications. You are a liberal and all liberals think the same. You can endlessly talk, you can deny the truth, but when it all boils down to the truth you worship the gods of abortion (the murder of babies), you worship at the altar of global warming, you hate America, you hate the Constitution, you hate free speech (your attitude about conservatives and Fox News tell us you hate free speech), you hate freedom of religion, and most certainly you hate 2nd amendment rights. You are ashamed of being an American, you think American is a colonial power, you think America has robbed the world of resources. Honestly, I don’t even know why you are living in this country. All you have to do is cross the northern border and you will be living in the utopia you want to create. God knows, enough of your brothers ran to Canada in the 60’s and 70’s. I have no doubt Stephen, if you lived in those days, you would be driving a VW bus with flowers painted on it, you would be smoking a joint, you would be protesting the war, and you would be headed for Canada. I know your kind Stephen, all talk and gutless. Everything I said about you I true; you argue it’s not and then you go on to say why it’s true. I think you are really messed up Daugherty. You need to get a life.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 11, 2013 12:05 AM
Comment #365648

Well Stephen Daugherty, I understand why you linked to the article in your comment to make your point. It’s almost identical to the way you always make your points.

The surveys also find that those who watch Fox are more likely to be misinformed, their views of reality skewed in a right-wing direction. In some cases, the studies even show that watching more Fox makes the misinformation problem worse.

The article, like you, think that if we think in a “right-wing direction” we’re wrong! And to drive home the point, if right-wing thinkers watch Fox they are more wrong!


Look, A military chaplain isn’t there to proselytize for their own religion, but to help the soldiers with their spiritual needs. I’ve heard too many stories of folks on the right trying to turn our military’s schools and organizations into forces for their own churches’ benefits.

I haven’t heard any of those stories. But that aside:


This is nation built on the notion that ours is a country of no religion in particular, and all religions brought together in peace and harmony.

That’s a bunch of crap, Stephen Daugherty. I don’t know where you got that idea. People came here to practice their own religion not join some kind of commune where everyone thinks the same.


Too often, though, folks who claim themselves Christians try to use their power to coerce and pressure others into becoming like them.

If a Christian talks to someone about their religion they do not use coercion or pressure. That would not be Christian of them. They may talk and talk and talk but they don’t cut off peoples heads when they don’t convert.

I think a Muslim, and Atheist, and a Buddhist should be able to participate in our armed forces without having to take **** for not being Christian. And if they are Christian, they shouldn’t have to take **** for not being the kind of Christians these people prefer. The military is supposed to serve all Americans, not help consolidate the power of a few.

Here’s another comment that shows a lack of knowledge. The military has chaplains of many religions for the specific reason being to provide the religious experience the soldier is accustomed to. Those you mentioned do not have to take asterisks from Christians. Also the military isn’t suppose to serve all Americans. They are suppose to blow things up and kill people.

Again Stephen Daugherty, I think your Tellerite tendencies are showing. I think you should repent. You should come away from the dark side. Admit you’re wrong and lift this terrible weight from your shoulders.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 11, 2013 4:10 AM
Comment #365683

Your response is a continuance of ignorance. In real time that people were dealing with there is no “what ifs”. The people on site had to make decisions and they had to try to save lives. They were told to not try. Shame on the admin for the death of those involved and shame on you for supporting those decisions of the admin.

Posted by: tom humes at May 11, 2013 12:13 PM
Post a comment