Monday, November 9, 2009

Blogger's Clarifications

I've had little time to do anything but sift through the comments and take out the repugnant ones. I have not had time to issue my own comments to the borderline ones. Lest anyone get the wrong (or right) impression, here is what I think on the latest kerfluffles:

Gay marriage. Marriages should be happy, yes, but between a man and a woman. If homosexuals wish to live together, I have no legal objection. The problem comes when such couples wish to have their unions codified in law. If the state gets out of the marriage business entirely, that's fine with me. Until they don't, I object. So sue me.

Muslims in the military. I have no legal problem with anyone of any faith, or no faith at all, being in the United States military as long as they take the Oath and are faithful to it. I have a huge problem with jihadists who infiltrate the military only to violate that Oath. I also have a problem with the command structure that sets our soldiers up as defenseless ducks in a shooting gallery. This isn't "risk averse," it is insane.

Response to Pelosi's Intolerable Act. I am as angry as the next man, maybe more, at this unconstitutional abomination. However, direct threats of unilateral action violate the Threeper prime directive of "No Fort Sumters." Like gun control, they will eventually set themselves up to come crack some of the more public recalcitrant heads. When that happens, when they have fired the first shots, then we can respond in kind. Until then, we should be thinking of non-violent ways to wreck the Act and make it unenforceable. Rocks, anybody?



Heli gunner Tom said...

Hi Mike,
I have to agree with all of your statements and comments as I feel the same way as you do. My beloved Army played the "safe" way-- the politically correct way, and thereby set up innocent, good troops to be slaughtered in an established 'safe haven' on post. Shame! I say, post more armed ARMY guards in those places, not civilian non-combatants on duty.

Tom Schuckman
Disabled Vietnam Veteran: 68-70

Anonymous said...

How many people need to refuse to sign up for insurance before the law becomes unenforceable? If there's a date when 100,000 people did the equivalent of burning their insurance cards; that'd make a reasonably powerful statement.

parabarbarian said...

If a meteorite fell on Washington DC would that qualify as a "rock"? :-)

Crucis said...

A thought on Pelosicare. It requires everyone to prove their health insurance is "qualified" on their income tax return. I wonder just what would happen if a significant portion of the population left that blank. Or, did not file at all?

The IRS could not address the issue if there are millions who fail to comply. There aren't enough feds to cover that event nor respond to it. It'd be a modification of "jury nullification."

Anonymous said...

On the health care act - could the non-delegation doctrine be of any use to legally challenge this monstrosity? It’s based on the doctrine of non-delegation, which in part holds forth that it is unconstitutional to delegate legislative or judicial powers to clerical subordinates within their branches, or to delegate legislative, judicial, or executive powers to private parties, or improper delegations of private powers to public officials. The set-up, administration and enforcement of the New Intolerable Act by its nature will cross those lines out of the box.

The doctrine was successfully used against FDR by a bunch of chickens in Schecter Poultry vs. The United States, and in part derailed his extraordinary rendition of Constitutional Presidential powers in enacting portions of his NRA, before he packed the SCOTUS. Hopefully there’s a legal eagle out there who will challenge this before BHO does the same.


Anonymous said...

Indeed, "they" will come after us, if only to set an example or 100 (like the IRS does before each April 15).

As David Codrea noted (and you posted about) this bill produces a new class of prohibited persons. The 5-year penalty won't, IMHO, make it past the conference committee, but it is a teaser intended (again, IMHO) to be used by the harder-line House to get what they want. They'll agree to cut it to 18 months or 2 years in exchange for the Senate giving them something (and, of course, still retaining the ability to prohibit many more people from owning guns legally). No one on Earth can tell me that this was unintentional.

I further would find it incredible if the applications for the government option did NOT include mandatory disclosures about (at least) the number of guns one owned, if not also requiring specific identification of each gun. You lie on that application, and they'll cut your coverage and/or imprison you (and, you'll be prohibited). Oh, and how are they to determine if you're lying or not? Mandatory inspections, of course.

They will fire the first shots, going after someone who refused coverage and refused to pay the "tax" (really "penalty") for failing to buy insurance.

I do, however, wait for the suit that will likely be filed the morning after the Obafuhrer signs whatever monstrosity ends up on his desk. Even our USSC can't allow a federal law that requires one to buy certain goods or services under penalty of fines, imprisonment, loss of fundamental rights or some combination thereof. They do that, and whomever is President then will likely get to make several nominations for unexpectedly vacant USSC seats. Just my humble opinion, not a call to action or incitement of any kind.

We do live in interesting times, in the fully cursed meaning of that term.

Anonymous said...

+1 on all sentiments other than the healthcare bill.

Since it will be considered just another tax all of the existing IRS measures to impose fines and court dates for failure to comply are already in place.

If any of it passes we are screwed.

If there are no ft Sumters then be prepared to move your line in the sand back a little.

Anonymous said...

Liberals used to love to petulantly ask the question, "What if they threw a war and no showed up?"

I realistically ask the question, "What if they require a healthcare plan and no one buys?"

Liberals loved to burn draft cards in very public rallies in the '60s.

At future rallies, I'm sure we'll need to set up bonfires for Obamacare documents, cards, etc.

Enough comparison though. In the 1960's it was a small, vocal minority of peaceniks who were given volume the media megaphone.

In the present day, it will be widespread disobedience of vast numbers of vocal Americans who will be ignored by the media. But we will get volume and will be heard by our sheer numbers.

Quick aside for praxis; We desperately need more video, photo evidence of the things we're seeing and more spreading of that evidence. 11 snipers on the roof at last Thursday's rally? That should be breaking news.

Pray tell Madamn Speaker, where do you plan to incarcerate several million new criminals? What makes you think that we'll march off to the gallows like sheep?


The Commander said...

With respect to Ft Hood - since when did Force Protection get farmed out to rentacops?

Fire the COs/Base Commanders.

Anonymous said...

As to your lack of discernment as to Muslims in the military. Islam is both a religious and political system. Islam divides the world into two parts, The House of Peace, Dar al Islam and the House of War, Dar Al Harb, the House of War. Muslims are required to wage war on all non-Muslims. All non-Muslims are the enemy, so no Muslim, at least any practicing Muslim cannot be loyal to the Constitution. Therefore no Muslim can take the Oath, much less obey it.

When living in non-Muslim polities, Muslims are obliged to wage secret war and to deceive, taqiya, the non-Muslim enemy.

I am terribly disappointed by your lack of discernment on the threat of radical Islam. I am thinking that just because the Muslims hate the un-Constitutional regime we have, that you take the enemy of my enemy is my friend position. However Islam is an enemy of Christian civilization that our Founders gave us and any support for them is the same as support for Nazis, Communists, federal supremasists, and the ATFE.

You should make more effort to understand the nature of Islam and its threat to right thinking Christians and our Jewish friends.

Anonymous said...

Military Police have been slowly replaced with Department of the Army Civilian Police. For the most part they are lazy and unmotivated. Take it from someone who has had the unpleasant experience of having to work side by side with them. Many of these "cops" were GS workers the Federal government couldn't fire but didn't have a position for somewhere else anymore. They gave them a badge and a gun and said "we're counting on you." I wish that was an exageration but it's not. I've seen it. I give the female DA officer credit for what she did but there are always exceptions which prove the rule. For years now DOD has been civilianizing anything and everything from firefighters and paramedics to cooks and MPs. And the military has suffered tremendously for it. There are actually DA Police out there who have never attended a police academy of any kind. Scary isn't it?

Anonymous said...

With respect to unarmed military personnel, I direct your attention to this blog:

Scroll to the article entitled "When soldiers stopped being able to carry guns around military facilities" if you want a bit of outrage.

Anonymous said...

"With respect to Ft Hood - since when did Force Protection get farmed out to rentacops?"

It's been that way for a few years, at least since 2003-04.

Dedicated_Dad said...


I remember when folks said the same things about Catholics.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with what you're saying when you include the qualifier "radical."

I know a couple of guys who are muslims that I'd trust with my wife, my daughter, my money and my life. They could share my foxhole ANY time.

The thing is, they hate the psycho-radicals like we (Christians) hate Fred Phelps and we (Patriots) despise (hack-spit) mcveigh.

They also understand the threat, and will tell you quickly that they think we SHOULD be "profiling" - even though it would mean some inconvenience for them PERSONALLY.

All I'm saying - I guess - is this: Let's not tar everyone with a broad brush. It's not right no matter WHO it's done to.

Muslims are not the enemy. Even Islam is not the enemy. RADICALS are the enemy.


Dedicated_Dad said...


Forgot to say: Islam didn't murder those people, nor did guns, nor even the "cop-killer" Five seVen.

A murderous scumbag did.

If ANYONE or anyTHING else is to blame, it's the culture of political-correctness that cowed numerous people into ignoring all the warnings and the victim-disarmament policies that made sure he could do so unopposed.