Guns, Privacy, and Probable Clause

In a news report covering the single incident that is prompting Culver's, a restaurant chain, to look into their firearms policies, an underemphasized detail was revealed that left me wondering just how routine trampling civil rights is.

The story is that several members of an organization of Wisconsinites who advocate the open carrying of firearms, Wisconsin Carry, went out for dinner at Culver's in Madison while using their Constitutional rights to bear arms. One ignorant but well-meaning woman called the police.

Once they arrived, the first thing the officers did was demand identification from the group, on threat of citation; all but two consented to the unlawful orders.

"Two of the individuals would not produce identification, saying they didn't need to because they're law-abiding citizens," said [Police spokesman] DeSpain. The officers said, 'That's probably the case but we'd like to check it out.'"

Oh, you'd like to check it out?

Very well... check it:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." ~Fourth Amendment to the Constitution

Ergo, with the arrest of a presumably innocent person, which has been already defined by the Supreme Court as seizure, for not producing papers on command, especially considering the fact that the officers themselves admit they thought it probable that the men were not in violation of any laws, the police were usurping their authority as law enforcement officers. Why they have not been relieved of their handcuffs for frivolous and false arrest, I don't know. There were no warrants for their papers, there were no warrants for their arrest, and police admit there was no suspicion of crime.

Not only that, but the police should have ignored the call, as it was, by its very nature, a non-emergency call, which was placed due to the ignorance of law by a bystander, something that the 911 operator should have made clear. It is absolutely legal to openly carry a firearm, though some unlawful legislation prohibits it in some cities. I used to be supportive of concealed carry permits, as I thought, erroneously, concealed carry was not covered by the Second Amendment, as concealing is the opposite of bearing. But the nature of the Second Amendment, as a good friend and I discussed (and I subsequently recanted my opinion on CCP's), is not to establish our right to keep and bear arms, but to restrict the government's encroachment thereof. Therefore, it is not given to the government to regulate the purchase, ownership, transference, or carrying of firearms, open or concealed.

So, the police had it wrong on two counts, in what turned out to be a relatively high-profile incident, but how many times a day does this occur? Why are our police so uneducated on the law? Why are our citizens so afraid of guns in the hands of fellow citizens, when police are just as susceptible to error and poor judgment as the Average Joe? I can tell you, it has been by design that slaves are trained to shriek at the sight of another slave being armed.

It is our right, it is our duty, and it is our essence as freeborn Americans to protect and defend our inheritance of rights like men, standing erect, stalwartly and with uncompromising resolve, with all sincerity and sobriety.

Son III Goes to College... and Walks Out

On the fifteenth, I saw an advertisement in the Shopper for an event on the seventeenth at Emporia State University, "U.S. Constitution: Dead or Alive?"

Of course, I had to go. Especially since it was held on Constitution Day, I thought, at worst, they'd explain both sides of the two, main Constitutional interpretations; one is that it is a "living, breathing document" that changes at the whim of government; the other is "original intent", or "dead and stale", forever cursed to be interpreted with the meaning and intent given it two centuries ago... well, at least that's how the Living-Breathers explain the "original intent" interpretation.

I'm a Dead'n'Stale man, myself. I'll explain why in a moment.

It took forever to find where the event was being held, but my dad and I made it to the on-campus building and found that the crowd was mostly comprised of actual ESU students and elderly. I wondered why there wasn't a wider demographic, especially considering the sponsors of the event, the Emporia League of Women Voters, made it more than clear in their opening statements that their goal is to enhance diversity in civic life, especially in elections, by educating the public.

After a dry and microphoneless ten minutes of introduction (a note to public speakers everywhere: get set-up before event begins), the main speaker, a former Kansas Bar president and current Wichita Bar president, A. Jack Focht, stood and began an eloquent oration on politics. He even quoted from America, the Beautiful, which, itself, deserved an applause. Well, his speech remained eloquent and patriotic until he got to minute-marker 12, or thereabouts:

"But, these days, there are a lot of angry people, and there we have the teabagger vote..."

The word "teabagger" echoed in my head and Dad and I glanced at each other with knowing looks. The attorney went on to explain that Tea Parties are comprised of angry people who never read the Constitution, and that Kansans for Life, a Pro-Life organization, will undoubtedly, with malice aforethought, pass out voter guides advising people to vote out incumbent judges at churches and parking-lots. *Gasp!* And Kansans for Life should not do so, as that will cause judges to rule according to public opinion instead of the law, for fear of the vote.

After that, I was left wondering how someone so old and knowledgeable could say something like that. The man is the former president of the Kansas Bar Association, and is the current president of the Wichita Bar Association, so if a judge is afraid of someone's opinion, it should be his, as he is the representative of a judge's peers.

Mr. Frocht told of how he talked to Tea Party friend of his, who, in the course of a conversation, said he is angry and that we should restore the Constitution, but then ol' A. Jack explained that this friend probably never even read the Constitution and neither have most of the Tea Partiers.

Minutes dragged on as the speaker slammed original intent interpretations of the Constitution. For instance, the internet is something that Founders couldn't imagine, so how can we apply it to upcoming legislation that will regulate the internet? Frocht's answer is that we can't, so just ignore the Constitution, and get on with life! And if you don't like something in the Constitution, don't try to amend it like the law says to do; just have a judge rule on it the way he sees fit, because it's just too darn hard to amend!

And oh! how he hates the term activist judge, because that just means you disagree with the judge's decision. (That got an approving laugh from the crowd.) And abortion falls under privacy and individual liberty, he explained. Also, the Constitution's interpretations can and should evolve with society.

It was like a Constitution and Conservative roast, throwing in every insult and lie that came to mind. Needless to say, I'd had enough. We stood up to leave, and as we walked towards the door, footsteps echoing on the hardwood floors, one of the women speakers glared at me, eyebrows knitted, as if to say, " I know who you are, and you're a terrorist."

I didn't say a word as I left, but if I had, it would have been this:

Ladies and gentlemen, do you know why I'm leaving? Because my country's Constitution is being shredded before my American eyes, and I don't like it. More than that, I'm going to do something about it. I'm going to host my own event on the Constitution, where only freedom and rule of law are espoused. I'm going to tell my listeners what Thomas Jefferson said about that 'living, breathing document, that is ever changing', as you call it:

'On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.'

And people, that was what Jefferson said to a judge. No interpretation besides that which the framers explained to us, and that extends to every area of the law! Yet this cheeky fellow thinks he can stand here and destroy the Constitution and original intent, mocking and maligning patriotism? No! I'll not listen one more second!

John Adams said we are a nation of laws and not of men, but how can that be without a solid and resolved Constitution? Of what use is a Constitution if its supremacy is dictated by the inclinations of government or society?

Patriots are rising up all over America, and you can call them teabaggers, racists, or whatever lying, conniving thing you can think of to discredit them, but you will be the only one discredited in the end! Why? Because Americans are angry! We're mad! What's more, we're as mad as Hell, and we're not going to take this anymore! We're tired of your garbage!

Book Burning and That Little Issue of Freedom

The President has commented on the matter that the stunt is, as he put it, "... completely contrary to our values as Americans," noting that this country was built on religious freedom and tolerance, and that the stunt would endanger our troops in Afghanistan.

As you saw in the video above, General Petraeus said the mission in Afghanistan would be made more difficult due to anger among the Afghans at images of the Koran burning, causing, possibly, a violent response.

And here I was thinking the mission in Afghanistan was to protect our freedoms. That's what we've been told, anyway. So, how is it that we have a military presence in Afghanistan for the purpose of defending freedom, and when that freedom is used it makes Afghans angry, so we then must put a stop to the use of that freedom? It doesn't make sense! Our troops are there for the specific purpose of defending that pastor's right to burn the Koran, and we tell him not to? Our President says it is contrary to our values to use our freedoms?

Some have said it is a pointless stunt. Why? Because you think it is pointless? Then protest it. You're free to do so, just as the Afghans are; and if the Afghans don't want the military of a free nation in their enslaved country, then we should either get out or start shooting them. And, frankly, Afghans have the right to be an enslaved, backward, hateful culture if they want to be, so I favor pulling out, and I would never support killing people for religious differences.

So, what is our mission in Afghanistan? Forcing them to accept freedom they don't want at the expense of our soldiers' lives, or protecting our own freedoms until the cavemen complain, and then acquiesce to their whining?

The Floridian pastor has been pressured to the point that he has canceled the burning, a victory for Muslims abroad, a defeat for the sovereignty of our freedom.

What would our dead troops say, having supposedly died for that pastor's rights, if they knew the Muslims that killed them got their way, not by defeating our military, but because the skulking, putrid, degenerate people in their own, American government were slime enough to let them have their way.

Shame on all political and media voices who spoke only in condemnation and contempt of the Floridian pastor.

Where Art Thou, Wayward Son III?

Oh, my peeps. I know I have been nigh unto a dead link on your dashboard's "Blogs I'm Following" list, but I have not been idling my hours, I assure you.

Facebook has finally caught up with this anti-trendite. (Not a word, I know, but that's the sort of power Facebookers wield.)

Not only that, but I have a job, and I volunteer with a political organization, so, needless to say, my blog is in disrepair. Plus, my background depresses me; I regret that I changed it from my clean, white slate to this loud, obnoxious background which looks like it was copied from a fireworks ad.

Soon, my friends, I will be back in business, and we can get to the OH, SO MANY ISSUES that have arisen since I last posted.

My Line in the Sand: The Border

When it comes to drawing lines in the sand, that is, where I will not back-up another inch, nor allow the line to be crossed, I have been lax. We all have. But, this border issue has really gotten to me, and I declare, unquestionably, where my line in the sand is to be on the border.

There have been lawsuits filed against Arizona by private citizens of the U.S. Fine, that's their right.* But, there has been chatter of a lawsuit by the federal government against Arizona, and a lawsuit by the Mexican government. Should that happen, violating the 11th Amendment to the Constitution, I will consider the U.S. federal government to be totally, completely, and in all ways illegitimate. I say again, illegitimate.

What recourse is left to a citizen of a country whose government is illegitimate? What sort of response does a man give to a false government? What is the precedent?

*Post Script: I don't know what I was thinking... it is not the right of the people of a state to file lawsuit against another state, as stated in the 11th Amendment, "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

Killing Crackers, Eh?

A man who stood in front of a polling station in military dress with a baton, threatening passersby, has been found to have said he wants to kill all white-skinned people and their babies, calling them by the racial term "crackers". The man is a member of the New Black Panther Party, who recently informed their political (and, apparently, racial) enemy, Glenn Beck, that the Party will be going to oppose Beck's rally at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28th, and that they will be, "... ready to rumble."

And there is no outcry from network news, talking heads, police, Homeland Security, President Soetoro, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, or the ADL, because...?

A Quote by Samuel Adams

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."


Please have a contemplative and prayerful Independence Day.

This is Canada...

We're next.


This message of despotism was brought to you by the G20 Summit.

Will it someday go like that here?

Where Are Our Men at the Border?

What will follow is harsh, and I intend it to be.

We Americans are shameful cowards and unfit to claim the title of a free and virtuous society. We are unfit to call this the "land of the free and the home of the brave"; that was the title of a people who earned and defended it. The American of that era is a species of humankind that is hunted and destroyed by those who see Liberty and Freedom as an obstacle in the way of their many agendas.

This nation has upheld its independence and sovereignty without question for generation after generation, defending itself, at times, at its very borders from the foreign invader; but now we have morphed into this most miserable, spineless, effeminate excuse for a people, and I speak specifically here of our men, and especially of our Christian men. Churches, when this nation declared itself to be, were the mainstay of our culture, and rightfully so; it is because of this that we became such a peculiarly successful country, rising above and beyond the limits set by pagan Rome and humanist Greece. Churches were also a kind of basic organizing and recruitment centers for the militias during the American Revolution, as the churches were the place of the common man, not the place for a man to make his fortune teaching of self-righteousness and an all-forgiving-ergo-all-overlooking 'god'.

In that day, Christian men knew their duty to defend their homes and families. One may say that it is not the place of Christians to be in politics, but, this argument of today's Christian Americans is the direct result of years of indoctrination that we are the mere 'little people', that the citizen is a spectator in the sport of politics, a direct contradiction of the original intent of the founders of this country to have a government run by the people, like an employee-owned business. American politics have been morphed into a complex and confusing pastime for scholars and the wealthy, as have taxes. But politics is a not 'spectator sport'. American Christians are not beholden to the Roman Curia, which was exclusively elitist, because the people are the 'higher power' (as the Apostle Paul put it) in American government, second only to the Constitution in supremacy. The 'officials' of government are beholden to the Constitution, then us.

But, politics are a digression from the overarching issue of this post, and that is that our national border is now being opened and criminals welcomed to this country by our President. Our President! You've heard the clip of Sen. Kyl saying President Soetoro admitted that he is 'holding the border hostage' as a bargaining chip in his amnesty program. Is that not aiding and abetting felons? Is that not treason? Arizonan parks are being closed and signs put up warning Americans to stay out due to ruthless foreigners, armed insurgents! And where is our Department of Homeland Security? Where are our troops, overseas fighting insurgents in other countries? We have been abandoned! You saw our congress applauding the Mexican president as he told us to infringe on the people's freedom of defense, and those who didn't applaud also didn't shout, "Shame!" at the outrage. We are by ourselves, my friends.

What, then? Have we not seen the reports of men already heading for the border, armed and ready to fight to defend the integrity of our borders? (Indeed, I saw Bill O'Reilly denounce them.) We should not only applaud them, but join them - Americans, united for the defense of our homes, going to fight for our country! Are we weaker than the Mexican drug cartels? Not by a long shot.

I plead with my fellow Americans to consider going to the border. How many are already there? We cannot know from watching the mainstream news. It is asking much to drop everything at home, leaving work to fight the foreign invaders, but did we not inherit the freedom of patriots who dropped their plowshares and shovels to take on their enemies? This is a legitimate cause for action, men. I have not yet decided what to do, myself, so I ask that a dialogue, at least a discussion of this be taken up among us.

Who must tell us to fight back before we do it? Who must play the part of Paul Revere? Does the war with Mexican drug cartels have to be in our own yards before we'll defend the border? Does the Sheriff of Pinal County have to stop begging our President and beg us to help him before we do?



Soccer games will not solve this, elections will not solve this, and our inaction will only exacerbate it. Shame on us for letting it get this far, all the more shame if we let it progress.

Mustafa Abu al-Yazid Killed... Again!

They've killed al-Qaeda's Number 3 again.

Well, actually he is Number 8 Number 3; alphabetically speaking, Abu Faraj al-Libbi, Abu Hamza Rabia, Abu Laith al-Libi, Abu Saeed al-Masri, Abu Yahya al-Libi, Saif al-Adel, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Mohammed Sheikh Mohammed come before him in the list of people claimed to be Number 3 in al-Qaeda, and Abu Zubaida comes in at 9.

These terrorists - I mean really! We kill'em and kill'em and kill'em, and they just keep coming back. Oh, sure, we've captured them and they come back before, but it's the dead ones that are the most... troublesome.

I think it's time for another oldie-but-goodie poll. Last year's was a hit. Why not again?

Submit your suggestions for the best fake Muslim name in the comments section, and the poll will begin on the 13th of June, ending on the 19th. You don't win anything, and it's open ballot, so be bold.

Mine:

Abidi-Abidi-Abidi Atz al-Fohqs

al-Ghor

Barack Hussein Obama (Real Muslim name, sorry.)

Khomtu Jamaekhaman

Baezb al-Bin Bedi-Bedi Gutumi