New Hampshire Republicans overturn State House gun ban
Back in the early Spring of 2009 New Hampshire lawmakers were debating a bill which would have reaffirmed our state’s 10 amendment rights and the session was eagerly watched by many proponents of the bill from the gallery. Many of these people openly–and perfectly legally–were carrying their weapons. As the bill went down to defeat, the supporters of this bill became quite vocal before peacefully leaving the proceedings.
When the state legislature reconvened in December of 2009 the Democrat controlled Joint Legislative Facilities Committee quickly moved to ban all firearms from the state buildings. But yesterday the same committee, now controlled by a new Republican majority, reaffirmed the second amendment and overturned the ban by a vote of 10-1–it goes without saying that the one dissenting voice was the lone Democrat on the committee.
The people who showed up back in the Spring of 2009 carrying their weapons did nothing wrong except that they chose to exercise their second amendment right, but evidentially that was enough for the Democrats to decide to punish all gun owning Americans by designating another gun free zone–which as Rep. Al Baldasaro reminded everyone during the debate on repeal is nothing more than a “killing zone.”
This may have been the defining moment of the debate:
After Carol Backus of Manchester testified that she had safety concerns about allowing guns in the same place as schoolchildren, committee member Sen. Tom De Blois, a Manchester Republican, questioned whether forbidding guns was actually safer.
“Is there a police officer . . . in the room right now?” he asked. When no one came forward, De Blois asked Backus, “If a gunman walked through the door right now with every one of us unarmed, how many of us would escape?”
This was just a small step forward in the fight to regain our liberties which have slowly been eroding under Democrat control for many years, and while this is only a first step we are finally beginning to move in the right direction in New Hampshire. There is much work to be done, but yesterday’s vote reaffirming our right to keep and bear arms was just the beginning. Now if the Republicans would reintroduce the bill which led to this gun ban in the first place–the bill to reaffirm New Hampshire’s 10th amendment right–we would really be taking a major step in the fight against an overreaching, intrusive government.
Then and now: Barack Obama on raising the debt ceiling
There is a looming battle on the horizon as the new Congress is set to convene tomorrow and that battle is going to be over the budget. One of the most contentious issues which will be debated is the possibility of raising the debt ceiling. Some Republicans feel that if they do not agree to raise the debt ceiling it will force the Obama regime to begin to cut spending. This issue will not only pit Congressional Republicans against the president and Congressional Republicans against Congressional Democrats, but it will also pit Congressional Republicans against each other because they are not all on the same page as to whether this is the proper avenue to pursue in their attempt to cut spending.
The chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers–Austan Goolsbee–called the notion that Republicans would block an attempt to raise the debt ceiling irresponsible and defended Barack Obama’s request that the debt ceiling be raised by stating:
The impact on the economy would be catastrophic,” Goolsbee told “This Week” on ABC. “That would be a worse financial economic crisis than anything we saw in 2008.”
Goolsbee added: “I don’t see why anybody’s talking about playing chicken with the debt ceiling.”
While much seems to have been written in the last two days about the possibility that the House will vote to repeal ObamaCare, and will have the votes to override a presidential veto, the truth is that this is not a legitimate possibility just yet because the Senate will not have to votes to also override a veto. In other words, this is nothing but a symbolic maneuver designed to help appease the Tea Party, but that does not mean there is nothing that the House can do to stop ObamaCare.
The House holds the power of the purse–all spending bills must originate in the House and if the House decides not to fund something it doesn’t matter what laws might be on the books if there is no money to support the legislation. And it now appears as if the House might be on track to stop ObamaCare by defunding it.
The 14th amendment to the constitution states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Over the years this clause in the constitution has been interpreted to mean that children of illegal aliens who were born in this country are considered citizens–these children are otherwise known as anchor babies because when illegal aliens have children in this country they have been able to use it to guarantee that they can stay in the country.
But the 14th amendment in its original intent had nothing to do with the children of illegal aliens–in fact the 14th amendment had a very narrow application as the original intent of the 14th amendment was to guarantee after the Civil War that former slaves and their children were granted citizenship. The authors of the 14th amendment could not possibly have foreseen the radical application that this amendment would lead to in regards to the children of illegal aliens.
Where does the president get the authority to issue Executive Orders?
With Barack Obama beginning to implement his agenda through decree using agencies such as the FCC and the EPA to implement policies which have failed to pass through the Congress, much has been made around the blogosphere about the possibility that Barack Obama was going to rule by Executive Order over the next two years, thusly bypassing the Congress on all contentious issues that he would not otherwise be able to pass. So I thought that it was about time to ask a simple question: Where does the president get the authority to issue Executive Orders in the first place? There is no mention of this specific power in the constitution, so where does it come from?
From several sources on the internet I have found that there are two clauses in the constitution–when combined–which have been used as justification for the Executive Order: The first line in Article II, Section 1 states that the “executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” while second clause that is referenced in regards to the Executive Power is Article II, Section 3, where it states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
New gun law in New Hampshire makes it legal to display a gun during a threatening situation: Free Ward Bird!
As of the first of the year, a new gun law will go into effect in New Hampshire which states that it is not a crime for a person to simply display a gun in an attempt to ward off a possible attacker. In reality this is not a new law; the New Hampshire constitution clearly states that a person has the right to use a gun in defense of himself, his property, or his state, this simply would clarify the constitution. (Although one would think that the New Hampshire constitution is cut and dried on this issue, we have seen that is not always the case.)
The New Hampshire Union Leader is the source used for this post, but unfortunately the article was only available in the print version of the paper so I will not be able to include a link.
This bill was passed as a compromise bill after the Castle Doctrine–which states that a person has the right to defend himself with a gun without first trying to retreat–was vetoed in 2006 by Democrat Governor John Lynch. (On a side note, that very same Castle Doctrine legislation will be among the first bills passed with New Hampshire’s new Republican veto proof majorities in the state legislature, and the governor has already been warned that his veto will be overridden.)
State Representative Leo Pepino was a sponsor of the “display law” (the same Rep. who will be reintroducing the Castle Doctrine) and he was quick to point out that if this law was in place no charges would ever have been brought forth against Ward Bird. I have written several posts now on the plight of Ward Bird, but for those who are unfamiliar with this case I will provide a quick summary:
Ward Bird was convicted of “criminal threatening” for displaying a gun in defense of his property and sentenced to at least three years in jail under the minimum sentencing guidelines of the state. When a woman with a criminal record trespassed on his clearly marked property, Ward Bird grabbed a gun, ran outside, and confronted the person, not knowing who she was. After pleading with the woman for several minutes, he turned to go back into his house to call the police. Before entering the house he claimed that he lifted up his gun to make sure the safety was on, but the woman claimed he pointed the gun at her. The jury believed the woman with the criminal record (the judge ruled that the woman’s criminal past was not admissible in court) over the word of a man who has a perfectly clean record and was an outstanding member of the community.
The very fact that this new law is set to go into effect in just a few days has exonerated Ward Bird, for this law will ensure that no other citizen of this state will ever go to jail simply for displaying a firearm in a situation where the person thinks there is imminent danger.
It is a sad state of affairs when the legislature has to pass legislation to ensure that a right guaranteed in the state constitution is upheld, but if that is what it takes to make sure that another case like that of Ward Bird never happens in this state again, then it must be done. While this–and the likelihood that the state is going to pass the Castle Doctrine early next year–is great news for law abiding, gun owning, second amendment advocates all across our great state the fact remains that Ward Bird remains in jail for doing nothing more than what is about to be confirmed as his right when this new law takes effect.
Governor Lynch has declined to take a stand on Ward Bird, he will not say whether or not he will sign the pardon when it makes it to his desk, claiming that pardons should only be used in cases with extenuating circumstances. I would argue that the mere fact that he has already signed a law stating that what Ward Bird did is not a crime, that that is an extenuating circumstance in and of itself. It is time for Governor Lynch to FREE WARD BIRD!
New Hampshire legislature will reintroduce the Castle Doctrine; warn Governor Lynch to put away the veto pen
When the new New Hampshire state legislature convenes next month one of the first issues that will be brought forth is a reintroduction of the “deadly force” bill that has failed twice under the previously Democrat controlled state legislature. Unfortunately the Union Leader article that I will be quoting from is only available in the print paper and not online, so I cannot provide a proper link to the source material.
Basically, the “deadly force” bill mirrors what is known as the “Castle Doctrine” which states that a person does not have the obligation to first retreat before using deadly force to protect himself or his family. The “deadly force” bill would also expand the right to self defense to apply to anywhere that the defendant has a lawful right to be.
“Death panels” are included in the new Medicare regulations
Do you remember the “end of life planning” provision that was in the original version of the healthcare reform law? It was this provision in part which led Sarah Palin to claim that there were “death panels” included in the new law. This provision became so unpopular with the American people that it was dropped from the final version of the healthcare reform law. At least on this aspect of the healthcare reform law the American people were heard by those in Washington and they adhered to the message that was sent to them…..or did they?
It now turns out that the “end of life planning” is not dead after all–for much like other mainstays of the Obama regime’s agenda–it has resurfaced once again. In the case of net neutrality and cap and trade the Obama regime looked to government agencies to enact through dictate policies which the Obama regime failed to get through the Congress, and now on the “end of life planning” the Obama regime has looked toward Medicare to implement a failed policy. Included in the new Medicare regulations is the very same “end of life planning” that the American people and the Congress have already rejected.
The Obama regime was not able to pass the “end of life planning” provision in the healthcare reform law, so he has once again looked outside of the constitutional process in order to implement an agenda which failed to gain the necessary votes for passage in the Congress–this time he is using Medicare to implement through dictate what he was unable to pass through the Congress.
This is a growing concern with the Obama regime–he is displaying utter contempt and disdain for constitutional procedures and he is showing us that he is all too willing to force his agenda on the American people by whatever means are necessary. When the Congress failed to pass cap and trade Barack Obama claimed that there was “more than one way to skin a cat.” In other words he was willing to bypass the constitution to implement his radical cap and trade agenda, and the EPA is doing just that. If he is willing to ignore the constitution on one issue there is no doubt that he will be willing to ignore all facets of the constitution.
If Barack Obama feels there is more than one way to skin a cat on one particular issue, than we cannot assume that he doesn’t feel the same way about the other issues. With a Congress which is more than likely going to be more hostile to the president’s agenda–because the American people are becoming more hostile to the president’s agenda–there is no limit to the depths that this president is willing to sink.
We are seeing numerous examples of this popping up, this is not an isolated event and it shows us that America is going to be in a fight for her very existence over the next two years and it is a fight that we cannot afford to lose.
The EPA makes its move on implementing cap and trade through dictate
The FCC has already made its move–bypassing the Congress and a court ruling which stated they did not have the authority to regulate the internet–and has moved to expand its authority into the business of regulating the internet and the EPA is also in the process of promoting Barack Obama’s agenda through dictate. In the case of the EPA, they are moving forward with a plan to implement Barack Obama’s cap and trade policy because the Congress was unable to pass these burdensome regulations.
The EPA’s situation differs slightly from the FCC’s situation because the John Robert’s Supreme Court has already ruled that the EPA does have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but in my opinion this is no less of an affront to our liberties and no less offensive because the end result will be the fact that a government agency will be implementing the president’s policy without the legislation moving forward using the only procedure set forth in the constitution.
Merry Christmas everybody!
I would like to take this time to wish everyone in the blogosphere a very Merry Christmas. I hope that you all get to spend some quality time with your family and friends today. I have decided to include an audio clip from my favorite band, The Cure. This was recorded in 1987 around Christmas time and it is entitled “Merry Christmas Everybody.” The audio is not great, but then again this was recorded live over twenty years ago. (It is hard to believe so much time has passed me by!)
I would also remind everyone that while we celebrate Christmas and while we visit our families on this day that there are families who still are unable to spend this holiday together because their country has called them into service. Please say a prayer today for the men and women who are currently overseas protecting us so that we are able to celebrate today. It is the least that we can do for those that do so much for us, and we must never forget the sacrifice that they and the families they leave behind make every day.
Here is a heart wrenching video of a song entitled “Bring Him Home Santa” sung by a little girl whose only Christmas wish is for her daddy to come home in time for Christmas. I think this song encapsulates the sacrifice that military families make on a daily basis and I cannot ever express or repay my gratitude towards these people in the manner in which they deserve.
Thank you so much and Merry Christmas.
America's Watchtower 