Constant Conservative

While you and I (and everyone else) has an opinion on what the Second Amendment of the US Constitution means, the opinions on this which matter today are the ones which are arrived at by 9 special people in big stone building in Washington, DC.

However, that does not stop people from coming up with some very interesting approaches to this matter:

More insidious is the whole issue of the second amendment. I am not a Constitutional scholar by any means but it’s not a complicated text: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The NRA, of course, chooses to interpret this to mean that everyone should be allowed to pack howitzers, which are admittedly effective when hunting deer; most reasonable people, however, seem able to grasp the idea that the founders did not mean, “anything goes.”

I am not suggesting that we overturn the second amendment, but I have three suggestions that would be simple, sensible and save lives. One, the number of licensed gun dealers must be enormously constrained, and their conduct closely monitored. Suffice it to say that it is far too easy to get a gun at the moment. Two, we should put a lot more constraints on what kind of guns people are allowed to own. Let’s do away with civilian owned handguns altogether and insist that they all new guns be heavy, long and bright orange. You would still be able to hunt with it, defend your home and participate in a well regulated militia, but you won’t feel very macho carrying it. Three, let’s use tax policy to make the cost of owning more than two firearms prohibitive. The other militia members can arm themselves.

I would agree with the writer: “it is not a complicated text.”

In support of the second paragraph above, may I recommend a corollary which addresses part of the First Amendment?

One, the number of licensed media outlets must be enormously constrained, and their conduct closely monitored. Suffice it to say that it is far to easy to spread disinformation (particularly via talk radio) at the moment. Two, we should put a lot more constraints on the types of things which people are allowed to say. Let’s do away with civilian speech (in private context) altogether and insist that all other information come with obvious approval from public government sources. You could still use words in normal conversation, but you’ll not be able to just say what you want when you want even if you are verbally attacked. Three, let’s use tax policy to make the cost of owning more than one cellphone and computer prohibitive.

I know, I know–my response wasn’t very scholarly either. Then again, I’m not a Constitutional scholar–strictly speaking.

I’ve been strongly against subsidies for ethanol (and ag subsidies in general). I’ve also addressed the problems inherent with using wind to create electricity. On that note, let’s take a look at subsidies for something you are using right now (unless a friend has printed this off and handed it to you–even then you might be using artificial light of the electrical sort).

Here is a graph which shows the subsidies for a megawatt-hour of electricity which is derived from one of several sources.

Here is the source for the numbers (which may be a bit dated since it was last May) in the WSJ.

Solar energy is subsidized at $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind energy $23.37 and “clean coal” is $29.81. On the other hand, normal coal gets 44 cents, natural gas gets 25 cents, hydroelectric gets about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The whole point of these subsidies? To ensure that prices for electricity are relatively equal for the consumer no matter the source of the power. For the record, we shouldn’t be subsidizing any of this. However, in comparison with dirty King Coal, the newfangled “clean” coal is subsidized 119 times as much.

That isn’t change. That’s real money.

For a point of comparison, the average price of electricity back in 2007 was $91 per megawatt-hour. If one could assume that the 2008 price (which I was unable to locate) was essentially the same to slightly higher, one could determine what the rough price of electricity would be if the subsidies were taken away.

My recommendation? It is past time to pull the plug.

None of us are even close to perfect (though some of us, I’m told, clean up better than others). It does seem, however as though fewer and fewer are willing to live according to principle–regardless of the consequences. Jon at South Dakota Politics has a  few thoughts on principle with regards to Senator Tim Johnson latest actions:

Meanwhile, Tim Johnson is perhaps showing that he is in his last term in Congress by becoming a typical liberal in his voting. Johnson was one of only eleven senators opposing Sen. Jim DeMint’s bill to prevent the FCC from imposing the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine,” a regulation widely seen as an attack on conservative talk radio.  Johnson also voted for a bill giving Washington D.C. a voting representative in the House.  Currently the District has a non-voting delegate.  This provision is clearly unconstitutional and is simply a power grab by the Democratic party.  This is one step towards giving the District statehood, which guarantees another Democrat House member and two Democrat Senators.  Naturally, John Thune was on the opposite side of Johnson on these votes.

I would rather have someone in elected position with whom I disagree consistently, than someone who consistently claims one thing and does another–until such time as it no longer matters. The highest calling for our elected officials at the federal level seems to be getting re-elected. May I be so bold as to say that getting re-elected is only worth striving for if one is being re-elected because one was honest with the voters regarding the way in which one preserves and protects the voter’s freedoms?

My hope is that Senator Thune (or the other presumptive heirs to the Republican Party) does not fall into the trap of sounding moderate to get re-elected if he actually believes in bedrock conservative principles. Call me old-fashioned, but honesty does win out. It sometimes takes longer to achieve the goal, but is always worth it. Thinking that the ends justifies the means (and acting accordingly) leaves one with no trust and little respect.

Losing an honest fight is, in my understanding of the world, much better than winning a crooked one.

So many new happenings with regards to one part of our Constitution which seems to be hanging on for dear life. I’ll do a rundown of them, somewhat Instapundit style.

• Gun buyback program in Chicago published on the President’s USA Service website (where people can volunteer for service).
• US Senate says “OK” to amendment in DC Voting Rights bill which does away with end run on Heller by DC city council. (This is a double-edged sword, as DC should not get a voting representative under the US Constitution. Therefore I hope this bill, including the good amendment, dies in the House.)
• Senator Lisa Murkowski speaks up on the Blair Holt bill (which would be devastating to the Second Amendment if passed).
• Several members of the US House are joining together to oppose what they see will be a push to move away from the Second Amendment.
• Bill introduced in Illinois would require $1 million in special insurance to own/have a gun in that state, if passed into law.

People are holding “Tea Parties” around the nation today. Following is my favorite picture from one of them (don’t remember where).

Jay is a bit discouraged:

I’ve never been more bleak about the future of this country. The road to serfdom isn’t obvious. Nobody intentionally elects a dictator for the purpose of electing a dictator. Instead they pour the ill-conceived hopes and dreams into a Leader who promises them the world so long as they give him the power to create it.

[...]

I wish this were merely sour political grapes. But the future of this country truly is in deep peril. The way to the future is through individualism, hard work, limited government, thrift, ingenuity, and political pluralism. Today, we have a President who wants a cradle-to-the-grave welfare state and has the audacity to not only hope for one, but to say it in no uncertain terms.

I confess that I, too, can become discouraged when I look at everything which is happening. Nonetheless, there is hope. Some of that hope can be found in the writings of David barJesse:

Hear, O LORD, when I cry with my voice: have mercy also upon me, and answer me.

When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek.

Hide not thy face far from me; put not thy servant away in anger: thou hast been my help; leave me not, neither forsake me, O God of my salvation.

When my father and my mother forsake me, then the LORD will take me up.

Now, it is entirely probable that you will not write poetry to commemorate this dark time in our country’s history. But now is an excellent time to remember that we are hardly the first to go through what seems to be catastrophic change. Just remember that putting all our hope in people (of whatever political stripe) invariably leads to failure.

After all, who really has the power to create  a world?

It is time for a brave new world, indeed. It would seem, based on President Obama’s public statements since he came into that role, that it is time, no, past time, to punish all who have become successful and to reward all who have failed. Such a move, though it will be damaging in the short run is not without consequences. In the words of Isaiah barAmoz:

Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

In his most recent speech:

Obama said his first budget would “end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them.” He didn’t offer any details, which led to immediate speculation about how far the president would go, and how it would affect farming in the United States.

I’m not in favor of direct payment to any agribusiness entity. But he didn’t say he was going to end all of them (which would have gotten a cheer from this member of the peanut gallery). Not, just the ones to those organizations which have managed to be more successful than others (and grown large as a result).

In that same speech, he verbally castigated CEOs and other successful leaders of businesses for their very successes and announced that he would be raising taxes on those who have more than normal people–just because they have more than they should (I’m paraphrasing only slightly here).

Government (particularly at the federal level) has failed miserably time and time again to do much of anything successfully outside of waging wars. Therefore, government is to be rewarded with more of my money than ever.

No, I do not currently bring home more than $250K per year, so I shouldn’t be affected by the tax increases, right? Wrong. I have investments which are already affected negatively, just by the statement that he’ll be raising the rates on those who pay the most already.

So, in closing, here are a few woes to complement the ones from Isaiah:

Woe unto them who punish those who pay their mortgages and reward those who cannot be bothered to keep the terms their contracts, who claim that all who earn money are evil and those who receive  redistributed wealth are deserving, who would tell us that government is indeed the solution to all of our problems and that individual responsibility is nothing more than selfishness and must be done away with.

Well, you get the idea.

We (South Dakota) should not accept the $5 million in funds for unemployment compensation from the federal government, but we shouldn’t stop there.

I love my Ford. It’s been a very good vehicle for me. It has been surprisingly low-maintenance and has managed to make it through about 7.9 winters.

I was glad recently that Ford was not standing with its hands out to the taxpayer, giving me reason to believe that there was hope for a future.

With that said, is it too late for the folks who build the Fords to realize they’ve been living in a artificial environment?

Factory workers at Ford Motor Co. seem ready to ratify a tentative agreement between the struggling automaker and the United Auto Workers, if only because they see the alternative as too frightening to contemplate.

[...]

The new deal preserves wages and health benefits, but eliminates hundreds of dollars in bonuses and cost-of-living adjustments, ends the jobs bank program, changes work rules and allows Ford to pay up to half its contributions to a union-run retiree health care trust with company stock.

[...]

“The good news is that our base pay and medical benefits are not being touched, but we are taking some hits,” he said, noting that the elimination of the $600 Christmas bonus will be a real Grinch.Retirees also are watching developments closely.

Uh, Christmas bonuses? For what? Bonuses are for businesses that make money. I feel your pain. Tell you what. Why don’t you stop thinking that someone somewhere owes you a living (at your current comfortable level)? You may be surprised how much of the pain goes away.

For those of you who said that Barack Obama’s words regarding the Second Amendment were of greater validity than his actions regarding the same, the reality of matters is just the opposite:

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.

How about that. “A few gun-related changes that we would like to make.”How many times have you heard “a few changes” when the person saying it wasn’t try to downplay the number of changes which were coming?

For the record, the 1994 assault weapons ban outlawed a number of guns for cosmetic reasons. That is, such guns were “evil” because they bear a physical resemblance to weapons used by military groups around the world, even though they are invariably one-shot per trigger squeeze and not fully automatic (one squeeze, 2 or more shots).

Holder is couching his plan to reinstate the ban in terms of helping Mexico (because of the weapons being used by the drug gangs). However, some of us see this as an immigration issue. That is, if we actually policed the border as we ought to, there wouldn’t be gang members going back and forth across said border with impunity, and illegally purchasing guns to take south.

For an example of what I’m talking about, take the case of the small town of Granjeno, TX (which now has an almost entirely ineffective wall):

When the government announced plans to build a new fence along portions of the Mexican border, residents of this sleepy town along the Rio Grande feared the barrier would cut them off from their backyards and even destroy some homes.

Nearly two years later, the project is almost finished, and the village of Granjeno has managed to hang on — as have the illegal immigrants who still pour through town by climbing over or walking around the nearly two-mile barricade designed to keep them out.

[...]

But most residents say the barrier has done little to stop immigrant traffic. Some people have reported large groups of illegal immigrants simply running around the ends of the levee or climbing over the top.

Garza, who lives at the eastern end of the barrier, said he’s seeing more traffic than ever.

Before construction began, Garza would see a couple of people run by his house at a time. Now they move in groups of as many as 50, he said.

“Up here you don’t just see a few. You see bunches.”

Right. So Holder and Obama are prepared to trample on the rights of US Citizens instead of protecting us (as government has an obligation to do) from those who flout our nation’s borders with impunity–all in the name of helping out the Mexican authorities who have done nothing to discourage (and not a little to encourage) their citizens to break US laws. Makes sense to me.

When a government (at any level) shows that it is unable to protect its citizens, then people come to the realization that things really are left up to them:

Paulette Bouyer is a member of a peculiar little sorority in this city; a church lady who keeps a loaded pistol.

Once a rabid booster of living in Detroit, Bouyer’s home was broken into in broad daylight two weeks ago. The interlopers even made it through the iron gate that covers the door. Now, Bouyer says, she is so afraid, she is prepared to break the Sixth Commandment — thou shall not kill — by virtue of her Second Amendment right to bear arms.

“If I could get a covered wagon and a mule and a piggybank, I’d get up and ride out of here tonight,” she said. “Because if somebody walks through my door uninvited, somebody else is going to have to carry him out. Is that any way to live?”

[...]

Bouyer committed her life to Detroit, preferring to see the glass half-full. She endured the bad times: the riot of 1967, the murder of her husband in 1977, the crack epidemic of the ’80s and ’90s, the blight of the abandoned nursing home in 2002, the drug addicts who moved into the foreclosed house next to hers in the middle of the night along with their children.

I would add that the 6th commandment is properly “thou shalt do no murder.” Protecting her person within her own home does not qualify as murder (though juxtaposing the Sixth Commandment and the Second Amendment as the writer does makes for a more exciting lede).

This is truly sad. Many of you reading this are probably thinking “Nah, that can’t happen here, were too ______.” Unfortunately, all that is necessary for this to happen is for people to lose all respect for other’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within the constraints of a country which believes in the rule of law (and not the rule of arbitrary hope and change).

Justice is served.

Dakota Beef in Howard has been sentenced in federal court in Sioux Falls to five years of probation and a $45,000 fine, the maximum allowed under the law.

[...]

U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley said seven of the workers are being prosecuted on identity theft-type charges and the other eight people are at large or being processed for immigration violations.

Of course, that sort of response (successful prosecution of those who are in flagrant violation of the law) may well be on the way out:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Wednesday ordered a review of a raid at an engine plant in Washington State that resulted in the arrests of 28 people suspected of being illegal immigrants.

A high-level official in the Department of Homeland Security said that Ms. Napolitano had not been informed about the raid on Tuesday before it happened, and that she was seeking details about its planning and scope.

“She was not happy about it because it’s inconsistent with her position, and the president’s position on these matters,” said the official, who agreed to discuss the matter on condition of anonymity because the secretary had not authorized the conversation.

Her position on the matter? The president’s position on the matter? What does a “position” have to do with enforcing rather clearly defined laws? If law enforcement had the proper warrants (backed up by the necessary data) then I fail to understand what needs to be reviewed in this particular case.