Posts Tagged ‘jon fournier’

Almost immediately upon gaining control of both houses of congress and the governorship of Virginia the Democrats announced rather extreme gun control proposals. The proposals are so extreme that a firestorm of dissent erupted from the people, sheriffs, and county officials.  There was so much dissent one representative threatened to sick the National Guard on sheriffs and county officials who refused to comply.  If the proposals are carried out I can see the whole mess resulting in violence.  I’m not the only who came to that conclusion, check out this Washington Times article Virginia Dem mulls National Guard to enforce upcoming gun laws, an idea likely to end in violence

Democrats in Virginia have already pre-filed bills to mandate universal background checks; to limit handgun purchases; to raise age limits on would-be firers; to redefine the term assault weapon and impose bans on buys of certain guns and magazines. And more.

And dozens upon dozens of county officials around the state have rushed to pass resolutions declaring their jurisdictions sanctuaries from the state’s gun control storm and announcing that their police chiefs have no intent of enforcing the Dems’ laws.

Democrat Representative McFachin kicked up the tension on the whole situation into high gear with this proposal.

“I’m not the governor,” said Rep. Donald McEachin, Virginia Democrat, according to a report in The Washington Examiner, “but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the [new gun control] law[s].”

If called by the governor to perform this odious duty the Virginia National Guard would be required to carry it out by law, however, the Virginia Bill of Rights protects the Right to Bear Arms for all citizens,

Granted, this act, signed in 1878 to prohibit federal troops from being used to enforce domestic laws, carves out exceptions for National Guard members operating under the authority of the states. But the spirit of the restrictions should still apply.

With his proposal,  McFachin proved that gun confiscation has always been the end result of Democrat’s plans.

But with one quick quip, McEachin took a situation that’s already boiling with tension and fear — namely, the realities of the new blue Virginia and the realization of Democratic-promised gun controls — and made it worse. He went there; he tapped the darkest worries of the gun rights’ crowd — the deep-seated belief that Democrats’ end game is to obliterate the Second Amendment and destroy citizens’ rights to own firearms. And in so doing, he actually let it slip that yes, Democrats will stop at nothing, even violence, to take the guns.

One Sheriff came up with a novel proposal, Virginia Sheriff Vows to ‘Deputize Thousands’ to Defend Gun Rights.

Every Sheriff and Commonwealth Attorney in Virginia will see the consequences if our General Assembly passes further unnecessary gun restrictions. “Red Flag” laws without due process will create enormous conflict as well.

America has more guns than citizens and murder has long been illegal. At best, the proposed gun restrictions will disarm or handicap our law-abiding in their defense and possibly cause a criminal to choose another tool for evil.

I remain very optimistic that our General Assembly will not pass the proposed bills. Obviously, if passed, there are many of us willing to challenge these laws through the courts. In addition, if necessary, I plan to properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.

The resistance has spread across the state: Report: Over 90 Virginia Counties, Municipalities Declared 2A Sanctuaries.  This shows how seriously the people of this nation take their Right to Bear Arms.

A report from WDBJ7 shows that more than 90 Second Amendment sanctuary declarations have been made by counties and municipalities in Virginia.

WDBJ7 reports that Rockingham County was one of the most recent sanctuary declarations. Breitbart News reported that over 3,000 residents attended the Rockingham Board of Supervisors meeting to demand Second Amendment sanctuary status.

Hopefully the Virginia Democrats will take not of the heated opposition and back down.

Sunday, December 15th, marked the 228th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.  That anniversary got me thinking about how so few on all sides of the political spectrum properly understand this most important protector of our rights.  This is because our elected officials on all levels have distorted the original meaning so much that the current understanding is 180 degrees opposite from the meaning as understood by those that framed and ratified it.  Our abysmal education system, which teaches political correct revisionist history rather than civics, the news media, and our entertainment industry are also to blame.

Here are the most common and most dangerous misconceptions about the Bill of Rights that I’ve encountered.

1. The Bill of Rights grants us our rights, 

People on the right and the left regularly spread this mistruth; most commonly by stating the we have First Amendment rights, or something similar.  This is a dangerous notion because our rights could then be taken away by amending the Bill of Rights or disregarding the actual meaning, which has been done too often.

This quote from the Declaration of Independence tells us exactly where the framers of the Bill of Rights believed our rights come from:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

2. The Bill of Rights applies to the States

It is abundantly clear from the debates that occurred during the ratification of the Constitution, where the states conventions demanded a Bill of Rights, that the purpose of those amendments was to restrain the federal government only.  This is also abundantly clear from the debates where the Bill of Right s was framed, and the debates where the amendments were ratified by the states.  Thomas Jefferson explained this very eloquently when he wrote the first draft of the Kentucky Resolutions in 1798

3. _Resolved_, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals.

Some of the readers of this article might strenuously disagree with the fact that the Bill of Rights does not pertain to the states.  This was done by the framers of the Bill of Rights on purpose because they believed granting the federal government all of that power would result in a gigantic and oppressive federal government.  We have this now because the federal government granted itself unconstitutionally the power to extend the Bill of Rights down to the states. 

The Bill Rights is a hands off list for the federal government.  Our rights are too precious for the federal government to interfere with in any way.  The framers believed that state and local governments were the proper levels to make decisions regarding these rights because the people could better oversee the state and local levels.

All state constitutions have a Bill of Rights which protects the rights of the citizens of that state.  Here is what Clause 13 of the Virginia Rill of Rights has to say about the right to bear arms.  The current governor of Virginia should take note.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

3. The Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level

As you can see from the actual text of  Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that amendment was never meant to extend the entire Bill of Rights down to the states.  The only clause that was extended was the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment,

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court created the unconstitutional doctrine of incorporation by disregarding the text of the amendment and the transcripts of the debates where it was written and ratified.  Incorporation has resulted in tremendous harm such as the banning of most things religious from the public square,  setting criminals free because of a technicality, and so much more.

4.  The Fourteenth Amendment granted the Supreme Court the authority to overturn state laws involving the Bill of Rights.

Using the unconstitutional doctrine of Incorporation, the Supreme Court single handedly granted itself the power to overturn state laws.  As you can see from the actual text of Clause 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment  “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”  that power was specifically not granted to the Supreme Court by the amendment, but instead granted to the US Congress through the formal legislative process.  That was because the Dred Scott ruling stood firmly in the minds of those that wrote the amendment. 

The only way to restore the original meaning of the Bill of Rights is by using the internet to educate others.  Please help me do that by sharing this article on social media.  Also, please consider contributing to this website by using the Tip Jar.

Get ready to have your money sucked away rapidly by the Massachusetts tax man and be prepared to have Big Brother riding with you everywhere you drive because Massachusetts lawmakers are formulating a plan to raise more money to pay for transportation.  The current proposals have many odious provisions which are documented in this CBS Boston article Massachusetts Lawmakers Propose Expanding Highway Tolls, Charging Drivers By The Mile.

Several key House members have hinted that they are likely to include an increase in the state’s 24-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax in a transportation revenue bill that Speaker Robert DeLeo is eyeing for release next month, but other ideas put on the table during a Transportation Committee hearing on Thursday could supplement that revenue stream.

Rep. Thomas Stanley warned his colleagues that over the long term the gas tax will be insufficient to meet roadway and public transit needs. Rising fuel efficiency in vehicles, he said, means that even the same frequency of driving will result in motorists purchasing less gas, generating less revenue for the state.

Instead, Stanley suggested Massachusetts embrace legislation (H 3010) he co-filed with Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier to create a pilot program to test fees based on the miles people travel rather than the amount of gas used.

As if all of these driver fleecing proposals aren’t ridiculous enough, there are more being investigated.

The first bill (S 2060) would instruct the Department of Transportation to report on the feasibility of implementing all-electronic tolling on state and interstate highways “not currently subject to a toll,” taking a look in particular at tolls along the state’s borders.

The second (S 2062) would expand tolls to stretches of Interstate 93, Interstate 95 and Route 2 in an attempt to apply equal charges to drivers across the greater Boston region. That bill also calls for implementation of dynamic “peak pricing” where the toll varies based on roadway conditions.

As a libertarian who values personal freedom and privacy very deeply, Massachusetts Bill H3010 really bothers me on a fundamental level.  Here are the details:

SECTION 3. PILOT PROGRAM.

(a) The department of transportation shall develop, implement and oversee one or more statewide pilot programs to assess owners of motor vehicles a user fee that is based on the number of miles traveled on roads in this state by those motor vehicles.

(b) The pilot programs shall include at least 1,000 volunteers across the commonwealth who are representative of drivers of trucks, passenger, and commercial vehicles and throughout the commonwealth, who will have on-board vehicle-mileage-counting equipment added to their vehicles, administered in a manner the department of transportation deems appropriate.

(c) The pilot programs shall test the reliability, ease of use, cost and public acceptance oftechnology and methods for:

(1) counting the number of miles traveled by particular vehicles;

(2) reporting the number of miles traveled by particular vehicles; and

(3) collecting payments from participants in the pilot programs.

(d) The pilot programs shall also analyze and evaluate the ability of different technologies and methods to:

(1) protect the integrity of data collected and reported;

(2) ensure drivers’ privacy; and

(3) vary pricing based on the time of driving, type of road, proximity to transit,          vehicle fuel efficiency, participation in car-sharing or pooling or income of the driver

The freedom to travel wherever we wish is under assault by this bill.  The government will be punishing us for traveling too far by taxing us on every mile we wish to drive.  That is unacceptable.  The technologies to implement this will result in Big Brother riding with us in every vehicle.  That kind of government surveillance is beyond unacceptable.

Angela Merkel and Rob Schneider both made a big splash on the internet recently with comments regarding freedom of speech.  One demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the concept, the other proved not to understand the concept at all. 

You’d expect the Chancellor of Germany to be the individual who understands freedom of speech, however, this Breitbart article ‘Freedom of Expression Has Its Limits!’ – Merkel Rails Against Free Speech proves she holds some dangerous misconceptions.

Chancellor Angela Merkel railed against free speech in the German parliament, declaring that freedom of expression which offends “the dignity of other people” must be censored to secure a truly free society.

“We have freedom of expression,” the migrant crisis architect began dubiously, in a speech to the German federal parliament, or Bundestag, uploaded to social media by state broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW).

“For all those who claim that they can no longer express their opinion, I say this to them: If you express a pronounced opinion, you must live with the fact that you will be contradicted. Expressing an opinion does not come at zero cost!” she warned ominously, to applause from the assembled politicians.

“But freedom of expression has its limits. Those limits begin where hatred is spread. They begin where the dignity of other people is violated!” she continued, gesticulating wildly.

“This house will and must oppose extreme speech. Otherwise our society will no longer be the free society that it was,” she concluded, somewhat contradictorily.

This Tweet from Rob Schneider had me cheering because he posses an understanding of freedom of speech that is comparable to that of the founding fathers of the United States and the framers of the First Amendment.

Angela Merkel should carefully study this Ben Franklin quote, and so should progressive college professors and their badly misinformed snowflake students.

Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.

Here is a George Washington quote that should be spread far and wide on college campuses.

For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.

Since students have been brainwashed by multiculturalism into not respecting white males, here is a Fredrick Douglass quote they should take note of.

Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech.