Discovering the “Oh, shit! The [Other] Party gets to use those powers now” argument

At least she recognized some degree of importance even during the Barrycade administration.

Protecting the Republic: Securing Communications is More Important than Ever
Protecting the privacy of speech is crucial for preserving our democracy. We live at a time when tracking an individual—a journalist, a member of the political opposition, a citizen engaged in peaceful protest—or listening to their communications is far easier than at any time in human history. Political leaders on both sides now have a responsibility to work for securing communications and devices. This means supporting not only the laws protecting free speech and the accompanying communications, but also the technologies to do so: end-to-end encryption and secured devices; it also means soundly rejecting all proposals for front-door exceptional access. Prior to the election there were strong, sound security arguments for rejecting such proposals. The privacy arguments have now, suddenly, become critically important as well. Threatened authoritarianism means that we need technological protections for our private communications every bit as much as we need the legal ones we presently have. (emphasis added- cb)

Let me give you a few brief reminders. Some of us warned about this with CALEA, PATRIOT, Patriot II, NDAA, CISPA, SOPA, HIPAA…

And pretty much every other extra-constitutional power that control freaks have handed the government over the last few decades. Oh, hell; centuries. And you never learn, except very temporarily when the opposition takes possession of the ball.

Advertisements

Libertarians: The Gun Control Party

Oh. My.

Gun Owners of America has released their 2016 candidate ratings. There are decently rated folks in my state and district. Although I still won’t vote for the Republican House incumbent, even though he’s actually pretty good on 2A/RKBA; after the NHGOP fiasco I vowed to never again vote for anyone with an R after his name (search “NH Scott Brown Marilinda Garcia”). There is a Libertarian running for Senate, but…

Out of curiosity, I also looked at New Hampshire ratings, since I used to live there. Chabot, the LP candidate, is rated frickin’ F.

Wanna know why?


1. You would need a “Firearms Safety” card to so much as touch a firearm outside of a class on firearms safety.

2. You would need a certification in a class of weapons in order to purchase a weapon of that class. For instance, a certification you know how to use and maintain a revolver before you may purchase one. This applies to both private transfers and dealer sales.

3. You would also need a usage certification for how you use your firearm. If you hunt, for instance, you’d need to pass a course in using firearms for hunting. This would allow you to hunt, but not to carry for self defense. That would be a different certification.
[…]
In addition to the written test, the trainer should also be allowed to veto anyone who is not of sound mind and body to successfully & safely exercise the tasks associates with the specific certification.
[..]
So, for ANY transfer of ownership, the buyer would present the first two credentials to the seller. The seller would need to be satisfied of their validity and may verify them and the buyer’s identification. The seller is legally responsible for verifying the buyer is legal. Bam. Private sales now require valid credentials.
[…]
If you are carrying a firearm (open carry, or if your concealed carry fails to remain concealed, or whenever anyone has a question about a person carrying a firearm, they may ask to see the *three* qualification cards above to verify the person in question is well trained.”

Yep. Three/3/drei different and separate permission slips. For each type and purpose of weapon. Got an AR for hunting, target shooting, and home defense? That’s one “Firearm Safety” card, one semiauto rifle card, one hunting card, one self defense card, and one sporting card. Five permission slips just for the one weapon.

Each individually subject to an arbitrary veto by a private party with no appeal.

Perhaps you think Chabot is merely a troll running as a self-declared “Libertarian” and he isn’t representative of the party. It happens.

Nope.

“Just a few hours ago, by unanimous consent, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire gave their support to Brian Chabot’s campaign to represent NH in the US Senate.”

Johnson and Weld are not simply national level anomalies. The state parties are as thoroughly corrupted. I now officially and unanimously add the LP to the list of parties for whom I will never ever vote, should I decide to fill out a ballot.

Added: Dear Bog, Chabot is the LPNH’s vice chair. And they really did officially nominate him for Senate.

Constitutionality of Immigration Control

A couple of weeks back, Vin Suprynowicz published a column titled “Setting up the straw man,” which discussed the odd (for an alleged libertarian) positions of LP Presidential “candidate” Gary Johnson. Since then, Johnson and running mate Weld have gone out of their way to prove the LP has demanded to be taken off of life support.

One of the issues Vin addressed was immigration. Unfortunately, that attracted the attention of a person I once liked and respected, but whom I now go out of my way to avoid, for very behavior he displayed on Vin’s site. He spewed invective, hostility, accusations, and declared that he is empowered to decide who is a libertarian (i.e.- if you aren’t an anarchist who believes, not merely that government shouldn’t exist, but that government doesn’t exist, then he declares you a non-libertarian authoritarian).

The problem with his technique is that it looks a lot like trolling. He rarely backs up his assertions with supporting facts, and disregards or derides facts presented to him.

Case in point:

“According to the US Constitution, there’s no such thing as an illegal immigrant.”

Well, actually…

Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To…

  • …provide for the common Defence…
  • To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…
  • To define and punish […] Offences against the Law of Nations;
  • To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

It would not be difficult for an honorable man to come to the conclusion that those powers of Defence, Naturalization, and repelling Invasions could easily provide a Constitutional basis for preventing uncontrolled immigration in violation of the law. But honorable man might also disagree, holding that it isn’t explicit enough a power.

But I didn’t address that “Law of Nations” above. Now I will.

I confess that, until recently, I was ignorant of the Law of Nations. I had naively assumed that was just flowery language for commonly accepted, but unwritten, practices; much like English common law: unwritten because it was accepted (and still is even in America).

The Law of Nations is a book written by Emmerich de Vattel in which he defines nations or states as “bodies politic, societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safely and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength,” and describes the rights, duties, obligations, and limitations of such bodies.

The framers of the Constitution had copies of that book at hand as they drafted that document in turn. Indeed, you can find entire phrases lifted from LoN and placed within the Constitution (“promote the general welfare,” book 1, chapter II). And the terms inhabitant, citizen, natural born citizen, and naturalization itself come from LoN. Article 1, Section 8 clearly sets this as enforceable.

Chapter II of LoN has it that, “A nation is a being determined by its essential attributes, that has its own nature, and can act in conformity to it. There are then actions of a nation as such, wherein it is concerned in its national character, and which are either suitable or opposite to what constitutes it a nation; so that it is not a matter of indifference whether it performs some of those actions, and omits others.

Digression: Perhaps the European Union should consider that point, as it works to social-engineer the diverse nations of that continent into a homogenous socialist soup.

In chapter XIX we find, “For, on the other hand, every nation has a right to refuse admitting a foreigner into her territory , when he cannot enter it without exposing the nation to evident danger, or doing her a manifest injury, what she owes to herself, the care of her own safety, gives her this right; and, in virtue of her natural liberty, it belongs to the nation to judge, whether her circumstances will or will not justify the admission of that foreigner.” (emphasis added-cb)

The nation thus has a right to determine who it will or will not admit, and chapters II and XIX make it clear that immigration which would alter the character of the nation in a manner it does not desire would be grounds for denying entry. That is, those who can culturally assimilate are acceptable, while those who instead demand to inflict the holidays and rules of their origin — whether Cinco de Mayo or Sharia law — on everyone (as opposed to simply participating privately and individually) would not. An immigrant from groups with a higher prevalence of disease and terroristic tendencies than our own nation could be denied entry as an “evident danger.”

So, yes; according to the Constitution, there most certainly is such a thing as illegal immigration.

Personally, I’d be all in favor of completely unregulated immigration if we totally dismantled the welfare/SS/disability/WIC/EBT/food stamp/Section 8/Obamacare/etc giveaways that attract freeloaders instead of people who want to better themselves. But I have to work with the world as it is (while working for the better version). That’s the part some people can never grasp; that individual confuses what he wants with reality.


Spirited discussion in comments is fine. Please support your arguments and counter-arguments with documentation and explanation. Should anyone choose to resort to
hostile denunciations
and useless comments that make “no attempt to educate, inform, or convince,” that are “designed only to dismiss, belittle and ridicule, to evoke unnecessary anger and hostility,” you’ll find I’m about as welcoming as Vin. I don’t think I’ve ever deleted a comment here (other than spam) or banned a person, and I prefer that no one make it necessary. Remember, this is my soapbox; if you can’t play nice, play elsewhere on your own soapbox.

What rising rates?

Perhaps Comey should read his own agency’s reports.

FBI Director James Comey Deplores ‘Peculiar Indifference’ to Rising Murders Across Country
“Something is happening in America,” with “cities that have nothing in common with each other experiencing [an] uptick” in violence, Comey said at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, an icon of the civil rights movement.

Nationally, the murder rate is dropping to record lows.

murderrate

True, there have been recent spikes in certain cities. But they absolutely do have something in common: decades of Democrap control and victim disarmament.

Works for me

How To Beat the DOJ Lawsuit
Rush Limbaugh has the legal argument in hand that should allow North Carolina to defeat the Department of Justice lawsuit overturning that state’s law banning transgendered use of ladies’ public bathrooms.

The solution here might be that the North Carolina governor could say that we don’t identify as North Carolina anymore, and therefore your lawsuit against us is irrelevant. We’re not North Carolina. We don’t identify that way, as long as your lawsuit — I mean, it’s absurd here! What do you mean, the way I want to present one day? So North Carolina, I say just turn it right around, “You know what, we do not identify as North Carolina for the length of your suit.”

Once we consider the advantages of the Feddies’ position that delusions induced by mental illness trump physical reality, lots of options open up.

Delinquent on fed taxes? “I’m not John Smith. I identify as Lolita McMuff now, and that tax bill isn’t mine.”

Got a criminal conviction that bars you from some office? “Barry Charles Laughton, Jr.?” Nah, I’m Stacie Laughton now.”

Or maybe you just always wanted to be a 6’5″ Chinese woman.

Personally, I think this would an excellent time for North Carolina to realize that they identify as an independent nation. The United States has bought that argument before. Even encouraged it in advance. They could fund it by identifying as George Soros and writing checks.

It ain’t identity theft if you identify as what/whoever. Apparently.

For Sale Cheap: One Constitution, hardly ever used

Nicki ponders the wisdom and risks of a Constitutional Convention.

As I pointed out last year, this is a horrible idea, and opens the republic up to all sorts of danger.

Since the basic problem people want fixed is a government that most people hate, I wonder if two-thirds of a Congress hated by most people would go along. Or if two-thirds of state legislatures (really; think about your legislature). But let’s pretend the call succeeds.

And those state legislatures you hate — you know, like the Dimwits in Atlanta who want to ban all mag-fed rifles with grips — appoint the delegates.

That’ll go well.

Over at Nicki’s blog, commenter Alex thinks the scope of such a convention could be limited, to keep it from getting out of control.

Patrick Henry didn’t think so, and I’d say history proved him right. 70 delegates were apppointed. Only 55 participated at all, several walked out, some simply refused to sign. Out of the 70 total, only 39 signed.

Not quite like an earlier unanimous signing.

We haven’t had a constitutional government since at least the Civil War. Why expect that to change if people want an Article V convention, or that some new constitution would fare any better?