More Right Wing Extemism....

One of the other criteria that home land security has used to define a Right Wing Extremist is a belief in State's Rights; another blatant attack against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment states:

• 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.

The framers of the Constitution always considered that the powers of the federal government should be strictly limited and defined. And any power that was not included in those definitions as outlined in the Constitution would fall under the authority of the individual States or the People themselves (that is a novel idea; people actually being responsible for Governing themselves without aid from the Federal Government. We will get back to that later).
The powers given to the Congress in the Constitution are very will defined in Article 1, section 8. Read it carefully. Read it again. Now tell me where in this list the government finds the authority for some of its recent actions. I don't see anything about bailing out corporations, owning stock in private corporations, providing health care for the masses, etc, etc. Now, it may seem that this is a bit off point on the whole States Rights issue. But look at it this way: every time Congress, or the President, exerts a power that is not delegated to them by the Constitution they have effectively circumvented the rights of the States. Or, more importantly, the rights of the individual, also referenced in the 1oth. There is a great quote on the subject from Ayn Rand:

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

For those of you who are not a fan of Ayn Rand; sorry, she is right. The government cannot give a benefit, bail out a company, construct a road, pay a salary, or even buy a paperclip without taking money from someone else. It is not their money! Nor in most cases is it their right to spend it in the first place, based on Constitutionally defined powers.
Think States rights are not important in today's age of the ever increasing massive Federal Government. Just look at what some state Governments have to say about it: Texas;
New Hampshire
Arizona

These are just 3 of 20 states that are considering legislation of this type. Have they been told that they are right wing extremist? Do they know that Home Land Security has now labeled them and considers them a potential threat to this country. Read the Founding Father's thoughts on the dangers and consequences of a Federal Government run amok. It looks surprising like where we are headed right now.

A final thought on the recent Home Land Security release: how despicable is it that they attack our veterans? To single them out as potential threats to our security and label them as anything other than Heroes? Outrageous! I heard a quote from a returning soldier that pretty much sums it up: " I have risked my life for my Country fighting terrorist. And now that same country thinks I am going to become one." It is shameful, to say the least, that any government official or agency should release such a statement.

Right Wing Extremist

Apparently, I am one. At least according to the recently released Homeland Security document. I am not part of any "organization" or militia group, but I strongly believe in most of what they label as being right wing extremist. What is interesting to me is that most of things that are outlined in this document are some of the basic rights and laws that are outlined in the Constitution. How is it that a belief in the founding laws and structure of our government can now be considered extremist? Right of left wing? My understanding of this position is that the current administration is directly opposed to the 2nd and the 10th amendment (they are opposed to much more of the Constitution than that, but I will get to that later):

• The Second Amendment - The Right to Bear Arms. 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 current "liberal" argument (as I understand it) is that the 2nd amendment is intended solely for the purpose of maintaining a state (federally) controlled military and does not apply to an individuals right to own a firearm. And while the language can be interpreted in many ways, I think it is important to consider the intentions of those that initially voted it into law. When James Madison initially proposed this amendment it was worded differently: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country...." The right of the "People" clearly comes first. A reading of Federalist #46 written by Madison states fairly clearly that one of the main reasons for citizens to own arms is for their protection from the possibility of an OPPRESSIVE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. If you think that is not important in modern times, here are a few facts cited by Paul Harvey in September of 2000:

Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

CONSIDER THIS:

· In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. (My note: they were unable to repel Japanese invaders, who piled them up like cordwood! My Dad took the pictures in 1937.)

· Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide: Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, and Armed Robberies are up 44%. In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures were showing a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such a monumental effort and expense was expended in "ridding society of guns." It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.

Keep in mind that I do not currently own a firearm; primarily because I have small children that I have not educated in the proper respect, use and handling of a gun. I also live in what I would consider a fairly "safe" neighborhood. That being said, it bothers me a great deal that I do not own a gun with which I could protect my family. When I have better educated myself, and can in turn educated my household, I plan to rectify this situation.

Next I am on to the 10th amendment.....