Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Elections, especially WA

So a lot of elections results are in. Dems made gains in several areas. They took the House, and the Senate may fall to them, too. What will this mean? It's hard to say at this point. Some of them may demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which could destroy the country. They might raise taxes. They will probably not permanently repeal the death tax, which will be back in full force sooner than anyone would like. In 2011, anything over $675,000 will be subject to a 55% tax, which will crush many family businesses. It's not a tax on inheritance, since it taxes the estate, rather than the inheritors. It's already been taxed as income.
There are those who say we need that revenue. It brings in less than 1.1% of federal revenues, and it costs 65 cents in enforcement and compliance costs for every dollar it brings in. But the Dems will allow it to remain.
WA allowed ours to remain, as well. 60% of our state voted to keep the estate tax. Not that many of us thought it would really go away. Our state government has a tendency to bypass the will of the people. Remember $30 car tabs? How many times did that have to pass? And is the whole state paying just $30? Nope. All sorts of fees and local taxes may still be added for some reason.
We also, it seems, passed a renewable energy initiative. What people weren't told, for the most part, is that our hydroelectric power is not counted. Never mind the clean, renewable nature of power produced by water, we need solar and wind power, according to some. As if electric bills weren't already high enough.
And we kept Cantwell in office. McGavick laid off lots of workers as CEO of Safeco, you say. What was the end result? He saved the company. He saved far more jobs by making the tough decisions. He wants to see the war through, you say. Yeah, because allowing the region to destroy itself will not help anyone. He wants to privatize social security. Again, not a bad thing. Privatizing it would allow the money you put in to earn more money, rather than stagnate.
And what has Cantwell actually done? She chased oil tankers out of the Sound. This, of course, was a bit of a blow to our state's economy. She voted for the Iraq war and for staying the course. She doesn't tell many people, since that's exactly what she's saying McGavick would do. She fought to keep our state's sales tax exemption. Fair enough, but why not fight for a system that's even fairer. A FairTax or flat tax sort of thing would make taxes easier for everyone, but she wants to make income taxes more "progressive." This makes the system more complex and more difficult. It makes it hard to exempt state sales tax. It makes it more intimidating for the poor to do their taxes and get back some of the money the government has kept out of their paychecks throughout the year.
I suppose this election hasn't been all bad. Two years of Dems in the House might let the American people see why a Dem president wouldn't be great.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

A turning point in the media war?

After watching Papa Bear, I switched over to to CNN Headline News. The guy, I don't know who it is, was pushing for a harder line against Iran. Wait a second. Did I just say that CNN was pushing for a harder line? Has the conservatives actually won the media war? They have been doing well. Fox News is the most watched news channel (I know they aren't really that conservative, but compared to the other ultra-left channels, I am going to call Fox News conservative). I was confused by this until I remembered it is an election year. Today the left is trying to look more aggressive against terrorism. The only thing I am confused on is why they are doing this.

They are trying to make the War on Terror a central theme in this election, and in 08. They also get killed each time they do this. They can attack the president on Iraq, on a good economy that is good, but people think is bad, but they cannot touch the GOP on terrorism. They need to back down, and focus on the things they can attack, not the things that kill them.

Let's put this in context

I am watching 360 on CNN today, waiting for Papa Bear O'Reilly. As I'm sure everybody knows, today the US gave control of the Iraqi Navy, Air Force, and one division of the Army over to the Iraqi government. CNN decided to "put this in context." Their interpretation of this event is that it is meaningless, Iraqi will fall, Bush is evil, ect... I would like to thank CNN for being so honest. Is this not the event that liberals have been saying hasn't happened, but must? Isn't this what liberals have been saying would be actual progress? At some point they are going to need to admit that progress is being made... Wait. They will keep on spinning everything that comes out of Iraq. They are no longer willing to just ignore the good news; now they need to turn the good into bad.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006


So it's been awhile since I've posted here. I'm sorry.
I've been hearing a lot of anti-gun stuff again lately. I talked about it here and here. One thing people never seem to get is how fragile our liberties are.
In fact, some of our cherished freedoms are not as Constitutionally protected as one might think. The First Amendment starts, "Congress shall makw no law[...]" It doesn't say that the states will respect individual freedoms. Nowhere does it say that Utah couldn't make all citizens practice Mormonism. Quartering troops in wartime is to be done "in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Some of you may see this as madness. How could any part of my local, state or federal government strip me of those rights? Well, there's a protection. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." That's it. No "except according to the law" or "except to keep our streets safe." As long as we protect that right, the government will know better than to attack our other rights.
Am I a madman revolutionary? Possibly, but not likely. I'm not planning to overthrow the government, nor am I thoroughly prepared for a time I may have to defend my right to bear arms. I just practice my rights. Well, except the rights regarding to trials. I haven't found myself needing those.
If we allow the government to take the only right they expressly cannot, they will whittle away at the ones with a less solid base. And how will we stop them? An unarmed populus is nothing more than a herd of sheep.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

God Bless Freedom

For those of you who don't know me, I work as a security officer at Saint Martin's University (until August 27th). It’s an easy job that pays the bills... most of the time. Tomorrow I am going to be escorting a group of Chinese exchange students to Sea-Tac for their flight back home. I am going with them to ensure none of them flee, and try to hide out in the US. In essence, I am there to stop anyone from defecting to the United States.

When I was in high school, there was a Chinese foreign exchange student, Shabi (I have no idea how it is actually spelled). While she was here, she got a lawyer to inquire about her gaining asylum. The Chinese government found out about it, withdrew her visa, and demanded she return to China. She was arrested and put on a plane to LAX for the return flight. While at LAX she escaped and vanished into the crowd. Last I heard, which was years ago, she was hiding out somewhere in New Mexico.

Here in America we take our freedoms for granted, forgetting that the American life is not the norm around the world. We forget that there are people who will abandon their families and homes just for the chance to escape from their government. These Chinese students are a perfect reminder of that.

We do not know what oppression is. The whole Western World has forgotten what it is to live in fear, and dream of freedom. When another country cries out for help, we ignore their pleas. Almost all of Western Europe was against the liberation of Iraq, while almost all of Eastern Europe, where the memory of Soviet tyranny is still fresh in their minds, was in favor of it. We no longer heed the cries of the oppressed; instead we sit back and complain about American influence destroying foreign cultures, regardless how evil and sinister that culture is.

Tomorrow I am going to drive up to Sea-Tac and do my job. I am going to watch these Chinese students get onto a plane dragging them back to the domination of the Chinese Government... But if one decides to run, I will give them a head start.

God Bless America, and God Bless Freedom.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Liberal Fascism

fas·cism or Fas·cism: any movement, tendency, or ideology that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition.

Modern fascism has found a new home here in Washington. Today, the government has decided that smoking is not allowed within 25 feet of any window, or door, regardless if the establishment is public or private, so long as it has employees. This not only limits the ability to create niche markets, but it moves us one step closer to having the government control our lives. The government is dictating our behavior by controlling private enterprises, and repressing all opposition.

Smoking kills people, but why is the government kicking people out of society; we should just let society do it. If so many people are unable to be around smokers, non-smoking bars would be able to flourish. Instead of having the government ban smokers from public, people should allow smokers to have their spot in society, and allow non-smokers their spot as well. There is no reason these two groups of people cannot co-exist.

I cannot turn on a TV with out seeing commercials warning people of the dangers of smoking. Every commercial break there are “kissing a smoker is just plain gross” ads blaring in my face. Why does the government only allow anti-smoking messages on TV? Why are they repressing the tobacco companies’ message? The answer is simple. The liberal fascists are worried that people might begin to believe that smokers are just people, not the animals they are made out to be. Smokers are not inherently dirty creatures; they are normal people. The question remains: Why have the liberal fascists spent their time and money to make smokers into evil personified?
The answer is staring us right in the face. The smoking ban will lead to more extreme government control. Already “fragrance free” zones are appearing. How long will it be before it is illegal for people to wear perfume or cologne? When will the government start banning other substances which people are allergic to? One of the most common, and serious, allergies is caused by nuts. When will the government outlaw peanuts from public? This is not a slippery slope argument. Twenty years ago who could imagine a world where smoking was outlawed within twenty-five feet from a building?

Now I901 did not pass itself. Who, you might ask, would be willing to vote for another move closer to fascism. The answer was you and I. I901 was approved by the voters. Much like the voters in Nazi Germany who elected Hitler, we are moving our state closer to the warm embrace of authoritarian government.

Today we hear the left complain about how President Bush is taking away our liberties in order to fight the terrorists. There are valid complaints here, but they should look at themselves, see how they are using the government to force their own ideas down peoples’ throats, before being too harsh on their opponents. Today we live in a liberal fascist state, where the government decides what we can say, do and think, and I am mad as hell.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

BBQ Politics

Last night I went back down to Tenino for a BarBQ at my buddy Ryan St.Jean's house. Good food and good friends made for a good Saturday night. As always the discussion quickly turned to politics. Iraq, Israel, Korea, etc. We started talking about a study which found that 1/3 of Americans believe that Bush was behind 9-11. One of the girls there, Syd, was a believer of these conspiracy theories. She cited the discredited "Loose Change" as evidence. St.Jean and I started to attack her position. Finally after being torn apart, she said, "Well, you guys are just stupid." We asked her why she believed that Bush was behind the attacks and she responded, "Well, I just hate Bush." Her entire belief that Bush committed the worst attack on America was based on the fact that she doesn't like him.
St.Jeans sister Megan was in attendance at the BarBQ. She is 21, married to Dane who is fresh out of the Marine Corp and worked in a kindergarten while in going to to school. One day it was time for lunch when one of the kids, remember these kids are 5-6 years old, said to her, "I want to move to Italy so I can kill Americans (I have no idea why he wanted to go to Italy, but that's what he said)." Megan was shocked. He husband was off in Iraq and some kid had just said just about the worse thing she had ever heard. Guess what she did. She stared right back at the kid and said, "Right now my husband is out there, protecting our freedoms, and the freedoms that each person ought to have. You sit there and think about how lucky you are to be an American." After that, she didn't allow talking during lunch. Instead she had the kids think about how lucky they were to be Americans.
It is amazing to see to what extent the left used the media to brainwash the young. Megan's story didn't take place in a ultra-left wing city... It happened in Idaho. The leftist media has convinced people all over the nation that: Bush is evil and must be hated, and that the only good American is a dead American. The left should be ashamed. While I am receiving emails from my friends emails from my friends entitled "Bye friends, going back to Iraq again," the left is shooting them in the back.
Our thoughts and prayers at with Corporal TJ Sjostrom, Marine Air Support Squadron 3, and his wife, Cheryl. Keep your head down buddy.

Friday, August 04, 2006


A lot of liberals love to talk about how the inheritance tax is necessary to fund this project or that group, but they always fail to provide reasoning as to why it is a good tax.
The inheritance tax is not a tax on income, which is all the 16th Amendment allows for. I know a few of you will try to claim that it is, since the heirs will find the inheritance to be an income, but the tax is not derived from what is received, but the total of the estate. As such, it is a vindictive tax on a person's savings over a lifetime. These assets have been taxed as income already, and any property has been subject to property taxes as long as it has been owned. We already have gift taxes that will handle cutting the inheritance down without a death tax.
As for the Left's assertion that it only affects the rich, ask yourself how much property might be valued at. Especially property that could be deemed profitable. At the highest exemption of the current system (the highest exemption will kick in in 2009), everything above $3.5 million will be subject to the tax. This may seem like a lot, but homes aren't cheap, nor are farms or other business assets. And neither of those is very liquid. An estate consisting of a somewhat large home in a relatively expensive area might be forced to sell the home just to pay the tax. Throw in a family business and you're suddenly forced to decide which one to keep. Assuming you can get enough out of the other to pay the estate tax. And in 2011? Back to a $1 million exemption. Grandma leaves a home? Well, you may end up with some money, but say goodbye to the memories.
Is it fair to tax a person's savings? No. Is it fair to tax those savings when that person dies? The answer is still no. The Constitution allows only taxes on income.
Why do the Dems focus on this issue? Simple, it wins them votes. Average Joe doesn't see a problem with taxing the rich, and the Left tells us that's all this does.
And since this has recently been linked to the minimum wage issue, here's something I wrote on that, too.

Thursday, August 03, 2006


I keep hearing about Mel Gibson's tirade and how horrible it was. Of course, this comes from the same media that bashes everything Israel does. If Israel tries to stop Hezbollah, it's because Israel is a horrible, warmongering nation--that's a given, according to the media. If Mel Gibson calls Jews warmongers, it's because he's a horrible, violent Catholic.
Hmm...Jewish state is evil, Catholic is evil for denigrating Jews...
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's right to make those comments, but I also don't think it's right to have a news story about one man's anti-Semitism and follow it up with how horrible the Jewish state is. Besides, he has admitted that what he said was horrible, fessed up to his alcohol problem, and managed not to kill anyone. If he were a Kennedy, it would take a lot more to even make the news, much less garner the immense disapproval.

30 Days

I have become addicted to a new show: 30 Days. I don't know if anyone else has watched it, but it is wonderful. In its first episode this season it had some issues with telling the truth, but I am willing to forgive that. This episode was about a man whose job was outsourced to India. He traveled to India to take his job back.

I’m going to skip to the moral of the story because that is what matters. The conclusion which Morgan Spurlock arrives at is that outsourcing American jobs to India is a good thing, because they need the jobs more. He believes that more American jobs should go overseas because Americans are richer and therefore do not need these jobs.

He is a proven leftist, but I don't know what to make of this belief. It’s not right or left, it’s just insane. I cannot seriously believe that this guy exists. I am going to watch his show again next week just to see what crazy shit comes flying out of this guy’s mouth.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Terrorism in College

In 2002 I graduated from Tenino High School. I had been accepted into two universities: Oregon State University (OSU) and Southern Oregon University (SOU). Having lived in Corvallis, OR for many years I decided to attend SOU in Ashland, OR. This was the first time I had ever seen academic terrorism.
I was a naive 19 year old kid, away from home for the first time; I was excited about the opportunity to prove myself academically. The words of Mr. Stregal from Tenino High resonated in my ears, "I don't know why any of you are taking the SAT. There no college dumb enough to take anyone in this room." Determined to prove him wrong, I started taking classes. It didn't take long for me to discover that I was no longer in the preverbal Kansas. I had entered the world of leftist elites.
I am not going to relive every experience in my two years at SOU, but I would like to mention some of the more notable ones.
I was accepted into the Honors Program my freshman year. It was a wonderful experience. My main professor was Dr. Sandra Coyner, the director of the Honors Program. While she was without a doubt an extreme leftist, she was willing to listen to and debate different viewpoints. Based on my experience with Dr. Coyner I decided to apply, and was accepted, to the Churchill Honors Program. It was a very different experience. My first class was with Dr. Ric Holt, who was teaching Greek Philosophy. It took about a week for the class to learn that not only did he have no knowledge of Greek Philosophy, but he wasn't planning to teach anything on it. Instead he wanted to talk about the "Evil US" and how it causes all the worlds problems. This was a recurring theme at SOU. I had a Medieval History class discussion break down into 50 people yelling "Fuck Bush" at one another.
The second Churchill class I took was with Michael Holstein. It was one of the greatest classes I have ever taken, Enlightenment Ethics. At the end of his class he took me aside and asked me if I was going to continue with the program. I told him that I was, to which he responded, "Ryan, I like you, but you shouldn't take Contemporary Ethics. You are a smart guy, but your way too right-wing. I don't mark students down because of political philosophy, but she does (Sandra Holstein, his wife, and teacher of Contemporary Ethics)."
I didn't believe him, but I should have. Contemporary Ethics turned out to be, "White people are racists, and men are evil." I tried to interject some reason into the class, but to no avail. I brought in UCRs. I was told to put them away. I brought up the idea that black culture might be hurting itself. I was called a racist, and told that it was a "conservative idea" and therefore wrong.
I would like to say that these were isolated incidences, but that would be a lie. Almost every class I took was slanted to the left in the most extreme manner. This is the tactic most used by the left elites to force others to take on their belief system. First they remind students that they know more than the student, and cannot be wrong. Then they force students to worship leftist ideal, while forcibly removing opposing viewpoints. They remind students that conservatives are uneducated, illiterate monkeys. By using these tactics they allow people like Ward Churchill to flourish.
I would like to say that this only happens at SOU, but that also would be a lie. Everywhere I look I see the same thing. I was lucky enough to transfer to St. Martin's University for my last two years. I wish that I didn’t have to go to a private Catholic school to get an education, but that seems to be what it takes in modern America. This is not to say that SMU is without bias or that public schools are all evil, but the pervious are much more open to ideas than the latter.
Today students are fighting back. Students are recording their teachers to expose these extremist teachers. We need more of this type of action to bring schools back to where they should be... In the center. For places of learning and tolerance, it is amazing how little learning and tolerance you find.

Monday, July 31, 2006

The "Responsibility" to vote

One thing really bugs me, as long as we are on the subject of Constitutionalism (which I would assume we will stay on a lot of the time). People repeatedly tell us how it is the citizen's responsibility to vote. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say this, nor should it. It is exactly this sort of attitude that keeps incumbents in office whether they make poor decisions, waste taxpayer money, kill someone, or even die. Whose name do you know? The guy in office, usually.
People should not vote unless they've educated themselves. It is a person's right to vote and a voter's responsibility to know about what they're voting on. In the last Presidential election, young voters were encouraged to vote...strongly encouraged, actually. These same young voters were also constantly barraged with anti-Bush messages in the media and in their music. They were not encouraged to learn about the issues, just told that they were needed to promote a change. It was implied, of course, that to cause that change, they'd have to throw out Bush.
On college campuses and other youth hot-spots, you would hear a lot about getting rid of Bush, but never why we should get rid of him, and certainly nothing about why Kerry was better (unless, of course, you count "he's not Bush" as a legitimate plus side).
By the same token, others vote for the incumbent, since he must've done alright so far, the one that looks the friendliest, or the one from their party of choice. Do these people truly educate themselves? Does their vote promote positive citizenship? No on both counts. Their vote is a compelled vote, made because they are supposed to vote. If people paid attention, maybe a third-party candidate would even be viable.
By all means, exercise your right to vote...but also exercise your right to educate yourself on the issues. If you can't do both, you shouldn't do either--we do not have mandatory voting in this country.

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Attacks on the 2nd Amendment

Today we daily hear about attacks on our freedoms. The First Amendment is being taken away. The Fourth Amendment is a thing of the past. I must question, what ever happened to the Second Amendment?

"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."

It seems pretty simple to me. I see two parts: 1) States can have militia, and 2) The People can have arms. While few people object to the first part, the second part is one of today's hot topics. The ACLU, with many other liberal groups, doesn't believe that there is an individual right to own firearms. They claim that that the Second Amendment only gives the state the power to create a militia; it does not give any rights to the citizens.

I view this interpretation of the Second Amendment quiet frightening. What the loco left has done is define "the People" as the State. Isn't this inconsistent with the rest of the Constitutional Amendments? Does the Fourth Amendment give freedom from unwarranted searches and seizers only to the State? The Tenth Amendment separates the State from the People; is it being redundant? I would cringe to think that the First Amendment only allows the State to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In today's America our freedoms are under attack. We must remember that both the Democrats and Republicans are doing it. Each party has decided on what parts of the Constitution they agree with and what parts they want to limit. When has more freedom been a bad thing? We must not forget that we are a free society where we trust people to make their own decisions. By deciding to change the definition of "the People" for political reasons, the left has declared war on our most basic rights. I try to remember the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

And finally, to those who cry out against firearms because they are dangerous, I will remind them of Benjamin Franklin. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

God Bless.

Give War a Chance

The other day I saw a bumper sticker which made me stop and think. It simply said, "Give War A Chance." Why not? Peace hasn't worked very well. The peace movement is a fairly recent development. While its starting date is not relevant, some claim it started after WWII, but I would contend that it started as a reaction to WWI, what does matter is its highly idealized world view.

The Pacifism Movement has called for an end of war through the use of diplomacy, which is a great idea. Would it not be wonderful if the world could solve its issues through discussion rather than physical coercion? There is only one problem... It doesn't work.

The League of Nations was a classic example of the failure of international diplomacy. After the creation of the League in Paris Peace Conference of 1919, it started trying to police the world using non-militaristic means. In short, it failed to an extreme extent. Its failure can be directly associated to its failure to use military force. By refusing to intervene militarily it doomed the world to another world war which could have been prevented by limited pre-emptive aggression.

Today the United Nations has taken the role of peace maker, and like the League of Nations, has failed. While it has brought peace to certain places, it has done so through "peacekeeping missions." In other words, the international group meant to solve the world’s problems and conflicts has found that the only way to achieve its goals is to use military force.

Military force is only thing many people in the world understand. In a world where Islamic fascism flourishes diplomacy is doomed to fail. Appeasement has never worked, and never will work. All it does is give the aggressor time to gain more strength. Force must be met with force. in other words, lets give war a chance. It may be our last, best hope.

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Amendment XV

Lately, the Voting Rights Act has gotten a lot of attention. Some seem to think that when (if) it expires, we'll suddenly be flung back to the days when blacks couldn't vote. People forget that it is merely an enforcement act to supplement the 15th Amendment. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The only reason the Act was introduced was to enforce the 15th Amendment (as allowed by section 2 of the amendment), and I would hope that we have passed the days in which such enforcement was necessary. No one questions a person's right to vote based on race, Act or no Act.
If you disagree with me, the act may still be necessary...though I would guess that there's not a state in the Union that would dare infringe someone's right to vote based on race.

Friday, July 28, 2006

Amendment #1

When looking at the First Amendment we see 5 parts: establishment of religion, free speech, free press, right to assemble, and right to petition for a redress of grievances. If you are unfamiliar with the First Amendment you van view it here.

Everyday we hear the left talking about the right to free speech, free press, to assemble, to petition, and the separation of Church and State. I understand four out of the five. In the First Amendment we see that the Church is to be protected from interference from the state, not the other way around. The First Amendment states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The government can't make any laws stating that, for example, the US is a Catholic country, or create a Church of America. Also, the government can't make any laws which keep people from praticing their religion, like when the English banned the parties of the Catholic faith.

So where does this separation of Church and State come from? The phrase was introduced to the American political landscape by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. Jefferson writes, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jefferson reassured them that they could be free to parties their religion without governmental interference. Today the secular forces in America are using this idea of separation to achieve goals which are the exact opposite of what the term meant in 1802.

The secularists push to have religious symbols removed from public lands, and ban prayer in schools. The cases Engel v. Vital in 1962 and Abington Township v. Schempp in 1963 effectively banned prayer in schools, and are now being used to remove crosses from public lands (lets ignore the fact that they have no problem with symbols from other religions on public land). They claim that the Establishment Clause forbids making an official church and therefore bans schools from doing a prayer from any religion. What they ignore is the Free exercise Clause. If a group of people wish to pratice their religion don't they have a right to do so? Doesn't banning religion from public places violate Free exercise, Free Speech, and Right to assemble?

What the secularists are doing is trying to minimalist the importance of religion in private and public life. Through boycotts and lawsuits from groups like the ACLU, they have bullied their secular belief onto everyday Americans. They claim that they are protecting the rights of different religious, but they do it by ignoring the rights of Christian Americans.

Thursday, July 27, 2006

If they were all the 2nd...

Imagine the Bill of Rights (BoR, later in this post) interpreted like the 2nd Amendment. Some groups like to interpret "the people" as the collective, not individuals. In other words, the right to bear arms is a right of the states.
Let's see how the rest of the BoR would look when interpreted this way:
I. Congress can't establish a state religion, but each state can. They can also prevent the free exercise of religion, should they so choose. Each state shall be free to set up a press, and shall be able to speak for the collective state. States may hold peacable assemblies. States may petition the federal government for redress of grievances.
IV. The states have the right to be free of warrantless federal searches.
V. The only change would be that the states can take land without just compensation, though the feds can't. The states would take it and sell to the feds, though.
VI. Wait, this one said state when they obviously meant the people. It was supposed to read "an impartial jury of the people and district," not the State. It means the same thing, though.
IX. The rights that the Constitution spells out do not necessarily mean that the states don't have other rights.
X. The rights not given to the feds are for the States. Yeah, they say "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," but we all know that "the people" was just reiterating the emphasis on the states.
Of course, since the anti-gun people also like to talk about technology changes, the freedom of the press is only for the printing presses they had then, not the higher-tech ones now, and definitely not blogs or other electronic sources. The freedom of religion does not apply to Scientology or Mormonism. The right to assemble cannot include facilities with air conditioning, cannot use automobiles to get there, can't film the assembly, and can't use or distribute any printed materials (unless they are made with an old-style printing press). When you petition for redress of grivance, it should be handwritten and hand-delivered.
And that's just the 1st Amendment.
Finally, there's the argument as to which guns we should be able to have. Many anti-gunners claim to be okay with hunting. They would like us to have bolt-action rifles and might even allow a pump-action shotgun. Handguns, semi-autos, full-autos, and calibers not generally used in hunting are dangerous, they say. I'm sorry, but there's no right to hunt in the Constitution, just the right to keep and bear arms. If you really want to link the militia to it, as they generally do, we should have MORE access, since the militia is expected to own and be able to use weapons with a military purpose. As for those who say I'm not a part of the militia, allow me to cite US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
Males are part of the militia from age 17-45, and females who are in the National Guard are part of it (never mind the obvious discrepancy between the state-run militia and the National Guard).
It's just too bad some of the people (which, in this case, refers to individuals, not the states) who defend the 1st Amendment with great vigor don't recognize the 2nd's importance.

A Month with Illegals

UPDATE: Frank (the Minuteman) has responded to the show here. In case you weren't already sure that editing had adjusted his perceived views, he makes it clear.
I couldn't help myself...I had to watch the Morgan Spurlock show about a Minuteman spending 30 days living with illegals. Yeah, it was a crock. We see repeated examples of how life is hard for them, and that makes it okay for them to be here. A girl has studied hard and wants to go to Princeton. With a 3.8 GPA, she doesn't get in, though she will get to go to college (probably on our dime). The family lives in a tiny apartment, despite there being 7 of them. Life in Mexico was even worse. They do hard work that Americans can't do, since Americans have trouble getting an employer to pay less than minimum wage.
Some of the things you may have missed in looking at this illegal family: there were several TVs in the apartment, and probably cable...I don't have cable, and I have one TV (I watched the show at a friend's apartment); they had a Playstation 2, which isn't free (and I'm guessing they had a lot of good games, too); they had a computer, internet, and a printer (this might be useful, but don't complain to me that you are crammed into a tiny apartment when it has all the amenities); the only one speaking English fairly consistently was the girl trying to be as American as she could be (though arguing that she and her family should be here illegally); the Minuteman's flight from Cuba was just as traumatic as any experience they had, but his family still did it legally; INS probably won't be tracking that family down, despite their repeated admissions of being here illegally on national TV.
Yeah, they had a hard life in Mexico. So do a lot of other Mexicans, but some of them try to get here legally. It's not fair to them to have people sneaking over, essentially not waiting their turn. We need to build the wall, streamline the legal immigration process, and crack down on illegals. I would hope that the Minuteman that was on the show hasn't lost sight of reality now.