Missouri Rejects Obamacare!

By a vote of nearly 3:1, Missouri voters adopted Prop C on a ballot initiative to reject Obamacare.  Good for them!  Read about it here.

GOP: The R Stands for Retread

Two weeks ago, one election race was settled before it even started.  Why?  Because of the ineptitude of the Maryland Republican Party to put up ANY candidate to face off against sitting Attorney General, Doug Gansler.  Run Homer Simpson, run Mickey Mouse, dig up and run Joseph Stalin if you want but run anyone against this guy who is about as Constitutional as Sal Alinsky!  Don't just GIVE him the election!  Yet, that's what the Retread party did. 

My fellow Republican party members suffer from the same battered R syndrome as I do, and the mere fact that the 2:1 Dem advantage in this state is always looming, a tactical "non-victory" is not only not acceptable, but it is another notch in the bed post against the "repubics."  At least make their party spend to defend the seat and make the incumbent a target of the political audience at large.  If you force the defense of the seat, you at least put them on record to impliment policies that conservatives can live with (at worst) or be happy about (at best).  Considering Maryland is one of the must un-free states in the Union, at least make them sweat the election process some!  Don't give up before you even start.  We lost a major opportunity to differentiate on the issues and do good for the citizens of Maryland.

Let's think about several issues that have been prominately in the news lately and how a Constitutional AG would have helped make Maryland a more free state.  Immigration is a big topic with the Governor of our Southern neighbor making the statement today that Virginia has the right to enforce Federal immigration law.  While it is seriously doubtful that our MD Gov Owe'Malley would do that, a conservative AG would have conflicted with the Governor setting up a potential showdown between the chief legal officer and the chief law enforcement officer.  Considering it is the AG that offers summary opinions to the state's law enforcement authorities, we would have simply neutered the effect of our Gov to betray the Constitution and our security. 

Doug Gansler was also asked for an opinion on carrying of firearms in a post McDonald world.  Gansler, offered an opinion that was an effective punt on the issue, saying that Maryland's laws meet the "reasonable restriction standard" and thus negating any reason for changing our state from a discretionary issue state.  It should not take a Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit to force the state's hand, and what's worse, Gansler will spend unlimited tax payer dollars in defense of the unconstitutional Maryland laws.  

A local issue that was hanging in the balance was actually settled by Gansler last week when he issued an AG opinion that it is not "illegal" to video and voice record police officers performing their duties.  I'm so glad the AG waited until this week to offer his opinion.  It is issues like these that the Maryland Republican party could have and should have latched on to and made campaign issues.  Think of the commercials that could have been made.  Think about the debate topics that could have been argued in an effort to shape the policy and laws of Maryland.  Instead of amassing more power to a state government, the rights of the people could have been better defended and certainly better supported. 

Instead, we must resort to our walk of shame back to our "conservative playpen" that the left in this state "allows" us to have.  Good job Republican party of Maryland, go have your temper tantrum for your ineptitude and allow us who know what the hell we are doing to run the show! 

Got your Obamacare Flow Chart?

It's a wonder anyone can follow this.  It boggles the mind!  Just completely needless Government intervention when we didn't need it in the first place. 

Link Make sure you have Adobe Reader for the PDF and a full gigabyte worth of memory free and available to get it to load. 

BIG WEEK

Big Week was the week proceeding D-Day for the US Army Air Corp, but Big Week today means busy week at work.  I will hopefully find some time to get up some good material, but I'm not making any promises.  In the mean time, entertain yourself with daily education by reading www.drudgereport.com.

When Politicians Can't Understand Satire

Yesterday, I quickly wrote this blog post as to how the Second Amendment Foundation has sued the State of Maryland in an effort to do away with the discretionary gun permitting process that allows the exercise of the "bear" part of the 2A.

Today, the WaPo has picked up on the story, and so too has an anti-gun state Delegate (who shall, for this purpose will remain nameless).  My former Facebook friend and I had this little doozey back and forth prior to lunch time.

Delegate's Status:  The same gun-rights advocates who gutted Washington DC's gun-control laws are trying to do the same now in MD.  Here's wishing Attorney General Doug Ganslwer best of luck in his effort to keep guns off our streets.  I'm optimistic he will prevail in this court case:

FightinBluHen51 Reply:  And, tell me why the state should discriminate against a fundamental right?

I have to ask Delegate, several questions: Do you personally have a carry permit in this state (that you will openly admit to)? Additionally, with strained budgets, of which we have balanced through budget cuts and debt issuance, can the state afford the legal costs to fight a loosing battle?

The state already issues permits to those who can show "good reason", of which includes business owners, those who carry large amounts of cash, those connected, those who have documented threats, famous people, and rumored hypocritical politicians replete with their double standards. What makes any class of people above another? Why is the life of the average citizen in Maryland placed beneath the currency assets of others? Let me remind you, DC's loosing case meant the 2A is a fundamental and individual right and Chicago's loosing case meant that it applies to the states; looks like a pattern to me.

The fact that police are not obligated legally to protect the average citizen and that they have shown the inability to do so on a social level, means that I should not have to live in fear that a thug who has no regard for the average human being will attempt to murder me like the poor chap at Johns Hopkins. You think, Delegate, that I should just be the victim of pure random chance? I deserve, the natural right, to make the choice to defend myself against harm.

It is frustrating that the states surrounding me, literally, afford me the protections of the 2A but my privileges and immunities are abridged by the "righteous" in this state. In plain English, I can and I do carry in DE, WV, VA, and PA, legally, without the "blood" on the street that you claim happens.

 Delegates Reply: We will have to agree to disagree. I think that more guns in circulation will not make our society safer and will lead to even more deaths due to criminal abuse. I have heaerd too many stories of gruesome gun deaths in Baltimore and DC to be convinced by those who claim self defense. As far as I can tell far more people die from excessive guns than are saved by defensive gun use.

In any case, I'm happy to debate people who have honest disagreements with me and are willing to discuss. But I won't tolerate people misquoting me and simply fabricating statements as you have done (you quoted me as using the word "blood" which I didn't). I think when people have to resort to false statements to bolster their arguments, they have already lost. Goodbye.

Not shockingly, after that, he un-friended me.  I'm heart broken as I'm sure you can imagine, but let us look into this typical anti-civil right supporter's reply.  First, everyone is entitled to an opinion.  I said in my initial reply that the 2A is a choice.  It is not something to be forced on people if they don't want it, yet that's how this anti-gun Delegate acts in his forcing to disarm the country class.  Next, he makes a statement that is completely refuted by every FBI crime report in the last ten years, and in the data sets correlated and explained in both of John R. Lott's Books (More Guns Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns).  The anti even contradicts himself when he says "criminal abuse" admitting that criminals abuse the law, which includes firearms laws.

Obviously, my response was two fold.  I wanted to make a passionate statement that drew out exactly how this Delegate feels, in an election year.  Also, please note how he absolutely refused to answer whether or not he himself has a carry permit.  It is Quite ironic that he got so touchy with a hard hitting series of questions when he claims to want "honest disagreements" with me and is willing to "discuss."  I suppose the use of satirical dialect and dramatics to prove a point, and resorting to hitting the proverbial "ban" switch was how this elected representative chooses to deal with the "opposition."  It's such a shame when we're able to expose them for the sideways thinkers that they are, especially when there are online records to go back through and call them out on.

While at times my writing and line of questioning with the opposition has a flare for the dramatic, it certainly is entertaining to see the other side crack under pressure.  If one wants to call what I posted to this Delegate's page a "fabrication of statements", well then, your fabrication that the NRA is a bunch of "death peddlers" who want a "wild-west style free-for-all for every kind of gun imaginable," is equally and actually more, reprehensible.

No matter what, I'm sure it is extremely hard for them to be on the loosing side of the only issue that could really cost them their absolute power.  I'm sure they are quaking in their panties for the mere fact that an armed society who is ready for trouble when it comes to them, is a more independent society, which is precisely the thing these anti-gun, ruling elites despise.