Thursday, May 16, 2013
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Below is a copy of the letter I sent to the editors of the New York Daily News in regards to Mike Lupica’s editorial about the National Rifle Association and Governor Sarah Palin. I encourage everyone who reads this to also contact the editors so that they can hear the voices of America’s gun owners. This kind of lunacy cannot be allowed to continue in the media. Do not be silenced by elitist journalists who think they are omniscient. This country belongs to we, the people not to media elites.
This country has reached a crucial moment in our history. It seems as if the entire media, with the exception of a few outlets, and most of our government is hell-bent on destroying the Constitution one piece at a time. Generations not yet born are counting on us to protect their most basic human right: freedom. Be part of the solution and speak up.
Okay, pep talk over.
Read Lupica's editorial here
Mike Lupica's opinion piece that appeared in Sunday's edition of the New York Daily News is a detestable piece of journalism, which I am surprised you allowed to appear on the pages of your newspaper. The language used to describe members of the National Rifle Association and Governor Palin is sickening. I am a life member of the NRA and take offense to the characterization made by Mr. Lupica. I am not "mean, dumb, or angry" as Mr. Lupica puts it.
Mr. Lupica's piece is not flawed only in that is mischaracterizes millions of freedom-loving Americans, but his lack of knowledge about the Second Amendment discredits him from even writing such an article. In the middle of his rant, Mr. Lupica claims that the Second Amendment was written "about a thousand years ago for single-shot muskets." The Second Amendment was not written about a thousand years ago, it was written 222 years ago. Also, by Mr. Lupica's logic since the Second Amendment only applies to single-shot muskets then the First Amendment freedom of the press only applies to newspapers since television, radio, and the Internet did not exist. I would bet that might hit home for Mr. Lupica who is a frequent guest on television shows. Should his freedom of press be suspended when he appears on TV?
By printing this sad excuse for an editorial, you have given Mr. Lupica a platform on which to propagate this nonsense. If this piece represents your newspaper's stance on the Second Amendment then come out and say so, so that your subscribers will now how you feel about their constitutional liberties.
Friday, May 3, 2013
In December of 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union triggering a series of secessions of 10 other southern states. In April 1861, the first shots of the Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, SC.
It should not be a surprise then that the state causing a ruckus over ObamaCare is; you guessed it, South Carolina.
All that’s missing from a bill that would make the implementation of the Affordable Care Act a crime in South Carolina is a signature from Governor Nikki Haley.
This is the nullification crisis renewed. As a matter of policy, ObamaCare is a disaster and no matter what the Supreme Court says, I believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Nullification, however, is a touchy subject. We’ve been through this debate before.
As a matter of constitutional law, two parts of the constitution apply. Article VI, Clause 2, which is more commonly known as the Supremacy Clause, states that the laws of the United States are the supreme law of the land. Like it or not, ObamaCare is the law of the land and federal laws supersede state laws.
However, the Tenth Amendment also applies in this situation; it gives the state and the people all of the powers not expressly granted to one of the branches of government in the Constitution. That is a large breadth of power.
The question for debate is then is which constitutional provision trumps the other. The answer to that question is not simple because ObamaCare is such a large and cumbersome law. It does not apply to just one area of health care, but several.
The Supreme Court ruled that the taxing power of Congress allows the government to compel individuals to purchase health insurance or be charged penalty.
The problem with the South Carolina nullification law is that it makes implementing any part of ObamaCare a crime. If the bill were more specific, such as referring to health care exchanges or pre-existing condition coverage, they may have a better case.
In this case, conservatism and constitutionalism are clashing. The constitution says that federal laws supersede state laws, whether the state agrees with them or not. Conservatism does not support the idea of coercing citizens to purchasing something they don’t want.
This nullification bill creates a dilemma for constitutional conservatives, who are pulled by two equal forces, their constitutional obedience and their conservative ideology.
Source: Fox News
Thursday, May 2, 2013
I am not a huge fan of soccer. In fact, watching the game bores me to tears. My hometown of Orlando, however, is working towards getting an MLS franchise and the future of this endeavor rests on passage of S.B. 1828 in the Florida Legislature.
The bill, which is mainly a tax administration bill, contains an amendment that would clear the way for Orlando to build a new soccer stadium. A new facility is a huge lure for new franchises. The new Amway Center in downtown Orlando courted a minor league hockey team this past season, the ECHL’s Orlando Solar Bears.
There is often a lot of controversy at the state and local level when new sports stadiums are being built. Taxpayers want the team to foot the bill and vice-versa.
The fact of the matter remains that stadiums usually produce a return on investment for municipalities that provide funds for them. There is a huge multiplier effect when it comes to professional sports.
Stadium construction and maintenance alone creates hundreds of jobs. That does not count the large team of people it takes to manage the team and its game day operations. Moreover, local restaurants and hotels benefit from fans, especially those who come from out of town to see a game.
I am always an advocate for building new sporting facilities, and not because I am huge sports fan. The community as a whole benefits from the presence of a sports franchise, especially a major league one.
Source: The Florida Senate
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
A recent series of high profile shootings has triggered an effort to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. Ever since the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the president and top lawmakers have been parading around parents and children to foster public support for more gun control laws.
Senator Dianne Feinstein has been leading the charge but she suffered a recent setback when her proposed assault weapons ban was rejected by her Senate colleagues. Bans on certain types of weapons, magazines of certain size, and expanded background checks are the most commonly talked about proposals from gun-grabbing politicians. The irony of this that none of these proposed restrictions will help prevent mass shootings like the one in Newtown.
Criminals ignore laws. That is what makes them criminals. Much like putting up a “gun-free zone” sign won’t stop a shooter; universal background checks won’t stop criminals from obtaining guns on the black market or through other illegal means. Pushing for restrictions on magazine size is just ludicrous. Ten rounds are sufficient if you only have one intruder in your house that’s standing still. What happens when there are two intruders, or more?
The wonderful thing about the Constitution is that it can be read and understood by people who do not have a law degree. The language of the Second Amendment is plain. Unfortunately, its purpose has been ignored. Some who think the amendment is outdated believe that the end goal is to provide for a militia. That is a means to an end. The ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide for the security of a free state.
The right to bear arms is meant to protect the people from a tyrannical government. The American creed says that freedom is a natural human right that is granted by God, not by government. Therefore, it is an inherent right for people to protect their freedom from those who may wish to trample on it.
The right to bear arms is an individual right, not a collective one. One person’s right to own a firearm is not tied to their membership or participation in a group. This holds true for all of the other protections in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech, private property rights, and due process rights are bestowed on an individual basis. Why is the right to keep and bear arms treated differently than every other right?
Political elites who seek to undermine the Constitution, including its amendments, seek to undermine to spirit of America. This country belongs to the people, not to a ruling class. Temporary politicians do not have the authority to rewrite the Constitution to achieve a petty political goal.