About Me

Name: Rhudd Draigiau
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

Just who are the racists now?

Posted by Rhudd Draigiau on Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:00:00 AM
With all of the controversy surrounding Obama’s nomination of Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, the Democrats are already calling the Republicans racist enough the weak-kneed  Republicans haven’t even taken a stand yet.

Never mind that Sotomayor has already demonstrated that she is a racist hard liberal judge, the Republicans are “racists” if they even asked Sotomayor a hard question; they are “racists” if they dare to, God forbid, vote against her, they are “Latino-hating racists” and they will attacked relentlessly by the Democrats, the MSM, the Hollywood celebrities and every sanctimonious liberal; and they will be attacked as vile “racists” and divisive for daring to challenge one of Obama’s nominees. And don't forget that Democrat Senator Chris Dodd ws stated that he "will never allow a Latino on the Supreme Court" when Bush nominated Manuel Estrada. The liberals even referred Estrada as that "guy from CHiPs." As if this blatant race-baiting isn’t bad enough, Obama had the audacity to claim that a President has every right to nominate whoever he wants. (He must have been brain-dead all during the Bush administraton.

The Republicans need to stand-up to Obama and the Democrats; they need to make it clear that they are challenging her because she is clearly unqualified for a seat on the Supreme Court. If the Republicans don't start fighting back, the party will be finished.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The 2nd Amendment - An Historical Perspective

Posted by Rhudd Draigiau on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3:00:00 PM
The following was published as a Guest Viewpoint in the Binghamton, NY Press & Sun-Bulletin on June 9, 2008.

Gun advocates ignore meaning of 'bearing arms' through history

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says: "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."

This is to give a little insight into this matter which is so blatantly misinterpreted by the "Blathering Class" and other "federal authority" opponents. In the United States, the meaning of "bear arms" is a matter of recent dispute and political debate. One argument is whether the right to "bear arms" relates to the right of an individual to have arms, or whether it relates to a military service meaning, as with the functioning and maintenance of a militia, which is the introductory portion of the amendment.

Many historians have published peer-reviewed research which shows that prior to and through the 18th century, usage of the expression "bear arms" referred to the profession of military service, as opposed to the use of firearms by civilians.

In late-18th century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. A review of the Library of Congress' database of congressional proceedings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals the 30 uses of "bear arms" and "bearing arms" in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States' Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia.

As an example, the expression "bear arms" is contained in the Declaration of Independence in the sense of military service on a warship, as part of an indictment of the king of Great Britain for conscripting colonial sailors to serve on British warships: "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands."

For those who maintain that every able-bodied man in the country is a member of the "militia," check Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which provides explicit authority and character for the Militia: "The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Historical Background

It is quite obvious that the author is highly biased against gun owners – those he calls the "Blathering Class" and other “federal authority” opponents. I would also guess that he does not understand the meaning of "federal." Advocates of private gun ownership are typically conservatives who support federalism – the division of authority between the federal, or national, government and state governments.

His historical understanding of the issue is decidedly lacking. He states that “[m]any historians have published peer-reviewed research” but fails to mention any of them as reference. He refers to the debates of the Continental, Confederation, and the United States’  Congresses [sic] between 1774 and 1821 but it is obvious that he hasn’t bothered to read them. The quotation from the Declaration of Independence has absolutely no relevance to the 2nd Amendment; it deals with the status of prisoners of war – the first thing a military force would do when capturing an enemy combatant is to disarm him.

Let’s look at some of the historical background of the 2nd Amendment. The first place to start is with James Madison – the Father of the Bill of Rights. Madison authored the Bill of Rights and then proposed them to Congress. His wording for the 2nd Amendment was “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: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”1 He makes it quite clear that the right to keep and bear arms was not predicated on an established militia; notice that the first clause is separated from the rest by a semicolon meaning that it stands on its own, it is not dependent on the rest of the sentence. He also states that no person who bears arms can be compelled to render military service. I should point out that until the Civil War, standing state militias were rare, mostly the southern states had militias to maintain public order and capture escaped slaves; the inadequacies of the state militias during the War of 1812 lead to the establishment of a standing federal army. Besides, pre-Civil War state militias did not provide weapons to soldiers or training in their use, they had to provide their own and were expected to know how to use them.

Next, it would do well to actually refer to the Congressional debates that the author mentions. The following is from the Senate Journal of September 9, 1789: "A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the common defence, shall not be infringed."2  This wording would have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to members of a militia. The Senate rejected this wording in favor of the wording as it is now.

Court Cases

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)3  – This was the first 2nd Amendment case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Miller had been convicted of transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. Part of the ruling reads “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shot gun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.  Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” While the court did not address the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, it held that a sawed-off shotgun was not a typical weapon in a militia. The court also emphasized that when men were called for service, they were expected to provide their own arms. This ruling governed the type of weapon, not the right (and duty) to keep and bear arms.

There have been a few other cases that cite U.S. v. Miller: Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003); Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 124 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115, 128 (2d Cir. 1984); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977).

United States v Emerson (2001) of the 5th Circuit4 - this case stated that “the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear arms... regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia.” This is an obvious affirmation that the 2nd Amendment provides for an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Further Reading

An excellent discussion of the 2nm Amendment is the Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General, Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right5 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Roseanne vs. Rush

Posted by Rhudd Draigiau on Saturday, May 10, 2008 4:00:00 PM

Brent Bozell, of the Media Research Center, posted an article on May 6, 2008 titled "Roseanne vs. Rush". "On April 28 she suggested leftists should ignite riots at the Democratic convention in Denver. 'We should, a bunch of us, go there and repeat the Democratic Convention from Chicago. Like, let's just cause a bunch of trouble!' There's even a leftist group called "Recreate 68" building up the rioting nostalgia." However, local news media accused Rush Limbaugh of inciting the riots. Even Democratic Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado bought into the left-wing media and sent an angry letter to Clear Channels radio asking them to reprimand Rush. Apparantly, even he can't stomach Rosanne or he would have known who really inciting the riot.

What is really striking is that the liberals would conduct such a violent protest of their own party's nominating conventions. Rosanne's suggestion that the liberals recreate the riots of '68 makes absolutely no sense. With her comment "Join us in the streets of Denver as we resist a two-party system that allows imperialism and racism to continue unrestrained", is she accusing the Democratic party of allowing unrestrained imperialism and racisom? (Considering Obama's candidacy and the left's fawning over him, the charge of racism is obvious.) Have the liberal's forgotten that Richard Nixon was elected in 1968, largely because the Democrats couldn't nominate an electable candidate?
 
While I'm all for abolishing the Democratic party, it only makes sense to attack your opponent; but then liberals were never known for being insightful. Also, the lefts' attack on Rush only proves their willful blindness to their party's dysfunctional schizophrenia.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Voter photo IDs

Posted by Rhudd Draigiau on Friday, May 02, 2008 9:00:00 AM
Syndicated columnist DeWayne Wickham wrote a column "Voter photos make sense - but not the way it's done in Indiana" on May 2, 2008. He says he agrees that voters should show a photo ID. He just thinks that Indiana's law goes too far.

The Indiana law, upheld by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision, requires a government issued photo id to vote, but also allows voters who don't have a photo id to cast a conditional vote and then verify their identity within 10 days. They are also allowed to avoid this requirement by swearing that they are indigent or have a religious reason for not being photographed. Wickham thinks that this is just to onerous.

According to him "It's hard to believe Indiana's Republican-controlled Legislature didn't tailor its law to suppress the votes of Democratic voters who are disproportionately poor and more likely than others to have a hard time meeting these requirements." So, the majority of Indiana's poor are Democrat. Why? For decades, the Democrats have been "championing" the poor, enacting more welfare laws to "help" the poor but which actually keep them poor. Poor Democrats should wake up and vote Republican so they can share in the prosperity enjoyed by Republicans.

To get back to the voter ID law, Wickham advocates a separate voter photo ID card that can supposedly be issued by portable card making machines. How would this be any better than a state issued driver's license or non-driver photo ID card? It seems that his objection to state issued ID's is the cost. So, who's going to pay for every voter registration office in every voter district in the country to implement voter photo IDs? The affluent Republican taxpayers, I guess.

But there also a problem when a voter moves to another voting district. They would have to a new voter photo ID which would be payed for by those affluent Republican taxpayers. With state issued IDs, all a person has to do is write their new address on the back of their ID; they don't need to have a new ID issued unless they requested and paid for one. (That's how it works in NY anyway.) Besides, even if portable card machines were used, wouldn't a voter still be required to prove his or her identity and U.S. citizenship? I guess not; after all, the Democrats want to allow anyone to vote regardless of their status as citizens.

Wickman is just spouting typical Democrat logic (or, rather, illogic).

Update 5/6/2008
Today's Washington Times published an editorial by Bruce Fein who is supposedly a constitutional lawyer. He chides Congress and state legislatures of being ignorant of the Constitution. According to him:
"Most members of Congress and state legislatures, however, are ignorant of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. They generally are unable to distinguish between the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's Farewell Address, and Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Their knowledge of freedom of speech, the Commerce Clause, habeas corpus, or separation of powers is sophomoric. They do not appreciate that the Constitution nowhere mentions political parties or hints that voting rules could be skewed for the sole objective of favoring one party over another."

He is a bit confused by the Constitution himself. He also seems to be ignorant of the concept of "original intent." He claims that "The establishment clause of the First Amendment similarly prohibits laws inspired to advance religion." It does not. The original intent of the Establishment Clause, according to our Founding Fathers, is to prevent Congress from establishing a national religion. He also parrots others who so often wrongly expound upon the "wall of separation between church and state" by forgetting that there is more to the Religious Freedom clause of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

To get back to the issue of Indiana's voter photo id law, Mr. Fein would do well to recall a couple of other provisions of the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 4

The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make of alter such Regulations, except as to the places of chusing Senators.

To put it in plain English, as if it isn't plain enough, each state makes its own laws regarding elections and only Congress, not the Supreme Court or any other Federal court, can change those laws.

Article II, Section 1, para 2

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

Again, the Constitution makes it quite clear that each state legislature makes its own laws regarding elections.

Mr. Fein, just like Mr. Wickham, accuses Indiana's legislature of partisan politics. He also parrots the fact that the law disproportionately affects the poor, elderly, disabled and minority Democrats.

Tags: voting  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The 1st Amendment - the most misunderstood amendment

Posted by Rhudd Draigiau on Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:00:00 AM
There has been a great deal of confusion concerning the phrase "wall of separation between church and state." Even Supreme Court justices have misinterpreted it.

First of all, the phrase is from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Assoc. of Danbury, CT after he was elected president. (It has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.) After Jefferson was elected president, the Danbury Baptist Assoc. wrote to Jefferson about their concern that the Baptists would face discrimination. Jefferson wrote to them, using the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" to assure them that the federal government would not interfere with their religious practices. Also, the letter was a private letter and as such, is not binding on the federal government nor on subsequent presidents. It certainly does not attach itself to the Constitution. The Federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, has violated their constitutional authority when ruling against Christianity - it does not have the authority to interpret the Constitution's meaning or intent, it can only interpret laws enacted by Congress.

To all who claim secularism, and public schools, do not discriminate against Christianity: It is discriminatory for a school to suspend a student for drawing a picture that contains a Christian theme; It is discriminatory for the ACLU or anyone else to force the removal of Christian symbols from public venues (the Constitution does not afford you any protections from being offended); it is particularly discriminatory every time the ACLU files a lawsuit against public expression of Christianity but refuses to do the same against Islamic schools which do teach Islamic theology; It is discriminatory to prohibit the Boys Scouts from using public facilities when those same facilities are allowed to be used by any other private group – the 1st Amendment also guarantees the “right to peaceably assemble.” One final point: The 1st Amendment states “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first part was intended to prevent Congress from establishing a national religion, the second part is self-explanatory.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

John Kerry’s Service Records

Posted by Rhudd Draigiau on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 9:00:00 AM

Inconsistencies and Irregularities

John Kerry has made his service in Vietnam and his “heroism” a major theme of his 2004 presidential campaign while at the same time attacking President Bush’s military record. In a speech to the Senate 1992, defending then presidential candidate Clinton against accusations of avoiding the draft, he made this statement: “We do not need to divide America over who served and how”. Obviously, he changes what should be a core value when it suits his agenda.

While Kerry demanded the Pres. Bush make his military records publically available (which Pres. Bush did), Kerry made only selected record available, he never made all of his records available. This document takes a look at the military records that he did post on his website and points out the inconsistencies and irregularities among those documents.

Silver Star

Kerry has three citations for his Silver Star which, in itself, is highly unusual. It’s not uncommon for a second citation to be issued to correct factual errors, but that’s not the case here. One of the substantial differences between the first, signed by Admiral Zumwalt, and the second citation, signed by Admiral Hyland, is that the first citation includes the phrase “Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber”. This is a claim that was made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and that Kerry has denied. The second citation omits this phrase. Also, the second citation is much shorter indicating that a whole section of the first citation was left out of the second citation. The second citation was issued not to correct any factual errors, but to sanitize the first one.

It should be noted that, according to the first citation, Kerry violated Navy protocol by leaving his swift boat. By doing this, he placed the lives of his crew-mates in danger since the couldn’t leave without him. Also, according to other records in his files, the Viet Cong was wounded by a weapons operator on his gun-boat. Under the Geneva Conventions, a wounded enemy combatant, if captured, is to be given medical aid and held until he can be placed in confinement. Kerry, however, shot and killed him. Since the Viet Cong was running away from Kerry, than it is obvious that Kerry shot him in the back. This constitutes willful murder.

So why was the third citation necessary? The answer is quite simple. According to military regulations, all citations for the Silver Star and medals of higher rank must be signed by the Secretary of the appropriate military service, in his case, the Secretary of the Navy. The third citation bears the signature of Secretary of the Navy John Lehman. There are three problems with this:
  • Since the first two citations were issued by admirals, they were improperly issued.
  • John Lehman was Secretary of the Navy between 1981 and 1987, long after the events occurred.
  • When asked about the citation, Lehman said the he never saw the citation and he never signed the citation. This makes it a fraudulently obtained. What makes this incomprehensible is that all Kerry had to do was asked the Navy to reissue the citation in which case it would have been signed by the Secretary of the Navy.
All of this casts serious doubts about whether he did in fact deserve the Silver Star.

The “V” Device

The “V” device, which stands for valor, is authorized for medals that aren’t normally awarded for heroism. The fact is that the Navy, nor any of the other services, has ever authorized the “V” device for the Silver Star because it would be redundant. Also, none of his citations contain an authorization for it. The only reference to the “V” device on his Silver Star is in his DD214 where it lists his medals. It lists his Bronze Star with “V” device, and right underneath it, it lists the Silver Star with “V” device. This was very likely a typographical error by a clerk who wasn’t paying close attention to what he was typing.

In 1996, questions were raised concerning two “V” devices worn by then Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Boorda. Because of the controversy, he committed suicide. Kerry then made some rather critical comments about Admiral Boorda. The Boston Herald quoted Kerry as saying: 

“Is it wrong? Yes, it is very wrong. Sufficient to question his leadership position? The answer is yes, which he clearly understood,” said Sen. John Kerry, a Navy combat veteran who served in Vietnam.

The Boston Globe quoted more of Kerry’s comments:

“In a sense, there's nothing that says more about your career than when you fought, where you fought and how you fought,” Kerry said.

“If you wind up being less than what you’re pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value and self-esteem and your sense of how others view you.”

Of Boorda and his apparent violation, Kerry said: “When you are the chief of them all, it has to weigh even more heavily.”

When the Senate passed a resolution of compassion for Admiral Boorda, Kerry didn’t sign it. Kerry doesn’t hold himself to the same standard that he expected of a highly decorated officer whose career was much more distinguished then his. He still has the “V” device on his Silver Star. Kerry is just plain morally corrupt.

Early release from active duty

Kerry has accused President Bush of receiving preferential treatment to leave his National Guard service to conduct political campaigns. Kerry accused Bush of being “AWOL”. Aside from the fact that the commander of Bush’s unit denies this, Kerry fails to mention that he was released from active duty early.

In November of 1969, he requested to be released from active duty early so he could pursue his own political campaign. Release from Active Duty. In his request for early release, he states that his term of obligated service would have ended in December, 1969 and that he voluntarily extended it to August 1970. This contradicts his Enlistment Contract. He enlisted on Feb. 18, 1966 and agreed to serve six years. Yet, in the Release from Active Duty file, cited above, he was released from active duty to inactive duty in the reserves two years early. He received better preferential treatment than he claims Bush did.

Vietnam Service Medal

Kerry has four campaign stars on his Vietnam Service Medal, indicating that he served through 4 campaigns in Vietnam. His DD215 which is issued to correct errors in his DD214, contains the following correction:

Delete: Vietnam Service Medal
Add:     Vietnam Service Medal with 4 bronze stars

Kerry was in Vietnam from Nov. 17, 1968 through early Apr. 1969. During that time, only two campaigns were declared: Vietnamese Counteroffensive Phase VI (Nov. 2, 1968 thru Feb. 22, 1969) and Tet 69/Counteroffensive (Feb. 23, 1969 thru Jun. 8, 1969). Also, in the file labeled Vietnam Service Medal, there is a copy of orders dated Mar. 27, 1969 that clearly states that he was eligible for the Vietnam Service Medal with 2 stars.

Purple Hearts

Kerry claims that he earned three Purple Hearts, which entitled him to return stateside after only four months. His records contain three citations for the Purple Heart. The first one was for injuries received on Dec. 2, 1968, the second one for injuries received on Feb. 20, 1969, and the third one for injuries received on Mar. 13, 1969. Yet the document titled Personnel Casualty Report mentions only two combat related injuries: one for Feb. 20, 1969 and one for Mar. 13, 1969. Why doesn’t it mention his supposed wounds of Dec 2, 1968? 

There are plenty of reasons to question Kerry’s service and too many inconsistencies and irregularities that Kerry needs to explain.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »