The Maverick--John McCain

John McCain likes the label maverick. He sees himself as an independent, unconventional individual who will not allow anyone else to tell him what to do. I like that in the Senator. However, there are some questions that must be asked about things he has done. I even like it when he reaches across the aisle and works with members of the other party but I must question the hands he shakes.

McCain-Feingold is a biggy for a number of reasons. Anyone associated with politics knows that while you are working on something like McCain-Feingold others are working on ways to get around it. The ink wasn't dry on this legislation before Richard Gephart told allies of the Democrat Party that things like the 537s that we see would be allowed and in place. Lo and behold they were but John Q. Citizen was left out in the dark. Feingold is one of the most liberal senators in the Senate. Why did McCain do this, something he now kind of regrets, and why did he select Feingold as his partner? Why wasn't another Republican on the bill? Why wasn't a more moderate Democrat on the bill?

Then there is the matter of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty of illegal immigrants bill. McCain now says he gets it and he favors border security first. Senator what you must say is "I am not in favor of amnesty".
Of all people why Kennedy particularly if you want the conservative vote in November of 2008. Remember when Bush reached out to Kennedy on the No Child Left Behind bill. The moment things started going south on that legislation it became the Bush No Child Left Behind Bill. Does McCain really believe Kennedy will stay with him? Last time I looked Kennedy was endorsing Obama.

Senator McCain has additional problems to overcome. While his life time American Conservative Union rating was touted at 85% last year it was 65%. His rating has been declining for a number of years.

McCain's pro-life stance is questionable. He is a supporter of research on embryo stem cell research. He supports this despite the fact that all the evidence is pointing toward adult stem cell research for a success story.

His stand on the Second Amendment is shaky. While I have yet to see a rating from the National Rifle Association, I believe it will come out around a C. This can cost him big time in a lot of states including Pennsylvania.

Then there is his hooking of his wagon to the global warming star. Within a year or two, maybe sooner, this issue will be seen for what it is, the greatest hoax on the American public. The tide has already started to turn as reports are now coming out indicating that we will most likely see global cooling. I'll wait to see that one too before running out for my heavy sweaters. Does the climate change, you betcha. Is it cyclical? Yes it is. Can we really do anything about it? Not really.

So there we have it. Three candidates running for President of the United States, are you happy with them? Has the thought passed through you mind, can't we do better? Hard to tell which one to vote for because they all look alike from my perspective. Not a classical conservative in the bunch.

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". Thus says the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States.

Over the past four decades this amendment has come under tremendous attack by the Progressive left in this nation. Oh yes, we are told that our hunting rights will be protected. Ms. Hillary, recently seen tossing back a shot and beer, has now told us about her day in a duck blind where she shot a "banded" duck. Her opponent chided her on taking her "six gun" into a duck blind. Word of caution here, do not go into a duck blind with Barack Obama.

Had these two presidential candidates, and others before them , tried to convince our colonial ancestors that they some how needed the Second Amendment to protect their hunting rights, they would have been laughed off the farm. Our ancestors did not need a Constitutional guarantee to hunt. Guns were a way of life, a tool if you will, that you took with you for two reasons, to hunt animals and to protect yourself against unforeseen dangers whether man or beast.

The Progressives want to argue that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. Rather it is there for state militias. To the gun regulating Progressives, guns should be in the hands of what they perceive to be the modern militia, the National Guard and Reserves. According to my Compact Oxford Dictionary a militia is "a military force made up of civilians, used to supplement a regular army in an emergency".In short, a militia is a citizens army. During colonial times men were expected to report to the town square with weapons and ammunition that they supplied. They were, for the most part, not in uniform, and they practiced military drills on the town square in order that they could act in an effective manner during an emergency. They did not gather there to learn how to make decoys, call turkey, or stalk big game animals.

The Second Amendment is about self defense. You have the God given, not governmental given, right to protect yourself and your country. You can be called upon to this day to be a member of a citizens' militia where you would be required to bring your own gun and ammunition.

The United States Supreme Court recently heard a case involving the stringent Washington, DC gun ban. Under this ban, for all intents and purposes, citizens of the District could not own a gun. A lower court had decided that the ban was to restrictive and that the Second Amendment was an individual right. This decision was appealed to the High Court. Among the briefs and arguments was documentation that in modern times citizen militias have been created. One such example was in the state of Maryland during World War II. The governor, looking to the gun clubs on the Eastern Shore of his state, called on such clubs to serve in the capacity of militias because so many men had gone into the regular military and, along with the National Guard, had been called up for duty due to the war. The men in the gun clubs were expected to bring their own guns and ammunition and serve as the military force in the state. Some 60 plus briefs were filed on this case, a case that is going to make it clear once and for all that the Second Amendment is an individual right just like all the other rights found in the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments added to the Constitution. It's about time that this issue be put to rest so that we can rest in peace knowing that we will be able to protect ourselves from the interlopers on our rights whether they be foreign or domestic.