Reflections From a Murky Pond

During the CNN/YouTube Republican Debate on November 28th, 2007, Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee wittily responded to a question asking if he would endorse more money would be put into the nation’s space exploration program. The Republican presidential candidate outlined one very special plan he’d consider for NASA’s exploration of space.

“(Sic)…Maybe Hillary can be on the first rocket to Mars,”

— Mike Huckabee,
CNN/YouTube Republican Debate, Question #29

This sounds like a very good idea to me, though the negative effects Hillary might have if Mars does turn out to have life on it worry me a bit. She’s a bit too much like Marvin the Martian and no where’s near enough like Thuvia or Dejah Thoris for my comfort or titulation.

All joking aside, Mr. Huckabee seemed sincere about advancing the space program and cited many of the practical advances in materials, technology and medicine that have resulted from our effort to date.

Source: CNN’s Adam P. Levy

Senator Hillary Clinton with the apparent collusion of CNN managed to get one her campaign staffers insinuated into the November 28, 2007 The CNN/YouTube Republican Debate. Brigadier General (Ret) Keith Kerr, a member of Hillary’s LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee, was allowed by CNN to pose questions regarding homosexuals in the US military to the Republican candidates without it ever being declared that he was a member of a Democratic candidate’s political engine.

You can say one thing about Sen. Clinton – she has a brutally firm grasp of realpolitiks. It just has to take balls of solid brass to infiltrate one the opposition’s debates. I seriously doubt than anyone since Pres. Richard Nixon has had the unmitigated gall and temerity to interfere with the US Presidential Campaign and the operation of the Press and Media to this overt degree.

Huzzah Hillary! Huzzah! Only the Dread Lord Cthulhu has more tentacles than thou!

Clinton’s campaign spokesman Phil Singer has of course denied that her campaign had any knowledge ahead of time that Kerr was going to participate in the debate, and Kerr said he did not inform the campaign of his plans. Much as President Ronald Reagan “couldn’t recollect” and Colonel Oliver North never informed the Oval Office about anything involving the Iran-Contra affair.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper, the debate and panel moderator for the CNN/YouTube Republican Debate, also denied having any prior knowledge of Gen. Kerr’s political ties to Clinton. Mr. Cooper claims that CNN did not know that Gen. Kerr held a position within the Clinton presidential campaign and that had they known, CNN would have either disclosed the association prior to allowing Ge. Kerr to speak or would have not used Kerr’s question at all.

Hmm…Out magazine recently ranked Cooper as the 2nd most powerful homosexual in America and Gen. Kerr has been a long time, vocal gay rights advocate who appeared on CNN twice in 2003 discussing his opposition to the policy that says service men and women will be dismissed from service for revealing their gay orientation.

I suppose there could be no connection whatsoever, but it seems to me that it wouldn’t be that hard for Hillary or her campaign office to convince Cooper that CNN shouldn’t look to closely into Kerr’s affiliations and background.

For himself Gen. Kerr claims that this was all done under his own initiative and that it had nothing to do with his involvement in Sen. Clinton’s presidential campaign. He has been a staunch supporter of Sen. Kerry in the past and has remained active in improving the situation of the LGBT community in the US Military. He has been vehement when denouncing the US military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Yet when questioned by FOX News, Kerr said that CNN “Never Asked” him if he is a Clinton supporter so he “Never Told!”

Ladies and gentlemen, this is how the game of politics is supposed to be played 😉 This is realpolitik in its most nakedly brazen form. Sen. Clinton doesn’t have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s advantage of the Council of Guardians who could veto any presidential candidate they don’t approve of. What she has is the firmest grasp of Machiavellian politics I’ve heard of in decades and huge political and economic engine gifted to her by her husband Bill.

Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Hillary R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn!

Both the Republicans and her Democrat opponents need to wake up and be prepared. This election isn’t part of the political process; it’s part of the realpolitikal process. The gloves are off, and everyone had better be prepared to play the game the Hillary does or be prepared to lose.

Can’t choose a candidate for the US 2008 Presidential elections?

None of the candidates look like they could get the job done?

Looking to bring back Old School government?

Because my previous post, 2nd Amendment On Trial, had generated a goodly amount of interest and commentary I felt that it might be interesting and potentially valuable to make a post regarding the original form and intent – as best as can be derived through historical sources – of the Second Amendment.

On June 8, 1789 James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives. Within was contained what was to become the 2nd Amendment. His original text follows:

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.

— Annals of Congress,
House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session: pp. 451

It is pertinent to note that The Bill of Rights was not originally intended to composed of numbered amendments to be added at the end of the Constitution. These Rights instead were to be inserted into the existing text of the Constitution. The Second Amendment was to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all which are individual civil rights asserted by individuals as a defense against government tyranny.

On August 17, 1789 The House entered the following reworded 2nd Amendment into the House Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

— Annals of Congress,
House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session: pp. 771

The House of Representatives debated the revised Amendment until August 24. This debate primarily centered on the possibility that the future US government could use the “but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms” clause to disband the militia. This was resolved on August24, 1789 and a reworded the 2nd Amendment was sent to the U.S. Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

— Journal of the Senate of the United States of America,
Volume 1: pp. 63

This modification to the Amendment prevented the government from using the religion of any of its people as a means to disband the US militia made up of the body of the people. They couldn’t claim that Thou Shalt Not Kill or An It Harm None, Do As You Please were religious mandates that would prevent States or communities from raising a fighting force in their own defense.

Sadly, between September 4 and September 9, 1789 the Senate voted to change significantly the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause. The final version to leave the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

— Journal of the Senate of the United States of America,
Volume 1: pp. 71

This abbreviated version of 2nd Amendment was sent to the House of Representatives on September 9, 1789 and was voted on and accepted on September 21, 1789. Strangely the Amendment was modified somewhat during the course of this – without further ratification by the Senate. The final version that the House sent to the States for ratification was:

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.

— Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States,
Volume 1: pp. 305

As you can see the 2nd Amendment underwent a great deal of revision just in course of its birth. What we have today bears little resemblance to what was originally intended and written. History is unclear on the reasons for many of the revisions. One thing remained clear in the course of all the debates and revisions though – the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was to guarantee that the People had the means to protect their liberty from the possible tyranny of our own government.

According to FOXNews, after a week of delaying their decision on whether or not to hear the case, the US Supreme court confirmed Tuesday, November 20th, 2007 that they would in fact finally decide if the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias.

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” in nearly 70 years.

The justices’ decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday’s announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290. Arguments will be heard early next year. It looks like, after decades of confusion and speculation, the official interpretation of what rights are guaranteed by the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment will finally be decided. To my mind it’s long overdue.