Tuesday, November 24, 2009

US Park Service: Legal Ramifications of Hudson Valley Park Unknowable

In response to the November 3rd Kingston Freeman article stating that Maurice Hinchey has proposed a bill to turn the Hudson Valley into a federal park, I have (a) contacted Congressman Hinchey's office for a copy of the bill and (b) inquired with the National Parks Service as to the legal implications of designating the Hudson Valley a national park.

In the Adirondack Park, a state park, construction of new septic tanks has been largely stopped and much residential construction is limited or illegal. New jobs rarely enter the Adirondack Park. If a citizen of Long Lake, Blue Mountain Lake or Speculator wants to start a business of any stature, they will have to move elsewhere. In the Town of Olive, New York City and State own about 70 percent of the land, so development is largely impossible. The city reservoir is located in Olive.

In the future, stricter regulations concerning wood burning, hunting and home sales are likely to ensue from various federal laws, specifically including the "cap and trade" proposal currently before Congress. Thus, law directly governing many ordinary citizens, specifically including those adhering to "alternative" lifestyles, farming, communal living and the like can easily become directly affected.

The following is an exchange I had with a representative of the US Park Service who says it is unknowable how much flexibility the Park Service will have in implementing regulation--or how responsive they will have to be to various external pressure groups. For example, Congressman Hinchey is a direct recipient of campaign contributions from numerous political action committees (PACs) in the agribusiness field. Might there be a tie-in between Hinchey's agribusiness interests and his focus on instituting park regulations?

Langbert: I live in the Catskills about 25 miles from Kingston, NY. In the November 3 issue of the Kingston Freeman, a local newspaper, there was an article that stated that Congressman Maurice Hinchey has proposed a bill to turn the Hudson Valley into a national park. I have a number of questions for you as the article was not descriptive the effects of this policy.

a. What regulations normally accompany the establishment of a federal park in a developed region? Here in New York we have the Catskill Park, in which I happen to live, and the Adirondack Park. There are regulations that apply in the Catskill and Adirondack Parks that do not apply elsewhere.

b. Do you have a model or a developed set of regulations for another park region that would be similar to the regulations that would be put into effect should the Hinchey bill pass?

c. What would be the effect of establishing a park on economic freedom in the following areas:

--building houses
--building septic tanks
--sale of real estate
--liens on property not deemed environmentally acceptable?

d. Would there be an effect on construction such as limitations on the amount of real estate development, and/or restrictions on how sewage systems are designed, and/or limits on size, drainage and other environmental effects of real estate construction?

e. Would there be effects on hunting, the introduction of wildlife, the use of firearms and/or on fishing.

Park Service: DEAR MR. LANGBERT: Thank you for your thoughtful inquiry regarding the proposed study of the suitability and feasibility of creating some form of national park system unit in the Hudson River Valley. I note that Congressman Hinchey's bill would require the NPS to examine approaches that would (1) encompass large areas of non-Federal lands within their designated boundaries, (2) foster public and private collaborative arrangements for achieving National Park Service objectives, and (3) protect and respect the rights of private land owners. I have referred your inquiry to others who have been working more closely on this particular issue, and they will respond as soon as possible to your specific questions.

Are parks normally governed through regulation rather than law? In other words, what would you say is the ratio of regulation to law? I used to work with pension plans and the regulation/law ratio might have been 40-60 or something like that. What would you say it is in parks governance? Thanks, Mitchell.

Park Service: MR. LANGBERT: As of right now, there are 392 units in the National Park System. They range in size from less than an acre to several millions of acres. Each one has its own mission or purpose for existing, usually as defined by Congress. The parks are governed by a combination of laws, regulations, and policies that work in tandem, and I do not generally think
of them as applying in any particular ratio. The laws, regulations, and policies that would apply to a particular park will also vary, depending on the resources and values that characterize the park, and depending on any particular instructions that the law that established a park has imparted to us. I would invite you to visit the Office of Policy website at www.nps.gov/policy and browse through the wide range of laws, regulations, and policies that come into play. In particular, you might want to look at the Introduction and chapter 1 of NPS Management Policies 2006 (http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp/policies.html), which provide a pretty good context for understanding how we manage the National Park System

Langbert: Thank you very much for the information. I really appreciate it. If you hear anything else from your contacts please let me know. Thanks again.

New York Valdez: The Tragedy Begins

I just received this e-mail from Governor Patterson (D-NY) (h/t Cindy Johansen). This is only the beginning. The drunken sailors are crashing into the rocks, the oil tank is broken and they know it, but they are chronic alcoholics and blame everyone else for their drinking, crashing and the leaking oil.

The tragedy begins.

From: governorpaterson@chamber.state.ny.us
To: maine5752@aol.com
Sent: 11/24/2009 12:40:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time


Outlines Consequences of Inaction in Open Letter to Legislators

Earlier this week, Governor David A. Paterson sent an open letter to every New York State legislator calling for immediate action to address the State’s budget deficit. The full text of that letter appears below:

November 22, 2009

Dear Legislators:

One month ago, I presented a responsible $3.2 billion Deficit Reduction Plan that contained reductions across every area of State spending, including health care and School Aid. I proposed this series of difficult choices to help address the State's severe revenue shortfall, which could threaten to delay State aid payments to school districts, health care providers, and local governments.

Since that time, we have worked together to try and craft a final agreement, but have not yet been successful. Unfortunately, this failure to act has put New York at risk for a number of dire fiscal consequences and raised serious questions among independent financial monitors.

On Friday, the Office of the State Comptroller issued a report titled: “New York State’s Cash Flow Crunch”. In it, Comptroller DiNapoli states: “The State's continuing failure to address its worsening structural budget imbalance have combined to create a severe cash flow crunch.” Put simply, the State is running out of money. In my conversations with the Division of the Budget, we have begun to discuss a number of options for this eventuality, including delaying payments to school districts, non-profit providers, and local governments, among others.

On Thursday, Moody's Investor Services also issued an analysis of the State's finances, saying that, “If there is no action taken by the State to close the gap, or if action is taken but is largely-one-time in nature (therefore increasing the structural imbalance in the outyears)” our strong credit rating will be in danger of a downgrade. The Comptroller has echoed these concerns, imploring the State Legislature not to resort to “fiscal gimmicks or debt, which would only push the State’s budget problems into the future at a higher cost to taxpayers.”

Above all, Moody's and Comptroller DiNapoli have indicated that we must focus our efforts on reducing spending. Moody's warned that one of our State's credit weaknesses are “high-recurring expenditure demands” and “spending pressures that contribute to chronic projected structural imbalances.” The Comptroller has also indicated that “New Yorkers understand difficult spending choices must be made . . . one-time revenue [does] nothing to address the State’s structural imbalance.”

It is clear that failure to address our deficit responsibly could have very real and serious potential consequences for taxpayers across New York. Time is running out and the costs of inaction will be felt in every corner of our State.

Payment delays could create a trickledown effect on local governments and service providers in every region of New York as those organizations continue to face similar revenue shortfalls of their own. A credit rating downgrade means it will be more expensive for the State to borrow money. As a result, more of our limited resources will be dedicated to paying back bondholders, rather than providing critical services.

There is only one path to avoid these unacceptable consequences – responsible, recurring spending reductions across every area of the budget.

I believe that any final Deficit Reduction Plan must include actions that are at least 40 percent recurring. Additionally, any consensus agreement must include reductions to health care and School Aid.

No one wants to cut health care or education. These are priorities for which I have fought my entire career. But given that they make up more than half of the entire budget, we simply have no other choice but to make reductions to health care and education if we want to demonstrate that we are serious about putting New York on the road to fiscal recovery. As other states that are now grappling with unmanageable deficits learned far too late, it is better to cut now, than gut later.

We must put politics aside and put the people of our State first -- not the special interests. We must reach a responsible final agreement that protects our State's finances and embodies the principles I have outlined above. The warnings are clear and those who choose to ignore them do so at their own peril. In the days ahead, I look forward to your cooperation as we make the difficult choices that are necessary to put New York's fiscal house in order.


David A. Paterson

Support Red Fridays

I just received this message from Sharad Karkhanis.

>As a Company, Southwest Airlines is going to support 'Red Fridays...'

Last week I was in Atlanta , Georgia attending a conference. While I was in the airport, returning home, I heard several people behind me beginning to clap and cheer. I immediately turned around and witnessed One of the greatest acts of patriotism I have ever seen.

Moving thru the terminal was a group of soldiers in their camos. As they began heading to their gate, everyone (well almost everyone) was abruptly to their feet with their hands waving and cheering.

When I saw the soldiers, probably 30-40 of them, being applauded and Cheered for, it hit me. I'm not alone. I'm not the only red-blooded American who still loves this country and supports our troops and their families.

Of course I immediately stopped and began clapping for these young unsung heroes who are putting their lives on the line everyday for us so we can go to school, work and home without fear or reprisal.

Just when I thought I could not be more proud of my country or of our Service men and women, a young girl, not more than 6 or 7 years old ran up to one of the male soldiers. He kneeled down and said 'hi.'

The little girl then asked him if he would give something to her daddy for her.

The young soldier, who didn't look any older than maybe 22 himself, said he would try and what did she want to give to her daddy. Then suddenly the little girl grabbed the neck of this soldier, gave him the biggest hug she could muster and then kissed him on the cheek.

The mother of the little girl, who said her daughter's name was Courtney, told the young soldier that her husband was a Marine and had been in Iraq for 11 months now. As the mom was explaining how much her daughter Courtney missed her father, the young soldier began to tear up

When this temporarily single mom was done explaining her situation, all of the soldiers huddled together for a brief second. Then one of the other servicemen pulled out a military-looking walkie-talkie. They started playing with the device and talking back and forth on it.

After about 10-15 seconds of this, the young soldier walked back over to Courtney, bent down and said this to her, 'I spoke to your daddy and he told me to give this to you.' He then hugged this little girl that he had just met and gave her a kiss on the cheek. He finished by saying 'your daddy told me to tell you that he loves you more than anything and He is coming home very soon.'

The mom at this point was crying almost uncontrollably and as the young soldier stood to his feet, he saluted Courtney and her mom.. I was standing no more than 6 feet away from this entire event.

As the soldiers began to leave, heading towards their gate, people resumed their applause. As I stood there applauding and looked around, there were very few dry eyes, including my own. That young soldier in one last act of selflessness, turned around and blew a kiss to Courtney with a tear rolling down his cheek.

We need to remember everyday all of our soldiers and their families and thank God for them and their sacrifices. At the end of the day, it's good to be an American.

RED FRIDAYS ----- Very soon, you will see a great many people wearing red every Friday. The reason? Americans who support our troops used to be called the 'silent majority'. We are no longer silent, and are voicing our love for God, country and home in record breaking numbers.

We are not organized, boisterous or over-bearing.. We get no liberal media coverage on TV, to reflect our message or our opinions. Many Americans, like you, me and all our friends, simply want to recognize that the vast majority of America supports our troops.

Our idea of showing solidarity and support for our troops with dignity and respect starts this Friday - and continues each and every Friday until the troops all come home, sending a deafening message that.. Every red-blooded American who supports our men and women afar will wear Something red..

By word of mouth, press, TV -- let's make the United States on every Friday a sea of red much like a homecoming football game in the bleachers.

If every one of us who loves this country will share this with acquaintances, co-workers, friends, and family. It will not be long before the USA is covered in RED and it will let our troops know the once 'silent' majority is on their side more than ever; certainly more than the media lets on.

The first thing a soldier says when asked 'What can we do to make things better for you?' is....We need your support and your prayers.

Let's get the word out and lead with class and dignity, by example; and wear something red every Friday.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Congressman Hinchey Aims to Federalize Hudson Valley

I just sent the following inquiry to the National Park service. The Kingston Freeman reports that Maurice Hinchey aims to include the Hudson Valley in the federal parks system. The article is very vague as to the identity of the bill or what the effects would be on development, the ownership of firearms, hunting, and the sale of real estate. I have contacted Congressman Hinchey's office for a copy of the bill and have sent this inquiry to the National Park Service.

Dear Park Service:

I live in the Catskills about 25 miles from Kingston, NY. In the November 3 issue of the Kingston Freeman, a local newspaper, there was an article that stated that Congressman Maurice Hinchey has proposed a bill to turn the Hudson Valley into a national park.

I have a number of questions for you as the article was not descriptive of the effects of this policy.

1. What regulations normally accompany the establishment of a federal park in a developed region? Here in New York we have the Catskill Park, in which I happen to live, and the Adirondack Park. There are regulations that apply in the Catskill and Adirondack Parks that do not apply elsewhere.

2. Do you have a model or a developed set of regulations for another park region that would be similar to the regulations that would be put into effect should the Hinchey bill pass?

3. What would be the effect of establishing a park on economic freedom in the following areas:

--building houses
--building septic tanks
--sale of real estate
--liens on property not deemed environmentally acceptable?

4. Would there be an effect on construction such as limitations on the amount of real estate development, and/or restrictions on how sewage systems are designed, and/or limits on size, drainage and other environmental effects of real estate construction?

5. Would there be effects on hunting, the introduction of wildlife, the use of firearms and/or on fishing?

Thank you.

Mitchell Langbert.

London Times on America's Feeble Dollar

The London Times has an excellent article on Obama's weak dollar strategy. The article notes:

"All of this means that investors do not believe that President Barack Obama will respond to the enormous pressure put on him during his visit to Beijing and take steps to strengthen the dollar. The president and Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner might talk the talk of a strong dollar but they walk the walk of a declining one. A weak dollar should lift exports and cut imports, which in White House terms means jobs for American workers. And it is jobs that the president asks his aides about first thing every morning. With reason."

The article notes that there are risks associated with gold investing, in particular the chance that the Fed will attack inflation. The article inaccurately attributes the Volcker Fed policy to Reagan. Carter appointed Volcker and he instituted his monetarist strategy during the Carter administration. Reagan allowed him to continue. But Volcker reinstated inflation in the early 1980s and the Reagan administration was for it. They called it "supply side economics".

A likely scenario is that Obama and Bernanke will resist limiting monetary expansion until a strong inflation is underway. There will be plenty of time to exit gold when they do exit. Even if they do exit, the credibility of the dollar has been permanently reduced. I'm not sure that even if the Fed strengthens the world will take the dollar seriously in the future.

Help! America Needs Financial Advice!

Question from Reader:

>"Do not trust the socialists in power. Get out of the dollar. Buy commodities (GLD, HUI, DBA, the Euro via Everbank or UDN)."

>Dear Mitchell,

I have been hearing about collapse for over a year now. I am VERY worried. Next year when the commercial "adjustable" mortgages start re-adjusting, many claim we will spiral out of control, and at that point, nothing may be able to stop it......

>I have a bit of money from my Mom.....Lord KNOWS how hard she and Dad worked for all ten of us to have the best they could provide. I have the money in two savings accounts. Should I convert all of it to gold or euros do you think? I do not want to lose what little is left. Our retirement funds were decimated.......and I am STILL out of work with no prospects in sight. I am hoping to start a small community based business with a neighbor....but this has not been the greatest year for me....and things health wise are NOT looking any better.

>I have debated "buying down" our mortgage so that payments on the house would be much lower. We were VERY lucky to get a fixed rate mortgage some years ago at 5.5%. But the payments with taxes are high, and I don't know when I will have an income again......

>I am really worried about the dollar's collapse. I appreciate any advice you may have......GOD Bless you,

Dear Reader: Do not panic. I would advise you not to pay off your house but rather, if necessary, get on the sub-prime bandwagon and borrow up to your eyeballs. In inflation debtors win. People with cash lose, so get rid of it. Get rid of your bank accounts.

I'm sorry that you lost in the market. All investments are risky. I would advise you to purchase a range of the things in the list you clipped: GLD, HUI, DBA, UDN. I would not put all my eggs in one basket.

Some commentators are afraid of bankruptcy of commercial banks. Hence, buying Euros through a CD has that risk. But otherwise, diversifying out of the dollar and possibly shorting the stock market is a good idea.

GLD is a gold ETF and it is taxed as a collectible, at 28% rather than at the lower capital gains rate. Gold stocks, are volatile and risky. They can go up alot more than gold, but they can also be affected by a stock market collapse. I lost money in 08 because of that very problem. The gold stocks can easily go down 70%. Gold is volatile but less so than the stocks.

If you put your money in gold, you need to be able to live with a 40% decline without panicking. IF you put your money into gold stocks, the variability is larger.

There is a stock, SH, which is the short-sale equivalent of the S&P 500. It goes in direct opposite to the S&P 500. You and I wish we had bought that in summer 08. You might consider this:

30% GLD
10% UDN
10% HUI
10% DBA
10% SH
20% SPY
10% SLV

These are:

GLD= gold exchange traded fund;
UDN = dollar short exchange traded fund;
HUI=gold stock index exchange traded fund;
DBA = agricultural commodities excahnge traded fund;
SH = S&P 500 short fund;
SPY = S&P 500 exchange traded fund;
SLV = silver exchange traded fund.

Alternatively, you could try this:

Cash: 50%
GLD: 50%


Cash 30%
UDN 20%
Gld 50%


GLD 100%


SH 90%
GLD 10%

Shorting the market now is of course risky. It could continue to go up because of the monetary infusion last year. But it has had a good run; Americans are heavily in debt; the Chinese are ticked; and the national socialists are in power. I would not be optimistic.

You might also look at international stocks but I would wait. If there is a stock market decline in the near future it will infect the international stocks too.

I am not a prophet and cannot foretell with any certainty what the markets will do. I do think gold is going up and if you put 100% in GLD you would not be crazy in my opinion. If you are bullish and put your money in the S&P 500 you could do well from hereon in, but there is a risk of stock market collapse. I would not be an unrepentant bull at this point.

The reason for a possible market collapse is this. The stock market is going up because of a large infusion of money last year. That can continue for a while. However, it is also inflationary. As inflation starts (dollar declines) the Federal Reserve Bank is subjected to pressure to withdraw some of the dollars. This will cause interest rates to rise. When interest rates rise, the stock market falls.

But let's say the Fed doesn't withdraw the dollars. Then, inflation escalates. Interest rates then will rise because bond investors want higher returns. It seems like there's a good chance for a market decline at some point either way.

It is easy to know what will happen, difficult to know when. The rising SPY could continue for another year. The stock market could double before the collapse. No one could know this. Unless you had inside information about the banking world last year, it would have been difficult to predict that the collapse of their balance sheets would have occurred.

So I don't know what to tell you. In an inflation, borrowers benefit. The St. Louis Fed tracks money statistics, and they are scary. I cannot say for certainty that the gold market will go up.

If you want to take a risk, buy gold stocks. Check out the Kitco site each week. No one knows for sure what will happen, least of all me.

Where I am heading right now, but I'm taking my time, changing a little each week:

SPY 10%
GLD 50%
HUI 10%
SH 5%
SLV 5%
Euros CD 20%

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Mensa Expert Calls Global Warming "Junk Science"; Dr. Tim Ball Exposes Academic Fraud in the Global Warming Community

The leading advocate of global warming and unquestionably the next recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Neuman has better scientific credentials than university advocates of global warming.

In January of this year I blogged about climate change. It seemed evident that those arguing for climate change were not functioning as scientists because they had not established criteria for the rejection or falsification of their claims.

Now it turns out that Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for repeating the claims of frauds. This should put the credibility of the Norwegians and their preposterous "Peace Prize" to bed. Giving it to Barak Obama added concrete shoes to the dead victim of the Swedes' and Norwegians' politicized institution. Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Neuman will probabaly get it next year. His scientific credentials are better than those of Benjamin Santer, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones.


>A speaker for Mensa, the high-IQ-society, has called "global warming" "junk science" (h/t Jim Crum):

Sam’s Summary on the issue posted May 4th 2007

"However weak the argument for global warming, it does not diminish the need for intelligent protection of the environment. There are many things we can do to improve the environment without resorting to junk science. In the end I think the global warming hoax will hurt legitimate environmental causes."


Jim also forwarded this article by Timothy Ball, adding that global warming is not a hoax, but a fraud. I added the bold.

>Hacked files of the Climatic Research Unit, Global Warming a deliberate fraud
The Death Blow to Climate Science

By Dr. Tim Ball

>Saturday, November 21, 2009

>Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.

>Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular.

>Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists

>Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).

>I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.

>Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.

>Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. "We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.

>Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.

>Total Control

>These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC...Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.

>CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected, now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.” ( emphasis added )

NRA Files Brief in McDonald v. City of Chicago

I just received the following e-mail from the National Rifle Association. The NRA "asks the US to apply the Second Amendment to state and local governments". There is a natural right to bear arms. The Second Amendment not only guarantees the right but establishes a responsibility of all Americans to bear arms in order to secure a free state. The Second Amendment 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."

The people have the right to bear arms, but they also have an obligation to participate in a well regulated militia in order to do the necessary work of keeping the state free. The people can only do this by owning a gun capable of resisting tyranny by the state and federal governments. All Americans ought to own weapons capable of resisting military attack.

I disagree with the NRA that the Constitution ought to be applied to the states. I understand that they are focusing on the right to bear arms, and God bless them. But centralization and the federal government's threat to state sovereignty equals the government's threat to eliminate citizens' freedom and their ability to resist the federal government's authoritarian state violence. Both federalism and the right to bear arms are important.

>On November 16, the NRA filed its brief with the U.S. Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The NRA brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

>The McDonald case is one of several that were filed immediately after last year's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun possession, as well as the capital city's ban on keeping loaded, operable firearms for self-defense in the home.

>The follow-up cases were filed by NRA and other organizations against Chicago and several of its suburbs. Each of these suits was aimed at the same goal: establishing that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government.

Michael Voris: Obama's Anti-Catholic Extremism

H/t Contrairimairi.