The Three Rs, and a Suggestion for the Environmentalists

My daughter today asked me what the three Rs were. "Reading 'Riting and 'Rithmatic" I told her. "I don't think we should change them to reduce, re-use and re-cycle" (which is what she was getting at in the first place, what with earth day recently gone by and all).

My wife (the Paraguayan), listening in the kitchen, said "Why don't you use old newspaper instead of toilet paper like they do in Paraguay? That's re-using"!

Well, she's right - rural Paraguay tends to do lots of that (newspaper for TP). I know I did, and can tell you from experience that when all you have left is glossy magazine paper, reach for the corn cobs instead.

Anyway, What say we ship old newspapers and corn cobs to Hollywood and let them practice what they preach?

Doyle Ignores Us....Again

H/T to Patrick at My View of the World for these pole results (scroll down to the "Voter ID" post) on Voter ID.

In a nutshell, 83% of Wisconsinites polled support Voter ID, and 15% don't (the rest aren't sure).

Could someone please let Governor Doyle know that in a Democracy the minority doesn't rule?

Gov. Doyle Ignores the Will of the People

Once again, a H/T to my Mother for sending me a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article on the results of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress hearings on the feral cat debate. The article pointed out two facts of relevance to this post:

1. 56.7% of the people that voted at the Wisconsin Conservation Congress hearings on the issue voted to remove protection (OK to shoot'em) on feral cats. On a county level, 51 of 72 counties (71%) voted to remove protection.
2. Governor Doyle said he personally opposes the idea of shooting feral cats, and said "I don't think Wisconsin should become known as a state where we shoot cats".

The Wisconsin Conservation Congress apparently listens to the people it represents and is expected to forward this idea to the DNR, according to the article.

Maybe Gov. Doyle should also heed the will of the people instead of blowing us off. After all, is he in Madison to represent us, or forward his own agenda?

Maybe the Governor would like to respond as to how he can offhandedly dismiss an idea that almost 60% of the voters at those meetings wanted?

Paul Bucher Speaks Out For Concealed Carry, but...

H/T to my Mom for sending me A. G. Paul Bucher's letter in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel dated April 11, 2005 titled "Safety in concealed-carry law".

Once again, Bucher states his position as pro-concealed carry. That's good: Wisconsin needs concealed carry if for nothing else but to put us on a level playing field with the common criminal. Nonetheless, he also promotes a database list of permit holders, with "rock solid safeguards against developing lists that would impinge on the privacy of or target permit holders".

His reasoning for this list is to protect law enforcement officers in the event of a traffic stop. The officer would be able to check the vehicle's registration against the list, and find out if the car's owner is a permit holder. He claims that this will "address officer safety in traffic stops while getting a good bill into law".

Here's my problem with the list: first off, the fact that the car's owner has a carry permit tells you nothing about the driver of the vehicle. I would maybe get a permit to carry, but my wife sure wouldn't - yet she often drives my car. So do friends of mine for that matter.

Second, if the license check comes up that the owner does not have a permit, does that mean the vehicle is safe to approach? Of course not! Officers must approach every vehicle as if the occupants were armed and dangerous - carry permit or not. And don't forget - according to the US Supreme Court, criminals are exempt from registering their guns under the protections offered in the Fifth Amendment. The list therefore, would never tell the officer there was an armed criminal in the vehicle.

Finally, lists of people who own guns should never be in the Government's control.

Although I would much prefer a Vermont-style carry law, I also understand the argument that in order to get somewhere, we must take what we can get now, and then improve on it later. Nonetheless, I am very leery of gun owner lists. If we must have government issued permits for concealed carry, then the permitting system should be based on the insta-check system for gun purchases (which I also oppose for obvious reasons): once you are approved, the records of your approval/transaction are destroyed.

Have a good night.

Activist Judges, Left and Right

Reading through some blogs this morning I came across this post by Blogger Beer, pointing out that activist judges can be on the right or the left, and they are equally bad for the United States. I agree fully with his stance on this: we need justices that interpret the Constitution as it is written, regardless of personal stances.

As a case-in-point of conservative judicial activism, he cited the case of Justice Moore in Alabama (the Ten Commandments case). Blogger Beer cited a 2003 National Review article by Quin Hillyer that he said pointed out quite plainly that "Justice Moore's intentions were clearly unconstitutional", and that he was imposing his personal beliefs in trying to post the Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse. (The article is also an argument against the Democrat's rejection of Alabama AG Bill Pryor's nomination for a position on the federal bench back in 2003.)

First, let me say this about the Ten Commandments case, and religious expression in general on public property: the First Amendment to the Constitution states that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

It is precisely left-wing activist judges, prodded on by the ACLU and others, that have led the general population to believe that it is unconstitutional to express one's religious beliefs on public property. Therefore, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional (among other like rulings), I think they are wrong. In fact, they are wrong.

This brings me to the National Review article, where I found some comments that caught my attention. First, Hillyer seems to make the case that if the Ten Commandments are small, they are Constitutional, and if they are large, they aren't. That seems like pretty shaky reasoning to me, but hey, who am I to make that claim?

What concerns me most however is this quote from AG Pryor, a position that Alabama's Gov. Riley also took (emphasis added):

As Pryor explained: "I continue to believe that the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage and can be displayed constitutionally as they are in the building of the Supreme Court of the United States... (But) the rule of law means that when courts resolve disputes, after all appeals and arguments, we all must obey the orders of those courts even when we disagree with those orders. The rule of law means that we can work to change the law but not to defy court orders."

It seems to me that precisely because of judicial activism no matter how hard we work to "change the law" in a case like this, it would likely be overturned by activist judges regardless of how constitutional it may be. And that leaves us where exactly? What do we do when the courts ignore the true intent of the Constitution and impose their own version of how things should be? I cringe to think of what could happen these days if the Supreme Court ever takes on a case regarding the true intent of the Second Amendment!

I believe it was Tom Delay who said that Activist Judges will have to pay for their actions, and he is right. But how do we go about doing that if we all believe (I don't) that the Judicial branch of government has the final word on everything, and that their opinion is law?

I for one have very little faith in the Federal Judiciary, and question every decision that comes out of it. The Judicial branch of government is becoming far too powerful, and because of it, the Federal Government is also sticking its nose in parts of our life that the Framers never intended.

Short of a revolution, I'm not sure what can be done anymore. Nonetheless, I will continue to write my representatives, vote for those I feel will be a force towards improvement, and talk to anyone who will listen about how screwed up the United States has become.

In time, maybe we can reverse direction and return the United States to the great Nation the Framers intended.

(Note: I still believe the United States is the greatest Nation on earth, but also believe that the Framers are rolling over in their graves over the amount and scope of power the Federal Government has taken on.)

Contact Senator Frist !!

Once again, a bill is before the Senate (S 397) that would (hopefully) shield the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits. Go here and search for "S 397" for the text of the bill. This bill would prohibit civil lawsuits against the firearms industry for the actions of third parties.

As necessary as this bill is, the left is again trying to tack on "killer amendments" and/or tack on amendments that would allow the bill to pass, but would further inhibit our Second Amendment rights on other fronts.

Thanks to Gun Owners of America for this update. According to GOA, this bill is not perfect, but the left is still trying to tack on things such as a renewal of the Clinton Gun Ban, a .50cal ban, mandatory trigger locks (a lot of good a pistol with a lock on it will do you in time of need...), and more.

Please contact Senator Frist - he has the power to get this legislation passed without any killer amendments, and without being watered down any more by the anti-freedom left.

Here is contact information for Senator Frist:

Phone: 202-224-3344
Fax: 202-228-1264
Webform:
http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.ContactForm
(Note: If you have problems with the above url, go to http://frist.senate.gov/ and click on "About Senator Frist," then select the "Contact Senator Frist" option.)

Contact him to let him know that he should use the parliamentary powers at his disposal to get this already watered-down bill passed, but that it is not worth the adoption of any other gun control amendments. (Note: Non-constituents can only send e-mail by going to his website and filling out the form provided. If you choose to do that, please disregard any automated response you might receive; his office WILL take note of your position.)

A Minor Correction to Make...

In my post here on the Wisconsin Conservation Congress' requirement of a photo ID to vote, I have the following correction to make. Thank you to Ann Marie Kutzke from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Legal Services for clearing this up in response to my e-mail to the DNR:

Dear Mr. Xxxxxx,

I photo ID is required to vote for delegates who are being nominated and elected that evening at during the Wisconsin Conservation Congress portion of the meeting per the Code of Procedures for the Wisconsin Conservation Congress.

If one is only "voting" (non-binding vote) in regards to the DNR Fish & Wildlife Proposed Rule changes or Wisconsin Conservation Congress Advisory Questions one does not need to present a Photo ID for that.

I hope that answers you questions.

Thank you,

AnnMarie Kutzke

Bureau of Legal Services, Wisconsin Conservation Congress, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Now, Given that the WCC is still only an advisory board, if they require a photo ID to vote for its members, you'd think Wisconsin could require a photo ID to vote for Senators, Representatives, Presidents, Governors, etc....

I Had a Dream...

...that I was talking with Senator Feingold on the phone and was trying to impress upon him the problem with Judicial activists. I was using as an example the Bush-Gore election where the Federal bench got involved in the election process and what a bad precedent that was.

I explained that the people elect their representatives, and that judges should have no hand in elections, and... then I woke up.

In any case, in my dream, Senator Feingold couldn't see why this was a problem, He just didn't get it.

Photo ID Required for Inconsequential Voting...

Hat Tip to my Aunt on this one. She told me today that while listening to the radio the other day she learned that the Wisconsin Conservation Congress required people to present a photo ID in order to vote on the feral cat hunting proposal! The result of these votes is so inconsequential it's not even funny. There is nothing binding in their elections; all the WCC can do is recommend an action to be taken on an issue.

Yet Governor Doyle says he will veto a bill that requires a photo ID to vote.

Nobody will be disenfranchised by requiring a photo ID to vote. Let's get the Photo ID bill passed and start getting the corruption and voter fraud out of Wisconsin's elections.

President's Judicial Nominees Need a Vote

Hat tip to Blog General for this post on the Judicial Confirmation Network.

We need to get the Senate in line with this - what they are pulling with filibusters on President Bush's judicial nominations is not only unprecedented, but it is far from what the Framers of our Constitution had intended the process to be. Except in cases of extreme incompetence or other grave fault, the Senate is supposed to defer to the President on this issue.

Remember - this is the pre-game warm-up for the liberal left. If they can get through this stage, when a vacancy opens in the Supreme Court, they will be all set to continue, knowing the general public "didn't care enough to make a real stink of it".

Here are a couple of things everyone should do:

1) Read "Men in Black" by Mark Levin.
2) When you are done reading the book, loan it to a friend.
3) Go to Blog General and use the links he has in his post to write Kohl and Feingold. Now, not later, and make a stink of this.
4) Go to Judicial Confirmation Network and sign their petition.
5) Continue to make a stink about it.
6) Loan the book to another friend.

You get the idea.

Feral Cats are Back!

Sure - Feral cats are back in the news, this time with their fate being voted on in all 72 Wisconsin counties at Wisconsin Conservation Congress meetings. Go here for the WCG comments on the issue. I do know that some counties were in favor of the lawful dispatching of feral cats, and others were not. The vote count should be done for tomorrow's new. Obviously, this would not involve shooting cats within city limits or where the discharge of a firearm is otherwise illegal.

Read an L.A. Times article here about the goings-on at the Madison meeting.

Personally, I think a feral cat - that is a cat that has no collar, no leash and is roaming wild - should be shot and eliminated just as other non-native exotic species are. Here are some reasons different groups of people should support this legislation:

• Cat Lovers: feral cats give all cats a bad name, and turn otherwise cat-lovers into cat-loathers.
• Environmentalists: feral cats eat our state's songbirds and other wild birds and animals. Just as environmentalists are trying to get rid of purple loostrife because it forces out native plants, they should get rid of feral cats because they not only eat our native wildlife, but compete with our native predators for limited prey.
• Hunters: feral cats eat, among other things, Ruffed grouse chicks, rabbits, and anything else they can find. You'd be surprised what a good-sized cat can bring home. I know a cat (OK, my cat - Gifford - when I was in Paraguay, where all things roam free) that brought home a full grown chicken once.
• Animal Rights Nuts: no comment on this hopeless bunch.

I really like cats, but I also like Wisconsin's native wildlife. There is a place for all, and a cat's place is indoors, or outdoors on a leash.

Paul Bucher for AG....maybe not...?

I posted here (H/T Owen @ Boots & Sabers) about Paul Bucher and his apparent support for Concealed Carry law in Wisconsin. Well, yesterday Wendy posted on Boots & Sabers on Bucher's favorable position on creating a list of carry permit holders and Owen had another post here on his anti-carry statements. It seems there is a bit of confusion on what his stance really is on concealed carry, but it appears to me he's against it.

As Wendy pointed out, Bucher apparently wants a list of those who have concealed carry so the police know if the occupant of the vehicle they are stopping may be carrying. Sorry, but I am sure the police are trained to approach all vehicles as if the occupant(s) are armed and dangerous. And as Wendy said, it's not the people who would be on that list that would be the problem for the police.

Owen points out Bucher's past comments against concealed carry. That makes him sound like a Hillary wanna-be: tell the people what you think they want to hear, regardless of where you stand or how you will position yourself on the issue if elected.

I posted here on what my version of Wisconsin Concealed Carry should be:

"Wisconsin should have concealed carry that works like this; if you can legally purchase a firearm, then you can carry it. Period."

Is there any reason to have more to the legislation than that?

Take Someone Shooting!

Looking for a way to get more people to back the Second Amendment? Here's one: if you own a gun, take someone shooting; if you don’t, find someone who does and ask them if they could take you (offer to pay for the ammunition, it usually isn’t much!).

I took my daughter and niece shooting tin cans with .22cal rifles when they were ten, and they both loved it. I just went out again with my daughter this past weekend (at her insistence: "Dad, when can we go shooting again?) and we had a lot of fun for only $5.00 and a bunch of tin cans. My sister had a blast shooting the rifles and .22 revolver at an indoor range with me and my brother. My brother-in-law had a good time with the .22cal rifles and the shotgun shooting trap with a hand thrower when my brother and I took him out. Good, clean fun for kids (and adults) of all ages!

None of these people had ever shot a gun before, and they all had a really good time. I'm always looking for an opportunity to take them again, as is my brother. Next on my list is to take another of my nieces out with the 22’s - I'm sure she'll have just as much fun!

Although none of the people I took out for the first time shooting could be classified as anti-gun, I do believe that many anti-gun people can be easily converted to pro-gun if they get the chance to actually hold a gun and shoot it. That’s when they realize that as long as you follow firearm safety rules, the gun isn’t going to kill anyone.

Because I have had firearms around the house since I won my first shotgun back in high school, I don't think anyone in my family was confused about the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill people. There are those out there however who have never been around firearms and are literally scared to death of them. These are the people that I am guessing would be all for more anti-firearms legislation today, but could be swayed against it if they only lost their irrational fear of guns.

Maybe I'm naive, but hey, even if it only works for 1 in a 100, that's one more on our side.

"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns." -- U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," August 1995"

Obey Pledges Not to Retire...

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on April 6, page 7A quotes Dave Obey as pledging not to retire until the United States has universal health care:

"If the Republicans want me to leave, my advice is pass universal health care, and I will leave tomorrow as a present."

This quote came as Obey was honored for having served 36 years in office. If this quote is legitimate, and not taken out of context, here's my problem with it: isn't it up to the voters to determine how long he can stay in office? Apparently Obey has been in office so long that he has forgotten who put him there.

So, Mr. Obey, without commenting on how well you have or haven't represented us (or me in particular) over these years, remember this: you can quit any time you want, but you can't stay any longer than we want you to! When your constituents vote you out, you're out regardless if there is universal health care or not.

I personally, would like to see term limits on all elected representatives in Washington regardless of whether or not they have served their constituents well. Maybe have a 2 term limit, and then possibly the ability to be elected back in after a couple out. This could have the desirable effect of having politicians focus more on what they were voted in to do, and less on the "party politics" of Washington.

I don't believe the Framers ever intended service in the House or Senate to be life-long jobs.

The Courts are Winning...

That's the conclusion that Rich Glasgow came to regarding the "battle of the branches (of government)", and I believe he is right. Read his post here, which includes a very scary comment by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Rich also mentions 3 must read books: Men in Black by Mark Levin, Constitutional Chaos by Judge Andrew Napolitano, and So Help Me God, by Judge Roy Moore. Rich has links for each of those books, so please go to his post to check them out.

I ordered my copy of "Men in Black" which should arrive Wednesday. I read a few paragraphs in the bookstore the other day and knew right then it was a must-read.

Earlier I mentioned Senator Kohl's thoughts on judicial nominations in this post, and that single comment by Senator Kohl should make your skin crawl if you are at all concerned about the direction our great country is heading, at least when we let the liberal left do the driving. Read all of Kohl's statement here.

Paul Bucher for Wisconsin Attorney General

H/T to Boots and Sabers for this post about Paul Bucher who recently announced that he will run for Wisconsin Attorney Geberal.

Bucher stated that "The problems aren’t the guns, it’s the guns in the wrong hands." adding “We need to put more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens...". Read more at Boots & Sabers.

He hits the nail right on the head - at least get the law abiding citizens on an even playing field with the common criminal. Maybe then the bad guys will think twice before preying on the "defenseless" ordinary citizen (who may not be that defenseless after all!).

No post today, but busy writing nonetheless...

Hi All,

I have spent the time I usually (try to) reserve for writing a post or two to writing my representatives in Madison and Washington. I encourage, no challenge, everyone to take 15 minutes today (it took me longer than that - but then I'm a pretty cruddy typist!) to do the same.

Some of my "hot topics" include:

Wisconsin
- WI Photo ID for voting - needed
- WI Concealed Carry Vermont Style - needed
National
- No ban or registration for .50cal rifles
- Stop illegal immigration and NO amnesty
- Stick to your (the Senate's) role as outlined in the Constitution and give the President's judicial nominees a vote*
- Prosecute the judge(s) that snubbed thier noses at the law passed by Congress and signed by the President ordering a "de novo" review of fact in the Terri Shiavo case

* Read this from Senator Herb Kohl's website about his position regarding judicial nominations. The last sentence reads (emphasis added):

"I have only opposed those nominees whose views and judicial philosophies are so far out of the mainstream as to place our liberties at risk."

And exactly what does the "mainstream" have to do with anything? Somebody please help me understand how the framers included the "mainstream" in the Constitution, specifically in the judicial nomination process.

I am at a total loss on this one.....