One a Month…

Real quickly, let’s establish once and for all that in Virginia Democrats are either ignorant of both the Virginia and United States Constitutions and the principles of limited government–or just don’t care. Virginia’s Democrat-controlled senate just passed SB 69 which establishes a “one gun a month” policy limiting Virginia citizens to purchasing only one handgun in a 30-day period. Assuming that it is passed by the Virginia House of Delegates, Governor Northam is expected to sign it into law. (This will reinstate a previous VA law placing such a limit on handgun purchases.)

For those who may not be familiar with Virginia’s Constitution, take a minute to Google it and read Article I, Sections 2 and 13. Like the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia also explicitly recognizes that the source of all government power is the consent of the people. It also recognizes the right of all the people to be armed for the defense of their liberty just as clearly as the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights–if not more so.

So, just thinking clearly for a second, where do you suppose that the Democrats currently in control of Virginia’s State Government believe that they derive the authority to limit Virginia citizens to one handgun a month, or to place any limit on how many guns of whatever type and capacity Virginia citizens may purchase? The Constitutions (US and VA) are limits on the power of government, not the rights of the people. Among the enumerated powers granted to the governments (US and VA) I am unable to identify any section that grants those governments the power to limit the lawful, clearly described rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms.

But logically, if the government does have the power to limit citizens to only one handgun a month, then doesn’t that mean that the government also has the power to limit them to only one handgun a year or only one handgun in their lifetime?

Or no guns of any kind at all?

Remember, in our nation and our states, we do not derive our rights from the consent of government. On the contrary, our governments derive their just powers (only their just powers) from the consent of the governed–us. In other words, if we choose, we the people have the power to limit our government to only one law a month, but our governments do not have the power to limit us to only one anything a month.

There Could Have Been People…

My youngest son, Stephen, drives a tractor-trailer and a little more than one year ago, in the early hours of the morning, he became a hero and nearly lost his life. He was driving in rainy conditions on I285 east when he came upon an accident that had just happened. Two cars were involved blocking three lanes of the interstate. He did not know if there were any people in those cars, but he knew that if there were and he hit them with his rig, they were going to die. With only that thought in mind, he reacted immediately and, risking his own life, drove his 18-wheeler into the ditch. His truck was totaled but miraculously he sustained only minor injuries. It turned out that there were no people in the cars, but even so I consider Stephen a hero because he risked his own life to safeguard the lives of others.

The anniversary of that same day was also the National March for Life, and the conjunction of those two events struck me. Leaving aside for a moment all of the logical and emotional arguments for and against the supposed right of a woman to choose to abort her unborn child, I reflect on the fact that the real and all-important question about this issue is never discussed by the pro-abortion lobby: when does human life begin? I would argue that by definition, human life begins at conception, since that single fertilized cell is unquestionably alive and unquestionably human, but I do recognize that there are arguments against this position that could be valid. But we do need to ask and try to answer this question: when does that life become a human life, worthy of all the protections that a civilized society can and should provide to the most innocent among us? Is it when the fetus can feel pain? Is it at viability? Thirty seconds after the child clears the birth canal? An hour later, when the woman and the doctor decide to let the infant live? When the child begins to walk?

Science has vastly increased our knowledge about the development of a human within the mother’s womb, and this, in turn, has increased the difficulty of the questions we must answer. But has it really? The most important question, when does human life begin, simply cannot be answered by science. This is a moral and philosophical question that has monumental consequences for us and our society.

But in a contest between one person’s right to choose and another person’s right to live, shouldn’t we err on the side of human life? If there is just a chance that the embryo or fetus inside a woman’s body is another living human being, shouldn’t that be given due consideration before sweeping it away?

By some estimates, about fifty million abortions have taken place in America since Roe v. Wade. It is long past time that we asked these questions.

Swalwell Farts: IG Reports

[Just found this in my “drafts” folder. I should have published it back then, but I held off for some reason. Maybe my wife talked me out of it? I’ll ask her. No, on second thought, I’ll just post it now.]

Following the release of the long-awaited Inspector General Report on the origins of the “Russia Collusion” investigation, I was reminded of the fairly-recent “Fartergate” incident. (They call it “Fartgate” but I think “Fartergate” sounds better.) For those who may have missed it and don’t want to watch the YouTube clip, Congressman Eric Swalwell “apparently” breaks wind during an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. Now, that’s really not that big a deal–everybody does it from time to time, just usually not on national television. However, the real significance (as with Watergate) is in the coverup. As soon as the uproarious laughter commenced, MSNBC immediately began trying to save the Democratic congressman from embarrassment, asserting that the sound came from Matthews “sliding a coffee cup across the table back in the studio.” If you can stand it, watch the video. Swalwell pauses speaking and you can actually see him clenching up as he rips.

Now consider that the IG report into the Clinton Email Investigation found numerous instances of “mistakes, bad judgment, and even overt expressions of unseemly political bias,” but no evidence that political bias tainted the investigation. In the face of outrageous and repeated lapses in FBI protocol (always in favor of exonerating Mrs. Clinton) the report nevertheless concludes that the essential integrity of the investigation was not influenced by politics.

Fast-forward now to the IG report into the origins of the Russia Collusion investigation, where numerous instances of “mistakes, bad judgment, and even overt expressions of unseemly political bias” were found (including fraudulent submissions to the FISA court) but no evidence that the origination of the investigation was anything but fully justified and legal.

Just as the Mainstream Media rushes to cover up anything that might embarrass the Democrats, the Deep State will continue to protect their own. They both think that we are stupid.

We are not.