Monthly Archives: July 2012

Justice Scalia: Guns Can Be “Regulated”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sent a chill through the spines of conservatives with a foreboding warning about the government’s power to “regulate” what he referred to as “menacing” hand-held weapons.

Scalia’s comments elicited a furor at the website National Journal, where many weighed in to register their disgust at the possibility of another “conservative” justice betrayal. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts  appeared poised to strike down the individual mandate of the Obamacare legislation in late June 2012, but apparently sided with the liberal wing at the last moment.

Appearing in an interview given by Mike Wallace that is to be aired on Fox News Sunday, the originalist stalwart had the following comments:

[Whether or not government can ban high volume magazines and “assault” weapons] will have to be decided in future cases… But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried.

Several commenters at National Journal rightly rebutted Scalia’s opinion by pointing out the subjective nature of basing law on what liberals perceive as “frightening” or “menacing,” including hand-held weapons. There were other causes for concern with Justice Scalia’s comments.

Instead of basing his reasoning on inalienable individual rights, such as the rights to private property and self-defense, Scalia expounded on particular 18th century gun practices that preceded the ratification of The Constitution. From this exercise in historical exegesis, he leapt to the conclusion that the several states had the authority to “regulate” the citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

Scalia thus hedges the recent case record that the Second Amendment is incorporated and binding on the states, which was established in the 2010 Supreme Court case McDonald vs. Chicago that struck down local gun control laws. That followed upon the related gun control case District of Columbia vs. Heller, which also struck down gun regulations.

The record of the Roberts’ course had seemed to be strong on both gun control and free speech issues before the Obamacare case debacle. Roberts’ capricious minimalism (the tendency to yield to the legislature on Constitutional interpretation)  and Scalia’s inconsistency in defending individual rights have many attentive citizens alarmed that gun “regulation” could go the deleterious way of Commerce “regulation.”

Whether or not one agrees with the Constitutional amendment stating that citizens have the right to bear arms, it is empirically rock-solid that citizens’ ability to lawfully carry concealed firearms leads to a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack among the several states.

Nonetheless, the massacre at an Aurora, Colorado theater, a gun-free zone, has given rise to increasingly vocal calls for gun regulations by the Democrat Party. The party even had the audacity to try to slip assault weapons-related gun regulations into an upcoming “cybersecurity” bill, probably after recognizing that the U.S. would not become a party to the UN’s small arms treaty.

Please share this article if you want to alert your fellow citizens about the assaults being made on the Second Amendment!

Opening this week: Runaway Slave-An Important Documentary

A powerful new documentary, “Runaway Slave,” opened this weekend. It’s been several years in the making, at times struggling to find funding. But this is an important movie for Americans, especially the African American population.

The movie follows the former NAACP chapter president Reverend C.L. Bryant, as he travels across the nation to encourage black citizens to “run from tyranny to liberty.”

Watch the trailer and you’ll want to see the whole movie:

In this controversial movie Rev. Bryant takes viewers on an historic journey across America retracing the footsteps of runaway slaves who escaped to freedom along routes that became known as the Underground Railroad.

Digital Journal: Rev. Bryant takes viewers on an historic journey across America that traces the footsteps of runaway slaves who escaped to freedom along routes that became known as the Underground Railroad. But in the film, he also travels a “new underground railroad” upon which Black Conservatives are speaking out against big government policies which have established a “new plantation” where “overseers” like the NAACP and so-called “civil rights” leaders keep the Black community 95 percent beholden to one political party.

Runaway Slave includes interviews with politicians, community leaders and everyday Americans; including Dr. Martin Luther King’s niece, Alveda King; economist and author Thomas Sowell; Congressman Allen West; presidential candidate Herman Cain; commentator and radio host Glenn Beck; syndicated columnist Star Parker and the late conservative activist, Andrew Breitbart.

The heroes of this movie are black conservatives who are speaking out so that all Americans can truly be “free at last.”

There will surely be many who look at this movie as a sellout. There is often strong opposition to black conservatives who speak against the status quo.

To those with the courage to see this movie there may be an awakening and opportunity for change in the black community.

Encourage your friends to see this movie. For theater and ticket information visit the Runaway Slave website.

Free Pac 2012

Thursday I had to privilege of joining 14,000 plus patriots in celebrating our First Amendment rights of free speech and peaceful assembly at FreePAC. If the mainstream media would have reported on the gathering it would have most likely been reported as large gathering of racists, bigots, rednecks and Klan members. I can honestly say there were patriots from every race from around our great nation.

There were a multitude of speakers from many races and backgrounds that graced the stage. The one speaker that drew the most standing ovations from the crowd of racists and bigots was C L Bryant. I’ll let you watch the great rally cry and decide for yourself the true feeling of the ones gathered.


For those of you that own firearms, train hard and well and teach those that do not know how. Be good stewards of the right to bear arms, for we are the last line of defense against tyranny.


-Benjamin Wallace

The US Needs to Learn About Fighting Terrorism From Norway

Sure, that probably sounds insane. How in the world could Norway know anything about fighting terrorism, right?

Maybe not. With the recent shooting in Colorado, there has been some mention of the terrorist in Norway that rocked that nation about a year ago. Unlike the U.S., Norway did not pass sweeping legislation, and radically increase security. Their solution was increased transparency and democracy.

While I am not in the least bit interested in, or impressed with the “love in”, warm and fuzzy attitude of Norway’s leaders, I am intrigued with the concept of the full-frontal assault on terrorism without raising a weapon. They recognized something that we didn’t, at least not immediately, after 9/11. Maybe Norway wouldn’t have taken the route they did if it wasn’t for our losses, but I digress.

Beverly & Pack (CC)

Instead of acting on fear, Norway chose to stick to its principles, and refuse to give in to that base emotion. And that is, from a psychological point of view, arguably the best response to a terrorist attack. Acts of terror are perpetrated to instill fear. If the target doesn’t respond in a fearful manner, the terrorist does not truly succeed, regardless of what physical damage was caused.

Al Qaeda’s real victory over the U.S. wasn’t on the day of the attacks. It was when our Congress passed the Patriot Act, and when we stopped living our lives the way we had before 9/11. We lost part of our identity as a nation because of that, and we may never be able to retrieve that. But, that doesn’t mean that we can’t learn from Norway now.

There have been many complaints and investigations over the past several months about the incompetency and overreaching of the TSA, for example. Is the screening that we subject ourselves to really necessary? I know there are plenty out there that would argue that it is. But there are those on the other side that say the screenings really do not do much to protect us.

While I’m not saying that the U.S. could ever approach terrorism exactly the way Norway has, I do think that we need to examine the psychology behind their choices. We need to re-examine our priorities when it comes to national security, and terrorism. With an administration that hasn’t been very good at plugging intelligence leaks, ironically enough we are presented with a unique opportunity. We can look at least a few of our choices when it comes to “making America safe from terrorism”, and weigh their real value. Are they really worth surrendering certain freedoms? Or would dispensing with those measures be the better choice?

The big question for us is the same one Norway faced. Is just feeling safer worth surrendering even an ounce of freedom as we have for past decade? Are we really any safer, and is our “increased security” hurting us more than it is helping us? This is not about threat assessment. That is another issue. This is about weighing our current (false?) sense of security versus giving terrorists the satisfaction that they have made us change our way of life because of them. Is walking through airport security barefoot worth it anymore? Are the intrusive groping sessions making us safer, or just disgusted and humiliated? Are we daily giving terrorists their jollies by jumping through insane hoops? And, perhaps even more important than all of that, are we surrendering too many personal liberties, and too much privacy to allow the government to investigate “potential terror threats”? Norway has shown it is possible to move on after suffering a terrorist attack without surrendering freedoms. If they can do it, why can’t we?

My Twitter Follow Policy

In recent months, I’ve learned that if you don’t provide people with information, they’ll try to guess the answers on their own.  They won’t contact you and ask for you to fill the blanks in; they’ll just make assumptions and then act on them.  In light of that, I’ve decided to go ahead and post my “official Twitter follow policy” here and then link to it in my Twitter Bio.  Maybe this will help clear up some misunderstandings.

First off…
WILL YOU  (@AiPolitics)  FOLLOW ME?
The short answer to this question is “yes”.
As long as you interact with me and you aren’t flat out disrespectful, I will follow you.  We don’t even have to agree with each other.  We can have polar opposite opinions (and share them), and I will still follow you.  All that I ask is that you interact (bc why would I follow someone with whom I have no dialogue?) and that you are not flagrantly disrespectful toward me.  The occasional kerfuffle is fine.  Name calling, generally, is not.


While I do follow almost anyone who’d like to conduct dialogue, I do not automatically follow people back just because they follow me.  I used to do that, and I ended up with a cluttered Twitter stream of people I couldn’t even recognize, and even worse, spam bots.  Try introducing yourself or inserting yourself into my conversations.  Once I realize you’re here for dialogue, I’ll generally follow you back.

No.  I honestly don’t pay attention to it anymore.  If six million people wanted to discuss topics that interest me, I would follow six million people.  Interaction is almost always the deciding factor in whether or not I follow you.

Sometimes I simply do not have a “good” response, so I say nothing.  Sometimes your tweet did not appear in my “mentions” column, and I did not even know you had spoken to me.  And sometimes I think you’re “trolling” me or using a straw man argument.  I don’t mind disagreeing, but if I think you’re picking a fight just to see if you can “get my goat”, I’ll choose not to respond.  If you’re genuinely here for dialogue (and not just arguing), I will pick that up after you make a few attempts at talking with me.  Be persistent.  And if I don’t “ever” respond and you feel slighted, then let me know.  It may or may not be intentional, but I’ll usually talk it out with you.

As I said before, when you don’t provide people with information, they often decide to just make assumptions and run with them.  Lately, I’ve been seeing more and more people broadcast their assumptions as if they were fact.  ie…
“@AiPolitics didn’t follow me back, because I didn’t agree with him.”
“@AiPolitics didn’t follow me back, because he’s trying to pad his follower-to-following ratio.”
“@AiPolitics didn’t follow me, because he’s jealous that I have more followers than he does.”

The last one is one of my favorites….  The new assumption on Twitter is that if you disagree with someone who has more followers, then you must “obviously” be envious.  This makes about as much sense as when Democrats say that if you disagree with President Obama, you must “obviously” be a racist, but otherwise intelligent people on Twitter still make this assertion.


Hopefully this post clears up a lot of misconceptions I’ve been running into lately.  If it doesn’t, feel free to tweet me with questions you may have.  Also, feel free to add some of your own Twitter follow policies in the comments below.  Maybe we can all clear up the misunderstandings that have been seen on Twitter lately.  (many of them can be avoided if people will simply ASK instead of ASSUMING)


The author of this post, Ai Politics, can be tweeted under the handle @AiPolitics at

Radio Host Glenn Beck Quotes Rudyard Kipling in Epic Free Pac Speech

Conservative Radio Host Glenn Beck

Conservative radio host Glenn Beck addressed a sellout crowd Thursday at the Freedomworks Free Pac gathering at American Airlines Stadium in Dallas Texas. He read a poem from Rudyard Kipling entitled “Gods of the Copy-Book Headings” in an effort to rally crowds of conservative-libertarian supporters as part of his first day of the three-day “Restoring Love” series in Dallas. On Saturday Evening, Beck will address another large crowd at Cowboys Stadium. Watch Beck’s keynote speech at The Daily Beck You Tube page here below.



John Fund Speech Addresses Voter Fraud, praises Minnesota Majority

John Fund

John Fund’s FreePac Speech in Dallas, Texas Thursday covers the issue of voter fraud and the election integrity organization Minnesota Majority figured prominently in his comments. Listen to his comments as posted on the Daily Beck You Tube Channel. Good job Freedomworks and Minnesota Majority for your efforts in keeping integrity in our local elections.

New Grievances for a New American Revolution

Two hundred and thirty-six years ago, 56 brave men representing the thirteen united States of America declared that separation from the British crown was necessary as a result of numerous abuses of power and infringements upon personal liberty. These men were not only willing to jeopardize their good names, but their “Lives, [their] Fortunes, and [their] Sacred Honor.”

Once again, Americans face a despot, a leader who is unwilling to accept limitations on power that have been set forth, one who is unwilling to embrace the very foundations of the American Capitalistic economy. The word “despot” carries a very strong negative connotation, but it is applicable to the Obama presidency for a number of reasons. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a despot as “any ruler who governs absolutely or tyrannically; an oppressor.”

Remember that Valerie Jarrett, co-chair of Barack Obama’s Presidential transition committee told Tom Brokaw in a 2008 Meet the Press interview that “Obama [would be] prepared to take power and begin to rule Day 1.”  The plan all along has been to “rule” this country, not lead or govern, which are leadership styles more commonly associated with a free country.

For the past three years, we have experienced a series of shock and awe moments, as this administration has exercised absolute power in a way that is creating “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of absolute Tyranny over these States” (Declaration of Independence). Once again, “let Facts be submitted to a candid world” in an effort to make the case:

  • He has permitted the abuse of eminent domain to seize underwater mortgages. Read
  • He has forced individuals to pay tax penalties for refusing to buy health insurance. Read
  • He has abused executive order and executive privileges, especially in the efforts to cover up misdeeds of his administration. Read
  • He is working actively to allow student loan debt to be forgiven, effectively showing economic favoritism of one group of citizens over another. Read
  • He has shown preference to business and misused government funds to support and rescue failing companies run by large campaign donors. Read
  • He has failed to follow the separation of powers between the branches of government.  Read
  • He has abused taxpayer dollars to take extravagant family vacations while others have to sacrifice because they are out of work. Read
  • He has failed to meet with his JOBS Council in more than half a year, even though unemployment numbers are at a record high during his presidency. Read
  • He has shown blatant disregard for the law of the land.
  • He has engaged in excessive “stimulus” spending. Read and Read

Further, he should be removed from office this November for the following offenses:

  • For neglecting to adequately equip and protect the U.S. Armed Forces and border agents. Watch
  • For building dangerous friendships with dictators and leaders of our nation’s enemies (Read) and destroying alliances that our nation has had for centuries. Watch
  • For associating with known domestic terrorists. Read and Read and Read

Courageous American citizens must once again declare our intentions to be free from despotism; we must demand that the power of the federal government be diminished and returned to the states; and we must vote in November in such a way as to move toward this end. If we do not, we are facing a grim future, the possibility of states seceding from the union, and a New American Revolution that will forever alter the landscape of this great nation.

ObamaCare – Punishing Success and Responsibility

By now we have all heard the “You Didn’t Build That” speech. President Obama does not often make his true feelings known, but that speech was telling.

As he tries to back-peddle from having the man behind the curtain revealed, it is important to point out a few little ways the Affordable Care Act re-enforces his proclamation that success is to be punished.

Time and time again the ObamaTax on people who choose not to purchase health insurance has been referred to as the “freeloader” tax. It is to be imposed on folks who are young and healthy, can afford to buy health insurance but choose not to.

This is actually MORE insulting than the “you didn’t build that” speech. Many people who are young, healthy and CAN afford to buy health insurance, but choose not to, actually pay their doctor bills when they get them. If the bill is expensive, they arrange terms and abide by them. These responsible people are the ones who will feel the worst sting of the ObamaCare Tax.

According to the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA) in 2010 29% of the adult population (19-64) had medical debt, but only 16% had been contacted by a collection agency. That indicates that 13% were paying their bills on-time. Those people will soon have the pleasure of paying a penalty tax, for which they receive neither reward nor benefit simply because they have been responsible free market citizens.

So if you CAN afford health insurance but exercise your freedom to choose not to buy it, even though you DO pay your medical bills (incidentally you pay more for the same service than an insurance company does), you are now a freeloader and are penalized for being responsible!

Yet another provision in the onerous law, of which this author has heard no one speak, allows your employer to charge you more for the same insurance than another worker who makes less money than you do. So as a reward for loyal longtime service you get to pay more money for the same insurance than does a new hire. In case you are skeptical, here is the language, straight from the bill.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The plan sponsor of a group health plan
(other than a self-insured plan) may not establish rules relating to the health insurance coverage eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any full-time employee under the terms of the plan that are based on the total hourly or annual salary of the employee or otherwise establish eligibility rules that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees.
‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—Subsection (a) shall not be construed to prohibit a plan sponsor from establishing contribution requirements for enrollment in the plan or coverage that provide for the payment by employees with lower hourly or annual compensation of a lower dollar or percentage contribution than the payment required of similarly situated employees with a higher hourly or annual compensation.

Notice you cannot discriminate in favor of a high-wage employee, but you CAN discriminate in favor of a low wage one.

Just two more ways the current administration has found to punish success and reward failure.

Romney’s Best Convention Strategy – Let Sarah Palin Speak

Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt thundered out those captivating words at his first inaugural speech in 1933. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney must seriously confront the political ghosts haunting his decision to let Sarah Palin speak at the GOP National Convention in August in Tampa, FL. Allow Palin to speak so that a Romney administration can turn economic retreat by Obama into economic advance.

This is the time when Romney has the opportunity to not fall into the carefully laid traps of liberal commentators like MSNBC Chris Matthews with his over the top hyperbole or his fellow liberal combatant-in-arms Lawrence O’Donnell. Each has never seemed to miss an opportunity to cast verbal grenades at Sarah Palin, since 2008. Their goal is quite simple, demonize Palin, the Tea Party and plant the seeds of distrust in the American consciousness that Palin and the Tea Party is Kryptonite to Romney and in their crude way, also to America.

This liberal convention strategy is quite clear. They want fear of Sarah Palin to be the ongoing sound bite that reverberates in Romney’s mind. Liberals want the truth about the horrendous economic affects that millions of Americans are feeling every single moment of every single day in their homes to be blurred out. They want Americans who are hurting in Ohio, Tennessee, Iowa, Indiana, and Michigan and all over the nation to be hidden behind campaign advertising lies blasting daily in their homes. If Sarah Palin is added to this liberal narrative, then her ability to connect and motivate conservatives and millions of independents is neutralized by their calculated deceit.

But you see, the “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror” fear that the liberal media provocateurs try to place at Sarah Palin’s doorstep is truly unjustified and misplaced. Americans are much smarter than that.

Sarah Palin has not kept 23 million Americans jobless. Sarah Palin is not responsible for unemployment being above 8 percent for 42 months straight since February 2009, according to the National Bureau of Labor Statistics. Sarah Palin is not responsible for ongoing tragedy of 1.6 million children who are homeless, according to a study released by National Center on Family Homelessness in December 2011. There is a name for this fear and his name is President Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama and his media ad crafters know that American voter know full well the name of their fear for America’s future. They know that and he is not nameless, nor is their fear unreasoning, nor is their fear unjustified terror. Their fear is a renewal of another 4 year lease on the White House by President Obama.

With this dismal truth as the back drop, enters Sarah Palin, at the GOP Tampa convention. She is focused and determined as she stands at the convention podium. She elevates the conventioneers’ enthusiasm because she helps them to feel the electricity of renewal of dynamic faith in America’s “can do” belief.

Romney is the direct beneficiary of Palin’s rallying call that brings even Americans in their homes to their feet with a dynamic feeling in their hearts that vibrant hope, and definite positive meaningful change for their families, and for their future will be unleashed after Obama is sent packing in November.

Therefore, fear of what may happen at the convention podium cannot be the driving rationale that Romney uses for depriving Palin a primetime speaking role. Romney has to be the warrior for American families who will utilize all the power at his disposal, and not be consumed by political pundits who desperately deliberate in backrooms conjuring up methods to play defense against the Obama political machine.

Throw out that playbook and select Sarah Palin, because in less than a month, the millions of families who live on farms, in cities, suburbs, and millions of others living in homeless shelters will not want to be exposed to a political convention where it is business as usual. Romney, include Palin’s steel will and her vibrant clarion call to join with yours and allow America to feel a new dawn in their life, in their family’s future and in America is going to be possible.

At the convention, be the true American leader, who does not fear the past, does not fear the present, but embraces all vibrant spirits and voices who can and will make a difference at the convention. Lead at the convention from strength and not fear.

In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.” President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933.

Sarah Palin can and will make a difference at the GOP national convention, and add vigor and build the support needed to unseat President Obama in November. Her speech can help turn a presidential bid into a presidential victory. And there begins the true transformation of Romney the candidate to Romney the American leader who will take back the White House.

Let me know what you think:

« Older Entries Recent Entries »