Hi Ermy,
Almost everyone who viewed the YouTube video remembers the line, “stay away from my kids!”
I was referring to something Brian Baird had brought up earlier in the evening. Baird was discussing an element of the Pelosi “health care” bill that calls for compulsorily education of parents on how to perform specific functions relating to the raising of their own children. Brian Baird made it completely clear, that he supported this portion of the bill and went on to defend its inclusion stating that it would be a good idea for parents to be trained on “basic things” such as “when to potty train” their children. Baird was adamant about the necessity of this portion of the bill and he continued to defend his position despite overwhelming disapproval by the majority of his own constituents in the audience.
This position should be abhorrent to virtually every parent in this great nation. The assumption that some government official is going to step in and tell parents how to raise their own children is both preposterous and uncontainable. After all, who will be responsible for creating these “instructions” and who would be named as the government Czar in charge of checking with our children to ensure that all instructions were carried out according to government specifications? How is government to verify adherence if they don’t approach and question our children themselves?
It’s insulting to assume that Nancy Pelosi and Brian Baird actually think that individuals like themselves in government should be filling a role between a parent and their own child. These are the same individuals that preside over what is perhaps the most wasteful and criminal governing body that our country has ever seen.
These men and women openly abrogate their responsibility to ensure that our U.S. Borders are secure and protected.
They support decisions such as the one made in Roe v. Wade that violates clear tenants of the supreme law of this land.
They have no respect for the private property rights of American citizens and they continue to prove this with every piece of legislation they vote for that deprives one American of the use of his own property in order to redistribute that property to another American the government sees as more deserving.
They run colossal government ponzi schemes backed up with clear accounting fraud that would put any private businessman or accountant in a jail cell beside Bernie Madoff for the remainder of his or her natural life.
They refuse to honor clear and basic elements of the U.S. Constitution in direct violation of their sworn oath of honor.
The very individuals responsible for this corruption, waste, dishonorable and illegal behavior now want to tell us how we as parents should raise our kids. This would be laughable if both Baird and Pelosi were not serious.
It’s high time that we as both U.S. citizens and parents, stand up to our elected non-representing representatives and impart on them that they would be best served if they would kindly attend to their Constitutional obligations and refrain from stepping between American children and their loving parents. Clear cases of abuse aside, this will never be government’s proper role. Government bureaucrats shall keep their distance from our children because the safest place for our kids, is as far from most of our elected leaders as possible. We don’t need that type of influence around our innocent children. Increased government intrusion into the natural role and responsibilities of parents will not continue. As parents, we will not tolerate it.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again, Brian Baird, Stay Away From My Kids!
David William Hedrick
Thank you for the question Lynda. This question has come up before and I would like to answer it again here.
Brian Baird knows that creating a government health care entitlement program has nothing to do with the regulation of commerce between states, a power granted to the Federal government by the commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution. If it does, the power of the Federal government is limitless because it could apply to anything and everything. If this is the case, why did our founders bother writing the rest of the Constitution? The fact is, left wing activists like Baird have been abusing this clause for many years and taking advantage of the apathy of voters and a complicit judiciary. What’s next? Will Brian Baird claim that the Second Amendment gives us all the right to free ice cream on Thursdays? This would be just as absurd. What’s more, he knows it, but is hoping the average American voter doesn’t.
So, the answer to your question is no. The commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution does not give the Federal government the power to create a national health care entitlement program. Brian Baird’s support of this bill, or any version of this bill that I have read, is tantamount to a violation of his sworn oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Any suggestion he makes to the contrary, including his assertion that he has the right to “interpret” anything into the Constitution that he sees fit, is disingenuous at best. Ignoring the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution in favor of the words Brian Baird wishes were in the Constitution is not an interpretation. It is a lie.
"How strangely will the tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words" -Samuel Adams
David William Hedrick
Hi Marcus,
When pondering how I would answer this question, I quickly realized I could write a book on the subject and the biggest challenge I would face, is managing to answer your question without doing just that.
I want make you aware that I am a proud life member of the NRA. I have been a proud Second Amendment supporter for most of my life and when I am elected to Congress, I will take my passion for the individual right to keep and bear arms with me to our nation’s capital.
In response to your question and in reference to “assault rifles”:
The so called, “assault weapons ban” had nothing to do with true assault weapons. I want to write that again, in case it was not clear the first time. The so called, “assault weapons ban” had nothing to do with true assault weapons. Period.
When pushing for legislation that would otherwise prove unpopular with the American voter, a common tactic of the statists is to slap a title on the bill that has nothing to do with the true objectives of the legislation. In this case, the scary term “assault weapon” was used to put fear in the voter and create a situation where Congressmen and Senators, who did not vote in support of this unconstitutional legislation, would then face political attack ads accusing them of supporting criminal use of assault weapons in the next election. Though virtually every elected representative in either chamber knew this was a scam perpetrated on the American voter, most still voted for it rather than face the inevitable political attacks or simply to advance their unconstitutional, anti liberty objectives.
This bill only prohibited arbitrary features on some rifles, such as bayonet lugs, compensators and adjustable stocks. These features had nothing to do with the functionality of the weapons and did nothing to increase or decrease their lethality for all practical intents and purposes. To ensure the success of this ban, many features were also given scary sounding names such as “flash suppressor” and “collapsible stock” which described the actual feature about as well as the term “assault rifle” described the weapon itself. This clever ruse ensured that every day American’s would remain in the dark while their weapons were being stolen right out from under them.
So why did the gun control advocates bother to pass this legislation if it had no practical effect on the weapons themselves? This was done for two main reasons.
Specific politicians exploited the opportunity to grandstand and pander to antigun lobbyists in their quest to gain support in the next election. This support was purchased at the price of your Liberty. I am sure the Chuck Schumer’s and Dian Feinstein’s of our government considered this a small price to pay for a few extra ducats in their campaign coffers.
Antigun activists in our government realized that in the future, they would only need to expand what was labeled as an “assault weapon” in order to push toward their end goal of complete civilian disarmament. Every time the definition of “assault weapon” expanded, they would effectively outlaw more guns and hunting rifles. For proof of the effectiveness of this strategy, look no further than the state of California where it has been successfully implemented and turned many law abiding citizens into criminals or forced them to hand over their personal firearms to a constitutionally contemptuous government agent.
As Thomas Paine said so long ago, “the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf”.
In response to your question in reference to firearm registration:
To answer this question I will need to explain the Second Amendment and the rational of our nation’s founders during its ratification.
The Second Amendment clearly states,
“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.”
During the time of our nation’s founding, the militia was not what we refer to now as our National Guard. Quite simply, the militia was made up of common men from our citizenry. These men would leave their homes, their farms and their businesses to take up arms should the cause prove just and necessary. These individual citizens were very loosely organized and in many cases were not organized at all. Because militia referred to nothing more than the average citizen, in effect, we ourselves are the militia our founders referred to when coining the language of this amendment.
In their speeches and writings our founders made their intent transparently clear. The Second Amendment stood as a bulwark against attacks on the liberty of the American citizenry. The purpose of putting this unalienable right to bear arms in writing, was not to defend a right to hunt. It was not exclusively intended to ensure Americans held the means to defend themselves from the common criminal element or to be used in defense of the state or national government as we know those entities today. This amendment, was intended to protect freedom by preserving the spirit and tools of resistance against the unlawful and immoral encroachments on the sacred gem of liberty by our own government.
The scholars who founded our nation, knew the history of governments all too well. They had studied countless examples of tyrants throughout recorded history, who first disarmed and then enslaved or murdered their own citizens. The clear intent of the Second Amendments inclusion in our Bill of Rights was to ensure that our country does not repeat these mistakes of the past.
Our Second Amendment guarantees that we the people shall always preserve the right of resistance and the implements to resist. It serves as a reminder to would-be tyrants in our own government that they serve at our pleasure and not as our masters. Our founders wanted to make it absolutely clear to any despotic tyrant, that should he ever refuse to hold the next election, or should his violations of the peoples natural rights become otherwise intolerable, the American citizens have both the moral right and means to remove that tyrant from his privileged seat of power.
If you look around today, you will see that it is inevitably the forces of the extreme left that continually call for more government control and less individual liberty. It is by no mistake that these same individuals are in the leading rank of those calling for increased gun control. They detest our rights, our freedoms and our private property. More than that, they hold intolerable our ability to assert those rights and freedoms should we the people determine that such assertion is necessary. Throughout history, tyrants have always been bold and aggressive in their consumption of individual liberty, until they were faced with the fact that the peasants had armed themselves. A healthy fear of its citizenry is the best tool to ensure any government respects the rights of the people it purports to represent.
Taking the true meaning of the Second Amendment into account, it should become clear that gun registration schemes are both immoral and a violation of our rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Who would be responsible for registering and tracking these weapons? The same government these arms themselves are intended to protect us from? This position is absurd on its face.
One of the most common justifications given to support gun registration schemes is the false promise that such a scheme is intended to keep firearms out of the hands of violent criminals. Really? Please, help me with this one. These politicians are actually suggesting that they believe a violent criminal, who has determined to commit robbery, rape or even murder will instead, line up and register his weapon so that it can be confiscated? This of course, is absolutely ridiculous and our politicians who make these statements know it. Gun registration schemes have nothing to do with protecting American citizens from criminals who would misuse firearms to commit illegal acts because these criminals would never comply with registration in the first place. Instead, these schemes are intended to protect would-be tyrants in our own government and their statist allies who support their radical leftist agenda from us, the American people. It is that simple.
I do not today, nor will I ever support any piece of legislation that denies American citizens their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Instead, I will support the freedom, liberty and God given natural rights of my fellow citizens.
I hope this answers your question, Marcus.
David William Hedrick
U.S. financial policy has a profound effect on the life of every American. The functions of our government in creating and administering that policy, insofar as the Constitution gives them authority to do so, should be open and transparent. Many Congressmen and American citizens have expressed their concern with the government's current monetary policy and the conduct of the Federal Reserve in regards to that policy. Because of the widespread impact of the Fed's financial decisions and the nature of the organization itself, I join these Congressmen and citizens in their quest to ensure our currency is being safeguarded and not abused by the men and women who make up this organization. I fully support a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve. The results of this audit should be made available to the American people in its entirety.