Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

June 1, 2005

Sticky web of political blogs

Filed under: Government,Politics — Bunker @ 2:29 pm

Well, it’s not as sticky as the FEC seems to think. And the political advisors are in agreement with the approach the FEC apparently wants to take:

“I think FEC needs to regulate ordinary people as lightly as possible,” said Carol Darr, director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at The George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management.

“As lightly as possible” means, to me and the writers of the Constitution, no regulation at all.

I guess I need to write yet another comment to them.

May 11, 2005

Plane Scare

Filed under: Government — Bunker @ 4:19 pm

By now, most of you have heard the story of the plane flying over DC. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey is upset that they’ve never had any drills for evacuating the Capitol. Neil Cavuto (one of my favorites) takes him and others to task:

To me, you sounded more concerned that you had to exit with the minions, than the fact that you and the minions survived.

Neil is right. Can you imagine all these self-important Senators being rushed out of session only to find out they were involved in a drill? I’m sure the good senator from New Jersey means there should be evacuations drills on a regular basis–such as when Congress isn’t in session. Once all the minions know how to act, the senators can simply follow their lead in a real emergency.

May 7, 2005


Filed under: Government — Bunker @ 11:41 am

Anyone who feels we should be following business practices of other countries needs to read these thoughts on bribery.

We are on this road. How far do we wish to travel?

May 4, 2005


Filed under: Government — Bunker @ 5:57 am

I got a response from my Congressman regarding my concerns about the FEC’s proposed rule on internet communication. As you can see, he’s on top of this issue:

Thank you for your continued correspondence regarding your Internet web log. I appreciate hearing from you.

I hope that your communication with the FEC finds a response to your liking. Freedom of speech is an important right to those that live in this nation. I can understand your concerns.

Once again, thank you for writing. Best wishes.


Solomon P. Ortiz

Member of Congress

At least there is an indication that someone actually read my letter, although they certainly didn’t understand it.

April 30, 2005

Miscellaneous Objections

Filed under: Government,Politics — Bunker @ 5:19 pm

Ryan Sager isn’t just staying on top of “Campaign Finance Reform”, he’s digging out the hypocrisy and flim-flam.

Today he’s talking about the local issues of “reform” and who is funding what. He also points to a groundbreaking report from 2001 which exposed a lot of things some folks don’t want exposed–including a certain Senator from a southwestern state.

April 26, 2005

Convicted Felon Buys Gun

Filed under: Government — Bunker @ 5:37 pm

Bogey is interested in my opinion on this conclusion drawn by the US Supreme Court.

The basis of the suit was that Gary Small had been convicted of smuggling in Japan, and after release from prison there returned to the US–where he bought a pistol. In filling out the Federal paperwork for the purchase, he claimed not to have been convicted of a felony.

But today, the Supreme Court sided with Mr. Small, ruling 5 to 3 that the phrase “convicted in any court” applies only to convictions in the United States. “Congress ordinarily intends its statutes to have domestic, not extraterritorial, application,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for a majority that also included Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

I agree. But I find it odd in this situation that O’Conner, Ginsburg, and Kennedy often cite foreign laws in their positions. Kennedy, this time, held to that sense of “world jurisdiction” along with two other justices deemed to be conservative. The majority argued the same thing I would have:

To include foreign convictions, the majority reasoned, would raise the possibility of tainting a person who had been caught up in a legal system lacking American standards of fairness.

Of course, that leaves open the screams that he might now commit a gun crime.

Well, when you come right down to it, nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the power to restrict gun ownership whatsoever, not even for convicted felons.

This, my friends, is a perfect example of getting the Federales involved in your life in some way, with consequences you might never have considered. The anti-gun folks would love to see all rights to gun ownership revoked. The true dyed-in-the-wool gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment would agree with this ruling by the court.

In between are those faint of heart who want to see certain people not allowed to own guns.

Actually, the right “to keep and bear arms” means I don’t even need a concealed-carry permit to “bear arms.” But that kind of law is “tolerated” by those who will carry a gun themselves, but believe certain citizens really don’t have the same rights. I don’t have a concealed-carry permit.

Bogey, did that shock you?

April 25, 2005


Filed under: Government — Bunker @ 5:34 am

How much is a billion? Hud has the answer.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress