In their monthly magazine, the NRA cited how Justice Sotomayor stated one thing about gun rights and then dissented in the recent McDonald v. Chicago decision.

Sen. Leahy: Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court’s decision as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?

Judge Sotomayor: Yes, sir.

Leahy: Thank you. And in the Second Circuit decision, Maloney v. Cuomo, you, in fact, recognized the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions. Is that correct?

Sotomayor: It is.

Leahy: And you accept and applied the Heller decision when you decided Maloney?

Sotomayor: Completely, sir. I accepted and applied established Supreme Court precedent that the Supreme Court in its own opinion in Heller acknowledged, answered the — a different question.

The NRA points out that in the McDonald v. Chicago decision, she dissented and agreed with her liberal colleague Justice Breyer.  He states in his dissenting opinion (pg. 210), “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.”

If Sotomayor recognized that the “personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment”, why did she agree with Breyer?  Normally, if a justice agrees in part, they will provide their own dissent.  Sotomayor did not do this.  Stevens, who also dissented with the majority opinion, filed his own dissent.  Sotomayor has filed her own dissents before.  So why not in this case?

Somewhere, she lied.  She either lied during her confirmation hearings or she lied on the bench.  Either way, Congress should investigate and find out.  Hopefully, if the Republicans retake the House in November, they will start impeachment proceedings.

There are two republicans running in the primary: Matthew Berry and Patrick Murray. Berry is a new-comer to politics and is seeking his first elected office. He is unashamedly homosexual, living with his life partner in liberal Arlington, VA.

Patrick Murray, whose name sounds so familiar but can’t place it, is also running in the primary. Residing in more-blue-than-red Alexandria, VA, Murray is also running for his first elected office. Little is given away about his private life on his website. He is a retired U.S. Army Colonel.

I’ve said this before: I’m a Republican by force, not by choice. What I mean by this is that I’m often more conservative than the Republican party tends to be. Since we live in a two-party system, unfortunately, the only option is the vote for candidates that best represent my views. These candidates, more often than not, side Republican.

Berry and Murray have similar political views. They both have pledged to repeal the Healthcare bill if elected. They stand remarkably close in terms of national defense. I believe the biggest difference comes down to two issues: gay marriage and abortion. And this is where I made my choice.

Berry, who is homosexual, supports legalized marriage for same-sex partners. This is understandable, but something I completely disagree with. I actually ran into Berry when I was having lunch with a friend at Famous Dave’s. When I asked him if he would support federal legislation, he said no, which was surprising. He said that he was a federalist and that question should be left to the states. While I disagree with this notion, I like the fact that he would not support federal legislation to do so, which also means that he would not support legislation to support marriage between one man and one woman. Murray’s stand is that marriage should be between one man and one woman, but agrees with Berry that this should be left to the states to decide.

My stance is that an issue this important should be decided at the federal level with a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman.

Abortion legislation is likely to come up after the election. Something so pisive is never introduced on an election year for fear of political ramifications. However, it’s important to remember candidate’s voting record on these issues.

Berry and Murray both describe themselves as “pro-life” but this can mean many different things to different people. So both of them describe what they would support. Murray believes that abortion should be a “decision that should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her family and her doctor.” Berry, on the other hand, told me that he believes abortion should be made illegal.

While I believe the battle for making abortion illegal has been lost, I believe that Berry’s stance is important. His stance says to me that he believe life is important. It should just be terminated without regard. Abortion supporters will say, “What about a woman’s health?!” The word-choice here is important. Health can mean many things. I’ve heard “stretch marks” be used as a reason to abort a baby. Berry’s stance on this issue made my choice clear.

As a Christian, I believe God values every life, from conception to death. While I believe God would disapprove of Berry’s life-style choice, the fact is that there is still time for God to reveal this sin to him. When a baby is terminated, it is never given the chance to know God. (I’m not going to start a “Does a fetus go to heaven?” debate here.)

I believe God values life far more than he loathes sin. This is the reason Jesus came to save us. While I disapprove of Berry’s lifestyle (and told him so when we met), it doesn’t mean that I hate him or think he’s evil. There are many people in my life whom I believe are not living the life that God had intended. I lived that life for a while. It just means that God is still working on their hearts.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: I would vote for a Satan worshiper who believe in the right to life than a Christian who was pro-choice. I am not saying Berry is a Satan worshiper! Let’s make the clear! But the priorities he has placed is important and this key issue made the difference.

This is why I’m asking Christians as well as conservative Republicans to support Matthew Berry in the upcoming primary on June 8th.

Congressman Moran:

I would like to let you know that I’m deeply disappointed and very displeased with your performance as my representative to Congress. Your sponsorship of HR 2324 (Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009) is a prime example.

The FBI, Harvard University, among many other institutions have PROVEN that there is no such thing as a Gun Show Loophole in the way that the public understands it. Your failure to properly understand this and many other issues is why I will actively be pursuing your removal from office this November.

It is one thing for us to disagree on issues. It’s another to be completely misinformed.

Michael Soh

Alexandria, VA

I want him OUT OF OFFICE!  This guy has been nothing but a disappointment to the district and must be fired.  He voted for the Healthcare bill and the stimulus package.  This man has done more to hurt America than he has to help.  It’s time for him to be eliminated with extreme prejustice.

For something to be a right, it must be free and cost nothing to have.  For example, the right to free speech costs nothing to exercise.  Well, actually, there are form you fill out and probably a permit fee but the actual cost is very minimal and usually covers administrative costs.  The right to face your accuser does not cost you, the state, or even the accuser anything except time.

I could go on and on but these two examples will suffice.

To say that healthcare is a right is like saying having a TV is a right.  The government doesn’t buy everyone a TV simply because they have the right to a free press.  Healthcare not only costs money but requires people with specific skills.  These skills are learned over several years.  That education is not free.

The best and brightest doctors go to the most prestigious hospitals because they are willing to pay a premium for their knowledge.  Most of these hospitals will take lower-income patients on a case-by-case basis, usually factoring patient income along with total cost of care.

The list goes on and on.  The problem with healthcare as a right is who pays for it.  If we assume that healthcare is paid by taxes, what happens when taxes run out?  All the sudden, something that is a right can no longer be provided.

Right of the press, the right to free speech, the right to not have your property searched…these don’t cost anything.  These are rights that are held because they do not require finite resources.  However, healthcare not only costs money, but costs supplies.

Don’t get me wrong: everyone should have access to healthcare, regardless of who you are, your wealth, your race, or creed.  Access to healthcare should be a right!  Healthcare by itself cannot be a right simply because it is a finite resource.  This is the same reason why having gas in your car is not a right.

Reform needs to happen.  Do insurance companies profit unfairly? Probably.  Do hospitals overcharge? Possibly.  But creating a government healthcare system simply will not change this.  Look at medicare. It’s consistently over-budget, corruption beyond what is reported, and abused beyond measure.

If the government can’t handle the 15% of the population that’s under medicare, how do they expect to cover 100%?

Violence has it’s time and place.  We as a people should only use violence as an absolute last resort.  I completely disagree with the notion that violence is only for “barbaric people” who can’t use words to express their ideas.  Sometimes violence, war, and blood are the only tools left to a society.  They feel so oppressed that their voice is never heard.  These people get labeled as “extremist” by those who oppress them so others can oppress them even more.  Thomas Jefferson once said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Obama’s favorite president Abraham Lincoln said:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

Congressmen all over the country are getting the full brunt of the anger that is brewing in the hearts of America.  And many of these people (myself included) feel completely left out of the conversation.  With Obama calling on his followers to report people who disagree with him to Pelosi calling protesters un-American, you can see why people are getting even more angry.

In an effort to help out my fellow conservatives, I’d like to offer some thoughts and questions you should ask your Congressmen.  Let’s leave the chanting and the angry mob outside the town hall.  If you have the chance to ask your congressmen questions, use the opportunity to ask them the hard questions, questions no one wants to ask.  Questions that the media should be asking but are too scared or too lazy to ask themselves.

Congressmen ultimately answer to you.  Here are some hard questions to ask:

1. When GM and Chrysler were begging for a bailout, Congress reamed them for flying in on corporate private jets.  However, the House recently approved $550 million to upgrade their own personal jets.  Why should the American people approve these private jets for congressmen but not for taxpayer-owned GM?  Furthermore, what will you do to correct this?
2. Obama has consistently said that the health care bill will improve health care.  If this is the case, why has no congressmen agreed to go on the public option?  Will you mandate, and not ask, all congressmen who vote for the bill to use the public option?  Why or why not?
3. Obama has consistently promised that public option health care will give people a choice, and not force people to choose the public option.  However, page 16 (section 102) clearly states otherwise.  Who should we believe? The bill or the President?  If the bill, why haven’t you accused the President of lying to the public and when will you draw up impeachment proceedings like congress did for President Bush?
4. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, a special independent prosecutor, who found fraudulent activity between Obama and a supporter.  Why hasn’t Obama been charged with hindering prosecution, which is a federal felony?
5. Obama has consistently broken many of his campaign promises and looks like he will have to raise taxes on the 95% of the people he said he would protect.  What will you do to prevent this from happening?  Additionally, why hasn’t any democratic congressmen charged Obama with this very fact?  He said “lobbyist will not have a job in this administration” and no less then 24 hours later a lobbyist has a job in his administration.  Why are congressmen, especially democratic congressmen afraid to confront this president when they were not afraid to with the last president?

There have been many reports of congressmen filling the audience with unions who support Obama.  And many of these reports show that these union thugs have become violent toward conservative protesters.  Due to this fact, I am recommending any protester who has a gun to go armed.  You should be prepared to protect yourself.  Since the White House has even encouraged violence, I expect these thugs to be even more violent in the weeks to come.  Remember the rule of self-defense: Do not shoot unless they threaten you.  Virginians: Our state is not a retreat state.  You may stand your ground if you are being threatened.  Do not be afraid of these thugs but at the same time do not be afraid to defend your self.

Please respect all laws in your state when carrying a weapon.

The White House wants people to report “disinformation” to flag@whitehouse.com.  Barack Obama has even said he doesn’t want people who disagree with him to “do a whole lot of talking“.

This is nothing short of a desperate “President” trying to scare his critics into backing down.  But, hey, if he wants to get a whole bunch of e-mails, that’s his business.  I think We the People should report our neighbors for spreading disinformation.  And I say we start with the Obama supporters.

No doubt that this community activist has enlisted a large army of kool-aid drinkers into doing his bidding.  To level the playing field, we should do the same.  In the next week, I’ll be debuting a website where fellow conservatives can report Obama supporters.  Upload pictures of their bumper stickers (including license plates).  Use the Freedom of Information Act in your state to obtain their address, phone number, and any other identifying information.  That information will be publicly displayed for people to see.

Unlike the White House, this list will not be illegal since the information is publicly available.  What people decide to do with the information is not up for the state to decide.

Once I have the website up and running, I’ll make another announcement on this site and on Twitter.

Enter Rep. Jim Moran, who represents me and my district in Northern Virginia.  This guy has never represented any of my views.  His responses are always the party line.  I don’t think this guy even thinks for himself.

I sent the form letter that was available on a website to Rep. Moran.  Here’s his “response”:

Dear Mr. Soh:

Thank you for contacting me to register your opposition to legislation (H.R. 2454) to curb greenhouse gas emissions. I appreciate your comments but regret that we may disagree on this issue.

There is almost complete consensus on the science of climate change. The International Panel on Climate Change states in its recent report that there is a growing body of evidence which demonstrates that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, due to human emissions, have caused most of the warming observed over the past half century.

Both the spatial patterns and trend of warming can only be explained by the inclusion of human emissions. The rapid increase in global temperatures seen over the past half century could not have been caused by natural factors alone. The warming effect of human emissions is around ten times that of solar variations. I would encourage you to read the statements of the International Panel on Climate Change and the Academies of Science of the 11 largest countries in the world. There is also a good website with YouTube videos that effectively refute some of the more popular claims that global climate change is not occurring or the result of human activity: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610.

If you accept that humans are the cause of global climate change, then it is hard not to argue that as the largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions on a per capita basis and the second largest by country, the U.S. should take a leadership role in reducing emissions. I believe we also have a moral obligation to consider what cost future generations will bear for our impact on the environment. Concerns about the cost to the economy should be secondary to the welfare of our children and future generations.

The legislation approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday, June 26, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) seeks to reduce greenhouse gases below 80 percent of their 2005 levels by the year 2050. The act achieves this objective through a combination of mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from major sources, a clean renewable energy standard for electricity production, greater energy efficiency, and conservation measures and subsidies to support the development of carbon sequestration technologies. The mandatory reductions are achieved through a cap and trade program that is modeled after the market-based program enacted under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. This program successfully reduced sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired plants that were responsible for acid rain that acidified lakes, destroyed aquatic wildlife and fresh drinking water sources. Within seven years of its implementation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that compliance costs were 75 percent below those originally predicted by EPA and far below what opponents at the time of its passage claimed. EPA also found that within that seven-year period acid deposition in the eastern United States had declined by as much as 30 percent, resulting in marked improvements in lakes and streams.

There is no doubt that transforming to less carbon intense energy sources will have an impact on the economy. The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act places the cost at less than 50 cents per family, per day for the first ten years. While there will be economic disruption and job losses, there will also be new jobs and industries created. We currently spend more than $700 billion annually on oil imports. By comparison, the total cost of the war in Iraq is estimated at $2 trillion to $3 trillion when the health care and retirement benefits of returning veterans are included. Bearing the cost of transitioning toward a less carbon-intense society is possible, appropriate and necessary.

There are also significant costs for doing nothing. And, we do not need to wait a generation to measure the impact of inaction. We have already begun to bear these costs. Arid subtropical climate zones have already expanded by about 250 miles, endangering native plant and animal species.  The European heat wave of 2003 is estimated to have killed 35,000 people. In 1998, floods in China adversely affected 24 million. The World Health Organization estimates that as of the year 2000 the annual death toll from climate change had reached more than 150,000.

Looking into the future, extraordinary heat waves, storms and floods will kill many people and harm many others, and this increasing toll of death and destruction will not be limited to developing countries. Tropical diseases will increase their range of infection and exact their toll in human lives. Changing patterns of rainfall and mountain runoff will lead to local water shortages and crop failures in California and the Southwest. Ocean acidification will destroy coral reefs and the chain of sea life they support, endangering a leading food source for up to one-third of humanity. If coastal ice shelves in the Antarctic continue to disintegrate, sea levels will rise several meters in a century. At such a rate, almost half of the world’s great cities will disappear. Large-scale human migrations in response to rising sea levels and other climate-induced stresses will impoverish many people. In general, an increasingly harsh climate will greatly endanger future generations’ life expectancy and diminish everyone’s quality of life. Some warn that mass extinctions of species may occur, leaving a far more desolate planet for our descendants than the world that we inherited.

While there are a number of provisions that cause me concern, this legislation sets in play an ambitious program to transform the way we produce and consume energy and moves us away from the precipice of environmental and ecological disaster. The current debate, which I welcome, is long overdue.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

James P. Moran

There is just so much wrong with these “facts”.  It’s been said that facts should never get in the way of political change.  And you, Mr. Moran, embody that.

Outside of the fact that many of the statements he made are soundbites from various organizations, not one of his sources are acedemic.  Since I’m enrolled in grad school, I did a quick search on scientific journals that contained articles showing global climate change as natural.  I found hundreds of sources — all peer reviewed and referried.

Here is my reply to Mr. Moran:

Mr Moran

I appreciate your reply, but I’m deeply troubled.

First of all, there is no complete consensus on global climate change.  If there was, there would be no scientific debate and there clearly is.  Many, many well-known organizations such as the Meteorological Association as well as renown scientists have shown that there is no causal link between carbon dioxide and global climate change.  Furthermore, data from the NOAA has shown that global temperatures have gone up and down throughout the course of history and have not significantly changed because of carbon emotions.  In fact a new study was released in the Journal of Geophysical Research that shows that that global climate changes are a result of naturally occurring elements such as southern oscillation than human-made carbon dioxide

I’m shocked and appalled that you offer YouTube videos as your evidence to global climate change.  And most of the sources you site are not academic.  In a quick search at my local university, I found numerous academic papers (which are not clouded by political gain) that show that changes in climate are natural.

Mr Moran, if you are using YouTube videos to vote on policy instead of listening to your constituents, you should not be a congressman.

I’m deeply troubled that you are failing to represent my views.  I hoped that you would be a politician that thought critically about all bills, and not simply went along with the party line.  I’ve looked at your voting history and you’ve voted with the party 97% of the time.  This tells me you’re a party candidate and not my candidate.  I’ve asked you to vote on my issues but you have repeatedly let me down.

Your re-election is fast approaching.  If you do not start representing my views soon, I will actively campaign against your re-election.

Sincerely,

Michael Soh

Mr. Moran is up for re-election next year.

Politics was never meant to be a full-time career.  In fact, it was supposed to be a group of individuals who believed in bringing REAL results from the national level down to the local level.  But we’ve gone far beyond this vision.  The majority of the elected legislators are millionaires.  They live cushy lives from lobby kickbacks.  They air a sense of entitlement, like they deserve to have popularity, money, prestige.

I want to believe that there is at least one honost politician.  But due to the fact that politics is now a game as opposed to a mission, these honest home-grown politicians fall by the wayside.

Despite elections, I don’t believe that the everyman’s concern is addressed.  Congress has gotten so partition that the majority of votes now can be counted by which party the politician is in.  We, the people, must wake up from this fact and seek real change.  Not the change that Obama promised because it isn’t enough.

I’m calling my proposal the 3-2-1 plan.  It’s simple:

• Three: Elected legislative members are limited to three consecutive terms.  It doesn’t matter if he puts in two terms in the House and then one term in the Senate or all three terms in the Senate.  After serving three consecutive terms, the  member must not seek ANY federally-elected office for two full terms of his last office.
• Two: The legislator-to-constituent ratio is way too high.  Using 2010 census data, we must double the number of legislators in both the House and Senate.  This makes it so that more specific concerns can be heard from a smaller group of constituents and makes it harder for lobby groups to control one group of legislators.
• One: Each legislator will earn a different salary, which will be equal to the median income level of his constituents.  This salary will be determined by the last census.  This will force the legislator to relate to his constituents and understand their financial needs better.  If he needs to take on a second job, so be it.

I need help getting this message across.  Right now, the foxes guard the hen house.  There is no way that a bill like this will pass because no legislator in their right mind would want to give up the power that they have right now.

Our elected officials have forgotten that they work for the people.  We don’t have to cater to them.  The only way that a bill like this can pass is through grassroots support.  I doubt either house will introduce this bill.  The only way for it to pass is for it to be voted on by referendum at the state level.

I’m not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination.  But I know enough about the constitution that a bill like this will require an amendment to the constitution.  With your help, we can make this happen.

Please tell your friends about this plan.  It’s a good plan and gives power back to the people and away from the lobbiest and the carear politicians.  Your comments are always appreciated.  Please post them below.

We would be absolutely opposed to relocating Guantanamo prisoners to Alexandria.  We would do everything in our power to lobby the president, the governor, the Congress and everyone else to stop it. We’ve had this experience, and it was unpleasant. Let someone else have it.

Mayor Euille, you are the worst kind of hypocrite.  People have protested Gitmo and wanted it closed during the Bush administration.  Now that some of those “innocent” people are going to be released, they don’t want them there!

This is similar to a story that I heard about a year ago.  Montgomery county in Maryland said that they would not help Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown on laborers.  But the largely liberal community cried out when these laborers started loitering around their neighborhood.

This goes to show that liberals only care about justice when it’s cool and hip.  If you truly believe that these wrongly held citizens are innocent, why not invite them with open arms?

I’ll be the first to say welcome!  Here’s my letter to Major Euille:

Mayor Euille:

I am shocked by the comments you made regarding the possible relocation of Guantanamo detainees to Alexandria.  Many of your constituents have demanded their release from the prison.  Many of these same constituents wanted to end the war in Iraq.  I personally don’t take these positions but I find it highly hypocritical that you would not welcome these detainees with open arms.

Per our constitution, all of these detainees are INNOCENT until proven guilty.  With the new president, he is listening to the people and is releasing them.  It’s not right for these same people to now complain when they are being released into their back yard.  Alexandria, who voted President Obama in with a sweeping majority, should now embrace these detainees.  After all, they haven’t even been charged with a crime.

I expect more from a leader such as yourself.

Sincerely,

Michael Soh

UPDATE :: 31 March 2009 10:00 am

Mayor Euille did me the courtous thing and replied to me.  But it confuses more than it answers.  I guess if he couldn’t do that he wouldn’t be in politics:

Dear Mr. Soh:

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your taking the time to let me know your concerns about the disposition of the Guantanamo detainees. While I support the closing of this facility and giving the detainees a fair trial, I believe that Alexandria has already done its fair share by handling for more than four years the Missaoui trial.

William D. Euille
Mayor

For those that don’t know, Missaoui, a Gitmo detainee was tried in the federal court located in Alexandria.  Of course, there were protests and the like.  The security alone cost an arm and a leg.  However, a democratic society has the duty to administer justice, right?  Well, apparently, Mayor Euille doesn’t believe in justice.  He believes in convienence.  Here is my reply to him:

Mayor Euille

I appreciate your reply. However, I’m confused by your last sentence of your e-mail. If you support giving the detainees a fair trail, why should it matter how many detainees are tried? Does this mean that you don’t support exonerating wrongly convicted prisoners?

It seems that there is a double standard. I believe that as a democracy, we should give these detainees the benefit of the doubt and support them as a community. They have yet to be proven of any wrong doing. I think that by saying that “Alexandria has done it’s fair share” you are saying “Let someone else deal with the problem.”  But what problem is that?  Administering justice?  Making sure that a possibly innocent person gets his fair day in court?

The detainees should be treated with respect, and not like garbage that we can simply pass on to someone else. The next city many not be as accommodating as the fair citizens of Alexandria, who support President Obama. I continue to disagree with your position would appreciate a more thorough explanation.

Very respectfully,

Michael Soh

Congressman Moran

I’m writing to you because of my deep disappointment of your vote to impose a 90% tax on people who received bonuses through the TARP.  Congressman, you voted for this for bill, which included NO oversight.  You agreed to bail them out, despite your constituents screaming no.

Instead of admitting the mistake, you decide to blame someone else.  The reality is your vote allowed this to happen.

I’m becoming deeply troubled by your voting record and will now openly admit that my vote for your re-election is in jeopardy.

Very respectfully,

Michael Soh