Posted by
Keith Arnold on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:35:54 PM
In an exchange between Sen. Jim DeMint and James Steinberg, nominee for the office of Deputy Secretary of State, Sen. DeMint asked whether Steinberg supported Obama's goal of repealing the Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy prohibits the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions overseas. As a result, Americans have the knowledge that their tax dollars going into foreign aid aren't being used for the butchery of unborn infants.
Here is Steinberg's response:
"President Obama has supported repeal of the Mexico City policy, as has Secretary Clinton... The Mexico City policy is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech."
That's the short version; you can visit Sen. DeMint's website for all the details. But it got me thinking, and as you all know, getting me thinking can lead in some strange directions.
Go with me for a minute on this. The nannystate, big government thinking here is that, if the government grants you a right, it has an obligation to bear the cost of your enjoyment of that right - otherwise, you have not really been given that right, and the government has not done its duty.
For instance, the Sixth Amendment states that an accused has the right to counsel to assist in his defense. As anyone who has watched more than forty-five minutes of prime-time television knows, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you without charge. This is because we decided that if you don't have the money for a lawyer, but the taxpayers don't pay to finance yours, we're just fibbing about giving you that right.
Steinberg argues this line of reasoning about abortion: the Supreme Court decided that abortion is also a Constitutionally protected right; refusing to allow taxpayer dollars to be used to perform those abortions would be an unconstitutional limitation on your exercise of that right.
Now, before you go and have a stroke, I want you to let me use that same line of reasoning. Before I go down this road, let me point out that I am not a lawyer, and therefore I can't dispense legal advice. But according to the Second Amendment, as I private citizen, I have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. If I cannot afford one, the gubmint has an obligation to ship me a weapon, paid for by Uncle Sam.
For my readers at BATFE, I have a liking for the Sig Sauer P229 DAK, in the .40-caliber flavor, though I could also be happy with just about anything chambered for the .45 ACP. I'd ask you to contact me for the shipping address, but I'm pretty sure it's already in that file you have on me.