Category Archives: Importante

Kudos to Kansas

On June 3, 2020, the Kansas Legislature convened in a special session to pass a bipartisan version of the Emergency Powers resolution that was previously sent to Governor Laura Kelly.  The new version, House Bill 2054, prevents the Governor from using emergency powers to seize ammunition or limit the sale of firearms during a declared state of emergency, including for Covid-19.  Governor Kelly said she will support the measure.

Other states and municipalities have taken advantage of “emergency powers” to limit or prohibit sales of firearms and ammunition, brushing aside the Second Amendment of the Constitution. If that’s deemed permissible, then it would be permissible to use “emergency powers” to nullify any other Constitutional guarantees. In fact, it has been used to supersede the First Amendment which prohibits the free exercise of religion. Churches have been prohibited from holding services. It appears that some leaders believe that “emergency powers” can nullify both the First and Second Amendments, without consulting, or obtaining the consent of, We The People.

We are in dangerous times. Be assured that Bandolero will continue to champion the Constitution, its Amendments, and the Bill of Rights. These fundamental precepts of our country were never intended to apply only when convenient, nor without sacrifice. Thousands have sacrificed their lives to protect them and to assure that they prevail over all who would attack or subvert them. Have the people become so complacent that they are no longer willing to stand in support of them? Not El Bandolero! He will always stand in support of our precious rights!

 

Different Kind of Shutdown

We were re-reading our last post and had to think a bit to remember that the shutdown being discussed at the time was a government shutdown for want of a spending bill to keep government offices open. While that was occupying the media’s attention and the politicians’ minds, COVID-19 was already in the wind and getting ready to precipitate a whole different kind of shutdown.

The media and most talking heads have been pretty slow to talk about where we’re headed with this COVID-19 shutdown. Back at the beginning, when people were stocking up on toilet paper and disinfectant, Bandolero suggested that what we really needed to stock up on was ammo. Sure enough, various Democrat/Liberal executives took advantage of the “emergency” to issue orders banning the sale or transfer of firearms and/or ammunition. Kansas, to its credit, passed legislation specifically banning the banning of firearms and ammunition. But it’s not just the Second Amendment that’s in peril. The First Amendment has also been suspended. It guarantees that the government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, and shall not  abridge the right of the people to assemble peaceably. Nevertheless, it’s been done by “executive orders”. Some have pointed out that Constitutional rights have always been held by the Supreme Court to be subject to reasonable restrictions, and that the current “emergency” justifies the restrictions that have been ordered. Bandolero would argue that a suspension of Constitutional rights is not the same thing as a reasonable restriction. We suppose scholars can debate that, but far more disconcerting than the enactment of such suspensions (or restrictions) is the ease with which they were done and the blithe acceptance of them by the vast majority of the populace and its leaders and the media which purports to be the government watch dog.

We once saw a list of things you have to believe in order to be a good Democrat. One of them was: “The reason socialism hasn’t worked in the past is because the right people weren’t in charge”. The Democrats have been working hard to convince us that it will work fine if they’re in charge. They are willing to do anything to win the argument, including lying, cheating, and abusing legal process. And they’re winning. Incredibly, they’re winning. Why? We hesitate to denigrate the intelligence of the electorate but, frankly, it isn’t really their fault. The Democrats and liberals have been in charge of public education for decades, and we have at least a couple of generations now who don’t know much, if anything, about the reasons that gave rise to the principles expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights; and who don’t appreciate the blood that was shed, or why those who shed it were willing to do so, to give it birth and then nurture it for two centuries.

At this point it appears inevitable that the United States is headed for socialism. To save the economy the government will decide it has no choice but to nationalize certain companies and industries. And to take care of those who don’t get jobs we’ll all get at least a “living wage” from the government; social security that starts at 18 instead of 65, and further provides free health care, especially for abortions **. Mark Bandolero’s words! This pandemic will not only be the death of thousands, but the death of the greatest republic the world had seen. The shutdown of the United States of America will be to the great glee of the Chinese, and the Russians, too, who don’t realize they’ll be next. But, it will be interesting to see if the Democrats end up being surprised. It may not be them who is in charge but, rather… the Scientists! The suspension of Constitutional rights hasn’t been the action of elected representatives following the will of We the People, but politicians following the dictates of “experts” whose pronouncements are deemed to be validated by “science”. And who would dare argue with science? Just look at what it has told us about global warming!

** At the rate sperm count has been decreasing, it won’t be long ’til abortion is no longer a social issue.

 

El Hon. Juez Kavanaugh

El Bandolero was nearly unable to constrain himself while watching el Circo Judicial del Senado de los Estados Unidos the other day. Instead of painting a sign and rushing to the capitol to protest, we have decided to author a rational analysis of the event. At the outset, one is faced with the question of the applicable standard of proof; whether it’s beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of the evidence, or something else that doesn’t have a legal definition (i.e. gut feeling). The next question is who has the burden of proof. Is the burden on the accuser to prove guilt? Or is the burden on the accused to prove innocence? Since it wasn’t a criminal proceeding, Constitutional presumption of innocence with the burden on the accuser to overcome it beyond a reasonable doubt wouldn’t necessarily apply. But, should we turn a blind eye to the principles underlying those precepts?

We could write a lengthy manuscript on the subject, but we’ll just skip ahead and say we concluded that the “preponderance of the evidence” standard should be applied, and found the evidence to rest in favor of the Judge. To reach a verdict in this case, it isn’t necessary to conclude with 100% certainty that “he’s lying” or “she’s lying”. In the absence of a video of an event, it’s rare to reach 100% objective certainty about whose version of an event is accurate. Note the the word “objective” in that sentence. “Objective” means not infused with bias, predisposition or agenda. When stripped of bias, predisposition and agenda, the preponderance of objective and reliable (e.g. credible) evidence left the scales tipped in favor of Judge Kavanaugh.

We should add that we felt a 35 year uncontroverted record of unblemished sterling conduct and reputation was entitled to some weight. Some would argue that no amount of good deeds can erase even one assault such as Ms. Ford described, nor erase lying about it if one knew he was guilty. But that argument has no application to the case unless one presupposes a “guilty verdict” notwithstanding the preponderance of the evidence.

Until objective and reliable evidence to the contrary is presented that tips the preponderance the other way, El Bandolero must support the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. It remains to be seen what the FBI does or doesn’t come up with in its supplemental investigation. This, however, presents a whole ‘nuther question about whether it’s possible to get objective reliable evidence from the FBI. The Senators repeatedly pointed out that the FBI does not draw conclusions, it only gathers the evidence and reports it. The first image this brought to El Bandolero’s mind was James Comey’s press conference where he announced the FBI’s conclusion that the evidence did not warrant charges against a certain high ranking official who knowingly used a private personal server to send emails containing confidential government information.