Friday, August 27, 2010
Blowback - Cash For Clunkers
Speaking of the auto industry and the government, the Cash for Clunkers program has had an entirely predictable result -- prices for used cars have jumped 10 percent over last year. When people traded in their used cars on new cars they likely would have bought anyway under the Clunkers program, the government ordered those assets destroyed rather than resold. That contraction of supply has caused price increases for those who can least afford it. As blogger Ed Morrissey put it, "In other words, the White House spent $3 billion to make used cars more expensive for working-class families. Nice work."
Reflecting its typical "we know best" disdain for the peasants
Regulatory Commissars: They Knew Drilling Ban Would Kill Jobs
With unemployment hovering at 9.5 percent -- real total unemployment, called U6, is much higher -- what's another 23,000 jobs lost? Apparently, not much to Barack Obama. Previously unreleased documents show that his administration issued the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling despite knowing the ban would kill thousands of jobs. According to The Wall Street Journal, the documents reveal that Michael Bromwich, the head regulator of offshore oil exploration, told Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar that the temporary ban "would result in 'lost direct employment' affecting approximately 9,450 workers and 'lost jobs from indirect and induced effects' affecting about 13,797 more."
Also, regardless of confirmation from the region of the moratorium's devastating impact, the government says the ban will continue. That's right -- the beatings will continue until morale improves. Reflecting its typical "we know best" disdain for the peasants, the administration has even claimed the impact wasn't as bad as industry experts said. Try telling that to those 23,000 former workers.
In related news, House Republican Leader John Boehner has called on Obama to fire Treasury Secretary Tim "Tax Cheat" Geithner, National Economic Council Head Larry Summers, and the rest of the White House economic team. (Senior Economic Adviser Christina Romer and Budget Director Peter Orszag have already abandoned ship.) Pointing to "job-killing tax hike[s]," skyrocketing spending and a penchant for new regulations, Boehner said, "We've tried 19 months of government-as-community organizer. It hasn't worked." A political chess move to be sure, but we won't argue that government-as-community organizer is getting rather expensive.
With unemployment hovering at 9.5 percent -- real total unemployment, called U6, is much higher -- what's another 23,000 jobs lost? Apparently, not much to Barack Obama. Previously unreleased documents show that his administration issued the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling despite knowing the ban would kill thousands of jobs. According to The Wall Street Journal, the documents reveal that Michael Bromwich, the head regulator of offshore oil exploration, told Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar that the temporary ban "would result in 'lost direct employment' affecting approximately 9,450 workers and 'lost jobs from indirect and induced effects' affecting about 13,797 more."
Also, regardless of confirmation from the region of the moratorium's devastating impact, the government says the ban will continue. That's right -- the beatings will continue until morale improves. Reflecting its typical "we know best" disdain for the peasants, the administration has even claimed the impact wasn't as bad as industry experts said. Try telling that to those 23,000 former workers.
In related news, House Republican Leader John Boehner has called on Obama to fire Treasury Secretary Tim "Tax Cheat" Geithner, National Economic Council Head Larry Summers, and the rest of the White House economic team. (Senior Economic Adviser Christina Romer and Budget Director Peter Orszag have already abandoned ship.) Pointing to "job-killing tax hike[s]," skyrocketing spending and a penchant for new regulations, Boehner said, "We've tried 19 months of government-as-community organizer. It hasn't worked." A political chess move to be sure, but we won't argue that government-as-community organizer is getting rather expensive.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Ground Zero, New York
Take a look at the Ottoman Empire's habit of building a Mosque on the holy ground of the Empires they've conquered. If you ask me, that is the impetus behind the Ground Zero Mosque. Next step: Iran will seize Iraq the 2nd Holiest place in Islam. Step Two: Iram will seize Saudi Arabia, the Holiest place in Islam. They will unite the entire Muslim world under one banner, control 1/2 of the world's oil reserves, cut off all oil to the US and the west. The rest, as they say, is history and so will be the once great nation of America. No Islam-O-phobia at all.
Obama White House revokes your right to privacy
Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant. (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)
It is a dangerous decision — one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.
After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)
In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.)
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. "There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism." (Read about one man's efforts to escape the surveillance state.)
The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's — including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and liberals worried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's pro-privacy ruling was unanimous — decided by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. (Comment on this story.)
Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last," he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell's totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: "Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania."
Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html#ixzz0xmADY9EI
That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant. (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)
It is a dangerous decision — one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.
After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)
In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.)
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. "There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism." (Read about one man's efforts to escape the surveillance state.)
The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's — including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and liberals worried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's pro-privacy ruling was unanimous — decided by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. (Comment on this story.)
Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last," he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell's totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: "Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania."
Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html#ixzz0xmADY9EI
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
A woman speaks out on Prepping
Hoarding
I have a pet peeve. I hate the word “hoarding.”
Let me be more specific: I hate the term “hoarding” as applied toward Preppers.
Hoarding implies that by buying some extra bottles of shampoo, we are doing so at the expense of others. It implies that we are somehow wrong to store rice and beans to feed our families during hard times. That by storing food, we are literally taking it out of the mouths of others. It implies that there are already shortages, and we are taking more than our fair share. That by ramping up our own food storage, we are causing others to go hungry.
I'm sure you'll agree that none of these implications are true. We who are preparing are, by definition, doing so during "easy" times. Right now food and other resources are abundant and relatively cheap. Virtually everyone can do something to prepare for future shortages. Most just choose not to. And make no mistake, lack of preparedness is, for most people in this country, a choice.
Hoarding is an ugly word and, I believe, profoundly untrue as it applies toward those who are concerned enough about the current and future economic situation in our country that we are laying in supplies of food and other resources.
How many people, when they hear a rumor about a shortage of sugar, will go stock up on hundreds of pounds of sugar to the point that rumor becomes truth? I clearly remember such an incident from my childhood. Also toilet paper. Also coffee. Also (my husband remembers this from his early boyhood) vacuum tubes. (As in, for televisions.)
But Preppers have no need to engage in a run on sugar or toilet paper or any other resource…because they already have adequate stores, thank you. This is because they had the foresight to stock up on necessities long before anyone ever dreamed a shortage could happen. This is because they believe only by having adequate stores of resources can they avoid becoming one of the stampeding crowd, one of the desperate horde, one of the victims of violence because someone else wants the same bag of sugar or package of toilet paper.
It’s well documented that a resource doesn’t become “valuable” until it becomes scarce. How much does a pound of salt cost at the grocery store? $0.59? Imagine if salt was suddenly scarce. How much would that pound cost?
It’s a simple matter of supply and demand. By definition, Preppers are people who accumulate – “hoard,” if you will – resources when supplies are high and demand (and prices) are low.
What makes me furious is the reaction and attitude toward Preppers when these resources suddenly becomes scarce. How easy is it to blame someone who has a room full of toilet paper when there is none to be had at the store? Why won’t they share, dammit? It doesn’t matter that the Preppers bought TP when it was $5 for a 24-pack and no one else wanted it. I WANT SOME TOILET PAPER. IT’S NOT FAIR (kicking heels) THAT YOU WON’T GIVE ME SOME!!!
Why? Why isn't it FAIR? What's "fair" about trying to force me to share my resources with you when all you did was pooh-pooh my "hoarding" when you could have been doing the same thing? Can you see the childishness of this reaction?
Most Preppers are not rich. God knows we're not. We’re just ordinary folks who see the gathering storm clouds on the horizon and are doing what we can to provide for our families if hard times hit. Naturally we’re viewed with condescending tolerance and not a little laughter at our expense…until TSHTF.
Suddenly that tolerance and humor becomes frustration, outrage, and even violence if Preppers don’t share their store of resources. When asked to explain the logic behind the outrage, the Unprepared generally fall back upon the indignant accusation that the Preppers are “hoarding.”
I see. So why didn’t the Unprepared “hoard” when they, too, had the chance?
What follows is a stuttering list of excuses. Lack of money. Lack of storage. Lack of interest. Lack of foresight. Lack lack lack.
What it translates to, folks, is denial. The Unprepared refuse to become Preppers because they simply cannot, or will not, grasp the idea that anything could interrupt their comfortable lives. Even those who have lived through hardship and deprivation – the aftermath of hurricanes, violent urban riots, war, acts of terrorism – cannot extrapolate into the future and see that deprivation can happen again. And again and again and again. At any time. Totally without warning.
So why do, say, homeowners in Florida not keep plywood, food, water, duct tape, and other resources in their garage for the inevitable hurricane? Denial. Maybe they don’t think bad things could ever happen to them. (It always happens to someone else, right?) Maybe they think someone else will protect them. (The government. Natch.) Maybe they think God will look after them. (It was J.G. Holland who said, “God gives every bird its food but does not throw it into the nest.”) Whatever their excuse, the fact remains that when a tragedy strikes, the Unprepared are caught with their drawers down – and then they’re angry at those who aren’t. The Unprepared line up at Home Depot for plywood and then get angry with their neighbors who knew enough to keep plywood in the garage between hurricanes. Oh, and food and water too.
This isn’t to imply Preppers can’t be affected by tragedies. Of course they can. I know someone with a serious interest in preparedness whose wife died of cancer. He wasn’t “prepared” for that. The rain falls on the just and the unjust, and as with anyone affected by a loss, all he could do was pick himself up, grieve, and get on with life.
But Preppers are doing their best to mitigate disaster. It’s all any of us can do.
No one objects to Preppers “hoarding” food during easy times. We’re viewed with tolerant amusement at our hobby of bucketing beans and rice, at canning every vegetable that comes our way, at buying a few extra tubes of toothpaste. Folks usually view us as a little quirky but otherwise harmless. After all, we’re spending our own money and not asking anyone else to provide those resources for us.
It’s only post-TSHTF that our efforts are suddenly viewed with hostility as “hoarding” because, gee whiz, we’re reluctant to distribute our “hoard” to every grasshopper who demands a share.
“The time to gather emergency supplies,” as a reader pointed out, “is when there isn't an emergency. There will be more supplies available for everybody that way.” In fact, who knows? If there’s enough of a demand for resources, the supplies may ramp up their production to meet the demand, thus assuring plenty of resources for everyone. (Until the bleep hits the fan, of course.)
Hope this clears up any misconception on “hoarding.”
I have a pet peeve. I hate the word “hoarding.”
Let me be more specific: I hate the term “hoarding” as applied toward Preppers.
Hoarding implies that by buying some extra bottles of shampoo, we are doing so at the expense of others. It implies that we are somehow wrong to store rice and beans to feed our families during hard times. That by storing food, we are literally taking it out of the mouths of others. It implies that there are already shortages, and we are taking more than our fair share. That by ramping up our own food storage, we are causing others to go hungry.
I'm sure you'll agree that none of these implications are true. We who are preparing are, by definition, doing so during "easy" times. Right now food and other resources are abundant and relatively cheap. Virtually everyone can do something to prepare for future shortages. Most just choose not to. And make no mistake, lack of preparedness is, for most people in this country, a choice.
Hoarding is an ugly word and, I believe, profoundly untrue as it applies toward those who are concerned enough about the current and future economic situation in our country that we are laying in supplies of food and other resources.
How many people, when they hear a rumor about a shortage of sugar, will go stock up on hundreds of pounds of sugar to the point that rumor becomes truth? I clearly remember such an incident from my childhood. Also toilet paper. Also coffee. Also (my husband remembers this from his early boyhood) vacuum tubes. (As in, for televisions.)
But Preppers have no need to engage in a run on sugar or toilet paper or any other resource…because they already have adequate stores, thank you. This is because they had the foresight to stock up on necessities long before anyone ever dreamed a shortage could happen. This is because they believe only by having adequate stores of resources can they avoid becoming one of the stampeding crowd, one of the desperate horde, one of the victims of violence because someone else wants the same bag of sugar or package of toilet paper.
It’s well documented that a resource doesn’t become “valuable” until it becomes scarce. How much does a pound of salt cost at the grocery store? $0.59? Imagine if salt was suddenly scarce. How much would that pound cost?
It’s a simple matter of supply and demand. By definition, Preppers are people who accumulate – “hoard,” if you will – resources when supplies are high and demand (and prices) are low.
What makes me furious is the reaction and attitude toward Preppers when these resources suddenly becomes scarce. How easy is it to blame someone who has a room full of toilet paper when there is none to be had at the store? Why won’t they share, dammit? It doesn’t matter that the Preppers bought TP when it was $5 for a 24-pack and no one else wanted it. I WANT SOME TOILET PAPER. IT’S NOT FAIR (kicking heels) THAT YOU WON’T GIVE ME SOME!!!
Why? Why isn't it FAIR? What's "fair" about trying to force me to share my resources with you when all you did was pooh-pooh my "hoarding" when you could have been doing the same thing? Can you see the childishness of this reaction?
Most Preppers are not rich. God knows we're not. We’re just ordinary folks who see the gathering storm clouds on the horizon and are doing what we can to provide for our families if hard times hit. Naturally we’re viewed with condescending tolerance and not a little laughter at our expense…until TSHTF.
Suddenly that tolerance and humor becomes frustration, outrage, and even violence if Preppers don’t share their store of resources. When asked to explain the logic behind the outrage, the Unprepared generally fall back upon the indignant accusation that the Preppers are “hoarding.”
I see. So why didn’t the Unprepared “hoard” when they, too, had the chance?
What follows is a stuttering list of excuses. Lack of money. Lack of storage. Lack of interest. Lack of foresight. Lack lack lack.
What it translates to, folks, is denial. The Unprepared refuse to become Preppers because they simply cannot, or will not, grasp the idea that anything could interrupt their comfortable lives. Even those who have lived through hardship and deprivation – the aftermath of hurricanes, violent urban riots, war, acts of terrorism – cannot extrapolate into the future and see that deprivation can happen again. And again and again and again. At any time. Totally without warning.
So why do, say, homeowners in Florida not keep plywood, food, water, duct tape, and other resources in their garage for the inevitable hurricane? Denial. Maybe they don’t think bad things could ever happen to them. (It always happens to someone else, right?) Maybe they think someone else will protect them. (The government. Natch.) Maybe they think God will look after them. (It was J.G. Holland who said, “God gives every bird its food but does not throw it into the nest.”) Whatever their excuse, the fact remains that when a tragedy strikes, the Unprepared are caught with their drawers down – and then they’re angry at those who aren’t. The Unprepared line up at Home Depot for plywood and then get angry with their neighbors who knew enough to keep plywood in the garage between hurricanes. Oh, and food and water too.
This isn’t to imply Preppers can’t be affected by tragedies. Of course they can. I know someone with a serious interest in preparedness whose wife died of cancer. He wasn’t “prepared” for that. The rain falls on the just and the unjust, and as with anyone affected by a loss, all he could do was pick himself up, grieve, and get on with life.
But Preppers are doing their best to mitigate disaster. It’s all any of us can do.
No one objects to Preppers “hoarding” food during easy times. We’re viewed with tolerant amusement at our hobby of bucketing beans and rice, at canning every vegetable that comes our way, at buying a few extra tubes of toothpaste. Folks usually view us as a little quirky but otherwise harmless. After all, we’re spending our own money and not asking anyone else to provide those resources for us.
It’s only post-TSHTF that our efforts are suddenly viewed with hostility as “hoarding” because, gee whiz, we’re reluctant to distribute our “hoard” to every grasshopper who demands a share.
“The time to gather emergency supplies,” as a reader pointed out, “is when there isn't an emergency. There will be more supplies available for everybody that way.” In fact, who knows? If there’s enough of a demand for resources, the supplies may ramp up their production to meet the demand, thus assuring plenty of resources for everyone. (Until the bleep hits the fan, of course.)
Hope this clears up any misconception on “hoarding.”
A woman asks: Question Legislation
Question Legislation
Tuesday, 14 October 2008 00:21
By
Mary Carpenter
---------------------
Mariposa California: the paternal grandmother of two children brutally stabbed to death with a pitchfork inside their rural Merced home on Aug. 23, 2000 demands that we stop passing gun control laws that empower murderers.
The Mariposa Gazette is one of the oldest, continually-published newspapers in the US. The editor confirmed to me that the following letter appeared in the April 5, 2001 issue.
Harry Schneider, Chairman, Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association
---------------------
I am writing to alert my fellow Mariposans to something going on at the state level that should be far more frightening to you than the so called "energy crisis." We must remember our legislators have a tendency to use such media hogging items to conceal their dirty legislation. SB52 and AB35 will require you to be fingerprinted, pay an unlimited fee, pass a written firearms law test, pass a shooting proficiency test, pass a hand gun handling demonstration exam, require notification of address change (just like a registered sex offender), pay fees that begin in the $40 to $50 range going as high as $100 or more, and comply with various loaning and transferring laws in order to own a handgun.
And what if you do not pass these tests?
I am the paternal grandmother of the two children brutally stabbed to death with a pitchfork inside their rural Merced home on Aug. 23, 2000. Although there were sufficient guns in the house for my granddaughters to defend themselves and their siblings, because of my son's willingness to comply with California State law, two of his children are dead.
(Had the girls been able to get to the gun, by California law, my son would have been charged with a felony.)
If it had not been for my nine-year-old granddaughter's willingness to sacrifice her life for her siblings, four of them would be dead. The man who killed them was a stranger to the family and though not on drugs at the time, was a known drug abuser. He had recently been arrested for assaulting a police officer and was on parole because of jail overcrowding. (Yet they would have room for me should I fail my test and refuse to give them my gun.)
The killer had already violated his parole. The police knew his address. They knew where his mother and grandmother lived. He had mental records. His wife had reported that he had kidnapped her and held her at gunpoint in 1997. She had more recently reported he left threatening messages on her answering machine. Yet my son would have been in more trouble had his 14 or 13 year-old daughters been able to get to his gun. How safe will we be against these predators if they know we are not armed?
Please think about it, and call your legislators today.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008 00:21
By
Mary Carpenter
---------------------
Mariposa California: the paternal grandmother of two children brutally stabbed to death with a pitchfork inside their rural Merced home on Aug. 23, 2000 demands that we stop passing gun control laws that empower murderers.
The Mariposa Gazette is one of the oldest, continually-published newspapers in the US. The editor confirmed to me that the following letter appeared in the April 5, 2001 issue.
Harry Schneider, Chairman, Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association
---------------------
I am writing to alert my fellow Mariposans to something going on at the state level that should be far more frightening to you than the so called "energy crisis." We must remember our legislators have a tendency to use such media hogging items to conceal their dirty legislation. SB52 and AB35 will require you to be fingerprinted, pay an unlimited fee, pass a written firearms law test, pass a shooting proficiency test, pass a hand gun handling demonstration exam, require notification of address change (just like a registered sex offender), pay fees that begin in the $40 to $50 range going as high as $100 or more, and comply with various loaning and transferring laws in order to own a handgun.
And what if you do not pass these tests?
I am the paternal grandmother of the two children brutally stabbed to death with a pitchfork inside their rural Merced home on Aug. 23, 2000. Although there were sufficient guns in the house for my granddaughters to defend themselves and their siblings, because of my son's willingness to comply with California State law, two of his children are dead.
(Had the girls been able to get to the gun, by California law, my son would have been charged with a felony.)
If it had not been for my nine-year-old granddaughter's willingness to sacrifice her life for her siblings, four of them would be dead. The man who killed them was a stranger to the family and though not on drugs at the time, was a known drug abuser. He had recently been arrested for assaulting a police officer and was on parole because of jail overcrowding. (Yet they would have room for me should I fail my test and refuse to give them my gun.)
The killer had already violated his parole. The police knew his address. They knew where his mother and grandmother lived. He had mental records. His wife had reported that he had kidnapped her and held her at gunpoint in 1997. She had more recently reported he left threatening messages on her answering machine. Yet my son would have been in more trouble had his 14 or 13 year-old daughters been able to get to his gun. How safe will we be against these predators if they know we are not armed?
Please think about it, and call your legislators today.
Extinction
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." ~ Ronald Reagan
Constitutional law 101
Constitutional law 101: "Any talk of amending the Constitution is just wrong." --Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano responding to Republicans calling for changing the 14th Amendment to prevent automatic citizenship for anchor babies of illegal aliens (This is rich coming from this administration. Of course, they don't want to amend the Constitution; they just want to ignore it completely.)
Soldiers, or "Domestic Terrorists" ???
Well trained Soldiers, soon to be classified as "Domestic Terrorists" by the very Government they serve. Done for YOU and ME by your elected representatives -- be ashamed, be VERY ashamed....http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=219051&ESRC=army.nl
Disarmed -- Defenseless -- Dead: It's the Law
Richard W. Stevens
Editor, The Bill of Rights Sentinel, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
You be the judge. Does it make any sense for the government to:
1. issue a court order forbidding a woman's ex husband from having or being near firearms,
2. take no significant action concerning the ex-husband's frequent death threats against the woman,
3. require the woman to appear in court in an alimony/child support case against her ex-husband,
4. forbid the woman from possessing defensive sidearms inside the courthouse building,
5. fail to erect metal detectors or to check the ex-husband for firearms at the courthouse,
6. post no warnings about the lack of security in the courthouse,
7. fail to offer any added protection for the woman at the courthouse, and then
8. disclaim any responsibility for setting up the conditions that enabled the ex-husband to shoot the defenseless woman in cold blood, right in front of their young daughter, inside the courthouse?
Isn't it immoral or crazy to position an unarmed woman in a confined space with a man who has repeatedly and credibly threatened to kill her, and then fail to either check the man for weapons or to offer her added protection? The California Supreme Court's recent unanimous decision in Zelig v. County of Los Angeles says it's legally just fine. The Zelig Court proclaimed loudly and clearly:
"It is well established that public entities generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime."
"The public entities and their policymaking officers and employees are immune from liability for any failure on their part to provide sufficient police services."
No Duty, No Protection
Lawyers for the dead woman's estate argued strongly that the government owed legal duties and should be liable. The defendant county government had created a dangerous situation by compelling the woman to attend the courthouse, by forbidding the woman from carrying a defensive sidearm, and by failing to warn her that she was practically undefended there. The police had tape recordings and documents proving the ex-husband had issued the death threats, but they failed to offer extra protection for her. The superior court itself knew the ex-husband posed such danger that it formally ordered him to disarm himself, but the courthouse had no metal detectors and did not check the ex-husband for weapons.
The California Supreme Court addressed each of these arguments and rejected them all. The Second Amendment apparently wasn't asserted. Showing no sorrow or regret, the Zelig Court noted how "gun control" laws had disarmed the victim: "the state, by enacting a general statute prohibiting possession of a firearm in any courthouse, curtailed her ability to arm herself in self-defense." The woman had no civil right to self-defense, however.
Bottom line: the government can disarm you, knowingly put you in danger without even a warning, refuse and fail to protect you from the known danger ... and get off scot-free when the danger harms or kills you.
Readers of Dial 911 and Die: The Shocking Truth About the Police Protection Myth would have fully expected the Zelig ruling to come down as it did. Citing laws and cases from every state, the book shows that the government generally owes no legal duty to protect citizens, and the courts routinely insulate the government from liability.
Worthless Laws
The Zelig case illustrates how "gun control" ideas endanger lives:
Fifteen day waiting period on sidearm purchases -- worthless.
Law forbidding civilians to possess firearms in courthouse -- only stopped the victim, not the perpetrator.
Court order that forbade ex-husband from possessing firearms -- didn't stop him when he wanted to kill.
Sign proclaiming law against civilian possession of firearms in courthouses -- advertised where defenseless victims could be found.
Law that immunizes government entities and officials if they fail to protect threatened citizens -- means government agents have less incentive to protect victims.
Concealed carry permit system that registers gun owners with the government -- worthless in courthouses that forbid all civilian firearms possession.
Zelig is only the latest court case proving that governments don't accept the responsibility for the harm caused by "gun control" laws that disarm the victims and empower the killers. Laws and court decisions in almost all states take the same route.
You can seize the opportunity to prove the dangerous evil of "gun control" ideas in all states by getting copies of Dial 911 and Die. For nearly every state and territory, there is a chapter in Dial 911 and Die that shows how the government makes no promise to protect individual citizens from criminal attack, even when the attacker is known and the threats are imminent. The anti-gunners cannot answer this argument... it's the law... and it makes civilian disarmament policies look both foolish and deadly.
Editor, The Bill of Rights Sentinel, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
You be the judge. Does it make any sense for the government to:
1. issue a court order forbidding a woman's ex husband from having or being near firearms,
2. take no significant action concerning the ex-husband's frequent death threats against the woman,
3. require the woman to appear in court in an alimony/child support case against her ex-husband,
4. forbid the woman from possessing defensive sidearms inside the courthouse building,
5. fail to erect metal detectors or to check the ex-husband for firearms at the courthouse,
6. post no warnings about the lack of security in the courthouse,
7. fail to offer any added protection for the woman at the courthouse, and then
8. disclaim any responsibility for setting up the conditions that enabled the ex-husband to shoot the defenseless woman in cold blood, right in front of their young daughter, inside the courthouse?
Isn't it immoral or crazy to position an unarmed woman in a confined space with a man who has repeatedly and credibly threatened to kill her, and then fail to either check the man for weapons or to offer her added protection? The California Supreme Court's recent unanimous decision in Zelig v. County of Los Angeles says it's legally just fine. The Zelig Court proclaimed loudly and clearly:
"It is well established that public entities generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime."
"The public entities and their policymaking officers and employees are immune from liability for any failure on their part to provide sufficient police services."
No Duty, No Protection
Lawyers for the dead woman's estate argued strongly that the government owed legal duties and should be liable. The defendant county government had created a dangerous situation by compelling the woman to attend the courthouse, by forbidding the woman from carrying a defensive sidearm, and by failing to warn her that she was practically undefended there. The police had tape recordings and documents proving the ex-husband had issued the death threats, but they failed to offer extra protection for her. The superior court itself knew the ex-husband posed such danger that it formally ordered him to disarm himself, but the courthouse had no metal detectors and did not check the ex-husband for weapons.
The California Supreme Court addressed each of these arguments and rejected them all. The Second Amendment apparently wasn't asserted. Showing no sorrow or regret, the Zelig Court noted how "gun control" laws had disarmed the victim: "the state, by enacting a general statute prohibiting possession of a firearm in any courthouse, curtailed her ability to arm herself in self-defense." The woman had no civil right to self-defense, however.
Bottom line: the government can disarm you, knowingly put you in danger without even a warning, refuse and fail to protect you from the known danger ... and get off scot-free when the danger harms or kills you.
Readers of Dial 911 and Die: The Shocking Truth About the Police Protection Myth would have fully expected the Zelig ruling to come down as it did. Citing laws and cases from every state, the book shows that the government generally owes no legal duty to protect citizens, and the courts routinely insulate the government from liability.
Worthless Laws
The Zelig case illustrates how "gun control" ideas endanger lives:
Fifteen day waiting period on sidearm purchases -- worthless.
Law forbidding civilians to possess firearms in courthouse -- only stopped the victim, not the perpetrator.
Court order that forbade ex-husband from possessing firearms -- didn't stop him when he wanted to kill.
Sign proclaiming law against civilian possession of firearms in courthouses -- advertised where defenseless victims could be found.
Law that immunizes government entities and officials if they fail to protect threatened citizens -- means government agents have less incentive to protect victims.
Concealed carry permit system that registers gun owners with the government -- worthless in courthouses that forbid all civilian firearms possession.
Zelig is only the latest court case proving that governments don't accept the responsibility for the harm caused by "gun control" laws that disarm the victims and empower the killers. Laws and court decisions in almost all states take the same route.
You can seize the opportunity to prove the dangerous evil of "gun control" ideas in all states by getting copies of Dial 911 and Die. For nearly every state and territory, there is a chapter in Dial 911 and Die that shows how the government makes no promise to protect individual citizens from criminal attack, even when the attacker is known and the threats are imminent. The anti-gunners cannot answer this argument... it's the law... and it makes civilian disarmament policies look both foolish and deadly.
My Transformation From Anti-Gun Feminist To Armed Feminist
My Transformation From Anti-Gun Feminist To Armed Feminist
Tuesday, 14 October 2008 00:45
By
Katherine von Tour
GOA Member
© 1999
Most people who support the Second Amendment have probably wondered at one time or another how to change the thinking of anti-gunners.
Since I was once a staunch gun-control proponent, including being a member of Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI) in the 1970's, but am today a fervent and virtually no-compromise Second Amendment supporter, perhaps the story of my mental shift will be of interest.
When I recall my mindset in the 1960's, when I was in college in Chicago, and in the early 1970's, when I was teaching grade-school in a private school in Pennsylvania, what I remember most is how completely convinced I was that government was the best and ultimate answer to all of society's ills -- war, poverty, crime and injustice.
I was a true Sixties liberal, who protested the Vietnam War, sported a "Question Authority" bumper sticker on my Volvo, who was a charter member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and a charter subscriber to Ms Magazine.
I voted for George McGovern. I hung out with other earnest liberals, many of whom were also members of NOW. It wasn't that I believed government was perfect - far from it! - but I had blind faith that, with enough effort and money, it could be made so.
My idea of a perfect government was one which had a generous welfare program, free medical care for all, lots of benign and helpful social programs, and government-mandated fairness and equality for all.
I joined NOW because it promised to fight for equality under the law for women; it encouraged women to empower themselves, and to be independent. Since I was a single woman, these all sounded like a sensible ideas to me.
I joined HCI because it had convinced me that guns were a root cause of violence and crime, and that only criminals owned and used them.
The Liberal Years
I had grown up stationed with my family overseas, and had been sent to private boarding school in Honolulu, where my family is from, and then to Chatham Hall, a young ladies' "finishing school" in Virginia.
Most of my life had been protected and privileged; while my family didn't have a lot of money, we somehow gave the illusion that we did, since we lived overseas, complete with servants and first-class travel paid for by my father's company.
I had been raised, as my mother puts it, "to be a lady," and certainly "ladies" in our social circle weren't trained in self-defense, particularly self-defense involving firearms, which, in any case, were completely banned in the countries where we lived.
After graduating from Northwestern, and doing graduate work at Lehigh, I got a job teaching 6th grade at a private day school in Pennsylvania, where I stayed for 10 years, during which time I was an earnest and unwavering liberal.
It was during this time that I joined HCI and NOW, and crusaded loudly and vociferously against "violence," "intolerance" and "unfairness."
The "Bubble" Bursts
After ten years of teaching, I was still making very little money, and had burned out. I decided to move back to Hawaii, which was my home, and where my parents had retired after 25 years of being stationed overseas, and purchase a franchise of a skin-care and cosmetic business, whose products were sold through home shows.
I spent five ghastly years in Honolulu, struggling to run a business in a government climate which was as socialistic and larded with welfare and social programs as any I had previously worked towards; those five years were the undoing of my liberalism.
I tried in vain to recruit women who were on welfare to work to do home shows and make money by being independent, but I could in no way compete with the obscenely generous welfare benefits they were receiving for staying home and doing nothing, except in many cases growing pakalolo, (marijuana) which they had plenty of time to do, since all of their needs were more than being met by the state.
The Hawaii State Labor board delivered the final death blow to my business by declaring that all of the independent contractors who worked for my company - and whom I could hardly convince to work at all - were to be classified as "employees," and that I had to pay unemployment, workers' compensation and health care for them.
The government cared not a whit that there was no money in my company to fund this state-mandated largess. I was forced to close down the business, to file bankruptcy, and I moved back to the Mainland, my formerly liberal tail between my legs, a newly-hatched libertarian conservative.
I no longer saw government as the solution to social problems. It certainly hadn't solved mine, nor had it encouraged my trying to create jobs for the people of Hawaii, jobs which they didn't want to do because it was too much work, even though the Honolulu Star Bulletin was filled almost every week with whining letters from people complaining that there were no jobs to be had, and imploring the government to "create" more jobs.
With the fervor and passion I had previously reserved for trying to get the government to expand its powers and programs, I began to read the writings of conservative and libertarian authors -- Bastiat, Hayek, Thomas Sowell and others. I also plunged into the writings of the founders of America - Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Paine, George Mason.
I started meeting people who had also been abused by government agencies - the police, Customs, DEA, IRS and others. I started hearing stories of people having property seized without due process, and of people calling 911 and not having the police not show up in time.
But the pivotal turning point for me was the Los Angeles riots.
Armed in L.A.; guns save lives
I was living in Orange County at the time, but had to go up to LA regularly on business. At that time there had been a rash of violent car-jackings, many of them committed against women who were driving alone.
A friend, who knew a great deal about guns and had grown up around them, told me that, because I was a woman living and driving alone, he wanted me to start carrying a pistol in my car.
He lent me a .38 Special, and showed me how to load, unload and fire it.
One day, just before the riots exploded, I was driving in downtown LA in a scary part of town. It was dusk. As I was stopped at a stop-light, with one car in front of me, two men who had been watching me began quickly and menacingly approaching my car from the sidewalk. One of them was carrying a tire iron.
I grabbed the pistol, which I had laid on the seat beside me, and held it up so they could see it.
The look in their eyes changed in an instant from threatening to fearful, and they immediately turned around and ran in the opposite direction. The light changed. I drove away.
No one was hurt, but a gun in my formerly liberal hand had, I believe, probably saved my life, or at least prevented me from likely injury.
L.A. Riots turn anti-gun advocates into pro-gun supporters
Within a week, the very street where this incident happened had erupted in rioting, looting and killing.
I watched on television as the Korean grocers defended their property with AK-47's and AR-15's, and thus prevented it from being torched and looted. The police couldn't stop the violence and killing.
I had friends who worked in the garment district in LA who barely made it out alive, and who told tales of pulling out pistols and having would-be attackers turn tail and run away.
Guns were saving lives and property.
As the riots threatened to spill over into Beverly Hills, myriad Hollywood types stormed gun stores to arm themselves, only to be told that there was a 15-day waiting period; radio talk shows boiled with people calling in and screaming about how unfair this was, and how the law was leaving them helpless.
Some of them even admitted that they had previously supported the waiting period, and that they were now furious that it had left them unarmed.
Coming full circle: From HCI to GOA
My transformation was complete. I joined the National Rifle Association (I didn't know about Gun Owners of America or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership yet) and started reading their literature. I bought and read "Armed and Female" by Paxton Quigley - another ex-gun-control woman.
I fell in love with and married the friend who had lent me the .38 Special, and started learning in earnest about guns and how to use them. We joined GOA and JPFO.
And the National Organization for Women? Here's the thing that makes me crazy about an organization ostensibly dedicated to the empowerment of women - NOW is uncompromisingly and adamantly anti-gun, including urging all women to disarm themselves, and supporting legislation to force their disarmament.
The incongruity and hypocrisy of this stance is simply stunning. How can such an organization claim to be "for women?" In my experience as a single woman, there is nothing more effective than a gun for protection.
In my experience as a married woman, when my husband can't be there to pull out a firearm to protect us and our home, he has made sure that I can do so. What could be more empowering and independent and equalizing for a woman than that?
And what could be more threatening to women than women like Sarah Brady, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Carolyn McCarthy and Barbra Streisand who, while beating the drum for "women's rights" are attempting to disarm women as well as men, and leave them at the mercy of criminals? I still believe fervently in the original NOW position supporting the empowerment of women.
And I believe that the most effective thing any woman can do to empower herself is to acquire and learn to use a gun, and to become vocal and aggressive in defending gun rights and the Second Amendment.
When I look back on my mindset when I supported gun control, I see that I was naïve, idealistic and swayed by irrational, baseless propaganda, especially the absurd myth that, by disarming law-abiding citizens, society will be made safer.
There is absolutely no hard evidence to support this. Criminals by definition disregard laws, especially gun control laws. In Australia, which has disarmed its population, it is reported that violent home invasions have increased in some areas by 44%. Rapes and murders have also increased substantially.
In being confronted by the reality that government cannot and will not guarantee my personal safety, I am infinitely thankful, both as a woman and an American, that the Bill of Rights still guarantees my right to defend myself with a gun. Any true feminist must support this position. Any woman who claims to be a feminist, but who supports disarmament of law-abiding citizens is simply a dangerous hypocrite.
Katherine von Tour is presently working on a book comprised of interviews of women who support the Second Amendment; she is looking for women who have personal stories about having used a gun for self-defense, or who simply believe in the right to own and use a firearm. Anyone wishing to be interviewed for this project can contact her through GOA.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008 00:45
By
Katherine von Tour
GOA Member
© 1999
Most people who support the Second Amendment have probably wondered at one time or another how to change the thinking of anti-gunners.
Since I was once a staunch gun-control proponent, including being a member of Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI) in the 1970's, but am today a fervent and virtually no-compromise Second Amendment supporter, perhaps the story of my mental shift will be of interest.
When I recall my mindset in the 1960's, when I was in college in Chicago, and in the early 1970's, when I was teaching grade-school in a private school in Pennsylvania, what I remember most is how completely convinced I was that government was the best and ultimate answer to all of society's ills -- war, poverty, crime and injustice.
I was a true Sixties liberal, who protested the Vietnam War, sported a "Question Authority" bumper sticker on my Volvo, who was a charter member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and a charter subscriber to Ms Magazine.
I voted for George McGovern. I hung out with other earnest liberals, many of whom were also members of NOW. It wasn't that I believed government was perfect - far from it! - but I had blind faith that, with enough effort and money, it could be made so.
My idea of a perfect government was one which had a generous welfare program, free medical care for all, lots of benign and helpful social programs, and government-mandated fairness and equality for all.
I joined NOW because it promised to fight for equality under the law for women; it encouraged women to empower themselves, and to be independent. Since I was a single woman, these all sounded like a sensible ideas to me.
I joined HCI because it had convinced me that guns were a root cause of violence and crime, and that only criminals owned and used them.
The Liberal Years
I had grown up stationed with my family overseas, and had been sent to private boarding school in Honolulu, where my family is from, and then to Chatham Hall, a young ladies' "finishing school" in Virginia.
Most of my life had been protected and privileged; while my family didn't have a lot of money, we somehow gave the illusion that we did, since we lived overseas, complete with servants and first-class travel paid for by my father's company.
I had been raised, as my mother puts it, "to be a lady," and certainly "ladies" in our social circle weren't trained in self-defense, particularly self-defense involving firearms, which, in any case, were completely banned in the countries where we lived.
After graduating from Northwestern, and doing graduate work at Lehigh, I got a job teaching 6th grade at a private day school in Pennsylvania, where I stayed for 10 years, during which time I was an earnest and unwavering liberal.
It was during this time that I joined HCI and NOW, and crusaded loudly and vociferously against "violence," "intolerance" and "unfairness."
The "Bubble" Bursts
After ten years of teaching, I was still making very little money, and had burned out. I decided to move back to Hawaii, which was my home, and where my parents had retired after 25 years of being stationed overseas, and purchase a franchise of a skin-care and cosmetic business, whose products were sold through home shows.
I spent five ghastly years in Honolulu, struggling to run a business in a government climate which was as socialistic and larded with welfare and social programs as any I had previously worked towards; those five years were the undoing of my liberalism.
I tried in vain to recruit women who were on welfare to work to do home shows and make money by being independent, but I could in no way compete with the obscenely generous welfare benefits they were receiving for staying home and doing nothing, except in many cases growing pakalolo, (marijuana) which they had plenty of time to do, since all of their needs were more than being met by the state.
The Hawaii State Labor board delivered the final death blow to my business by declaring that all of the independent contractors who worked for my company - and whom I could hardly convince to work at all - were to be classified as "employees," and that I had to pay unemployment, workers' compensation and health care for them.
The government cared not a whit that there was no money in my company to fund this state-mandated largess. I was forced to close down the business, to file bankruptcy, and I moved back to the Mainland, my formerly liberal tail between my legs, a newly-hatched libertarian conservative.
I no longer saw government as the solution to social problems. It certainly hadn't solved mine, nor had it encouraged my trying to create jobs for the people of Hawaii, jobs which they didn't want to do because it was too much work, even though the Honolulu Star Bulletin was filled almost every week with whining letters from people complaining that there were no jobs to be had, and imploring the government to "create" more jobs.
With the fervor and passion I had previously reserved for trying to get the government to expand its powers and programs, I began to read the writings of conservative and libertarian authors -- Bastiat, Hayek, Thomas Sowell and others. I also plunged into the writings of the founders of America - Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Paine, George Mason.
I started meeting people who had also been abused by government agencies - the police, Customs, DEA, IRS and others. I started hearing stories of people having property seized without due process, and of people calling 911 and not having the police not show up in time.
But the pivotal turning point for me was the Los Angeles riots.
Armed in L.A.; guns save lives
I was living in Orange County at the time, but had to go up to LA regularly on business. At that time there had been a rash of violent car-jackings, many of them committed against women who were driving alone.
A friend, who knew a great deal about guns and had grown up around them, told me that, because I was a woman living and driving alone, he wanted me to start carrying a pistol in my car.
He lent me a .38 Special, and showed me how to load, unload and fire it.
One day, just before the riots exploded, I was driving in downtown LA in a scary part of town. It was dusk. As I was stopped at a stop-light, with one car in front of me, two men who had been watching me began quickly and menacingly approaching my car from the sidewalk. One of them was carrying a tire iron.
I grabbed the pistol, which I had laid on the seat beside me, and held it up so they could see it.
The look in their eyes changed in an instant from threatening to fearful, and they immediately turned around and ran in the opposite direction. The light changed. I drove away.
No one was hurt, but a gun in my formerly liberal hand had, I believe, probably saved my life, or at least prevented me from likely injury.
L.A. Riots turn anti-gun advocates into pro-gun supporters
Within a week, the very street where this incident happened had erupted in rioting, looting and killing.
I watched on television as the Korean grocers defended their property with AK-47's and AR-15's, and thus prevented it from being torched and looted. The police couldn't stop the violence and killing.
I had friends who worked in the garment district in LA who barely made it out alive, and who told tales of pulling out pistols and having would-be attackers turn tail and run away.
Guns were saving lives and property.
As the riots threatened to spill over into Beverly Hills, myriad Hollywood types stormed gun stores to arm themselves, only to be told that there was a 15-day waiting period; radio talk shows boiled with people calling in and screaming about how unfair this was, and how the law was leaving them helpless.
Some of them even admitted that they had previously supported the waiting period, and that they were now furious that it had left them unarmed.
Coming full circle: From HCI to GOA
My transformation was complete. I joined the National Rifle Association (I didn't know about Gun Owners of America or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership yet) and started reading their literature. I bought and read "Armed and Female" by Paxton Quigley - another ex-gun-control woman.
I fell in love with and married the friend who had lent me the .38 Special, and started learning in earnest about guns and how to use them. We joined GOA and JPFO.
And the National Organization for Women? Here's the thing that makes me crazy about an organization ostensibly dedicated to the empowerment of women - NOW is uncompromisingly and adamantly anti-gun, including urging all women to disarm themselves, and supporting legislation to force their disarmament.
The incongruity and hypocrisy of this stance is simply stunning. How can such an organization claim to be "for women?" In my experience as a single woman, there is nothing more effective than a gun for protection.
In my experience as a married woman, when my husband can't be there to pull out a firearm to protect us and our home, he has made sure that I can do so. What could be more empowering and independent and equalizing for a woman than that?
And what could be more threatening to women than women like Sarah Brady, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Carolyn McCarthy and Barbra Streisand who, while beating the drum for "women's rights" are attempting to disarm women as well as men, and leave them at the mercy of criminals? I still believe fervently in the original NOW position supporting the empowerment of women.
And I believe that the most effective thing any woman can do to empower herself is to acquire and learn to use a gun, and to become vocal and aggressive in defending gun rights and the Second Amendment.
When I look back on my mindset when I supported gun control, I see that I was naïve, idealistic and swayed by irrational, baseless propaganda, especially the absurd myth that, by disarming law-abiding citizens, society will be made safer.
There is absolutely no hard evidence to support this. Criminals by definition disregard laws, especially gun control laws. In Australia, which has disarmed its population, it is reported that violent home invasions have increased in some areas by 44%. Rapes and murders have also increased substantially.
In being confronted by the reality that government cannot and will not guarantee my personal safety, I am infinitely thankful, both as a woman and an American, that the Bill of Rights still guarantees my right to defend myself with a gun. Any true feminist must support this position. Any woman who claims to be a feminist, but who supports disarmament of law-abiding citizens is simply a dangerous hypocrite.
Katherine von Tour is presently working on a book comprised of interviews of women who support the Second Amendment; she is looking for women who have personal stories about having used a gun for self-defense, or who simply believe in the right to own and use a firearm. Anyone wishing to be interviewed for this project can contact her through GOA.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Women, Stop Watching Oprah and Learn to Love Guns
Written by Karen De Coster
Thursday, 07 May 2009 00:00
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." ~ Ted Nugent
Women never cease to amaze me. The majority of them are still "afraid" of guns. Afraid, as in "oohhhh, they are so scary." They say things like "I don’t like them around" and "they’re dangerous." I know of women who have defense-minded, pro-gun husbands and they will not let their guy talk about those nasty things in their presence. Shhh, the children will hear, or, they might actually see an evil gun! Keep them locked away. Don’t tell the neighbors you have a gun in our house, or we’ll be outcasts. And in the background you can almost hear another feeble Oprah sermon keeping women stupid, but oh, they feel good about themselves and their newfound self-esteem.
All the time, women are shocked, shocked! to hear that I have a gun, and worse, I have several guns. And then, oh no, I actually carry one with me. That’s so odd, they think. Oh she’s different. Why more than one gun? She must be the aggressive type. After all, the Oprah way is to trust everyone and insist that all people have good intentions always.
Although I tend to think that most women don’t make sense, period, I especially believe this concerning the gun issue. It’s not only difficult to get women to come around to wanting a gun of their own, but they still can’t get to the point where they will understand and accept why others want to own them.
Let’s face it – women are more vulnerable to attack because, most likely, their aggressor will be a man. Women are physically weaker, and criminals know that we are less willing to be mentally prepared for aggression because, unlike men, most of us just aren’t wired to be combative. A woman’s attacker will be bigger, stronger, and faster than her, and by nature they will be more aggressive, and that’s before considering any mental or drug problem that may be associated with a criminal attack. So why do women not want to take that into consideration and equalize the situation by learning to use and love guns? Dr. Thomas Szasz, libertarian scholar and Professor of Psychiatry at Syracuse University, once stated, "self-defense is not merely our legal right but our moral duty; because women are more vulnerable than men, their need and obligation to defend themselves is even greater than that of men." Dr. Szasz is a wise man.
Here’s my favorite scene: a woman is walking in a parking garage or parking lot, all alone, wearing 3-inch skinny heels, head down, flicking her mane of endless hair, and chatting mindlessly on the phone. "Blah, blah, blah, blah, and blah," but not a single shred of awareness about the inherent dangers of time and place, who is around her, and what they are doing. She is a Bambi in the woods.
I witness this kind of thing all the time. Women tend to function in the fog of the unknown, making themselves easy targets. The first rule of self-defense is awareness. Situational awareness can, and will, save your life. Be conscious about your surroundings. Stay off the phone, keep your head up, and survey the area around you. Walk boldly. You do not want to give a potential attacker the impression that you are an easy target. Avoidance is the ideal. How many times do women think about this? Probably never. But then again, this is not meant to be a self-defense, how-to guide for women, but rather, a call to women to stand up and take control of their personal security. Women who have the habit of entering the mindless, no-think zone while consistently ignoring potential threats are ripe for something awful to happen. Remember, criminals who attack women frequently scrutinize potential prey for easy pickings. They don’t want to tangle with a woman who appears to be alert or tough as nails. They are looking for women who are unaware, unassertive, and fragile.
Women tend to take a white-picket-fence-and-rose view of the world more often than they should. They think that the world is made of gingerbread houses and buckets of goodwill just waiting to be poured upon them. They believe that when evil takes place, it happens anywhere but in their own backyard. It happens on the evening news, but not to them.
One reason that women need to get over their hostility to guns is because the current environment – economic depression, looming inflation, and widespread unemployment – will bring forth a new criminal class due to desperation. In addition, the established criminal class will ramp up their activity. Carjackings, home invasions, robberies, abductions, and rape will plague women in hard economic times.
So how do we get women to dig guns?
Many women will experience frustration if you keep stressing guns as a method of self-defense and get right to the point of mentally preparing to kill someone to save a life. They may not be ready to "go there" if they are already hostile to guns. Ease ’em on in with things to break down their intolerance.
Most women are introduced to guns at the range, or perhaps by just shootin’ stuff on private property somewhere out in the country. Husbands, fathers, brothers – they all make good first-time instructors because they are trusted by the first-time female shooter. Starting out with the smaller guns is less intimidating and therefore works in favor of a woman gaining confidence about her ability.
Women do tend to be frightened by larger guns. They’ll come right out and say it. I recently added a new carry choice – the Ruger LCP .380, a 9.5 ounce pocketful of reliable defense that is very slim and easy to conceal for us smaller ladies, especially when wearing summer clothing. I have found out that ladies new to guns are attracted to this thing because of its size and non-threatening appearance. But watch out! This gun has some temperamental recoil, especially when loaded with high-velocity ammo. However, once women learn to shoot the smaller caliber pistols and rifles and grow their confidence, they get a hankering to shoot the bigger guns, and it becomes a thrilling experience. Knowing that they can handle a .308 rifle or a .45 pistol tends to bring on miles of smiles.
One thing about guns that should appeal to women is their artistic quality. Guns are beautiful works of art. Not only are guns attractively manufactured, but also, modern design and engineering methods make gun ownership for women a real option. There are guns for small hands, small trigger fingers, and even pink guns. You can buy little, pink rifles for young girls who are just starting to shoot. You can laugh, but this may invite young girls to aspire to guns whereas they might not find another reason to be attracted to them.
One thing I notice that people at gun shops tend to do is to steer women toward revolvers as the "best choice." Because revolvers are thought to be simpler and it requires less practice to load and shoot them, women are steered toward them, oftentimes without being given other workable options. A .38 revolver is considered to be the handgun for beginners. Though it is a great gun, this assumption is wrong and it is a risky attitude to take with a female customer whose life may depend on her ability to learn to master her gun. In fact, a lightweight .38 revolver can have some big recoil, especially in smaller, weaker hands. But mostly, a lady should never be swayed from looking at a semi-auto such as a 9mm or .40, or even a .45. Instead, gun shop salespeople should stress the pros and cons between the two, and then impress upon a female newbie that the semi-auto requires more training time but offers many advantages. Every woman has different needs and her options should be fairly presented so she can make an informed decision that best suits her requirements in the long term. Boston T. Party, in his superb book, Boston’s Gun Bible, states in his chapter on women and guns, "I would only recommend a revolver if you do not have the extra time and/or money for a quality semi-auto."
In fact, instead of slapping a revolver in her hand, it should be stressed to a woman purchasing her first gun that she needs guidance beyond her very basic CPL (Concealed Pistol License) class – she must move well beyond the basics and acquire additional training. A woman who buys a pistol must take supplementary courses such as a concealed weapons course and at least one defensive pistol class. This will educate her on the use of her gun in varied circumstances and will foster an extraordinary level of confidence. Only when you really learn to master that firearm do you come to appreciate and love it. Until that happens, a woman will be wary, lack confidence, and will reject the firearm more often than she covets it.
I came to love guns early on. My Dad started me off shooting a Winchester rifle at seven years old. I was fortunate that my entire childhood meant spending the whole summer, each year, at our cottage in Northern Michigan, out in the sticks, thirteen miles removed from the nearest small town. We had a gravel pit nearby where we shot targets, cans, and other objects. Once I learned that guns had a purpose, and that they could be handled safely and skillfully, I fell in love with them and wanted my own. I saw a similar occurrence last month while I was down in rural Tennessee. I watched a ten-year-old girl shooting a Ruger Mark III 22/45, her face plastered with endless smiles each time that little peashooter popped and knocked down another soda bottle. She reminded me so much of myself at that age when, after unloading a full magazine she’d turn to the group and say, "Can I do that again?" Of course, "again" is never-ending because of the sheer joy experienced while learning real world skills from a trusted adult.
In talking to different women, along with firearms instructors, I find that one of the biggest obstacles for women in actively carrying a pistol is getting to the point where they believe they can take another human life in defense of their own life or the life of a loved one. Indeed, this involves some serious reflection prior to ever carrying a gun or having one in the home for purposes of self-defense. I’ve had CPL instructors tell me about women breaking down and crying upon discussion of this topic during their courses. However, women need to understand the value of their lives, and the lives of their children, and how life can be so easily snuffed out by one person – or a group of people – who harbor a cruel and vicious, criminal agenda. It is essential that a woman train to develop a mindset where she can take another human life where and when her life is in immediate danger from an assailant (or assailants). That can take time, and quite often, that mindset will develop with further training and a better understanding of how to handle the dangers she may confront.
Viewing the world through fuzzy-lined Oprah glasses just won’t suffice anymore. Women need to stop living the dumbed-down life that is being sold to them by daytime TV and brainless magazines and novels. They need to stop pretending that every incident in life can be coped with by invoking yet another worthless fluff statement that exclaims, for the twenty-fifth time, how "happy" and non-judgmental and politically correct they are.
Being hapless and clueless is not a virtue, no matter what your chromosome factor. To steal a few words from Ted Nugent, a pull-no-punches advocate of self-defense rights, a person who accepts defenselessness is unnatural, cowardly, and pathetic. Ladies, boycott that mentality by turning Oprah off and giving guns, and your life, a chance.
Karen DeCoster is an accounting/finance professional and writer. She rides a Harley, shoots lots of guns, doesn't watch Oprah or Dr. Phil, and has never read a romance novel or self-help psychobabble. She likes to grow vegetables, ride mountain bikes, use her power washer, do cross-fit, and try new wines under $15. She looks forward to the "Stars with Cellulite" editions of the National Enquirer. Please do not forward her emails plastered with little smiley faces and frivolous poems that end in, "Have a Great Day!" This is her LewRockwell.com archive and her Mises.org archive. Check out her website, along with her blog.
Thursday, 07 May 2009 00:00
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." ~ Ted Nugent
Women never cease to amaze me. The majority of them are still "afraid" of guns. Afraid, as in "oohhhh, they are so scary." They say things like "I don’t like them around" and "they’re dangerous." I know of women who have defense-minded, pro-gun husbands and they will not let their guy talk about those nasty things in their presence. Shhh, the children will hear, or, they might actually see an evil gun! Keep them locked away. Don’t tell the neighbors you have a gun in our house, or we’ll be outcasts. And in the background you can almost hear another feeble Oprah sermon keeping women stupid, but oh, they feel good about themselves and their newfound self-esteem.
All the time, women are shocked, shocked! to hear that I have a gun, and worse, I have several guns. And then, oh no, I actually carry one with me. That’s so odd, they think. Oh she’s different. Why more than one gun? She must be the aggressive type. After all, the Oprah way is to trust everyone and insist that all people have good intentions always.
Although I tend to think that most women don’t make sense, period, I especially believe this concerning the gun issue. It’s not only difficult to get women to come around to wanting a gun of their own, but they still can’t get to the point where they will understand and accept why others want to own them.
Let’s face it – women are more vulnerable to attack because, most likely, their aggressor will be a man. Women are physically weaker, and criminals know that we are less willing to be mentally prepared for aggression because, unlike men, most of us just aren’t wired to be combative. A woman’s attacker will be bigger, stronger, and faster than her, and by nature they will be more aggressive, and that’s before considering any mental or drug problem that may be associated with a criminal attack. So why do women not want to take that into consideration and equalize the situation by learning to use and love guns? Dr. Thomas Szasz, libertarian scholar and Professor of Psychiatry at Syracuse University, once stated, "self-defense is not merely our legal right but our moral duty; because women are more vulnerable than men, their need and obligation to defend themselves is even greater than that of men." Dr. Szasz is a wise man.
Here’s my favorite scene: a woman is walking in a parking garage or parking lot, all alone, wearing 3-inch skinny heels, head down, flicking her mane of endless hair, and chatting mindlessly on the phone. "Blah, blah, blah, blah, and blah," but not a single shred of awareness about the inherent dangers of time and place, who is around her, and what they are doing. She is a Bambi in the woods.
I witness this kind of thing all the time. Women tend to function in the fog of the unknown, making themselves easy targets. The first rule of self-defense is awareness. Situational awareness can, and will, save your life. Be conscious about your surroundings. Stay off the phone, keep your head up, and survey the area around you. Walk boldly. You do not want to give a potential attacker the impression that you are an easy target. Avoidance is the ideal. How many times do women think about this? Probably never. But then again, this is not meant to be a self-defense, how-to guide for women, but rather, a call to women to stand up and take control of their personal security. Women who have the habit of entering the mindless, no-think zone while consistently ignoring potential threats are ripe for something awful to happen. Remember, criminals who attack women frequently scrutinize potential prey for easy pickings. They don’t want to tangle with a woman who appears to be alert or tough as nails. They are looking for women who are unaware, unassertive, and fragile.
Women tend to take a white-picket-fence-and-rose view of the world more often than they should. They think that the world is made of gingerbread houses and buckets of goodwill just waiting to be poured upon them. They believe that when evil takes place, it happens anywhere but in their own backyard. It happens on the evening news, but not to them.
One reason that women need to get over their hostility to guns is because the current environment – economic depression, looming inflation, and widespread unemployment – will bring forth a new criminal class due to desperation. In addition, the established criminal class will ramp up their activity. Carjackings, home invasions, robberies, abductions, and rape will plague women in hard economic times.
So how do we get women to dig guns?
Many women will experience frustration if you keep stressing guns as a method of self-defense and get right to the point of mentally preparing to kill someone to save a life. They may not be ready to "go there" if they are already hostile to guns. Ease ’em on in with things to break down their intolerance.
Most women are introduced to guns at the range, or perhaps by just shootin’ stuff on private property somewhere out in the country. Husbands, fathers, brothers – they all make good first-time instructors because they are trusted by the first-time female shooter. Starting out with the smaller guns is less intimidating and therefore works in favor of a woman gaining confidence about her ability.
Women do tend to be frightened by larger guns. They’ll come right out and say it. I recently added a new carry choice – the Ruger LCP .380, a 9.5 ounce pocketful of reliable defense that is very slim and easy to conceal for us smaller ladies, especially when wearing summer clothing. I have found out that ladies new to guns are attracted to this thing because of its size and non-threatening appearance. But watch out! This gun has some temperamental recoil, especially when loaded with high-velocity ammo. However, once women learn to shoot the smaller caliber pistols and rifles and grow their confidence, they get a hankering to shoot the bigger guns, and it becomes a thrilling experience. Knowing that they can handle a .308 rifle or a .45 pistol tends to bring on miles of smiles.
One thing about guns that should appeal to women is their artistic quality. Guns are beautiful works of art. Not only are guns attractively manufactured, but also, modern design and engineering methods make gun ownership for women a real option. There are guns for small hands, small trigger fingers, and even pink guns. You can buy little, pink rifles for young girls who are just starting to shoot. You can laugh, but this may invite young girls to aspire to guns whereas they might not find another reason to be attracted to them.
One thing I notice that people at gun shops tend to do is to steer women toward revolvers as the "best choice." Because revolvers are thought to be simpler and it requires less practice to load and shoot them, women are steered toward them, oftentimes without being given other workable options. A .38 revolver is considered to be the handgun for beginners. Though it is a great gun, this assumption is wrong and it is a risky attitude to take with a female customer whose life may depend on her ability to learn to master her gun. In fact, a lightweight .38 revolver can have some big recoil, especially in smaller, weaker hands. But mostly, a lady should never be swayed from looking at a semi-auto such as a 9mm or .40, or even a .45. Instead, gun shop salespeople should stress the pros and cons between the two, and then impress upon a female newbie that the semi-auto requires more training time but offers many advantages. Every woman has different needs and her options should be fairly presented so she can make an informed decision that best suits her requirements in the long term. Boston T. Party, in his superb book, Boston’s Gun Bible, states in his chapter on women and guns, "I would only recommend a revolver if you do not have the extra time and/or money for a quality semi-auto."
In fact, instead of slapping a revolver in her hand, it should be stressed to a woman purchasing her first gun that she needs guidance beyond her very basic CPL (Concealed Pistol License) class – she must move well beyond the basics and acquire additional training. A woman who buys a pistol must take supplementary courses such as a concealed weapons course and at least one defensive pistol class. This will educate her on the use of her gun in varied circumstances and will foster an extraordinary level of confidence. Only when you really learn to master that firearm do you come to appreciate and love it. Until that happens, a woman will be wary, lack confidence, and will reject the firearm more often than she covets it.
I came to love guns early on. My Dad started me off shooting a Winchester rifle at seven years old. I was fortunate that my entire childhood meant spending the whole summer, each year, at our cottage in Northern Michigan, out in the sticks, thirteen miles removed from the nearest small town. We had a gravel pit nearby where we shot targets, cans, and other objects. Once I learned that guns had a purpose, and that they could be handled safely and skillfully, I fell in love with them and wanted my own. I saw a similar occurrence last month while I was down in rural Tennessee. I watched a ten-year-old girl shooting a Ruger Mark III 22/45, her face plastered with endless smiles each time that little peashooter popped and knocked down another soda bottle. She reminded me so much of myself at that age when, after unloading a full magazine she’d turn to the group and say, "Can I do that again?" Of course, "again" is never-ending because of the sheer joy experienced while learning real world skills from a trusted adult.
In talking to different women, along with firearms instructors, I find that one of the biggest obstacles for women in actively carrying a pistol is getting to the point where they believe they can take another human life in defense of their own life or the life of a loved one. Indeed, this involves some serious reflection prior to ever carrying a gun or having one in the home for purposes of self-defense. I’ve had CPL instructors tell me about women breaking down and crying upon discussion of this topic during their courses. However, women need to understand the value of their lives, and the lives of their children, and how life can be so easily snuffed out by one person – or a group of people – who harbor a cruel and vicious, criminal agenda. It is essential that a woman train to develop a mindset where she can take another human life where and when her life is in immediate danger from an assailant (or assailants). That can take time, and quite often, that mindset will develop with further training and a better understanding of how to handle the dangers she may confront.
Viewing the world through fuzzy-lined Oprah glasses just won’t suffice anymore. Women need to stop living the dumbed-down life that is being sold to them by daytime TV and brainless magazines and novels. They need to stop pretending that every incident in life can be coped with by invoking yet another worthless fluff statement that exclaims, for the twenty-fifth time, how "happy" and non-judgmental and politically correct they are.
Being hapless and clueless is not a virtue, no matter what your chromosome factor. To steal a few words from Ted Nugent, a pull-no-punches advocate of self-defense rights, a person who accepts defenselessness is unnatural, cowardly, and pathetic. Ladies, boycott that mentality by turning Oprah off and giving guns, and your life, a chance.
Karen DeCoster is an accounting/finance professional and writer. She rides a Harley, shoots lots of guns, doesn't watch Oprah or Dr. Phil, and has never read a romance novel or self-help psychobabble. She likes to grow vegetables, ride mountain bikes, use her power washer, do cross-fit, and try new wines under $15. She looks forward to the "Stars with Cellulite" editions of the National Enquirer. Please do not forward her emails plastered with little smiley faces and frivolous poems that end in, "Have a Great Day!" This is her LewRockwell.com archive and her Mises.org archive. Check out her website, along with her blog.
Quote of the Day
"It would be a healthy exercise for every politician to look in the mirror every morning and remind himself that he holds office only because, in a two-man race against another mediocrity, a modest majority of those half-informed people who imagined that their votes mattered reckoned that he was the lesser evil. And they weren't too sure about that." -- Joseph Sobran
Monday, August 23, 2010
“Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.”
Ron Paul: Left and the Right Demagogue Mosque, Islam
LAKE JACKSON, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Congressman Ron Paul today released the following statement on the controversy concerning the construction of an Islamic Center and Mosque in New York City:
“Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?”
“Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?
“It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”
“The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
“Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”
“Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?
“In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.
“They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.
“The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.
“The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.
“Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.
“This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.
“There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?
“If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.
“The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.
“Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.
“Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam--the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
“It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.
“The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.
“The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.
“This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.
“We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.
“Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.”
LAKE JACKSON, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Congressman Ron Paul today released the following statement on the controversy concerning the construction of an Islamic Center and Mosque in New York City:
“Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?”
“Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?
“It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”
“The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
“Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”
“Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?
“In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.
“They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.
“The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.
“The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.
“Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.
“This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.
“There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?
“If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.
“The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.
“Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.
“Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam--the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
“It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.
“The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.
“The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.
“This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.
“We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.
“Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.”
A Non-Voter’s Thoughts on Ron Paul
As long as it’s just George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft who are evil – a "bad batch" – then you don’t have to kick the habit entirely. Just make sure you get a good batch next time – elect "good" politicians – and you’ll never have to question the political system to which you have become attached.
~ Me, three years ago: "Kick the Habit: Politics Is Not the Answer"
I can’t believe the things that have been coming out of my mouth these past few months. If anyone had told me a year ago that today I’d be sending an e-mail to my friends urging them to vote – and to vote Republican – I would have said that person was either nuts or just didn’t know me.
And yet here I am, writing the e-mails, getting involved in the movement, and trying to explain to my friends – long used to hearing me tell them why voting is worse than a waste of time, how it helps perpetuate a system that is destructive and wrong – why this time it’s different, this time it not only makes sense to vote, but they must vote …and get all of their friends to do it too.
And all the while, a little voice gnaws away at me, asking if I’m not just falling into the same trap I warned against when I wrote about the 2004 elections "Kick the Habit: Politics is Not the Answer"; If I’m not just putting my faith in a politician to solve problems that have no political solution; If I’m not just trying to solve problems with the very mechanism that created them; if I’m not granting legitimacy to the state by participating in its elections. And the truth is, I don’t have a clean answer to any of those questions. I can’t just dismiss them or pretend I’m not in fact falling victim to the same attachment to political solutions – the same addiction – that I saw so clearly as being part of the problem four years ago, and that I still believe is part of the problem.
But neither can I answer the other voice that asks questions just as troubling. Questions like: "so why haven’t you, and the anti-war movement, been able to end the war in Iraq?" and "what exactly is it you’re going to do to stop them from nuking Iran?" I don’t have answers to these questions either, and I am quite frankly tired of feeling helpless in the face of this kind of evil. And I know: that’s how they suck you in. That’s what politicians and drug pushers alike look for in their potential customers: a sense of helplessness, neediness… an emptiness needing to be filled. I know all that.
But I also know that this time something is different. Ron Paul’s entire political career calls into question my beliefs about how political systems work and how politicians survive within them. My understanding of democratic politics may explain everyone else in Washington, but it certainly doesn’t explain Dr. Paul’s success in being elected and returned to office for ten terms. Or maybe he is the exception that proves my rules. Whatever he is, he is not the same animal as the others in Washington, he’s not selling the same stuff. And his candidacy for president forces me – and, I believe, anyone who has taken a principled stand against voting – to re-examine my reasons for not participating in the system.
The truth is, I never was a "principled" non-voter. I’ve always said – jokingly of course – that if a candidate came along who promised to drastically reduce the scope of government, and I trusted them to do so, and that person actually had a shot at winning, I would have to consider voting for that person. Not surprisingly, I have never been faced with this particular dilemma. I suspect that I am not alone among lifetime non-voters who have never really had to examine their stance. As long as there is clearly no point in voting, we are never really forced to dig deeply into the reasons why we don’t vote. And, certainly in my lifetime, there has never been any point in voting in a presidential election. Until now.
I first encountered Ron Paul the last time he was running for president. He was running as the Libertarian candidate, and nobody even pretended he had a chance of winning. As an opportunity to spread ideas about liberty and free markets though, my friends and I thought his candidacy was a good thing. One of my friends wrote to him and asked him to come speak at our school, the University of California at Santa Cruz (think Cuba to UC Berkeley’s Kremlin).
This was 1987, when the "Internet" was little more than a handful of geeks in computer labs engaging in vibrant discussions on a Unix platform and sometimes making little pictures with X’s and O’s across the screen. My friends and I spent one Saturday plastering the UC campus with "Who is Ron Paul?" flyers and did whatever else we could think of to spread the word in advance of his appearance. When the evening came, maybe six or seven people showed up. (One of my co-organizers says it may have been a dozen, but I think she’s being generous.)
The word "gracious" does not describe Dr. Paul’s response to the meager turnout. "Gracious" would have been skillfully concealing his annoyance and soldiering on through the evening. Dr. Paul was not gracious. He was genuine and engaged and seemed to care only about presenting and defending the ideas he cares about so deeply. He was, I imagine, the same person he continues to be as he pursues the Republican nomination today; a person committed to liberty, doing whatever he can to bring it about in our society.
The contrast between our pathetic gathering twenty years ago and the rock-star receptions Dr. Paul receives wherever he goes today is heart-warming and gratifying. It makes me happy that Dr. Paul’s years of tirelessly speaking the same words in defense of freedom are paying off, and it makes me feel that there may yet be hope for this country.
Like many of his supporters, I don’t agree with Dr. Paul on all of his positions. We part ways on abortion and immigration. But the issues where we do agree are so important and there is so much at stake that our differences are not an impediment to my support. More importantly – and I believe this is one of the greatest keys to his success – I know that his stance on each issue is the product of his genuinely held beliefs. He does not choose his words based on opinion polls or on the fundraising successes they have earned other candidates, but on his own understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Because of this I have unending respect for the man.
I don’t think I am alone in this. People are beyond fed up with empty political promises. They are tired of meaningless "choices" at the ballot box. They are rightly cynical about the entire process. Ron Paul has spent over 30 years of his life demonstrating that his promises are not empty and that he is utterly devoted to the pursuit of liberty in this country. Even people who have just been introduced to him see that he means what he says.
And this changes things. People are accustomed to voting for the lesser of two evils. What happens when someone who is not evil shows up? Integrity is not generally an ingredient found in presidential elections and its presence here now changes the entire nature of the game. Ron Paul is not playing by the same rules as everyone else, and by playing by his own rules – by committing the political cardinal sin of meaning what he says – he changes the rules for everyone else. Candidates are now no longer measured against other politicians whose words mean nothing, but against a man of integrity, and in order to succeed they must rise to his level. But they can’t. A reputation earned in over thirty years of dealing with people is not something that can be bought. Nor can it be "spun" out of thin air. Quite simply: Ron Paul has something none of the other candidates have or can get in time for the elections. This fact alone could very possibly win him the Republican nomination and even the presidency.
And that’s when my own words come back to haunt me. There’s that voice, reminding me that I don’t even believe in the process. That I don’t want anyone to be my president, that decisions over how much freedom I have shouldn’t be up to the majority. That by participating in the system, I’m agreeing that they should, that the majority has the right to rule over my life. So, for the record: I don’t want a president. And I don’t grant the majority the right to make decisions over my life.
But what is at stake is so great now that it is just no longer acceptable to not try whatever means I can find to fight what is going on. It is not acceptable to sit by and watch as "my" government lays waste to entire nations of human beings who have never done me any harm. It is not acceptable to sit by as the same government lays waste to the (however imperfect) institutions that evolved to protect citizens’ rights and freedom from tyranny. Not if there’s anything I can do to stop it. So, if there’s even a chance that Dr. Paul can have an impact in these areas, I feel an obligation to help him do that.
It’s not like I haven’t tried other things. I’ve stood out in front of the New York Public Library in sub-zero weather handing out anti-war pamphlets. I’ve written articles. I’ve marched in anti-war demonstrations alongside tens if not hundreds of thousands of other people – demonstrations that, if you get your information from the mainstream media, never happened. I’ve tried what I knew to try, and none of it has worked. The evils committed by the state – in my name and with my money – have only gotten worse and more widespread, and will continue to do so.
The truth is: I just don’t know what else to do.
So, come February, or whenever it is they hold the primaries in my state (I’m told I can only do this in one state, which is disappointing), I’ll be marching myself down to the voting booths and I’ll be pulling a lever… or filling in a form… or tapping on a screen. Actually, I don’t exactly know how I’ll be doing it, but I’ll be doing what I’ve never done before and what I never thought I’d ever do: Voting in an election for a presidential candidate who I believe can make things better.
I’ve long believed that politicians cannot get ahead by delivering more freedom and less government; that the game of politics can be won only by delivering more favors and more of other people’s money to one’s constituents; that the only real winner, ultimately, is the state, and that those who play the game end up serving its expansion. I’ve always qualified my condemnation of politics and politicians with the words "except for Ron Paul." I’d then usually say something like "but of course he doesn’t actually accomplish anything." Well I was wrong about that. Really really wrong. For all these years, Dr. Paul has been building something no other politician has – something that when just one person has it, suddenly becomes an incredibly valuable asset: credibility.
The question with regard to Ron Paul is not whether or not he will keep his campaign promises – he will. The only question is whether he will be able to accomplish what he has set out to. Will he be elected? And if he is, how far will he be able to get on his wish list of dismantling the leviathan state to which we have become so accustomed?
I don’t have answers to either of these questions. And anyone who says they do doesn’t understand what is happening here: The very nature of the game is changing and all because one man has insisted all along on playing it his way.
So maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it is possible to effect positive change toward a more free society through the political process. Ron Paul has proven me wrong once already and he may just do it again.
I hope he does.
November 15, 2007
Bretigne Shaffer [send her mail] is a writer and filmmaker living in the Bay Area. She also directs the Free World Media Center, the media production center of the non-profit Liberty and Privacy Network. The views she expresses here are her own and do not reflect the views of the Free World Media Center or the LPN.
~ Me, three years ago: "Kick the Habit: Politics Is Not the Answer"
I can’t believe the things that have been coming out of my mouth these past few months. If anyone had told me a year ago that today I’d be sending an e-mail to my friends urging them to vote – and to vote Republican – I would have said that person was either nuts or just didn’t know me.
And yet here I am, writing the e-mails, getting involved in the movement, and trying to explain to my friends – long used to hearing me tell them why voting is worse than a waste of time, how it helps perpetuate a system that is destructive and wrong – why this time it’s different, this time it not only makes sense to vote, but they must vote …and get all of their friends to do it too.
And all the while, a little voice gnaws away at me, asking if I’m not just falling into the same trap I warned against when I wrote about the 2004 elections "Kick the Habit: Politics is Not the Answer"; If I’m not just putting my faith in a politician to solve problems that have no political solution; If I’m not just trying to solve problems with the very mechanism that created them; if I’m not granting legitimacy to the state by participating in its elections. And the truth is, I don’t have a clean answer to any of those questions. I can’t just dismiss them or pretend I’m not in fact falling victim to the same attachment to political solutions – the same addiction – that I saw so clearly as being part of the problem four years ago, and that I still believe is part of the problem.
But neither can I answer the other voice that asks questions just as troubling. Questions like: "so why haven’t you, and the anti-war movement, been able to end the war in Iraq?" and "what exactly is it you’re going to do to stop them from nuking Iran?" I don’t have answers to these questions either, and I am quite frankly tired of feeling helpless in the face of this kind of evil. And I know: that’s how they suck you in. That’s what politicians and drug pushers alike look for in their potential customers: a sense of helplessness, neediness… an emptiness needing to be filled. I know all that.
But I also know that this time something is different. Ron Paul’s entire political career calls into question my beliefs about how political systems work and how politicians survive within them. My understanding of democratic politics may explain everyone else in Washington, but it certainly doesn’t explain Dr. Paul’s success in being elected and returned to office for ten terms. Or maybe he is the exception that proves my rules. Whatever he is, he is not the same animal as the others in Washington, he’s not selling the same stuff. And his candidacy for president forces me – and, I believe, anyone who has taken a principled stand against voting – to re-examine my reasons for not participating in the system.
The truth is, I never was a "principled" non-voter. I’ve always said – jokingly of course – that if a candidate came along who promised to drastically reduce the scope of government, and I trusted them to do so, and that person actually had a shot at winning, I would have to consider voting for that person. Not surprisingly, I have never been faced with this particular dilemma. I suspect that I am not alone among lifetime non-voters who have never really had to examine their stance. As long as there is clearly no point in voting, we are never really forced to dig deeply into the reasons why we don’t vote. And, certainly in my lifetime, there has never been any point in voting in a presidential election. Until now.
I first encountered Ron Paul the last time he was running for president. He was running as the Libertarian candidate, and nobody even pretended he had a chance of winning. As an opportunity to spread ideas about liberty and free markets though, my friends and I thought his candidacy was a good thing. One of my friends wrote to him and asked him to come speak at our school, the University of California at Santa Cruz (think Cuba to UC Berkeley’s Kremlin).
This was 1987, when the "Internet" was little more than a handful of geeks in computer labs engaging in vibrant discussions on a Unix platform and sometimes making little pictures with X’s and O’s across the screen. My friends and I spent one Saturday plastering the UC campus with "Who is Ron Paul?" flyers and did whatever else we could think of to spread the word in advance of his appearance. When the evening came, maybe six or seven people showed up. (One of my co-organizers says it may have been a dozen, but I think she’s being generous.)
The word "gracious" does not describe Dr. Paul’s response to the meager turnout. "Gracious" would have been skillfully concealing his annoyance and soldiering on through the evening. Dr. Paul was not gracious. He was genuine and engaged and seemed to care only about presenting and defending the ideas he cares about so deeply. He was, I imagine, the same person he continues to be as he pursues the Republican nomination today; a person committed to liberty, doing whatever he can to bring it about in our society.
The contrast between our pathetic gathering twenty years ago and the rock-star receptions Dr. Paul receives wherever he goes today is heart-warming and gratifying. It makes me happy that Dr. Paul’s years of tirelessly speaking the same words in defense of freedom are paying off, and it makes me feel that there may yet be hope for this country.
Like many of his supporters, I don’t agree with Dr. Paul on all of his positions. We part ways on abortion and immigration. But the issues where we do agree are so important and there is so much at stake that our differences are not an impediment to my support. More importantly – and I believe this is one of the greatest keys to his success – I know that his stance on each issue is the product of his genuinely held beliefs. He does not choose his words based on opinion polls or on the fundraising successes they have earned other candidates, but on his own understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Because of this I have unending respect for the man.
I don’t think I am alone in this. People are beyond fed up with empty political promises. They are tired of meaningless "choices" at the ballot box. They are rightly cynical about the entire process. Ron Paul has spent over 30 years of his life demonstrating that his promises are not empty and that he is utterly devoted to the pursuit of liberty in this country. Even people who have just been introduced to him see that he means what he says.
And this changes things. People are accustomed to voting for the lesser of two evils. What happens when someone who is not evil shows up? Integrity is not generally an ingredient found in presidential elections and its presence here now changes the entire nature of the game. Ron Paul is not playing by the same rules as everyone else, and by playing by his own rules – by committing the political cardinal sin of meaning what he says – he changes the rules for everyone else. Candidates are now no longer measured against other politicians whose words mean nothing, but against a man of integrity, and in order to succeed they must rise to his level. But they can’t. A reputation earned in over thirty years of dealing with people is not something that can be bought. Nor can it be "spun" out of thin air. Quite simply: Ron Paul has something none of the other candidates have or can get in time for the elections. This fact alone could very possibly win him the Republican nomination and even the presidency.
And that’s when my own words come back to haunt me. There’s that voice, reminding me that I don’t even believe in the process. That I don’t want anyone to be my president, that decisions over how much freedom I have shouldn’t be up to the majority. That by participating in the system, I’m agreeing that they should, that the majority has the right to rule over my life. So, for the record: I don’t want a president. And I don’t grant the majority the right to make decisions over my life.
But what is at stake is so great now that it is just no longer acceptable to not try whatever means I can find to fight what is going on. It is not acceptable to sit by and watch as "my" government lays waste to entire nations of human beings who have never done me any harm. It is not acceptable to sit by as the same government lays waste to the (however imperfect) institutions that evolved to protect citizens’ rights and freedom from tyranny. Not if there’s anything I can do to stop it. So, if there’s even a chance that Dr. Paul can have an impact in these areas, I feel an obligation to help him do that.
It’s not like I haven’t tried other things. I’ve stood out in front of the New York Public Library in sub-zero weather handing out anti-war pamphlets. I’ve written articles. I’ve marched in anti-war demonstrations alongside tens if not hundreds of thousands of other people – demonstrations that, if you get your information from the mainstream media, never happened. I’ve tried what I knew to try, and none of it has worked. The evils committed by the state – in my name and with my money – have only gotten worse and more widespread, and will continue to do so.
The truth is: I just don’t know what else to do.
So, come February, or whenever it is they hold the primaries in my state (I’m told I can only do this in one state, which is disappointing), I’ll be marching myself down to the voting booths and I’ll be pulling a lever… or filling in a form… or tapping on a screen. Actually, I don’t exactly know how I’ll be doing it, but I’ll be doing what I’ve never done before and what I never thought I’d ever do: Voting in an election for a presidential candidate who I believe can make things better.
I’ve long believed that politicians cannot get ahead by delivering more freedom and less government; that the game of politics can be won only by delivering more favors and more of other people’s money to one’s constituents; that the only real winner, ultimately, is the state, and that those who play the game end up serving its expansion. I’ve always qualified my condemnation of politics and politicians with the words "except for Ron Paul." I’d then usually say something like "but of course he doesn’t actually accomplish anything." Well I was wrong about that. Really really wrong. For all these years, Dr. Paul has been building something no other politician has – something that when just one person has it, suddenly becomes an incredibly valuable asset: credibility.
The question with regard to Ron Paul is not whether or not he will keep his campaign promises – he will. The only question is whether he will be able to accomplish what he has set out to. Will he be elected? And if he is, how far will he be able to get on his wish list of dismantling the leviathan state to which we have become so accustomed?
I don’t have answers to either of these questions. And anyone who says they do doesn’t understand what is happening here: The very nature of the game is changing and all because one man has insisted all along on playing it his way.
So maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it is possible to effect positive change toward a more free society through the political process. Ron Paul has proven me wrong once already and he may just do it again.
I hope he does.
November 15, 2007
Bretigne Shaffer [send her mail] is a writer and filmmaker living in the Bay Area. She also directs the Free World Media Center, the media production center of the non-profit Liberty and Privacy Network. The views she expresses here are her own and do not reflect the views of the Free World Media Center or the LPN.
Fundrasing for Democratic Party Demogod's does not benefit the poor
"According to Obama, monetary donations should be funneled into Democratic Party bank accounts. It's a point Obama hammered home while visiting Los Angeles this week to do a fundraiser at the home of John Wells, the producer of 'ER,' 'Southland' and 'The West Wing.' At that $30,400 per couple dinner, Obama shamelessly told his patrons: 'I hope you understand why we're here tonight. It's not to take a picture with the president. We're here to make sure those who took the tough votes are rewarded.' Why not reward those Americans who are out of work and hurting, rather than the legislators who live on cushy salaries and have full medical and dental? Because those Americans are pawns, that's why. Democrats cite to the poor to tug at the heartstrings of the limousine liberal class, but Democrats rarely encourage those limousine liberals to give their money directly to those in need. When's the last time you heard an active liberal politician tell a rich potential donor to send cash to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army without a major natural disaster to spur that politician along? Has it ever happened? No, because that would show that the private sector charities can do a better job than the government. It would demonstrate that the poor could be given care by the private sector in an efficient way. In other words, it would put the lie to the Democratic notion that government is always the solution to social inequalities." --columnist Ben Shapiro
The Islamic White House
"President Obama couldn't bring himself to observe the National Day of Prayer or spend time with the Boy Scouts of America, but God forbid, he couldn't miss the Muslim Iftar Ramadan dinner, or pass up a chance to praise an Islamic center a stone's throw away from Ground Zero. ... One has to wonder exactly who is this Barack Obama? Is he the Muslim-educated student who has repeatedly proclaimed his Christian beliefs while finding himself unable to put a foot in a Christian church in Washington he can call his own, or is he an adult still motivated by the Muslim faith he learned and practiced as a young man? This is a serious question, especially since Obama has gone out of his way to befriend a community, many of whom bear a deep hatred for the United States and a fanatical belief in the inevitability of supremacy of Islam over the United States. ... Unfortunately, it appears that Islam is also imposing its will and casting a shadow over the Obama White House." --radio talk-show host Michael Reagan
You say Potato, I say Potato
"During the last two years, Democrats have amassed unprecedented growth of federal government power in the forms of bailouts, corporate takeovers, favors to their political allies and nationalization of our health care system. My question is how likely is it for Republicans to behave differently if they gain control? Their past behavior doesn't make one confident that they will behave much differently, but I could be wrong. If Republicans win the House of Representatives, there are measures they should take in their first month of office, and that is to undo most of what the Democratically controlled Congress has done. If they don't win a veto-proof Senate, they can't undo Obamacare but the House alone can refuse to fund any part of it. There are numerous blocking tactics that a Republican-controlled House can take against those hell-bent on trampling on our Constitution. The question is whether they will have guts and principle to do it. After all, many Americans, including those who are Republicans, have a stake in big government control, special privileges and handouts. Ultimately, we Americans must act to ensure that our liberty does not depend on personalities in Washington. Our founders tried to do that with our Constitution." --economist Walter E. Williams
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)