Michigan: Registration Reform Assigned to Senate Committee!
Friday, April 25, 2008
Please Contact the Committee Members Today!
House Bill 4490 sponsored by State Representative Paul Opsommer (R-93) and House Bill 4491 introduced by State Representative Joel Sheltrown (D-103) have passed the House and have been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. A hearing date has not been scheduled yet. The bills would repeal the required "safety inspection" for newly obtained handguns. Current Michigan law requires anyone who comes into possession of a pistol to take it to the police or sheriff’s department for a safety inspection. The requirement of a safety inspection is a burdensome waste of time for law-abiding gun owners and the bills will end that inconvenience. Please contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and respectfully urge them to support these necessary pieces of legislation.
Senate Judiciary Committee:
State Senator Wayne Kuipers – Chair
(517) 373-6920
senwkuipers@senate.michigan.gov
State Senator Alan Cropsey (R-33)
(517) 373-3760
senacropsey@senate.michigan.gov
State Senator Alan Sanborn (R-11)
(517) 373-7670
senasanborn@senate.michigan.gov
State Senator Bruce Patterson (R-7)
(517) 373-7350
senbpatterson@senate.michigan.gov
State Senator Gretchen Whitmer (D-23)
517-373-1734
State Senator Hansen Clarke (D-1)
517-373-7346
State Senator Michael Pruse (D-38)
517-373-7840
senMPrusi@senate.mi.gov
Monday, April 28, 2008
Debating Their Position On Guns
Debating Their Position On Guns
Friday, April 18, 2008
Speaking of “the most anti-gun candidate,” lately it’s becoming more and more difficult to keep track of which candidate is most deserving of that title.
As Democratic Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia this week, moderator Charlie Gibson, from ABC News, opened debate on the gun issue by stating, “Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.” (Sound familiar?) “Why don’t you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?”
Hillary answered with a stream of generalizations, but was specific on at least one thing, “I will [also] work to reinstate the assault weapons ban,” she said, also noting that, “the Republicans will not reinstate it.”
Obama was asked about the Heller case now before the United States Supreme Court, and specifically whether the D.C. gun ban is “consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms.” His response was, “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”
When pressed further by the moderator (“But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?”), Obama was evasive, never really giving a straight answer and causing the moderator to quip, “I’m not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama.”
Senator Clinton was then asked, “you have a home in D.C., do you support the D.C. ban?” She, too, was evasive but said that she wants, “to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining…” firearms law. She was further pressed “But what do you think? Do you support it or not?”
“Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms,” she said.
“Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?” asked the moderator.
“Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don't know the facts,” Clinton concluded. At least she was right about that.
What we do know is that neither candidate joined more than 300 of their congressional colleagues in signing a brief in the Heller case in support of the Second Amendment, and both candidates’ records are well documented and show, unquestionably, that they’re both anti-gun. For either to now try to convince us otherwise is absurd. If one can’t plainly state that a ban on guns in the home for self-defense runs afoul of the Second Amendment, one has to wonder if either candidate believes any gun law would.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Speaking of “the most anti-gun candidate,” lately it’s becoming more and more difficult to keep track of which candidate is most deserving of that title.
As Democratic Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia this week, moderator Charlie Gibson, from ABC News, opened debate on the gun issue by stating, “Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.” (Sound familiar?) “Why don’t you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?”
Hillary answered with a stream of generalizations, but was specific on at least one thing, “I will [also] work to reinstate the assault weapons ban,” she said, also noting that, “the Republicans will not reinstate it.”
Obama was asked about the Heller case now before the United States Supreme Court, and specifically whether the D.C. gun ban is “consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms.” His response was, “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”
When pressed further by the moderator (“But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?”), Obama was evasive, never really giving a straight answer and causing the moderator to quip, “I’m not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama.”
Senator Clinton was then asked, “you have a home in D.C., do you support the D.C. ban?” She, too, was evasive but said that she wants, “to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining…” firearms law. She was further pressed “But what do you think? Do you support it or not?”
“Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms,” she said.
“Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?” asked the moderator.
“Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don't know the facts,” Clinton concluded. At least she was right about that.
What we do know is that neither candidate joined more than 300 of their congressional colleagues in signing a brief in the Heller case in support of the Second Amendment, and both candidates’ records are well documented and show, unquestionably, that they’re both anti-gun. For either to now try to convince us otherwise is absurd. If one can’t plainly state that a ban on guns in the home for self-defense runs afoul of the Second Amendment, one has to wonder if either candidate believes any gun law would.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Obama: Change For The Sake Of Expediency
Obama: Change For The Sake Of Expediency
Friday, April 11, 2008
When it comes to the Second Amendment, it's somehow appropriate that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is running on a platform of "change." Because when it comes to his rhetoric on the issue of gun rights, "change" is an apt description.
Last month, we reported on Obama's hypocrisy. We detailed his advocacy of a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products (firearms) in huge geographical areas, without holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard.
Last week, we reported on Obama's attempt at reassuring pro-gun voters by telling them, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns," then telling the Pittsburgh Tribune "I am not in favor of concealed weapons," and that he favors "…reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]…."
Obama is savvy, and he's a quick study. His politically expedient stance on the gun issues has morphed from "a ban on all handguns" to his now frequent use of phrases like "protecting sportsmen."
Lately, in an effort to curry votes from America's gun owners, he's even claiming to believe in the Second Amendment. A recent campaign "fact sheet" touting Obama's support for sportsmen claims that Obama "greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" (note the failure to say "keep" and bear arms). But read further--to the "fine print" at the end of the statement--and you'll see his political safety net…an easily down-played but highly significant "qualifier" that he almost always includes in some form. It reads, "He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation." In other words, "I support your gun rights, so long as that includes "reasonable" restrictions (wink, wink)." Very slick.
The next time you hear Obama talking about "protecting sportsmen's rights," remember that, among other things, he endorses the D.C. gun ban--which outlaws armed self-defense in the home--declaring that the ban doesn't violate the Second Amendment. And that in a "1998 National Political Awareness Test," he pledged to support a "Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." That includes most handguns and many rifles and shotguns.
Obama's alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he's out to destroy it.
(From the NRA)
Friday, April 11, 2008
When it comes to the Second Amendment, it's somehow appropriate that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is running on a platform of "change." Because when it comes to his rhetoric on the issue of gun rights, "change" is an apt description.
Last month, we reported on Obama's hypocrisy. We detailed his advocacy of a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products (firearms) in huge geographical areas, without holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard.
Last week, we reported on Obama's attempt at reassuring pro-gun voters by telling them, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns," then telling the Pittsburgh Tribune "I am not in favor of concealed weapons," and that he favors "…reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]…."
Obama is savvy, and he's a quick study. His politically expedient stance on the gun issues has morphed from "a ban on all handguns" to his now frequent use of phrases like "protecting sportsmen."
Lately, in an effort to curry votes from America's gun owners, he's even claiming to believe in the Second Amendment. A recent campaign "fact sheet" touting Obama's support for sportsmen claims that Obama "greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" (note the failure to say "keep" and bear arms). But read further--to the "fine print" at the end of the statement--and you'll see his political safety net…an easily down-played but highly significant "qualifier" that he almost always includes in some form. It reads, "He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation." In other words, "I support your gun rights, so long as that includes "reasonable" restrictions (wink, wink)." Very slick.
The next time you hear Obama talking about "protecting sportsmen's rights," remember that, among other things, he endorses the D.C. gun ban--which outlaws armed self-defense in the home--declaring that the ban doesn't violate the Second Amendment. And that in a "1998 National Political Awareness Test," he pledged to support a "Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." That includes most handguns and many rifles and shotguns.
Obama's alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he's out to destroy it.
(From the NRA)
The NRA Family Mourns the Passing of Our Past President
The NRA Family Mourns the Passing of Our Past President, Dear Friend, and Fearless Advocate, Charlton Heston 1924 - 2008
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Statement of Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America
Today, my heart is heavy with the loss of Charlton Heston.
America has lost a great patriot. The Second Amendment has lost a faithful friend. So have I, and so have four million NRA members and eighty million gun owners. And so has every American who cares about the Bill of Rights, individual liberty, and Freedom.
My heart is heavy, but not without a sense of pride. Pride in a man who devoted his life to his profession with grace and dignity. Pride in an American who devoted himself to civil rights, to correcting injustices around him, and to standing up for what he knew was right. Pride in a friend who stood with me and stood with fellow NRA members to preserve our freedom for future generations. Pride in a patriot who believed with every fiber of his being that our Bill of Rights is the foundation of our freedom that makes Americans singular among the masses of nations.
And now, Charlton Heston has passed that duty to us – the next generation. I am as proud to continue his cause, as I am to have known him as my friend.
But today, my thoughts cannot leave the Heston family. They have always had my utmost respect and admiration and, today, they have my deepest sympathy and most earnest prayers. And they will always have my friendship.
(From The NRA)
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Statement of Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America
Today, my heart is heavy with the loss of Charlton Heston.
America has lost a great patriot. The Second Amendment has lost a faithful friend. So have I, and so have four million NRA members and eighty million gun owners. And so has every American who cares about the Bill of Rights, individual liberty, and Freedom.
My heart is heavy, but not without a sense of pride. Pride in a man who devoted his life to his profession with grace and dignity. Pride in an American who devoted himself to civil rights, to correcting injustices around him, and to standing up for what he knew was right. Pride in a friend who stood with me and stood with fellow NRA members to preserve our freedom for future generations. Pride in a patriot who believed with every fiber of his being that our Bill of Rights is the foundation of our freedom that makes Americans singular among the masses of nations.
And now, Charlton Heston has passed that duty to us – the next generation. I am as proud to continue his cause, as I am to have known him as my friend.
But today, my thoughts cannot leave the Heston family. They have always had my utmost respect and admiration and, today, they have my deepest sympathy and most earnest prayers. And they will always have my friendship.
(From The NRA)
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Hillary: Swiftboated!
Hillary: Swiftboated!
By Ann Coulter
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Hillary is being "swiftboated"!
She claimed that she came under sniper fire when she visited in Bosnia in 1996, but was contradicted by videotape showing her sauntering off the plane and stopping on the tarmac to listen to a little girl read her a poem.
Similarly, John Kerry's claim to heroism in Vietnam was contradicted by 264 Swift Boat Veterans who served with him. His claim to having been on a secret mission to Cambodia for President Nixon on Christmas 1968 was contradicted not only by all of his commanders -- who said he would have been court-martialed if he had gone anywhere near Cambodia -- but also the simple fact that Nixon wasn't president on Christmas 1968.
In Hillary's defense, she probably deserves a Purple Heart about as much as Kerry did for his service in Vietnam.
Also, unlike Kerry, Hillary acknowledged her error, telling the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke." (What if she's sleep-deprived when she gets that call on the red phone at 3 a.m., imagines a Russian nuclear attack and responds with mutual assured destruction? Oops. "It proves I'm human.")
The reason no one claims Hillary is being "swiftboated" is that the definition of "swiftboating" is: "producing irrefutable evidence that a Democrat is lying." And for purposes of her race against matinee idol B. Hussein Obama, Hillary has become the media's honorary Republican.
In liberal-speak, only a Democrat can be swiftboated. Democrats are "swiftboated"; Republicans are "guilty." So as an honorary Republican, Hillary isn't being swiftboated; she's just lying.
Indeed, instead of attacking the people who produced a video of Hillary's uneventful landing in Bosnia, the mainstream media are the people who discovered that video.
I've always wondered how a Democrat would fare being treated like a Republican by the media. Now we know.
It's such fun watching liberals turn on the Clintons! The bitter infighting among Democrats is especially enjoyable after having to listen to Democrats hyperventilate for months about how delighted they were to have so many wonderful choices for president.
Now liberals just want to be rid of the Clintons -- which is as close to actual mainstream thinking as they've been in years. So the media suddenly notice when Hillary "misspeaks," while rushing to make absurd excuses for much greater outrages by her opponent.
Liberals are even using the Slick Willy defense when Obama is caught fraternizing with a racist loon. When Bill Clinton was exposed as a philandering, adulterous, pathological liar, his defenders said that everybody is a philandering, adulterous, pathological liar.
And now, when B. Hussein Obama is caught in a 20-year relationship with a raving racist, his defenders scream that everybody is a racist wack-job.
In the Obama speech on race that Chris Matthews deemed "worthy of Abraham Lincoln," B. Hussein Obama defended Wright's anti-American statements, saying:
"For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table."
So in the speech the media are telling us is on a par with the Gettysburg Address, B. Hussein Obama casually informed us that even blacks who seem to like white people actually hate our guts.
First of all: Watch out the next time you get your hair cut by a black barber over the age of 50.
Second, Rev. Wright's world wasn't segregated.
And third, what about Wright's wanton anti-Semitism? All the liberals (including essence-besplattered Chris Matthews) have accepted Obama's defense of Wright and want us to understand Wright's "legitimate" rage over his painful youth in segregated America.
But the anti-Semitic tone of Wright's sermons is as clear as his rage against the United States. Rev. Wright calls Israel a "dirty word" and a "racist country." He denounces Zionism and calls for divestment from Israel.
In addition to videos of Rev. Wright's sermons, Obama's church also offers for sale sermons by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whom Rev. Wright joined on a visit to Moammar Gadhafi in Libya in 1984. Just last year, Obama's church awarded Farrakhan the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness."
What, pray tell, is the legitimate source of Wright's anti-Semitism? I believe Brother Obama passed over that issue entirely in his "conversation," even as he made the obligatory bow to Israel's status as one of our "stalwart allies." Why does crazy "uncle" Wright dislike Jews?
Will liberals contend that these remarks were "taken out of context"? Maybe Wright's church was trying to say that Farrakhan isn't great when it said he "epitomized greatness." Who knows? We weren't there.
Can liberals please educate us on the "legitimate" impulses behind Rev. Wright's Jew-baiting?
Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism
By Ann Coulter
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Hillary is being "swiftboated"!
She claimed that she came under sniper fire when she visited in Bosnia in 1996, but was contradicted by videotape showing her sauntering off the plane and stopping on the tarmac to listen to a little girl read her a poem.
Similarly, John Kerry's claim to heroism in Vietnam was contradicted by 264 Swift Boat Veterans who served with him. His claim to having been on a secret mission to Cambodia for President Nixon on Christmas 1968 was contradicted not only by all of his commanders -- who said he would have been court-martialed if he had gone anywhere near Cambodia -- but also the simple fact that Nixon wasn't president on Christmas 1968.
In Hillary's defense, she probably deserves a Purple Heart about as much as Kerry did for his service in Vietnam.
Also, unlike Kerry, Hillary acknowledged her error, telling the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke." (What if she's sleep-deprived when she gets that call on the red phone at 3 a.m., imagines a Russian nuclear attack and responds with mutual assured destruction? Oops. "It proves I'm human.")
The reason no one claims Hillary is being "swiftboated" is that the definition of "swiftboating" is: "producing irrefutable evidence that a Democrat is lying." And for purposes of her race against matinee idol B. Hussein Obama, Hillary has become the media's honorary Republican.
In liberal-speak, only a Democrat can be swiftboated. Democrats are "swiftboated"; Republicans are "guilty." So as an honorary Republican, Hillary isn't being swiftboated; she's just lying.
Indeed, instead of attacking the people who produced a video of Hillary's uneventful landing in Bosnia, the mainstream media are the people who discovered that video.
I've always wondered how a Democrat would fare being treated like a Republican by the media. Now we know.
It's such fun watching liberals turn on the Clintons! The bitter infighting among Democrats is especially enjoyable after having to listen to Democrats hyperventilate for months about how delighted they were to have so many wonderful choices for president.
Now liberals just want to be rid of the Clintons -- which is as close to actual mainstream thinking as they've been in years. So the media suddenly notice when Hillary "misspeaks," while rushing to make absurd excuses for much greater outrages by her opponent.
Liberals are even using the Slick Willy defense when Obama is caught fraternizing with a racist loon. When Bill Clinton was exposed as a philandering, adulterous, pathological liar, his defenders said that everybody is a philandering, adulterous, pathological liar.
And now, when B. Hussein Obama is caught in a 20-year relationship with a raving racist, his defenders scream that everybody is a racist wack-job.
In the Obama speech on race that Chris Matthews deemed "worthy of Abraham Lincoln," B. Hussein Obama defended Wright's anti-American statements, saying:
"For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table."
So in the speech the media are telling us is on a par with the Gettysburg Address, B. Hussein Obama casually informed us that even blacks who seem to like white people actually hate our guts.
First of all: Watch out the next time you get your hair cut by a black barber over the age of 50.
Second, Rev. Wright's world wasn't segregated.
And third, what about Wright's wanton anti-Semitism? All the liberals (including essence-besplattered Chris Matthews) have accepted Obama's defense of Wright and want us to understand Wright's "legitimate" rage over his painful youth in segregated America.
But the anti-Semitic tone of Wright's sermons is as clear as his rage against the United States. Rev. Wright calls Israel a "dirty word" and a "racist country." He denounces Zionism and calls for divestment from Israel.
In addition to videos of Rev. Wright's sermons, Obama's church also offers for sale sermons by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whom Rev. Wright joined on a visit to Moammar Gadhafi in Libya in 1984. Just last year, Obama's church awarded Farrakhan the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness."
What, pray tell, is the legitimate source of Wright's anti-Semitism? I believe Brother Obama passed over that issue entirely in his "conversation," even as he made the obligatory bow to Israel's status as one of our "stalwart allies." Why does crazy "uncle" Wright dislike Jews?
Will liberals contend that these remarks were "taken out of context"? Maybe Wright's church was trying to say that Farrakhan isn't great when it said he "epitomized greatness." Who knows? We weren't there.
Can liberals please educate us on the "legitimate" impulses behind Rev. Wright's Jew-baiting?
Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism
4,000 Patriots
4,000 Patriots
By Cal Thomas
Thursday, March 27, 2008
BOSTON - Following Sept. 11, 2001, a day of infamy on which nearly 3,000 died at the hands of terrorists, The New York Times began publishing the names and pictures of the dead. I made a deliberate effort to look at those pictures and to read the names and hometowns of each victim. I wanted to identify with them as much as possible.
Now the Times has published more pictures, names and ages, this time of American war dead. They are part of the 4,000 casualties to have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan since those wars began. They - and their families - deserve our gratitude.
Some politicians who oppose the war - mostly Democrats, but a few Republicans - offer obligatory and oblique references to "the troops" and their bravery, while undermining their sacrifice and objectives by calling for their immediate withdrawal. That is not a policy, unless one regards surrender and retreat only to fight a bloodier war another day policy.
What is remarkable is that America continues to produce the kind of young men and women who are willing to lay down their lives for a principle: the principle of freedom - for others and for us.
This is a characteristic that may not be uniquely American, but it is one this country has fully embraced, as time and time again it fights wars to liberate others and protect itself. As the excellent HBO series on the life of John Adams portrays, the notion of freedom was conceived in the hearts of our countrymen even before America became a nation. It is a story about sacrifice, separation from loved ones and the forsaking of familiar and comfortable surroundings in favor of misery and hardship. The fight for independence involved emotional and physical pain and unenviable loss. But it also produced gain for those willing to pay the price. "John Adams" tells another truth: freedom isn't free. It must be bought and paid for by every generation and sometimes more than once within a generation.
Freedom is not a natural state - otherwise more people would be free. Tyranny, oppression, dictatorship and the denial of human rights are the norm for much of the planet. Mankind's lower nature dictates that far too many seek to reduce others to servitude in order to elevate themselves. President Bush has repeatedly said that freedom is a God-given right that resides in the heart of every human. Maybe, but sometimes one must fight to extract it from the hardened hearts of others who want it exclusively for themselves.
Looking at the faces of those who have fallen and driving by Arlington National Cemetery, I am reminded of the cost of freedom. Those who died allow me to travel freely. Those who sacrificed everything invested in freedom for my family and yours so that we can all live our lives where we choose to live them and worship where, and however, we please. These are freedoms most of the world can only dream about.
It has been said that most of us no longer know anyone who is serving in the military and that's too bad. Some college campuses (like Harvard) continue to ban the ROTC without acknowledging that Harvard might not exist were it not for soldiers willing to fight to preserve academic freedom.
"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose," goes the Kris Kristofferson lyric. But that is a cynical view of freedom. In a city and a state that helped give freedom birth, there are constant reminders of those who were freedom's midwives. If John Adams, his cousin Sam, Paul Revere and so many others from our past could speak today, they would remind us that freedom is never fully paid for and that its loss would exact a greater cost.
Folk singer Joan Baez plans to return to Cambridge this week to mark the 50th anniversary of Club Passim, where her career of singing mostly protest songs began. That she still has the freedom to sing those songs results from the sacrifices of the patriots who died for her right to protest. It would be nice if she sang a song honoring them, but that's probably "just blowin' in the wind."
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the forthcoming book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America"
By Cal Thomas
Thursday, March 27, 2008
BOSTON - Following Sept. 11, 2001, a day of infamy on which nearly 3,000 died at the hands of terrorists, The New York Times began publishing the names and pictures of the dead. I made a deliberate effort to look at those pictures and to read the names and hometowns of each victim. I wanted to identify with them as much as possible.
Now the Times has published more pictures, names and ages, this time of American war dead. They are part of the 4,000 casualties to have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan since those wars began. They - and their families - deserve our gratitude.
Some politicians who oppose the war - mostly Democrats, but a few Republicans - offer obligatory and oblique references to "the troops" and their bravery, while undermining their sacrifice and objectives by calling for their immediate withdrawal. That is not a policy, unless one regards surrender and retreat only to fight a bloodier war another day policy.
What is remarkable is that America continues to produce the kind of young men and women who are willing to lay down their lives for a principle: the principle of freedom - for others and for us.
This is a characteristic that may not be uniquely American, but it is one this country has fully embraced, as time and time again it fights wars to liberate others and protect itself. As the excellent HBO series on the life of John Adams portrays, the notion of freedom was conceived in the hearts of our countrymen even before America became a nation. It is a story about sacrifice, separation from loved ones and the forsaking of familiar and comfortable surroundings in favor of misery and hardship. The fight for independence involved emotional and physical pain and unenviable loss. But it also produced gain for those willing to pay the price. "John Adams" tells another truth: freedom isn't free. It must be bought and paid for by every generation and sometimes more than once within a generation.
Freedom is not a natural state - otherwise more people would be free. Tyranny, oppression, dictatorship and the denial of human rights are the norm for much of the planet. Mankind's lower nature dictates that far too many seek to reduce others to servitude in order to elevate themselves. President Bush has repeatedly said that freedom is a God-given right that resides in the heart of every human. Maybe, but sometimes one must fight to extract it from the hardened hearts of others who want it exclusively for themselves.
Looking at the faces of those who have fallen and driving by Arlington National Cemetery, I am reminded of the cost of freedom. Those who died allow me to travel freely. Those who sacrificed everything invested in freedom for my family and yours so that we can all live our lives where we choose to live them and worship where, and however, we please. These are freedoms most of the world can only dream about.
It has been said that most of us no longer know anyone who is serving in the military and that's too bad. Some college campuses (like Harvard) continue to ban the ROTC without acknowledging that Harvard might not exist were it not for soldiers willing to fight to preserve academic freedom.
"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose," goes the Kris Kristofferson lyric. But that is a cynical view of freedom. In a city and a state that helped give freedom birth, there are constant reminders of those who were freedom's midwives. If John Adams, his cousin Sam, Paul Revere and so many others from our past could speak today, they would remind us that freedom is never fully paid for and that its loss would exact a greater cost.
Folk singer Joan Baez plans to return to Cambridge this week to mark the 50th anniversary of Club Passim, where her career of singing mostly protest songs began. That she still has the freedom to sing those songs results from the sacrifices of the patriots who died for her right to protest. It would be nice if she sang a song honoring them, but that's probably "just blowin' in the wind."
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the forthcoming book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America"
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Guns, God and Gays
I know that Mr. Norris is an actor and all but what he wrote here is pretty good and I thought I would share it. The last bit about our public schools and DOS is frightening to me.
Also on a side note after you watch the movie "No Country for Old Men" get the book by Cormac McCarthy which the movie is based on and pay attention to what the Sheriff thinks about the way our nation is changing. It rings so true even though it is a work of fiction.
Stumpy
Guns, God and Gays
By Chuck Norris
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Send an email to Chuck Norris Email It
Print It
Take Action Read Article & Comments (376) Trackbacks Post Your Comments
Reading the news this past week, one easily could conclude we have lost our minds, as well as any remaining connection with our Founding Fathers. There were three stories that thrice prove we are heading down three wrong roads.
First, there was the Supreme Court's wrangling with the Second Amendment. Should it allow private citizens or only public servants ("state militias") "to keep and bear Arms"?
Is someone joking? Could 27 words be any clearer?! "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Just because Washington, D.C., has a pistol problem (with their ban on handguns), the court shouldn't penalize the rest of the country by resetting national precedence based upon a biased constitutional interpretation. The Bill of Rights either encompasses the privileges of every citizen in every amendment or none at all. Back then, even other contemporaneous state gun laws aligned with that federal measure.
As Chief Justice John Roberts asked, "If it is limited to state militias, why would they say 'the right of the people'? What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?"
Thomas Jefferson concluded, "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference." That is why Jefferson could encourage his nephew Peter Carr, "Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
I also was saddened this past week to read about the comic in the University of Virginia's pre-Holy Week, school-sanctioned student newspaper. The Cavalier Daily published a cartoon that pictured a naked man -- smoking a cigarette in bed -- with a woman in her underwear, who asks, "Come on God, be honest -- Did you really get a vasectomy? I can't let Joseph find out about this." The man, who now is revealed as God, replies, "Well, Mary, you're f---ed."
How abhorring it is when the freedom of the press is abused to demean the biblical God and the most sacred couple in Christendom, especially right before Easter. If the cartoon depicted Allah or Muhammad, there undoubtedly would have been a national decry of bigotry. Yet it seems in vogue to disgrace Christianity, and so it was brushed under the rug of contempt and barely highlighted by any news agency.
One can only imagine how the university's eminent founder, Thomas Jefferson, might have regarded such a shameful posting. These types of religious polarities are the exact opposite of what he hoped for that academic institution. He actually expected a respectful unity in diversity on the campus: "And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality."
Lastly, I was appalled when I read the American Family Association report that Friday, April 25, "several thousand schools across the nation will be observing 'Day of Silence (DOS).' DOS is a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools. … DOS is sponsored by an activist homosexual group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network."
Is encouraging or teaching about homosexuality what our Founders expected for the public education system they started? Even the most liberal among them opposed it. For example, Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia, in which he proposed that the penalty for sexual deviance should be unique corporal punishment. Jefferson's views were indeed representative of early America:
"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least." Can you imagine a statesman proposing such a law today?
While I'm not, of course, espousing such treatment, I do believe that we equally and adamantly should oppose such aberrant sexual behavior from being condoned or commemorated in our public schools through textbooks or a so-called "Day of Silence."
You can check to see whether your local schools are on the DOS observance list by going to www.MissionAmerica.com. Whether they are or not, write their administrators to inform them your family will be boycotting the event if it takes place in your vicinity.
To each of the social dilemmas in these three news stories (regarding guns, God and gays), a remedy can be found by turning back the clocks of time and consulting our Founding Fathers. They started this great experiment we call America. It seems to me their wisdom is still fit to guide us. It is, after all, upon their greatest work that public servants are called to fulfill their oath of office: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States …"
(from Townhall.com)
Also on a side note after you watch the movie "No Country for Old Men" get the book by Cormac McCarthy which the movie is based on and pay attention to what the Sheriff thinks about the way our nation is changing. It rings so true even though it is a work of fiction.
Stumpy
Guns, God and Gays
By Chuck Norris
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Send an email to Chuck Norris Email It
Print It
Take Action Read Article & Comments (376) Trackbacks Post Your Comments
Reading the news this past week, one easily could conclude we have lost our minds, as well as any remaining connection with our Founding Fathers. There were three stories that thrice prove we are heading down three wrong roads.
First, there was the Supreme Court's wrangling with the Second Amendment. Should it allow private citizens or only public servants ("state militias") "to keep and bear Arms"?
Is someone joking? Could 27 words be any clearer?! "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Just because Washington, D.C., has a pistol problem (with their ban on handguns), the court shouldn't penalize the rest of the country by resetting national precedence based upon a biased constitutional interpretation. The Bill of Rights either encompasses the privileges of every citizen in every amendment or none at all. Back then, even other contemporaneous state gun laws aligned with that federal measure.
As Chief Justice John Roberts asked, "If it is limited to state militias, why would they say 'the right of the people'? What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?"
Thomas Jefferson concluded, "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference." That is why Jefferson could encourage his nephew Peter Carr, "Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
I also was saddened this past week to read about the comic in the University of Virginia's pre-Holy Week, school-sanctioned student newspaper. The Cavalier Daily published a cartoon that pictured a naked man -- smoking a cigarette in bed -- with a woman in her underwear, who asks, "Come on God, be honest -- Did you really get a vasectomy? I can't let Joseph find out about this." The man, who now is revealed as God, replies, "Well, Mary, you're f---ed."
How abhorring it is when the freedom of the press is abused to demean the biblical God and the most sacred couple in Christendom, especially right before Easter. If the cartoon depicted Allah or Muhammad, there undoubtedly would have been a national decry of bigotry. Yet it seems in vogue to disgrace Christianity, and so it was brushed under the rug of contempt and barely highlighted by any news agency.
One can only imagine how the university's eminent founder, Thomas Jefferson, might have regarded such a shameful posting. These types of religious polarities are the exact opposite of what he hoped for that academic institution. He actually expected a respectful unity in diversity on the campus: "And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality."
Lastly, I was appalled when I read the American Family Association report that Friday, April 25, "several thousand schools across the nation will be observing 'Day of Silence (DOS).' DOS is a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools. … DOS is sponsored by an activist homosexual group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network."
Is encouraging or teaching about homosexuality what our Founders expected for the public education system they started? Even the most liberal among them opposed it. For example, Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia, in which he proposed that the penalty for sexual deviance should be unique corporal punishment. Jefferson's views were indeed representative of early America:
"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least." Can you imagine a statesman proposing such a law today?
While I'm not, of course, espousing such treatment, I do believe that we equally and adamantly should oppose such aberrant sexual behavior from being condoned or commemorated in our public schools through textbooks or a so-called "Day of Silence."
You can check to see whether your local schools are on the DOS observance list by going to www.MissionAmerica.com. Whether they are or not, write their administrators to inform them your family will be boycotting the event if it takes place in your vicinity.
To each of the social dilemmas in these three news stories (regarding guns, God and gays), a remedy can be found by turning back the clocks of time and consulting our Founding Fathers. They started this great experiment we call America. It seems to me their wisdom is still fit to guide us. It is, after all, upon their greatest work that public servants are called to fulfill their oath of office: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States …"
(from Townhall.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
