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)
The Audacity of Rhetoric
The Audacity of Rhetoric
By Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
It is painful to watch defenders of Barack Obama tying themselves into knots trying to evade the obvious.
Some are saying that Senator Obama cannot be held responsible for what his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. In their version of events, Barack Obama just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time -- and a bunch of mean-spirited people are trying to make something out of it.
It makes a good story, but it won't stand up under scrutiny.
Barack Obama's own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far left fringe. In college, "I chose my friends carefully," he said in his first book, "Dreams From My Father."
These friends included "Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets" -- in Obama's own words -- as well as the "more politically active black students." He later visited a former member of the terrorist Weatherman underground, who endorsed him when he ran for state senator.
Obama didn't just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way out things. Jeremiah Wright is in the same mold as the kinds of people Barack Obama began seeking out in college -- members of the left, anti-American counter-culture.
In Shelby Steele's brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama -- "A Bound Man" -- it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were -- and, like many converts, he went overboard.
Nor has Obama changed in recent years. His voting record in the U.S. Senate is the furthest left of any Senator. There is a remarkable consistency in what Barack Obama has done over the years, despite inconsistencies in what he says.
The irony is that Obama's sudden rise politically to the level of being the leading contender for his party's presidential nomination has required him to project an entirely different persona, that of a post-racial leader who can heal divisiveness and bring us all together.
The ease with which he has accomplished this chameleon-like change, and entranced both white and black Democrats, is a tribute to the man's talent and a warning about his reliability.
There is no evidence that Obama ever sought to educate himself on the views of people on the other end of the political spectrum, much less reach out to them. He reached out from the left to the far left. That's bringing us all together?
Is "divisiveness" defined as disagreeing with the agenda of the left? Who on the left was ever called divisive by Obama before that became politically necessary in order to respond to revelations about Jeremiah Wright?
One sign of Obama's verbal virtuosity was his equating a passing comment by his grandmother -- "a typical white person," he says -- with an organized campaign of public vilification of America in general and white America in particular, by Jeremiah Wright.
Since all things are the same, except for the differences, and different except for the similarities, it is always possible to make things look similar verbally, however different they are in the real world.
Among the many desperate gambits by defenders of Senator Obama and Jeremiah Wright is to say that Wright's words have a "resonance" in the black community.
There was a time when the Ku Klux Klan's words had a resonance among whites, not only in the South but in other states. Some people joined the KKK in order to advance their political careers. Did that make it OK? Is it all just a matter of whose ox is gored?
While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright's words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come.
Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
By Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
It is painful to watch defenders of Barack Obama tying themselves into knots trying to evade the obvious.
Some are saying that Senator Obama cannot be held responsible for what his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. In their version of events, Barack Obama just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time -- and a bunch of mean-spirited people are trying to make something out of it.
It makes a good story, but it won't stand up under scrutiny.
Barack Obama's own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far left fringe. In college, "I chose my friends carefully," he said in his first book, "Dreams From My Father."
These friends included "Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets" -- in Obama's own words -- as well as the "more politically active black students." He later visited a former member of the terrorist Weatherman underground, who endorsed him when he ran for state senator.
Obama didn't just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way out things. Jeremiah Wright is in the same mold as the kinds of people Barack Obama began seeking out in college -- members of the left, anti-American counter-culture.
In Shelby Steele's brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama -- "A Bound Man" -- it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were -- and, like many converts, he went overboard.
Nor has Obama changed in recent years. His voting record in the U.S. Senate is the furthest left of any Senator. There is a remarkable consistency in what Barack Obama has done over the years, despite inconsistencies in what he says.
The irony is that Obama's sudden rise politically to the level of being the leading contender for his party's presidential nomination has required him to project an entirely different persona, that of a post-racial leader who can heal divisiveness and bring us all together.
The ease with which he has accomplished this chameleon-like change, and entranced both white and black Democrats, is a tribute to the man's talent and a warning about his reliability.
There is no evidence that Obama ever sought to educate himself on the views of people on the other end of the political spectrum, much less reach out to them. He reached out from the left to the far left. That's bringing us all together?
Is "divisiveness" defined as disagreeing with the agenda of the left? Who on the left was ever called divisive by Obama before that became politically necessary in order to respond to revelations about Jeremiah Wright?
One sign of Obama's verbal virtuosity was his equating a passing comment by his grandmother -- "a typical white person," he says -- with an organized campaign of public vilification of America in general and white America in particular, by Jeremiah Wright.
Since all things are the same, except for the differences, and different except for the similarities, it is always possible to make things look similar verbally, however different they are in the real world.
Among the many desperate gambits by defenders of Senator Obama and Jeremiah Wright is to say that Wright's words have a "resonance" in the black community.
There was a time when the Ku Klux Klan's words had a resonance among whites, not only in the South but in other states. Some people joined the KKK in order to advance their political careers. Did that make it OK? Is it all just a matter of whose ox is gored?
While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright's words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come.
Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
Landmark Gun Ban Case Heard By Supreme Court
Landmark Gun Ban Case Heard By Supreme Court
Friday, March 21, 2008
On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case the Court has stated is "limited to the following question: Whether Washington, D.C.'s bans [on handguns, on having guns in operable condition in the home and on carrying guns within the home] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."
Most in the Supreme Court chamber seemed to agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The issues that were most in contention included the meaning of the words "keep" and "bear," and whether the amendment protects the possession of arms only during militia service or also for self-defense; whether a total ban on handguns is a "reasonable" regulation of firearms; whether restrictions on the right to arms should be subject to "strict scrutiny," or legislatures or courts should be able to decide what is "reasonable;" and what kinds of regulations would be "reasonable" under the Second Amendment.
As expected, Dellinger emphasized the amendment's reference to the militia, and downplayed its operative clause, which commands that the "right of the people shall not be infringed." Because the militia are mentioned in the amendment, Dellinger insisted, individuals have a right to possess arms only while serving in a militia. To bolster that argument, he tried to write "keep" out of the amendment, presumably because "keep" means "in a private citizen's home."
Keep and/or bear?
Justice David Souter asked, "[if] 'keep' should be read as, in effect, an independent guarantee, then what is served by the phrase 'and bear?'" He then answered his own question, saying "it sounds to me as though 'keep and bear' forms one phrase rather than two." Justice John Paul Stevens was more direct. "It's one right to keep and bear, not two rights, to keep and to bear." (The Brady Campaign began pushing this new theory just last year.)
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement strongly disagreed, however, and three justices asked questions supporting that point. Chief Justice John Roberts asked, if the Framers had meant to protect a militia right, "Why would they say 'the right of the people?' Why wouldn't they say 'state militias have the right to keep arms?'" Justice Anthony Kennedy added, "the amendment says we reaffirm the right to have a militia, we've established it, but in addition, there is a right to bear arms. . . . [T]here's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."
Early on, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, "why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed." He added, "The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Later, Justice Scalia noted, "It's not at all uncommon for a legislative provision or a constitutional provision to go further than is necessary for the principal purpose involved. The principal purpose here is the militia, but the second clause goes beyond the militia and says the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Clement agreed. "A number of state courts that have interpreted [state constitutional right to arms provisions] have distinguished between the two rights and looked at them differently," he said. "And, obviously, the term 'keep' is a word that I think is something of an embarrassment for an effort to try to imbue every term in the operative text with an exclusively military connotation because that is not one that really has an exclusive military connotation." Clement later added, "it's worth emphasizing that the framers knew exactly how to condition a right on militia service, because they did it with respect to the grand jury clause, and they didn't do it with respect to the Second Amendment."
Self-Defense
Justice Stevens questioned whether the Second Amendment protects the right of self-defense, because most state constitutions in 1789 did not expressly mention self-defense in their provisions protecting the right to arms. And Justice Souter asked, "is there any evidence that the anti-Federalist objections to the Constitution that ultimately resulted in the Second Amendment were premised on any failure to recognize an individual right of self-defense or hunting?"
On the other hand, Justice Kennedy repeatedly suggested that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the ability of settlers in the wilderness to defend themselves, and asked about self-defense in homes today.
Justice Scalia added, "[the English jurist] Blackstone thought [self-defense] was important. He thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee."
Justice Samuel Alito asked, "If the amendment is intended at least, in part to protect the right to self-defense in the home, how could the District code provision survive under any standard of review where they totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that's most commonly used for self-defense?"
Dellinger back-pedaled from D.C.'s longstanding position that its laws prohibit self-defense, claiming that the city supports citizens using functional firearms for defense. That claim inspired a vigorous challenge by Heller's lawyer, Alan Gura. Solicitor General Clement sought to offer a solution to the problem, suggesting that D.C. should expressly "allow for a relatively robust self-defense exception to the trigger lock provision."
Chief Justice Roberts, however, scoffed at the idea that a citizen awakened by an intruder in the middle of the night could "turn on the lamp ... pick up [his] reading glasses," and disengage a trigger lock."
A ban is "reasonable?"
Perhaps the most animated exchange of the day was between Chief Justice Roberts and Dellinger, over whether a handgun ban is "reasonable."
Dellinger argued that states with constitutional protections on the right to keep and bear arms all allow reasonable regulations, but was flatly contradicted by Chief Justice Roberts, who asked him to explain what is reasonable about a total ban on possession?
Rest assured that we will continue to follow the developments in this case closely, leading to the Court's expected decision in June.
For more information on the Heller case, including links to the official Supreme Court Transcript, C-SPAN audio recording, and all the briefs in the case, please visit www.nraila.org/heller.
Friday, March 21, 2008
On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case the Court has stated is "limited to the following question: Whether Washington, D.C.'s bans [on handguns, on having guns in operable condition in the home and on carrying guns within the home] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."
Most in the Supreme Court chamber seemed to agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The issues that were most in contention included the meaning of the words "keep" and "bear," and whether the amendment protects the possession of arms only during militia service or also for self-defense; whether a total ban on handguns is a "reasonable" regulation of firearms; whether restrictions on the right to arms should be subject to "strict scrutiny," or legislatures or courts should be able to decide what is "reasonable;" and what kinds of regulations would be "reasonable" under the Second Amendment.
As expected, Dellinger emphasized the amendment's reference to the militia, and downplayed its operative clause, which commands that the "right of the people shall not be infringed." Because the militia are mentioned in the amendment, Dellinger insisted, individuals have a right to possess arms only while serving in a militia. To bolster that argument, he tried to write "keep" out of the amendment, presumably because "keep" means "in a private citizen's home."
Keep and/or bear?
Justice David Souter asked, "[if] 'keep' should be read as, in effect, an independent guarantee, then what is served by the phrase 'and bear?'" He then answered his own question, saying "it sounds to me as though 'keep and bear' forms one phrase rather than two." Justice John Paul Stevens was more direct. "It's one right to keep and bear, not two rights, to keep and to bear." (The Brady Campaign began pushing this new theory just last year.)
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement strongly disagreed, however, and three justices asked questions supporting that point. Chief Justice John Roberts asked, if the Framers had meant to protect a militia right, "Why would they say 'the right of the people?' Why wouldn't they say 'state militias have the right to keep arms?'" Justice Anthony Kennedy added, "the amendment says we reaffirm the right to have a militia, we've established it, but in addition, there is a right to bear arms. . . . [T]here's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."
Early on, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, "why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed." He added, "The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Later, Justice Scalia noted, "It's not at all uncommon for a legislative provision or a constitutional provision to go further than is necessary for the principal purpose involved. The principal purpose here is the militia, but the second clause goes beyond the militia and says the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Clement agreed. "A number of state courts that have interpreted [state constitutional right to arms provisions] have distinguished between the two rights and looked at them differently," he said. "And, obviously, the term 'keep' is a word that I think is something of an embarrassment for an effort to try to imbue every term in the operative text with an exclusively military connotation because that is not one that really has an exclusive military connotation." Clement later added, "it's worth emphasizing that the framers knew exactly how to condition a right on militia service, because they did it with respect to the grand jury clause, and they didn't do it with respect to the Second Amendment."
Self-Defense
Justice Stevens questioned whether the Second Amendment protects the right of self-defense, because most state constitutions in 1789 did not expressly mention self-defense in their provisions protecting the right to arms. And Justice Souter asked, "is there any evidence that the anti-Federalist objections to the Constitution that ultimately resulted in the Second Amendment were premised on any failure to recognize an individual right of self-defense or hunting?"
On the other hand, Justice Kennedy repeatedly suggested that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the ability of settlers in the wilderness to defend themselves, and asked about self-defense in homes today.
Justice Scalia added, "[the English jurist] Blackstone thought [self-defense] was important. He thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee."
Justice Samuel Alito asked, "If the amendment is intended at least, in part to protect the right to self-defense in the home, how could the District code provision survive under any standard of review where they totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that's most commonly used for self-defense?"
Dellinger back-pedaled from D.C.'s longstanding position that its laws prohibit self-defense, claiming that the city supports citizens using functional firearms for defense. That claim inspired a vigorous challenge by Heller's lawyer, Alan Gura. Solicitor General Clement sought to offer a solution to the problem, suggesting that D.C. should expressly "allow for a relatively robust self-defense exception to the trigger lock provision."
Chief Justice Roberts, however, scoffed at the idea that a citizen awakened by an intruder in the middle of the night could "turn on the lamp ... pick up [his] reading glasses," and disengage a trigger lock."
A ban is "reasonable?"
Perhaps the most animated exchange of the day was between Chief Justice Roberts and Dellinger, over whether a handgun ban is "reasonable."
Dellinger argued that states with constitutional protections on the right to keep and bear arms all allow reasonable regulations, but was flatly contradicted by Chief Justice Roberts, who asked him to explain what is reasonable about a total ban on possession?
Rest assured that we will continue to follow the developments in this case closely, leading to the Court's expected decision in June.
For more information on the Heller case, including links to the official Supreme Court Transcript, C-SPAN audio recording, and all the briefs in the case, please visit www.nraila.org/heller.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Supreme Court and Heller Could Influence Elections
While the presidential primaries continue, and state and local races get into gear, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments March 17th on a case with huge political implications for gun owners: Heller v. The District of Columbia, or the Washington, D.C., gun-ban case.
The case concerns the 1976 District of Columbia law banning people from possessing handguns. Heller attorneys argue that the ban violates the right of D.C. citizens to own and possess firearms under the Second Amendment.
After oral arguments the first day, Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, gave an early "win" to the Second Amendment.
"Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of District resident Dick Anthony Heller," Gottlieb wrote in an SAF press release. "We were impressed with the depth of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that ‘the people’ are all citizens."
Gottlieb said a ruling is expected sometime in June.
The case concerns the 1976 District of Columbia law banning people from possessing handguns. Heller attorneys argue that the ban violates the right of D.C. citizens to own and possess firearms under the Second Amendment.
After oral arguments the first day, Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, gave an early "win" to the Second Amendment.
"Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of District resident Dick Anthony Heller," Gottlieb wrote in an SAF press release. "We were impressed with the depth of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that ‘the people’ are all citizens."
Gottlieb said a ruling is expected sometime in June.
Hillary's Gun Control Record
What does Hillary's gun control record look like?
Well, to be frank, It’s not good.
In a recent article, National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre wrote that, "As a ‘progressive’ senator, [Clinton] ranks among the handful of the worst ‘F’-rated gun banners who voted to support the kind of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."
Clinton has also supported legislation to create a national registration for handguns and lent her face and name to the anti-gun Million Mom March.
Yet as a presidential candidate, Clinton claims to support the Second Amendment. She’s called for a vague gun summit, in which "everybody comes together on all sides of this issue." When pressed on the question of gun control, she admitted only to opposing "illegal guns."
Maybe Clinton's record on guns is best summed up by New York Times columnist Gail Collins, who recently wrote, "Clinton used to be very vocal about gun control when she was running for Senate in New York, but now [that she’s a presidential candidate], there's nothing about it on her Web site."
Well, to be frank, It’s not good.
In a recent article, National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre wrote that, "As a ‘progressive’ senator, [Clinton] ranks among the handful of the worst ‘F’-rated gun banners who voted to support the kind of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."
Clinton has also supported legislation to create a national registration for handguns and lent her face and name to the anti-gun Million Mom March.
Yet as a presidential candidate, Clinton claims to support the Second Amendment. She’s called for a vague gun summit, in which "everybody comes together on all sides of this issue." When pressed on the question of gun control, she admitted only to opposing "illegal guns."
Maybe Clinton's record on guns is best summed up by New York Times columnist Gail Collins, who recently wrote, "Clinton used to be very vocal about gun control when she was running for Senate in New York, but now [that she’s a presidential candidate], there's nothing about it on her Web site."
SCOTUS Hears 2nd Amendment Case
This week, the Supreme Court of the United States will begin hearing arguments in Heller v. District of Columbia to decide the constitutionality of the 1976 District of Columbia law banning people there from possessing handguns.
The core issue is whether the Second Amendment is an individual right or one granted to states to establish militias.
"The District of Columbia's fight to preserve its nearly 32-year-old ban on handguns before the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn nationwide attention as a bellwether vote on the limits of gun control," the Washington Times reported. "The rarity of the case and the potential consequences of the ruling account for the widespread attention it has received. Nearly 70 amicus briefs have been filed on behalf of more than 320 members of Congress, 36 states and other interested parties on both sides of the case."
No group will watch the case more closely than the National Rifle Association.
"If you look at the briefs that have been filed on this case, the congressional brief is truly historic," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president. "What you see there is the people's branch of government weighing in that it's the people's freedom, and they want it protected.
"It's an important, watershed case. There's absolutely no doubt about that."
The core issue is whether the Second Amendment is an individual right or one granted to states to establish militias.
"The District of Columbia's fight to preserve its nearly 32-year-old ban on handguns before the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn nationwide attention as a bellwether vote on the limits of gun control," the Washington Times reported. "The rarity of the case and the potential consequences of the ruling account for the widespread attention it has received. Nearly 70 amicus briefs have been filed on behalf of more than 320 members of Congress, 36 states and other interested parties on both sides of the case."
No group will watch the case more closely than the National Rifle Association.
"If you look at the briefs that have been filed on this case, the congressional brief is truly historic," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president. "What you see there is the people's branch of government weighing in that it's the people's freedom, and they want it protected.
"It's an important, watershed case. There's absolutely no doubt about that."
McCain gets a "C"
Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party’s choice as 2008 presidential contender, has repeatedly stated his opposition to gun control, which he called "a proven failure in fighting crime." He has also opposed waiting periods for gun purchases and re-instating the federal assault weapons ban.
So why, as Reuters reported, has the National Rifle Association only given McCain a "C" grade on gun issues?
"(McCain) has supported legislation requiring gunmakers to include trigger locks with their products," Reuters reported. "(He) has supported mandating background checks on gun buyers at gun shows."
The good news for McCain?
"The National Rifle Association gives him an average grade of C for his position on guns but says he has a perfect voting record since 2007 and his grade may be revised."
So why, as Reuters reported, has the National Rifle Association only given McCain a "C" grade on gun issues?
"(McCain) has supported legislation requiring gunmakers to include trigger locks with their products," Reuters reported. "(He) has supported mandating background checks on gun buyers at gun shows."
The good news for McCain?
"The National Rifle Association gives him an average grade of C for his position on guns but says he has a perfect voting record since 2007 and his grade may be revised."
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Judging Gun Rights: Are They Inalienable?
By Ken Blackwell
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Editor's Note: This column is co-written by Ken Blackwell and Sandy Froman
“Rights [are] antecedent to all earthly government …” John Adams
As a historic Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment looms, District of Columbia v. Heller, two unexpected perspectives show what is at stake in this case for all Americans.
Between the two of us as authors, our commitment to the Second Amendment, coupled with our real-life experiences, explodes the stereotypical images of gun owners in America. We are living proof that the Second Amendment is a blessing for all Americans, and that all Americans have a vested interest in the pending court case.
What would compel a petite Jewish woman born in San Francisco and educated at Stanford University and Harvard Law School to buy a pistol and end up as the president of the National Rifle Association?
Growing up in the Froman family in the California Bay Area in the 1950s was idyllic. No one in my family owned guns. We didn’t even hunt or shoot. While real guns weren’t part of my life, “reel” guns were. Television Westerns like “Have Gun Will Travel” and of course, the “Rifleman,” were a type of morality plays — good guys and bad guys both used guns except the bad guys used guns to hurt and threaten people while the good guys used guns to protect and defend themselves. That lesson was never forgotten.
Thirty years later, as a young lawyer in Los Angeles, my gun awakening came in the form of terror when someone tried to break into my house in the middle of the night. Unable to defend myself, it suddenly became very clear that the person responsible for protecting my life and safety was me.
I refused to be a helpless victim. It was time to buy a gun and learn how to use it. Later when I joined the NRA and began receiving their flagship publication, the American Rifleman, I knew that Chuck Connors was right. Guns in the hands of good people save lives.
Growing up in the Blackwell household in the central city neighborhoods of Cincinnati informed my public policy work as mayor of the Queen City and as an undersecretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Families like mine — low income, civically engaged, and responsible — expected access to firearms for safety. Then, as now, criminals were not inclined to break into a house where the owner was armed.
Things were tougher in the South where the Deacons of Defense, most of whom were veterans like my father, chased away KKK riders and thugs. These groups of armed men patrolled their neighborhoods to keep them safe at night. Whether it’s an individual or a family who has to fight against random criminals or organized threats, our lives are evidence that Americans, particularly women and minorities in today’s urban areas, need our Second Amendment rights.
***
The Supreme Court has never settled the controversy at the heart of the great American gun debate: Whether individual citizens have a constitutional right to possess private firearms. Now the High Court has agreed to answer this question, in what will most likely be a 5-4 decision that could go either way.
This month the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller. It is the first ever Supreme Court case that has the promise of finally answering the question of what the Second Amendment means. Assuming that the Court does not dismiss the case on some technicality, Heller could become the definitive standard for gun rights in America.
The Second Amendment says, “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.” The Heller case will decide whether the right to keep and bear arms refers to private, law-abiding citizens, or whether it is a right of the people “collectively” to have guns in the National Guard or other state militia units.
The facts of District of Columbia v. Heller make this a perfect test case. In the District of Columbia, it’s a crime to have any sort of readily-usable firearm. It’s illegal to have any sort of handgun — even a broken handgun — in your home. Having a long gun (rifle or shotgun) in your home is a crime unless the gun is unloaded and either disassembled or disabled by a trigger lock, with ammunition stored in a separate container. If someone breaks into your home, you have no time to have a functional firearm that is ready to defend your life or your family. The D.C. gun ban is considered the most severe gun control law in America.
Several citizens and lawyers brought the suit Parker v. District of Columbia to U.S. District Court to challenge this law. The federal trial court dismissed the case, stating that there is no right to own a gun. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the decision, holding that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and therefore holding the D.C. gun ban unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has taken the case, renamed District of Columbia v. Heller because Dick Heller was the only plaintiff found to have the standing to sue.
***
The issue in Heller is simple. The issue — or “question presented” — is whether the D.C. gun ban violates the Second Amendment right of individual citizens not connected with any state-sponsored militia to have guns in their home for private use.
The answer to the question presented is simple as well. But people reach opposite answers to this simple issue. Most people say the answer is “yes.” The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, of which every other part — freedom of speech, religion, right to a jury trial, etc. — applies to individuals acting as private citizens.
The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people.” The Founding Fathers were concerned about self-defense, the ability to defend your own property, and ensuring that the people had the means to throw off a tyrannical government, such as the one they had just escaped in Great Britain.
But others answer this simple question with a “no.” The framers did not want a standing army in peacetime. Some claim that the clause referring to a “militia” means that the framers were solely concerned about states being able to raise a military, and that this is the only “right” conferred by the Second Amendment. Thus, they conclude, the right can only be exercised in conjunction with service in this state-sponsored militia.
The reason people come to opposite conclusions for this simple question stems from different approaches to interpreting the Constitution, the issues that are implicated in this case, and different philosophies about government — self-reliance versus reliance upon government.
There are two different ways of reading the Constitution — sometimes described as “strict constructionism” versus the “Living Constitution.” Strict constructionism (the actual legal terms are “originalism” or “textualism”) requires judges to adhere to the words of the Constitution. A “Living Constitution” means that judges are free to interpret the meaning of the Constitution to make it conform to modern social trends.
Under the conservative approach there is no doubt the Second Amendment is an individual right, while under the “Living Constitution” a judge can simply say that modern society has evolved beyond the need for individual gun ownership.
Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit stated in Silviera v. Lockyer that “tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.” Calling the Second Amendment a “doomsday provision,” Judge Kozinski warned that assuming you can never lose your freedom “is a mistake a free people get to make only once.” Those were the framers’ concerns when they wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights.
This is part I of a two part series. Part II will appear next Thursday.
Ms. Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America and a practicing attorney in Tucson, Arizona. Mr. Blackwell is the former mayor of Cincinnati and a fellow at the American Civil Rights Union.
Mr. Blackwell is Chairman of the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, a Fellow at the American Civil Rights Union, and the Buckeye Institute. He is a columnist for the New York Sun, a contributing editor for Townhall.com, and a member of the NRA Public Affairs Committee.
By Ken Blackwell
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Editor's Note: This column is co-written by Ken Blackwell and Sandy Froman
“Rights [are] antecedent to all earthly government …” John Adams
As a historic Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment looms, District of Columbia v. Heller, two unexpected perspectives show what is at stake in this case for all Americans.
Between the two of us as authors, our commitment to the Second Amendment, coupled with our real-life experiences, explodes the stereotypical images of gun owners in America. We are living proof that the Second Amendment is a blessing for all Americans, and that all Americans have a vested interest in the pending court case.
What would compel a petite Jewish woman born in San Francisco and educated at Stanford University and Harvard Law School to buy a pistol and end up as the president of the National Rifle Association?
Growing up in the Froman family in the California Bay Area in the 1950s was idyllic. No one in my family owned guns. We didn’t even hunt or shoot. While real guns weren’t part of my life, “reel” guns were. Television Westerns like “Have Gun Will Travel” and of course, the “Rifleman,” were a type of morality plays — good guys and bad guys both used guns except the bad guys used guns to hurt and threaten people while the good guys used guns to protect and defend themselves. That lesson was never forgotten.
Thirty years later, as a young lawyer in Los Angeles, my gun awakening came in the form of terror when someone tried to break into my house in the middle of the night. Unable to defend myself, it suddenly became very clear that the person responsible for protecting my life and safety was me.
I refused to be a helpless victim. It was time to buy a gun and learn how to use it. Later when I joined the NRA and began receiving their flagship publication, the American Rifleman, I knew that Chuck Connors was right. Guns in the hands of good people save lives.
Growing up in the Blackwell household in the central city neighborhoods of Cincinnati informed my public policy work as mayor of the Queen City and as an undersecretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Families like mine — low income, civically engaged, and responsible — expected access to firearms for safety. Then, as now, criminals were not inclined to break into a house where the owner was armed.
Things were tougher in the South where the Deacons of Defense, most of whom were veterans like my father, chased away KKK riders and thugs. These groups of armed men patrolled their neighborhoods to keep them safe at night. Whether it’s an individual or a family who has to fight against random criminals or organized threats, our lives are evidence that Americans, particularly women and minorities in today’s urban areas, need our Second Amendment rights.
***
The Supreme Court has never settled the controversy at the heart of the great American gun debate: Whether individual citizens have a constitutional right to possess private firearms. Now the High Court has agreed to answer this question, in what will most likely be a 5-4 decision that could go either way.
This month the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller. It is the first ever Supreme Court case that has the promise of finally answering the question of what the Second Amendment means. Assuming that the Court does not dismiss the case on some technicality, Heller could become the definitive standard for gun rights in America.
The Second Amendment says, “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.” The Heller case will decide whether the right to keep and bear arms refers to private, law-abiding citizens, or whether it is a right of the people “collectively” to have guns in the National Guard or other state militia units.
The facts of District of Columbia v. Heller make this a perfect test case. In the District of Columbia, it’s a crime to have any sort of readily-usable firearm. It’s illegal to have any sort of handgun — even a broken handgun — in your home. Having a long gun (rifle or shotgun) in your home is a crime unless the gun is unloaded and either disassembled or disabled by a trigger lock, with ammunition stored in a separate container. If someone breaks into your home, you have no time to have a functional firearm that is ready to defend your life or your family. The D.C. gun ban is considered the most severe gun control law in America.
Several citizens and lawyers brought the suit Parker v. District of Columbia to U.S. District Court to challenge this law. The federal trial court dismissed the case, stating that there is no right to own a gun. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the decision, holding that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and therefore holding the D.C. gun ban unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has taken the case, renamed District of Columbia v. Heller because Dick Heller was the only plaintiff found to have the standing to sue.
***
The issue in Heller is simple. The issue — or “question presented” — is whether the D.C. gun ban violates the Second Amendment right of individual citizens not connected with any state-sponsored militia to have guns in their home for private use.
The answer to the question presented is simple as well. But people reach opposite answers to this simple issue. Most people say the answer is “yes.” The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, of which every other part — freedom of speech, religion, right to a jury trial, etc. — applies to individuals acting as private citizens.
The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people.” The Founding Fathers were concerned about self-defense, the ability to defend your own property, and ensuring that the people had the means to throw off a tyrannical government, such as the one they had just escaped in Great Britain.
But others answer this simple question with a “no.” The framers did not want a standing army in peacetime. Some claim that the clause referring to a “militia” means that the framers were solely concerned about states being able to raise a military, and that this is the only “right” conferred by the Second Amendment. Thus, they conclude, the right can only be exercised in conjunction with service in this state-sponsored militia.
The reason people come to opposite conclusions for this simple question stems from different approaches to interpreting the Constitution, the issues that are implicated in this case, and different philosophies about government — self-reliance versus reliance upon government.
There are two different ways of reading the Constitution — sometimes described as “strict constructionism” versus the “Living Constitution.” Strict constructionism (the actual legal terms are “originalism” or “textualism”) requires judges to adhere to the words of the Constitution. A “Living Constitution” means that judges are free to interpret the meaning of the Constitution to make it conform to modern social trends.
Under the conservative approach there is no doubt the Second Amendment is an individual right, while under the “Living Constitution” a judge can simply say that modern society has evolved beyond the need for individual gun ownership.
Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit stated in Silviera v. Lockyer that “tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.” Calling the Second Amendment a “doomsday provision,” Judge Kozinski warned that assuming you can never lose your freedom “is a mistake a free people get to make only once.” Those were the framers’ concerns when they wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights.
This is part I of a two part series. Part II will appear next Thursday.
Ms. Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America and a practicing attorney in Tucson, Arizona. Mr. Blackwell is the former mayor of Cincinnati and a fellow at the American Civil Rights Union.
Mr. Blackwell is Chairman of the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, a Fellow at the American Civil Rights Union, and the Buckeye Institute. He is a columnist for the New York Sun, a contributing editor for Townhall.com, and a member of the NRA Public Affairs Committee.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Register To Vote Or Register Your Guns
Hello,
I know this is a couple of days old but I just felt that I needed to share this with you. Join the NRA and vote freedom first.
Stumpy
Register To Vote Or Register Your Guns -- The Choice Is Yours
Friday, February 29, 2008
In 1994, a race for the U.S. House was decided by four votes. In 1998, a U.S. Senate race was decided by 400 votes out of 400,000 cast. In 2002, an anti-gun candidate won a state primary in Arizona by five votes. Last year, a pro-gun State Senator in Virginia was re-elected by less than 100 votes. And of course, in the 2000 presidential election, 537 votes in Florida elected George Bush U.S. President over Al Gore.
Think one vote doesn't count? History is replete with examples such as these that demonstrate the importance of every single vote.
No doubt, many elections this year will be determined by the slimmest of margins. Will your vote make the difference? To ensure that pro-gun candidates prevail, NRA-ILA has launched an aggressive voter registration drive.
One of the most important components of this endeavor is a new webpage—www.nraila.org/vote2008—that will provide you with all of your voter registration needs. Here are some of the many features you will find at www.nraila.org/vote2008:
Voter registration applications that can be completed, downloaded, and mailed to your elections officer to ensure gun owners are registered to vote;
Information on election dates and corresponding deadlines for the general and primary elections;
Links to identify and contact your local Election Volunteer Coordinator so you can work with NRA members and gun owners in your area to elect pro-Second Amendment lawmakers to office;
Ability to identify "Second Amendment Activist Centers" in your state to retrieve NRA-ILA materials;
Link to purchase your official NRA-ILA campaign yard sign, and;
All of the information and links currently found at www.NRAILA.org, and more!
Registering to vote is not only the most important step gun owners can take to ensure victory in the 2008 elections. It is also one of the easiest.
Visit www.nraila.org/vote2008 today for all your voter registration needs. And, please, forward this link to all of your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners to ensure they are registered to vote as well.
(From the NRA-ILA news letter)
I know this is a couple of days old but I just felt that I needed to share this with you. Join the NRA and vote freedom first.
Stumpy
Register To Vote Or Register Your Guns -- The Choice Is Yours
Friday, February 29, 2008
In 1994, a race for the U.S. House was decided by four votes. In 1998, a U.S. Senate race was decided by 400 votes out of 400,000 cast. In 2002, an anti-gun candidate won a state primary in Arizona by five votes. Last year, a pro-gun State Senator in Virginia was re-elected by less than 100 votes. And of course, in the 2000 presidential election, 537 votes in Florida elected George Bush U.S. President over Al Gore.
Think one vote doesn't count? History is replete with examples such as these that demonstrate the importance of every single vote.
No doubt, many elections this year will be determined by the slimmest of margins. Will your vote make the difference? To ensure that pro-gun candidates prevail, NRA-ILA has launched an aggressive voter registration drive.
One of the most important components of this endeavor is a new webpage—www.nraila.org/vote2008—that will provide you with all of your voter registration needs. Here are some of the many features you will find at www.nraila.org/vote2008:
Voter registration applications that can be completed, downloaded, and mailed to your elections officer to ensure gun owners are registered to vote;
Information on election dates and corresponding deadlines for the general and primary elections;
Links to identify and contact your local Election Volunteer Coordinator so you can work with NRA members and gun owners in your area to elect pro-Second Amendment lawmakers to office;
Ability to identify "Second Amendment Activist Centers" in your state to retrieve NRA-ILA materials;
Link to purchase your official NRA-ILA campaign yard sign, and;
All of the information and links currently found at www.NRAILA.org, and more!
Registering to vote is not only the most important step gun owners can take to ensure victory in the 2008 elections. It is also one of the easiest.
Visit www.nraila.org/vote2008 today for all your voter registration needs. And, please, forward this link to all of your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners to ensure they are registered to vote as well.
(From the NRA-ILA news letter)
Rescuing the Rust Belt
Rescuing the Rust Belt
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
It is fascinating watching politicians say how they are going to rescue the "rust belt" regions where jobs are disappearing and companies are either shutting down or moving elsewhere.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is being blamed for the jobs going elsewhere. Barack Obama blames the Clinton administration for NAFTA, and that includes Hillary Clinton.
Senator Obama says that he is for free trade, provided it is "fair trade." That is election year rhetoric at its cleverest.
Since "fair" is one of those words that can mean virtually anything to anybody, what this amounts to is that politicians can pile on whatever restrictions they want, in the name of fairness, and still claim to be for "free trade." Clever.
We will all have to pay a cost for political restrictions and political cleverness, since there is no free lunch. In fact, free lunches are a big part of the reason for once-prosperous regions declining into rust belts.
When the American automobile industry was the world's leader in its field, many people seemed to think that labor unions could transfer a bigger chunk of that prosperity to its members without causing economic repercussions.
Toyota, Honda, and others who took away more and more of the Big Three automakers' market share, leading to huge job losses in Detroit, proved once again the old trite saying that there is no free lunch.
Like the United Automobile Workers union in its heyday, unions in the steel industry and other industries piled on costs, not only in wage rates having little relationship to supply and demand, but in all sorts of red tape work rules that added costs.
State and local governments in what later became the rust belt also thought that they too could treat the industries under their jurisdiction as prey rather than assets, and siphon off more of the wealth created by those industries into state and local treasuries with ever higher taxes -- again, without considering repercussions.
In the short run, you can get away with all sorts of things. But, in the long run, the chickens come home to roost. The rust belt is where those rising costs have come home to roost.
While American auto makers are laying off workers by the thousands, Japanese auto makers like Toyota and Honda are hiring thousands of American workers. But they are not hiring them in the rust belts.
They are avoiding the rust belts, just as domestic businesses are avoiding the high costs that have been piled on over the years by both unions and governments in the rust belt regions.
In short, the rust belts have been killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is a viable political strategy, so long as the goose doesn't die before the next election and politicians can avoid leaving their fingerprints on the weapon.
But the people who lose their jobs, and who live in communities that decline, need to look beyond the political rhetoric to the grim reality that there is no free lunch.
Many workers in the new plants being built by Toyota and others apparently already understand that. They have repeatedly voted against being represented by labor unions. They want to keep their jobs.
Where does NAFTA come into the picture?
International trade is just one of the many ways in which the competition of lower cost producers can cause higher cost producers to lose customers and jobs. Technological improvements or better management practices by domestic competitors can have the same result.
Jobs are always disappearing. The big question is why they are not being replaced by new jobs. Rust belt policies that drove out old jobs also keep out new jobs.
NAFTA makes it easier for politicians to blame the problem on foreigners. In fact, foreigners make ideal scapegoats for politicians. After all, people in Japan or India can't vote in American elections.
Americans who can vote would do well to start spending more time thinking about economic realities, instead of being swept away by political rhetoric.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
(from TownHall.com)
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
It is fascinating watching politicians say how they are going to rescue the "rust belt" regions where jobs are disappearing and companies are either shutting down or moving elsewhere.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is being blamed for the jobs going elsewhere. Barack Obama blames the Clinton administration for NAFTA, and that includes Hillary Clinton.
Senator Obama says that he is for free trade, provided it is "fair trade." That is election year rhetoric at its cleverest.
Since "fair" is one of those words that can mean virtually anything to anybody, what this amounts to is that politicians can pile on whatever restrictions they want, in the name of fairness, and still claim to be for "free trade." Clever.
We will all have to pay a cost for political restrictions and political cleverness, since there is no free lunch. In fact, free lunches are a big part of the reason for once-prosperous regions declining into rust belts.
When the American automobile industry was the world's leader in its field, many people seemed to think that labor unions could transfer a bigger chunk of that prosperity to its members without causing economic repercussions.
Toyota, Honda, and others who took away more and more of the Big Three automakers' market share, leading to huge job losses in Detroit, proved once again the old trite saying that there is no free lunch.
Like the United Automobile Workers union in its heyday, unions in the steel industry and other industries piled on costs, not only in wage rates having little relationship to supply and demand, but in all sorts of red tape work rules that added costs.
State and local governments in what later became the rust belt also thought that they too could treat the industries under their jurisdiction as prey rather than assets, and siphon off more of the wealth created by those industries into state and local treasuries with ever higher taxes -- again, without considering repercussions.
In the short run, you can get away with all sorts of things. But, in the long run, the chickens come home to roost. The rust belt is where those rising costs have come home to roost.
While American auto makers are laying off workers by the thousands, Japanese auto makers like Toyota and Honda are hiring thousands of American workers. But they are not hiring them in the rust belts.
They are avoiding the rust belts, just as domestic businesses are avoiding the high costs that have been piled on over the years by both unions and governments in the rust belt regions.
In short, the rust belts have been killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is a viable political strategy, so long as the goose doesn't die before the next election and politicians can avoid leaving their fingerprints on the weapon.
But the people who lose their jobs, and who live in communities that decline, need to look beyond the political rhetoric to the grim reality that there is no free lunch.
Many workers in the new plants being built by Toyota and others apparently already understand that. They have repeatedly voted against being represented by labor unions. They want to keep their jobs.
Where does NAFTA come into the picture?
International trade is just one of the many ways in which the competition of lower cost producers can cause higher cost producers to lose customers and jobs. Technological improvements or better management practices by domestic competitors can have the same result.
Jobs are always disappearing. The big question is why they are not being replaced by new jobs. Rust belt policies that drove out old jobs also keep out new jobs.
NAFTA makes it easier for politicians to blame the problem on foreigners. In fact, foreigners make ideal scapegoats for politicians. After all, people in Japan or India can't vote in American elections.
Americans who can vote would do well to start spending more time thinking about economic realities, instead of being swept away by political rhetoric.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
(from TownHall.com)
Monday, March 3, 2008
Bush Administration to Propose New Rule
Bush Administration to Propose New Rule
Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks
Friday, February 22, 2008
Fairfax, Va. - At the request of the Bush Administration and 51 members of the United States Senate led by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prohibition of firearms on agency land will be revised in the following weeks. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is leading the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms in National Parks and wildlife refuges.
"Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's National Parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "Under this proposal, federal parks and wildlife refuges will mirror the state firearm laws for state parks. This is an important step in the right direction."
These new regulations, when finalized, will provide uniformity across our nation's federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, only Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while National Park lands did not.
The current regulations on possession, carry or transportation of loaded or uncased firearms in national parks were proposed in 1982 and finalized in 1983. Similar restrictions apply in national wildlife refuges. The NRA believes it is time to amend those regulations to reflect the changed legal situation with respect to state laws on carrying firearms.
The effect of these now-outdated regulations on people who carry firearms for self-protection was far from the forefront at the time these regulations were adopted. As of the end of 1982, only six states routinely allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Currently, 48 states have a process for issuance of licenses or permits to allow law-abiding citizens to legally carry firearms for self-defense.
The move for regulatory change by the Administration will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes in most National Park lands and will make the laws consistent with state law where these lands are located. Fifty-one U.S. Senators from both parties sent a letter to the Department of Interior late last year supporting the move to render state firearms laws applicable to National Park lands.
"These changes will respect the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens, and we look forward to the issuance of a final rule this year," concluded Cox.
-NRA-
Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks
Friday, February 22, 2008
Fairfax, Va. - At the request of the Bush Administration and 51 members of the United States Senate led by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prohibition of firearms on agency land will be revised in the following weeks. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is leading the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms in National Parks and wildlife refuges.
"Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's National Parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "Under this proposal, federal parks and wildlife refuges will mirror the state firearm laws for state parks. This is an important step in the right direction."
These new regulations, when finalized, will provide uniformity across our nation's federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, only Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while National Park lands did not.
The current regulations on possession, carry or transportation of loaded or uncased firearms in national parks were proposed in 1982 and finalized in 1983. Similar restrictions apply in national wildlife refuges. The NRA believes it is time to amend those regulations to reflect the changed legal situation with respect to state laws on carrying firearms.
The effect of these now-outdated regulations on people who carry firearms for self-protection was far from the forefront at the time these regulations were adopted. As of the end of 1982, only six states routinely allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Currently, 48 states have a process for issuance of licenses or permits to allow law-abiding citizens to legally carry firearms for self-defense.
The move for regulatory change by the Administration will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes in most National Park lands and will make the laws consistent with state law where these lands are located. Fifty-one U.S. Senators from both parties sent a letter to the Department of Interior late last year supporting the move to render state firearms laws applicable to National Park lands.
"These changes will respect the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens, and we look forward to the issuance of a final rule this year," concluded Cox.
-NRA-
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Liberal La La Land
Obama: Hoping Away Reality
By Lee Culpepper
Monday, February 25, 2008
When the competitive edge begins to dull, successful organizations and individuals often regroup and reevaluate their methods. In sports, when a gifted-new talent contributes extensively to upsetting a dominant team, a wise coach frequently refocuses his athletes on the fundamentals of the game.
Practicing the basics requires self-discipline, hard work, and modesty – particularly for anyone who has tasted success or accomplished lofty goals. Discipline, work ethic, and fundamentals are what separate dynasties from novelties.
Shooting stars are often gifted, as well as timely. They unveil spectacular talent, dazzle fans, and savor the limelight. More often than not, though, over-night sensations are nothing more than the latest fad. Such superstars habitually fall to competitors who remain focused and committed to solid fundamentals.
Though fads rarely possess enduring value, they naturally capture the imaginations of immature, shallow, and fickle people. They also fizzle swiftly the moment the next craze ignites.
Barak Hussein Obama is the epitome of this phenomenon. Obama represents the romantics who wish to dream away reality.
Obama is a gifted speaker. But what will he call upon when his big government theories encounter the real world and begin to crumble? His superb speaking skills dangerously conceal his most sobering weakness – his void of proven substance.
Talent becomes a liability when one depends on it and neglects a solid foundation in the basics. And Obama’s adroit oration will never compensate for his disregarding America’s fundamental principles.
Contrary to Obama’s soothing message, America was not built on the audacity of wishful thinking or pleasant-sounding rhetoric. America was built on valuing the sanctity of human life, individual freedom, limited government, lawful order, and supreme justice.
Nevertheless, Obama continues beguiling star-struck fans with abstract references to hope and change. But do Obama supporters hope that Islamic terrorists will also swoon when Obama levels his smooth and intangible words at them? What happens when the Muslim sociopaths don’t faint? Do we blame Obama’s followers for not having enough audacity in their hope?
Seriously, Obama’s eloquent words are in fact “just words.” His mantra has no concrete substance. If he ever clarifies the murkiness of his enchanted language, we all would likely faint at the deftness of Obama’s verbal irony.
Obama’s hypnotic message reeks of hopelessness -- not hope. He promises change, but what he means is that he has no faith in Americans’ ingenuity. Obama believes his government programs -- not America’s principles of freedom and self-reliance -- will come to our rescue.
Sadly, Obama ignores why so many Americans came to this great country. They were eager to escape the trademark despair that Obama’s disarming melody is threatening to impose. Many hard-working Americans once fled countries that suffered under governments that inflicted the same oppressive brand of misery that Obama conceals in his silver-tongued proclamations.
Consider the Cuban Americans who escaped Fidel Castro’s charismatic rhetoric regarding “socialist hope.” Obviously, facts about socialism don’t matter to many on the Left. Plenty of liberals are passionate about tagging Castro a hero simply for defying America. But what does that mean – “defying America”? It’s almost as vague as Obama’s repetitive chorus about hope and change.
Despite reality, Obama continues peddling government programs while trying to hope away authentic consequences to his brand of “wishful thinking.” Not surprisingly, the Left adores Obama similarly to how it adores Fidel Castro. To the Left, Castro provided “excellent” government healthcare to Cuban citizens. But only foolish and spoiled liberals -- who do not have their government dictating what medical care they do or do not need -- believe such nonsense. Try selling Obama’s wishful thinking to Cubans and everyone else who have actually endured the anguish distributed by socialist idealism.
Americans are indeed frustrated. But frustration often leads to desperation. Desperation can lead to poor judgment, and poor judgment almost always leads to bad results. Accordingly, Barak Hussein Obama is posing a serious threat of becoming the next President of the United States.
Right now, America needs a leader -- not a politician with slick rhetoric, a debonair appearance, and wishful thinking. We need a leader who understands the edge that made hard-working Americans and this great country successful. We need a leader capable of refocusing all of us on the fundamental principles of life, liberty, independence, and limited government.
Let’s all return to the real world where the Left’s latest rock-star is just a swanky politician elegantly singing monotonous lyrics.
Lee Culpepper is a former Marine and high school English teacher. He is currently working to complete his first book, Alone and Unafraid: One Marine’s Counterattack Inside the Walls of Public Education. Visit Lee’s website at www.leeculpepper.com.
(from Townhall.com)
By Lee Culpepper
Monday, February 25, 2008
When the competitive edge begins to dull, successful organizations and individuals often regroup and reevaluate their methods. In sports, when a gifted-new talent contributes extensively to upsetting a dominant team, a wise coach frequently refocuses his athletes on the fundamentals of the game.
Practicing the basics requires self-discipline, hard work, and modesty – particularly for anyone who has tasted success or accomplished lofty goals. Discipline, work ethic, and fundamentals are what separate dynasties from novelties.
Shooting stars are often gifted, as well as timely. They unveil spectacular talent, dazzle fans, and savor the limelight. More often than not, though, over-night sensations are nothing more than the latest fad. Such superstars habitually fall to competitors who remain focused and committed to solid fundamentals.
Though fads rarely possess enduring value, they naturally capture the imaginations of immature, shallow, and fickle people. They also fizzle swiftly the moment the next craze ignites.
Barak Hussein Obama is the epitome of this phenomenon. Obama represents the romantics who wish to dream away reality.
Obama is a gifted speaker. But what will he call upon when his big government theories encounter the real world and begin to crumble? His superb speaking skills dangerously conceal his most sobering weakness – his void of proven substance.
Talent becomes a liability when one depends on it and neglects a solid foundation in the basics. And Obama’s adroit oration will never compensate for his disregarding America’s fundamental principles.
Contrary to Obama’s soothing message, America was not built on the audacity of wishful thinking or pleasant-sounding rhetoric. America was built on valuing the sanctity of human life, individual freedom, limited government, lawful order, and supreme justice.
Nevertheless, Obama continues beguiling star-struck fans with abstract references to hope and change. But do Obama supporters hope that Islamic terrorists will also swoon when Obama levels his smooth and intangible words at them? What happens when the Muslim sociopaths don’t faint? Do we blame Obama’s followers for not having enough audacity in their hope?
Seriously, Obama’s eloquent words are in fact “just words.” His mantra has no concrete substance. If he ever clarifies the murkiness of his enchanted language, we all would likely faint at the deftness of Obama’s verbal irony.
Obama’s hypnotic message reeks of hopelessness -- not hope. He promises change, but what he means is that he has no faith in Americans’ ingenuity. Obama believes his government programs -- not America’s principles of freedom and self-reliance -- will come to our rescue.
Sadly, Obama ignores why so many Americans came to this great country. They were eager to escape the trademark despair that Obama’s disarming melody is threatening to impose. Many hard-working Americans once fled countries that suffered under governments that inflicted the same oppressive brand of misery that Obama conceals in his silver-tongued proclamations.
Consider the Cuban Americans who escaped Fidel Castro’s charismatic rhetoric regarding “socialist hope.” Obviously, facts about socialism don’t matter to many on the Left. Plenty of liberals are passionate about tagging Castro a hero simply for defying America. But what does that mean – “defying America”? It’s almost as vague as Obama’s repetitive chorus about hope and change.
Despite reality, Obama continues peddling government programs while trying to hope away authentic consequences to his brand of “wishful thinking.” Not surprisingly, the Left adores Obama similarly to how it adores Fidel Castro. To the Left, Castro provided “excellent” government healthcare to Cuban citizens. But only foolish and spoiled liberals -- who do not have their government dictating what medical care they do or do not need -- believe such nonsense. Try selling Obama’s wishful thinking to Cubans and everyone else who have actually endured the anguish distributed by socialist idealism.
Americans are indeed frustrated. But frustration often leads to desperation. Desperation can lead to poor judgment, and poor judgment almost always leads to bad results. Accordingly, Barak Hussein Obama is posing a serious threat of becoming the next President of the United States.
Right now, America needs a leader -- not a politician with slick rhetoric, a debonair appearance, and wishful thinking. We need a leader who understands the edge that made hard-working Americans and this great country successful. We need a leader capable of refocusing all of us on the fundamental principles of life, liberty, independence, and limited government.
Let’s all return to the real world where the Left’s latest rock-star is just a swanky politician elegantly singing monotonous lyrics.
Lee Culpepper is a former Marine and high school English teacher. He is currently working to complete his first book, Alone and Unafraid: One Marine’s Counterattack Inside the Walls of Public Education. Visit Lee’s website at www.leeculpepper.com.
(from Townhall.com)
Monday, February 25, 2008
Farrakhan Praises Obama as ‘Hope of Entire World’
This story should not surprise anyone. It is no secret that Obama has a number of NOI thugs on his staff. - Grumpy
CHICAGO — In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the “hope of the entire world” that the U.S. will change for the better. The 74-year-old Farrakhan, former leader of the black Muslim group, never endorsed Obama outright, but spent much of his nearly two-hour speech Sunday to an estimated crowd of 20,000 people praising the Illinois senator.
“This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better,” he said. “This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama’s audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed.”
Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion’s founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.“A black man with a white mother became a savior to us,” he told the crowd of mostly followers. “A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.”
Farrakhan also leveled small jabs at Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, suggesting that she represents the politics of the past and has been engaging in dirty politics.
Said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton: “Sen. Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan’s past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister’s support.”
Farrakhan rebuilt the Nation of Islam, which promotes black empowerment and nationalism, in the late 1970s after W.D. Mohammed, the son of longtime leader Elijah Mohammed, moved his followers toward mainstream Islam.
Farrakhan has drawn attention for calling Judaism a “gutter religion” and suggesting crack cocaine might have been a CIA plot to enslave blacks.
In recent years, however, officials with the Nation of Islam have promoted unity and tolerance among religions. Farrakhan now often quotes the texts of other religions, such as the Bible, in his speeches.
Farrakhan’s keynote address at McCormick Place, the city’s convention center, wrapped up three days of events geared at unifying followers and targeting youth.
It had a different tone from a year ago, when Farrakhan made what was called his final public address at a Saviours’ Day event in Detroit. The 74-year-old was recovering from complications from prostate cancer and months earlier had temporarily passed on leadership duties of the organization’s day-to-day activities to an executive board.
CHICAGO — In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the “hope of the entire world” that the U.S. will change for the better. The 74-year-old Farrakhan, former leader of the black Muslim group, never endorsed Obama outright, but spent much of his nearly two-hour speech Sunday to an estimated crowd of 20,000 people praising the Illinois senator.
“This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better,” he said. “This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama’s audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed.”
Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion’s founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.“A black man with a white mother became a savior to us,” he told the crowd of mostly followers. “A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.”
Farrakhan also leveled small jabs at Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, suggesting that she represents the politics of the past and has been engaging in dirty politics.
Said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton: “Sen. Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan’s past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister’s support.”
Farrakhan rebuilt the Nation of Islam, which promotes black empowerment and nationalism, in the late 1970s after W.D. Mohammed, the son of longtime leader Elijah Mohammed, moved his followers toward mainstream Islam.
Farrakhan has drawn attention for calling Judaism a “gutter religion” and suggesting crack cocaine might have been a CIA plot to enslave blacks.
In recent years, however, officials with the Nation of Islam have promoted unity and tolerance among religions. Farrakhan now often quotes the texts of other religions, such as the Bible, in his speeches.
Farrakhan’s keynote address at McCormick Place, the city’s convention center, wrapped up three days of events geared at unifying followers and targeting youth.
It had a different tone from a year ago, when Farrakhan made what was called his final public address at a Saviours’ Day event in Detroit. The 74-year-old was recovering from complications from prostate cancer and months earlier had temporarily passed on leadership duties of the organization’s day-to-day activities to an executive board.
Durka Durka Obama Jihad!
A picture is worth a thousand words, aint it?"Barack Obama’s campaign is expressing outrage at a new photo attributed to Clinton campaign sources that depicts the Democratic presidential candidate dressed in Somali garb.
The picture, which appeared at the top of Monday’s Drudge Report, says Clinton staffers circulated the 2006 photo over the weekend."
It shows the Illinois muslim senator fitted as a....... surprise........MUSLIM elder, during his visit to northeastern Kenya that was part of a five-country tour of Africa.
We posted awhile ago about Obama's being a muslim. Read it here: http://grumpysgunblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-is-muslim.html
Grumpy
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Election Update! Obama Likes Hunters But Dislikes Handguns?
Election Update! Obama Likes Hunters But Dislikes Handguns?
This story is from the Gun Digest the Magazine Web site forums.
While campaigning in Idaho the weekend before Super Tuesday, presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd, "There are people who say, 'Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state — we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns."
Yet according to Jake Tapper, ABC News' senior national correspondent, "In 1996, however, Obama said in a questionnaire that he 'supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns' — a fairly extreme position. However, it should be pointed out that this appears to be yet another example of Obama not being able to get good help. You guessed it — his campaign says this questionnaire was filled out incorrectly by a staffer.
This story is from the Gun Digest the Magazine Web site forums.
While campaigning in Idaho the weekend before Super Tuesday, presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd, "There are people who say, 'Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state — we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns."
Yet according to Jake Tapper, ABC News' senior national correspondent, "In 1996, however, Obama said in a questionnaire that he 'supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns' — a fairly extreme position. However, it should be pointed out that this appears to be yet another example of Obama not being able to get good help. You guessed it — his campaign says this questionnaire was filled out incorrectly by a staffer.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Supporting our troops the Liberal Way.
'Supporting the Troops'
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Berkeley city council has made national news by telling Marine Corps recruiters that they are unwelcome in that bastion of the academic left.
It is a shame that Berkeley is not on some island in the South Pacific, because then they could be given their independence and left to defend themselves.
As it is, members of our armed forces who put their lives on the line to defend America are also defending people like too many in Berkeley for whom the very word America, and the American flag, bring only sneers.
Unfortunately, Berkeley is not unique. A professor at Harvard who put an American flag on his car after 9-11 provoked looks of astonishment from his colleagues. They wondered what was wrong with him.
All across the country, there are professors who push for keeping military recruiters off campus and for banning ROTC. Apparently if they don't like the military, then other people -- such as students -- should not be allowed to make up their own minds whether they want to join or not.
Liberals in general, and academics in particular, like to boast of their open-mindedness and acceptance of non-conformity. But they mean not conforming to the norms of society at large.
They have little or no tolerance to those who do not conform to the norms of academic political correctness. Nowhere else in America is free speech so restricted as on academic campuses with speech codes.
In Berkeley, as elsewhere, the left has learned to cloak their anti-military intolerance with the magic words, "We support the troops." The liberal media use the same line when they undermine the military.
In this, as in other things, the flagship of the media is the New York Times. Unsubstantiated charges against American troops in Iraq are front page news but incredible acts of heroism in battle are seldom reported there, if at all.
Although things go wrong in every war, things that went wrong in Iraq -- whether large or small -- have been front page news in the New York Times. But when the military surge was followed by things going right, the Iraq war was suddenly no longer front page news.
Back during the Vietnam war, the media criticized the American military for their emphasis on enemy casualties or "body count." Today the media have been fixated on American body count.
What has been accomplished by the troops who lost their lives in battle has been of no interest to those who claim to be "supporting the troops."
That thousands of Iraqis who fled the country during the height of the violence and turmoil are now returning is no big deal to the media.
Those in the military who made this possible by putting their own lives on the line are not heroes to the media. Indeed, one of the consistent patterns in the liberal media has been to depict the troops not as heroes but as victims.
The financial problems of some reservists who were called away from their civilian jobs were front page news in the New York Times. So were sorrowful goodbyes from family and friends.
All these things made the troops victims. So does body count.
Just last month, the New York Times found yet another way to portray the troops as victims. They ran a very long article, beginning on the front page of the January 13th issue, about killings in the United States by combat veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
"In many of those cases," it said, "combat trauma and the stress of deployment" were among the factors which "appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction."
As with so many other things said by liberals, the big question that was not asked was: Compared to what?
As the New York Post reported a couple of days later, the murder rate among returning military combat veterans is one-fifth that of civilians in the same age brackets.
So much for "supporting the troops" by depicting them as victims.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Berkeley city council has made national news by telling Marine Corps recruiters that they are unwelcome in that bastion of the academic left.
It is a shame that Berkeley is not on some island in the South Pacific, because then they could be given their independence and left to defend themselves.
As it is, members of our armed forces who put their lives on the line to defend America are also defending people like too many in Berkeley for whom the very word America, and the American flag, bring only sneers.
Unfortunately, Berkeley is not unique. A professor at Harvard who put an American flag on his car after 9-11 provoked looks of astonishment from his colleagues. They wondered what was wrong with him.
All across the country, there are professors who push for keeping military recruiters off campus and for banning ROTC. Apparently if they don't like the military, then other people -- such as students -- should not be allowed to make up their own minds whether they want to join or not.
Liberals in general, and academics in particular, like to boast of their open-mindedness and acceptance of non-conformity. But they mean not conforming to the norms of society at large.
They have little or no tolerance to those who do not conform to the norms of academic political correctness. Nowhere else in America is free speech so restricted as on academic campuses with speech codes.
In Berkeley, as elsewhere, the left has learned to cloak their anti-military intolerance with the magic words, "We support the troops." The liberal media use the same line when they undermine the military.
In this, as in other things, the flagship of the media is the New York Times. Unsubstantiated charges against American troops in Iraq are front page news but incredible acts of heroism in battle are seldom reported there, if at all.
Although things go wrong in every war, things that went wrong in Iraq -- whether large or small -- have been front page news in the New York Times. But when the military surge was followed by things going right, the Iraq war was suddenly no longer front page news.
Back during the Vietnam war, the media criticized the American military for their emphasis on enemy casualties or "body count." Today the media have been fixated on American body count.
What has been accomplished by the troops who lost their lives in battle has been of no interest to those who claim to be "supporting the troops."
That thousands of Iraqis who fled the country during the height of the violence and turmoil are now returning is no big deal to the media.
Those in the military who made this possible by putting their own lives on the line are not heroes to the media. Indeed, one of the consistent patterns in the liberal media has been to depict the troops not as heroes but as victims.
The financial problems of some reservists who were called away from their civilian jobs were front page news in the New York Times. So were sorrowful goodbyes from family and friends.
All these things made the troops victims. So does body count.
Just last month, the New York Times found yet another way to portray the troops as victims. They ran a very long article, beginning on the front page of the January 13th issue, about killings in the United States by combat veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
"In many of those cases," it said, "combat trauma and the stress of deployment" were among the factors which "appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction."
As with so many other things said by liberals, the big question that was not asked was: Compared to what?
As the New York Post reported a couple of days later, the murder rate among returning military combat veterans is one-fifth that of civilians in the same age brackets.
So much for "supporting the troops" by depicting them as victims.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
The Latest From The Civilian Marksmanship Program
CHANGE TO CARBINE SALES DATES: Inspection & Repair and grading of M1 carbines has progressed faster than expected. CMP will now accept mail orders for Saginaw, Saginaw S'G', and National Postal Meter carbines on 28 April, 2008. Order acceptance date for Standard Products and IBM has now been set as 7 July, 2008. For operational reasons, we have set a limit of one carbine per customer per manufacturer for each of these manufacturers until further notice. A small quantity of these manufacturers will be available at both CMP stores. For additional details, please see http://www.odcmp.com/rifles/carbine.htmNORTH STORE RENOVATION: The Grand Re-Opening of the CMP North Store is still scheduled for 12 march, 2008. HRA GARANDS NOW AVAILABLE: CMP is now accepting orders for HRA Service and Field Grade Garands. For additional details, please see http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/m1garand.htmPRICE REDUCTION - NATIONAL MATCH M1 GARAND STOCK SET: CMP price for Item #085 has been reduced from $124.95 to $94.95. This stock set is listed under the 'commercial parts' tab on our estore http://estore.odcmp.com/Store/catalog/catalog.aspx
Monday, February 18, 2008
Democrats Harm National Security
Here is a another example of how the democrats are invested in being defeated by the terrorists.
Stumpy
Democrats’ Inaction on FISA Harms America’s National Security
By John Boehner
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Earlier this month, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle came together to pass an economic growth package to help get our economy moving again. I hoped this same spirit of bipartisanship would extend to other critical issues, with our national security our first and foremost priority. Sadly, this was not to be.
On Thursday, House Democratic leaders left Washington for a 12-day break after failing to pass critical legislation designed to ensure that our intelligence officials are able to monitor foreign communications of suspected terrorists overseas, such as Osama Bin Laden and other key al-Qaeda leaders, while also adding critical liability protections for third parties who helped us defend our country. This measure had received strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and was on the verge of passing by a wide bipartisan margin in the House until Democratic leaders blocked it from coming to the floor for a vote.
Because of the Democrats’ inaction, the Protect America Act expired last night at midnight, forcing our intelligence officials to revert to the same terror surveillance laws that failed to protect America from the al-Qaeda terrorist attack on 9/11. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are still plotting against the United States and our allies, but now our intelligence officials don’t have all the tools they need to protect us. These laws didn’t safeguard America in 2001, so why would House Democrat leaders place our nation at risk by putting them back into effect now?
Some members of the House Majority believe there is no sense of urgency to address this crisis. But the New York Post recently reported a heartbreaking story about U.S. forces in Iraq having to wait 10 hours last May before they could begin searching for three American soldiers taken hostage by al Qaeda because lawyers here in the United States were hammering out the proper documents to get emergency permission for wiretaps. One of our soldiers was found dead, two others remain missing.
These unconscionable delays had real consequences. It should take exactly zero lawyers to rescue our troops. A strong bipartisan majority in the Senate understood this fact. The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, put it this way:
“What people have to understand around here is that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded.” (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Floor Remarks, 02/14/08)
The liability protections included in the bipartisan Senate bill are intended to ensure that patriotic third parties are not subject to frivolous lawsuits when they cooperate with our intelligence officials to help track terrorists. But already some trial lawyers are seeking millions of dollars, and now some third parties who have cooperated to help defend our country have indicated they can no longer do so voluntarily. This is wrong and we must fix it.
Much has been said about the U.S. Senate being the world’s most deliberative body, but in this case our colleagues proved that they can work quickly to pass good legislation that will keep America safe.
The consequences of inaction in the House and the failure to send a bill to the President are real. U.S. intelligence officials will not be able to begin new terrorist surveillance without needless and dangerous delays. If a previously unknown group were to attack or kidnap American soldiers tomorrow, U.S. forces would have to wait – again – for the lawyers to get permission before a search could begin. The families of the three soldiers abducted in May by al Qaeda can attest to how devastating waiting can be.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was written and passed during the Cold War era, and in August Congress updated it to reflect the sophisticated and adaptive nature of the terrorist threat. We worked in a bipartisan manner to close a gaping loophole, one that had prohibited our intelligence officials to monitor all foreign communications of terrorists overseas. The only ones preventing us from working together in a bipartisan way again are House Democratic leaders and trial lawyers.
What was true then remains the same today: instead of shielding terrorists, we should be working to prevent future attacks. Refusing to give our intelligence officials all the tools they need to keep America safe is unacceptable. Refusing to extend protection from frivolous lawsuits to third parties that cooperate with the government to protect American lives and then leaving town for 12 days is also unacceptable.
The question now for House Democratic leaders is, how much longer are they prepared to protect their trial lawyer allies at the expense of our national security?
John Boehner is the Republican Minority Leader for the House of Representatives.
Stumpy
Democrats’ Inaction on FISA Harms America’s National Security
By John Boehner
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Earlier this month, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle came together to pass an economic growth package to help get our economy moving again. I hoped this same spirit of bipartisanship would extend to other critical issues, with our national security our first and foremost priority. Sadly, this was not to be.
On Thursday, House Democratic leaders left Washington for a 12-day break after failing to pass critical legislation designed to ensure that our intelligence officials are able to monitor foreign communications of suspected terrorists overseas, such as Osama Bin Laden and other key al-Qaeda leaders, while also adding critical liability protections for third parties who helped us defend our country. This measure had received strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and was on the verge of passing by a wide bipartisan margin in the House until Democratic leaders blocked it from coming to the floor for a vote.
Because of the Democrats’ inaction, the Protect America Act expired last night at midnight, forcing our intelligence officials to revert to the same terror surveillance laws that failed to protect America from the al-Qaeda terrorist attack on 9/11. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are still plotting against the United States and our allies, but now our intelligence officials don’t have all the tools they need to protect us. These laws didn’t safeguard America in 2001, so why would House Democrat leaders place our nation at risk by putting them back into effect now?
Some members of the House Majority believe there is no sense of urgency to address this crisis. But the New York Post recently reported a heartbreaking story about U.S. forces in Iraq having to wait 10 hours last May before they could begin searching for three American soldiers taken hostage by al Qaeda because lawyers here in the United States were hammering out the proper documents to get emergency permission for wiretaps. One of our soldiers was found dead, two others remain missing.
These unconscionable delays had real consequences. It should take exactly zero lawyers to rescue our troops. A strong bipartisan majority in the Senate understood this fact. The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, put it this way:
“What people have to understand around here is that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded.” (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Floor Remarks, 02/14/08)
The liability protections included in the bipartisan Senate bill are intended to ensure that patriotic third parties are not subject to frivolous lawsuits when they cooperate with our intelligence officials to help track terrorists. But already some trial lawyers are seeking millions of dollars, and now some third parties who have cooperated to help defend our country have indicated they can no longer do so voluntarily. This is wrong and we must fix it.
Much has been said about the U.S. Senate being the world’s most deliberative body, but in this case our colleagues proved that they can work quickly to pass good legislation that will keep America safe.
The consequences of inaction in the House and the failure to send a bill to the President are real. U.S. intelligence officials will not be able to begin new terrorist surveillance without needless and dangerous delays. If a previously unknown group were to attack or kidnap American soldiers tomorrow, U.S. forces would have to wait – again – for the lawyers to get permission before a search could begin. The families of the three soldiers abducted in May by al Qaeda can attest to how devastating waiting can be.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was written and passed during the Cold War era, and in August Congress updated it to reflect the sophisticated and adaptive nature of the terrorist threat. We worked in a bipartisan manner to close a gaping loophole, one that had prohibited our intelligence officials to monitor all foreign communications of terrorists overseas. The only ones preventing us from working together in a bipartisan way again are House Democratic leaders and trial lawyers.
What was true then remains the same today: instead of shielding terrorists, we should be working to prevent future attacks. Refusing to give our intelligence officials all the tools they need to keep America safe is unacceptable. Refusing to extend protection from frivolous lawsuits to third parties that cooperate with the government to protect American lives and then leaving town for 12 days is also unacceptable.
The question now for House Democratic leaders is, how much longer are they prepared to protect their trial lawyer allies at the expense of our national security?
John Boehner is the Republican Minority Leader for the House of Representatives.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Finnish Marksman - Simo Hayha
Simo Hayha has always been a personal hero of mine.
His example of Patriotism, sense of purpose and self sacrifice are something we can all take a lesson from. - Grumpy
Brief Background On Simo Häyhä :
Simo Häyhä was born in 1906 or 1905 (there seems to be two dates of his birth depending on the reference materials) in Rautajärvi, Finland. The town was in the shadow of the Soviet Union and as was the case with many border areas, the home of Mr. Häyhä was lost to the Soviets in the spoils of the Winter War. Like many of the towns and villages of this region the area was rural,and Mr. Häyhä was what people here in the US would call an outdoorsman spending much of his time outside letting his skills sharpen.
In 1925 Mr. Häyhä joined the Finnish Army for his one year of mandatory service. He must have been suited well for the Army in some regards as when he left he had achieved the rank of corporal. Later Simo Häyhä joined the Suojelskunta (Finnish Civil Guard) serving in his home district. The Civil Guard is a difficult organization to explain to those in America but putting the Civil Guard in US terms it is much like a very well trained National Guard Unit. Even this description is far from perfect but should suffice for the purposes of this article.
Simo Häyhä was called into action during the Winter War with his service under the 6th Company of JR 34 on the Kollaa River. The Finnish stand at Kollaa is often referred to as "The miracle of Kollaa," as the Finnish action here was most heroic. The Finnish forces in the region were under the command of Major General Uiluo Tuompo and they faced the 9th and 14th Soviet Armies. At one point the Finns at Kollaa were facing 12 divisions, some 160,000 men. The Red Army losses in this arena were staggering as the brave Finns took their toll on the communist invaders. There have been those that called the Finnish defense of this key region "fanatical", and it was in the Kollaa area were the famous battle of "Killer Hill" took place with 32 Finns battling 4,000 Soviet soldiers. These were the hunting grounds of Simo Häyhä and it should be noted that even against massive odds the Kollaa positions were still in Finnish hands at the end of the war (March 1940).Mr. Häyhä was credited with over 500 kills with his Mosin Nagant M28 in his service during the Winter War with his service cut short as he was wounded on 3-6-40 by a Soviet sniper. He is also credited with over 200 kills with the Finnish Suomi K31 9mm submachine gun. Simo was shot in the face with what turned out to be an expanding bullet and he was taken out of action due to these wounds. The total time that Simo Häyhä served in the Winter War was 100 days with more than 700 kills credited to him. His last action as a soldier was to recover his rifle and kill the Soviet sniper who had shot him. His record is truly remarkable and is long since remembered in the nation of Finland. During his post-war life he was considered to be a national treasure. As a signal honor, after the Winter War ended, Marshall Gustav Mannerheim spot promoted him from Corporal to Lieutenant, something rarely done in the Finnish military.
Many remember Simo Häyhä only as using the Mosin Nagant M28 rifle with open sights and only credit his high kill total to his role as a sniper; however, this is not entirely correct as Häyhä was also an expert with the Suomi K31 SMG and a large number of the Soviets that he felled were from his K31.
Above are examples of the tools of Simo Häyhä in his hunts in Kollaa.
Salient factors:
1: Hayha was a small man. He believed this was a factor in his survival.
2: Hayha used iron sights only, making most of his kills with the M28 at ranges over 400 meters. He said that the use of a scope had two problems. The shooter has to raise his head and expose himself to counter fire. The scope inevitably created a reflection and drew counter fire. He was issued a scoped Swedish Mauser but did not use it.
3: Hayha always operated with a small, highly mobile team of marksmen/spotters and soldiers armed with submachine guns.
4: Hayha's total time in the field was 100 days. This means he averaged 7 kills a day during a time of year when daylight was less than 7 hours, the daylight time increasing in length in the latter months.
5: He chose the M28 as it's length was more suitable for a man his size.
6: Over 200 of his kills were made at short range with a 9mm submachine gun.
7: Hayha was a skilled woodman, having spent most of his life in the Karelian forests. He hunted with the same M28 rifle he had been issued by the Civil Guard and used in the Winter War.
His example of Patriotism, sense of purpose and self sacrifice are something we can all take a lesson from. - Grumpy
The following is excerpted in part from an article written at the time of the death at age 96 of Simo Hayha, purported to be the all time high scoring sniper/marksman.
Brief Background On Simo Häyhä :
Simo Häyhä was born in 1906 or 1905 (there seems to be two dates of his birth depending on the reference materials) in Rautajärvi, Finland. The town was in the shadow of the Soviet Union and as was the case with many border areas, the home of Mr. Häyhä was lost to the Soviets in the spoils of the Winter War. Like many of the towns and villages of this region the area was rural,and Mr. Häyhä was what people here in the US would call an outdoorsman spending much of his time outside letting his skills sharpen.
In 1925 Mr. Häyhä joined the Finnish Army for his one year of mandatory service. He must have been suited well for the Army in some regards as when he left he had achieved the rank of corporal. Later Simo Häyhä joined the Suojelskunta (Finnish Civil Guard) serving in his home district. The Civil Guard is a difficult organization to explain to those in America but putting the Civil Guard in US terms it is much like a very well trained National Guard Unit. Even this description is far from perfect but should suffice for the purposes of this article.
Simo Häyhä was called into action during the Winter War with his service under the 6th Company of JR 34 on the Kollaa River. The Finnish stand at Kollaa is often referred to as "The miracle of Kollaa," as the Finnish action here was most heroic. The Finnish forces in the region were under the command of Major General Uiluo Tuompo and they faced the 9th and 14th Soviet Armies. At one point the Finns at Kollaa were facing 12 divisions, some 160,000 men. The Red Army losses in this arena were staggering as the brave Finns took their toll on the communist invaders. There have been those that called the Finnish defense of this key region "fanatical", and it was in the Kollaa area were the famous battle of "Killer Hill" took place with 32 Finns battling 4,000 Soviet soldiers. These were the hunting grounds of Simo Häyhä and it should be noted that even against massive odds the Kollaa positions were still in Finnish hands at the end of the war (March 1940).Mr. Häyhä was credited with over 500 kills with his Mosin Nagant M28 in his service during the Winter War with his service cut short as he was wounded on 3-6-40 by a Soviet sniper. He is also credited with over 200 kills with the Finnish Suomi K31 9mm submachine gun. Simo was shot in the face with what turned out to be an expanding bullet and he was taken out of action due to these wounds. The total time that Simo Häyhä served in the Winter War was 100 days with more than 700 kills credited to him. His last action as a soldier was to recover his rifle and kill the Soviet sniper who had shot him. His record is truly remarkable and is long since remembered in the nation of Finland. During his post-war life he was considered to be a national treasure. As a signal honor, after the Winter War ended, Marshall Gustav Mannerheim spot promoted him from Corporal to Lieutenant, something rarely done in the Finnish military.
Many remember Simo Häyhä only as using the Mosin Nagant M28 rifle with open sights and only credit his high kill total to his role as a sniper; however, this is not entirely correct as Häyhä was also an expert with the Suomi K31 SMG and a large number of the Soviets that he felled were from his K31.
Above are examples of the tools of Simo Häyhä in his hunts in Kollaa.Salient factors:
1: Hayha was a small man. He believed this was a factor in his survival.
2: Hayha used iron sights only, making most of his kills with the M28 at ranges over 400 meters. He said that the use of a scope had two problems. The shooter has to raise his head and expose himself to counter fire. The scope inevitably created a reflection and drew counter fire. He was issued a scoped Swedish Mauser but did not use it.
3: Hayha always operated with a small, highly mobile team of marksmen/spotters and soldiers armed with submachine guns.
4: Hayha's total time in the field was 100 days. This means he averaged 7 kills a day during a time of year when daylight was less than 7 hours, the daylight time increasing in length in the latter months.
5: He chose the M28 as it's length was more suitable for a man his size.
6: Over 200 of his kills were made at short range with a 9mm submachine gun.
7: Hayha was a skilled woodman, having spent most of his life in the Karelian forests. He hunted with the same M28 rifle he had been issued by the Civil Guard and used in the Winter War.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Gun Control Advocates Introduce 'Microstamping' Bill
(CNSNews.com) - A gun control group is hailing Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) for introducing legislation that would require gun microstamping in all fifty states.
The National Crime Gun Identification Act, introduced in both the House and Senate on Feb. 7, "will help law enforcement track down armed criminals and solve gun murders," the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said.The National Rifle Association calls such legislation "incremental gun control." Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said microstamping will help police trace guns that are used in crimes.
It's "the common sense thing to do," Helmke said in a news release on Monday."Last year, California passed a bill to take advantage of this new microstamping technology. Governor Schwarzenegger signed that legislation into law. I want to commend Senator Kennedy and Congressman Becerra for introducing these bills to put this technology to work nationwide," Helmke said.
California's microstamping law, which is supposed to take effect in 2010, would require all semiautomatic pistols to have "microstamped identifiers" -- tiny internal markings that transfer themselves onto bullet cartridges fired from a gun. In theory, microstamped cartridges found at crime scenes might help police identify the make, model and serial number of the gun used in the crime -- and perhaps trace the criminal who used it as well.At least one gun manufacturer, STI International, stopped selling firearms in California as soon as Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the state's microstamping bill into law."We will be suspending all shipments of guns to California effective October 13, 2007.
This includes everyone from civilians to Law Enforcement," STI says on its Web site.Sen. Kennedy said his bill would amend federal law by prohibiting licensed federal firearms dealers from manufacturing, importing, or transferring certain semi-automatic pistols that are not capable of microstamping ammunition. According to Rep. Becerra, "Gun microstamping is a simple and effective technology that promises to save lives and keep violent criminals off the streets. It is inexpensive for gun manufacturers to implement, does not infringe on personal ownership rights, and provides a powerful investigative tool to our law enforcement officers."But the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action has outlined the "numerous and varied problems" associated with microstamping.Microstamping has repeatedly failed in tests, the NRA-ILA says. Moreover, the microstamped etchings are easily removed or altered.Beyond the technological questions, the NRA says most gun crimes do not require micro-stamping to be solved; and most criminals who use guns don't get them through legal channels.In fact, the NRA-ILA warns that micro-stamping may increase gun thefts, home invasions and other burglaries, since criminals would rather steal guns than buy them legally and thus leave a trail in a microstamp database.The NRA-ILA says many guns do not automatically eject fired cartridge cases. And given the fact that there are some 250 million guns in the U.S. already, only a small percentage of guns will be micro-stamped if the law is passed.Micro-stamping wastes money, including that which is better spent on traditional crime-fighting and crime-solving efforts, the NRA-ILA said.And finally, the NRA-ILA mentioned the costs associated with microstamping that will be passed along to gun buyers.A database to track micro-stamped handguns will be expensive, the group said; and the handgun manufacturing process will have to be redesigned to accommodate microstamping. And then there are the anticipated licensing fees that would have to be paid to the sole-source micro-stamping patent holder.
"Mandating microstamping will dramatically reduce the product selection available to law-abiding consumers in California and prices for available guns will skyrocket," the National Shooting Sports Foundation says on its Web site.
The National Crime Gun Identification Act, introduced in both the House and Senate on Feb. 7, "will help law enforcement track down armed criminals and solve gun murders," the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said.The National Rifle Association calls such legislation "incremental gun control." Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said microstamping will help police trace guns that are used in crimes.
It's "the common sense thing to do," Helmke said in a news release on Monday."Last year, California passed a bill to take advantage of this new microstamping technology. Governor Schwarzenegger signed that legislation into law. I want to commend Senator Kennedy and Congressman Becerra for introducing these bills to put this technology to work nationwide," Helmke said.
California's microstamping law, which is supposed to take effect in 2010, would require all semiautomatic pistols to have "microstamped identifiers" -- tiny internal markings that transfer themselves onto bullet cartridges fired from a gun. In theory, microstamped cartridges found at crime scenes might help police identify the make, model and serial number of the gun used in the crime -- and perhaps trace the criminal who used it as well.At least one gun manufacturer, STI International, stopped selling firearms in California as soon as Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the state's microstamping bill into law."We will be suspending all shipments of guns to California effective October 13, 2007.
This includes everyone from civilians to Law Enforcement," STI says on its Web site.Sen. Kennedy said his bill would amend federal law by prohibiting licensed federal firearms dealers from manufacturing, importing, or transferring certain semi-automatic pistols that are not capable of microstamping ammunition. According to Rep. Becerra, "Gun microstamping is a simple and effective technology that promises to save lives and keep violent criminals off the streets. It is inexpensive for gun manufacturers to implement, does not infringe on personal ownership rights, and provides a powerful investigative tool to our law enforcement officers."But the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action has outlined the "numerous and varied problems" associated with microstamping.Microstamping has repeatedly failed in tests, the NRA-ILA says. Moreover, the microstamped etchings are easily removed or altered.Beyond the technological questions, the NRA says most gun crimes do not require micro-stamping to be solved; and most criminals who use guns don't get them through legal channels.In fact, the NRA-ILA warns that micro-stamping may increase gun thefts, home invasions and other burglaries, since criminals would rather steal guns than buy them legally and thus leave a trail in a microstamp database.The NRA-ILA says many guns do not automatically eject fired cartridge cases. And given the fact that there are some 250 million guns in the U.S. already, only a small percentage of guns will be micro-stamped if the law is passed.Micro-stamping wastes money, including that which is better spent on traditional crime-fighting and crime-solving efforts, the NRA-ILA said.And finally, the NRA-ILA mentioned the costs associated with microstamping that will be passed along to gun buyers.A database to track micro-stamped handguns will be expensive, the group said; and the handgun manufacturing process will have to be redesigned to accommodate microstamping. And then there are the anticipated licensing fees that would have to be paid to the sole-source micro-stamping patent holder.
"Mandating microstamping will dramatically reduce the product selection available to law-abiding consumers in California and prices for available guns will skyrocket," the National Shooting Sports Foundation says on its Web site.
They're Coming After You
If the government succeeds in telling us what we can and can not eat on the discrimination of a persons size, then taking our firearms will be easier done. And if both of these or even one happens then "death camps" are not out of the question, just ask a survivor from such a camp from WWII. Extreme conclusion, yes, but the ramifications are not.
Stumpy
They're Coming After You
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
My February 2002 column, "They're Coming After You," warned that Americans who enthusiastically supported the anti-tobacco zealots' attack on smokers were, like decent Germans did during the 1920s and '30s, building the Trojan Horse that would one day enable a tyrant to take over. The whole issue of tobacco smoke nuisance is really a private property issue where the owner should decide how his private property shall be used, whether it's an office building, restaurant, bar or home. That's unless one group of people wishes to use the coercive powers of government, in the name of health or some other ruse, to impose their preferences upon others.
Anti-tobacco zealots don't have a monopoly on tyrannical designs. There are those who wish to control what we eat, and the successful attack on smokers has provided a template for their agenda. Chief among the food tyrants is the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). These tyrants want taxes on foods they deem as non-nutritious. They've even proposed a 5 percent tax on new television sets and video equipment and a $65 tax on each new car or an extra penny per gallon of gas. Why? They see watching television and videos, riding instead of walking, as contributing to obesity. Thus, in their view, just as tobacco companies were responsible for people smoking, television and video manufacturers are responsible for people being couch potatoes. Automobile companies are responsible for people riding instead of walking. The restaurant industry is responsible for American obesity.
Some people have told me that these tyrants would never get away with controlling what we eat. Here's the Mississippi Legislature House Bill 282, introduced this year by Rep. W.T. Mayhall, that in part reads: "An Act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health; to direct the Department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the Department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act." The bill proposes to revoke licenses of food establishments that violate the provisions of the act.
You shouldn't believe that if this measure is successful in Mississippi that it will stay in Mississippi. Moreover, it will be expanded upon because most people who are obese don't become so by eating at restaurants; mostly, it's food eaten at home. Thus, the food tyrants won't be satisfied with restaurant restrictions, just as the anti-tobacco zealots weren't satisfied with warning labels on cigarettes. They will push for legislation restricting the sale of foods at supermarkets. Since an obese person can get a svelte person to do his grocery shopping for him, legislators might propose sting operations to fine or arrest people giving an obese person high-calorie food.
The food tyrants have a compatriot in the person of Yale University's Professor Kelly D. Brownell, director of the Center for Eating and Weight Disorders. He thinks Americans eat too many hamburgers and French fries. Professor Brownell, who is fat himself, wants government to tax fatty foods and those with little nutritional content and use some of the tax proceeds to build bike and hiking trails. Suppose not enough Americans bike and hike. I bet he and his ilk would call for legislation that mandated some form of exercise.
Most evil done in the world is done in the name of promoting this or that supposed good. Americans turning away from rule of law and constitutional government are following in the footsteps of other people around the world who discovered their liberties gone and recovering them was next to impossible. But, what the heck. You might be among those Americans who don't smoke and are not obese, so why sweat it?
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well. (from Townhall.com)
Stumpy
They're Coming After You
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
My February 2002 column, "They're Coming After You," warned that Americans who enthusiastically supported the anti-tobacco zealots' attack on smokers were, like decent Germans did during the 1920s and '30s, building the Trojan Horse that would one day enable a tyrant to take over. The whole issue of tobacco smoke nuisance is really a private property issue where the owner should decide how his private property shall be used, whether it's an office building, restaurant, bar or home. That's unless one group of people wishes to use the coercive powers of government, in the name of health or some other ruse, to impose their preferences upon others.
Anti-tobacco zealots don't have a monopoly on tyrannical designs. There are those who wish to control what we eat, and the successful attack on smokers has provided a template for their agenda. Chief among the food tyrants is the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). These tyrants want taxes on foods they deem as non-nutritious. They've even proposed a 5 percent tax on new television sets and video equipment and a $65 tax on each new car or an extra penny per gallon of gas. Why? They see watching television and videos, riding instead of walking, as contributing to obesity. Thus, in their view, just as tobacco companies were responsible for people smoking, television and video manufacturers are responsible for people being couch potatoes. Automobile companies are responsible for people riding instead of walking. The restaurant industry is responsible for American obesity.
Some people have told me that these tyrants would never get away with controlling what we eat. Here's the Mississippi Legislature House Bill 282, introduced this year by Rep. W.T. Mayhall, that in part reads: "An Act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health; to direct the Department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the Department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act." The bill proposes to revoke licenses of food establishments that violate the provisions of the act.
You shouldn't believe that if this measure is successful in Mississippi that it will stay in Mississippi. Moreover, it will be expanded upon because most people who are obese don't become so by eating at restaurants; mostly, it's food eaten at home. Thus, the food tyrants won't be satisfied with restaurant restrictions, just as the anti-tobacco zealots weren't satisfied with warning labels on cigarettes. They will push for legislation restricting the sale of foods at supermarkets. Since an obese person can get a svelte person to do his grocery shopping for him, legislators might propose sting operations to fine or arrest people giving an obese person high-calorie food.
The food tyrants have a compatriot in the person of Yale University's Professor Kelly D. Brownell, director of the Center for Eating and Weight Disorders. He thinks Americans eat too many hamburgers and French fries. Professor Brownell, who is fat himself, wants government to tax fatty foods and those with little nutritional content and use some of the tax proceeds to build bike and hiking trails. Suppose not enough Americans bike and hike. I bet he and his ilk would call for legislation that mandated some form of exercise.
Most evil done in the world is done in the name of promoting this or that supposed good. Americans turning away from rule of law and constitutional government are following in the footsteps of other people around the world who discovered their liberties gone and recovering them was next to impossible. But, what the heck. You might be among those Americans who don't smoke and are not obese, so why sweat it?
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well. (from Townhall.com)
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Hippies wrong again.
This gentleman says it all. God Bless this man and his family, and God Bless all service men and women, keeping me free and safe to do this and may I not take this freedom for granted. Thank you to all that have served our country in any capacity.
Stumpy
My Choice
By Sgt. Seth Conner
Monday, February 11, 2008
Like my Marine brothers who fought alongside me in the Battle of Fallujah, I know a little something about choices.
When the nosecones of 767 passenger jets punched into the Twin Towers, my choice was simple to make. My choice was not, as the patchouli-smelling Berkeley hippies would have you believe, the duplicitous work of “salespeople known to lie to and seduce minors and young adults into contracting themselves into military service with false promises.” By that rationale, car salesmen are responsible for the 40,000 Americans who will die this year on the nation’s highways.
Nice try.
No, as shocking as it may be to radical anti-military haters, the overwhelming majority of young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines like myself are deeply proud of the choice we made. As shocking as it may seem to the Code Pink crowd, we feel blessed to have been given the chance to defend our nation and be steeled and shaped by those charged with leading us.
Ironically, for people who claim to be “tolerant,” “open-minded,” and “peace-loving,” theBerkeley protestors and their ilk proved just what a sham their operation truly is. If they were really interested in saving the lives of innocents, they would listen to the countless stories veterans bring back from Iraq about pivotal moments of decision that saved lives—both American and Iraqi.
I remember standing in the blinding sun looking through a sweat-drenched brow at the mortars exploding all around. We were the only unit with a view of the mortars’ suspected origin. I had a choice to make. As a young corporal, it was my job to decide whether or not to unleash our firepower at the suspected source of the incoming mortars. Make the wrong choice, kill innocent civilians. Hesitate, watch Marine brothers die.
I made my decision: hold fire. I could not get a clear look at the area. Later, we learned the area had only farmers and schoolchildren.
Much to the chagrin of the Code Pink crowd, we Marines are not blood-thirsty warmongers bent on killing innocents. Anyone who experiences combat comes away with a deeper and more pure understanding of just how sacred and special human life truly is. You don't walk away from the battlefield with the same perspective you brought to it. And you don't hold the lives of your brothers—and of innocent civilians—in your hands and continue to see life in the same way.
No, like most Iraq veterans, I didn't find broken promises serving with the Marines. I found the courage and discipline to become the man I always wanted to be. That man has a strong streak of peace within him, something the Berkeley peace-loving hippies should appreciate.
I fell in love with the people of the Middle East while fighting for them, and my heart goes out to them. I plan to move to Egypt next year as a Christian missionary to reach out to their needy, and when the war's over I plan to return to Iraq, this time without my M-16.
But if Berkeley has its way, the young men and women of their city won't have the freedom to make one of the most honorable choices they could ever make—the right to defend their country. Instead, they would rather make the decision for them, imposing their will upon their people. That does not sound like the freedom I fought for.
While in Iraq, I wrote an “Open Letter to America” that was aimed at the very people who make up Berkeley's city council. I supported their right to free speech; after all, I was fighting for it, not to mention losing friends for that cause. But I strongly questioned their so-called support-the-troops-but-not-the-war stance. Angry, I called them ignorant, naïve, hippie puppets.
After my tour of duty ended I hoped I was wrong, that I had written that letter out of my own ignorance. But the Berkeley city council proves everything I said in that letter was true. Thankfully, the American Legion and Move America Forward stood up and said “Enough.”
Groups like Code Pink and the Berkeley city council don't care about freedom. They only care about saddling another generation—my generation—with their hippie-loving propaganda.
Only 25, Seth Conner is an Iraq War combat veteran and a current student at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, California. After serving a tour in Japan and a combat tour in Iraq with the 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, the United States Marine Corps relieved Sgt. Seth Conner from military service in 2005 with an honorable discharge. In addition to pursuing his studies and writing career, Conner works part time at the Orange County Rescue Mission and also attends Nouveau Riche University in Scottsdale, Arizona, and works part time as a real estate investor. An active member of Saddleback Church, Conner takes semi-annual missions trips around the globe to minister to others and serve the less fortunate. Born and raised in Parker, Colorado, Seth Conner currently lives in Lake Forest, California. Boredom By Day, Death By Night is Conner’s first book. (fron Townhall.com)
Stumpy
My Choice
By Sgt. Seth Conner
Monday, February 11, 2008
Like my Marine brothers who fought alongside me in the Battle of Fallujah, I know a little something about choices.
When the nosecones of 767 passenger jets punched into the Twin Towers, my choice was simple to make. My choice was not, as the patchouli-smelling Berkeley hippies would have you believe, the duplicitous work of “salespeople known to lie to and seduce minors and young adults into contracting themselves into military service with false promises.” By that rationale, car salesmen are responsible for the 40,000 Americans who will die this year on the nation’s highways.
Nice try.
No, as shocking as it may be to radical anti-military haters, the overwhelming majority of young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines like myself are deeply proud of the choice we made. As shocking as it may seem to the Code Pink crowd, we feel blessed to have been given the chance to defend our nation and be steeled and shaped by those charged with leading us.
Ironically, for people who claim to be “tolerant,” “open-minded,” and “peace-loving,” theBerkeley protestors and their ilk proved just what a sham their operation truly is. If they were really interested in saving the lives of innocents, they would listen to the countless stories veterans bring back from Iraq about pivotal moments of decision that saved lives—both American and Iraqi.
I remember standing in the blinding sun looking through a sweat-drenched brow at the mortars exploding all around. We were the only unit with a view of the mortars’ suspected origin. I had a choice to make. As a young corporal, it was my job to decide whether or not to unleash our firepower at the suspected source of the incoming mortars. Make the wrong choice, kill innocent civilians. Hesitate, watch Marine brothers die.
I made my decision: hold fire. I could not get a clear look at the area. Later, we learned the area had only farmers and schoolchildren.
Much to the chagrin of the Code Pink crowd, we Marines are not blood-thirsty warmongers bent on killing innocents. Anyone who experiences combat comes away with a deeper and more pure understanding of just how sacred and special human life truly is. You don't walk away from the battlefield with the same perspective you brought to it. And you don't hold the lives of your brothers—and of innocent civilians—in your hands and continue to see life in the same way.
No, like most Iraq veterans, I didn't find broken promises serving with the Marines. I found the courage and discipline to become the man I always wanted to be. That man has a strong streak of peace within him, something the Berkeley peace-loving hippies should appreciate.
I fell in love with the people of the Middle East while fighting for them, and my heart goes out to them. I plan to move to Egypt next year as a Christian missionary to reach out to their needy, and when the war's over I plan to return to Iraq, this time without my M-16.
But if Berkeley has its way, the young men and women of their city won't have the freedom to make one of the most honorable choices they could ever make—the right to defend their country. Instead, they would rather make the decision for them, imposing their will upon their people. That does not sound like the freedom I fought for.
While in Iraq, I wrote an “Open Letter to America” that was aimed at the very people who make up Berkeley's city council. I supported their right to free speech; after all, I was fighting for it, not to mention losing friends for that cause. But I strongly questioned their so-called support-the-troops-but-not-the-war stance. Angry, I called them ignorant, naïve, hippie puppets.
After my tour of duty ended I hoped I was wrong, that I had written that letter out of my own ignorance. But the Berkeley city council proves everything I said in that letter was true. Thankfully, the American Legion and Move America Forward stood up and said “Enough.”
Groups like Code Pink and the Berkeley city council don't care about freedom. They only care about saddling another generation—my generation—with their hippie-loving propaganda.
Only 25, Seth Conner is an Iraq War combat veteran and a current student at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, California. After serving a tour in Japan and a combat tour in Iraq with the 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, the United States Marine Corps relieved Sgt. Seth Conner from military service in 2005 with an honorable discharge. In addition to pursuing his studies and writing career, Conner works part time at the Orange County Rescue Mission and also attends Nouveau Riche University in Scottsdale, Arizona, and works part time as a real estate investor. An active member of Saddleback Church, Conner takes semi-annual missions trips around the globe to minister to others and serve the less fortunate. Born and raised in Parker, Colorado, Seth Conner currently lives in Lake Forest, California. Boredom By Day, Death By Night is Conner’s first book. (fron Townhall.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
