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
Thursday, March 27, 2008
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-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
