Here you will find the rantings and ravings of yours truly. The topics covered will the items that interest ME. Don't expect "fair and balanced" coverage, because you won't get it. You may get headaches, heartburn, high blood pressure and / or shortness of breath. You will get honest, straightforward news and views according to ME! "We" (the editorial we) are politically incorrect - 24/7/365. We are non-partisan. We abuse everybody in some way, shape or form.

Sunday, July 28, 2013

When seconds, count...

When SECONDS count...
the Detroit Police are only 58 MINUTES AWAY!! (Source: USA TODAY)
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone!

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 27, 2010

OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT

OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT.
 
On Wednesday  (May 19) Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States


On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd
Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.


Obama can appear before the public and tell us that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

This has happened in other countries, past and present!


As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

 Read the Article

U.S. Reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Why You Need To Meet The Real John McCain




A message from
Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt,
Sr. Policy Advisor,
U.S. Dept. of Education
during the Reagan Administration


As a delegate to our state convention this coming weekend we have a solemn obligation to know the truth about the man who has been anointed the “presumptive nominee” of our party. Our job is not to be a rubber stamp for anyone else’s agenda, no matter how “nobly” the cause is presented. The Republican establishment in Maine is counting on us not having the documented information on this sheet. It is counting on our willingness to be told what to think in the same way that the mainstream media has been telling us what to think throughout this entire election cycle. We are expected to suspend any other concerns we may have in the name of “party unity.”



The truth is that a patriot who loves his country makes it an ultimate priority to be well-educated about the decisions he or she must make. Unless we have come to understand how dominated by the leftist military-industrial complex America’s major media has become, and done some research, we are not prepared to do our duty at the convention.




This letter, supported by many delegates to the Republican Convention, is literally about saving the party and the nation from a maniacal neoconservative war monger, who supports a United States presence in Iraq for 100 years, and who is not really even a Republican!



“War hero” image is a media creation not supported by the facts



McCain graduated 894th of the 899 cadets in his class at the Naval Academy. Google it. Why would we want someone who was a failure and took his responsibilities so flippantly as our commander-in-chief?



McCain was an irresponsible pilot who crashed 6 planes, and started a major fire on an aircraft carrier through negligent action. Why would we want someone this reckless in the most-important office on the planet?



McCain collaborated with the enemy, was given “soft” treatment because his father was an admiral, and is known as “Songbird McCain” by those who were imprisoned with him. (
http://vietnamveteransagainstmccain.com) He is the MIA/POW family’s worst enemy for his constant attempts to belittle their concerns and stifle their inquiries while serving in the Senate.



McCain ditched his ill wife to marry an heiress when he returned from Vietnam




Is this the type of morality we Republicans condone? Is this type of heinous lack of loyalty we want in a President? He also has a track record of shocking verbal abuse, including screaming profanities against his Senate Republican colleagues. Senator Thad Cochran, MS, says “The thought of his being President sends a cold chill down my spine.” Other Senators relate times when McCain screamed four-letter obscenities right in their faces in the Senate cloak room, like Dick Shelby, Rick Santorum or Jim Imhofe. “The man is unhinged,” one senator said. “He is frighteningly unfit to be commander-in-chief.”



The truth is, John McCain is not even a Republican. He is a phony stalking horse who is a liberal in disguise. He not only can’t win this fall because he is so out of step with the majority of Americans and with the principled stands of Republicanism, but if we support this person for our nominee, he will likely destroy our party. Consider:



He was intimately involved in the “Keating 5” Savings & Loan scandal.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating ]

He has been endorsed by the liberal/leftist New York Times.

He is a big advocate of the extreme “green” global warming scare, and the economically horrific “solutions” being proposed by people like Al Gore.



He has promoted illegal amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.



His McCain-Feingold Bill has destroyed much of the rights of people to take part in the political process the way they see fit. This bill remains un-Constitutional and a major affront to the First Amendment protections on the right of free speech.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act ]


He is a big-time gun grabber who is an extreme advocate of restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights.



He opposes repeal of Roe v. Wade, and opposes a Constitutional amendment to protect all life.



He is no fiscal conservative, and he supports raising taxes on Social Security benefits.



He continues his aggressive support for the Iraq War, which costs the U.S. taxpayer $12 billion a month, even though only 34% of Americans support the war. (According to Paul Craig Roberts, Asst. Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, and vocal opponent of the Iraq War: 4,538 Americans have died in the war, 29,780 have been wounded, 300,000 soldiers are suffering from major depression, and 320,000 received brain injuries, all as a result of this unconstitutional and immoral war.)



We will hear much about “unity” at the Maine State Convention. However, it is very important that we understand that to unify behind this man is tantamount to nominating a Democrat. We can vote our consciences or abstain from voting.



John McCain did poorly in our Maine caucuses. By most estimates he got fewer than 20% of the delegates to the State Convention coming out of our caucuses and was soundly trounced by both Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul. McCain did not win a single county in the straw poll, with 15 counties going to Romney and one (Aroostook) going to Dr. Paul. McCain has little support nationally…there are never huge rallies for McCain, unless people are paid to show up. In short, he is a media creation and the darling of the Trotskyite neoconservative warmongers who have hijacked our party. He does not support our own platform!



Former Romney supporters who receive this info sheet DO NOT have to follow the “uncalled for” advice of the Massachusetts governor that you go over the cliff with support for this unstable man.



DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELF OR YOUR VOTE TO BE PROSTITUTED IN THE NAME OF PARTY UNITY. PUT YOUR COUNTRY FIRST!



Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and for being such an important part of our representative form of government -- the envy of the world!

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Clinton mailing attacks Obama on guns

By Ben Smith

Hillary Clinton has re-opened her sharp attack on Barack Obama's position on guns, with a mailer in Indiana that seeks to raise questions about him with both supporters and opponents of gun rights.

The mailing -- perhaps the sharpest-edged of Clinton's
five negative mail pieces in Indiana -- casts him as a typical politician, saying different things to different audiences. It also revives his damaging comments in San Francisco that small town people cling to guns.

Then, making the harsh case more broadly, the mailer asks: "What does Barack Obama really believe?"

The piece is particularly striking coming from Clinton, who has been seen for most of her career as a firm advocate of gun control, but more recently has emerged -- without dramatically shifting her stance on specific issues -- as a defender of the Second Amendment who fondly recalled being taught to shoot by her grandfather in Scranton.

Ben Smith is a columnist at www.politico.com
e-mail: bsmith@politico. com


Labels: , , , , ,

Gun Control Poll from PollingPoint.com

Gun Control Results

The shootings at Virginia Tech in the spring of 2007 left the nation reeling. PollingPoint asked for your views on this tragic event and what it implies for gun control in America. Most of you believe that tougher gun laws could not have prevented the shootings at Virginia Tech.


In a recent PollingPoint survey, 72% of you told us that tougher gun laws could not have prevented the Virginia Tech tragedy, compared to 21% of you who believe that tougher gun laws could have helped. 7% of you are not sure whether tougher gun laws could have prevented the shootings. The gender divide is apparent in your views on gun control and the Virginia Tech tragedy. While only 15% of men believe that tougher gun control could have prevented the shooting, more than double the amount - 34% - of women think that tougher gun control could have helped.

Do you think tougher gun control laws could have prevented the shootings at Virginia Tech?
http://www.pollingpoint.com/result/7

We asked you what you thought is more important – protecting the right of Americans to own guns or controlling gun ownership. Most of you (68%) think that protecting the right to own guns is more important, while 29% believe that controlling gun ownership is more important. Race appears to be a strong factor in how you view this question. More whites (68%) believe that protecting gun ownership is more important than controlling it (28%), while blacks are likely to say that controlling gun ownership is more important (57% versus 38%).

What do you think is more important - protecting the right of Americans to own guns or controlling gun ownership?
http://www.pollingpoint.com/result/7

One question raised by the Virginia Tech tragedy is the relationship of violent movies and video games to crime. We asked you whether you think such movies and video games inspire mentally unstable people to commit acts of violence like the Virginia Tech shooting. Nearly half of you report that violence in video games and movies does encourage some people to violence (49%), while about a third (35%) believes that violence in such media has no effect.

Do you think violent movies and video games inspire mentally unstable people to commit acts of violence like the shootings at Virginia Tech?
http://www.pollingpoint.com/result/7

We also asked you about your views toward political candidates who support gun control. Across the board, most of you say that you would not support a presidential candidate who favors stricter gun laws (61%). Interestingly, we also see a huge gender difference: men overwhelmingly say that they are less likely to support political candidates who favor gun control (73% less likely, 17% more likely), while women are about evenly split in their views on this issue (36% less likely, 39% more likely).

Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate for president who favors stricter gun control laws
?
http://www.pollingpoint.com/result/7

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Ron Paul Leads the Fight to Defend and Restore the Second Amendment




by Larry Pratt
- Executive Director
- Gun Owners of America

Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s pro-gun credentials are impeccable and he has been a leading proponent of rolling back the past 40 years of gun control.

Ron Paul has represented areas near Houston, Texas for nearly 20 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. He has the reputation of the paramount defender of the Constitution and seeks to follow it in casting every one of his votes.

Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the following:

* the Brady law;
* the requirement to lock up your safety (guns);
* the law permitting the US to be part of the UN (which, among other attacks on American freedoms, seeks to ban privately transfered firearms);
* participation in UNESCO — which has been used to dumb down US education standards;
* the federal prohibition on importation of guns on a sporting basis test;
* federal prohibitions on any pilot wishing to carry a handgun to and in his cockpit; and,
* the so-called “assault weapons” ban (prior to its sunsetting in 2004).

Paul also has sponsored legislation requiring states to treat the concealed carry permit of one state the same as they do that state’s driver’s license.

Paul has viewed his opposition to a national ID card as a protection for gun owners. A national ID card would most likely identify the bearer as a gun owner, among other things of interest to government officials.

Paul acknowledges his underdog status in the 2008 presidential race. He argues that he is offering himself as a pro-Second Amendment alternative to the candidates who have initially led the field, none of whom have a pro-gun record. Paul hopes to use his long experience in raising grassroots support to gain sufficient funding to become the pro-gun alternative to the current leaders of the field.

Ron Paul is a Medical Doctor who for years even as a member of Congress continued practicing as an obstetrician. He is married and has five children, 17 grandchildren and one great-grandchild.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

BATFE Spends $3 Million to Ruin gunshop


By Mark Anderson


TWIN FALLS, Idaho—Ryan Horsley seems confident that he will triumph over a government shakedown that has cost his family business about $200,000 in legal fees, as he fights to keep Red’s Trading Post, a fourth-generation firearms store, in operation.


Red’s is Idaho’s oldest surviving firearms dealership. Sometime this summer, federal judge Ed Lodge, who’s best known for presiding over the dramatic Randy Weaver case, will decide if the federal government is right in claiming that Red’s “willfully” violated the law by making a relatively small number of clerical mistakes in its firearms sales records.


The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (BATFE), a relic of the prohibition days whose modern-day legitimacy is an open question, has been poring through the store’s sales records since at least 2005, looking for such “willful” clerical violations.


Although Horsley at first thought that the BATFE would not push the matter into court, in order to avoid any bad publicity that may accompany a ruling contrary to the government’s position, the matter did go to court on March 3-4, 2008 in Boise—about a year to the day since the battle heated up.


In early March of 2007, the federal agency revoked Red’s Federal Firearms License, but a judge granted an injunction against the BATFE to halt that process, thereby allowing Red’s to continue operating in Twin Falls, where another firearms dealer, Blue Lake Sporting Goods, was shut down by the BATFE. In that case, the store turned in its FFL and buckled under the weight of legal expenses.


Horsley, a particularly irrepressible man who so far has resisted what could easily have plowed his store under, told AFP on March 26 that he feels good about the court proceedings, believing that the government did not convince Judge Lodge that the store is a menace to public safety and deserves having its FFL revoked.


The FFL allows dealers to buy and sell firearms; revoking it would doom the store. Horsley also recalled that when the BATFE first tried to revoke the FFL, it claimed that Red’s was a “threat to public safety” but turned around and said that Red’s still could sell the 1,000 or so firearms already in stock—as long as it did not order additional guns to sell.


“You see what I’m up against?” Horsley said. Horsley’s attorney, Richard Gardiner, told AFP that Red’s largest number of clerical errors on BATFE Form 4473 involved something simple, such as not listing the county of residence of the gun-buyers. But he added that all these forms included zip codes. Many of the purchasers are from Twin Falls County, which has a city of the same name.


Gardiner thinks that Red’s practices do not break federal regulations in listing only the city (plus the zip code), even if the county of residence is sometimes not listed.


“We take the position that the regulations do not require both [city and county]” Gardiner said.


So, why did the BATFE bring what appears to be a weak case to court? Horsley’s view is that the agency cannot very well spend $3 million just on its case against Red’s—to try to revoke an FFL that cost the store just $300 every three years to maintain—and then drop the matter.


“If they just back off, they would have nothing to show for it,” Horsley said, as he struggled to comprehend why $3 million in taxpayer dollars have been spent on a case where no evidence has been found to suggest that Red’s has knowingly put guns into the hands of criminals or committed some other serious act.


Horsley feels the BATFE simply is trying to portray Red’s as a bad place, which, however, is a little tough, considering that local police officers have worked there.


“Many times we’ve had part-time law enforcement officers working for us,” Horsley said.


The local sheriff, Wayne Tousley, told AFP in a 2007 interview that, as the chief law enforcement officer of Twin Falls County, the BATFE is supposed to come to him first to conduct its investigations. But he said then that the agency typically bypasses him.


Reach Mark Anderson at truthhound2@yahoo.com

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Benz Speaks! - - Your federal tax dollars at work

Since March, 2007 ATF has spent over $3 million trying to close down a small gun store in south central Idaho. Good thing it isn't a church or they would have to bring in the tanks and burn it down.

Ah, yes! Another shining example of your federal government at work!

The whole story is detailed in the following posting.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, April 7, 2008

Benz Speaks! - "Moses" dies - I will grieve!



Legendary film star and gun-rights advocate Charlton Heston died Saturday at his Beverly Hills home. He was 84. Let us remember the man through his words.






The Second Amendment:
AMERICA'S FIRST FREEDOM



Charlton Heston addressed a blistering attack on media bias during a speech to the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. Following is the full text of Mr. Heston's address.



"Today I want to talk to you about guns: Why we have them, why the Bill of Rights guarantees that we can have them, and why my right to have a gun is more important than your right to rail against it in the press.



I believe every good journalist needs to know why the Second Amendment must be considered more essential than the First Amendment. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the right to keep and bear arms is not archaic. It's not an outdated, dusty idea some old dead white guys dreamed up in fear of the Redcoats. No, it is just as essential to liberty today as it was in 1776. These words may not play well at the Press Club, but it's still the gospel down at the comer bar and grill.



And your efforts to undermine the Second Amendment, to deride it and degrade it, to readily accept diluting it and eagerly promoted redefining it, threaten not only the physical well-being of millions of Americans but also the core concept of individual liberty our founding fathers struggled to perfect and protect.



So now you know what doubtless does not surprise you. I believe strongly in the right of every law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms, for what I think are good reasons.



The original amendments we refer to as the Bill of Rights contain ten of what the constitutional framers termed unalienable rights. These rights are ranked in random order and are linked by their essential equality. The Bill of Rights came to us with blinders on. It doesn't recognize color, or class, or wealth. It protects not just the rights of actors, or editors, or reporters, but extends even to those we love to hate.



That's why the most heinous criminals have rights until they are convicted of a crime. The beauty of the Constitution can be found in the way it takes human nature into consideration. We are not a docile species capable of co-existing within a perfect society under everlasting benevolent rule.



We are what we are. Egotistical, corruptible, vengeful, sometimes even a bit power mad. The Bill of Rights recognizes this and builds the barricades that need to be in place to protect the individual.



You, of course, remain zealous in your belief that a free nation must have a free press and free speech to battle injustice, unmask corruption and provide a voice for those in need of a fair and impartial forum.



I agree wholeheartedly... a free press Is vital to a free society. But I wonder: How many of you will agree with me that the right to keep and bear arms is not just equally vital, but the most vital to protect all the other rights we enjoy?



I say the Second Amendment is. in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all of the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows "rights" to exist at all.



Either you believe that, or you don't, and you must decide.



Because there is no such thing as a free nation where police and military are allowed the force of arms but individual citizens are not. That's a "big brother knows best" theater of the absurd that has never boded well for the peasant class, the working class, or even for reporters.



Yes, our Constitution provides the doorway for your news and commentary to pass through free and unfettered. But that doorway to freedom is framed by the muskets that stood between a vision of liberty and absolute anarchy at a place called Concord Bridge. Our revolution began when the British sent Redcoats door to door to confiscate the peoples' guns. They didn't succeed: The muskets went out the back door with their owners.



Emerson said it best:


By the rude bridge that arched the flood,

Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,

Here once the embattled farmers stood,

And fired the shot heard round the world.'



King George called us 'rabble in arms.' But with God's grace, George Washington and many brave men gave us our country. Soon after, God's grace and a few great men gave us our Constitution. It's been said that the creation of the United States is the greatest political act in history. I'll sign to that.


In the next two centuries, though, freedom did not flourish. The next revolution, the French, collapsed in the bloody terror, then Napoleon's tyranny. There's been no shortage of dictators since, in many countries. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot. All these monsters began by confiscating private arms, then literally soaking the earth with the blood of tens and tens of millions of their people. And, the joys of gun control.



Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder. Yet in essence that is what you have asked our loved ones to do, through an ill-contrived and totally naive campaign against the Second Amendment.



Besides, how can we entrust to you the Second Amendment, when you are so stingy with your own First Amendment?



I say this because of the way, in recent days, you have treated your own - those journalists you consider the least among you. How quick you've been to finger the paparazzi with blame and to eye the tabloids with disdain. How eager you've been to draw a line where there is none, to demand some distinction within the First Amendment that sneers 'they are not one of us.' How readily you let your lesser brethren take the fall, as if their rights were not as worthy, and their purpose not as pure, and their freedom not as sacred as yours.



So now, as politicians consider new laws to shackle and gag paparazzi, who among you will speak up? Who here will stand and defend them? if you won't I will. Because you do not define the First Amendment. It defines you. And it is bigger than you - big enough to embrace all of you, plus all those you would exclude. That's how freedom works.



It also demands you do your homework. Again and again I hear gun owners say how can we believe anything the anti-gun media says when they can't even get the facts right? For too long you have swallowed manufactured statistics and fabricated technical support from anti-gun organizations that wouldn't know a semi-auto from a sharp stick. And it shows. You fall for it every time.



That's why you have very little credibility among 70 million gun owners and 20 million hunters and millions of veterans who learned the hard way which end the bullet comes out. And while you attacked the amendment that defends your homes and protects your spouses and children, you have denied those of us who defend all the Bill of Rights a fair hearing or the courtesy of an honest debate.



If the NRA attempts to challenge your assertions, we are ignored. And if we try to buy advertising time or space to answer your charges, more often than not we are denied. How's that for First Amendment freedom?



Clearly, too many have used freedom of the press as a weapon not only to strangle our free speech, but to erode and ultimately destroy the right to keep and bear arms as well. in doing so you promoted your profession to that of constitutional judge and jury, more powerful even than our Supreme Court, more prejudiced than the Inquisition's tribunals. It is a frightening misuse of constitutional privilege, and I pray that you will come to your senses and see that these abuses are curbed.



As a veteran of World War II, as a freedom marcher who stood with Dr. Martin Luther King long before it was fashionable, and a grandfather who wants the coming century to be free and full of promise for my grandchildren, I am... troubled.



The right to keep and bear arms is threatened by political theatrics, piecemeal lawmaking, talk show psychology, extreme bad taste in the entertainment industry, an ever-widening educational chasm in our schools and a conniving media, that all add up to cultural warfare against the idea that guns ever had, or should now have, an honorable and proud place in our society.



But all of our rights must be delivered into the 21st century as pure and complete as they came to us at the beginning of this century. Traditionally the passing of that torch is from a gnarled old hand down to an eager young one. So now, at 72, I offer my gnarled old hand.



I have accepted a call from the National Rifle Association of America to help protect the Second Amendment. I feel it is my duty to do that. My mission and vision can be summarized in three simple parts.



First, before we enter the next century, I expect to see a pro-Second Amendment president in the White House.



Secondly, I expect to build an NRA with the political muscle and clout to keep a pro-Second Amendment Congress in place.



Third, is a promise to the next generation of free Americans. I hope to help raise a hundred million dollars for NRA programs and education before the year 2000. At least half of that sum will go to teach American kids what the right to keep and bear arms really means to their culture and country.



We have raised a generation of young people who think that the Bill of Rights comes with their cable TV. Leave them to their channel surfing and they'll remain oblivious to history and heritage that truly matter.



Think about it - what else must young Americans think when the White House proclaims, as it did, that "a firearm in the hands of youth is a crime or an accident waiting to happen?" No - it is rime they learned that firearm ownership is constitutional, not criminal. in fact, few pursuits can teach a young person more about responsibility, safety, conservation, their history and their heritage, all at once.



It is time they found out that the politically correct doctrine of today has misled them. And that when they reach legal age, if they do not break our laws, they have a right to choose to own a gun - a handgun, a long gun, a small gun, a large gun, a black gun, a purple gun, an ugly gun - and to use that gun to defend themselves and their loved ones or to engage in any lawful purpose they desire without apology or explanation to anyone, ever.



This is their first freedom. If you say it's outdated, then you haven't read your own headlines. If you say guns create only carnage, I would answer that you know better. Declining morals, disintegrating families, vacillating political leadership, an eroding criminal justice system and social mores that blur right and wrong are more to blame- certainly more than any legally owned firearm.



I want to rescue the Second Amendment from an opportunistic president, and from a press that apparently can't comprehend that attacks on the Second Amendment set the stage for assaults on the First.



I want to save the Second Amendment from all these nit-picking little wars of attrition - fights over alleged Saturday night specials, plastic guns, cop killer bullets and so many other made-for-prime-time non-issues invented by some press agent over at gun control headquarters that you guys buy time and again.



I simply cannot stand by and watch a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States come under attack from those who either can't understand it, don't like the sound of it, or find themselves too philosophically squeamish to see why it remains the first among equals: Because it is the right we turn to when all else fails.



That's why the Second Amendment is America's first freedom.



Please, go forth and tell the truth. There can be no free speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom to protest, no freedom to worship your god, no freedom to speak your mind, no freedom from fear, no freedom for your children and for theirs, for anybody, anywhere, without the Second Amendment freedom to fight for it.



If you don't believe me, just turn on the news tonight. Civilization's veneer is wearing thinner all the time.




Charlton Heston's NRA Keynote Speech


May 1999


"I have been advised not to be here. I apologize for this disruption, but from our friends in the national press corps, we have received some very good late-breaking news. According to reports Yugoslavia has agreed to release our three American P.O.W.'s, perhaps, this note says, within 24 hours. That's the best news we could have.


I was advised not to be here, not to speak to you here, that's not the first time. In 1963, I marched on Washington with Dr. Martin Luther King, long before Hollywood found civil rights, um, fashionable. My associates advised me not to go. They said it would be unpopular, and may be dangerous. Thirty-six years later, my associates advised me not to come to Denver. They said it would be unpopular, and may be dangerous. Here I am. Let me tell you why...


I see our country teetering on the edge of an abyss. At its bottom brews the simmering bile of deep, dark hatred. Hatred that's dividing our country: politically, racially, economically, geographically, in every way- whether it's political vendettas, sports brawls, corporate takeovers, or high school gangs in cleats, the American competitive ethic has changed from 'let's beat the other guy, to let's destroy the other guy.' Too many, too many are too willing to stigmatize and demonize others for political advantage, for money or for ratings. The vilification is savage. This week, Representative John Conyers slandered three million Americans when he called the NRA 'merchants of death' on national television as our first lady nodded in agreement.


A hideous cartoon by Mike Peters ran nationally, it showed childrens' dead bodies sprawled out to spell N-R-A. The countless requests we've received this last week or so for media appearances are in fact, summons to public floggings, where those who hate firearms will, predictably don the white hat and give us the black one. This harvest of hatred is then sold as news. As entertainment. As government policy. Such hateful, divisive forces are leading us to one awful end--America's own form of Balkanization. A weakened country of rabid factions, each less free, united only by hatred of one another.


In the past ten days, we've seen the these brutal blows attempting to fracture America into two such camps. Now one camp would be the majority- people who believe our founders guaranteed our security with the right to defend ourselves, our families, and our country. The other camp would be a large minority of people who believe that we will buy security--if we would just surrender these freedoms. This debate would be accurately described as those who believe in the Second Amendment versus those who don't but instead it is spun as those who believe in murder versus those who don't.


A struggle between the reckless and the prudent, between the dim-witted and the progressive. Between inferior citizens who know, and elitists who know what's good for society. But we're not the rustic, reckless radicals they wish for. No, the NRA spans the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotyping, except for love of country. Look in your mirror, your shopping mall, your church, your grocery store--that's us. Millions of ordinary people and extraordinary people. War heroes, sports idols, several U.S. Presidents, and, yes, movie stars.
But the screeching hyperbole leveled at gun owners has made these two camps so wary of each other, so hostile and confrontational and disrespectful on both sides they have forgotten that we are first Americans. I am asking all of us, on both sides, to take one step back from the edge, than another step and another... however many it takes to get back to the place where we are all Americans. Different...different, imperfect, diverse, but one nation, indivisible.


This cycle of tragedy-driven hatred must stop, because so much more connects us than that which divides us because tragedy has been, and will always be with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it, but each horrible act can't become an ax for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us. America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction. when an isolated, terrible event occurs, our phones ring, demanding that the NRA explain the inexplicable. Why us? Because their story needs a villain. They want us to play the heavy in their drama of packaged grief. To provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food.


The dirty secret of this day and age is that political gain and media ratings all to often bloom on fresh graves. I remember a better day, where no one dared politicize or profiteer on trauma. We kept a respectful distance then, as NRA has tried to do now. Simply being silent is so often the right thing to do. But today, carnage comes with a catchy title, splashy graphics, regular promos and a reactionary passage of legislation. Reporters perch like vultures on the balconies of hotels for a hundred miles around. Cameras jockey for shocking angles as news anchors race to drench their microphones with the tears of victims.


Injury, shock, grief and despair shouldn't be brought to you by sponsors. That's pornography. It trivializes the tragedy it abuses. It abuses vulnerable people, and maybe worst of all, it makes the unspeakable seem commonplace. And we're often cast as the villain. That is not our role in American society, and we will not be forced to play it.


Our mission is to remain, as our Vice-President said, a steady beacon of strength and support for the Second Amendment even if it has no other friend on this planet. We cannot, we must not let tragedy lay waste to the most rare, and hard-won human right in history. A nation cannot gain safety by giving up freedom. This truth is older than our country. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin said that.


Now, if you like your freedoms of speech and of religion, freedom from search and seizure, freedom of the press, and of privacy, to assemble, and to redress grievances, then you'd better give them that eternal bodyguard called the Second Amendment.


The individual right to bear arms is freedom's insurance policy. Not just for your children, but for infinite generations to come. That is it's singular sacred duty, and why we preserve it so fiercely. Now, no, it's not a right without rational restrictions, and it's not for everyone. Only the law-abiding majority of society deserves the Second Amendment.


Abuse it once, and lose it forever. That's the law. But, curiously, the NRA is far more eager to prosecute gun abusers than are those who oppose gun ownership altogether. As if the tool could be more evil than the evil-doers. I don't understand that. The NRA also spends more and works harder than anybody in America to promote safe, responsible use of firearms. From 38,000 certified instructors, training millions of police, hunters, women and youths, to 500 law-enforcement agencies promoting our Eddie Eagle gun-safety program Wen told you about distributed to eleven million kids-eleven million and counting.


But our essential reason for being is this: as long as there is a Second Amendment, evil can never conquer us, tyranny in any form can never find footing within a society of law-abiding, armed, ethical people. The majesty of the Second Amendment that our founders so divinely captured and crafted into your birthright guarantees that no government despot, no renegade faction of armed forces, no roving gangs of criminals, no breakdown of law and order, no massive anarchy, no force of evil or crime or oppression from within or from without can ever rob you of the liberties that define your Americanism.


And, so, when they ask you well, indeed you would uh, bear arms against Government tyranny? The answer is no. That could never happen, precisely because we have the Second Amendment. Let me be absolutely clear. The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom, because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brain-washing, ethnic cleansing, or especially submission to the wanton will of criminals.


The Second Amendment, there can be no more precious inheritance- that's what the NRA preserves.


Now, if you disagree, that's your right. I respect that. But, we will not relinquish it, or be silenced about it, or be told: 'Do not come here, you are unwelcome in your own land.'


Let us go from this place, this huge room, renewed in spirit and dedicated against hatred. We have work to do, hearts to heal, evil to defeat, and a country to unite. We may have differences, yes, and we will again suffer tragedy almost beyond description. But when the sun sets on Denver tonight, and forevermore, let it always set on we the people, secure in our land of the free, and home of the brave.


I, for one, plan to do my part.


Thank You."

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, March 8, 2008

What if the 1st Amendment were treated like the 2nd?



Since the Federal government has a huge regulatory agency charged with the regulation and taxing of a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment why not expand it or create a new agency charged with regulation and taxing of the 1st Amendment? It seems entirely in line with those that admit we have an individual right to own firearms but claim that right can be restricted. Those same type of regulations should be considered "reasonable" when applied to the 1st Amendment, right?

Doesn't having to get a license involving fingerprints and a background check before you can attend church sound like a good idea? Opening a new church would, of course, require a license, an environment impact statement, and noise abatement plans. And no churches could be located within five miles of a school or public park.

You should fill out the equivalent of a 4473 and get a NICS check before you can write a letter to the editor. And of course there would be a government mandated 10 business day waiting period before it could be published.

All the complaints about the lies by the media would all be solved if we just had better government regulation. Reporters and editors of all media types would be required to keep meticulous records in bound books showing they had properly researched each story. The books could be viewed by government inspectors anytime there was a claim of a falsehood in a story. The entire news organization would have all their computers, printing presses, and printed material seized before they even heard the specifics of the "Federal Press Laws Violations" let alone had their day in court.

"Free-Speech Free Zones" would extend for 1000 feet around schools and in our National Parks. Anyone with a pamphlet, newspaper, magazine, voice or music projection device, Bible, or any other religious printed matter or symbols within ready access of an occupant of a vehicle could be charged with a crime.

That's just a very, very small sample of what would be possible if the analogs of the laws and regulations imposed on the 2nd Amendment were imposed on the 1st Amendment.

Remember what Alan Dershowitz had to say:

Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of safety hazard don't see the danger of the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.

Alan DershowitzQuoted in Dan Gifford
The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason
62 TENN. L. REV. 759 (1995)

-- Joe Huffman
http://blog.joehuffman.org/

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, February 25, 2008

An interview with Hugh Downs




Hugh Downs on libertarianism: "The basic
philosophy, I find attractive and needed."


Hugh Downs is one of America's most respected and honored television personalities. He began his extraordinary TV career in 1956 as an announcer on Sid Caesar's Hour. After stints on The Tonight Show and The Today Show, he spent 21 years as co-host of the popular ABC news magazine 20/20 (1978-1999). On 20/20, he frequently shared a stage with self-professed libertarian correspondent John Stossel. Since his retirement from network television in 1999, Downs has taught journalism, edited a book, and lectured around the country.


To the freedom movement, Downs is known as perhaps the highest-profile media figure to praise libertarian ideas. In 1997, he famously said, "All the really good ideas belong to the libertarians." In 1998, he said, "From a historical perspective, all Americans are libertarians." Although Downs does not describe himself as a libertarian, he has also editorialized against the War on Drugs and in favor of the Second Amendment.


Downs spoke at the Advocates for Self-Government's 20th Anniversary Celebration in Atlanta, Georgia (October 14-16, 2005). In addition to a lunchtime speech, Downs dropped in to listen to two-time Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne speak on "The Seduction of Force." (The two had communicated during Browne's 2000 presidential campaign, but had not previously met.)


On Saturday, October 15, 2005, Downs sat down for an interview with Bill Winter, the Advocates' director of communications. The two talked about the appeal of libertarianism, the proper role of government, decriminalizing marijuana, the war in Iraq, and how to spread libertarian ideas.


Bill Winter: How did you first hear about libertarian ideas?Hugh Downs: I don't remember where I first heard about it. But I do remember feeling that there were threads of that thought in what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set up this nation. And that kind of appealed to me.After I had done 20/20 for a while, we had the chance to gain John Stossel on the program, and that was very interesting to watch [him]. Philosophically he's a libertarian. And that interested me, too.The way the nation has evolved now, from the government's standpoint, there's a real need for that kind of philosophy to come back into it. I can't say that I am in agreement with everything that is said -- possibly because in some cases I don't understand fully what [libertarians] are saying -- but still, the basic philosophy I find attractive and needed.


BW: Let me follow up on that. What are the areas of libertarianism you find most appealing?


HD: Well, the sovereignty of the individual is extremely important. And I grieve for the type of person who may be so baffled or battered that he wants to surrender his sovereignty to some guru or some government.[There was a newspaper in] Phoenix -- I live in that area -- where this guy had written in and said he thought the public knows too much. And he said, "I don't want to know everything. I trust my government and I trust they have all the necessary knowledge, and they'll do the right thing." And I said, that's the most alarming thing I've read for quite a while. Mostly because the writer is not unique. And we've got people like that, and that's a great danger.


BW: There's something almost un-American about what he wrote.


HD: I think there is. You're absolutely right. You know what it reminded me of? After the Soviet Union really began to seriously come apart, there was a big flood of people who came to New York and became cab drivers, for some reason or other. I was in a cab with this guy whose English was pretty fair, and he was complaining about America. Because he said, "You know, you have to go get yourself a job; the government doesn't tell you where you're going to work." And then he said, "And then there's these newspapers; they've got differing views, and you're not told which view is correct."Now, that was the result of 70 years of Communist oppression. But he thought he would have been more comfortable going back into Russia. Because people don't understand liberty if they've had two or three generations of not having it. Even though, if the oppression is bad enough, they can thirst for relief -- and people came from Europe to the New World to gain that benefit.But I hate to see that creeping back. That kind of desire to give up your sovereignty


.BW: So, individual sovereignty, you find very appealing. What area of libertarianism are you most doubtful about?


HD: Listening to Harry Browne, who is a man I respect enormously, things popped into my head when he mentioned something about the government not doing anything worthwhile -- which is just about right! I've always felt that there's a role for government, and there is some role for a federal government.If you adopt the view that I've always practiced -- that the government is us -- and there is a community of people who have gotten together and have agreed on certain forms of behavior, and agreed that people who tend to break that (once the agreement is there) have got to be dealt with. There's got to be some kind of a system of justice.So there is a role for government, and I can't quite adopt a view that no government at all would result in anything but anarchy.To the extent that government suffers corruption, then, yes, the libertarian ideas are right. But I've always thought there was a role for the federal government even in the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]. You know, before ballooning, hot-air ballooning did not come under the jurisdiction of the FAA. And the result was a lot of people got killed because they didn't have the rules you have [today]. When the FAA was functioning properly, it was a force for good, and it represented an example of where the government did do something good. And you have to keep an eye on it, because it can become corrupt over time.But I can't abandon the idea that a government of some sort is almost a necessity for civilization.


BW: Let me clear up a possible misconception. Most libertarians would call themselves "minarchists," which means they believe in a minimum government. Some libertarians call themselves "constitutionalists," and they believe in the kind of small government this country originally had, at the time of the Founding Fathers. There are a small percentage of libertarians who might call themselves anarchists. Most libertarians would argue we want to return government to the ideas the Founding Fathers had, which was a much more limited government, obviously, than we have today. But it doesn't get rid of it completely. I agree: there are certainly legitimate things the government must do. Then the debate is, how many of those things are there, and how do you keep [government] from getting even bigger than that? Which I think is the central question of all politics: What is the legitimate role of government?


HD: It's possible that some of the libertarians you mentioned, in the different categories, may have an idea that I would love to see: That people are responsible enough to live together amicably, without a government that sees to it that they do obey the rules agree upon by the community.It might be naive to think that. Knowing human nature, as I think I do, it wouldn't work.


BW: How would you describe yourself politically?


HD: I think about what was said by Will Rogers, "I'm not a member of any organized political party; I'm a Democrat."I've never aligned myself with any party affiliation. I've voted for the person who ran for office. I was born into a kind of Republican family. But by the time I was 18 I didn't go along with that too much. And as a result, I tend to vote a little more in the Democratic way.But I think, kind of, a pox on both of their houses lately. And I think that's one of the things that led me to examine libertarianism a little more closely.


BW: What would you say is the greatest threat to liberty in America today?


HD: Voter apathy. Complacency. The fact that an almost rogue administration can make the inroads in our liberty like this one has done, with things like the Patriot Act. That's extremely alarming to me. And I'm alarmed that my industry -- mass media -- isn't doing its job, and alerting people to what really is going on. And that's, to my mind, the biggest threat to liberties in our country.


BW: One of my questions was going to be: Do you think the media is doing a good job alerting us to the dangers? And you've already answered that. Why aren't they? Why isn't the media doing a better job of alerting us about the dangers of the Patriot Act, and the lies involving the war in Iraq, and the rise of religious fundamentalism?


HD: There is no simple answer to that; there are several things. One is journalistic fashion. One is ratings and commercial aspects of [media]. Another is the ownership of media -- enormous conglomerates who are pretty set in what they want said and what they want the public to hear. All these factors, I think, conspire to a certain extent in making journalism less than it has been. And less than it ought to be.


BW: In one of your radio commentaries, you spoke out against the War on Drugs and explicitly called for the decriminalization of marijuana. Why did you come to that conclusion? And what kind of response did you get to that commentary?


HD: First of all, I am against smoking marijuana, because I don't think anybody ought to draw leaf smoke into their lungs. That's bad. And marijuana smoking might be almost as bad as regular cigarette smoking. So I'm against it.But I'm always amused at the drug warriors who, for some reason, have gotten mired in something very ancillary that got started in 1935, when [Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger] gave enough cannabis to a dog to kill it, and tried to prove a point that way.And [some] people say, "Well, it's a gateway. Eighty percent of hard drug users started on marijuana." That's a nonsense statement! A hundred percent of hard drug users started on milk. What is the connection? It's just not there.So I did feel that if we could get [drugs] under the law, it would be much better. Imagine a teenage ghetto kid who said, "I don't want to do drugs at all, I want to do alcohol." You know, the easiest thing for him to find is crack cocaine on any street corner. But where would he find a bootlegger? He couldn't. He'd have to go into a liquor store or a bar, and they wouldn't serve him. Because those things are under the law. As soon as you outlaw it, you lose control of it.


BW: What kind of reaction did you get to that commentary? I seem to recall hearing later that you said, "The hammer came down."


HD: Well, yeah. And not from the public so much. A preponderance of the public agreed with me, but the network--. That was ABC Radio, and they were very concerned about that.


BW: One of the arguments against even talking about decriminalizing drugs is that you're condoning their use. If you say, for example, the war on marijuana causes more problems than it solves, it's not uncommon for the Drug Czar to say, "Ah-hah! You're encouraging kids to smoke marijuana!" Did you get any of that reaction?


HD: Yes, I did. I got some. And some from viewers. Although, I repeat, it wasn't like the whole public rose up against what I had [to say]. There was a lot more sympathy out there than I expected. That didn't mean that the powers-that-be weren't upset by it.


BW: Another issue that libertarians are very concerned about is the war in Iraq. In your speech at lunch, you seemed to suggest very strongly that you were opposed to that as well. Why?


HD: I can't imagine how anybody could be in favor of it. It was so patently wrong. People who later said, "We were duped..." You know, they said, "We were duped, we were taken in, and now we know." And I said, "Who is the we? I wasn't taken in by that!" That was nonsense from the beginning.Same with the Vietnam War. Even John Kerry, he said, "I finally came to realize that it was wrong." I may be lucky, but I realized how wrong that was at the very beginning. The French got out [of Vietnam] at Dien Bien Phu in 1954; why didn't we have the sense to follow that kind of wisdom? It was another example of a terribly misguided action on the part of government.


BW: If you were the president right now, what would you do about our presence in Iraq?


HD: I'll tell you why I would bring the troops home. There are several options -- all of them bad. And when you look at the option of bringing the troops home right away, you got to admit it's a terrible option -- there would be an awful, immediate increase in bloodshed. But I examined the other options, one by one, and they are all worse. And if we insist on staying there, that's the worse thing we can do. So, I think, yeah, it's going to be awful, but I'd like to bring them home.


BW: You've made your living as a communicator. How do you think libertarians could do a better job of trying to communicate our ideas to the American public, so more people are willing to listen to them and embrace them?


HD: You know, I've wondered. I can't say I've pondered that, but your asking me triggers this thought.I've wondered if there would be a way for libertarians to establish a libertarian radio station, to start with. And have the whole thing where people would tune in and then say, "Hey, yeah, that's right." And then more people would tune in. I think it could even be supported by the commercial system that supports progressive talk radio now.It might be a way to get a third stream going that would offset what's wrong now in mass media, with the big corporate ownership, and so forth.


BW: Actually, the good news is that the libertarian movement is already heading in that direction. There are some very, very popular libertarian talk show hosts around the country. But they do tend to be, sort of, one-by-one, as opposed to a block of talk show hosts, with a libertarian following a libertarian following a libertarian.Now, going back to my original question -- how to communicate these ideas -- I'm actually thinking more on a one-on-one basis. You mentioned this fellow who wrote the letter to the editor, who thinks Americans know too much, and he trusts his government to take care of him. Which is scary! That letter-writer seems afraid of liberty. And I think that's one of libertarians' biggest challenges. How do we overcome the fear that people have of liberty? How do we reassure them that a free market and private charity and voluntary cooperation can work as good or better than most government programs? How do we overcome that fear factor?


HD: Eloquence is one answer, and I just heard it in listening to Harry's speech.You might persuade some people, but that's a very deep-seated thing. A person so lacking in having his act together that he is ready to surrender his sovereignty to some government, God help us, I don't know whether you could have the time to convince that person.But if [libertarian ideas are] hovering in the air, more and more people will begin to say, "Hey, yeah, maybe that's it." You will never persuade the guy who wrote that letter--


BW: We've written him off already!


HD: [Laughs.] It'd be nice to cut down the number of that kind of people who think that.


BW: Let me end with a lighthearted question. When you were on 20/20, you got to see all the reports that John Stossel -- one of our favorite libertarian correspondents -- used to file. Did you agree with everything he said, or did you sometimes think, "He's going too far!"


HD: I never thought he's going too far. I admired what he did. I loved his style! He was interviewing this prisoner one time who had gone to the law library in the prison, and he sued the prison system because they had supplied him with chunky peanut butter -- and he wanted the smooth.And I remember John said, "So what? You're a criminal!"[Laughs.] It was a beautiful moment.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Welcome Note

Welcome to A Case of the Benz !

Here you will find the rantings and ravings of yours truly. The topics covered will the items that interest ME. Don't expect "fair and balanced" coverage, because you won't get it. You may get headaches, heartburn, high blood pressure and / or shortness of breath. You will get honest, straightforward news and views according to ME!

"We" (the editorial we) are politically incorrect - 24/7/365.
We are non-partisan. We abuse everybody in some way, shape or form.

Allen Benz
a-benz
A Case of the Benz

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,