"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Friday, September 23, 2005

Why Are Democrats Anti-God?

Will Malven

Thursday the House of Representatives voted 231-184 to approve the latest Head Start Bill, with only 23 Democrats voting in favor of approval.  Now as Head Start is one of the few programs upon which Republicans and Democrats agree is a good idea, what would prompt such a wholesale abandonment of this program by the Democrats?  Glad you asked; it was the presence of God.

No, I’m not saying that God appeared in the House yesterday and told them to vote no.  It was the fact that, included in the bill, was an amendment which would allow church associated pre-school providers to maintain their spiritual nature by considering a person’s faith in hiring. 

Now to me, this is simply logic.  I mean, the first thing I would ask is, what possible reason would anyone who was a non-believer have for wanting to work for a religious school?  I would think that any self-respecting atheist would avoid working for a church school at all costs.  That is unless they had a specific motive, such as causing trouble; same for a protestant attempting to work at a Catholic school.  Jobs are not hard to come by in teaching.  Most areas are desperate for teachers, even going so far as to certify professionals who have no formal training in education. 

So again it begs the question, what possible motive could anyone have for attempting to get a job at a religious school which was associated with a church antithetical to their own beliefs? This is not the first time that trouble makers have sought to impose their beliefs upon those with whom they do not agree.

Representative Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina put it this way,

“This is about our children, and denying them exemplary services just because the organization happens to be a religious one is just cruel.” 

Of course, as I have said before, Liberals don’t really care about what is good for people, they are much more concerned about their agenda and that agenda is patently anti-religion.  Democrats like Representative George Miller of California take exception with the provision saying,

“It is a violation of our civil rights laws and it has sunk the chances of making this a truly bipartisan bill.” 

As I said, agenda over children.  Alcee Hastings, D-Florida stated,

“Congress should not be in the business of supporting state-sponsored discrimination.” 

You're right Alcee, why should Americans care about the welfare of children when we can protect the civil rights of some mythical workers who might seek employment with a religious school?  It’s much more important to prevent a church related school from getting federal funds than it is to educate our children.   I wonder if Mr. Hastings strong belief in not supporting state-sponsored discrimination extends to affirmative action.  It is, after all, the most striking example of state-sponsored discrimination extant within our society.

As Representative John Boehner, R-Ohio put it, without changing the law,

“Faith based organizations are forced to relinquish their protected rights to hire individuals who share their beliefs.”

So why is it that Democrats, who vociferously maintain that they are just as religious as Republicans, fight so hard to eliminate the last vestiges of religion from all government functions?  Prayer in school?  It will offend some atheist or Muslim.  Display a nativity scene during Christmas?  Violates the “separation between church and state” clause of the First Amendment (will someone please show me this clause, cause I’ve looked and I can’t find it anywhere in there).  It goes on and on.

Anywhere, anytime Christianity shows itself, the Left, the ACLU, and the Democrat party are there to fight it.  “Religion belongs in the home,” we are told.  “It has no place in public.”  AP reporter Ben Feller says in his report that debate over the proposed Head Start oversight bill and the amendment centered not on oversight but on religion and civil rights.  Why is it that every special interest group with an axe to grind, whether real or imagined is championed by the Left and the Democrat party except Christians. 

Even Muslims, some of whom are demonstrably determined to destroy America, have more rights in the eyes of Liberals than those evil Christians.  Why don’t Christians have civil rights?  Why aren’t Christians allowed to pursue what they believe in while educating children?  Why are gays allowed to teach school while being openly gay, but if a Christian chooses to teach in a Christian environment, then they have no rights?

For Democrats, it seems always to be process over people.  It is more important to insure that civil rights principles are enforced than it is that children have a chance to improve their lives. 

Of course we know what this is actually all about, the Left is composed of people who want to feel free to live their lives in any manner they choose, and not have to feel guilty about it.  Because people with religious convictions, any religious convictions, have certain moral standards, they, by their very manner of living, sit in judgment of those who wish to live a more Bohemian existence.  This makes Liberals feel uncomfortable. 

Even though most Christians don’t even give those who choose to live the life of a libertine a second thought, Liberal’s own guilty consciences make them imagine that we are out here condemning them. 

Hint to Democrats: get over it!  We don’t care what you’re doing because you’re not that important.

There seems to be an irrational fear that Christians are trying to establish a national religion. 

Hint to Democrats:  We don’t want a national religion.  We all have our own sectarian beliefs, and we wish to be able to worship in the manner of our own choosing.  What we do want is the right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to exercise our own religious beliefs freely.  We believe in the First Amendment, we ardently believe that it should be rigidly enforced, all of it. 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

Too often, we see Democrats ardently quoting the first part of that clause but ignoring the last of it.  Democrats see any public display of religion as a threat.  A threat?  How can anyone who believes in religion, as Democrats so ardently protest they do, see public displays of faith as a threat? 

The sight of a person prayerfully seeking the assistance of God should be an encouraging sight to those Democrats as it should be to all people of faith.  Why should the “civil rights” of atheists trump those constitutionally protected rights of freedom to exercise of people of religion? 

The sad truth is, Democrats are afraid.  They’re afraid of anyone who enjoys the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights unless they are being controlled by those on the Left.  True freedom scares Liberals.  They are afraid of law abiding citizens with firearms, they are afraid of citizens who pray, they are afraid of citizens who want to start their own businesses and succeed, they are afraid of any American who chooses freedom over enslavement to the state. 

Hint to Democrats:  A life lived in fear is no life at all.

Our Founding Fathers believed that all of our Rights derived from a Divine Power.  They usually referred to this power as God.  Even Thomas Paine one of the favorites of the anti-God Left didn’t shy away from God.  In “Common Sense” he frequently refers to God and a Devine Power. 

Thomas Jefferson told us in the Declaration of Independence that we “are endowed by...[our]...Creator with certain unalienable Rights...”  There is no ambiguity in their words or their intent.  They believed that faith was critical to the success of our Republic. 

So I end as I began.  Why is it that Democrats are anti-God?

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Friday, September 16, 2005

Judge John G. Roberts: New York Times’ (and the Left’s) Federalist Society Straw Man Argument

Will Malven

In an editorial today, the “hightly respected” New York Times is asking whether or not Judge John G. Roberts is a member of the-hold on to your seats now-Federalist Society-ooh, aah, are you frightened yet?
The implication by the Left is that the Federalist Society is some sort of shadowy, cabalistic, perhaps even malevolent, group of hooded, incantation speaking, lawyer-sorcerers who, having sold their souls to the Devil, are intent on corrupting and taking over the Government of the United States.  Now once I move beyond my usual sarcastic attitude about trial lawyers and my tendency to say “Of course they are, they’re lawyers!” and move to consider the facts, I am reminded once again of the twisted nature of Liberal thinking.  During the Circuit Court Judge debates I witnessed allegedly intelligent, ethical, Democrat Senators asking rhetorically, if the judicial nominees were members of the “Federalist Society” as if to answer “Yes!” would be an admission that they were guilty of practicing of black magic.  “What is the Federalist Society?” They would ask.  “What is their aim?” 

Dick Durbin is the central figure in this cult investigation.  For some reason, he seems to believe that if he throws the words “Federalist Society” around often enough, people will take notice and become fearful of any judicial nominee thus affiliated. To quote Durbin:  "As we try to monitor the legal DNA of President Bush's nominees, we find repeatedly the Federalist Society chromosome, why is it that membership in the Federalist Society has become the secret handshake of the Bush nominees for the federal court?"  Further, in a 2001 hearing on President Bush’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Policy Development at the U.S. Department of Justice, Viet Dinh, Senator Durbin once more expressed his hesitancy to accept anyone associated with this mysterious organization called the Federalist Society by launching into the following tirade:

“You are a member of the Federalist Society. We find it curious on our side of the aisle that President Bush has said that he no longer wants to rely on the American Bar Association to do a background check on perspective judges. This was a tradition that started in a radical era of American politics known as the Eisenhower presidency [note the witty sarcasm here, Dick you are a clever devil.] when President Eisenhower thought it was reasonable — and I do, too, incidentally — that the largest bar association in America at least comment on the worthiness of nominees for the federal bench.”   

“Well, let me say that what I've read — and I'm not an expert nor am I member of the Federalist Society — they do have a very conservative philosophy. I don't think they are a debating society. I think they have an agenda. And it troubles some of us to believe that the American Bar Association, [did you notice Ted Kennedy perk up after this third mention of the word “bar?”] which has been characterized as liberal by the conservatives and conservative by the liberals over the course of its history, is being cast aside by the White House now when it comes to the judicial process. And instead we find that many people who are associated with the Federalist Society are now seeking prominent positions in the administration of justice. I don't think it's a coincidence. I think it is a conscious decision to move us toward a path that, frankly, many of us think needs to be questioned, and at least publicized.  Could you describe for us your involvement with the Federalist Society and what you believe this group stands for?”

It sounds like he’s trying to characterize the Federalist Society as a conspiracy by evil lawyers [I know I’m treading real close to redundancy here] to take over the Government.  I don’t know about you, but I thought that was an exact description of the ACLU, not the Federalist Society.

You can imagine, when I first heard these “earnest concerns” expressed by such a paragon of honesty in the Senate, I rushed to my computer to find out what I could on this...this “Federalist Society.”  I naturally assumed from the tenor of Durbin’s questions that it would be a Herculean task to find any substantive information on this mysterious cult.  Imagine my surprise when upon entering “federalist society” in the search engine, I came up with their website http://www.fed-soc.org/ as the first result.  “This can’t be,” I said to myself.  I had thought from Senator Durbin’s questions that they were a secretive organization that would be at least as difficult to find out about as say the Masons or even the Trilateral Commission.  Perhaps they would even be as elusive as the dreaded Illuminati of Dan Brown’s novel. [For more about these and other evil organizations, visit www.whatreallyhappened.com, can you say conspiracy?] Yet here I was with a website that even included a complete listing of the names of the Board of Directors, a “Board of Visitors,” a Business Advisory Council, and the organization’s staff.

“Ah,” I thought, “But what Dick Durbin really was concerned about was his inability to discern the purpose of this dangerous organization.  Surely that would be hidden in some password protected dungeon on this website that I would never be able to access.”  But right there on the main menu was, to my surprise, an entry which says “Our Purpose.”  Was I wrong? Was my faith in Senator Durbin’s sincerity misplaced? Could all of his questioning and posing have been for political purposes and completely contrived?  Imagine my heartbreak when I discovered that the answer to these questions was yes, yes, YES!  I had been misled by a Senator of the United States.  Well either that or Dick is computer illiterate.  My bet is that he is just a political hack with an anti-conservative, anti-President Bush axe to grind, and a bald faced liar.

Dangerous far Left-wing groups like “People for the
American Way
” and the denizens of Democrats.com seek to re-enforce this dark conspiratorial impression of the Federalist Society.  To see how extremist Democrats.com is they, with complete sincerity, describe People for the
American Way
as “nonpartisan.”  This is a description that PFAW uses to describe themselves...go figure. They describe the Federalist Society simply as “treasonous.”  In searching the writings on their website for some further information on this allegation of being “treasonous,” I found none, leading me to ponder whether or not these people even know what the word means.  I suspect not.  PFAW themselves describe the ABA as “resolutely centrist” and do so with a straight face.

The truth is that “Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order. We are committed to the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks to promote awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.” [Quotation taken directly from the Federalist Society web page, emphasis added.]  It was established as an effort to counteract the “orthodox liberalism” running rampant on the campuses of America’s law schools. It is an organization which believes in individual freedom, that making law is and should be the sole province of the Legislative branch of government, and that it is emphatically not the province of the judiciary.

So concerned are the Liberals about the growing influence of the Federalist Society, they have come up with their own answer to it, The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.  Yes, much like their answer to Rush Limbaugh and Conservative Talk Radio, these unoriginal Leftists have got another “me too” organization.  I hope for their sake, that it’s more successful than their ill-fated attempt at talk radio...Air-America...give me a break!

This obvious discomfiture of the Left with the current ascendancy of members of the Society is the source of wry amusement for those of us on the Right.  Former Solicitor General and current D.C. Chapter head Theodore Olson, one of the more notable members of the society, addressed a Federalist Society luncheon on the 8th of this month.  He acknowledged "all of you Federalists who seem to have mastered the secret handshake." And went on to say "For those of you who just stumbled in off the street, it is my duty to advise you that you have stumbled into a right-wing cabal -- you will never be the same again."  I love it!

"The Federalist Society appears to be the secret handshake that judicial nominees share with the White House." Dick Durbin Democrat Senator from Illinois in 2003

No Senator Durbin you’re confusing them with that other “cabal of malevolence,” the Masons.  Get a grip Senator Durbin.  We’re not children out here; we can spot cheap attempts by unscrupulous politicians to make political points by engendering fear in the electorate.  Please stop talking down to us; it only makes you look like a two-bit version of your party’s mascot...eeehaaaw, eeehaaaw.
By the way, in case you didn’t see it at the top of the page, I am a paid member of the Federalist Society.  I’m not a lawyer, just an anti-Left gadfly.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Roberts Hearing: Bush/Roberts 18, Senators 0

Will Malven

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) resembles not so much the ballgame of Roberts umpire analogy when discussing the proper role of a Justice on the SCOTUS, as a game of homerun derby.

On one side we have the soon to be new Chief Justice Roberts sitting with no notes or props and on the other side we have eighteen Senators the various staff members, and all of their accumulated paper work, notes, letters and the like.  The results, no contest.  For two days now Judge Roberts has taken the Senate Committee to law school.  Each Senator, in his/her turn, has fired their best curveball or fastball only to have it smacked over the fence by a calm and unflappable Judge Roberts.  If there has ever been a more capable and knowledgeable candidate for Justice or Chief Justice in our nation’s history, perhaps Judge Bork rates, I cannot recall him.  I have never been as impressed by a man in all the time I have been watching testimony before a committee whether House or Senate.  His encyclopedic knowledge of most areas of the law, his calm demeanor and his unwavering devotion to the concept that a judge, when he takes on the black robe, ceases to be a person with all of his biases and prejudices and becomes instead an impartial adjudicator responsible only for interpreting how the case is affected by the Constitution and laws, as passed by Congress, confirms Judge Roberts as a man certain not to legislate from the bench.  He is the epitome of a non-activist judge.

As an arch-conservative, I would rather have a judge more outspoken against Roe v. Wade (Right to abortion), Griswald v. Connecticut (Right to privacy), and Wickard v. Fillburn (expansive Commerce Clause interpretation), but I understand the need to duck and weave in answering questions which might affect cases that could come before the SCOTUS.  I personally believe that Griswald was an abominable decision based solely on Douglas’ argument.  I will never agree that the right to privacy can be found contained in penumbras formed by emanations of specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights.  Such convoluted thinking is unworthy of a justice of the SCOTUS.  Roberts stated that he agreed with the Griswald decision, something with which I can’t concur.  That having been said, I believe that Roberts will be one of the great Chief Justices in the history of the SCOTUS.  He has shown himself to be unflappable under fire from the wannabe equals on the Left who, each in their turn, have been shown to be far outclassed by this classy man.  Each in his/her turn has attempted repeatedly to draw him out on the Left’s touchstone issues using all the guile they and their staffs could muster to no avail.  Judge Roberts set the boundaries early on, boundaries much broader than most previous nominees have seen fit to set, and has refused to be drawn out beyond them.  On occasion he has been forced to lecture the Senators about the need to maintain an open and unbiased mind on these issues and to thereby assure the litigants of a fair and impartial evaluation of the facts in a case as they relate to the law.

Again and again, Roberts was admonished that he should consider not just the facts in the case, not be an automaton (the mispronounced word of the day for Democrats), but remember the human side of the case; not forget about his humanity (DeWine (RINO)
Ohio), but to allow his humanity to shine through.  That is, of course, the Liberal model for a “good” Supreme Court Justice, precisely the opposite of what the Justices should be doing.  For Democrats and their Liberal string-pullers, their worst nightmare is that a justice will be seated who will look only at the law and the facts and make his decision on that basis alone.  Even as they decry any thought of ignoring stare decisis as judicial activism, what they are seeking is the worst kind of judicial activist.  Liberals are seeking judges like Douglas, Blackmun, Black, and Ginsberg who believe it is a justice’s job to insert their own belief of what the Founding Fathers and/or Congress should have said if only they’d been enlightened enough, rather than just looking at the law and Constitution as they were written.  They applaud the kind of judicial activism that seeks to understand the laws of foreign nations to “better” judge our own laws (after all we are just lowly Americans who have no appreciation of the finer details of how a “real” justice systems should work).

It has been very amusing to watch the vain attempts of each of the prima donnas of the Left try their wiles on soon to be Justice Roberts.  There was Senator Teddy “the Killer” Kennedy, his puffy red face and shaking hands, evidence of his unabated alcoholism, reading the questions written for him by his staff, rarely looking up from the paper to listen to the responses, and even more rarely daring to look Judge Roberts in the eyes. Then, of course, wannabe President Joe “the Fox” Biden with his meaningless unfelt smile and condescending tone, who at one point on day two got slapped down handily by the candidate in a lecture about the judicial cannons which prevent comment on current cases, and his testimony and what he did and did not state.  Biden continually interrupted Judge Roberts because, of course, it’s all about him, and had to be slapped down repeatedly by Senator Spector for not allowing Roberts to answer Biden’s question.  Each time Biden whined about not having much time when, in fact, he had as much time as every other Senator and chose to spend it in asking long, self-aggrandizing questions because, of course, it’s all about him.  The rest of the Dems were not even exciting enough to discuss.  Well, perhaps Chuck Schumer, who was his usual hateful rude and evil self, but not even he could muster much enthusiasm in his questioning.

It has become fairly evident as I watch the proceedings, that the wind has left the Liberal’s sails as they watch this man deflect and destroy each attack as it comes.  I believe that they have abandoned themselves to the idea that Roberts is going to be the next Chief Justice, and they are now concentrating on sharpening their knives for the next candidate who will be appointed to take what they like to call, the O’Conner seat, a pitiful paean to their wistful desire for another liberal to be seated on the court.  Ultimately this was a tour de force performance by a judge who far outclasses his critics both in knowledge of the law and in demeanor, his inquisitors.  I will be very comfortable with him on the bench.

I stated when all of this began, that although I didn’t know anything about Roberts, I do know President Bush, and I believed and trusted that he would appoint someone precisely as he said he would in the mold of Scalia or Thomas.  Perhaps Roberts falls just short of that, and he will be more in the mold of a young Rehnquist.  That will be fine with me.

Oh yeah, did I mention that it’s all about Biden?

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Tuesday, September 6, 2005

What Michael Moore and Liberals Don’t (and Will Never) Understand About the Second Amendment

Will Malven

Some of the most heartening tales coming out of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina are the tales of Americans standing up and taking responsibility for their own safety and survival rather than whining about “the government” not taking care of them.

The Washington Post reports that in Popps Ferry Landing, a neighborhood near Biloxi, Mississippi, the local neighborhood watch is keeping an armed night watch to prevent looters from invading the neighborhood. Following the looting of the local Dollar Store, neighbors who very rarely spoke to each other, got together to protect their own. They’re not going out hunting down anyone; they’re just camping out at their houses with their constitutionally protected firearms preventing the roving bands of criminals from destroying their peaceful middle class neighborhood.

It is times such as these, for which the Second Amendment is so important. In the aftermath of the greatest natural disaster in the history of this nation, it is the citizen himself that must stand in the breach of the wall of civilization, created by the storm and the consequent disorganization and lack of police presence, to protect himself from the anarchy which reigns in the world outside.

These are the minute men of the 21st Century. These are ordinary middle class men, plumbers, engineers, managers, carpenters, and salesmen who have gotten out of their easy chairs and off their sofas, gone out into their neighborhood and introduced themselves to their neighbors. They have, in this time of danger decided, not to wait around to become a victim and then whine about why our government hasn’t done something to protect them, but to take responsibility for their own safety. Our Founding Fathers would not be proud of these men they would merely nod their heads in acknowledgement of men doing what should be expected of them.

It is precisely this for which the Second Amendment was designed. I know it’s difficult for Liberals to understand, but as we are seeing currently, we can’t always depend on the police. The Second Amendment is not, much to the chagrin of Liberals like Michael Moore, Al Gore, and John Kerry, about a person’s right to hunt; it is about the American citizen’s right to feel safe in their own residence. This fact which so sadly escaped the two last Democrat candidates for President is what made the images of John Kerry traipsing around in borrowed jacket with borrowed gun attempting to look like a hunter so hysterical to the gun owners of America.

The N.R.A. is not about arming criminals as Michael Moore has inappropriately and inaccurately tried to portray in his crassly exploitive movie “Bowling for Columbine,” it is about educating the American citizen on the rights and responsibilities of gun ownership, the proper use and care of those firearms, and the protection, from those who would usurp those rights under the misapprehension that a gun-free state is a safe state, of those rights as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

It is true that guns are designed for the purpose of killing. They are the most efficient form of killing that the average citizen has available to them. They are also the most effective form of self defense the average citizen has available to them. In their absence, individuals, men, women, and children are at greater risk. To an unarmed man, alone on a road or in his house, a group of four or five (or even a couple) burly men intent on evil represent a real life threatening situation; to an armed man, or women, properly trained in the use of firearms, they become a manageable threat.

In a society in which the criminal frequently has more rights than the victim, being armed should be, as the Second Amendment intends, an untouchable right. Carrying a firearm, whether concealed of openly, should not only be allowed, it should be encouraged. The fact of the matter is, the better armed the citizens of a community, the lower the crime rate, particularly the violent crime rate, of that community. Those cities like Washington D.C., New York, and possibly soon to be San Francisco, have the highest per capita violent crime rate in the nation.

As can be seen in the Popps Landing example, total dependence upon government agencies for our safety can quickly turn into a liability, if those agencies are overwhelmed by circumstances beyond anyone’s control. At a time when police response to emergency calls can be five to ten minutes (if not much longer) it is ludicrous for the American people to be forced to rely on the government for their protection, as the anti-gun lobby would have us do.

That is a real path to the imprisonment of the average citizen inside their houses. In Britain, certainly there is a lower murder rate than in the U.S.A., but the overall violent crime rate is considerably higher than in America. Groups like Handgun Control International, Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, and Common Cause would have Americans surrender their rights to self-defense for the illusory concept of complete safety.

There is no such thing as complete safety, and a person can be as easily and more surely killed by a knife as a gun. It has been stated by the Second Amendment lobbying groups so often as to become a trite saying, “if guns are outlawed; only outlaws will have guns.” Trite maybe, but also true, so true that it becomes a profound statement of universal truth. By definition, an outlaw, a law breaker, a criminal, does not care whether or not he is breaking the law by carrying a firearm. If a person has criminal intent, he will find a means to implement it.

These people, people of the left like Mr. Moore, are the same people who would have had us unilaterally disarm during the cold war in the face of a growing Soviet Nuclear threat. President Reagan, proved how mistaken the unilateralist’s position was by presiding over the first stages of the complete dismantlement of the Soviet Union. Unilateral disarmament in the face of a known threat is an invitation to victimhood. It is only by show of strength that threat can be countered. This is not some new “off-the-wall” concept; this is human nature at its very core.

The anti-gun forces exhibit the same Pollyannaish naiveté of human nature that the Marxists do. There are and always will be predators in our society. It is the human nature of some to covet more than their “fair share.” The entire concept of “fair share” is faulty thinking based on the mistaken concept that material wealth is a zero sum game. It is also human nature for some in our society to desire that for which they are not willing to work. They are the predators which must be confronted in everyday life.

If relying on the police was a successful concept, there would be no crime. No one would have to lock their door and a woman walking downtown after dark by herself would neither be uncommon nor foolish. Since not even the most rabid Liberal in society would consider that situation reasonable behavior, the basic premise of their arguments against guns is false. I dare say that Sarah Brady would not feel comfortable walking the dark alley ways of D.C. even though there are extremely strong anti-gun laws in place there.

There are no reasonable arguments in favor of gun control, only emotional ones. That is why one so often hears bogus statistics coming out of the anti-gun lobbyists. Thankfully, most Americans understand this concept and reject the irrational policies recommended by the gun haters. You will also hear them claim that they are not anti-gun, rather that they are only seeking to impose “reasonable” restraints on gun ownership. This is an evolutionary principle for them brought about through their numerous defeats, by gun owners, in their legislative endeavors. You will often hear them use the phrase “I am a hunter myself...” or “We’re not talking about taking away a hunter’s guns...” invariably followed by the word “but.” They then will use the phrase, “reasonable people,” or “reasonable restrictions,” so as to make it clear that only an “unreasonable” person would object to their efforts to restrict gun ownership.

In a society of law-abiding citizens, we have nothing to fear from an unrestricted right to gun ownership. Law-abiding citizens are by definition going to obey the law. By restricting their “right to keep and bear arms,” we only encourage law breaking by those same citizens.

Laws are intended to preserve freedoms, not restrict them. In committing a crime, someone is infringing on the rights and freedoms of another. In an armed society, those who would seek to impose their will on another are significantly less inclined to do so. It is for that reason, that the citizens of Popps Ferry Landing will not have to worry about having their property destroyed or stolen, their families killed or injured by marauding bands of criminals. And the authorities will not be additionally burdened in the exercising of their duties responding to this crisis.

An armed citizenry is a safe and fearless citizenry.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Friday, September 2, 2005

Hurricane Katrina: Granting a Grim Insight into the American Society of Excuses

Will Malven

It’s not pretty, it’s pretty grim. American society is only three days from barbarism.

Today we are seeing heroism and villainy in New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina is giving us a rare view into the psyche of our people. It is a view of sacrifice, voluntarism, charity, helpful neighbors, and tireless rescuers. But it is also a view of looting, assault, killing, anger, hatred, and, ultimately, anarchy. Today we see what happens when this “thin veneer of civilization” is stripped away from our society. A vast majority of our society is filled with people of good will who go out of their way to assist their neighbors during times of crisis, but there is also a sector of our society where chaos rules and the law of the jungle is held in check only at the point of a police gun. They are the looters and the shooters. They care nothing for anyone but themselves and everything they do sabotages the attempts to rescue the people who are trapped, including themselves.

There are also those of our society, those on the Left seem to shine at this, who believe that the best use of their time and energy is to attack the President and the Republicans for not solving everything by fiat. For them blame is the solution to all of the problems they see on their televisions. Note I say on their televisions, because those carping about the President not doing enough are firmly and comfortably ensconced on their couches watching their televisions or banging out their hate filled rhetoric at their computers while drinking their lattes and eating their croissants. Their total contribution to aid the victims is to blame President Bush and to try to figure out how to use this disaster for their own political advantage. Why doesn’t President Bush...I don’t know...stop the sea from entering the city, wave his hand and evacuate all of the people who are trapped, feed the hungry, heal the sick, give solace to the suffering, I had no idea that Liberals believed that President Bush was actually Jesus Christ reincarnate. And, of course, the usual suspects are busy crying racism. The people who are suffering are black so it’s racially motivated. Yes people, Hurricane Katrina, following orders from President Bush, deliberately targeted the black people of New Orleans. I will remind you that the affected area is approximately 90,000 square miles, an area the size of Minnesota, twice the size of Virginia. There is nothing anyone could have done to prepare for this eventuality.

Our society has been so permissive and tolerant of bad behavior, that it has become a right for some in which to indulge themselves. Mayor Giuliani demonstrated the error of adopting a philosophy of tolerance toward petty crime, when major crime dropped coincidentally with his policy of zero-tolerance. This society, led by Liberals in the ACLU, Congress, and our judicial system has for too long adopted an attitude of tolerance for rioting and looting by some segments of our society. It is in giving tacit approval to bad behavior, manifested in the form of tolerating the rioting and looting by blacks in Watts in the 1960’s, the Rodney King verdict riots (in which the police were subsequently more severely punished for subduing a resistant perpetrator than were the rioters who pulled a truck driver out of his car and severely beat him because he is white), recent sporting event riots(cities torn up in victory and in defeat), and today’s hurricane related rioting and looting.

By not punishing those involved, we have created an attitude of justified raging. It is an attitude to which those involved feel they are entitled because society hasn’t provided them with the material goods they feel they should have. This failure to punish, is accompanied by some sort of vague feeling that bad behavior by blacks (and make no mistake a vast majority of those involved in this behavior are blacks) should be tolerated because of slavery. It is a compulsive guilt feeling in Liberals which excuses behavior in some races which would never be tolerated in ones peers. Thus we again encounter the “soft bigotry of low expectations” referred to by President George Bush in addressing the educational shortcomings of our school system. In this case it manifests itself in saying “Well, they just can’t help themselves.” This is just a stealthy way of saying, “They are savages, only a couple of generations from the jungle. This kind of behavior is to be expected from ‘those people.’” The denial inculcated in such a statement is blinding. Confronted by their own words, the Liberals will uniformly refuse to see their own bigotry and accuse you of being intolerant and bigoted for suggesting punishment for the bad actors. After all, aren’t they being compassionate, tolerant, forgiving, understanding? Aren’t they just being reasonable in their reaction? They can’t see that low expectations are bigoted by their very nature.

This is the same broken philosophy which gave us the grossly mistaken programs of President Johnson’s “Great Society.” For decades, money was thrown at the “poor” and “disadvantaged” with the intent of helping them to raise themselves out of poverty and into the mainstream of society. Unfortunately, as forecasted by Conservatives, these policies had precisely the opposite effect. Instead of ending poverty and illiteracy, these policies entrenched those two blights of a democratic society within the poor white and black communities. People became seduced by the ease with which zero effort was rewarded. Men were no longer necessary to support the families; the state would provide sufficient income on which a family could survive. Men, in fact became a liability in those communities because a single mother could get more money than one who was married to a low-wage earner. This resulted in the break up of the traditionally strong black and poor white families.

There used to be such a thing as pride in these communities. It was an attitude of “I might not have much, but what I have I’ll take care of.” It was characterized by the adage, “too poor to paint, too proud to whitewash.” This attitude has now been supplanted by a culture that values material wealth over social and spiritual wealth. One is only thought to be of value if he has a lot of “stuff.” Having a wealth of friends and a close knit community is not as important as having a new pair of Nikes or a Big Screen Television. When you strip a man of his responsibilities, you strip away his self-worth and his pride. This fundamental lesson is one which has in the past and continues to escape the understanding of the Left. Liberals to this day, and in face of the abject failure of the Great Society programs, still believe that the way to solve poverty is to give poor people more money, free medical care and less responsibility. This is understandable coming from Liberals because they still believe that those in need are “just savages” and are incapable of managing on their own. The “great unwashed masses” need Government to take care of them. “Evil” Republicans and Conservatives are “unfeeling and uncaring” because they want these people to be responsible for themselves.

Real compassion is teaching people how to stand on their own two feet, enabling them to care for themselves; earn their income and stand with pride after a good days work. Self sufficiency enables people to feel good about themselves. Dependency strips people of the pride and self worth. Liberals have such contempt for the poor, that they see them as victims of their own inability to succeed. They encourage the belief in the poor that they can’t help themselves because the wealthy, corporations, Republicans, the “haves,” are keeping them down and they can’t compete with others unless they are given an advantage. It seems, to Liberals, that nature has short changed the non-white races on ability and intelligence. The Left and their MSM have been very successful in selling this belief to blacks especially, but the poor in general, to the point that many feel that there is no use in trying to better themselves. If you’re hopeless, you have nothing to lose. If you have nothing to lose, you are willing to do anything and you will be more likely to strike out in anger at whoever is nearby. Thus it is common to find higher crime in poor black areas, most of which is black on black crime, not black on white crime like television portrays and most people believe. The people most at risk from the looting and violence in New Orleans are the poor people who are the violent offender’s neighbors.

With all of the portrayal of looting and violence by the press, it should be remembered that a vast majority of the people suffering during this disaster are good people and have nothing to do with the violence. It is unfortunate that just a small percentage of evil people can mar the image of so many people already suffering from the aftermath of the storm. Desperation can eventually make animals of us all and it is difficult for one not in their shoes to know precisely what he would do in a desperate situation, but the collapse being witnessed by the world today in New Orleans occurred in the space of one day. The perpetrators of these acts are not unfortunate victims driven to desperate deeds out of need, these are evil subhuman creatures who make a career out of preying on their own. They rape, pillage, and commit random acts of violence because they can get away with them. They have no expectation of repercussions stemming from their actions. When a society repeatedly allows rioting and looting to occur and excuses these actions as understandable because the perpetrators are poor, that society is asking for precisely the kind of activity we see going on today in New Orleans.

Solving part of these problems requires stern measures. Whenever looting occurs, the police need to be given shoot on site orders. Adding personal risk to the perpetrator’s calculus when they are deciding whether or not to engage in this kind of behavior will drastically reduce its occurrence. For some people, violence is the only language they understand, and our authorities need to be willing to employ it.