Tuesday, June 29, 2010

New York Times on the 2nd Amendment---The Supreme Court Acted Stupidly

As expected, the New York Times editorial board has come out strongly against the supreme court’s decision to confirm that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental individual right. The liberal Times attempts to justify their argument on the fact that “ten thousand Americans died by handgun violence.” :

"About 10,000 Americans died by handgun violence, according to federal statistics, in the four months that the Supreme Court debated which clause of the Constitution it would use to subvert Chicago’s entirely sensible ban on handgun ownership. The arguments that led to Monday’s decision undermining Chicago’s law were infuriatingly abstract, but the results will be all too real and bloody."
It would be startling if the Times showed a similar level of compassion since Roe v. Wade was passed where millions of unborn have been subjected to the “real and bloody” reality of extinction. But, for the sake of saving this argument for a later date, let’s agree in principle that abortions are also an individual right under current law.

Just as the fringe end of social conservatives would prefer that all abortions be outlawed, our far left liberal society would advocate striking the 2nd amendment from the Bill of Rights.

What I find intriguing is how both sides of the political spectrum so passionately defend the 1st amendment to the constitution, (in which our Founding Fathers found it critical to allow a redress of grievances to our government without prohibitions), and yet, (to further protect American citizens from an over-zealous government), when the fathers inserted and insisted that all citizens had the right to bear arms---under the same intentions to protect individual rights---the liberal mindset of this society has for far too long advocated restricting or abolishing the 2nd amendment, which has finally been recognized as an individual right.

While I do agree with the Time’s contention, (and the Supreme Court's), that there should be limited restrictions placed by the states and municipalities to keep arms out of the hands of felons or the mentally ill, the blanket bans of both Washington D.C. and now Chicago have been overturned. Yet the Times chooses to ignore this landmark civil right and instead continues to look at the 2nd amendment as a threat to society as they “suggest” further government restrictions:

“Mayors and state lawmakers will have to use all of that room and keep adopting the most restrictive possible gun laws — to protect the lives of Americans and aid the work of law enforcement officials. They should continue to impose background checks, limit bulk gun purchases, regulate dealers, close gun-show loopholes.

They should not be intimidated by the theoretical debate that has now concluded at the court or the relentless stream of lawsuits sure to follow from the gun lobby that will undoubtedly keep pressing to overturn any and all restrictions. Officials will have to press back even harder. Too many lives are at stake. “
Of course, the Times completely ignores the fact that in every case where guns have been banned outright from law abiding citizens, (see footnotes below), the murder and crime rates have risen dramatically. Short of disarming every American and eliminating all weapons from society, (which would suit the liberal elites and the Times), restricting law abiding citizens from possessing guns will do nothing to prevent criminals from breaking these laws. The Times again fails to demonstrate how keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens would make society appreciably safer or change the number of crimes committed by criminals illegally possessing guns. As long as and free society is allowed to be armed, criminals will think twice about brazenly breaking into homes or businesses. Thankfully, the Supreme Court agreed.


Guns Vs. Crime (by Jeremy D. Blanks) (no puns please)

Gun Control: The Brady Campaign, White Lies, And Damn Lies (by Howard Nemerov)

More Guns, Less Crime (by John Lott)

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Property of Mexico---Keep Out!

Governor Jan Brewer got her visit to the President's domain, and this is the answer she, (and the state of Arizona), received:

Instead, our federal government---the Obama administration---has decided to insult this nation's intelligence by suing Arizona for attempting to protect their sovereign property from a foreign assualt of trafficing drugs, guns, and humans. Where's our homeland security? Janet Napolitano says, "the Arizona borders are the safest they've ever been". Then why the signs Ms. Napolitano?

Further, why when even Arizona Democrats are urging the Obama administration not to sue the state, and yet the federal government is going full steam ahead, along with Hillary Clinton's blessing.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Chris Matthews Declares War on The Tea Party Movement---Calling His “Report” a Documentary, While Attacking Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, and Bachmann

With Glenn Beck hitting on all cylinders in the 5pm slot on cable news networks, Chris Matthew’s longtime running segment, Hardball, (in the same time slot), has been dismal at best. Beck is hitting two million viewers while at the same time Matthews is struggling to hit a half million. In the 8pm prime time slot The O’Reilly Factor viewership is almost triple of Keith Olbermann’s Countdown. Along with the impending retirement of Larry King, Matthew’s Hardball might be heading on the same path where “progressive news” has become nothing more than far left opinion hit jobs, butting their heads against a growing public viewership that disagrees with the liberal media’s rhetorical disdain for a center-right nation.

Glenn Beck – 2,079,000 viewers (479,000) (968,000)
Situation Room—683,000 viewers (187,000) (277,000)
Hardball w/ C. Matthews – 492,000 viewers (87,000) (187,000)
Fast Money – 205,000 viewers (a scratch w/49,000) (89,000)
Showbiz Tonight — 172,000 viewers (65,000) (92,000)

With MSNBC and FOX NEWS cable networks going in two different directions, tonight’s Hardball edition, (airing at 7pm eastern time to avoid Beck's numbers*), will be seen as another typical hit job by Matthews and his producers to attempt to demonize the Tea Party Movement. Indeed, Matthews will make the feeble attempt to claim the “Rise of the New Right” is an organized group of right wing radicals with the intent of over-throwing the government by violence:

MATTHEWS: "Let me finish tonight with our big documentary coming up here tomorrow night. " The Rise of the New Right" at 7:00 p.m. Eastern tomorrow night will stun you with what`s happening to this country. You`ll never again believe the so-called Tea Party Movement is just about taxes or deficits or Obamacare. No, what you`ll see is far more like the original Tea Party up in Boston, the one that previewed our war against the British. Look at the Gadsden flag they wield, that warning of "Don`t Tread on Me" with the coiled rattlesnake. In 1776, it served warning to those who threatened America from abroad. Today, it`s being waved in contempt of our own honestly elected American government in Washington. Listen to Rush Limbaugh`s stir on the new right by calling the government in Washington a regime, or Orly Taitz, leader of the birthers, calling the president illegitimate. Listen to militiamen on guard against tyranny here on the Potomac and you get the full force of what`s happening."

"This isn`t about what the tax rate should be. It`s an argument about whether the federal government deserves toppling like any other tyranny or illegitimate regime in history. It`s not the talk of politics, but of revolution. Listen to Limbaugh, Beck and Palin and Michele Bachmann, Orly Taitz, and, yes, Rand Paul, and you`ll hear of a Washington that has usurped authority of a president who`s not one of us, of a Congress that needs to be investigated for treason, of a country itself that`s been taken over and needs to be taken back. The voices you`ll hear speak for themselves, the guns you see, the semi-automatic weapons in the arms of those who see the government of the United States as the looming tower of tyranny. If I can put it as bluntly as possible, catch " The Rise of the New Right" here tomorrow night at 7:00, and you`ll suddenly get why you`re seeing men at political rallies for the first time ever wearing guns." video link here

Got all that? Pretty scary stuff, if you're the paranoid left looking for an answer to escape the financial damage inflicted on this nation since the end of 2006.

In Matthews segment here, he explains that today’s Tea Party Movement parallels the anti-communist movement in the fifties and sixties accusing Michelle Bachmann as an instigator and a quasi McCarthyist for the media not investigating “democratic members of congress for anti-American attitudes”. Matthews takes Bachmann's statement completely out of context, but what else is new[s].

While I would suggest boycotting the Matthews diatribe of paranoia, maybe it would be best to just watch Glenn Beck a 5pm, (2pm for us west coasters) and let Matthews and his screed of viewers suck on his lolly-pop spittle. It's a poor excuse of objective journalism. Calling it a documentary is a pathetic joke. Perhaps they can have a contest to see which leg tingles tonight---you can bet it's the left.

(Editor's note: I've attempted, (several times), to post the video embeds in this post, but most of the embeds have been mysteriously re-directed to "other MSNBC spots".)

* At this posting, not certain if Matthew's hit piece will air at both 5pm and the repeat 7pm times---will attempt to update later.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Nancy Pelosi Considering Re-Writing Ethics Rules

As expected, some Democrats facing ethics violations are pressing Nancy Pelosi to revise the congressional ethics policies. From the Hill:

Pelosi considering rewriting ethics rules

By Susan Crabtree - 06/10/10 08:28 PM ET

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has privately indicated she is willing to rewrite some of the the ethics rules that House Democrats implemented two years ago.

Pelosi late last month met with members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) about the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), which was created to bolster the ethics of the lower chamber.

At the meeting, which was also attended by CBC lawmaker and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), sources said Pelosi heard complaints about the OCE’s new powers and investigation tactics.

Pelosi and Clyburn were sympathetic, because the OCE has produced some unintended consequences, according to two sources in the room.

Please read the complete story here

When the rules don't fit, you must acquit---change the rules.