"Gun Control for the children?" Sorry, no sale
“This is our first task as a society,” said U.S. president Barack Obama at a January 16th press conference: “Keeping our children safe.”
The event’s purpose was to leverage last month’s school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut into support for a set of new executive orders and legislative proposals relating to what supporters euphemistically refer to as “gun control.”
In an evolutionary and biological sense, Obama has a point. The primary of function of human society IS to protect our young so that they can grow up, reproduce and perpetuate that society.
On the other hand Obama, in his role as president, represents the single most powerful and counter-productive human institution relating to that goal: The state. The power grabs he just put on the state’s agenda serve only the interests of that institution — not just instead of, but at the expense of, the children he’s exploiting as political capital in pursuit of that agenda (and in particular, as the Center for a Stateless Society’s Nathan Goodman points out, the children of the besieged minority communities Obama’s party claims to offer protection to).
Obama’s purported opponents within government aren’t much better. Their line, as voiced by US Representative Dave Reichert (D-WA), boils down to a cowardly “the laws that we have in this land already need to be enforced.”
Well, no, they don’t.
“The laws that we have in this land already” forcibly compel the daily assembly of millions of children on convenient killing floors (“public schools”).
“The laws that we have in this land already” forbid — or at least onerously regulate — possession of the tools of defense to those children, to their parents, and to their teachers.
“The laws that we have in this land already” notify any and all monsters with the ability to read a sign (“Gun-Free School Zone”) that those children are defenseless and at said monsters’ mercy.
Other species teach the principles of survival — including but not limited to the use of such weapons as they naturally possess — to their young at the earliest practical age. Humans deny their young those weapons and even, in this day and age, actively punish thought or speech relating to self-defense.
Other species protect their children from predators at all costs. Humans set out our children as an all-you-care-to-eat buffet for predators, then turn to the most voracious predator of all — political government, which regularly seizes double-digit percentages of our sustenance for its own gluttonous purposes, and occasionally throws murderous and even genocidal tantrums — for “protection.”
It’s not difficult to see why politicians support “gun control,” which is more accurately described as “victim disarmament.” What predator wouldn’t prefer that its prey lack teeth or claws? In Barack Obama’s world, events like the Newtown massacre are a small price to pay for the uncontested ability to do wholesale what Adam Lanza did retail.
What’s hard to understand is why we’ve put up with the predator for so long. In the 20th century alone, governments murdered in excess of 260 million people, and that’s an extremely low-end estimate (its promulgator, Dr. RJ Rummel of the University of Hawaii, excludes the deaths associated with the workaday operations of “democracies” from his statistics).
Fortunately, Obama’s proposals will go nowhere, as another set of statistics should make clear: At least 70 million Americans own more than 200 million guns (those numbers are also lowball, selected from competing sets I’ve seen). And the technology for unlimited home production of more is now fast becoming irrevocably and universally available. If the politicians think they can “control guns,” they’ve got another think coming.
Thomas L. Knapp,
Senior News Analyst
Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org)
NRA makes the point that every child deserves protection – not just those of the elite class
TPATH - Obama's New Jersey Cheerleader, Governor Chris Christie, harshly criticized the National Rifle Association for referring to U.S. President Barack Obama's children in an ad that advocates putting armed guards in schools, calling it "reprehensible" and "wrong."
Several days following the November elections, many Republicans and Conservatives were wondering, and rightly so, if Christie had any idea of the damage he did to Romney's campaign and by extension, this country. Having watched this man over the last several years and again this past week, the answer to that question has become quite clear.
Yesterday's comments, if anyone had a ray of hope that our so called "Republican Governor" had not intentionally derailed Romney, will have slammed the door on any last vestiges of denial.
During these past tumultuous couple of weeks, the left has been looking upon the devastating slaughter of those children, as possibly and finally, the event they needed to get the citizens of this country unarmed. That's not to say that any of them wanted this to happen, but they surely have shown they have no qualms about using this "crisis" for all it is worth.
We regularly have had questions concerning Christie, relating to his true allegiances. Today, we have a few more.
The instances of Obama, his administration and the progressive left, using the "children" of this tragedy to further their decades long battle to destroy the Second Amendment are too numerous to count.
Here is a quote from Biden that should warm your heart:
“There is nothing that has gone to the heart of the matter more than the visual image people have of little 6-year-old kids riddled – not shot with a stray bullet – riddled, riddled, with bullet holes in their classroom.”
This comment did not illicit "repulsion" from New Jersey's Governor.
Nor was he moved to comment on Obama's not so Oscar winning performance, crying for the children, which failed to produce even a bit of misty eyes, when the announcement was made of the upcoming illegal activity he was planning. On a side note, if Bill Clinton wasn't so busy reminiscing about the days when "Obama would be fetching his coffee," he surely could have given the Usurper a tip or two on spontaneous tearing up.
Then, several days ago, as Obama rolled out, in great fanfare, his unconstitutional list of executive orders, while relating the fears of children who wrote him letters, and displaying several other children as props, Governor Christie found no time or need to be repulsed.
So what was it that finally got Christie's 'repulsion meter' fluttering and begging for comment?
It seems that suggesting all children should be equally protected, not just those of the elite ruling class was it. Yes sir, that did it for Waddles.
All of those who have been battling the left's efforts to dismantle our Constitution, understand all too well that the media is nothing more than the propaganda wing of today's Marxist Democrats and it is expected that they will ignore anything repulsive or exploitative which has roots in the left, while feigning revulsion and dismay at even the most minor statements from Conservatives. That is a given, and all those defending this country have come to acknowledge that and deal with it. But when that same activity is perpetrated by, supposedly, one of our own, we need to seriously ask, who is this guy?
A final message to Christie, while no one can doubt that Obama's children, who are so very adorable, of course need and deserve more protection than the children of the masses, the children of the masses are also adorable and they too deserve to be protected.
Reprehensible is the word of the day Governor Christie and it will be one which is recalled on your next election day.
Dwight Kehoe,
Managing Editor of TPATH
www.tpath.org
Our Second Amendment
Thank you, Congressman Franks. I am a survivor of Nazi-occupied France and Peron-ruled Argentina, so I am quite sensitive to dictatorial acts. When a head of state rules by decree, without the advice and consent of Congress, he is a DICTATOR, not a president. Thousands of Arizonans and I will back you in any effort you make to preserve our sacred Constitution.
Sincerely,
J-P. A. Maldonado
Phoenix
Dear Mr. Maldonado,
Thank you for contacting me regarding our 2nd Amendment rights, in light of President Obama's 23 Executive Orders recently enacted. I take issue with the way in which our President is seeking to implement these measures without consulting Congress or the American voters. This is a calculated attempt to begin eroding our freedom to keep and bear arms, and I will vehemently oppose any attempts to take away those freedoms from law-abiding citizens.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution clearly states, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To counter those who wish to impose restrictions and gun controls, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It was included – right after the First Amendment that protects free speech – to ensure the right of citizens to oppose a tyrannical government. The amendment does not restrict the use of certain arms, magazines, or clips; rather it is broad in its scope – if you do not misuse your right to the weapon, you do not have to be monitored or restricted by the government. I have always supported this Constitutional right, and I will continue to do so as long as I am privileged to serve in the House of Representatives.
Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. suffered a horrible tragedy in December 2012 when a madman went on a rampage against innocent children. As a fellow parent, I literally cannot imagine the pain and devastation those families experienced. Many people in the media and throughout the country immediately ran to call for stricter gun laws – especially to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips. All of these people missed the point entirely: the people behind gun tragedies should be held responsible for their reprehensible actions. The rest of the law-abiding citizens should not have to have more of their liberties taken away from them due to a madman's assault on human lives. We should attempt to detect these mentally unstable individuals at an earlier time with hopes of keeping weapons out of their hands, but that should be the extent of further government interference.
It is not government's place to meddle and handicap law-abiding citizens – especially in an area where the Constitution has already explicitly made its case. More citizens should even be encouraged to own weapons and to become more proficient in the weapons they own. Criminals have always preferred and will continue to prefer unarmed victims. Prison surveys indicate when a criminal considers breaking into a home, the greatest deterrent, in his mind, is the fear that his intended victims might be armed. Members of the government should not fear an armed citizenry for this reason.
Our country is blessed with freedoms unlike any other nation in the history of humankind and we must defend these freedoms at every turn. I am deeply committed to the rights of America's law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms. Our Second Amendment is a fundamental tenet of the document enshrining basic human liberty; and it is a freedom I have and will continue fighting to preserve. I will therefore vote against any attempt or formal legislation to reestablish the assault weapons ban.
It is interesting to note that before most great tyrannies and genocides occurred in the world, the citizens of those lands were first disarmed. We must keep a watchful and wary eye toward anything that would take the United States down that same path. I join those who are unable to understand how removing the right to bear arms somehow ensures the safety of honest citizens; and I remain committed to protecting this essential cornerstone in the foundation of human liberty.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I hope you will continue to inform me of the issues that concern you. In the meantime, please feel free to visit my website at franks.house.gov
Most Sincerely,
Trent Franks
United States Congress
Arm our teachers and protect our children
Hooray for the John Birch Society and the National Rifle Association (NRA) for demanding that our school teachers be armed to protect our children by using their U.S. Constitutional gun rights and armed guards. If the teachers had been routinely armed in the past decades, it’s obvious that the killings and the casualties would have been reduced by at least 90 percent. However, our leaders and the police wouldn’t allow our teachers to be armed and by doing so they have directly violated our Constitution that they have sworn to uphold and facilitated horrible death and destruction. They should be investigated and prosecuted for such acts against our children. We should support the John Birch Society and the NRA in their efforts to arm our teachers and protect our children, and if the teachers bring their own guns, it will cost nothing.
Ed Nemecheck
Landers, California
Those “wascally wepublicans”
Our persistent, petulant president stood before us and pitched a teen-aged temper tantrum at a recent press conference. He basically told us that "if Republicans would either sign on to his agenda or at least just get out of his way" he could take us to $20 to $22 Trillion in debt in under four years. He could easily get 100 million or more Americans on food stamps and other government subsidies. Why, when these four years are up, literally millions would be begging him to become our benevolent dictator.
The American people have let him "get away with" no budget for the past four years; bribing the Affordable Healthcare Act into law; naming two ultra-progressive Supreme Court Justices; spending us from an average of $30,000 debt for every man, woman and child to an average of $52,000 per man, woman and child; creating havoc in the middle east (remember Benghazi); wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on "green" companies and their cronies; placing regulations on Americans at the rate of dozens per day (yes, per day); and presiding over the most divided nation since the Civil War.
If and when we the people fully realize what a corner we've backed ourselves into, I pray that it will not be too late to save our Republic. It was encouraging to see at least a couple of journalists actually dare to question his tactics although they were "tongue-lashed" back into their seats fairly easily by our "silver-tongued" prez.
God save America.
Deanna Drab
Payne Springs, Texas
General Stanley McChrystal: Why is the press protecting him?
Former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal seems to be on all the talk shows these days. He is quizzed about his new book; he is quizzed about the proposed Obama troop withdrawal in Afghanistan; he is quizzed about gun control; he is even quizzed about his forced retirement from the Army due to his insubordination. But this insubordination is insignificant when compared to his actions in the cover-up of the Cpl. Pat Tillman friendly fire killing in Afghanistan.
McChrystal committed one of the most egregious acts of dishonor in military history when he not only helped cover-up the killing (so that the Army could continue to use Tillman as a recruiting hero), but he went so far as to bring disgrace on one of our highest military decorations, the Silver Star, by improperly approving Tillman for that award. As far as I know, McChrystal has never apologized for this horrendous action. Rather than receiving adulation, McChrystal should have met an Army court martial, or at least have been retired at a lower rank. But the fawning press does not even ask him about it.
Anyone who wants more information on the details of this incident should view the movie “The Tillman Story” or read the Jon Krakauer book “Where Men Win Glory; The Odyssey of Pat Tillman.” They will then realize what a dark day this was in the history of our military leaders. McChrystal should, at the very least, be questioned about this.
Roy Miller
Phoenix
ALG urges House to tie debt ceiling to balanced budget, 'Full Faith and Credit Act'
FAIRFAX, Va. — Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson joined with 38 other free market and limited government organizations in urging action by the House to tie a vote to increase the $16.394 trillion debt ceiling to a 10-year pathway to a balanced budget without any tax increases and passage of the "Full Faith and Credit Act."
"With the $16.4 trillion national debt growing disproportionately larger than the economy, the American people are rapidly running out of time to get Washington, D.C.'s spending and borrowing addiction under control," said Wilson.
Wilson added that tying a balanced budget and the "Full Faith Credit Act" to the vote was "absolutely necessary to take President Obama's threat of default off the table. Never again should any president be allowed to demand a blank check from Congress by threatening default, when there is more than enough revenue to pay our creditors on time and in full."
The "Full Faith and Credit Act" would prioritize payments on interest, Social Security, Medicare, defense, and veterans' benefits out of revenue in the event the debt ceiling is reached.
Out of the $2.8 trillion of annual revenue the White House expects in 2013, only about $360 billion, or $30 billion monthly, will go to paying gross interest on the debt.
"That means even if the debt ceiling was reached, the government could still refinance existing debt up to the limit, and would have ample revenue to pay interest out. So, there would be no need to default," Wilson explained.
"There would even be enough revenue to pay out Social Security ($820 billion), Medicare ($564 billion), defense ($700 billion), and veterans' benefits ($79.5 billion). And if the White House's 2013 revenue estimate is anywhere near correct, there could be as much as $600 billion left over to pay for other essential items," Wilson added.
The August 2011 increase of the debt ceiling had been accompanied by $65 billion of sequestration cuts, which Wilson said needed to be kept in place.
Congressional Democrats, along with the Obama Administration, have threatened to eliminate the national debt ceiling from law, which would allow the White House to borrow at will without any congressional authorization.
"This could be the last chance House Republicans have to use the debt ceiling to achieve a balanced budget," Wilson noted, concluding, "It is time to stop stealing from our children and grandchildren."
FairTax Act of 2013
Poverty should never be the goal of a government tax structure yet our income tax is designed to keep working people poor. Hidden corporate taxes raise the wholesale cost of goods and services while the 7.65 percent payroll tax ensures less take-home pay for buying goods and services.
Although the wealthiest avoid paying federal income taxes thanks to deductions, their investment capital needed for job creation is forced overseas to avoid capital gains taxes. Not only do the working poor get poorer and the wealthy shift capital overseas, our industries can’t compete in global markets. Capital gains taxes are 11.5 percent higher than the average tax rate for the 34 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). And with our corporate tax being the highest in the world, there is little incentive for foreign investment to come to the US.
A consumption tax, The FairTax Act of 2013, filed in the House January 3 with a record number (53) of first day co-sponsors, ends personal income taxes, business income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, estate and gift taxes and alternative minimum tax. It generates equal tax revenues while creating jobs. Learn more at www.fairtax.org.
Beverly Martin
Fulton, Missouri
Nurturing mediocrity
It is disconcerting how casually we are willing to vote for and accept expropriation of property from the most successful among us, the so-called “one percenters.” We have stigmatized entrepreneurship and the term individualist as being something synonymous with “sociopath” or “selfish.” Admonitions such as “be the best that you can be” or “the sky’s the limit” no longer apply since incomes are capped and too much affluence and prosperity is punished. This policy is based on the misconception that being rich or being poor is a fixed state. Social mobility is the process of people continually moving up and down on this scale. The gap is not a hierarchical order of authority but an expansive playing field. Those at the top are expanding the reach of possibility and if we limit and penalize their efforts, we shrink the playing field and nurture mediocrity.
Theft does not suddenly become moral when renamed “taxation” or described as a “fair share.” We have grown up accepting this moral schism that says theft is OK when it is done “officially.” George Orwell, author of Nineteen Eighty-Four, observed “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
Americans have elected and are now governed by people obsessed with redistributing wealth and micromanaging our lives. It is inevitable that the government’s quixotic spending to effectuate equal outcomes for all must be funded by unconditional unrestricted taxation; in other words, to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.
Ed Konecnik
Flushing New York
