President Obama has yet again erred in his policies; this time however, his ignorance of international events threatens to impose a possible dictatorship on Honduras.
On June 30th, President Obama declared “that the United States still considers Manuel Zelaya to be the president of Honduras and assailed the coup that forced him into exile as ‘not legal’.”
"It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," Obama continued. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Central America and Latin America. We don't want to go back to a dark past."
This sounds very good, but it appears that Obama, who hesitated for over a week to make any comments following the electoral crisis in Iran, has decided to impetuously plunge into Honduran internal affairs without analyzing the situation first. I believe that his rash involvement is a way of differentiating himself from President Bush who, after the 2002 overthrow of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, remained conspicuously silent and was accused of “winking his approval” to the Venezuelan military that overthrew Chavez.
Recent Latin American history is rich with coups. The 2002 coup in Venezuela was a direct result of Chavez’s abuse of power over weeks leading up to a massive protest march on April 11th. Chavez declared that he would organize a “counter march” that he would address at the Presidential Palace. When the opposition asked for permission to march to the palace, Chavez declared that only his supporters had a right to go there. The unarmed masses deviated from the original course and headed toward the Palace. At that moment, Chavez ordered a “cadena” (a mandatory broadcast of his discourse on all radio and television channels), effectively blocking coverage of the march. He also ordered his generals to declare “Plan Avila”, a military defense of the Palace designed to protect the President from an armed attack. The generals explained that the unarmed masses would be slaughtered, that the march was legal and peaceful, and that it would be illegal to enact Plan Avila. Chavez reiterated the order, which was refused. So Chavez then went on television calling on his supporters to “defend the Revolution with blood, if necessary”, an invocation of violence that again violated Venezuelan law. When his supporters began firing into the unarmed crowd (killing 20), the generals rebelled and arrested Chavez. Chavez eventually was freed and was returned to power by other generals supportive of his revolution. The international community at the time ignored Chavez’s crimes and his invocation of violence upon unarmed citizens.
In 2005, Ecuadorian President Lucio Gutierrez had managed to isolate himself from his own party and grew increasingly abusive of his powers. He had initially run as a leftist, but slowly began to moderate and ally himself with the United States. He responded violently to the civil unrest, increasing popular dissent. The socialists within the National Assembly, who were friendly to Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution, declared that Gutierrez should be stripped of the presidency for “abandonment of his post”. The military declared that they did not support Gutierrez, who was forced to flee the country. The international community was remarkably silent about these events. No one questioned the legality of the process, even when Gutierrez later complained to the OAS and UN that he was the victim of an illegal coup.
So now we must look into the events leading up to the Honduran coup.
Zelaya, who is another socialist ally of Hugo Chavez, was limited by the Honduran constitution to just one term, chose to follow the example of Chavez, who changed the constitution once to allow himself two terms, and now wants to modify it to give himself possibility of “indefinite reelection.” Zelaya wanted to form a “constituyente”, an assembly to rewrite the constitution. The Honduran Constitution allows for modification by constituyente, but Zelaya didn’t have the supported needed to do it the legal way. So instead, he decided he would do it himself, via popular referendum, and ordered ballots made by Chavez’s government.
The Honduran Supreme Court declared the process a violation of the constitution and therefore illegal. Zelaya mocked the court, and publicly called for insurrection, to which a mob of his supporters responded.
Zelaya then ordered his friend and Military Chief, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, to help him proceed with the referendum. But the Supreme Court had been very specific: the planned referendum was illegal, and anyone who continued with it violated the law. Vásquez Velásquez was later quoted as saying: “Friendship ends where duty begins…Sadly, we could not disobey the order of the court.” He refused the order.
Infuriated by Vásquez Velásquez’s refusal to obey his (illegal) order, Zelaya relieved him of duty.
The Attorney General, Luis Rubí, declared that firing Vásquez Velásquez was also illegal. “You cannot fire an officer for refusing to obey an illegal order. No one can be punished for obeying the law…The President cannot be above the law, and his actions expose him to be subject to what the law demands.”
The Supreme Court ordered that Vásquez Velásquez be reinstated. Zelaya refused. And three more military generals, of various branches of service, resigned in protest.
Attorney General Rubí declared on Channel 5 television: “No one can capriciously destabilize the country. He cannot just do what he wants. We won’t permit (Zelaya) to continue undermining Democracy.”
But Zelaya miscalculated the depth of his support, and declared that he would personally carry on with the referendum. The Supreme Court declaration was clear: to do so was illegal and a violation of the constitution. The military assessed the situation and decided that Zelaya had to be removed from his position.
How Zelaya ended up leaving the country is still unclear. The military say he resigned, Zelaya denies this. (The exact same thing happened with Chavez; the military said he resigned under pressure, Chavez said he never signed anything.)
The Supreme Court issued a formal statement on June 29th, explaining that the action by the Honduran military was in accordance with Honduran law and was in defense of the constitution.
The Spanish legal-ease is a fairly difficult to translate to English, but in essence it says: “The Supreme Court issued an order to the Armed Forces last Friday, June 26, so that, because of the disobedience of the Executive Branch, the military take control of all of the poll {my note: or “referendum”} materials that would be used for that activity which had been declared illegal previously. This decision gave the Armed Forces the authorization so that, with the intervention of the attorneys of the Public Ministry, they proceed to prevent the illegal poll promoted by the Executive Power, who never responded to the orders emanated by the Constitution and Law.
The Judicial Power considers that their actions were realized within the legal margins. The Court also believes that the Armed Forces, as defenders of the Constitution, have acted in defense of the Will of Law, and forced those who previously publicly disobeyed the law and Constitution to submit to the law.”
Now, whether or not the Honduran Supreme Court interpreted the Honduran Constitution correctly should and will be a subject of intense study and heated debate—within Honduras. But it is astonishing that President Obama, in a matter of a couple of days, somehow has already and unilaterally determined that the steps taken were “illegal”. What’s more, despite the fact that just last week Obama repeatedly declared that the United States would not meddle in the internal affairs of Iran, he suddenly decided that the United States is perfectly capable of interfering in the internal affairs of Honduras.
Obama is wrong to rush in and support Zelaya, who had clearly, publicly and repeatedly violated Honduran laws and disobeyed orders by the Supreme Court to rectify his actions. Zelaya's beligerence, his calls to his supporters to form an insurrection, threatened the peace and stability of the nation. And if the military restore order, and if the interrim President Michelleti keeps his promise to allow elections to go forward in seven months, as scheduled, then Honduras will have resolved its own problems without outside interference.
Obama should instead focus his attention on the threats by Hugo Chavez to invade the country or support an armed insurrection there.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
How liberals dismiss racial discrimination
What in the world is “Hispanic” or “Latino”, anyway?
My wife, who immigrated to this country (legally) from Venezuela and is now a US citizen (and conservative Republican, I’m proud to say), recently ran into an interesting conflict with her “Chicana” boss. This boss took issue with my wife and another Latina teacher, a Chilean working here legally on a visa, because they discovered some problems with the program that was negatively impacting the “Hispanic” children.
When they naively went to their boss, who was the principal who formed the program and so is “married” to the program and is sensitive to criticism, offering suggestions about some changes that could be made to improve the program, she exploded. From that moment on, she began to display a hostility toward them that at times included only lightly veiled attacks on their nationality and immigration status—both of which fall under workplace ethnic discrimination protections.
A number of commentaries by the principal caught our attention for being ethnically discriminatory. But her ultimate act, asking my wife and the other teacher about their immigration status, really alarmed us. The principal had seemed disappointed when informed that my wife was a US citizen. At first, we didn’t understand why she had asked, or why she had been disappointed by the answer. Shortly afterward, we discovered that the principal had called Human Resources to demand that the other teacher—the one working on a visa—be kicked out of the country the day after the school term ended. (She was told that she didn’t have that authority, and that her contract ran through July, so she could not be forced to leave the country).
The situation deteriorated to the point that grievances were filed, the principal punished both teachers with “Non-Renewal with Cause” recommendation to the district, which in turn blacklisted them both. (Come to find out, 11 teachers had left the school the year before out of frustrations built up over time centering on the exact same issues. Two of those teachers were also blacklisted and had to move across the state to find work--both of them were Hispanic...).
The most interesting exchange occurred when we met with another Chicano from within the district, in order to explain our problem. We outlined the commentaries and steps taken by this Chicana principal, and clarified that we felt these two teachers were the victims of discrimination based upon ethnicity and immigration status. His response? “Mrs. Gonzales (not her real name) is a Latina, and you are Latinas, so it’s not possible for her to discriminate against you based on ethnicity!”
My shock was not that anyone could say something so ignorant: it was that a so-called “Hispanic” could harbor such a shallow and clearly fallacious opinion. Let me clarify.
What is “Latino”? What is “Hispanic”? On US documentation, these terms are used interchangeably as an ethnic or racial choice. But this is patently absurd. “Hispanic” comes from a term referring to the Iberian Peninsula, also known as Spain today, and implies that persons belonging to this group share a common language, known popularly as “Spanish” but which is, in reality, Castellano, or a dialect thereof. Mexicans and Chicanos take offense at being called “Hispanic”, because they resent being classified as part of the ethnic group that includes the Spaniards who colonialized Mexico. Likewise, “Latino” is a term implying that the individual is part of a group whose linguistic origins are “Latin Based”—for this reason, Brazilians and even Portuguese can be lumped in with Spaniards, Mexicans, Venezuelans, etc. Ironically, Italians and French are not included in the grouping.
But these definitions are based upon Linguistic, rather than ethnic or racial traits. Latin Americans can be Black, Asian, Native American, or European, racially. So to try to say that everyone who is “Latino” is ethnically homogenous is as absurd as saying that everyone who speaks English is white.
What’s more, anyone who knows anything about Latin Americans knows that, while they constantly deny the existence of racism in their countries, they regularly exhibit behaviors that belie that claim. Mexicans openly despise Guatemalans or Hondurans, who in turn despise each other as well. If you win the trust of Costa Ricans, you may be regaled with stories about how horrible Nicaraguans are. And everyone in Latin America treats Argentines as the “Polack” of every joke. In short, hatred for ethnic groups is often disguised as “nationalism”, but it still is based upon ethnicity.
When I asked him if it would be racism if a Spaniard hated Mexicans, he quickly responded “Yes.” When I asked him if it would be racism if a white Cuban hated black Cubans, he also nodded affirmatively. So when I asked him if a Mexican hated a Venezuelan, would that be racism, he paused, clearly startled by the implication. He didn’t want to answer. “And how about a person of Chicano descent who hates blacks, or Puerto Ricans, or Cubans? Isn’t that racism?”
The point here is that while it is convenient for Latinos to claim that they are not racist, and to deny that they can discriminate against each other, the truth is that it is a regular occurrence.
He tried to wiggle out of the predicament by throwing me a curveball. “But it’s only racism if the person is in a position of power.”
“So if a Latino police officer hates Blacks and abuses his power, is that racism?”
“Of course.”
“And if that police officer was a white Cuban, and abused Mexican immigrants, racism or not?”
After a pause… “Yes.”
“So if it’s a Chicana principal with the power to destroy a career, and abuses her teachers based on their ethnicity?”
No answer.
Does it surprise you to find out that the gentleman in this story is a Democrat Union Representative and a hard core liberal?
And thus we illustrate an undeniable truth: People of color can be racists, abuse their power, and victimize other people—even of their same “ethnicity”. But Liberals will never admit it. And when a Latino is victimized by another Latino, Liberals will simply ignore the racial undertones and allow the abuse to continue.
So much for protection from ethnic discrimination!
My wife, who immigrated to this country (legally) from Venezuela and is now a US citizen (and conservative Republican, I’m proud to say), recently ran into an interesting conflict with her “Chicana” boss. This boss took issue with my wife and another Latina teacher, a Chilean working here legally on a visa, because they discovered some problems with the program that was negatively impacting the “Hispanic” children.
When they naively went to their boss, who was the principal who formed the program and so is “married” to the program and is sensitive to criticism, offering suggestions about some changes that could be made to improve the program, she exploded. From that moment on, she began to display a hostility toward them that at times included only lightly veiled attacks on their nationality and immigration status—both of which fall under workplace ethnic discrimination protections.
A number of commentaries by the principal caught our attention for being ethnically discriminatory. But her ultimate act, asking my wife and the other teacher about their immigration status, really alarmed us. The principal had seemed disappointed when informed that my wife was a US citizen. At first, we didn’t understand why she had asked, or why she had been disappointed by the answer. Shortly afterward, we discovered that the principal had called Human Resources to demand that the other teacher—the one working on a visa—be kicked out of the country the day after the school term ended. (She was told that she didn’t have that authority, and that her contract ran through July, so she could not be forced to leave the country).
The situation deteriorated to the point that grievances were filed, the principal punished both teachers with “Non-Renewal with Cause” recommendation to the district, which in turn blacklisted them both. (Come to find out, 11 teachers had left the school the year before out of frustrations built up over time centering on the exact same issues. Two of those teachers were also blacklisted and had to move across the state to find work--both of them were Hispanic...).
The most interesting exchange occurred when we met with another Chicano from within the district, in order to explain our problem. We outlined the commentaries and steps taken by this Chicana principal, and clarified that we felt these two teachers were the victims of discrimination based upon ethnicity and immigration status. His response? “Mrs. Gonzales (not her real name) is a Latina, and you are Latinas, so it’s not possible for her to discriminate against you based on ethnicity!”
My shock was not that anyone could say something so ignorant: it was that a so-called “Hispanic” could harbor such a shallow and clearly fallacious opinion. Let me clarify.
What is “Latino”? What is “Hispanic”? On US documentation, these terms are used interchangeably as an ethnic or racial choice. But this is patently absurd. “Hispanic” comes from a term referring to the Iberian Peninsula, also known as Spain today, and implies that persons belonging to this group share a common language, known popularly as “Spanish” but which is, in reality, Castellano, or a dialect thereof. Mexicans and Chicanos take offense at being called “Hispanic”, because they resent being classified as part of the ethnic group that includes the Spaniards who colonialized Mexico. Likewise, “Latino” is a term implying that the individual is part of a group whose linguistic origins are “Latin Based”—for this reason, Brazilians and even Portuguese can be lumped in with Spaniards, Mexicans, Venezuelans, etc. Ironically, Italians and French are not included in the grouping.
But these definitions are based upon Linguistic, rather than ethnic or racial traits. Latin Americans can be Black, Asian, Native American, or European, racially. So to try to say that everyone who is “Latino” is ethnically homogenous is as absurd as saying that everyone who speaks English is white.
What’s more, anyone who knows anything about Latin Americans knows that, while they constantly deny the existence of racism in their countries, they regularly exhibit behaviors that belie that claim. Mexicans openly despise Guatemalans or Hondurans, who in turn despise each other as well. If you win the trust of Costa Ricans, you may be regaled with stories about how horrible Nicaraguans are. And everyone in Latin America treats Argentines as the “Polack” of every joke. In short, hatred for ethnic groups is often disguised as “nationalism”, but it still is based upon ethnicity.
When I asked him if it would be racism if a Spaniard hated Mexicans, he quickly responded “Yes.” When I asked him if it would be racism if a white Cuban hated black Cubans, he also nodded affirmatively. So when I asked him if a Mexican hated a Venezuelan, would that be racism, he paused, clearly startled by the implication. He didn’t want to answer. “And how about a person of Chicano descent who hates blacks, or Puerto Ricans, or Cubans? Isn’t that racism?”
The point here is that while it is convenient for Latinos to claim that they are not racist, and to deny that they can discriminate against each other, the truth is that it is a regular occurrence.
He tried to wiggle out of the predicament by throwing me a curveball. “But it’s only racism if the person is in a position of power.”
“So if a Latino police officer hates Blacks and abuses his power, is that racism?”
“Of course.”
“And if that police officer was a white Cuban, and abused Mexican immigrants, racism or not?”
After a pause… “Yes.”
“So if it’s a Chicana principal with the power to destroy a career, and abuses her teachers based on their ethnicity?”
No answer.
Does it surprise you to find out that the gentleman in this story is a Democrat Union Representative and a hard core liberal?
And thus we illustrate an undeniable truth: People of color can be racists, abuse their power, and victimize other people—even of their same “ethnicity”. But Liberals will never admit it. And when a Latino is victimized by another Latino, Liberals will simply ignore the racial undertones and allow the abuse to continue.
So much for protection from ethnic discrimination!
A victory for justice and common sense
Headline: “Supreme Court rules for white firefighters in bias case”
“A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that the city of New Haven, Conn., discriminated against white firefighters, repudiating a key decision by court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.”
The Supreme Court Decision (read it here) is a victory for the White firefighters, and a resounding defeat for the Liberals whose blind support of Affirmative Action has led them to apply race-based decisions to hiring and promotions.
But I’d like to break open the story just a bit, and provide additional support to the firefighters who passed their exams, met the requirements for promotion, but were discriminated against.
The article states that the reason why the firefighters were not promoted was because "the city rejected the test results because too many white and not enough minorities would be promoted," as mentioned by Justice Kennedy. "Without some other justification, this express, race-based decision-making violates Title VII's command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual's race."
The New Haven officials explained their decision by blaming the exam: there must have been an inherent bias in the test that essentially victimized the Blacks and Hispanics that took the test.
I contend that this explanation does not hold water. The exam result was not an aberration: it is entirely consistent with Connecticut standardized test results in public schools.
Let me provide a disclaimer at this junction: my analysis is not a scientific study. Out of curiosity, I did what the reporters should have done; I pulled up the Connecticut State Education standardized test scores to see if the pass rate on the firefighter’s exam was grossly out of synch with education results, by ethnicity. Due to limitations on time, I could not perform an exhaustive study of all grades over multiple years. But that study should have been performed by Defense attorneys (I don’t know if it was) and by journalists who actually want to dig into stories and provide some substance. Unfortunately, most reporters lack basic curiosity and reasoning skills.
Let’s look at just one result, as a starting place for comparison.
On the Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation for Grade 8: 2008, only 9.4% of Whites scored at or below “basic”. 16.8% scored Proficient, and 73.8% scored “at Goal” or “Advanced”. By comparison, 42.4% of Blacks scored below “proficient”, 29.3% scored proficient, and 28.3% scored “at Goal” or “Advanced”.
It is logical to assume that only the best and brightest of firemen are expected to advance to become Chiefs. Since how they perform their duties, how well they understand the laws, rules, protocols, and procedures will directly impact the safety of their crews and the public they serve, there are lives on the line. So it is also logical to assume that a great deal of the material they must master is not just firefighting methods that can be learned on the job, but also book learning that must be mastered through study. It is therefore not only conceivable, but quite logical, that a firefighter who is exceptional at a fire may not have “the right stuff” to be a chief. The individuals one would want to become a fire chief would belong to the groups that, when students, would have met or excelled at the goal scores.
The Connecticut state scores indicate that Whites excel academically at a rate greater than twice that of Blacks. If you combine “Proficient” with the “Goal and Advanced” categories, the gap narrows slightly, but still only 57.6% of Blacks scored Proficient and above combined, compared to 90.6% of Whites. (80.7% of Hispanics scored Proficient and above combined)
So, New Haven developed a written test to determine the extent of mastery of these subjects, but then balked at the results of the tests. According to the article: “The African American pass rate on the written exam was roughly half that of white applicants. …None of the top 19 scorers in the competition for captain's and lieutenant's positions were African American.”
Why is that a surprise? The test results for African Americans on the firefighter’s exam were wholly consistent with the scores of African Americans on state educational standardized tests.
Justice Kennedy astutely assessed the situation and declared: "There is no evidence that the tests were flawed."
The real failure here is the educational system that, despite decades of influence by the National Education Association, has yet to figure out how to better educate minorities. It is common knowledge that across the country, when minorities fail to meet standardized test expectations, they are “passed on” anyway. Principals regularly pressure teachers to adjust their students’ grades to allow them to graduate and keep the number of failing students at a politically acceptable level.
Sotomayor’s appeals court decision would have allowed the New Haven officials to implement a double standard. They had created a test that would have determined which applicants would have received a promotion based upon their score. But when bureaucrats decided that too many Whites had passed, these same bureaucrats would have gone back, figured out how to rig the test so that more minorities passed, and tried again.
Sotomayor’s intention, is to utilize the courts as a tool for social engineering. Just like the principals who tell their teachers to change their students’ scores, similar race-based decision by activist (possibly even racist) judges would institutionalize discrimination against citizens whose skills make them qualified for positions, but who are nevertheless disenfranchised based solely upon the color of their skin.
“A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that the city of New Haven, Conn., discriminated against white firefighters, repudiating a key decision by court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.”
The Supreme Court Decision (read it here) is a victory for the White firefighters, and a resounding defeat for the Liberals whose blind support of Affirmative Action has led them to apply race-based decisions to hiring and promotions.
But I’d like to break open the story just a bit, and provide additional support to the firefighters who passed their exams, met the requirements for promotion, but were discriminated against.
The article states that the reason why the firefighters were not promoted was because "the city rejected the test results because too many white and not enough minorities would be promoted," as mentioned by Justice Kennedy. "Without some other justification, this express, race-based decision-making violates Title VII's command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual's race."
The New Haven officials explained their decision by blaming the exam: there must have been an inherent bias in the test that essentially victimized the Blacks and Hispanics that took the test.
I contend that this explanation does not hold water. The exam result was not an aberration: it is entirely consistent with Connecticut standardized test results in public schools.
Let me provide a disclaimer at this junction: my analysis is not a scientific study. Out of curiosity, I did what the reporters should have done; I pulled up the Connecticut State Education standardized test scores to see if the pass rate on the firefighter’s exam was grossly out of synch with education results, by ethnicity. Due to limitations on time, I could not perform an exhaustive study of all grades over multiple years. But that study should have been performed by Defense attorneys (I don’t know if it was) and by journalists who actually want to dig into stories and provide some substance. Unfortunately, most reporters lack basic curiosity and reasoning skills.
Let’s look at just one result, as a starting place for comparison.
On the Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation for Grade 8: 2008, only 9.4% of Whites scored at or below “basic”. 16.8% scored Proficient, and 73.8% scored “at Goal” or “Advanced”. By comparison, 42.4% of Blacks scored below “proficient”, 29.3% scored proficient, and 28.3% scored “at Goal” or “Advanced”.
It is logical to assume that only the best and brightest of firemen are expected to advance to become Chiefs. Since how they perform their duties, how well they understand the laws, rules, protocols, and procedures will directly impact the safety of their crews and the public they serve, there are lives on the line. So it is also logical to assume that a great deal of the material they must master is not just firefighting methods that can be learned on the job, but also book learning that must be mastered through study. It is therefore not only conceivable, but quite logical, that a firefighter who is exceptional at a fire may not have “the right stuff” to be a chief. The individuals one would want to become a fire chief would belong to the groups that, when students, would have met or excelled at the goal scores.
The Connecticut state scores indicate that Whites excel academically at a rate greater than twice that of Blacks. If you combine “Proficient” with the “Goal and Advanced” categories, the gap narrows slightly, but still only 57.6% of Blacks scored Proficient and above combined, compared to 90.6% of Whites. (80.7% of Hispanics scored Proficient and above combined)
So, New Haven developed a written test to determine the extent of mastery of these subjects, but then balked at the results of the tests. According to the article: “The African American pass rate on the written exam was roughly half that of white applicants. …None of the top 19 scorers in the competition for captain's and lieutenant's positions were African American.”
Why is that a surprise? The test results for African Americans on the firefighter’s exam were wholly consistent with the scores of African Americans on state educational standardized tests.
Justice Kennedy astutely assessed the situation and declared: "There is no evidence that the tests were flawed."
The real failure here is the educational system that, despite decades of influence by the National Education Association, has yet to figure out how to better educate minorities. It is common knowledge that across the country, when minorities fail to meet standardized test expectations, they are “passed on” anyway. Principals regularly pressure teachers to adjust their students’ grades to allow them to graduate and keep the number of failing students at a politically acceptable level.
Sotomayor’s appeals court decision would have allowed the New Haven officials to implement a double standard. They had created a test that would have determined which applicants would have received a promotion based upon their score. But when bureaucrats decided that too many Whites had passed, these same bureaucrats would have gone back, figured out how to rig the test so that more minorities passed, and tried again.
Sotomayor’s intention, is to utilize the courts as a tool for social engineering. Just like the principals who tell their teachers to change their students’ scores, similar race-based decision by activist (possibly even racist) judges would institutionalize discrimination against citizens whose skills make them qualified for positions, but who are nevertheless disenfranchised based solely upon the color of their skin.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Mr. President: Inaction is not a strategy.
In response to the recent crackdown by the Iranian regimes against millions of protesters in defense of what they perceive was a corrupt and stolen election, President Obama has tended to be remarkably silent. So quiet, in fact, he has been accused by some as “voting Present”.
Obama, in response to growing pressure, has finally made a new statement (from The Belgravia):
"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion... Right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."
In short, Obama has only committed to “bear witness” to the actions of the Iranian regime. But what consequences are there? The Mullahs must be thinking: “So what?”
Obama recently took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement to Iran that coincided with their new year, known as Noruz. In that statement, Obama made one very important point:
“The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.”
This was just weeks before the Iranian elections that triggered the upheaval. Considering the stunning courage on display by unarmed Iranian citizens who have continued to march while they are gunned down by government snipers, I feel that the “true greatness” of at least one sector of the “Iranian people and civilization” is on clear display. To this, we bear witness, but should we stop there?
While some on the left have stated that the United States should not do or say anything that would be interpreted as “meddling” in the “sovereign” affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, because “the Iranians don’t want our interference” (overheard on radio commentaries), we should also “bear witness” to the fact that the protestors carried innumerable placards written in English—the language in Iran is Farsi, not English. So why would they do that, if they were not sending a message out to the rest of the world, that they are fighting for freedom, and hope for support? On a twitter page I read the comment sent by an Iranian that stated (in English): “Thank you for paying attention to our struggle.”
In a speech Obama made speaking to the Wisconsin Democratic Party Dinner in Milwaukee on the campaign trail, he said:
"Don't tell me words don't matter," Obama said. "'I have a dream.' Just words? 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.' Just words?
The sentiment behind that speech was that words that bear undeniable truths are somehow more than simple, hollow phrases. They are powerful, capable of changing minds, nations, even the world.
And it is clear that Obama, who has been lauded as one of the great political speakers of our time, has a love affair with words, although he apparently cannot commit them to memory, and must have them displayed for him on a teleprompter.
It may be fruitful to review the words he uttered in Egypt, while promoting himself as the American ambassador to the Muslim world. His intention there was not just to apologize for America (he had done enough of that in Europe and Turkey), but to smooth over the differences—both perceived and real—between the Muslim world and our nation. And he started by reiterating some of the concepts that he believes are universal truths.
“…Recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.”
How right you are, Mr. President. Words alone are useless. We must act boldly. And when he stood upon that dais, it would have been easy to imagine that he would follow up those words with brave acts. After all, he continued: “We must face these tensions squarely.”
Obama had set the stage for bold actions that would support Muslims who sought peaceful progress toward democracy. In citing the case of Israel and Palestine, he urged the Palestinians to seek justice through peaceful means, because “resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.”
I myself have stated the same point, although certainly not as eloquently as Obama, his staff of writers, and his reliable teleprompter were able to do. “America will align our policies with those who pursue peace,” he promised in the same speech.
His message appears to have been especially prescient, foretelling the upcoming electoral clash in Iran. Bear witness to the following two paragraphs of rhetorical brilliance:
“I …have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.”
Elections alone do not make true democracy.
I wonder if the Iranians, who are dying by the score in the streets of Tehran, had heard this speech. I wonder if they took heart in these words, so courageously uttered from the safety of a well-guarded dais at a major university in Egypt, and if they wrote their English placards for him.
So what, Mr. Obama? So you went out of your way to tell the world that America is not at war with Islam. So what? And then you travelled around Europe apologizing for what you perceived as the errors of American arrogance, we who dare to “impose our values” upon other nations. So what? And then you, with the unique heritage of Christian and Muslim roots, who saw Islam from the perspective of three different nations, you who recognize that our American values are international, are human rights, and that elections are not legitimate if the will of the people is quashed by coercive means. So what? Are these “just words”?
What the Iranians want from you now, is not just the empty echo of truisms read from a teleprompter; what they want from you now, what the entire world is waiting to see, is how you convert your beautiful prose into meaningful actions.
Rhetoric is the tool of rabble rousers, propagandists and flim flam artists. American Presidents cannot rely upon rhetoric alone. They must lead through action—action that is often unpopular among some quarters, action that angers the tyrants who coerce and oppress their people, action that may have unpredictable outcomes, but actions, nonetheless.
Mr. President: Inaction is not a strategy.
***UPDATE***
Obama has now made new statements...words...
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday declared the United States and the entire world "appalled and outraged" by Iran's violent efforts to crush dissent, a clear toughening of his rhetoric as Republican critics at home pound him for being too passive.
Obama condemned the "threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. "
"I strongly condemn these unjust actions," Obama said in a news conference at the White House.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday declared the United States and the entire world "appalled and outraged" by Iran's violent efforts to crush dissent, a clear toughening of his rhetoric as Republican critics at home pound him for being too passive.
Obama condemned the "threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. "
"I strongly condemn these unjust actions," Obama said in a news conference at the White House.
"I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering in Iran's affairs," Obama said. "But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place."
"We have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets," Obama said. "While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history."
**SO WHAT? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? WHAT DOES YOUR TELEPROMPTER SUGGEST THAT YOU DO?**
Obama, in response to growing pressure, has finally made a new statement (from The Belgravia):
"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion... Right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."
In short, Obama has only committed to “bear witness” to the actions of the Iranian regime. But what consequences are there? The Mullahs must be thinking: “So what?”
Obama recently took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement to Iran that coincided with their new year, known as Noruz. In that statement, Obama made one very important point:
“The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.”
This was just weeks before the Iranian elections that triggered the upheaval. Considering the stunning courage on display by unarmed Iranian citizens who have continued to march while they are gunned down by government snipers, I feel that the “true greatness” of at least one sector of the “Iranian people and civilization” is on clear display. To this, we bear witness, but should we stop there?
While some on the left have stated that the United States should not do or say anything that would be interpreted as “meddling” in the “sovereign” affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, because “the Iranians don’t want our interference” (overheard on radio commentaries), we should also “bear witness” to the fact that the protestors carried innumerable placards written in English—the language in Iran is Farsi, not English. So why would they do that, if they were not sending a message out to the rest of the world, that they are fighting for freedom, and hope for support? On a twitter page I read the comment sent by an Iranian that stated (in English): “Thank you for paying attention to our struggle.”
In a speech Obama made speaking to the Wisconsin Democratic Party Dinner in Milwaukee on the campaign trail, he said:
"Don't tell me words don't matter," Obama said. "'I have a dream.' Just words? 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.' Just words?
The sentiment behind that speech was that words that bear undeniable truths are somehow more than simple, hollow phrases. They are powerful, capable of changing minds, nations, even the world.
And it is clear that Obama, who has been lauded as one of the great political speakers of our time, has a love affair with words, although he apparently cannot commit them to memory, and must have them displayed for him on a teleprompter.
It may be fruitful to review the words he uttered in Egypt, while promoting himself as the American ambassador to the Muslim world. His intention there was not just to apologize for America (he had done enough of that in Europe and Turkey), but to smooth over the differences—both perceived and real—between the Muslim world and our nation. And he started by reiterating some of the concepts that he believes are universal truths.
“…Recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.”
How right you are, Mr. President. Words alone are useless. We must act boldly. And when he stood upon that dais, it would have been easy to imagine that he would follow up those words with brave acts. After all, he continued: “We must face these tensions squarely.”
Obama had set the stage for bold actions that would support Muslims who sought peaceful progress toward democracy. In citing the case of Israel and Palestine, he urged the Palestinians to seek justice through peaceful means, because “resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.”
I myself have stated the same point, although certainly not as eloquently as Obama, his staff of writers, and his reliable teleprompter were able to do. “America will align our policies with those who pursue peace,” he promised in the same speech.
His message appears to have been especially prescient, foretelling the upcoming electoral clash in Iran. Bear witness to the following two paragraphs of rhetorical brilliance:
“I …have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.”
Elections alone do not make true democracy.
I wonder if the Iranians, who are dying by the score in the streets of Tehran, had heard this speech. I wonder if they took heart in these words, so courageously uttered from the safety of a well-guarded dais at a major university in Egypt, and if they wrote their English placards for him.
So what, Mr. Obama? So you went out of your way to tell the world that America is not at war with Islam. So what? And then you travelled around Europe apologizing for what you perceived as the errors of American arrogance, we who dare to “impose our values” upon other nations. So what? And then you, with the unique heritage of Christian and Muslim roots, who saw Islam from the perspective of three different nations, you who recognize that our American values are international, are human rights, and that elections are not legitimate if the will of the people is quashed by coercive means. So what? Are these “just words”?
What the Iranians want from you now, is not just the empty echo of truisms read from a teleprompter; what they want from you now, what the entire world is waiting to see, is how you convert your beautiful prose into meaningful actions.
Rhetoric is the tool of rabble rousers, propagandists and flim flam artists. American Presidents cannot rely upon rhetoric alone. They must lead through action—action that is often unpopular among some quarters, action that angers the tyrants who coerce and oppress their people, action that may have unpredictable outcomes, but actions, nonetheless.
Mr. President: Inaction is not a strategy.
***UPDATE***
Obama has now made new statements...words...
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday declared the United States and the entire world "appalled and outraged" by Iran's violent efforts to crush dissent, a clear toughening of his rhetoric as Republican critics at home pound him for being too passive.
Obama condemned the "threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. "
"I strongly condemn these unjust actions," Obama said in a news conference at the White House.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday declared the United States and the entire world "appalled and outraged" by Iran's violent efforts to crush dissent, a clear toughening of his rhetoric as Republican critics at home pound him for being too passive.
Obama condemned the "threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. "
"I strongly condemn these unjust actions," Obama said in a news conference at the White House.
"I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering in Iran's affairs," Obama said. "But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place."
"We have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets," Obama said. "While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history."
**SO WHAT? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? WHAT DOES YOUR TELEPROMPTER SUGGEST THAT YOU DO?**
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Immigration Lawyers should not be above the law.
Imagine, for a moment, two scenarios involving lawyers giving legal advice.
In the first, lawyers are contracted by the government to provide legal advice on the limits of interrogation for terrorists who may have important information that could prevent an imminent attack.
The lawyer reads the pertinent laws, then states: “The law prohibits the use of interrogation techniques that fall under the definition of torture. Torture, according to our law, is defined as acts of Intent that meet characteristics X, Y, and Z, where the conditions are 1, 2, and 3. In order to use more forceful techniques and yet not violate the laws, you would have to do Alpha through Zed. If you do this, then the techniques your interrogators have requested would NOT violate the law.”
In the second scenario, an illegal immigrant approaches a lawyer and tells him that he entered the country illegally, was caught and given a court date.
The lawyer reads the pertinent laws, then states: “You should not appear before the court, because they may arrest you and deport you. Continue to hide.”
The first scenario describes the well-known circumstances surrounding the Bush administration’s lawyers who advised the President about how to adapt interrogation techniques in such a way as to still use some coercive methods while not violating torture laws. As a result, Liberals are in an outrage, and are demanding prosecution of the lawyers who wrote the opinion.(*)
The second scenario is a real incident I found in the June 11th edition of the Spanish-language Viva! Magazine published by the Denver Post, in a section called “Escribe y Pregunta Sobre Migración” (Write and Ask about Immigration), written by immigration attorney Rafael Salgado.
In the advice, a Honduran man claims to have “immigrated” (illegally) to the United States, was caught and given a court date. He sought legal advice, and another immigration attorney instructed him to NOT appear before the court. In brief, an attorney clearly directed the man, who had already violated US laws by sneaking into the country illegally, to flaunt US laws AGAIN by ignoring the court summons.
The man then informed Mr. Salgado that he had married a Puerto Rican citizen (and therefore a US citizen), and had fathered a baby with her. They want to re-open the case, but Mr. Salgado instructs the immigrant to NOT attempt to reopen the case, because “if you knew you had to go to court and didn’t go—upon the advice of a lawyer—and they gave a deportation order, you do not have much possibility of reopening the case. And if you request reopening the case, you will have to tell them where you live, give them your personal information and domicile address, and the risk is high. I advise that you do not do it and way to see if Congress approves a migration reform.”
In this scenario, we have a man who violated the law once of his own volition, again upon the instructions of an immigration attorney, and who is about to continue in violation of the law thanks to the advice of a second attorney.
It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of hypocrisy of the liberals. How is it possible that they promote the prosecution of lawyers who gave advice about how to proceed with interrogations in a manner that would be consistent with the law, but not prosecute lawyers who blatantly advise their clients to violate the laws?
The American Bar Association has published a set of guidelines that states, in Model Rule 1.2(d) holds that, "A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent."
Clearly, these immigration lawyers are violating the Model Rule 1.2(d). And this practice is surely very widespread among immigration lawyers, as this is certainly NOT the first time illegal immigrants have been advised to go to ground and not appear before the court.
In this example, we are confronted with the oft-cited double standard, a set of rules of behavior that are expected of US citizens—especially conservative Presidents and their legal advisors—and another that applies to illegal immigrants and their immigration lawyers.
(*): Additional Information: In the case of Lynn Stewart, the lawyer who represented the "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman in New York and was convicted (1996) of obstruction of justice and providing material support to terrorism when she transmitted instructions from the Sheikh to his Egyptian followers to resume attacks, it should be noted that George Soros' Open Society Institute also donated $20,000 to Stewart's legal defense fund in 2002. In 2009, Soros stated that he believed the investigation into the Bush lawyers should be expanded to include Vice President Cheney's involvement.In other words: he defends lawyers who helped terrorists, and wants to prosecute officials that combat it.What team is George Soros on?
In the first, lawyers are contracted by the government to provide legal advice on the limits of interrogation for terrorists who may have important information that could prevent an imminent attack.
The lawyer reads the pertinent laws, then states: “The law prohibits the use of interrogation techniques that fall under the definition of torture. Torture, according to our law, is defined as acts of Intent that meet characteristics X, Y, and Z, where the conditions are 1, 2, and 3. In order to use more forceful techniques and yet not violate the laws, you would have to do Alpha through Zed. If you do this, then the techniques your interrogators have requested would NOT violate the law.”
In the second scenario, an illegal immigrant approaches a lawyer and tells him that he entered the country illegally, was caught and given a court date.
The lawyer reads the pertinent laws, then states: “You should not appear before the court, because they may arrest you and deport you. Continue to hide.”
The first scenario describes the well-known circumstances surrounding the Bush administration’s lawyers who advised the President about how to adapt interrogation techniques in such a way as to still use some coercive methods while not violating torture laws. As a result, Liberals are in an outrage, and are demanding prosecution of the lawyers who wrote the opinion.(*)
The second scenario is a real incident I found in the June 11th edition of the Spanish-language Viva! Magazine published by the Denver Post, in a section called “Escribe y Pregunta Sobre Migración” (Write and Ask about Immigration), written by immigration attorney Rafael Salgado.
In the advice, a Honduran man claims to have “immigrated” (illegally) to the United States, was caught and given a court date. He sought legal advice, and another immigration attorney instructed him to NOT appear before the court. In brief, an attorney clearly directed the man, who had already violated US laws by sneaking into the country illegally, to flaunt US laws AGAIN by ignoring the court summons.
The man then informed Mr. Salgado that he had married a Puerto Rican citizen (and therefore a US citizen), and had fathered a baby with her. They want to re-open the case, but Mr. Salgado instructs the immigrant to NOT attempt to reopen the case, because “if you knew you had to go to court and didn’t go—upon the advice of a lawyer—and they gave a deportation order, you do not have much possibility of reopening the case. And if you request reopening the case, you will have to tell them where you live, give them your personal information and domicile address, and the risk is high. I advise that you do not do it and way to see if Congress approves a migration reform.”
In this scenario, we have a man who violated the law once of his own volition, again upon the instructions of an immigration attorney, and who is about to continue in violation of the law thanks to the advice of a second attorney.
It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of hypocrisy of the liberals. How is it possible that they promote the prosecution of lawyers who gave advice about how to proceed with interrogations in a manner that would be consistent with the law, but not prosecute lawyers who blatantly advise their clients to violate the laws?
The American Bar Association has published a set of guidelines that states, in Model Rule 1.2(d) holds that, "A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent."
Clearly, these immigration lawyers are violating the Model Rule 1.2(d). And this practice is surely very widespread among immigration lawyers, as this is certainly NOT the first time illegal immigrants have been advised to go to ground and not appear before the court.
In this example, we are confronted with the oft-cited double standard, a set of rules of behavior that are expected of US citizens—especially conservative Presidents and their legal advisors—and another that applies to illegal immigrants and their immigration lawyers.
(*): Additional Information: In the case of Lynn Stewart, the lawyer who represented the "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman in New York and was convicted (1996) of obstruction of justice and providing material support to terrorism when she transmitted instructions from the Sheikh to his Egyptian followers to resume attacks, it should be noted that George Soros' Open Society Institute also donated $20,000 to Stewart's legal defense fund in 2002. In 2009, Soros stated that he believed the investigation into the Bush lawyers should be expanded to include Vice President Cheney's involvement.In other words: he defends lawyers who helped terrorists, and wants to prosecute officials that combat it.What team is George Soros on?
Friday, May 29, 2009
“Those who are ignorant of their history…
…are condemned to repeat it.” No truer words have ever been uttered.
In researching the situation with Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, I came across a little footnote in American history about which I was previously ignorant, and that I found astonishing and alarming. If you do not know the history behind the phrase “The switch in time that saved nine”, you might want to read this article.
It should be obvious to any thinking individual that History does not truly “repeat” itself, not exactly. But like musical phrases from a symphony, certain themes do reappear and build upon themselves. Our current economic crisis, coming at the end of a roaring period of growth in the 1990’s and 2000’s, is reminiscent of what historians now call the “Roaring Twenties”. America at that time was truly entering modernity. Our “manifest destiny” was being realized, our nation was beginning to jell. We no longer had a “Wild West” suffering frequent Indian wars, industrialization was at its peak, we had recovered from the expensive (both socially and economically) disaster of the Civil War, and our participation in World War I had resulted in America sitting as the preeminent and wealthiest nation on Earth. Deep ethnic divisions were festering and would eventually result in the explosive Civil Rights Movement which, gratefully, would be resolved “peacefully” thanks to the wise Christian leadership of Martin Luther King forty years later.
But in the meantime, the bloodiness of WWI mixed with a heady sense of relief, pride, optimism, and a healthy dose of disenchantment: after all, millions had died during the war, and intellectuals began to question the traditional values that had led the world to that “war to end all wars”. The cynicism felt by many found expression in the nihilist art form known as “Dada,” which was “anti-art” (if Art had the intention of appealing to the sensibilities, Dada was intended to offend them. Simultaneously, the relief of the end of the war resulted in an exuberance that created the “Flapper” movement, redefining the woman’s role in society, and openly disdained popular perception of what was “proper” behavior for women. The Jazz Age was born, and it should be noted that at that time Jazz was looked upon with the same disdain that Rap is now: it was hedonistic party music associated with drug and alcohol abuse, promiscuity, and open sexuality.
So, while Europe was rebuilding after the war, America was prospering, and “experimenting” with new and “progressive” ideals. This hedonistic attitude would eventually spread to Europe and alter their cultures as well.
But it was not all “wine and roses”: the end of the war meant an end to government spending and a deep recession, perhaps even a depression. Unemployment reached 20%. Runaway inflation was destroying the economy. Three consecutive Republican Presidents combated this trend with debt reduction, tax cuts, reduced spending, and a close relationship between government and industry. “Consumerism” was born, and while some benefitted, large portions of the population saw no real increase in their overall wealth. To use today’s Progressive jargon: The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Or remained equally poor, to be fair. The normalcy of the economic boom in the 1920s resulted in an explosive growth of government and spending that would eventually come to haunt the country. From 1929 to 1933, under President Hoover, real per capita federal spending increased by 88%.
The Republican policies worked. For most of the decade, the economy not only recovered, but also began to boom. Overconfidence resulted in a speculative bubble that sparked the stock market crash and the Great Depression. The Republicans tried to maintain a government role as “arbiter” and avoid direct intervention.
But when the stock markets crashed, and banks collapsed, the mood in the country understandably shifted, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” programs (there were actually two) are the historic inspiration for President Obama’s contemporary Reinvestment Act. The first New Deal was aimed at helping the Banks and the railroads, the key industry at that time. He abandoned the gold standard, and enacted “work relief” programs, in which the government would provide jobs to millions of Americans. The second act included labor union support, the Social Security Act, and programs to aid the agricultural sector, particularly tenant farmers and migrant workers.
Take a moment to reflect upon that history, comparing what you know about the period in US history from WWII, through Viet Nam, to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the sweeping reforms he enacted, to the two decades of prosperity of the ‘90s through 2007. An historical theme runs through both periods, to be punctuated poignantly by the current economic collapse and election of President Obama. From exuberance and economic glory, to excess, moral decline, a willingness to redefine the nation's values based upon whimsical fancy, to the heady and uncontrolled expanse of government, while the investors drunkenly and greedily set aside better judgement for a quick profit.
Returning to the New Deal; Roosevelt’s plans ran afoul of the Supreme Court. That court repeatedly shot down Roosevelt’s plans for perceived constitutional violations, because the reach of government was expanding far beyond the limitations to Federal Government powers stated within the constitution.
Infuriated, Roosevelt devised a plan. The US Constitution does not expressly limit the number of justices on the court to nine justices. So Roosevelt created the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, also known popularly as “The Court-Packing Plan.” He would expand the court to 15 judges and appoint six new, liberal judges to swing the court in his favor and allow him control the Supreme Court.
About the time the Court-Packing Plan was about to be enacted, Justice Owen Roberts, who had consistently voted against most of the New Deal provisions, changed his votes and started approving the plans. This is the source of the phrase, “a switch in time saved nine”: by changing his vote, acquiescing to the dominating mood at the time, Roberts avoided a major overhaul of the Supreme Court.
The implications for today’s America are not trivial. The level of disenchantment caused by the economic collapse following on two decades of economic prosperity is deep and radical. The common mantra that “we must act to avoid disaster” has allowed politicians to leverage off the people’s fears, and guide the nation onto an unprecedented path. The Obama administration, enjoying an almost cult-like following, has been given free rein to spend more money in less than 100 days than previous administrations combined. The government has interfered with the contract obligations of investors and given unwarranted ownership to unions in today’s auto-making industry.
But the Obama administrations goals are far grander than this. The Progressives want to force the nation to redefine marriage, remove limits on even the most reprehensible forms of abortion, radically alter the medical industry, and force through “transformational” policies based upon hysterical fears about global catastrophe that would fundamentally alter American society in every respect. They have repeatedly suggested their interest in controlling access to guns, and nominated as a Supreme Court Justice a woman who believes that gun ownership is not a “Fundamental Right”. They want to grant amnesty to tens of millions of people who entered the country illegally and oppose local and state police forces from working with the federal government to enforce immigration policy.
Annoyed that Americans would dare to defy them and instead rally around popular media spokesmen like Rush Limbaugh, they float the idea of imposing a “Fairness Doctrine” that would force radio stations to essentially subsidize unpopular beliefs and create “popular commissions” to monitor and report on compliance. And at a time in which our national security is threatened by a cabal of rogue states and radical terrorist organizations, they are gutting the national defense, hamstringing our intelligence organizations, and persecute the previous administration’s officials for the tactics they used to keep us safe.
So, if the wheels continue to come off the cart, what’s to say that the proposals will not become increasingly radical? This administration has already admitted that their philosophy is to use “crisis” as an “opportunity”. As the Obama administration looks back at the radically populist policies of the Roosevelt administration, who is to say that Obama could not “resuscitate” the Court-Packing Plan in order to lock in control over the Supreme Court?
When the effects of Obama’s massive spending results in inflation, when the dollar has collapsed due to their uncontrolled printing of worthless money, as fuel prices rise and the cost of basic necessities such as food, energy, and transportation necessarily rise and result in greater unemployment, hunger, desperation, a natural outcome will be for the administration to use the next crisis as an opportunity to enact even more desperate “temporary” measures.
Everything I’m describing is exactly what happened in Venezuela over the past ten years. Step by step, President Chavez took control of the Congress, then declared a crisis and took control of the court, then expanded the court from nine to thirteen judges. He decreed price controls that forced private industries to deliver “basic goods” at below cost. When they could not do that, he nationalized them, giving them to his friends and supportive interest groups, such as unions. He closed down the largest opposition television network by refusing to renew their “broadcast concession,” and has now threatened the last major free network with the same. He funded community activist groups that performed acts intimidation, as well as electoral fraud. All the while, he maintained popular support by saying that he was doing this in the interests of the poor, the unemployed, the ethnic minority victims of capitalism, even “to save the world” because capitalism is destroying the environment. His next step was to attempt to alter the constitution to give himself perpetual re-election.
So, tell me: is what I described about Chavez, and Roosevelt, all that different from what we know about Obama?
In researching the situation with Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, I came across a little footnote in American history about which I was previously ignorant, and that I found astonishing and alarming. If you do not know the history behind the phrase “The switch in time that saved nine”, you might want to read this article.
It should be obvious to any thinking individual that History does not truly “repeat” itself, not exactly. But like musical phrases from a symphony, certain themes do reappear and build upon themselves. Our current economic crisis, coming at the end of a roaring period of growth in the 1990’s and 2000’s, is reminiscent of what historians now call the “Roaring Twenties”. America at that time was truly entering modernity. Our “manifest destiny” was being realized, our nation was beginning to jell. We no longer had a “Wild West” suffering frequent Indian wars, industrialization was at its peak, we had recovered from the expensive (both socially and economically) disaster of the Civil War, and our participation in World War I had resulted in America sitting as the preeminent and wealthiest nation on Earth. Deep ethnic divisions were festering and would eventually result in the explosive Civil Rights Movement which, gratefully, would be resolved “peacefully” thanks to the wise Christian leadership of Martin Luther King forty years later.
But in the meantime, the bloodiness of WWI mixed with a heady sense of relief, pride, optimism, and a healthy dose of disenchantment: after all, millions had died during the war, and intellectuals began to question the traditional values that had led the world to that “war to end all wars”. The cynicism felt by many found expression in the nihilist art form known as “Dada,” which was “anti-art” (if Art had the intention of appealing to the sensibilities, Dada was intended to offend them. Simultaneously, the relief of the end of the war resulted in an exuberance that created the “Flapper” movement, redefining the woman’s role in society, and openly disdained popular perception of what was “proper” behavior for women. The Jazz Age was born, and it should be noted that at that time Jazz was looked upon with the same disdain that Rap is now: it was hedonistic party music associated with drug and alcohol abuse, promiscuity, and open sexuality.
So, while Europe was rebuilding after the war, America was prospering, and “experimenting” with new and “progressive” ideals. This hedonistic attitude would eventually spread to Europe and alter their cultures as well.
But it was not all “wine and roses”: the end of the war meant an end to government spending and a deep recession, perhaps even a depression. Unemployment reached 20%. Runaway inflation was destroying the economy. Three consecutive Republican Presidents combated this trend with debt reduction, tax cuts, reduced spending, and a close relationship between government and industry. “Consumerism” was born, and while some benefitted, large portions of the population saw no real increase in their overall wealth. To use today’s Progressive jargon: The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Or remained equally poor, to be fair. The normalcy of the economic boom in the 1920s resulted in an explosive growth of government and spending that would eventually come to haunt the country. From 1929 to 1933, under President Hoover, real per capita federal spending increased by 88%.
The Republican policies worked. For most of the decade, the economy not only recovered, but also began to boom. Overconfidence resulted in a speculative bubble that sparked the stock market crash and the Great Depression. The Republicans tried to maintain a government role as “arbiter” and avoid direct intervention.
But when the stock markets crashed, and banks collapsed, the mood in the country understandably shifted, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” programs (there were actually two) are the historic inspiration for President Obama’s contemporary Reinvestment Act. The first New Deal was aimed at helping the Banks and the railroads, the key industry at that time. He abandoned the gold standard, and enacted “work relief” programs, in which the government would provide jobs to millions of Americans. The second act included labor union support, the Social Security Act, and programs to aid the agricultural sector, particularly tenant farmers and migrant workers.
Take a moment to reflect upon that history, comparing what you know about the period in US history from WWII, through Viet Nam, to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the sweeping reforms he enacted, to the two decades of prosperity of the ‘90s through 2007. An historical theme runs through both periods, to be punctuated poignantly by the current economic collapse and election of President Obama. From exuberance and economic glory, to excess, moral decline, a willingness to redefine the nation's values based upon whimsical fancy, to the heady and uncontrolled expanse of government, while the investors drunkenly and greedily set aside better judgement for a quick profit.
Returning to the New Deal; Roosevelt’s plans ran afoul of the Supreme Court. That court repeatedly shot down Roosevelt’s plans for perceived constitutional violations, because the reach of government was expanding far beyond the limitations to Federal Government powers stated within the constitution.
Infuriated, Roosevelt devised a plan. The US Constitution does not expressly limit the number of justices on the court to nine justices. So Roosevelt created the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, also known popularly as “The Court-Packing Plan.” He would expand the court to 15 judges and appoint six new, liberal judges to swing the court in his favor and allow him control the Supreme Court.
About the time the Court-Packing Plan was about to be enacted, Justice Owen Roberts, who had consistently voted against most of the New Deal provisions, changed his votes and started approving the plans. This is the source of the phrase, “a switch in time saved nine”: by changing his vote, acquiescing to the dominating mood at the time, Roberts avoided a major overhaul of the Supreme Court.
The implications for today’s America are not trivial. The level of disenchantment caused by the economic collapse following on two decades of economic prosperity is deep and radical. The common mantra that “we must act to avoid disaster” has allowed politicians to leverage off the people’s fears, and guide the nation onto an unprecedented path. The Obama administration, enjoying an almost cult-like following, has been given free rein to spend more money in less than 100 days than previous administrations combined. The government has interfered with the contract obligations of investors and given unwarranted ownership to unions in today’s auto-making industry.
But the Obama administrations goals are far grander than this. The Progressives want to force the nation to redefine marriage, remove limits on even the most reprehensible forms of abortion, radically alter the medical industry, and force through “transformational” policies based upon hysterical fears about global catastrophe that would fundamentally alter American society in every respect. They have repeatedly suggested their interest in controlling access to guns, and nominated as a Supreme Court Justice a woman who believes that gun ownership is not a “Fundamental Right”. They want to grant amnesty to tens of millions of people who entered the country illegally and oppose local and state police forces from working with the federal government to enforce immigration policy.
Annoyed that Americans would dare to defy them and instead rally around popular media spokesmen like Rush Limbaugh, they float the idea of imposing a “Fairness Doctrine” that would force radio stations to essentially subsidize unpopular beliefs and create “popular commissions” to monitor and report on compliance. And at a time in which our national security is threatened by a cabal of rogue states and radical terrorist organizations, they are gutting the national defense, hamstringing our intelligence organizations, and persecute the previous administration’s officials for the tactics they used to keep us safe.
So, if the wheels continue to come off the cart, what’s to say that the proposals will not become increasingly radical? This administration has already admitted that their philosophy is to use “crisis” as an “opportunity”. As the Obama administration looks back at the radically populist policies of the Roosevelt administration, who is to say that Obama could not “resuscitate” the Court-Packing Plan in order to lock in control over the Supreme Court?
When the effects of Obama’s massive spending results in inflation, when the dollar has collapsed due to their uncontrolled printing of worthless money, as fuel prices rise and the cost of basic necessities such as food, energy, and transportation necessarily rise and result in greater unemployment, hunger, desperation, a natural outcome will be for the administration to use the next crisis as an opportunity to enact even more desperate “temporary” measures.
Everything I’m describing is exactly what happened in Venezuela over the past ten years. Step by step, President Chavez took control of the Congress, then declared a crisis and took control of the court, then expanded the court from nine to thirteen judges. He decreed price controls that forced private industries to deliver “basic goods” at below cost. When they could not do that, he nationalized them, giving them to his friends and supportive interest groups, such as unions. He closed down the largest opposition television network by refusing to renew their “broadcast concession,” and has now threatened the last major free network with the same. He funded community activist groups that performed acts intimidation, as well as electoral fraud. All the while, he maintained popular support by saying that he was doing this in the interests of the poor, the unemployed, the ethnic minority victims of capitalism, even “to save the world” because capitalism is destroying the environment. His next step was to attempt to alter the constitution to give himself perpetual re-election.
So, tell me: is what I described about Chavez, and Roosevelt, all that different from what we know about Obama?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Gun Control Lies, Truths, and the False Presumption of Ethnically-Based Wisdom
Gun Control Lies, Truths, and the False Presumption of Ethnically-Based Wisdom
Forces within our nation appear to be on two simultaneous and radically divergent paths. On the one hand, a number of states are passing laws that expand citizen gun-ownership and carry rights, such as the one in Texas that gives the go-ahead for concealed-carry permit holders to tote their weapons on colleges. Similarly, on the national level, a recent Senate measure would allow loaded guns in national parks. On the other hand, “progressives” continue to push to limit gun-ownership and increase the difficulty of the average law-abiding citizen to own guns.
In my previous articles I have discussed the illogical opinions and laws about assault weapons bans, and the second amendment rights that afford all (non-criminal) citizens the right to keep and bear arms. I continue to be interested in this topic and educate myself because the “Progressives” continue to try to find ways to end-run around the constitution. I believe the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is yet another covert attempt to accomplish that goal.
So I decided to take on the Progressives’ primary excuse why guns should be banned: Civilized societies that ban guns experience fewer homicides, less violence and enjoy a lower crime rate.
But is that true?
I found a fascinating and enlightening study published by bepress Legal Series, entitled: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence” by Gary Mauser and Don B. Kates.
In this 117 page, highly researched and cited article, the two authors undertook the exact analysis I had wanted to perform and their findings cut the Progressives off at the knees.
For example, Progressive often cite the low crime rate in England and praise the strict gun bans in place in that country. Kates and Mauser document that this is not the case at all.
“The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of strict gun laws.
When it had no firearms restrictions [19th and early 20th Century] England had little violent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence.... Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957 the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold.”
They continue:
“In the late 1990s England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands were confiscated from owners law abiding enough to turn them in. Without suggesting this caused violence, the bans' ineffectiveness was such that by year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England had the developed world’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the U.S.”
Let that soak in a moment: Despite the strict gun bans in England, the violent crime rate in England actually surpassed that of the United States in 2000!
The authors extended their research to cover thirty six countries and found that, in the countries with the strictest gun ban laws, violence did not decrease. To the contrary, violent crimes were lowest in countries where gun ownership was highest.
“Nations with higher gun ownership rates do not have higher murder (or suicide) rates than do those with lower gun ownership…Consider the wide divergence in murder rates among Continental European nations with widely divergent gun ownership rates. (Actually, those nations with least gun ownership generally seem to have the highest murder rates.)”
“The non-correlation between gun ownership and murder is reinforced by examination of
statistics from larger numbers of nations across the developed world. Comparison of ‘homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty-six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990- 1995’ to gun ownership levels showed ‘no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate.’ Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which ‘no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found.’…Thus it is not just the murder rate in gun-less Russia that is four times higher than the American rate; the Russian suicide rate is also about four times higher than the American.”
Instead, they came to the conclusion that violence is determined by a number of social factors, and that a society that is prone to violent expression will have higher rates of violent crimes, and that tools—or weapons—chosen by the criminal are irrelevant. “As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest, the kinds of people who murder will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons with which to kill.”
They then come to the conclusion that “one reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals, (and this is especially true of murderers) ‘almost always have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior.’ So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob or murder. By the same token violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians.”
If you cannot stomach the opinions of these two American lawyers, consider the opinion of a retired English Police Officer who helped pen one of the premier studies of English gun control. “Done by a senior English police official as his thesis at the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology and later published as a book, it found (as of the early 1970s): Half a century of strict controls has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of [handguns] in crime than ever before. No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less [in England before 1920] when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction.”
Here in America, the bias of opinion by primarily liberal journalists and editors results in a bias in published articles. Gun crime receives inordinate attention by the media, while violent crime committed by other means is often overlooked. But the headlines are everywhere, if we choose to look: Man murders wife and kids with Bush-Axe. Woman suffocates her own son. Spider Man 3 actress hangs herself. Parents of 9 year old boy stabbed to death in front of him.
In a more recent article published in 2009, Mr. Kates writes that “Gun Control Restricts Those Least Likely to Commit Violent Crimes.” Kates reviews the March 21st murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon. Mixon was “a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation”, who “epitomizes the futility of ‘gun control,’ or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults.” Kates points out that, while Progressive organizations such as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns allege that “most murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens,” the Mixon murders were “not an anomaly.”
To the contrary, “felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced.” Restricting the access to guns for law-abiding citizens will not significantly reduce crime. As Kates illustrates, “the United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. ‘Gun control,’ therefore, only ‘controls’ those who have done nothing to merit such regulations. Arguments for gun control rest on deceptive claims such as Americans are deluged by literally dozens of supposedly scholarly articles asserting such falsehoods—but with no supporting references. For there are none.”
It is important to spread this information at this time, as President Obama attempts to get Judge Sotomayor confirmed for the supreme court, because while she was on the Second Circuit Appeals Court—and she has publicly admitted to thinking that appeals courts are “where policy is made”—she opined that the Second Amendment is not a “Fundamental Right”, and therefore “does not apply to the states”. In other words, in keeping with Obama’s support of gun control laws, states can individually restrict gun ownership.
This same judge was also recorded stating that, as a Latina woman, she would probably have greater wisdom than her white, male counterparts. Overlooking the overt racist content of that statement, we find that her activist interpretation of the constitution puts in question that presumed “wisdom”. As was pointed out in a Washington Times article about Sotomayer’s opinions, The ‘Empathy’ Nominee; “The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn't what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the ‘richness’ of her experience comes to believe it should be.”
We are able to turn the tables on Judge Sotomayor in this particular instance. Being the daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants to the country, perhaps she is not fully steeped in the history of our nation. It may be important to note that she is also a member of the "radical" political group called La Raza, which has connections with groups advocating for the separation of several South Western states from the United States. It's difficult to see how membership to that organization could be considered "wise".
Maybe she lacks a deep understanding of the reasoning behind the second amendment, and dismisses the wisdom of our white male founding fathers. These same intellectual giants, who clearly enumerated the Second Amendment to protect our individual right to keep and bear arms, feared that in the distant future, activist judges might interpret the existence of a list of “Fundamental Rights” enumerated in the Bill of Rights to mean that any “rights” not contained therein could be considered to be something other than “Fundamental”, and thus to be abridged.
For this reason, they included the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
In other words, Judge:
The Second Amendment is not up for dispute, cannot be abridged or limited, and your arrogant presumption that you were gifted extraordinary wisdom based upon your color and anatomy is false.
Forces within our nation appear to be on two simultaneous and radically divergent paths. On the one hand, a number of states are passing laws that expand citizen gun-ownership and carry rights, such as the one in Texas that gives the go-ahead for concealed-carry permit holders to tote their weapons on colleges. Similarly, on the national level, a recent Senate measure would allow loaded guns in national parks. On the other hand, “progressives” continue to push to limit gun-ownership and increase the difficulty of the average law-abiding citizen to own guns.
In my previous articles I have discussed the illogical opinions and laws about assault weapons bans, and the second amendment rights that afford all (non-criminal) citizens the right to keep and bear arms. I continue to be interested in this topic and educate myself because the “Progressives” continue to try to find ways to end-run around the constitution. I believe the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is yet another covert attempt to accomplish that goal.
So I decided to take on the Progressives’ primary excuse why guns should be banned: Civilized societies that ban guns experience fewer homicides, less violence and enjoy a lower crime rate.
But is that true?
I found a fascinating and enlightening study published by bepress Legal Series, entitled: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence” by Gary Mauser and Don B. Kates.
In this 117 page, highly researched and cited article, the two authors undertook the exact analysis I had wanted to perform and their findings cut the Progressives off at the knees.
For example, Progressive often cite the low crime rate in England and praise the strict gun bans in place in that country. Kates and Mauser document that this is not the case at all.
“The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of strict gun laws.
When it had no firearms restrictions [19th and early 20th Century] England had little violent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence.... Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957 the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold.”
They continue:
“In the late 1990s England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands were confiscated from owners law abiding enough to turn them in. Without suggesting this caused violence, the bans' ineffectiveness was such that by year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England had the developed world’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the U.S.”
Let that soak in a moment: Despite the strict gun bans in England, the violent crime rate in England actually surpassed that of the United States in 2000!
The authors extended their research to cover thirty six countries and found that, in the countries with the strictest gun ban laws, violence did not decrease. To the contrary, violent crimes were lowest in countries where gun ownership was highest.
“Nations with higher gun ownership rates do not have higher murder (or suicide) rates than do those with lower gun ownership…Consider the wide divergence in murder rates among Continental European nations with widely divergent gun ownership rates. (Actually, those nations with least gun ownership generally seem to have the highest murder rates.)”
“The non-correlation between gun ownership and murder is reinforced by examination of
statistics from larger numbers of nations across the developed world. Comparison of ‘homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty-six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990- 1995’ to gun ownership levels showed ‘no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate.’ Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which ‘no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found.’…Thus it is not just the murder rate in gun-less Russia that is four times higher than the American rate; the Russian suicide rate is also about four times higher than the American.”
Instead, they came to the conclusion that violence is determined by a number of social factors, and that a society that is prone to violent expression will have higher rates of violent crimes, and that tools—or weapons—chosen by the criminal are irrelevant. “As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest, the kinds of people who murder will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons with which to kill.”
They then come to the conclusion that “one reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals, (and this is especially true of murderers) ‘almost always have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior.’ So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob or murder. By the same token violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians.”
If you cannot stomach the opinions of these two American lawyers, consider the opinion of a retired English Police Officer who helped pen one of the premier studies of English gun control. “Done by a senior English police official as his thesis at the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology and later published as a book, it found (as of the early 1970s): Half a century of strict controls has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of [handguns] in crime than ever before. No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less [in England before 1920] when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction.”
Here in America, the bias of opinion by primarily liberal journalists and editors results in a bias in published articles. Gun crime receives inordinate attention by the media, while violent crime committed by other means is often overlooked. But the headlines are everywhere, if we choose to look: Man murders wife and kids with Bush-Axe. Woman suffocates her own son. Spider Man 3 actress hangs herself. Parents of 9 year old boy stabbed to death in front of him.
In a more recent article published in 2009, Mr. Kates writes that “Gun Control Restricts Those Least Likely to Commit Violent Crimes.” Kates reviews the March 21st murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon. Mixon was “a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation”, who “epitomizes the futility of ‘gun control,’ or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults.” Kates points out that, while Progressive organizations such as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns allege that “most murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens,” the Mixon murders were “not an anomaly.”
To the contrary, “felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced.” Restricting the access to guns for law-abiding citizens will not significantly reduce crime. As Kates illustrates, “the United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. ‘Gun control,’ therefore, only ‘controls’ those who have done nothing to merit such regulations. Arguments for gun control rest on deceptive claims such as Americans are deluged by literally dozens of supposedly scholarly articles asserting such falsehoods—but with no supporting references. For there are none.”
It is important to spread this information at this time, as President Obama attempts to get Judge Sotomayor confirmed for the supreme court, because while she was on the Second Circuit Appeals Court—and she has publicly admitted to thinking that appeals courts are “where policy is made”—she opined that the Second Amendment is not a “Fundamental Right”, and therefore “does not apply to the states”. In other words, in keeping with Obama’s support of gun control laws, states can individually restrict gun ownership.
This same judge was also recorded stating that, as a Latina woman, she would probably have greater wisdom than her white, male counterparts. Overlooking the overt racist content of that statement, we find that her activist interpretation of the constitution puts in question that presumed “wisdom”. As was pointed out in a Washington Times article about Sotomayer’s opinions, The ‘Empathy’ Nominee; “The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn't what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the ‘richness’ of her experience comes to believe it should be.”
We are able to turn the tables on Judge Sotomayor in this particular instance. Being the daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants to the country, perhaps she is not fully steeped in the history of our nation. It may be important to note that she is also a member of the "radical" political group called La Raza, which has connections with groups advocating for the separation of several South Western states from the United States. It's difficult to see how membership to that organization could be considered "wise".
Maybe she lacks a deep understanding of the reasoning behind the second amendment, and dismisses the wisdom of our white male founding fathers. These same intellectual giants, who clearly enumerated the Second Amendment to protect our individual right to keep and bear arms, feared that in the distant future, activist judges might interpret the existence of a list of “Fundamental Rights” enumerated in the Bill of Rights to mean that any “rights” not contained therein could be considered to be something other than “Fundamental”, and thus to be abridged.
For this reason, they included the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
In other words, Judge:
The Second Amendment is not up for dispute, cannot be abridged or limited, and your arrogant presumption that you were gifted extraordinary wisdom based upon your color and anatomy is false.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
