The administration's choice to be the nation's doctor in chief views gun ownership as a public health issue and not a constitutional right, and wants doctors to query patients about guns in their homes.
[G]un-grabbing advocate Dr. Vivek Hallegere Murthy, [is] Obama's nominee to be U.S. Surgeon General.
Murthy is the 36-year-old president and co-founder of the anti-gun group Doctors for America, which advocates ObamaCare and gun control laws.
Doctors for America has also promoted the invasion of privacy by doctors by allowing them to ask patients if they have guns at home, including asking children if their parents own guns...
He would have doctors counsel their patients against exercising their Second Amendment rights.
One wonders how private that information might remain if entered into the medical records the government would be privy to under ObamaCare.
Murthy ignores the fact that mass shootings such as at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., occur in so-called gun-free zones where the only armed individual is the predator. [Investor's Business Daily]
Conservatives for Palestine is the title of the article in which certain like minded elected officials were celebrated for their anti-Israel vote. One was a speaker at a pro Palestine summit, the other referred to as a "kindred spirit". The speaker was Cynthia McKinney. Her "kindred spirit" was Thomas Massie.
Now lest we forget our ally in the region is Israel. The "summit" questioned that alliance and blamed our woes and our wars on our relationship with Israel.
"Research indicates the U.S.-Israel "special relationship" is a major factor in foreign hostility towards Americans. Some experts suggest that Israel has been central to U.S. wars in the Middle East."
One blog called the Progressive Zionist had this to say about Thomas Massies lone dissenting vote against a bill strengthening the US/Israel alliance:
It has been a subject of vicious debate whether anti-Zionism in America can be seen as a liberal phenomenon - one that in the US is aligned with elements of the Democratic party - or whether it is solely on the extremes.
Today the House of Representatives voted on the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, a bill that declares Israel to be a “major strategic partner” of the United States, enables further US-Israel economic, scientific, and cultural exhange, and contains some perks for Israeli citizens regarding travel to the US. The bill is sufficiently substantive that it has the antisemites anti-Zionists at Mondoweiss freaking out. What can todays roll call vote tell us about where anti-Zionism lies?
[W]hich of the far-left whacked-out Democrats was the one "no" vote? Was it Barbara Lee of Oakland / Berkeley, who has flirted with Trutherism? Was it Keith Ellison, the only Muslim on Congress, who has in the past said some stupid things regarding Gaza? Was it Bill Pascrell of New Jersey, who defeated a Jewish opponent in a primary and who we were told was a secret anti-Zionist.
Actually, Lee, Elliison, and Pascrell all voted yes.
It turns out the sole "no" vote came from a Republican - Thomas Massie of Kentucky.
"But I thought that anti-Zionism had infected the Democratic party, while the Republican party is full of people who understand the moral and historical case for Israel."
Well, if you thought that, on this one you thought wrong.
Massie is a Rand Paul devotee from the "libertarian" wing of the Republican party. ("libertarian" is in quotes because I'm sure, like all Republican-aligned "libertarians" he doesn't support true personal liberty like drug legalization or abortion rights). Massie even goes so far as to supposedly live "off the grid" in a log cabin, which is hilarious considering his district consists of the Northern Kentucky suburbs of Cincinnati, truly one of the most anonymously suburban wastelands in the world. The closest his constituents ever get to being "off the grid" is when the credit card reader breaks at Applebees and they have to go to TGI Fridays instead.
But I digress. The point here is that a Republican, and a conservative one at that, was the sole no vote on this important piece of pro-Israel legislation, because he is from the emerging Paulite wing of the Republican party that basically lives by the motto "F the world, including Israel". Does this represent an emerging trend in the Republican party? Does it mean that "Republicans have let antisemitic anti-Zionism in to their tent"? We shall see...
The world wakes up everyday to horrific stories of how much of our food is unfit for consumption. Genetically modified, pesticide laden, artificially enhanced food is the norm in the supply chain. But there are alternatives.
We travelled the country over the past two years searching to find out what others are doing about it. In Michigan, Florida and California for example the move toward non-GMO foods, naturally grown without chemical pesticides is an exploding industry. Just take a look at the footprint inside your local Kroger store devoted to "organic" food selections. Just a year or so ago it was an aisle or two. Today it is an expanding section of their marketplace.
Look at the success of stores like "Whole Foods" and you will see a trend that spells a change in where we get the food we eat. That's why we have redirected our farming efforts toward helping supply the growing market for wholesome foods here at Steepleview Farm.
If you need any more reason to change your food buying habits, here is a story out of Yakima Washington that might help persuade you.
There is something seriously wrong in the fertile Yakima Valley region of Washington. A surging number of babies are being born with major birth defects, and the reasons why are eluding state health officials.
As reported by CNN, a nurse in the area, Sara Barron, was the first to report on a particularly horrifying condition: anencephaly -- a condition in which babies are born without much of their brain and skull.
Her shocking finding and report eventually prompted an investigation by the state health department. Investigators found some disturbing results.
Over a three-year period, there were 23 cases concentrated in three southern Washington counties -- Yakima, Benton and Franklin. That's a rate (8.4 per 10,000 live births) that is four times the national average (2.1 per 10,000 live births), CNN reported.
What could be causing such a phenomenon? Is it just one of those weird coincidences, or is something more sinister at play?
Mandy Stahre, with the Washington State Department of Health, conducted the investigation into the high rates of anencephaly. She says she and other investigators are stumped.
"We have not found an answer, and that's a very frustrating part, because this is such a devastating diagnosis for a woman to have," she told CNN.
Barron, however, says she wonders if state health authorities did not find anything because they didn't look hard enough at all possible causes.
So, exactly how did the state conduct its investigation? Stahre said investigators examined data in each parent's medical record -- what sort of prescription drugs they were taking and preexisting medical conditions.
"But medical records don't have details about diet or pesticide exposure," CNN's Elizabeth Cohen reported, "two key considerations for this type of birth defect." [Natural News]
At Steepleview Farm we raise the food we sell to you the same way we raise it for ourselves, 100% pesticide free, in the field, not under plastic, instead it's the best "under the sun".
This one will take your breath away. Our northern neighbors at the Canada Free Press have nailed it. Barack Obama is bad for Black Americans.
It would be the irony of all time if the 71 percent of disenfranchised black African American youths trying to survive under President Barack Obama forced him out of office before his time is up.
This is one group Obama cannot silence with the racist smear he levies against any who dare criticize his destructive policies.
They see clearly through Obama’s Feb. 27th announced “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative that they have been as blatantly Obama-ignored as Obama’s brother still living in abject poverty in a hut.
It must be the most tragic fact of politics that Barack Obama gets to use his colour to remain untouchable while he spreads Marxist misery on the masses when a sizeable part of those masses entail a lost generation of African Americans.
That’s just the tragic state of affairs for young blacks who remain jobless and hopeless while Obama travels the world giving unlistened-to speeches, playing golf and shooting hoops.
This is the hard life Obama is imposing on young black youth who made it to school and university age.
The ones who didn’t make it through childbirth dominate appalling statistics.
More than any other race, Black babies do not make it past abortion. Shamefully, there are now more Black babies aborted than born in New York City, and New York isn’t the only place following the evil trend started a century ago by Planned Parenthood founder/ bigot Margaret Sanger.
Colby Patout and Debra Richard were witness to a vicious dog attack. “They were mauling this guy’s leg,” Patout said. The man was cycling when two dogs attacked, biting his legs and eventually pulling him off his bike. Patout and Richard rushed to help the man. Richard blocked traffic with her vehicle and Patout grabbed his gun. Patout tried to help the man, who was already seriously injured and bleeding excessively, but was forced to fire at one of the dogs, killing it. Patout said, “I knew this guy needed his life saved at this point. I would want you to stop and do the same for me.” Animal Control officials arrived a short time later and retrieved the second dog. Patout said, “This is what our firearms and the United States is all about. [It is about] saving lives.” (KATC.com, Lafayette, LA, 12/23/13)
First he joined with House Democrats applauding John Kerry making a deal with Iran. Now this:
The House of Representatives passed the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act by a 410-1 vote today. The legislation, a major priority for the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), designates Israel as a "major strategic partner"--a first for any U.S. ally. AIPAC members lobbied Congress to approve the bill on Tuesday, in addition to asking elected officials to sign letters stressing that Congress should be informed of the nuclear negotiations with Iran. Only Thomas Massie of Kentucky voted against the bill. [eWallStreeter]
As a Massie constituent, I believe his position is another demonstration of his consistency. He's a grandstander dancing like a monkey to the tune of far right-wing extremists who have taken over the Kentucky Tea Party - and a continuing embarrassment to me (accustomed to my former visionary Republican congressman). I suppose "intellectuals" may be able to rationalize Massie and admire his "independence" and "courage" to vote his conscience. Guess I'm not that smart, for I think he's an embarrassing nobody - going nowhere, and dragging his district down with him.
Massie's votes against sanctioning Syria, Iran and North Korea were shocking enough. Now he stands alone voting against the rest of the House in his solo opposition to strengthening our alliance with Israel.
Oh, and the House also passed a resolution expressing its support for
"the democratic and European aspirations of the people of Ukraine, and their right to choose their own future free of intimidation and fear...condemns all acts of violence and calls on the Government of Ukraine to bring to justice those responsible for violence and brutality against peaceful protesters...supports the measures taken by the Department of State to revoke the visas of several Ukrainians linked to the violence, and encourages the Administration to consider additional targeted sanctions against those who authorize or engage in the use of force."
The evidence is in and the results are clear, marijuana provides significant health benefits to people when prescribed and monitored under a doctor's supervision. Any member of the Kentucky legislature who denies this health benefit to people in need needs to be un-elected. Liberty and compassion are married in this bill.
The bill passed through the committee process but House Speaker Greg Stumbo says it might not get a vote in the full house. What a crock.
The members of the House are elected by the people. If a majority vote a measure up or down that action presumably represents the will of the people. But to deny the people through their representatives the opportunity to vote on a bill is contrary to the entire democratic process.
Damon Thayer says even if the bill gets to the republican controlled Senate he thinks concerns over "abuse and recreational use" might kill it there. Really?
There is "abuse and recreational use" of many medicines that I venture to say several members of the House and Senate take under their doctor's supervision to control their pain, to regulate their mood and to keep them from being embarrassed in bed. Would they vote to make these medicines illegal or prevent new medicines with proven healing qualities from being prescribed in Kentucky?
What really motivates far too many legislators is not what is in the best interest of the public, but rather what they perceive to be in their best interest politically. So it really depends upon who is whispering or shouting in their ears.
If you believe that the responsible and medically supervised use of marijuana will ease the pain and suffering of other human beings, then you should call today and let your legislators know: we want to help people and want you to pass the "Cannabis Compassion Act." Here's how:
As many of you know my wife and I have known each other since we were kids. We celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary last fall. We celebrated the birth of our first grandchild last spring. And as we reflect back on our wonderful life few things stand out as defining our lifestyle as clearly as our farm life.
Yes, I am still, after 34 years, a full time attorney blessed with a busy practice. But our connection with nature on our farm, our connection with the food we raise and eat and feed our family and friends has been a constant. So, more than two years ago now, Harriet and I began exploring a new path for our future.
We wanted to use our farm in a way that was more conducive to our philosophy. Sure, we'd raised tobacco, cattle, hay, corn, soybeans and other "cash crops" over the years, but those practices involved other farmers, tractors driving all around and the use of some chemicals and sprays that we didn't want but were told were necessary.
We always raised an organic garden for ourselves. Over the years we expanded it to include enough to preserve for the winter and to give away to family and friends.
Lately we began experimenting with curing hams, and sausage and bacon and doing things the "old fashioned way". Our food purchases at stores tended to be more and more "organic" produce, "organic" meat and artisan cheeses and other products from people who shared our way of thinking.
So we began looking at our farm as a place where we could have more control over what we raised and how we raised it. Two years ago we started our plans. Last year we traveled the nation looking for sources of non-GMO seeds, heirloom varieties of produce and studying methods of marketing them.
Since last fall we have been working our second full time jobs as farm planners with an eye toward launching a new venture this spring.
I will give great credit to James Comer and the Kentucky Department of Agriculture as well as the Food Safety Branch of the Department of Health and Family Services. Their assistance has been invaluable and their dedication to "farm to table" wholesome food for the people of Kentucky deserving of praise.
So, with lots of resources and lots of study, thousands of miles of travel, hour upon hour of seminars and reading we have finally arrived at the point of making our announcement.
We are proud to be a brand new part of the entire community of farm to table producers, Farmer's Market owners, wholesome food vendors, "community supported agriculture" purveyors, roadside market operators and agri-tourism participants.
We welome the world to our little piece of heaven. Welcome to:
Vladmir Putin may be losing his grip on reality says German Chancellor Merkel. Hillary Clinton compares Putin to Nazi Germany. Putin timed his threats over the Ukraine to coincide with a pre-announced launch of an inter-continental ballistic missile. He sent a warship to Cuba, is patrolling very close to our maritime borders, supports Iran and is making deals with Communist China. Russia matters.
Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld both said the same thing within the past week. Our president has conducted himself in a way that has given the rest of the world the clear impression that we are weak economically, weak morally, weak militarily and have a weakened political system that is weak on threats to democracy. In other words, Obama has made America more vulnerable in direct contravention of his first and foremost job, protecting the security of our nation and defending our Constitution.
Now, having diagnosed the very serious condition in which we find ourselves, what do we do to heal these problems and how much time do we have to get back on our feet? The answer is: we have precious little time and we need radical change.
Impeachment takes too long and it would get hung up in the Senate. Obama's term in office isn't up until January 2017. So how do we rid ourselves of this sickness?
We must take back the majority in the Senate, increase our seats in the house and move swiftly to remove him from office or at the very least deny him any power over our future.
If you really think that the world is just awash with enthusiasm over Obama then let's assume you are right. Why would they be? Is the rest of the world thrilled that we have enjoyed so much prosperity? Do they celebrate our successes? No.
The rest of the world is like a pack of wolves at our doorstep, living off the scraps we throw into the yard but waiting patiently for the one opportunity to exploit our weakness to come inside, take all the food and eat us in the process if possible.
Why does Russia matter? Because they have just demonstrated for the rest of us how totally inept and dangerous the Obama administration really is.
POLITICO says the days of the robust, ascending Texas TEA party may be over.
[A]s voters go to the polls Tuesday for the state’s primary election, it’s clear the tea party’s heyday in the Lone Star State — at least for the moment — has passed. A push to unseat two of the GOP establishment’s most prominent figures, Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Pete Sessions, has all but collapsed. And nearly all of the 23 House GOP incumbents seeking reelection are expected to glide to primary wins, many against underfunded, obscure tea party opponents.
It would make sense for 2014 to be a good year for the tea party crowd. After all, public resentment toward President Barack Obama is running high in many parts of the country, and midterm years tend to be dominated by an older and whiter set of voters — in other words, the kind of people who might describe themselves as tea party voters.
Yet for Texas conservatives, the heady days of 2010, when Perry suggested at a tea party rally that the state may eventually want to secede from the union, or 2012, when Cruz shocked an establishment candidate on his way to political stardom, seem like a distant memory. The Texas tea party’s struggles in a Republican year is a disappointment and, some say, reflects a deeper concern: that the once all-powerful movement isn’t as organized or effective as it once was.
“I don’t think the tea party has coalesced in 2014 the way they did for Ted Cruz in 2012,” said Toby Marie Walker, president of the Waco Tea Party. “But Ted was an anomaly — he was the perfect candidate in the perfect storm.”
Henry Olsen offers a rather insightful view of the Republican Party in his piece for the "The National Interest". In it he identifies four factions of the GOP, the moderate or liberal voters; somewhat conservative voters; very conservative, evangelical voters; and very conservative, secular voters.
Evaluating how each faction approached various presidential contests over the years Olsen concludes that the year before the election is crucial. "In this “preseason,” candidates compete to become favored by one of the four factions. Sometimes no one is competing with a candidate for that favor, which frequently happens on the moderate or liberal side. Other times, though, there is intense competition and the preseason maneuvering determines if someone survives until the actual early contests."
Olsen says that the factions are not equal in number.
The most important of these groups is the one most journalists don’t understand and ignore: the somewhat conservative voters. This group is the most numerous nationally and in most states, comprising 35–40 percent of the national GOP electorate. While the numbers of moderates, very conservative and evangelical voters vary significantly by state, somewhat conservative voters are found in similar proportions in every state. They are not very vocal, but they form the bedrock base of the Republican Party.
They also have a significant distinction: they always back the winner.
The moderate or liberal bloc is surprisingly strong in presidential years, comprising the second-largest voting bloc with approximately 25–30 percent of all GOP voters nationwide. They are especially strong in early voting states such as New Hampshire (where they have comprised between 45 and 49 percent of the GOP electorate between 1996 and 2012), Florida and Michigan. They are, however, surprisingly numerous even in the Deep South, the most conservative portion of the country. Moderates or liberals have comprised between 31 and 39 percent of the South Carolina electorate since 1996, outnumbering or roughly equaling very conservative voters in each of those years.
Moderate and liberal voters prefer someone who is both more secular and less fiscally conservative than their somewhat conservative cousins. In 2012, they began firmly in Ron Paul’s or Jon Huntsman’s camp. Paul and Huntsman combined got 43 percent of their vote in Iowa and 50 percent in New Hampshire. Once it became clear that their candidates could not win, however, the moderate or liberal faction swung firmly toward Romney in his fights with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
The third-largest group is the moderates’ bête noire: the very conservative evangelicals. This group is small compared to the others, comprising around one-fifth of all GOP voters. They gain significant strength, however, from three unique factors.[T]hey are geographically concentrated in Southern and border states, where they can comprise a quarter or more of a state’s electorate.
This group prefers candidates who are very open about their religious beliefs, place a high priority on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, and see the United States in decline because of its movement away from the faith and moral codes of its past. Their favored candidates tend to be economically more open to government intervention.
The final and smallest GOP tribe is the one that DC elites are most familiar with: the very conservative, secular voters. This group comprises a tiny 5–10 percent nationwide and thus never sees its choice emerge from the initial races to contend in later stages.
The 2016 field is still developing, but it’s already possible to discern which candidates are focusing on which factions.
Virtually everyone else in the race is competing for the favor of the smallest, least influential group: the secular conservatives. All focus on some sort of fiscal issue as their primary focus, and most also try to adopt an anti-Washington tone. Some have secondary messages designed to appeal to other factions, much as George W. Bush did in 2000. Senator Rand Paul’s focus on civil liberties and limiting overseas military actions would hold some appeal for GOP moderates and liberals, as would Senator Marco Rubio’s occasional forays into antipoverty efforts. Rubio’s backing of immigration reform is of interest to somewhat conservative donors, and his authoring of federal antiabortion legislation creates some support among the socially conservative wing. But Paul’s, Rubio’s and Texas senator Ted Cruz’s hope must be that the secular, very conservative wing is in fact much larger in 2016 than it has been in the past.
It is a very interesting analysis which should do well to put Olsen on the payroll of any serious contender looking to find a way to survive the heat of a presidential marathon.
Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan are again expressing their moral outrage over the effort of the international community to vaccinate their children against polio. In the latest case, at least 12 security officials were killed and nine others injured in an ambush on a clearly marked medical convoy in the Jamrud area of the Khyber tribal region. It appears that both murder and denying children polio vaccines are viewed by these men as a pure expression of faith and morality.
The Syrian rebels have continued their crusade to bring Islamic law to rural areas of that country. In the latest atrocity, a Syrian spokesman narrated an amputation of a hand by a man that the rebels said asked to punished for theft “in order to cleanse his sins.” In the twisted mind of these extremists, the video was supposed to show the purity and righteousness of Islam as a sword is used to sever the hand of the man.
“Indeed (this) is the question of the hour. Where does America stand? You see when the friends or foes alike don't know the answer to that question, unambiguously and clearly, the world is likely to be a more dangerous and chaotic place….(T)he United States has had an answer to that question. We stand for free peoples and free markets. We will defend and support them.” Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Indeed Sec. Rice is correct. She later goes on to state what has been the basis of our foreign policy since President Teddy Roosevelt’s infamous “speak softly and carry a big stick” moment, “Peace really does come thru strength”. So as we observe the news of Russia’s latest aggression against the Ukraine on television and print many Americans are right to be concerned.
Many observers and columnists are phrasing this as Obama’s biggest test to date. One that could define his legacy in fact. And this comes at a time when the United States is in a period of negotiations with Iran over their nuclear armament and pleading with the Israelis to suspend targeted attacks meant to thwart this threat of regional and global instability. Further, it comes at a time when Obama failed to act after the regime in Syria disregarded his “Red-Line” warning. And we saw during that saga an out-maneuvering of this Administration by Putin.
Most interestingly If you examine the timing of this latest aggression in the Ukraine in relation to recent announcements from both the United States and Russia in regard to their military presence and global strategy it provides a telling narrative and leaves clear indications of possible repercussions.
Just last week, Sec. of Defense Chuck Hagel announced his military budget in which he announced a significant reduction in military personnel. He cited of course the draw down in involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq as justification. The Administration's desired force size will take us back to Pre WWII levels.
The problem with this logic is that at the height of military exercises in both Iraq and Afghanistan we clearly did not have enough forces to fight in two relatively small theaters. And that they really had to be fought consecutively, not concurrently. Hagel went on to state that this new whittled force would be able to secure the homeland and win a war in one theater. Well, I suppose our enemies in the world will respect that limitation and schedule their aggression accordingly. The entire purpose of a sizeable force of course to discourage aggression in the first place, effectively eliminating the temptation.
At the same time, Russia announced plans to expand its military footprint beyond Ukraine and Syria and into Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam and other nations. Again, this announcement was preceded by surrender by the United States of the decades old “Monroe Doctrine”. Sec. of State John Kerry announcing in November of 2013, “Today, however, we have made a different choice. The era of the Monroe Doctrine is over….”
This phrase was coined in 1850 and attributed to President James Monroe. It has been referred to by Presidents since then including John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Here’s a snip from Monroe’s State of the Union where the idea was first explored. “We should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.” This idea was relevant in 1850, relevant during the Cuban missile crisis but somehow now archaic to this President.
This dismissal of the doctrine by this Administration comes as no surprise of course. During the 2012 Presidential election Gov. Romney and others were resoundingly mocked by Democrats and the media for suggesting that Russia is a geo-political foe of the United States. If that fact wasn’t clear then, surely it would be conceded (at least in private) today as we experience one of the most alarming aggressions threatening the stability of Europe since the cold war.
This Ukrainian crisis has caught Obama flat-footed and un-prepared. However, if one understands history and the nature of a bully like Putin the events preceding and explored here are a logical pathway to where we stand today.
It begs the question, where does American stand? Obama’s retreat inward is not based on an ideology of isolationism. If it was at then at least we could avoid embarrassment claiming "principle" as the foundation of our inaction. Rather it is ineptness and weakness and a lack of fortitude.
Sadly we very well may be setting the stage for a surrender of American influence on the world stage never before seen. If we are no longer looked to as the bright city on a hill that stands for “free people and free markets” what will happen on the world stage? Sec. Rice in the same speech I began this post with goes on to answer this very question.
“I know too there is a weariness. I know that it feels as if we have carried these burdens long enough. But we can only know that there is no choice, because one of two things will happen if we don't lead. Either no one will lead and there will be chaos, or someone will fill the vacuum who does not share our values. My fellow Americans, we do not have a choice. We cannot be reluctant to lead and you cannot lead from behind.”
Now is the time to act with boldness and deliberateness. And I say this as I care much less for the legacy of a President as I do the destiny of our nation and global stability.
Dr. Paul — himself a physician — is trying to block Dr. Murthy’s confirmation as the nation’s top doctor because he has dared to suggest that “guns are a health care issue” and because he formed “Doctors for America,” which supports the Affordable Care Act.
But perhaps Dr. Paul, who is traveling a lot as a potential presidential candidate, has been too busy to follow the very real public health menace of firearms.
If a person owns a gun are they exposed to infection, a virus, dangerous levels of toxins? How is a firearm a "public health menace?"
The answer is that they are not. People who are hurt by the "USE" of firearms are hurt by the actions of people "USING" firearms. Some of the people who are hurt by others through the use of firearms are the victims of criminal acts, the same as those hurt by knives, ball bats, pillows, and other items converted by a human into a tool of violence.
Other people who are hurt by firearms are hurt by negligent or reckless conduct of humans the same as those hurt by vehicles, fire, unattended buckets of water around babies, alcohol and other items misused in a way that causes injury.
No, Rand is correct to oppose this man precisely because he is likely a plant by the gun grabbing Obama administration who will require some sort of reporting in your medical records of all the guns you own, who will likely place "medical" restrictions on who can and can't own a firearm as a "public health" issue and who will serve Obama's ends of finding ways around the Second Amendment the same way he found his way around the "individual mandate" of Obamacare which forces people to buy a product in direct contravention of their individual liberty right to spend their money as they see fit.
The Courier taking this stance reveals that they are either as dumb as a box of hair, or complicit in the Obama plot to register firearms as a step toward confiscation. (see Connecticut) In either case they have clearlly established that their publication isn't worthy of respect.
As a journalist you weigh, how much you should criticize the president because he's black? REALLY? The answer is you don't. Being black is not subject to criticism. Or was he asking is "how much do you give him a pass because he's black", the answer is "you don't" give him a pass because of skin color.
Rand Paul admonished a group of TEA party patriots to avoid divisive rhetoric and said "we can disagree with the president without calling him names.” [POLITICO] Rand had recently called upon Ted Nugent to apologize for calling the president a "subhuman mongrel". Obviously "subhuman" is a racist term.
I agree with Rand that some of the vitriolic rhetoric I hear spoken in private about the president is quite nasty. And while I also agree with Rand that respectful disagreement will better serve the goals of the TEA party movement than hate speech, I diverge a bit from his viewpoint for this reason.
People resent government officials of any stripe telling them what they can and can't say. Though there is certainly a level of grace that Rand brings to his debates the rank and file are damned angry over the political correctness that has been rammed down their throats.
They are tired of a president who they perceive as a racist himself. They are tired of being told that their views on fiscal issues and social issues must reflect a more refined attitude. They are tired of being told that they must refer to certain lifestyles which they object to in a "neutral" manner rather than spitting out their disdain in coarse and disparaging language.
I don't for one minute think that Rand was trying to control free speech, rather he was trying to elevate the debate to a higher level where logic and facts will win more support than hatred and disgust. But for a lot of Americans they feel as if the president continues to intentionally hit them on the thumb with a hammer and they want to react with the same language they would use if they did it themselves.
Moreover, as the POLITICO piece above corrected itself to say, A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that one T-shirt worn at the event called Obama a “racist” as if calling the president a racist is somehow off limits for the very people who are called racist on a daily basis.
Obviously any language which refers to another human being in purely racist terms is wrong, and should be avoided, but in a free society the right to say almost anything should be protected, even as the speaker is being condemned as wrongheaded.
Furthermore, if any description of a person is accurate, then it should be fair game. If a person is a rapist, the term "sexually challenged" strikes most people as offensive. If a person is a murderer then treating them as "socially maladjusted" won't meet with much approval among the majority of law abiding citizens. And if a person is a racist, and there is proof of such, then calling him/her a racist is justified. But, if calling people "racist" merely because they disagree with you is acceptable among the very people whose actions are racially motivated then we have gotten ourselves into a pickle of political correctness that we need to fight our way out of. And as we've been told since we were children, sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you.
I agree Rand that we would do better to win the debate over the future of our nation on a level playing field in an environment where reason controlled the outcome, but our battlefield is far from level and reason has given way to provocation. If you can bring us back, I'm all for it, but for many the fight is not advancing far enough or fast enough to save us. Though I want to be very clear that I am certainly not urging the same action as Patrick Henry did, I do think that his words shed light on this discussion, if not merely to illuminate the frustration of the people:
[W]hat have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.
Two men arranged to meet one another about a Craigslist ad for a motorcycle. When they met, the man who posted the ad pulled out a gun and pointed it at the buyer, who was with his daughter and father. The buyer pulled out his own pistol and fired at the armed suspect causing him to flee. The family called police and reported the incident. Officers located the suspect and he was treated for his gunshot wounds. Investigators reportedly found ski masks and batons in the suspect’s car. He had been previously convicted of various crimes including arson, theft and aggravated robbery. (Dallas News, Dallas, TX, 12/3/13)
All original content on this blog is copyrighted to Marcus Carey. All rights to all content on this blog are reserved to Marcus Carey. Any use of the ideas, imagery, analogies, analysis, comments or other content is subject to approval. You may link to any content on this site and approval to use content will be freely granted upon request subject to appropriate attribution.
COMMENT POLICY NOTICE
Vulgar or profane language will not be published. Defamatory language will not be published. Your right to post comments may be revoked at any time without recourse. All comments are moderated. Comments do not necessarily reflect or represent the opinions, attitudes or beliefs of the blogger, but reflect only the opinions of the comment writer. Publishing a comment does not mean that I have either adopted or agree with the comment or support any of its content.
If for some reason you cannot abide by these simple rules, you are invited to read here only.
SUPPORT FOR THIS BLOG:
From time to time this blog will post paid advertisements, and may link to Amazon.com where this blog is participating in a revenue generating program offered by Amazon.com for purchases made of products accessed by the link on this blog.