Archive for October, 2008

Memo to Pro-Lifers: Stop calling abortion zealots “pro-choice!”

October 18, 2008

I was thinking about “choice,” today, and the victory of the Left over common sense, as evidenced by seeing people on the Right refer to abortion zealots as, “pro-choice.” Is there anything more ironic than the “pro-choice” position?

It’s the position that certain unborn children, at the discretion of their mothers, should be deprived of absolutely every choice they might be allowed or required to make over the course of their whole lives. Why? Because their mothers chose to kill them before they could even choose whether to cry, or sleep, or eat.

That’s “pro-choice?”

They might choose to vote Democrat, or to become “community organizers,” or to join PETA, or the PTA, or to become officers in Obama’s “civilian militia” — but they can’t — because they’re dead.

Their options do not exist, because their mothers chose, for any reason, or for no reason, to let them be killed before they could make that first, inconsequential choice. A million and a half human beings  a year, are dead for any reason, or for no reason, other than “the right to choose.”

A lifetime of choices, from the trivial to the momentous — so many choices — caf or decaf, smoking or non, SUV or hybrid, urban or rural, abstinent or promiscuous, idealistic or pragmatic… How many choices is that, over a whole life that was “choiced” away, times a million and a half lives a year?

And that’s “pro-choice?”

No. That’s a lie.

It’s anti-choice; it’s pro-death, and we should never, ever call it “pro-choice.”

Environmentalism Three Ways: Pragmatists, Primitivists, and Watermelons

October 18, 2008

As a retired information technology worker, I find it convenient to organize some kinds of information into rows and columns, like a spreadsheet. It helps me get my mind around a complex topic.

While examining one such topic, environmentalism, I discovered that environmentalists can be divided into three general categories (spreadsheet columns): Pragmatists, Primitivists, and Watermelons. The three types address two, exemplary environmental problems – global warming and ozone depletion (spreadsheet rows) — and their solutions, very differently.

Theodore Roosevelt, a pragmatists who became an obnoxious Progressive (Wikipedia)

Pragmatists tend to follow the example of Teddy Roosevelt, an asthmatic city boy who developed a passion for understanding nature through science and personal experience. While developing enough respect for natural wonders to create the country’s first national parks, he saw man as the dominant species, and nature as his domain, to be exploited responsibly, but not to be destroyed needlessly.

Pragmatists seek to strike a balance between human needs and natural beauty, believing that, with recourse to accurate, scientific data,  humanity can benefit from nature without destroying it, and vice versa.

TR, unfortunately, set a strong precedent for government expropriating land for “public” use that was for esthetic reasons, rather than for meeting the nations practical needs — construction of fortresses, bridges, and other necessary evils. He did stop well short of turning the nation’s largest and most easily exploited sources of energy into untouchable preserves, however, leaving those morally-indefensible acts of government grand theft to later Progressives.

Pragmatists want to see objective evidence of global warming and ozone depletion, and to identify the most likely causes of these phenomena, before they entertain government policies meant to remedy them. Pragmatists become excited in the short term by the environment, if they find themselves at the foot of an erupting volcano, or in the path of a tornado, but otherwise, they tend to be focused calmly on the long term.

The romanticized "Indian," emblem of the Primitivist ideal -- the Unicorn, mascot of idealist nature-worshipers everywhere, was not available.

The romanticized “Indian,” emblem of the Primitivist ideal — the Unicorn, mascot of idealist nature-worshipers everywhere, was not available. (Wikipedia)

Primitivists have no use for science, other than political science, and its ugly, bastard son, junk science. Their ideal world is one from which humans and their civilization have been erased, or, better yet, one in which they never existed at all. If asked, they will admit to a desire to see about 99% of the world’s human population disappear, except for themselves and a few close friends with a similar orientation.

The most extreme Primitivists believe that human life is no more valuable than the life of an insect or a plant, and that the idea of exploiting an animal or a plant to extend or improve the life of a human is immoral and selfish. In their more tempered state, primitivists envision a romantically idealized harmony in the relationship of man and nature.

Their emblem of this ideal is the romanticized American Indian (whom they, of course, call a “Native American,” as if that phrase did not mean, literally, “one who was born in America”). This mythical character lives frugally and gently with the land, worshiping it as a god, seeing spirituality in every tree and rock. One assumes these characters would not build casinos and duty-free liquor stores in their pristine estates, or profit from the sale of mineral rights therefrom.

Primitivists accept global warming and ozone depletion without question, because these phenomena only serve to confirm their belief that man is a burden on nature, and that he will destroy it if allowed. Their remedy is simple and straightforward. Abort the unborn ones, and let the born ones freeze, bake and starve to death, and return their biodegradable packaging to the environment.

Green on the outside, but RED on the inside (Wikipedia)

Green on the outside, but RED on the inside (Wikipedia)

Watermelons are pragmatic, too, in their own way. Having been exposed as hypocrites or fools, these believers in a bankrupt, failed ideology that calls for government ownership of everything, had to find another rock under which to hide. Environmentalism is the perfect refuge for communists, because it allows those who are red on the inside to put a layer of green on the outside, and continue to spread their toxic theology. In the 21st Century, environmentalism is the last bastion of people who think private property is The Man’s way of oppressing the downtrodden.

In the Watermelon’s view, people are not entirely evil. A certain number of them are required to drive the party elite in their limousines from the halls of power to their dachas in the woods, to cook their gourmet meals, and to fight and die in the interest of preserving and expanding their empires.

However, the history of socialism in the 20th Century includes a laudable amount of population control in the form of purges.  The big-name socialist utopias lightened Mother Earth’s burden of humanity by a hundred million or so, in the interest of the state. While an unfortunate quantity of lead and carbon dioxide had to be introduced to the environment by firing squads, cattle trains and tanks, most of these deaths were accomplished with lower environmental impact — mass starvation and death by slave labor, predominating.

In the 21st Century, Communist China has recently taken the lead in recycling. Environmentally responsible Chinese leaders now harvest the skin, corneas and internal organs of the political prisoners they execute, and sell them on the open market. While this practice carries the unsavory taint of capitalism, watermelons believe any country that not only allows abortion, but requires it, must have its heart in the right place.

Watermelons readily embrace global warming and ozone depletion as crises, because the “solutions” for them involve government regulation of private industry. While not entirely satisfactory, government regulation of industry is a step in the right direction — toward the Watermelons’ ultimate goal: government ownership of industry.

Watermelons believe the best way to relieve human overcrowding (between purges) is to build large, ugly, concrete apartment blocks in major cities. Then, they force people selfish enough to live in their own homes to surrender these anachronisms to the state and move into the apartments. Problem solved.

Appalling tales of the worst environmental disasters on earth – horrible nuclear accidents and wholesale contamination of large areas with industrial poisons, perpetrated by communist states – do nothing to curb the Watermelons’ appetite for government control. After all, environmentalism is just a convenient form of cover for a Watermelon, not a real ideology.

The real goal of the Watermelon is, and always has been, government control of every aspect of life, from before birth, up to and including death. Individual humans are just too stupid to be trusted with running their own lives, and if they have to be sold on communism by bait-and-switch, well, so be it.

There you have it. I promised a spreadsheet, with rows and columns. Here it is:




Global Warming

Identify real problems; Propose real solutions. Let people freeze to death in the dark. Abort or purge most people; forcibly relocate the rest and run their lives. Dominate the world.

Ozone Depletion

See above. Let people bake, and/or starve from lack of refrigeration. See above.

A Suicide Bomber’s “Groundhog Day” in Paradise

October 18, 2008


The following is from a “hadith” — a traditional commentary, on the punishment for suicide in Islam, by Bukhari, a revered Islamic scholar:

Hadith – Volume 7, Book 71, Number 670:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “Whoever purposely throws himself from a mountain and kills himself, will be in the (Hell) Fire falling down into it and abiding therein perpetually forever; and whoever drinks poison and kills himself with it, he will be carrying his poison in his hand and drinking it in the (Hell) Fire wherein he will abide eternally forever; and whoever kills himself with an iron weapon, will be carrying that weapon in his hand and stabbing his abdomen with it in the (Hell) Fire wherein he will abide eternally forever.”


A Suicide Bomber in Paradise

The day is hot and dusty, and the bus engine moans like a dying giant, as I walk down the aisle to the center seats. I know what is about to happen. I have been here before, and yet, I am so afraid I am almost soiling myself, soaked in sweat, and the explosives in my bomb belt weigh on me like lead ingots. I look only at the floor in front of me, so the others cannot see my fear, but I know they can smell it.

The prayers my leaders taught me echo in my mind, but the words do not calm my soul. They mock me. I feel a guilty anger toward those “leaders.” If my mission is so sacred, why have they not come along with me? Why is this mission worth my life, but not theirs? I push aside unfaithful thoughts, and try to imagine Paradise.

In the center of the bus, I reach under my jacket for the switch that will detonate blocks of plastic explosive with screws and wire wrapped around them. My prayers are a furious torrent of empty words. As my thumb presses on the button, I glance at last around me, seeing the other passengers for the first time. They are supposed to be “pigs and monkeys,” but they could be my family, my neighbors.

There is a flash too bright to see, a sound too loud to hear. I am instantly dead, but I feel the searing heat, the relentless shock wave, and red-hot metal penetrating the flesh of others, as if their flesh were mine. I hear screams of pain, the screech of metal, and, too late, I understand: their flesh is mine. I am a zealot and a fool, and I have thrown the gift of my life back into the Creator’s face. Others die with me for my stupidity and arrogance.

The gullible child within me wonders: will I know when I have reached Paradise?

The day is hot and dusty, and the bus engine moans like a dying giant, as I walk down the aisle to the center seats. I know what is about to happen. I have been here before, and yet, I am so afraid I am almost soiling myself, soaked in sweat…

“Impeach Bush”? How Soon We Forget!

October 18, 2008

[Author’s Note: So, the big-shot Democrats want to impeach George Bush! Hey, I’m the last person to defend Bush, but if impeachment were ever deserved, Bill Clinton would have an entirely different place in history. I wrote this in August, 1998, at the height of the Clinton impeachment hearings.  Submitted for your consideration — a little historical perspective.]

The network news anchors were ecstatic. I was depressed. It was election night, 1991, and I was watching the beginning of the Clinton Presidency. It would be another Carter Administration, I suspected – scatterbrained, “Barney in a Blue Beret” foreign policy; self-righteous, sanctimonious, quasi-socialist domestic policy – in short, a conservative’s nightmare, with an Arkansas drawl, instead of a Georgia drawl.

I could not have been much more wrong. Bill Clinton’s bottomless, amoral appetites for power and sex made Jimmy Carter’s impotence before a crowd of Iranian thugs seem like a fond memory.  The news anchors are no longer ecstatic, but a small crowd of pathetic hangers-on still defends Bill Clinton. These sad people want us to overlook his bizarre “relationship” with a 21-year-old White House intern because it was “private.” Hmm. The president is president 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

He doesn’t punch a timeclock, because his responsibilities don’t wait for office hours. He lives in public housing, draws a government paycheck, and travels in government airplanes and limousines. He has some government employees around him constantly who are paid to step between him and a bullet, and others – very busy ones, these days — to step between him and a subpoena. So, tell me, how is a string of illicit sexual encounters in the Oval Office “private?”

Many private and public corporations have college interns. Suppose the chief executive officer of such a corporation carried on a sexual relationship with a young college intern, involving many meetings for sex in the CEO’s “private” office. Please, PLEASE, don’t ask me to believe that is “private” conduct, totally without overtones of sexual harassment and abuse of office. If the executive lies about that sexual relationship under oath in a civil suit, and lies about it again and again to his co-workers in private and to his stockholders in public, don’t ask me to dismiss that as “private” behavior.

Of course, the irony is that the sexual sleaze emanating from the White House is not the most important reason to be alarmed about the Clinton Administration. All of that pales compared to Bill Clinton’s enthusiastic support for selling military technology to the Communist Chinese, his  blatantly illegal use of thousands of confidential FBI files to dig for dirt on his political enemies, and his twin goals of stripping and plundering the military, while committing it to pointless overseas adventures under foreign command.

A complete list of his abuses and criminal behavior is simply too long to print here, but if any Congress in its right mind is looking for “high crimes and misdemeanors” on which to impeach this president, there are plenty of them. Pick ten or twenty of the most blatant, and get on with it.

Those who cannot bring themselves to admit how wrong they were to support Bill Clinton all this time get more strident and desperate with each passing day. They want us to forget their man promised us “the most ethical administration in history.”

They want us to believe tobacco money to finance a political campaign is evil, but that Chinese Communist money is OK.

They want us to believe it should be legal to kill an innocent child inches and seconds from birth, but that any political power grab is fine if it is in the name of “our nation’s children.”

They want us to believe that Kenneth Starr, an independent prosecutor appointed by Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno, is Satan Incarnate, because he is doing the job he was appointed to do.

Please, Congress, ignore this shrill, desperate, and dwindling crowd of Clinton defenders. Forget the network anchors and the pollsters, and do what’s right, for a change. Find your backbones, obey your oaths of office, and impeach this man.

SILRL (Search for INTELLIGENT Life in the Republican Leadership): Mission Failed

October 17, 2008

[Author’s Note: The following, although written in July, 2003, is distressingly relevant. Change a few names and titles, and the truth is still true.]

What the heck is a SILRL Project? SILRL stands for Search for Intelligent Life in the Republican Leadership. It was my ongoing effort to discover some guiding intelligence in what passes for leadership in the Republican Party. I’m not talking about the kind of “intelligence” that Hollywood celebrities and Bill Clinton have — the mindless instinct for self-preservation and self-promotion based on saying what one thinks people want to hear. I’m talking about wisdom based on established principles, as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I have reluctantly concluded that there is no intelligence to be found in the Republican leadership, and that further searching is a waste. The SILRL Project is now officially over, a failure.

Sometime in 1997, it became clear that the “Republican Revolution” of 1994 was more cosmetic than revolutionary. There is a disappointing pattern to Republican behavior at the leadership level. The umpteenth time I heard a Republican big shot on conservative talk radio say, “When we have a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress, we’ll (abolish the Education Department, rein in the IRS, impeach traitorous judges, protect unborn children, re-establish Constitutional law, etc.),” I realized I was listening to a fund-raising ploy, and nothing more.

The only time the spineless fat cats in the Republican leadership make conservative noises is when they need money and time from us conservative grassroots types to get themselves re-elected. Between campaign seasons, we are noisy, unsophisticated bumpkins, who naively insist on adherence to some obscure historical document called the Constitution.

The Big Elephants cluck their tongues at us, and mutter about how we don’t seem to understand that, “politics is the art of the possible.” Translated into everyday English, that means, “Politics is the art of saying and doing what we need to say and do to get re-elected. What’s right and Constitutional is, well, ‘relative.’ Relatively unimportant, compared to getting re-elected.”

There are about a dozen, real, Constitutional conservatives among national Republican officeholders and party leaders, and the rest might as well be Democrats, or Socialists, for that matter. There is little, practical difference.

Ronald Reagan, while discussing why he left the Democratic Party of his youth, said something like, “I didn’t really leave them; they left me.” The old-time champions of the “little guy,” the everyday American, had become the New Deal, big-government socialists, with the apparent intent to federalize just about everything, from first-grade textbooks to flush toilets. They turned the act of killing unborn children from murder into a civil right, stripped the right of self-defense from individual citizens, and made institutionalized racism a federal policy to make up for decades of institutionalized racism. With few exceptions, the Republican minority carped, but went along.

Most establishment Republicans seem to want what the socialist Democrats want, but, more slowly, and with less overt impact on the stock market. In recent decades, the Republican party has become “democrat socialist lite.”

The enormous expansion of the Department of Education, usurping the control of schools from communities and addicting them to federal funds, while doing nothing to improve the quality of education, is but one example of Republican statism. The recent spasm of effort to subsidize prescription drugs with taxpayers’ money, in exchange for the votes of “seniors,” will increase dramatically the cost of health care, while reducing quality and stifling innovation. With a few exceptions, Republicans are on board, if only because (they hope) they will get more polite treatment, along with a few campaign dollars, from the AARP crowd.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has turned out to be every bit as spineless and ineffectual as Trent Lott, and at least as willing to sacrifice principle for political success as Bob Dole. For a chance to appear on camera back-slapping with flatulent hacks like Byrd and Kennedy, and starry-eyed socialist utopians like Boxer and Clinton, Frist is willing to pledge our future incomes to the World Bank and our property rights to the Sierra Club.

This is the big jackpot the Republican leadership promised grassroots conservatives back in ’94. We who are not overjoyed are just being ingrates.

America is now becoming a socialist state, where individual freedom and responsibility, along with property rights and the sanctity of life, are anachronisms — obstacles on the road to “sustainable development” and “social justice.” And the Republican leadership is showing us the way. The Search for Intelligent Life in the Republican Leadership has been abandoned, because there is none to find. I’m taking my search to the right wing of the Libertarian party, next.

Why I Will Not Vote for “the Lesser Evil” (August, 2004!)

October 17, 2008

[Yes, I wrote this in August, 2004, at the end of the first term of GWB. It still applies, in nearly every detail. Interesting, no?]

As always, the Republican “leadership” has put out the call to American conservatives: it is time for us to come out of the shadows and support Republican candidates with our money, time and votes. Again.

I am not ancient, but I do remember the 1994 “Republican Revolution,” in which conservatives rallied to give the House of Representatives back to the Republicans after decades of Democrat control. Boy, were we going to see some changes when that happened! For a list of the ambitious goals set forth by Republicans after they broke the Democrat death grip on the House, search for “Contract with America” with your favorite search engine. I found it at

In addition to the ten procedural goals stated in the contract, there was heady talk of a real reform of the IRS – perhaps even taking away their extraordinary police-state powers, and making them abide by the due process protections of the Bill of Rights. Several federal departments had better watch out, we were told, because their unconstitutional powers were about to be curtailed, or uprooted, entirely.

We would see federal judges impeached for legislating from the bench. A Republican-controlled House would, as permitted by the Constitution, prohibit the remaining judicial meddlers from using their offices as engines for enacting their socialist agendas.

Conservatives had to be patient, because, as we were told repeatedly, “politics is the art of the possible.” These goals would not be achieved all at once. Of course, it would help if we gave the Republicans lots of money and campaigned on behalf of their candidates for the Senate, too, so “we” could control both houses. Then, watch out!

Abortion will be exposed as the obscene atrocity that it is. Our borders will be sealed against the toxic flood tides of illegal immigration. Our armed services will stop being used for grandiose “Meals on Wheels” projects.  Government agencies will stop dictating to property owners how to use their property in order to protect toads and ferns. The list went on and on. Ah, those were heady times.

Well, it turns out that politics is actually the art of telling people what they want to hear, so they will help you get re-elected, over and over — and then telling them to get lost until the next campaign. At least, that’s politics as seen from this portion of the formerly-Republican, conservative grassroots.

In 1992 and 1996, the Republican presidential candidates ran disjointed, inept and rudderless campaigns, devoid of any principle that might be right, but that might also prove to be a political liability with the “moderates” we needed to fill our “bigger tent.” Dare to mention that legal abortion is the legal killing of unborn children, and well-heeled Republican flacks would rush in from the wings, shushing you and scolding you for harsh, offensive language that might upset the broad coalition “we” needed to capture the White House and both houses of the legislative branch. Dare to compare the IRS with armed robbers, or the Federal Reserve with counterfeiters, and you would be branded as a knuckle-dragging extremist.

Meanwhile, the federal bureaucracy, which grows and festers regardless of who is in the White House, continues to send its tentacles deeper into our lives. Do the Republicans do anything to curtail this cancerous growth? Au contraire, they feed it with enthusiasm. Non-defense spending with no Constitutional justification is way up. It’s not up quite enough to satisfy the big-government lefties in the Democrat Party, but it’s definitely up.

However, the federal law enforcement officers who are charged with protecting our borders have been told to smile at illegal aliens, including potential terrorists, and tell them, “Welcome to the United States.” We are supposed to make nice with the government of Mexico, despite its official policy of encouraging illegal immigration to the United States, and despite its frequent collusion with alien and drug smugglers.

We have a huge and growing bureaucracy dedicated to “homeland security,” but our borders are no more secure against invasion than they were before 9/11. Airport security goons — some of whom barely speak English, and may have illegal immigration “issues” of their own — strip-search and interrogate six-year-olds and elderly grandmothers trying to board commercial airliners. However, the pilots of those, same airliners are forced to jump endless bureaucratic hurdles before they can carry a pistol that might be the last line of defense against hijackers who want to turn the plane into a multi-ton cruise missile.

Despite the clear evidence over decades that increased government spending has zero effect on the quality of education, the federal Department of Education, an unconstitutional agency, grows in power and influence over public education, which is supposed to be a state and local function. Our current, Republican administration is proud of its effort to bloat this agency’s budget.

I could go on for quite some time about the ways in which the Republican Party has broken faith with the conservatives that used to comprise its base. However, by now you have either been convinced, or you have dismissed me as a crank.

Some will dwell on this topic long enough to ask me where I will take my loyalties, now that I am turning my back on the big, dumb elephants. I have decided I will vote for Michael Peroutka, and his US Constitution Party,

[Author’s Note: In 2008, I wrote in Alan Keyes, rather than vote for None of the Above, as Joseph Farah of World Net Daily recommends. I was undecided between these alternatives, until that last moment.]

I am through voting for the “lesser of the two evils.” I am through voting as if I were trying to pick a winning racehorse. I will vote for a president who will abide by the Constitution, and not by the opinion polls or the editorials in the New York Times. I am through with the “bogeyman theory” of politics, which dictates that voting for a third party candidate is tantamount to voting for the bogeyman of the moment.

George Bush and John Kerry are both bogeymen, and I’m through with them and the politics they represent. I will vote for Michael Peroutka. I will go to sleep election night knowing I did what was right for my country, and I will ask God, as I always do, to deliver us from all evils — greater and lesser.


Mike Pence (R – Ind.) Supports Free Speech (March, 2002)

October 17, 2008

[Author’s Note: I once had the privilege of living in the congressional district of Mike Pence (R-Indiana), one of the few genuine conservatives in the House of Representatives. I wrote this letter to the editor of my local paper in March, 2002, after several letters appeared criticizing Mike for not supporting what would become “McCain-Feingold,” one of the most notorious attempts to smother free speech in American history. It was one of many efforts to “reach across the aisle” and be “bipartisan” that McCain now (2008) boasts about. ]

To the Editor,

There has been considerable criticism of Rep. Mike Pence in the Star Press recently. It seems many people think he should have supported the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance “Reform” bill.  Rep. Pence’s position is based in Constitutional principles. If this bill had a name that really reflects its intent, it would be the “Incumbent Protection Bill.” While parts of the bill are likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court, unless the justices are sleepwalking, other provisions will probably escape scrutiny until they really begin to backfire, as “reform” laws almost always do.

The first part of this bill to get the Court’s attention will be a ban against political advertising that mentions a candidate’s name less than 60 days from a general election, or 30 days before a primary election. If there is a clearer example of a violation of the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of speech, I haven’t seen it. This bill isn’t “reform,” it’s fraud. No, I’m not a lawyer, but I do read English, and an online law dictionary ( has the following definition for the type of fraud that best fits this particular scam:

“Fraud in the inducement: n.-the use of deceit or trick to cause someone to act to his/her disadvantage… The heart of this type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts upon which he/she will base his/her decision to act…”

This bill is a good example. Its sponsors claim this bill bans “soft money” (donations from organizations, such as corporations or labor unions), but, the bill shifts the collection of soft money from the national party organizations to the states. The bill is peppered with loopholes, like the one exempting Indian tribes (who might back a candidate likely to help them get, or keep, a casino license on reservation land) from the soft money ban. Are we cynical if we suspect this exception was pushed by an incumbent with reservations in his district?

If members of Congress really wanted to prevent itself from being bought by special interests, they would stop taking their money, and stop making Congress a lifetime job. What lobbyist in his right mind is going to dump millions on a legislator who will be out of office and succeeded by some young Turk before the lobbyist’s favorite legislation can be shepherded through Congress?

In short, if the elected phonies and buffoons making the loudest noise about Shays-Meehan and its evil Senate twin, McCain-Feingold, really wanted to be free of the influence of special interest groups, they’d resign, and go get real jobs in the private sector. All this bill will do is make it even tougher for challengers to dislodge the current crop of parasites from office. If Mike Pence were not a man of principle, if he had thrown his copy of the Constitution in the trash like many of his colleagues, I’m sure he would have supported the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Bill. The reason he hasn’t is that it doesn’t deserve his support, our ours, either. Thanks, Mike, for upholding the Constitution.

Tom Cox

Bill Clinton’s Half-cocked Gun Control Idea (January, 2000)

October 17, 2008

[Near the end of his second term, Bill Clinton floated a proposal for a federal permit to own a handgun. This was my counter-proposal. – TC]

Bill Clinton’s proposal to issue federally-mandated licenses to handgun owners is another in an endless series of fraudulent, unconstitutional efforts to limit the possession of firearms to government-approved persons. While it will make it more difficult to own a handgun legally, it will, of course, do nothing to limit the use of handguns in the commission of crimes. Bill knows this, but it doesn’t matter. Making the lawful possession of firearms by private individuals impossible is exactly what he intends to do.

Here’s my counterproposal to this useless measure. Let’s license violent criminals. Any criminal must obtain a picture ID from the federal government that certifies he (or she; let’s be fair) is a government-licensed criminal. Before committing any violent crime involving a firearm, the criminal must present a valid Criminal’s License to the intended victim. Failure to do so would subject the criminal (if caught, if prosecuted, and if convicted) to severe penalties, such as denial of all but basic cable service while in prison.

Skeptics will heap scorn on my proposal. They will call it naive. Why would a violent criminal go to the trouble to obtain a license to commit crimes, when he is completely capable of committing crimes without it? Why would a criminal intentionally incriminate himself by applying to the government for a license to commit crimes? Why would any criminal, even a complete idiot, tip his hand to his intended victim by presenting his criminal credentials before his attack?

I submit that any criminal stupid enough to apply for a firearm license (or stupid enough to believe that the above is a serious proposal) is stupid enough to apply for a criminal’s license. Law-abiding people will not commit crimes with or without a gun license, because they are, well, law-abiding. The only practical use of a federally-mandated gun license obviously has nothing to do with “fighting crime,” and everything to do with providing the government with the name and address of every firearms owner in the country.

What happens when the federal government decides to quit pussyfooting around, and makes any private citizen without government connections a criminal, simply because he or she owns a legal firearm? Why, all the local law enforcement agency has to do is print out a list of gun owners, and send the SWAT team out to knock on your door. If you don’t answer your door, and let the troops walk off with your firearms, they can kill you, put your spouse in prison, condemn your house and auction it off, and put your children in (“gun-free”) foster homes. Why? Because you’re a criminal.

Who’s that at the front door?

“Respect,” Hell!

October 17, 2008

Lately, I have seen several admonishments by those in the Obama Campaign, and now, even from the McCain Campaign, that we should “respect” Obama.

Respecting Obama, in this context, means not mentioning his middle name (Hussein), not mentioning his unsavory, intimate and long-term associations with terrorists (Mr. & Mrs. Bill Ayers, etc.), communists (Frank Marshall Davis), racists (Jeremiah Wright) and others who not only do not respect, but are overtly hostile to the United States, American culture, and the preservation of human life. Indeed, this pressure to “respect” extends beyond the presidential campaign to every aspect of public discourse.

This brand of “respect” is so restrictive on free speech that complying with it restrains us from respecting ourselves and our core beliefs, if they happen to differ with those of the PC police.

How convenient for those who defend illegal immigration, the unfettered right to kill unborn children, to confiscate the property of some and give it to others, the entitlement of special protections based on race or sexual preference, etc., ad nauseum, that this “respect” amounts to prior restraint of speech against those whose beliefs do not coincide with theirs.

What of the admonition that originates with the McCain campaign? When this, ideologically-impotent side of McCain comes through, I remember the withering parody of Bob Dole that Dan Ackroyd did on Saturday Night Live around Halloween, during Dole’s ineffectual and pathetic presidential campaign. “Dole” did the whole bit from a propped-up coffin, in undertaker’s makeup. That image was a perfect capsule description of the Dole campaign’s level of energy and commitment to winning that election.

Like Dole, McCain is a career member of the US Senate, and like Dole, McCain’s once-sharp sense of what it is to put one’s life on the line for what is right has long ago been dulled into irrelevance by years of sterile debate and back-slapping collegiality with those “across the aisle,” to “get things done,” without regard to how at odds with the Constitution those “things” were.

Remember Dole’s commercials for Viagra? It’s to bad there is no such thing as an “ideological dysfunction” drug to stiffen one’s spine. McCain could use some, ASAP.

Unfortunately for grassroots conservatives, even this miracle drug would not transform McCain into a constitutional conservative Republican in the Reagan tradition.  It’s too late for that, and conservatives such as I are left with the unpalatable alternatives of writing in a third-party candidate who is a real, constitutional conservative, or, as Joseph Farah of World Net Daily suggests, voting for “None of the Above.”

Rebutting the claim that “not voting for McCain is like voting for Obama” is the subject of another article, but I am going to write in Alan Keyes if I can, with None of the Above as a fallback.