Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns? – Thomas Sowell

Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns? – Thomas Sowell 

availabilityThe gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.

But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.

The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.

397024_4268935677955_1569853995_nThere are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm’s clip or magazine. Some say ten bullets but New York state‘s recent gun control law specifies seven.

Virtually all gun control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting — even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun control debate so futile and so polarizing.

Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate. After all, not every bullet hits, even at close range, and not every hit incapacitates. You can get killed by a wounded man.

disarmThese plain life-and-death realities have been ignored for years by people who go ballistic when they hear about how many shots were fired by the police in some encounter with a criminal. As someone who once taught pistol shooting in the Marine Corps, I am not the least bit surprised by the number of shots fired. I have seen people miss a stationary target at close range, even in the safety and calm of a pistol range.

We cannot expect everybody to know that. But we can expect them to know that they don’t know — and to stop spouting off about life-and-death issues when they don’t have the facts.

The central question as to whether gun control laws save lives or cost lives has generated many factual studies over the years. But these studies have been like the proverbial tree that falls in an empty forest, and has been heard by no one — certainly not by zealots who have made up their minds and don’t want to be confused by the facts.

9lhvviMost factual studies show no reduction in gun crimes, including murder, under gun control laws. A significant number of studies show higher rates of murder and other gun crimes under gun control laws.

How can this be? It seems obvious to some gun control zealots that, if no one had guns, there would be fewer armed robberies and fewer people shot to death.

But nothing is easier than to disarm peaceful, law-abiding people. And nothing is harder than to disarm people who are neither — especially in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out there, that are not going to rust away for centuries.

When it was legal to buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century, there were very few armed robberies there. But, after British gun control zealots managed over the years to disarm virtually the entire law-abiding population, armed robberies became literally a hundred times more common. And murder rates rose.

One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.

Gun control laws allow some people to vent their emotions, politicians to grandstand and self-righteous people to “make a statement” — but all at the cost of other people’s lives.

 

Invincible Ignorance – Thomas Sowell – Townhall.com

Invincible Ignorance – Thomas Sowell – Townhall.com.

By Thomas Sowell

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of “gun control” advocates?

gunfreeThe key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.

But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries– and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.

In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.

Neither guns nor gun control was not the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.

Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.

disarmIn Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s– after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions– there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.

Gun control zealots’ choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

blame3You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem– including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.

There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.

evil1Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a “study” that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Auto Bailout Loss Could Exceed $70 Billion – Tea Party Nation

Auto Bailout Loss Could Exceed $70 Billion – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Seton Motley

Note: This first appeared in Breitbart.com’s Big Government.

 Courtesy of the $83 billion auto bailout – on which we are already poised to lose more than $40 billion – We the Taxpayers are stuck with 26% stock ownership of General Motors (GM).

 Things could soon get much worse.

 Judge Set to Rule on Case That Could Reverse Auto Bailout

 A New York federal judge may rule imminently on a case that could reverse the General Motors bailout and send the company back into bankruptcy….

 At issue is a backroom deal hatched by GM to fulfill the Obama administration’s demand for a quick bankruptcy, draining the automaker of nearly all of its cash on hand and leaving it in worse shape than it was when it collapsed in 2009….

 On the eve of entering bankruptcy, the company cut a $367 million “lock-up agreement” with several major hedge funds to prevent GM Canada from failing. The agreement ensured that GM could spin-off its liabilities to “old GM,” while using a multi-billion dollar bailout to create a new company….

 “(Judge Robert Gerber) has made it very clear that he is greatly dissatisfied with the process,” one analyst told the Washington Free Beacon in October. “He’s basically implying that GM hid it from him and that reopening the sale is a possibility.”…

 “In this particular situation, there’s $1.3 billion in liabilities, but that’s just what’s officially back on the table if the court rules for old GM,” said a bankruptcy expert close to the negotiations. “If those go back on the table then everything could be back on the table and [new GM] would have to address them.”

 Those liabilities, which include old GM’s debt and product liabilities that pre-date bankruptcy, are valued at $30 billion, a sum that would wipe out the company’s $34.6 billion cash reserves.

 We may be on the verge of adding another $31.3 billionat least – to the auto bailout loss tally, pushing the total to over $70 billion.

 The reversal would cause GM’s stock to plummet even further.  And again, we own 26% of the mess – meaning we’d lose even more coin.

 And then there are the other, troublingly similar lawsuits.

 Spyker Sues GM for $3 Billion Over Saab Bankruptcy

Spyker claims that GM purposely sent Saab into bankruptcy by blocking a deal with a Chinese car manufacturer.

 And more lawsuits will follow should the entire bankruptcy be undone.  How many millions or billions in GM legal fees and potential damages will this cost?

“(I)f all the liabilities come back to roost, short that stock,” the bankruptcy expert said.

 We the Taxpayers wish we could.

 

News Versus Propaganda – Thomas Sowell – Townhall.com

 

News Versus Propaganda – Thomas Sowell – Townhall.com.

Since so many in the media cannot resist turning every tragedy into a political talking point, it was perhaps inevitable that (1) someone would try to link the shooting rampage at the Batman movie in Colorado to the Tea Party, and that (2) some would try to make it a reason to impose more gun control laws.

Too many people in the media cannot seem to tell the difference between reporting the news and creating propaganda.

NBC News apparently could not resist doctoring the transcript of the conversation between George Zimmerman and the police after the Trayvon Martin shooting. Now ABC News took the fact that the man arrested for the shooting in Colorado was named James Holmes to broadcast to the world the fact that there is a James Holmes who is a member of the Tea Party in Colorado.

The fact has since come out that these are two different men, one in his 20s and the other in his 50s. But corrections never catch up with irresponsible news broadcasts. The James Holmes who belongs to the Tea Party has been deluged with phone calls. I hope he sues ABC News for every dime they have.

This is not the first time that the mainstream media have tried to create a link between conservatives and violence. Years ago, the Oklahoma City bombing was blamed on Rush Limbaugh, despite the absence of any evidence that the bomber was inspired by Rush Limbaugh.

Similar things have happened repeatedly, going all the way back to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which was blamed on a hostile right-wing atmosphere in Dallas, even though the assassin had a long history of being on the far left fringe.

But, where the shoe is on the other foot — as when the Unabomber had a much marked-up copy of an environmentalist book by Al Gore — the media heard no evil, saw no evil and spoke no evil. If people in the media cannot decide whether they are in the business of reporting news or manufacturing propaganda, it is all the more important that the public understand that difference, and choose their news sources accordingly.

As for gun control advocates, I have no hope whatever that any facts whatever will make the slightest dent in their thinking — or lack of thinking. New York‘s Mayor Bloomberg and CNN’s Piers Morgan were on the air within hours of the shooting, pushing the case for gun control laws.

You might never know, from what they and other gun control advocates have said, that there is a mountain of evidence that gun control laws not only fail to control guns but are often counterproductive. However, for those other people who still think facts matter, it is worth presenting some of those facts.

Do countries with strong gun control laws have lower murder rates? Only if you cherry-pick the data.

Britain is a country with stronger gun control laws than the United States, and lower murder rates. But Mexico, Russia and Brazil are also countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States — and their murder rates are much higher than ours. Israel and Switzerland have even higher rates of gun ownership than the United States, and much lower murder rates than ours.

Even the British example does not stand up very well under scrutiny. The murder rate in New York has been several times that in London for more than two centuries — and, for most of that time, neither place had strong gun control laws. New York had strong gun control laws years before London did, but New York still had several times the murder rate of London.

It was in the later decades of the 20th century that the British government clamped down with severe gun control laws, disarming virtually the entire law-abiding citizenry. Gun crimes, including murder, rose as the public was disarmed.

Meanwhile, murder rates in the United States declined during the same years when murder rates in Britain were rising, which were also years when Americans were buying millions more guns per year.

The real problem, both in discussions of mass shootings and in discussions of gun control, is that too many people are too committed to a vision to allow mere facts to interfere with their beliefs, and the sense of superiority that those beliefs give them.

Any discussion of facts is futile when directed at such people. All anyone can do is warn others about the propaganda.

 

MILLER: Backdoor gun ban – Washington Times

MILLER: Backdoor gun ban – Washington Times.

Microstamping drives up costs without solving crimes

By Emily Miller – The Washington Times

Gun grabbers need to be sneaky to accomplish their goals. Their latest trick is to convince anti-gun states to mandate that handguns be microstamp-ready. That means the weapon’s firing pin is redesigned to imprint a code on the primer so that, in theory, it will give law enforcement the ability to identify a specific gun from shell casings left at a crime scene. Like most left-wing endeavors, this one isn’t going to work.

That didn’t stop the New York State Assembly on Tuesday from passing a microstamping bill backed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. The legislation, which passed 85 to 60, specifically says guns manufactured in New York or delivered to a dealer after January 2014 have to produce a unique alpha-numeric marker on at least two locations of each spent cartridge that identifies the make, model and serial number. Fortunately, the state Senate blocked the bill on the last day of this session on Thursday, as it has done in four previous sessions.

Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Cuomo don’t care about the negative impact of their proposal, which they estimate to be $12 per pistol. Manufacturers stuck with the actual duty of implementing the legislation put the cost at hundreds of dollars per gun. “We don’t know how to do microscopic etching. The equipment to do it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we would also need a scanning electron microscope to verify it’s on the pin,” said Jeff Reh, general counsel for Beretta USA. “We wouldn’t invest a half-million dollars to sell guns in one state.”

A spokesman for Remington Arms said if it had to add microstamping to all its pistols, it would “reconsider its relationship with New York and certainly the manufacturing of our handguns in the state.” New York-based Kimber Mfg. Inc. said the law would make the firm rethink its current expansion in Yonkers. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents firearm and ammunition manufacturers, estimates this bill would send 5,200 New Yorkers to the unemployment lines.

“Manufacturers will simply stop selling handguns into a state that requires microstamping,” explained NSSF’s senior vice president, Lawrence Keane, of the ultimate consequences for the industry. “This is, in effect, a handgun ban.”

California and the District of Columbia are the only places in the country that have passed the mandate, but neither has actually implemented the law because the technology isn’t ready. Several independent, peer-reviewed studies, including one conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, have concluded that microstamping is still flawed and unreliable.

Maryland, New York and the District required ballistics testing on spent casings for each gun sold – until they realized it was extremely costly and didn’t actually solve any crimes. Each of these jurisdictions recently jettisoned the testing requirement.

The gun grabbers talk about fancy technology, but nothing will stop the bad guys from merely using an emery board to scratch the stamp off the firing pin. It also won’t work on revolvers, which don’t leave casings behind when fired. It’s obvious that the only purpose left is to discourage the sales of handguns and infringe on Second Amendment rights.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

Al Sharpton: Appointed To Keep Black Voters Angry and Ill-informed. – Tea Party Nation

Al Sharpton: Appointed To Keep Black Voters Angry and Ill-informed. – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Lloyd Marcus

You can imagine the justifiable extreme anger and outrage of black America in1987. Six white men including police officers and a New York prosecutor kidnapped, raped and smeared feces over the body of a fifteen year old black girl. Tawana Brawley was found unconscious and unresponsive lying in a garbage bag, her clothes torn and burned. In the emergency room, racial slurs and epithets were discovered written on Brawley’s torso with charcoal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations

Al Sharpton, eager to launch his national career, ran to the microphones and cameras as Tawana Brawley’s adviser. The problem was, it was all a hoax.

Fearful of getting into trouble for staying away from home for four days, Brawley made up the whole horrific racial-hate-inspiring story. After hearing the evidence, or lack of, a grand jury concluded Brawley was lying.

The New York prosecutor whom Brawley accused of being one of her rapists sued Brawley and Sharpton for defamation and won. And yet, Sharpton still says the Brawley incident happened.

The Tawana Brawley Hoax confirms that truth and fair play are irrelevant in Sharpton’s continuing quest to stir the pot-of-racial-hate to bludgeon white America and instill anger in black America for political gain. Sickeningly evil.

I remember Anthony Quinn as Barabbas in the biblical movie, “Barabbas”. Barabbas was a criminal sentenced to death. For Passover, the governor could commute the death sentence of a prisoner selected by popular demand. The multitude could save the life of Jesus or Barabbas. They yelled, “Give us Barabbas”. Barabbas was freed. Jesus was crucified.

Arrogantly usurping authority to speak on behalf of black America, the left has yelled, Give us Al Sharpton! Why has MSNBC, the mainstream media and president Obama appointed this despicable man spokesperson for black America? There are numerous honorable blacks in the national arena.

Sharpton was selected by the left as black America’s mouthpiece because his political agenda is in solidarity with their hate America Progressive movement. They are committed to government controlling our behavior and every aspect of life in America. Loyalty to their cause trumps race and even the faith of those who claim to be Christians. How else can you explain Sharpton demanding the removal of a billboard in the black community which exposed the genocide of blacks via abortion?

Rev. Al Sharpton has turned his back on the Bible’s anti-abortion teachings while supporting Planned Parenthood founder’s vow to exterminate blacks; in loyalty to the left’s progressive agenda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_MijL7q9eo&feature=player_embedded#!

The left appointing Sharpton a spokesperson for black America is a perfect example of their moral bankruptcy and willingness to employ the devil to further their agenda. Sharpton still stands behind Tawana Brawley’s absurd over-the-top evil lie that six white men including police and a New York prosecutor raped her. In a decent world, Sharpton would be disqualified for the role of national spokesperson of anything. And yet, the left has crowned Sharpton chief of black America.

As an American who happens to be black, I am outraged. The left’s selection of Sharpton as our spokesperson confirms their low opinion of black America; our sense of morality, honor and decency. The left, (democrats, mainstream media and Obama) continue to tell black America, by their actions, how little they think of us. They ignore or demonize highly successful, articulate America loving black conservatives, while elevating lying America hating race-baiters.

In 2010, President Obama asked Sharpton to be his ambassador to the black community. Obama instructed Sharpton to tell black leaders to chill-out and stop saying his economic policy failed to help black communities hit hard by the downturn. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704588404575123404191…

The foundation of democrat politics is dealing with Americans as monolithic voting blocs. I take offense with Obama acting as if black America were a huge tribe, taking marching orders from Chief Sharpton. I am an American who happens to be black. I think for myself.

Obama and his buddies on the left promote “group think”. Their tactic for winning elections is to divide Americans into groups or voting blocs. Then they convince each group; women, minorities, gays, the poor, and etc that they are being victimized by evil republicans. Vote for us and we’ll keep the evil republicans at bay!

Case in point: The democrat’s latest lie claims republicans have launched a “War on Women”. The truth is Obama, against the Constitution, is trying to force churches and taxpayers to fund abortion against their religious faith. America said, H– no! Democrats are trying to spin America’s rebuke of Obama’s overreach of authority by saying republicans wish to ban contraception. This is a lie. Republicans do not wish to ban birth control in any way.

Note the tried and true democrat trick. They lie to rally women by claiming republicans hate them. Then democrats say vote for us to protect you.

Sharpton was appointed to lie to blacks, keep them fired up hating republicans, the rich, conservatives and the tea party. The left says “conservative” is code for racist whites. Such rhetoric promotes racial hatred.

A prolific liar, Sharpton attempts to rally black America – republicans are hogging it all and dissing the first black president. Keep in mind, Sharpton still claims six white men including police officers and a New York prosecutor kidnapped, raped and smeared feces over the body of a fifteen year old black girl.

Good Lord, Black America, is this the man you want representing you? Al Sharpton does not speak for me!

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American

Chairman – www.CampaignToDefeatObama.com

www.LloydMarcus.com

Just say no to NYC – Tea Party Nation

Just say no to NYC – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips on January 5, 2012

If you are a real American, you might want to say no to New York City.  If you believe in Constitutional Rights, you might want to say no to New York City. 

 What is so wrong with New York City?

 New York City is Constitution free zone.

 Back in December, Tea Party Patriots leader Mark Meckler was arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm.  Meckler had a California carry permit, which is not valid in New York.  While following the correct procedures for shipping a firearm on an aircraft, he was arrested for violating New York law.

 A couple of weeks later, Meredith Graves, a fourth year medical student from Tennessee was arrested at the 9/11 memorial, after seeing the sign that says no gun and asking where she could secure her gun.  She had a concealed carry permit from Tennessee.

 

Recently a former Marine, Ryan Jerome was arrested at the Empire State Building.  He too saw a sign saying no guns and asked where he could secure his gun.  In Jerome’s case, he had looked online and received some very bad information that made him think his concealed carry permit was valid in New York.

 New York politicians are in complete panic.  While they are not that concerned about Meckler’s case, with Graves and now Jerome’s case, they are in a panic that New York’s draconian gun control laws will cause a public relations nightmare for NYC. 

 Perhaps someone should tell the politicians of New York, the problem is not public relations, the problem is you have stupid laws that run afoul of the Constitution. 

 There is at least one possible solution, H.R. 822 the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act, which would require every state to recognize other states’ concealed carry permits.

 New Yorkers are no longer citizens, they are victims.   New York’s laws have stripped them of the right to bear arms and defend themselves.  Does anyone really think that criminals are going to pay attention to the signs that say no guns at the WTC memorial or the Empire State Building?

 The real problem is that liberals now control New York.  The key word here is control.   Liberals do not believe in governance.  They believe in control.  They want to control every aspect of someone’s life.  From protecting yourself, to what you can say or even what you can eat, liberals want to control everything.

 Unfortunately for Americans caught in New York and other liberal havens, liberalism sucks.  It is a complete failure.   Most intelligent people will try something and if it fails, they learn from their failure and will do something different. 

 Not liberals. 

 Liberalism has a huge track record of failure.  In fact, you would be hard pressed to think of ANYTHING liberals have championed that could be called a success.  It is all but impossible to think of something they have championed that is consistent with liberty and freedom.

 New York needs to repeal its draconian gun control laws.  They have done nothing but disarm the law-abiding citizens while criminals still have guns.  There is a reason why our founding fathers thought the right to keep and bear arms was important enough to include in the Constitution. 

 That Constitution still applies today. 

 Even in New York City.

The “racist stigma” of background checks – Tea Party Nation

 

Fingerprint

The “racist stigma” of background checks – Tea Party Nation.

Jack E. Kemp

Heather Mac Donald, writing in the New York Post, recently took New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn to task for Quinn’s complaining that the use of  taking finger images of welfare recipients for identification “stigmatizes” welfare applicants and thus should no longer be done. Some of Quinn’s allies also see this as “racist.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/quinn_welfare_w…

This was also an issue in Missouri in 2006 when professors at four state campuses complained about having to be fingerprinted. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/08/welcome_to_the_real_wor…

  And this was also an issue in the 1990s when New York City wanted to use fingerprinting of welfare recipients. Black groups were outraged about this, calling it a racist device that treated minorities in New York like criminals. I could see blacks being sensitive to the issue, but fingerprinting happened to a lot of non-minority people as well (outside the criminal justice system).

At that time, I called Former Mayor Ed Koch‘s radio talk show on WABC, getting on the air to say that when I programmed computers at a New York bank, they took my fingerprints and sent them to the FBI.  And I was white, Jewish and a college grad. In fact, Koch’s call screener told me moments before my getting to speak to Koch on the air (and I told Koch) that the screener had been fingerprinted as a requirement of becoming a New York City public school teacher. I also added that the bank also made me take a drug test. Ed Koch chuckled and mused about adding that requirement to receiving welfare, knowing it would never happen in New York.

Speaker Quinn is playing to her base, but where money is involved, background checks are in order, particularly if it means millions when multiplied by all the people who are on or applying for welfare. And the Mac Donald article referenced above also stated that:

“The chances that New Yorkers in straitened circumstances would forgo a stream of free food because of a finger-imaging requirement are equally low. New York’s food-stamp rolls have jumped 50 percent in the last three years; 1.8 million New Yorkers now use food stamps, at a cost to federal taxpayers of $3.3 billion.”

END OF QUOTE

Anyone “too offended” to be fingerprinted because they want to indulge in a fantasy about 1930 Jim Crow voting tests in the South raises suspicions as to their honesty and ability to reason. The welfare applicants – and their advocates – had best come to terms with their not being alone, that many white and Asian people also have to provide background information in this society – and that often means finger imaging. To those who object, I say, “Try to imagine that the money was coming from your own pocket.” You’d want proof that the person asking for your money was who they said they were. If someone is a taxpayer, they – and their accountable agencies in the City government – would best see background proof with finger imaging as well. If someone – such as City Council President Christine Quinn – doesn’t want to understand that, then perhaps she should rethink her position before running for the next Mayor of New York (as has been reported). If not, as more people flee the City, Quinn will find that her speeches about “stigmatized minorities” and requests for more welfare funds will not meet with the same enthusiasm and approval in Washington that they do in the liberal echo chamber that is the New York City Council.

Should America Carry the U.N.? Morning Bell – Heritage.org

The UN headquarters in New York

Image via Wikipedia

Should America Carry the U.N.? Morning Bell – Heritage.org.

Ericka Andersen  October 28, 2011 at 9:46 am

The 39-story United Nations headquarters stands on the banks of the East River in Manhattan. But now the U.N. is planning the construction of a new building next door, with a price tag pegged at $400 million — and it could soar even higher. And since U.S. taxpayers pay 22 percent of the U.N. budget, the costs for that new building will come right out of your pocket, leading to a very serious question: Just how far should the United States go in supporting the U.N. and international organizations like it?

The issue of a new building in New York isn’t the only U.N. story to make the headlines this year. Take the issue of Palestine, which over the summer formally requested U.N. membership. If Palestine were to succeed in its unilateral efforts, it would be detrimental to U.S. interests in the region, isolate Israel, and deal a major setback to Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects. And all of that would come at the hands of an international organization over which the United States can exert strong influence but cannot control.  If Palestine is granted member status at the U.N., American interests–along with those of its allies–will be seriously harmed, requiring an even greater vigilance and financial commitment to maintain leverage for U.S. priorities.  Again, the question is posed: When does our commitment to an international organization become a problem?

In the latest installment of Heritage’s “Understanding America” series, Brett Schaefer addresses America’s role as a member of international organizations. He explains that conflicting interests will nearly always hinder forward movement on issues of peace, security, and human rights — but that doesn’t negate the benefit of having a platform for achieving U.S. interests. Schaefer further explains the risks of participation in these bodies:

Supporting international organizations is not without consequence. It is a burden, albeit sometimes a burden worth bearing. But refusing to recognize the limitations of international organizations and their potential to cause harm does a disservice to the American people.

Joining with friendly nations for a mutual benefit or avenue to problem solving can prove to be valuable for the United States, but America’s leaders must never sacrifice the greater American interest for the sake of compromise. When does our commitment to an international organization become a problem? That’s a question U.S. leaders must continually ask themselves. Schaefer explains how the United States must seek to strike that balance:

If the United States is not to undermine its interests, it must abandon its default position of supporting and engaging with international organizations regardless of their performance. Instead, the U.S. must assess honestly whether each organization works, whether its mission is focused and attainable and not dependent on “good faith” that does not exist, and whether it advances U.S. interests.

International organizations are a tool to attain a goal, not an end in themselves. They are one way for the U.S. to defend its interests and to seek to address problems in concert with other nations. But they are not the only option, and their strengths and weaknesses should be clearly understood.

America played a key role in the founding of the U.N., so our stake in its success is important. But there are always risks in working with other nations — and each international organization relies at least in part on the good faith of those involved. However, each country’s own priorities come first, which is why American leadership must be eternally vigilant in assessing the record and actions of participating countries.

That is true when it comes to issues such as America’s financial commitment to the U.N., particularly as the organization considers constructing a costly new complex in Manhattan. And that vigilance is even more imperative on issues of international security and the promotion of ideals at odds with America’s interests abroad, as is the case with Palestine’s bid for recognition in the U.N.

In a 1985 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Ronald Reagan addressed the U.N.’s role head on–and the need for America to remain vigilant, noting, “The vision of the U.N. Charter–to spare succeeding generations this scourge of war–remains real. It still stirs our soul and warms our hearts, but it also demands of us a realism that is rock hard, clear-eyed, steady, and sure–a realism that understands the nations of the United Nations are not united.” Those words hold true today and should guide America’s understanding of its commitment to international organizations but also the realities and limitations of its engagement.

This is why the country is broke – Tea Party Nation

This is why the country is broke – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips on September 30, 2011 in Tea Party Nation Forum

The Country is broke.  Most states are broke.  Most big cities are broke.  As a nation, we teeter on the edge of national bankruptcy.    How did we get there? 

 A government panel in one of the largest states has just given us a great example of why we are broke.

 What panel, which state and what is it they want to do?

 It is New York’s Medicaid Board.

 What they want to do is have Medicaid pay for “gender reassignment surgery.”  That is right, they want the taxpayers to foot the bill for sex change operations. 

 Medicaid exists as a program to help poor people receive medical care.  Like every other program in the welfare state, it has exploded beyond recognition.   It has gone from helping poor people with medically necessary treatment to this kind of lunacy.

 s it any wonder the program is going broke?

 Of course, the liberals have a solution.  Never ending tax hikes so they can fund never ending programs for liberal constituencies. 

 Without even going into the whole issue of “sex change” operations and whether this is just more liberal bovine scatology, there is a huge issue as to whether the taxpayers should be forced to foot the bill for this kind of surgery.

 If someone wants to go from a he to a she, and they have the money to do it, they can pay for it themselves.  Why should the taxpayers be expected to pay for this?