Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Book Burning Is An Expression of Bigotry

Just as public demonstrations of hate for anyone are expressions of bigotry, so is book burning. An over simplification of the definition of bigotry is a belief that one is morally and intellectually superior to all others and no one is right but them. Jones didn't kill those people in Afghanistan, but he tripped the triggers of those who are by nature violent and bigoted. Radical islamists are bigots and need very little provocation to act out. They do not have the wiring in their brains to allow them to embrace the philosophy of freedom of expression. The problem is, Jones essentially yelled FIRE!!! in a crowded theater knowing the crowd would panic and trample one another, and there was no fire. Jones caused the deaths of those people just as surely as if he had been there. But Jones is a bigot and bigots don't care about innocents.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

|

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Latte and an M1911

EDITORIAL: Packing a gun in Starbucks

Coffee beans and firearms stir up a strong political brew

If you want to have a nice, relaxing cup of coffee in a safe environment, try Starbucks. The coffee-shop chain, generally known for environmentalist chic, is probably one of the safest places to hang out these days for a reason that doesn't fit its image - Starbucks is letting customers openly carry guns in its stores. Americans thus can enjoy their rights and wash them down with a Frappuccino.

Not surprisingly, Starbucks has taken some flak for its stand. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, an organization that has supported gun bans in Washington and Chicago, wants guns kept out of Starbucks. Collecting signatures from across the country, the gun controllers announced this week that they have gathered 28,000 signatures to try to pressure the bean sellers to hang fire. What the Brady Campaign actually did is misfire.

Here is some free PR advice for those who support gun bans: 28,000 signatures from a country of 200-some million adults is embarrassingly small. The National Rifle Association, with more than 4 million members, could collect that many signatures for the opposite position in less than an hour. It's obvious which side won this duel.

Despite all the harping from the left, a spokesman for Starbucks said last week that the company is sticking to its policy of letting customers carry guns where it's legal.
From sea to shining sea, the climate for guns is changing, and the progress extends beyond Starbucks. Major retailers such as Home Depot, Best Buy and Barnes & Noble apparently also are friendly to people who openly pack heat, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Brady Campaign warns businesses that allowing customers to carry guns will scare away other customers. Yet it seems pretty obvious that the businesses themselves - despite all the pressure they face from trial lawyers and bureaucrats to ban guns - are in a much better position to know what their customers want.

Hollywood and the liberal media have skewed public perceptions to such a degree that most Americans probably don't realize that not so long ago, people openly carried guns without a second thought all the time. Up until 1969, all but one of the
public high schools in New York City had rifle teams. Thousands of students carried their rifles every day on subways, buses and streets on their way to school, when they went to practice in the afternoon and on their way home. The students would store their guns in homerooms in the morning and then pick them up in the afternoon. In more normal times, no one thought it was a big deal.

Liberals claim they believe in science, but guns vividly illustrate their intellectual blinders. There is not a single refereed study by criminologists or economists using crime data from across America that shows that right-to-carry laws increase violent crime. The academic debate in refereed journals has been over how large the benefits are.

Here is a prediction: In a very short time, all the furor over Starbucks' pro-gun policy will be forgotten. The gun grabbers might not like it, but most Americans respect the right to keep and bear arms - even in a coffee shop.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

|

Friday, January 22, 2010

Heritage Foundation on SCOTUS Decision

Supreme Court upholds First Amendment
January 22, 2010 By Amanda J. Reinecker

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and appropriately struck down government prohibitions on many sorts of privately-funded political advertising. In doing so, Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky argues, the court "upheld some of the most important principles: the right to engage in free speech, particularly political speech, and the right to freely associate."

The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated as a question about campaign finance laws and whether they apply to an unflattering film about then-Senator Hillary Clinton. After the government argued that campaign finance laws could even lead to bans on books, the Court ordered a rare re-argument to address the broader constitutionality of limiting corporations' independent spending during federal election campaigns.

It was a question of "ancient First Amendment principles," the Court stated in its majority opinion. It is no coincidence that the rights to free speech and assembly are among the first mentioned in our Bill of Rights -- our Founders recognized that these rights are essential to the preservation of a free government.

"Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy and the means to hold officials accountable to the people," Spakovsky argues. But the right to free speech is not limited to individual persons, he argues. For-profit and non-profit organizations are greatly "affected, damaged, or even lost" by the laws Congress passes, so there is "no rational reason why they should not be able to engage in independent political activity."

Those who criticize the Court's 5-4 decision fail to recognize a key component about this critical First Principle: free speech "is written in terms of 'speech,' not speakers," as Justice Scalia explained in a concurring opinion. It is a right that applies to all. To deny it to would be an obfuscation of the written law and a violation of a fundamental right.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

|

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Armstrong Williams on Sarah Palin

WILLIAMS: Palin's paradox
Armstong Williams
21 December 2009

More after the jump.

Before Sarah Palin became John McCain's running mate last year, we spent a morning in her Alaska office while she was still governor. We sat down for a one-hour TV interview, and I was most impressed with her insights, traditional values, grasp of issues, and just what a sincere and genuinely warm person she was.

The morning in her office made it clear why so many Americans across the board respond to and connect deeply with her brand of politics. However, the former governor has become an icon to many and a disaster waiting to happen for others.
Are Americans beyond questioning President Obama's birth? Do Americans believe for a second that Medicare administrators want institutional euthanasia for seniors?

Will the media give her a platform to espouse Reaganesque doctrines or enough rope to hoist her up on her own petard? Will Mrs. Palin appear more radical the more opportunities she has to share her "Alaskan values"?

America loves second acts. Exhibit A: the book tour phenomenon. Every washed-up, has-been former star can jump-start his or her career by writing a book and singing a redemptive tune in book stops across the country. In many respects, the book tour is a microcosm of the democratic political process. The form relies on the ability of the writer to hold the audience's interest by simply recounting his or her own story. The most successful ones are able to resonate with the blue-collar public by suggesting a better alternative to their own lives.

Politicians thrive at this kind of performance art. Not surprisingly, the ghost-written autobiography has become de rigueur for both successful and washed-up political candidates. It provides politicians a chance to press the flesh and talk about why they are so likable. Politicians can do this for days on end.

The American voter is happily complicit. Voters judge their elected leaders much like a fifth-grade popularity contest. The stories of politicians are to Americans what the mythologies of the gods were to the ancient Greeks. Tell a personal, compelling narrative that resonates with the masses, and you've defined yourself. Your vision becomes far more impactful and wields with it a virtual legacy lasting far longer than any speech behind a podium.

Labels: , , , , , ,

|

Monday, June 16, 2008

Set Your Clocks

This Tuesday, June 17th at 5:00PM EDT, Author and Talon contributor Ronald Winter ("Masters of the Art; A Fighting Marine's Memoir of Vietnam") will be the sole guest for one hour on the top rated program at Global Talk Radio's "Calling All Authors."
Valerie Connelly is the host for this popular long running show. You can listen live and call in to ask Ron questions by visiting http://www.globaltalkradio.com/shows/callingallauthors/

I have just finished reading "Masters of the Art" and I highly recommend it for anyone who wants a true account of Viet Nam by someone who was there, on the ground, voluntarily.

I'm trying to finish "House to House" by SSG David Bellavia, which I also recommend (GET THIS BOOK READ THIS BOOK) and have just received a copy of Michael Yon's "Moment of Truth in Iraq", which is next on my list.
Unless I get my copy of "Lone Survivor" by Marcus Luttrell back from my buddy Hershal in time.

I'm also deeply engrossed in this riveting piece of literature. This one will keep you on the edge of your seat. It's a real page turner, folks. Leave the lights on and make sure the phone works before you start this one.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

|

Saturday, January 21, 2006

The Case for Democracy Book Review

January's UCV Book Club selection was The Case for Democracy by Natan Sharansky.

Natan Sharansky’s The Case for Democracy is just that: a defense of freedom for all people throughout the world. But he makes the case not only on a moral level—it’s the right thing to do—but also on a pragmatic level—it’s the wise thing to do. He argues successfully that democratic societies are peaceful societies and that the democratization of the world is the only route to true security. “Fear societies” are inherently unstable and the tyrants who rule them rely on demonization of internal and external enemies, and the abuse of human rights, to prop up their governments.

A fear society, Sharansky argues, cannot long endure. He testifies as an insider that the Soviet Union was rotting from within long before its seemingly stunning collapse. But, it would have survived longer, and perpetrated further abuses, had it not been for the moral clarity and leadership of Ronald Reagan and Henry "Scoop" Jackson. Herein lies Sharansky’s challenge to the leaders and the citizens of free societies: it is our duty to demand an end to fear societies and to enact policies that facilitate that end. That some people do not desire freedom, that freedom is not possible for everyone, that stability is more important than liberty are lies—and dangerous ones.

The Case for Democracy is a must-read. Sharansky elaborates on the philosophy that permeates the presidency of George W. Bush. He emphasizes the importance of differentiating between good and evil and understanding that freedom is the universal desire of mankind. “Over the years,” he writes, “I have come to understand a critical difference between the world of fear and the world of freedom. In the former, the primary challenge is finding the inner strength to confront evil. In the latter, the primary challenge is finding the moral clarity to see evil.”

American Daughter said...

Early this morning I came to the same conclusion in a post about bin Laden and Zawahri.

"They miscalculated. They tried to accomplish their goals through torture and terror. The tales of the atrocities commited by Arabs against Arabs under the Taliban in Afghanistan are horrific. Let alone any intervention by western military might, they would have failed eventually. Because people are motivated by opportunity, not by fear."

I haven't read the book you review, but now I want too!

5:32 PM

spankthatdonkey said...

Look what happened the last time the US population really feared it's leaders in Bill and Hillary Clinton... Waco, Ruby Ridge.. National Health Care (this injection won't hurt, it will just help you see more clearly :-) )

Free people do not respond well to oppressive govts... Great Post, and the book looks to be a good read

9:17 PM

Labels: ,

|

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

UCV Book Club Selections

At the February 8th, 2006 UCV Book Club meeting we will be reviewing two of Bernard Goldberg's bestsellers: Bias and Arrogance.

These are fast reads, thus the choice of two books this month.

Given Goldberg's media background, the books are full of firsthand anecdotes and insights into the inner workings of the MSM, something many of us have puzzled over or fumed about.

BTW Mr. Goldberg's website has an awesome Flash presentation as you enter so crank up the volume.

Labels: ,

|

Friday, January 06, 2006

UCV Book Club 01/11/06 7:00 pm

Please join us for the January meeting of the

United Conservatives of Virginia
Book Club

We will be discussing
The Case for Democracy
by Natan Sharansky

Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2006 at 7 pm

Tyler Haines Commons
(sunken area by the windows overlooking the lake)
at the University of Richmond
Directions

Labels: ,

|