by Lance Thompson

"You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and handguns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns."

–Michael Douglas as President Andrew Shepherd in The American President, 1995

written by Aaron Sorkin, directed by Rob Reiner

Next year, the Supreme Court will hear a case that bears directly on the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, for the first time since 1939. With the decision expected in the summer of 2008, at the height of the Presidential campaign, it is widely anticipated that the issue will compel candidates to clearly state their views on gun laws.

In Parker versus D. C., the District of Columbia Court of Appeals struck down as unconstitutional a District of Columbia law that bans handguns and requires owners of rifles and shotguns to keep them unloaded and disassembled, or have their triggers locked. The Court of Appeals followed the lead of a 2004 Justice Department memorandum that found that the right to keep and bear arms is as absolute as the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. This reversed the Department’s previous position, which maintained that the right only applied to "militias" or their modern equivalent, national guard troops.

However the Supremes decide, the views of liberals and conservatives on gun issues have always been clear and diametrically opposed. Conservatives believe in individual gun rights; liberals believe in restricting those rights.

In all other Constitutional freedoms, liberals favor expansive and ever-widening interpretations. Liberals believe that freedom of speech protects treasonous oratory, internet pornography, flag burning, scatological art, and obscenity-emblazoned t-shirts.

Liberals fight for the rights of criminals, from free legal counsel for the accused to endless appeals for the convicted. Incarcerated convicted criminals, liberals believe, have "rights" to cable television, state-of-the-art fitness equipment, tasty and nutritional meals, and intimate contact with their non-incarcerated spouses, girlfriends, boyfriends, or chosen purveyors of commercial sex. Liberals will plead for the life of condemned murderers and mourn the lawful execution of a killer with the blood of dozens of victims on his hands.

Liberals also favor extending the rights of the American Constitution to those who have no allegiance to the Constitution–people who are not American citizens, people who have crossed our borders illegally, enemies who would sacrifice their lives to damage our country and harm its people. Liberals have legislated financial aid, educational services and medical care to illegal aliens and their families. They have fought the practice of profiling to screen potential terrorists at airports, fought against electronic eavesdropping that could expose and prevent another terrorist attack, demanded legal counsel for terrorists and enemy combatants, and welcomed dictators who threaten war and covet nuclear weapons to speak at American universities.

There is no limit to the "rights" that liberals will confer on lawbreakers and our nation’s enemies. When it comes to the Second Amendment, however, liberals have a different view. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," is the entire test of the amendment. But rather than expand that right, as they do with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, and freedom of religion, liberals work tirelessly to limit, restrict and expunge the right to keep and bear arms.

The liberal predilection for conferring, demanding and expanding the rights of criminals is evidently not a principle they can apply to law-abiding citizens who choose to own firearms. A drug dealer who shoots an innocent victim is guaranteed a lawyer, an interrogation in which one mistake by the interrogator can shield him from prosectuion, and endless appeals if a judge and jury find him guilty. But a citizen who wants to arm himself to protect his family and his home against that same drug dealer must navigate an obstacle course of municipal, state and federal laws before he can buy a gun, and risks prosecution and civil liability if he actually uses that gun to defend himself.

Liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, in 1965's Griswold versus Connecticut, wrote that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." Douglas thus discovered a "right to privacy" unexpressed but inferred in the Constitution. He used this third cousin of a Constitutional right to justify striking down laws against contraceptives, and set the stage for legalizing abortion in the subsequent Roe versus Wade decision.

Yet liberals are unable to recognize any such penumbras and emanations from the Second Amendment. They view the right to keep and bear arms as a relic of a bygone age of savagery and violence, far removed from modern civilization. They press for legislation that makes guns more difficult to obtain for law abiding citizens. With each new restriction on legal gun ownership, criminals (for whom laws are inconsequential) are reassured that their victims will be unarmed and unable to fight back.

The Supreme Court is expected to render a decision on Parker next summer, probably with a narrow 5-4 majority, which brings us back to the election of 2008. Every Democrat running for President wants to further restrict legal access to guns. Most of the Republican candidates support individual gun rights (although at least one front-runner has a spotty record on this). The next President will most likely appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court.

A liberal President will appoint liberal justices who will help restrict this right that the founding fathers thought so important, it was the second of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights. A true conservative President will appoint judges who understand the value of this right, and will protect it. If you value your Second Amendment rights, choose carefully in your primary and in November. The gun you save could be your own.

-=-=-=-

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho, a state which respects individual gun ownership.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

 

Rudy Giuliani is dreaming the impossible dream – verified by the across-the board news report on November 7 that Pat Robertson had tossed his support behind him in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. Could Rudy be chasing windmills in an effort to secure the support of Christian conservatives, despite his stance as a pro-choice advocate?

After his announcement, Conservatives east to west and north and south were – and still are – shocked and troubled by Robertson’s feckless attempt to convince evangelicals that Giuliani is the right choice in spite of his own long-held principals to the contrary.  Giuliani lingers inconsistent on the matter of illegal immigration as well as his stance on abortion and same-sex marriage.  He has been married three times, not the picture of the stable family man conservatives feel relaxed and confident supporting.

 

Additionally, on the evening of November 7, in what sounded like a bad case of shriveled reality during a news conference, Robertson issued a self-purifying statement: that “Giuliani is the best candidate to handle the War on Terror.  …Our world faces deadly peril…and we need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead.”

 

Pat stumbled out onto the playing field at the 11^th hour, but hit one way over the foul line with that misapplied testimonial.  This red herring will be a magnet for ridicule, and deservedly so, because Giuliani’s role directly after the terrorist attacks on September 11 was confined exclusively to his duties as Mayor of New York City, directing the clean-up and reconstruction operations, overseeing local law enforcement, attending innumerable funerals and maintaining calm in a city under siege.  There were no offensive or militarily defensive moves against the terrorists under his leadership.

 

We should make it perfectly clear that we are in no way attempting to minimize Giuliani’s accomplishments in connection with the aftermath of that terrible day and of the days and weeks that followed.  And neither are we criticizing his outstanding performance.  He and the other city officials served skillfully and in fluid concert during America’s darkest hour.  However, the fact remains, Rudy had no hand in any of the decisions involving national security and the perceived retaliation by the federal government against those who viciously and without provocation attacked our country.

 

If, in Robertson’s view, the 9/11 attacks occurred because “feminists and gays were to blame for the attacks…Americans had insulted God and lost the protection of heaven by allowing abortion and rampant internet pornography, why is he endorsing one of New York’s most famous adulterers who stands firmly pro choice?

 

After the 2004 election, Robertson proclaimed that "George Bush has the favor of heaven."  Perhaps Rudy Giuliani should rethink such favors in light of the administration’s all-time low approval ratings.

 

Rudy needs this endorsement in the same way he needed (former N.Y. Police Commissioner and Giuliani business partner) Bernard Kerik’s: "Nobody believed Giuliani had a heart," Kerik says. "He's not supposed to have a heart. He's an animal, he's obnoxious, he's arrogant. But you know what? He gets it done. Behind getting it done, he has a tremendously huge heart, but you're not going to succeed in New York City by being a sweetie. Giuliani has no gray areas--good or bad, right or wrong, end of story. That's the way he is. You don't like it, f___ you."

 

Time Magazine named Rudy Giuliani “Person of the Year 2001.” It stated: “Sept. 11 was the day that Giuliani was supposed to begin the inevitable slide toward irrelevancy. It was primary-election day in the city, when people would go to the polls to begin choosing his successor. After two terms, his place in history seemed secure: great mayor, not-so-great guy. …But great swaths of the city were sick of him. People were tired of his Vesuvian temper and constant battles--against his political enemies, against some of his own appointees, against the media… against black leaders and street vendors and jaywalkers and finally even against his own wife…But most New Yorkers seemed ready for Rudy and Judi to leave the stage together and melt into the crowd.”

 

On the basis of these historical actualities, you can bet your house, car and widescreen TV that high-profile commentators’ and citizen journalists’ keyboards – like ours – are smoldering with irate rebuttal to Robertson’s misguided vision with the same fiery passion Caesar’s corpse was greeted by the mob hurling abuses and stoking his funeral pyre.

 

There will be copious censuring by evangelicals of Robertson’s ham-handed rejection of the more competent and qualified Republican candidate, Mitt Romney (presumably because Romney is a Mormon).  Rather than choose a man who shares his values, he chose to throw his waning support to the candidate he believes can win the presidency.  Apparently, they have joined the “win at all costs” club that will sell away what remains of the soul of the Republican Party.

 

The MSM and their lackey liberal pundits, as well as the Democratic candidates, no doubt reacted like teenagers on spiked punch at a prom when they heard Robertson’s choice.  The Left knows (but will never admit) that Mitt Romney is the candidate they lose their beauty sleep over -- not Rudy Giuliani.

 

Time Magazine further stated: “Giuliani has spent his adult life searching for missions impossible enough to suit his extravagant sense of self.”  Up until two minutes ago, his accomplishments as Mayor of New York were recited during the debates like a broken record or sentences replicating themselves virally.  His talking points were so specific that they somehow made their way verbatim into Pat Robertson’s mouth during the endorsement soundbites.

 

Robertson’s sudden antithetical pronouncement of faith in Giuliani’s conservatism carries the scent of a possible quid pro quo.  But as Nancy Cohen wrote in The Huffington Post: “Could Robertson's embrace of Rudy the Values Slayer be a "tragic" act of an aging leader who has lost his influence, perhaps his mind?”

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

Had George Bush looked into Pervez Musharraf’s eyes he would have seen the soul, not of a highly trained KGB agent, but that of a “benign” dictator.

Friends and allies come in all flavors and stripes. It therefore seems ironic, that certain members of Congress, and not surprisingly, the mainstream media, have been quick to defend the human rights of terrorists, chastising Americans not to judge other cultures by western standards. The usual cast of congressional characters, together with some presidential candidates, eyes twinkling amiably at the cameras, are now tripping over themselves in an effort to criticize and condemn President Musharraf’s State of Emergency Powers edict.

The paradox of the current situation is that in April 2000, “… Musharraf condemned the Pakistani practice of "honor killing" in which a woman is murdered for "shaming" her family by seeking a divorce or otherwise choosing her spouse. Among the other problems he sought to tackle were the effects of drought and frequent sectarian clashes.” These are not the actions of what we have come to expect from malevolent dictators, but of a leader that is cognizant of fundamental human rights and his place in history.

Musharraf's most recent autocratic move comes at a time when Pakistan has almost 100,000 troops in the Waziristan region, battling the Taliban. Meanwhile, the country is being hit by almost daily suicide bombings (since July, more than 450 people have been killed by terrorists). Islamist militants recently ambushed and held 250 soldiers hostage, and another 48 soldiers were paraded as a trophy by a Taliban commander.

We cannot discount that Musharraf seized power in a 1999 “bloodless” coup unlike the numerous dictators who have lately become the media darlings of the Left, like Castro, Chavez, or even a quasi-dictator like Vladimir Putin.

For Pakistan, it is a matter of time and gravity where no dewy-fresh statements or protestations from America will stop the unrest of the militants. We do not believe that General Musharraf is “kicking up the militant numbers” for the sake of sensationalism, nor is there any solid evidence that he is doing this for his own aggrandizement. There is no conspiracy of silence here, just a strategic imperative.

Better the devil you know, than the devil you don’t.

We doubt President Musharraf would welcome the comparison to a devil, but certainly he understands this English idiom as he walks a perilous tightrope between a strong and growing Islamic militant threat and democracy. It is unmistakably clear that Musharraf must remain where he is until Pakistan is stable.

The U.S. helps to prop up the world, both the good of it as well as the bad. Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent every year and the only time it seems to bother Congress enough to spout such inane rhetoric is when they can grab a bit of the limelight leading into an election year. And who are these American armchair diplomats?

"This administration has a Musharraf policy, not a Pakistani policy. It's tied to Musharraf. ... Its hands are pretty well tied right now. And it's put itself in a very difficult position, and in turn us in a difficult position," said Joe Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate . And the problem with this policy is what exactly?

In the race for photo ops, Senator Biden, and not too surprisingly, Senator Fred Thompson, seem lost beneath platitudes about democracy, peace, and stability, failing to grasp that Musharraf is the only thing standing between us and an up-close encounter with nukes. They ramble on about where the millions in U.S. aid is going when they can’t even control the disposition of domestic tax revenues.

General, President, or even Emperor Musharraf must be given time, understanding and the arms-length support from us which he will surely need to maintain the balance of power in the region. Condemnation by Democrats for democracy-building around the world reached a new high this last year.  It is therefore disturbing that those who condemn it scream the loudest for Musharraf to restore it.

If Musharraf reneging on his promise to hold scheduled elections in January is the worst news out of Pakistan, then Americans can “tsk tsk tsk” their way through that disappointment when or if it happens.

If Islamic militants succeed in nuclear-armed-and-ready Pakistan, an Iran seeking to build nuclear arms will be the least of our problems.

by Rose Pedenko

There I was, standing in the elevator with nothing more on my mind than whether I should have a carne asada or chicken quesadilla for lunch, when the 5th floor door slid open and two Asian suits sauntered in sporting Blackberrys and Bluetooth earwigs. I briefly wondered, between yawns, if Daiwa Securities had opened a branch office in our building, but then caught the tail end of their banter — which funds were moving—all in perfectly manicured English. But on their way out of the elevator, their conversation slid smoothly to Hillary’s debate debacle, or “Dawg, wazzup with that?” Couldn’t help but smile walking out into the sunshine because it was a classic reminder of what Americans really look like.

Put aside your PC brainwashing for a moment: Weren’t you just a little floored hearing Lennox Lewis’ euphonic British accent the first time? You were expecting Mike Tyson’s faux erudition maybe? Admit it, the King’s English was the last thing you were thinking.

English is the master key that unlocks all things American. While there are loud protests about the outsourcing of jobs, consider for a moment the aspiration of Indians in Bangalore who not only learn English, but adopt American names and readily help with your computer problems from 8,000 miles away. Yet we have millions of immigrants illegally invading our borders with barely an inclination to learn the language. Why should they—we make it so easy to reap the rewards so diligently earned by those waiting in line to become true Americans.

Then when I see and hear Michelle Malkin so eloquently articulate the problems facing this nation, I think “Poster-Child American.” Too often we associate tow-headed white-bread faces with the red, white and blue, when that is but a small fraction of this melting pot — another interesting concept that almost implies non-Caucasians blending in to make an American Gumbo. Yet that underlying idea has been added to the list of offenses courtesy of the Thought Police.

We proud Americans that do point out the rending of the fabric that is Americana are frequently branded as racist by those on the Left. That couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s as absurd as being proud of a person’s dismal failure to read, write and count just because they are white. Or pointing out that black Americans drifted from the party of Lincoln to blindly support those that would make them dependent on the government indefinitely.

It’s not about being black, brown, yellow or pasty white. It’s about the personal responsibility to learn English and grab hold of the American Dream. Catering to non-English speaking immigrants does not serve them well either. Translating signage, product labels, voicemail messages, etc. is the same as forcing children to wear water wings until they are 18. They will eventually sink from deflated egos.

Americans would do well to look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are an American first, or if their allegiance belongs to the country of their parents’, grandparents’ or great-grandparents’ origin. Do they really need the very divisive hyphenated designation of nationality to buy self-esteem? How many African-Americans do you know who just immigrated from Africa? If they went back, would they call themselves American-Africans? You don’t need to be a second or third generation U.S. born and bred individual to earn your nationality. You just need to speak English and believe you are part of the greatest experiment on the face of the earth—a melding of all cultures into one very tasty deep dish—American Apple Pie.

Next time you’re stuck in an elevator, look around at all the foreign-looking faces and ask yourself if you are on board with real Americans. To find out may not only surprise you but brighten your day and make you smile, just like me.