BlogWonks

The lamestream media told you:

Polls now clearly indicate that the overwhelming majority of Americans want the troops brought back home.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

As I’ve observed here before — polls are just tests to see if the propaganda is working. The lamestream media has been pounding away on the idea of bringing the troops home for years now, so let me ask:

Is the “vast majority” talking about the 65,000 troops we have in Germany? Or do they really mean the 34,000 in Japan? Maybe they mean the 10,000 in Great Britain? Bring our 110,000 WWII troops home now! The war ended 60 years ago.

How would the economies of those countries be affected if all that Uncle Sam G.I.-weekend spending screeched to a halt?

If we could just bring home the 30,000 troops from Korea, think what that could do for border protection here. Is it time to start screaming about it?

The public is screaming to bring troops home from Iraq because the media is telling them to scream, not because it necessarily makes sense. The media tells them little about all 388,000 troops stationed outside the U.S. (2003 stats), so it’s all quiet on those fronts.

Annual averages, differences in tabulating troop movements and other factors affect the stats. For a detailed report see the Heritage Foundation numbers.

HB 2640 Gun Ban Worse Than Originally Thought

Illegal Aliens Exempt If Amnesty Bill Passes

Rights Restoration Clause Died In 1992

Attorney General Would Get Arbitrary Control

Any Database Manager Can Issue “Procedures”

Undefined “Determination” Can Add You To The Ban List

Still time to fix it

Associated Press takes typical biased swipe at NRA

In a sensational national email alert, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (jpfo.org) incorrectly stated yesterday:

“Is the NRA just another ‘gun control’ group? Alan Korwin, author of ‘Gun Laws of America’ seems to think so.” JPFO is using my name to promote a belief they hold that I do not.

The NRA is the most powerful gun-rights group in the world, even if other groups (like Jews for the Preservation and others) don’t think so, or believe they outperform NRA in some fashion. Like Hillary Clinton or any big dog, the NRA must endure a certain level of attack from their own side, it comes with the territory.

I don’t know why NRA is supporting the McCarthy NICS expansion bill as it is currently written, but it doesn’t make them the enemy. I think they have misread certain passages, or hold mistaken beliefs about how BATFE and the Justice Dept. will perform under the bill if enacted.* Reasonable people will differ. There is still time for a fix.

This has prompted me to reexamine the bill, and unfortunately, it seems worse than I originally believed. To the NRA, media and others who disagree with my assessment of HB 2640:

1. Not Just Adjudications

Bill supporters have expressed that “adjudicated” mental incompetence, which implies action by a proper court of law, is a fair standard for gun denial, and with an appeals process in place is a reasonable line in the sand. I generally agree. But the bill says “adjudications” can come from any federal “department or agency,” not just courts.

And HB 2640 isn’t limited to adjudications. It speaks throughout of people with “adjudications, determinations and commitments,” and not even “involuntary commitments.” The word “determination” scares me most — it isn’t even defined. Who can make “a determination”? The law doesn’t say. An agency with even a narrow view could read that to mean almost anything. You’re comfortable with that? Does it subject people’s rights to a bureaucrat’s whim? Where are the controls on “a determination”? There aren’t any apparent.

It’s true that the adjudications, determinations and commitments must include a finding that the person is “a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.” However, BATFE is already on record that any level of “danger” is enough, and it does not have to be imminent, or substantial. Name some sort of mental issue that doesn’t have some sort of danger attached — you can’t. Call me a skeptic, go ahead, I can take it.

2. Funding Denied for Restorations

Restoration of rights is subjected to 18 USC 925(c). I don’t know how I missed this the first time around. That’s the statute Congress has refused to fund since 1992. No one can get rights restored under that statute. We know that. Why would gun-rights supporters place faith in that as a valid appeals route? More than anything else, that item makes me wonder what’s going on. It’s a legitimate worry. Either the NRA missed that and must fix it, or their critics’ worst fears have merit.

3. Arbitrary Control by Attorney General

Even if 18 USC 925 were valid (i.e., funded), as currently written it gives the U.S. Attorney General absolute and arbitrary control over restoring gun rights to a person who applies. It doesn’t require any action by the AG. It says, “the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that… the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.” A politician (unelected in this case) who doesn’t think the public should have guns in the first place would never restore rights under that language. Does that seem like a fair and reasonable approach to you? Do you trust that as a baseline standard?

4. Doctors Issuing Gun Rights?

The mental health community is entrusted with the ability to restore a person’s rights by declaring them fit (I’m paraphrasing a lot of legalese here). Doctors are by-and-large among the most anti-gun-rights groups in society (check the med journals, AMA, CDC, etc., but I know you know that). What are the chances that anyone within that community will be certifying former mental cases as competent to keep and bear arms? What would give you hope that this part of the bill will be any help at all? Will doctors take the time to make a distinction between real mental cases and people wrongly listed in the official FBI mental case database? If doctors or shrinks make a single mistake, will the feds pull their license to practice, encouraging all of them to keep in line and take no action? Maybe just fear of lawsuits will do the trick.

5. Illegal Aliens Exempt

Another giant one I missed: Under 18 USC 922 it’s clear that illegal aliens cannot legally have guns in this country (and most can’t have guns in their native Mexico or elsewhere). But they’re not in the NICS denial files because, as newspapers put it, they’re “undocumented,” so there’s no way to get the 20 million of them in there. So here’s another blockbuster hidden in HB 2640 — anyone who loses their “illegal alien” status is exempt from NICS (under Sec. 101 (b)(1)(B)). In other words, if the Amnesty Bill removes the illegal status from the people here illegally, they cannot be put in the NICS denial list! Did I read that wrong? It is deliberately convoluted, but it does single out 18 USC 925(g)(5), the illegal-alien gun ban.

6. Legislation by Database Management

Getting a person on or off the NICS list depends on “laws, regulations, policies or procedures governing the applicable record systems.” That applies to every database and set of records everywhere that NICS draws from. Are those database “procedures” and “policies” a) known, b) available for review, c) open to public comment, d) subject to challenge, e) fair, f) subject to time frames, g) subject to change at whim, and h) are the people who make those rules known or subject to any jurisdiction we can identify? What about database “rules” mentioned in the bill? Curious minds want to know — before this bill becomes law and grants that much power to data geeks in some deep dark isolated windowless data processing center somewhere.

–

OK, so the swift and irregular passage raised eyebrows everywhere, this you know. The NRA made some of its most devout supporters wonder what’s going on. News media everywhere called it gun control, the NRA insists it’s not. It seems to many observers that something’s not right.

And it’s not too late to make corrections, demand changes before giving any further support, and answer the questions that gun owners are asking. When I was consulting I learned the adage: Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions. So here are some solutions (in plain English… would need translation into legalese) to add to the bill:

(a) Failure to act on a request for a correction to NICS in a specified short time frame shall incur fines, paid by the agency, to the aggrieved party (a sweet addition many laws could benefit from; why would a diligent bureaucrat intent on obeying the law object?).

(b) Failure to act on requests in a specified short time frame shall subject the agency itself to budget cuts based on the length of delay and the number of people whose rights are held in limbo. If delays exceed a specified limit, the head of the agency is subject to sanctions (another sweet feet-to-the-fire remedy for many rampant abuses at federal and local levels — activists should start adding related language to bills as standard procedure).

(c) Delete the words “determination” and “commitment” as grounds for rights denial, and remove “any legal authority” as a player, replacing it with “court of competent jurisdiction.”

(d) Any person whose civil rights are wrongly denied in any way by the NICS system may seek damages, attorney fees, and court costs. Why would an honest person object? To reduce the risk of hefty costs to government, make careful determinations before adding names to NICS, instead of allowing the innocent to appeal after their rights are denied. It’s just a reasonable, common-sense safeguard.

There’s more, but that’s enough for starters. Will our side act to fix it or run with it as is? Respond to membership’s concerns or increase their confusion?

Let’s get this bill on track — no one wants nut cases buying guns, and no one wants people with prescription meds or a group-therapy appointment denied. Kids forced onto Ritalin because of a schoolyard scuffle shouldn’t permanently lose their rights. And we sure don’t want people avoiding medical attention because they fear it might abrogate their rights forever.

Sure, government functionaries and McCarthy’s side will howl that they can’t possibly live up to these solutions, for a dozen really good reasons. Let’s hear the howls now, not when the country is thrown into a rights-denial pit with no bottom.

–

In other news, the Associated Press today placed prominent stories in more than 1,000 U.S. newspapers implying the NRA is working in Congress to support serious felony crimes committed by, “corrupt gun dealers and illegal gun traffickers,” a complete distortion promoted without a disclaimer by the Brady anti-gun-rights lobby. The AP ran the virtually libelous comments, as it always does, from known biased sources.

The NRA is actually working to protect lawful gun owners’ privacy from, “anti-gun activists, headline-hungry politicians and opportunistic trial lawyers,” all worthy goals mentioned near the end of the story. No other gun-rights group is mentioned in the protective effort at the Senate Appropriations Committee, where leading Democrats are working to weaken or eliminate existing protections gun owners currently enjoy.

*Some lobbyists (who I think should know better) have expressed a trust that the authorities cannot issue a regulation, policy or take action that exceeds authority delegated to them by law. They say it would have no force of law. That is just wrong.

Feds, and BATFE in particular, are famous for stretching the limits of what they can legally do, and waiting for courts to rein them in, which often never happens. And if a federal agency does clearly exceed its authority, so what — you are subject to arrest unless and until someone can successfully sue the government and bring it back into line, a process that takes years and big bucks. Courts, in support of the bureaucracy, frequently deny any effort to attack the underlying illegal regulation.

Need an example? The NICS system requires all records used in a background check to be destroyed INSTANTLY. The paragraph that says so says “instantly” five times. BATFE interpreted that to mean “within six months,” and they could keep a backup copy. Years later they were forced through the NRA’s efforts and huge national pressure to destroy those records more quickly.

The law says if the NICS system is down, dealers don’t have to use it (NRA put that there as a safeguard). So BATFE just threatened to pull the license of any dealer who followed that law, making that guarantee worthless.

So much for operating within the limits specified in statute. There is even uncertainty as to whether, if NICS looks at records in Scotland Yard or Canada’s databases, the record of those searches is destroyed, or remains available forever in the other country.

One more example for good measure. BATFE is famous for using a machine shop and experts to get broken junk to fire, and then charging the owner with illegal possession of a firearm. The feds will stretch the HB 2640 provisions as far as they can, beyond any reasonable interpretation, and then some, in line with their standard procedures. The way it’s currently written, they won’t have to stretch much to reach any conclusion they want.

Finally! President Bush admits…it’s Amnesty! After dancing around the truth and avoiding the obvious terminology to describe the immigration bill, S.1348 (later changed to S. 1639), the President said, “…Amnesty means you’ve got to pay a price for having been here illegally, and this bill does that.”So many people saw the bill for what it was, so yes Mr. President, you might as well tell the truth.

But thank goodness S. 1639, or the “amnesty” bill, is now DEAD in the Senate. Yes we can breathe a sigh of relief for that, but don’t expect that our immigration situation will change for the better. The American people need to keep the pressure on their legislators in Washington and demand that the borders are secured, and to follow our current laws in dealing with illegals. 

As a country, we would still be facing uncontrolled, lawless borders (especially to the south), prosecution of Border Agents who do their jobs, and illegals who take advantage of our healthcare system and jobs.  The problem doesn’t go away.

Another way, of course, is for the states to take control of the situation.  And they have been, through individual state action, and through a group of legislators dubbed State Legislators for Legal Immigration.  That’s a sure sign that Americans want a tougher stance on illegal immigration.

I sincerely hope that the reason for the fall of S. 1639 is because senators realized they should not risk the ire of the American people in voting for the bill. In fact, several senators defected from their previous positions supporting it. Perhaps it was from the pressure of “We the People” making noise, but don’t think that this issue will die. In the future, we may expect to see “amnesty for illegals” come up again.

Why? Because granting millions of the undocumented illegals in this country a fast track to citizenship is still the goal of some in Washington.  It only further dilutes our nation’s sovereignty and identity as we rush full speed toward a North American Union.  American workers, Americans as a whole are being left to the side in favor of cheaper labor and a “shared community” mentality.

President Bush and Mexico’s president Felipe Calderon have been in talks, but not once has President Bush mentioned how important it is that the Mexican people have a stable and prosperous economy of their own. The language that Pres. Bush has used while addressing the Mexican people and president has been along the lines of ”working together” and “shared prosperity.” No doubt there’s an effort by the two presidents to try to implement a North American Union.

It is evidenced when Calderon called the now dead immigration bill “a grave error.”  What’s so “grave” about being concerned about our nation’s sovereignty and stability? A more sensible reaction from the Mexican president would be of support as we work to get control of our borders. It would show that Calderon is accepting of our nation’s sovereignty, and wouldn’t want to interfere in the affairs of our country. Security along the border would be best for both countries. All of the lawlessness regarding illegal human and drug smuggling would be under control. But Calderon doesn’t see it that way.

An Alternative

As I’ve mentioned, an alternative would be left up to the individual states to enforce standing immigration laws. But there is also a Federal alternative. The Secure Borders FIRST Act of 2007, unveiled by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), is an alternative bill proposed in the House. This bill may not get the attention it needs because it’s too conservative in nature (with emphasis on border enforcement and implementation of immigration laws already on the books) but it’s needed. It’s a common sense bill. 

I would conclude that these men are thinking of the will of the people and are truly concerned about the security of this nation. What good is a nation with weak borders? If only We the People, could get the attention of our leaders on this alternative bill?

Let’s make some noise and show Washington we are still concerned about illegal immigration, the fight isn’t over. 

Related Reading

Bush: It is amnesty:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56378

State Legislators Call for End to ‘Illegal Alien Invasion’:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200705/NAT20070522c.html

Mexican president says vote ‘a grave error’:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4929095.html 

Details of The Secure Borders FIRST Act of 2007:

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca50_bilbray/morenews/Truereformbill.shtml

*Contact your Representatives in the House and tell them to support The Secure Borders FIRST Act of 2007:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

 *Felicia (Fee) Benamon is a political columnist who writes for various conservative sites including RenewAmerica.us, Michnews.com, Daley-Times Post, Renaissance Women ( http://www.rwnetwork.net/ ) , Capitolhillcoffeehouse.com, TheConservativeVoice.com, Mensnewsdaily.com, ConservativeCrusader.com, and other news sites like AmericanChronicle.com.  She is a columnist and a reporter for the Mid-South Patriot ( www.freewebs.com/midsouth-patriot ) in Memphis, TN.  Felicia hails from a military background, and has been politically active since the 2000 elections.  She has been a guest peaker on various conservative internet talk radio shows. 

You may email Felicia: Feereports@aol.com   

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Bob Levy, co-sponsor of the Parker case (the one that overturned the D.C. gun ban) reports:

The D.C. Circuit Court granted D.C.’s unopposed motion to hold off on the requirements of the Parker case until August 7, the deadline for requesting a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. (This means the gun ban stays in effect at least until that outcome of that request is known.) In an extraordinary statement, Judge Silberman warned D.C. that it would have been inappropriate to request a stay if D.C. did not intend to file for the review.

In other words, by asking for the ban to remain in effect for a while, the Circuit Court is warning D.C. that it had better file to take the case to the Supreme Court. This is a good thing if you want the High Court to hear the case.

Lamestream “news” outlets could not be bothered with developments in the most significant Second Amendment case to appear in decades, but have mercifully stopped covering Anna Nicole Smith, who is dead.

The lamestream media told you:

Headlines nationwide assured the public that Muslims in the U.S. are not a problem, based on a recently released Pew Center poll.

USAToday: Poll: Most Muslims seek to adopt American lifestyle.

“This is a very positive story for the vast majority of Muslims,” says Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center.

The Voice of America: Poll: US Muslims Feel Post-9/11 Backlash Despite Moderate Outlook

The New York Times: Muslims assimilate better in U.S. than Europe, poll finds, and then leads with this: “A new poll of American Muslims reveals a group that is better assimilated, more content and less politically polarized than counterpart Muslim populations in Western Europe — but also smaller in number than some Muslim groups had estimated.”

Chicago Tribune: U.S. Muslims more content, assimilated than those abroad

National Public Radio: Pew Study Sees Muslim Americans Assimilating.

Washington Post: Survey: U.S. Muslims Assimilated, Opposed to Extremism

The Pew organization says: Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream, but does followup later with:

Muslim Americans reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries. However, there is somewhat more acceptance of Islamic extremism in some segments of the U.S. Muslim public than others. Fewer native-born African American Muslims than others completely condemn al Qaeda. In addition, younger Muslims in the U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified. Nonetheless, absolute levels of support for Islamic extremism among Muslim Americans are quite low, especially when compared with Muslims around the world.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

An alert and unbiased media would have lead with this fact from the survey: More Than One Quarter Of All Young U.S. Muslims Believe Suicide Bombing Can Be Justifiable.

Despite conciliatory headlines across the nation, USA Today did report, “The study also found pockets of sympathy for Islamic extremism, especially among younger people. Muslims between the ages of 18 and 29 express significantly greater acceptance than older people of suicide bombings in some cases… Only 5% say they have a favorable view of al-Qaeda.”

With 2.4 million Muslims in the U.S. (two-thirds of whom are foreign born), 5% support for al Qaeda would translate to 120,000 potentially dangerous Muslims in the U.S. theater of operations. The actual number is higher, since percentage support at all ages was not provided. Muslim groups dispute the 2.4 million census figure however, saying the real number is closer to 7 million (which would be 350,000 U.S.-based Muslim supporters of al Qaeda, in the one age group covered).

74% of Muslims surveyed would do not say the U.S. fight against terrorism is a sincere effort to reduce terrorism, but the Times assures readers that this is much better than in parts of Europe.

Find links to the major stories here.

In other news, PBS banned the release of the documentary it paid for about global Islam and its plans for the world, because it presented Muslims in a poor light.

FOX News obtained the censored film and aired the stunning, often revolting, eye-popping details about Muslim jihadis, indoctrination schools, honor killings, abuse of women, suppression of dissent, plans for global domination, and tentacles spread through global religious facilities for the perpetuation of violence, which do present Muslims in a poor light.

Saudi Arabian oil magnates pay for the bulk of the religious facilities that spread the hatred and preparations for jihad. The Saudis get a significant portion of their money from Americans who use oil and gas. In other words, Americans pay their enemies to prepare attacks.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the broadcast was how FOX methodically exposed the PBS attempt to hide the truth about Islamofascists, whitewash the film’s message, distort the story and facts, rewrite the conclusions, fire the producer who was openly conservative, and hide its efforts through claims of journalistic integrity. PBS is funded primarily by public tax dollars.

The lamestream media told you:

“Fueled by rapid growth in coal-reliant China, rates of carbon dioxide emission from industrial sources increased from 2000 to 2004 at a rate that is over three times the rate during the 1990s,” according to a National Academy of Sciences report covered by USA Today last month.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Indiscriminate and rapid increases in coal burning by communist red Chinese have emerged as a driving force behind global carbon levels in the atmosphere. The dictatorship’s loosened grip on its economy has lead to a mad rush of growth formerly unknown in the totalitarian regime.

The communists’ furnaces, which do not use scrubbers and are believed to be highly inefficient, rely on their vast supplies of CO2 producing coal, lack of environmental regulations, and easy executions of protesters.

The highly controversial Kyoto Accord, which the United States refused to sign because it proposed devastating impacts on our economy, had conveniently omitted the communists from most requirements. European nations and others who did sign the accords have uniformly failed to meet the goals, but it doesn’t matter, because there are no penalties, no sanctions, and not even followup reports by the “news” media.

In other news, Hollywood has taken up the carbon emissions banner and is “buying carbon offsets” to demonstrate how green their films are. The upcoming $170 million comedy about Noah’s Ark “erased” its carbon “footprint” by spending ten grand on trees, according to PBS. How many trees, where, how much CO2 they absorb in what time frame and whether such a small number of plants can “erase” $170 million in activity for a gigantic crew working for a year is unknown. PBS asked no questions to qualify the proud pronouncement of the film’s producer, but the interviewer gushed at how wonderful all this was.

In still other news, communist China surpassed the U.S. in 2006 as the world’s leading producer of CO2 gas, by far. Al Gore could not be reached in his 26,000-square-foot home for comment.

Yes, yes, it’s been a while — I’m pouring my time into my next book, “Bomb Jokes at Airports” (about the limits of free speech), plus we’re expanding the line at Bloomfield Press, more news on that soon.

Q: How long until we know if Washington, D.C. will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on the gun-ban case it lost (the Parker case)?

A: 90 days from the denial of the en banc hearing.That means Aug. 6, 2007.

Q: If they do appeal, when might a decision arrive?

A: Assuming that cert is granted before year’s end (meaning the High Court agrees to hear the case), we should have a decision no later than June 30, 2008. Read all about it in entry #3, below.

Many NRA Members “Confused” by Proposed Gun Bill

Five-fold increase in gun-ban list is “troubling”

Secretive passage rankles even hard core

Could be fast-tracked through the Senate this week

The swift passage of a gun-ban bill in the U.S. House, without committee hearings, floor debate or a recorded vote and possibly without even a quorum present, has NRA members nationwide asking what happened.

In a nationally released memo addressing the confusion, the NRA said this is “nothing unusual,” further confusing their members. Swiftly adopting a gun-control measure on a voice vote has not occurred in at least fifteen years, if ever, according to Bloomfield Press, the largest publisher of gun-law books in the country.

The NRA, long considered a feared and powerful gun-rights lobby, allied itself with the most ardent anti-gun-rights forces in the House to quickly push through a bill that would massively increase the NICS Index — the database of people who cannot pass an FBI background check for purchase of a firearm.

Psychiatrists and doctors would have an increased role in determining who gets on or off the list. The medical community has in the past exhibited pronounced anti-gun behaviors, bordering in some cases on hoplophobia, a morbid fear of weapons of any kind.

The action was taken during the morning “Suspension Calendar,” normally reserved for “non-controversial” bills. Its use to slip through an expansion of gun control is highly irregular, with no similar action known in the past. The bill is HR 2640, “The NICS Improvement Act,” posted here.

No one knows how many of the 21 million records Congress seeks will truly identify Americans who lack the legal right to have a firearm. The effect on guns already owned by people in the 21 million records seems clear — they would be subject to confiscation. At least, a transfer of ownership seems a likely requirement if the law is enacted and those people’s names are poured into the list. There are no plans to notify these people.

An error rate of just one-tenth of one percent (very low for government work) would mean that 21,000 Americans will have their rights unjustly denied if the bill becomes law. These people will then be forced to line up and go through an arduous, time-consuming, complex and expensive process to prove their innocence. The government is not required to cooperate, though the law does provide a framework for getting rights restored, at NRA’s insistence. (The bill says agencies “shall” act to keep records accurate, but nothing happens if they don’t; no time frames for corrections are specified.)

News reports have shed no light on the accuracy or validity of the impending additions, or any preparations to handle a flood of appeals. An error rate of 1% would equal 2.1 million false “guilty” verdicts.

The existing list of criminals, illegal aliens and other “prohibited possessors” is 3,960,981 after 11 years of careful development (as of Dec. 31, 2005). Under the proposed law, at one fell swoop, it will grow to five times its current size. More than ten percent of American adults would be barred from exercising the fundamental civil right to arms. The NRA points out that Americans who have the right medical disabilities do belong on the list.

“It’s scary, when both the main defender of this civil right and the enemies of that right combine and work to deny rights to so many people at once,” said an insider who prefers to remain anonymous. “Are the records accurate? Can people unjustly accused swiftly restore their rights and reclaim their place in society? Shouldn’t we check the validity before we summarily add so many people to the list, and not just add them and let the innocent suffer? Why are the NRA and anti-gun Democrats trying to move so fast?” Carefully checking 21 million people’s records would of course slow down the process, and delay entering all the names.

Emails, blogs and chat rooms are filled with such questions, even as mainstream news reports praise “the first significant gun-control legislation in a decade,” ignoring a dozen gun bills Congress has passed in the last ten years. Despite the jubilant mainstream headlines, the NRA memo says this is “NOT GUN CONTROL!” (emphasis theirs). After reading the bill, it certainly seems accurate to call it gun control, a term now used almost exclusively to refer to gun bans of one sort or another.

In a related but unreported development, experts note that the expanded NICS system, if combined with information from the Real ID Act, could provide a centralized federal monitoring facility for the entire population, under the guise of crime control. Privacy advocates have expressed concern over the possibility, though many officials see this as a good thing.

The Brady law, ostensibly to control handgun sales, initiated the entire project in 1993, at a cost of $250 million, plus subsequent allocations. The new bill adds $375 million per year for the next three years. In a 1998 surprise, the Brady Handgun law was automatically expanded to include all firearms, not just handguns.

The new law has many built-in protective requirements, and methods of appeal for those wrongly accused, but provides no punishment of government agents who fail to comply or to keep records accurately, placing the effectiveness of those safeguards in doubt. The Justice Dept. is supposed to give Congress a list of all the agencies that are not complying, once a year. In an odd requirement of unknown usefulness, various mental health institutions and providers are given power to certify former mental cases as now qualified to have guns.

In the past, federal and state officials have been known to stonewall, delay, deceive and claim impotence when confronted with requests to have rights restored to the innocent, or to the reformed. Congress has refused to fund such reviews, which are required by law, since 1992, effectively eliminating a person’s chance for due process.

In a copyrighted story on 6/21/07, WorldNetDaily said:

“Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., announcing a provision to allow doctors to ban people from owning guns… The plan allows names to be entered into the NICS system based solely on a physician’s diagnosis or prescription of a medication: adults who have taken Ritalin and soldiers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder would be classified as mentally ill and given the same opportunity to own firearms as convicted felons: None.” Simple diagnosis or medical prescription does not appear to be in the bill as grounds for a ban. Ritalin and PTSD are not listed at the present time, though critics of the measure are concerned that such things could change.

Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt called the scheme, “conviction by diagnosis,” which is true in cases where a person is officially deemed dangerous and other conditions are met. GOA is a national gun rights group opposing the measure. Pratt points out that many people will be taken by surprise when they try to buy a firearm and learn they have been unknowingly lumped into a category with murderers, rapists and illegal aliens.

Members of Fathers 4 Justice (F4J), Children’s Rights Initiative Sharing Parents Equally (CRISPE) and National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles (NCFMLA) met at the Family Relations Courthouse in Sacramento, California on Tuesday to protest laws, policies and decisions that deny parents (mostly Fathers) equal (50/50) shared parenting.

The protest began sharply at 8:00 A. M. at the William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse on Power Inn Road, and lasted for several hours.  During that time, participants presented a number of signs for public viewing and demanded (via megaphone) equal (50/50) parenting rights.  Judging by the participation of passing motorists who honked their horns, there was widespread support for that position.  As always, Larry’s big CRISPE bus was a hit with one and all.

After several hours of protesting at the Family Relations Courthouse, most of the participants regrouped and headed for the State Capitol.  The State Capitol lawn was packed with people from another group, but we gathered in the southwest corner of the Capitol lawn and again presented our views to the public.  It was a hot day in Sacramento with temperatures over 90 degrees F. so after about an hour, we departed the Capitol lawn, each going our separate way.

For me, it had been a long drive up to Sacramento and it would be a long drive back, but the long trek was a necessary effort, because California does not honor the rights of parents (mostly Fathers) to be involved in their children’s lives. 

 The week before Father’s Day seemed an appropriate time to stage the Sacramento protest, but Father’s rights groups agree that no special day is needed to protest the egregious treatment of parents (mostly Fathers) by Family Relations Courts and CA lawmakers.  Given the overt misandry with which many Judges and lawmakers treat California’s Fathers, other gatherings to protest for 50/50, shared parenting are likely to occur.  When Father’s began to be treated equally by our courts and lawmakers, it truly will be a happy Father’s day.  :-)

To the hardworking American citizens, your country is about to be swept from underneath you. Our sovereignty is unraveling. I say this because of the various agreements to privatize and lease our nation’s interstates and highways to foreign companies.  And without Congressional approval or approval of the people.  This is happening across the country as well.  The Trans Texas Corridor is planned to be under the control of Spain’s Cintra Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte.  And locally in Tennessee, a proposed toll road to be installed near Knoxville caught my attention.  I wonder what’s to become of that highway project.  As it is implemented, will it be sold to foreign companies?  

Our nation’s sovereignty is being erased and most Americans know nothing about it.  This reeks of an effort by some politicians to sneak in and implement the Superhighway, which is connected with the North American Union effort.

*Read more about the North American Union effort under Related Reading

On top of that, President Bush has quietly given himself more powers to act without congressional approval during emergencies.  This bypasses states’ rights to handle their own business.  He is also reconsidering the UN’s controversial Law of the Sea Treaty, which would further undermine US sovereignty.

While Americans remain quiet, politicians and the elite are going about their way to implement these changes.  Americans need to stop putting so much faith in their leaders and start scrutinizing and watching what is going on, not only in D.C., but in their local communities. Are our leaders measuring up? Are they doing what they said they would do when they campaigned for office?

President Bush promised while campaigning in 2000 that he would strengthen America’s military, but our troops are having trouble getting the armor they need.  They are not receiving the after-care they deserve as they come back from the war zone.  Our soldiers should be the main focus of our care and concern as they go to ensure we KEEP our sovereignty and freedom. They deserve the best! 

Government has become so much bigger (Bush promised a smaller government as well) and certainly not more effective. Politicians have sold out to greed and power… on both sides.

After a historic and devastating attack on our country on 9-11-01, we continue to have problematic borders. Our leaders in Washington want to pander to the rising illegal immigrant population in America (the Hispanic population is the fastest growing among minorities and make up the largest group of minorities in America) because they feel that workers are needed for various jobs in America that American citizens won’t do.

President Bush’s amnesty bill, or the S. 1348 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, is having a hard time passing. If the American people were for this bill, there wouldn’t be such opposition as there has been against this bill. Last year, a tougher bill never made it to the President’s desk (H.R. 4437).  This bill proposed that we get serious and enforce our already existing laws. In reality, Americans want our laws enforced. And H.R. 4437 had strong backing in the House, but the Senate wouldn’t hear of it.  Our lawmakers in Washington did not listen to the people, and they aren’t listening now as they propose to push an “amnesty” bill our way.  

By President Bush being so lenient on “guest workers” in this country, he’s ignoring our already existing laws in favor of allowing as many “workers” into the US as possible who want to work. Problem is, those entering the US for work are foreigners who choose to come to the US the wrong way, and American citizens have higher priority when it comes to getting work.

I believe securing the borders mean little to certain lawmakers…the possibility of a North American Union looms. Otherwise, something would have been done about our borders by now. Our leaders in Washington, including the President, would have seen the importance of controlling who comes in through our borders after 9-11, and would have seriously tightened the reigns on the borders. Border agents wouldn’t be thrown in prison either for doing their jobs.

Americans face tighter security at major airports across America but our borders are not sealed tight.  I see something VERY wrong with that.

Conservatives are upset at the President over the fact that rational logic isn’t being used in decision making these days. Certain Republicans who are behind this bill are seeing it from a TOTALLY different perspective than their constituents. Shouldn’t we, as American citizens, put those in office who will listen to us? If they won’t listen, bombard their offices with your thoughts. We are not to sit back on the sidelines and believe that those we send to Washington will automatically do what their constituents want and do what’s best for the American people.

There is hope however. Two lawmakers in Washington are throwing the dangers relating to the bill out there for scrutiny by the public.  Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Peter King (R-NY) broke down the amnesty bill, pinpointing what exactly would happen should it pass

Such startling points made by the Representatives in the bill (S. 1348) include granting illegals (under “Z” visa status) the chance to draw from Social Security and other benefits and freebies.  They would be given shoddy background checks; any illegal immigrant who applies for the probationary status can wait only 24 hours for the Federal Government to do a background check on them and grant them legitimacy. In some cases, when an American citizen applies for a job, it takes longer than 24 hours to do a background check! 

These illegal immigrants can remain on “Z” status for up to 5 years!

This bill will give illegal immigrants (lawmakers conveniently leave out the word “illegal”) the same rights that generations of our forefathers fought for as Americans. 

S. 1348 also opens up the door for terrorists to take advantage of the ability to remain on American soil.  If background checks are going to be lax, then what’s to stop a terrorist from plotting and carrying out terror attacks on Americans?  

*Read more absurd provisions of S. 1348 under Related Reading

I wanted to highlight the similarities between the illegal immigration problems of our country, the “amnesty” bill in the Senate, and the North American Union plans because they all tie in together. They are all being implemented in a stealth manner. 

Some of our leaders in Washington believe that we are all “one happy village” and that people who are also here illegally deserve all the perks of being American, when they are in fact, citizens of another country.  Our sovereignty as a nation takes a backseat to them. Will you as an American citizen, tolerate that? I hope not.

*Please take the time to read the following information, as our country’s sovereignty depends on you, the people of America, to act and hold our country together.

Related Reading:

Read more about the Bush Administration’s NAFTA Super Highway plan:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497

Foreign Companies buy U.S. Roads, Bridges:

http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc_2007/CWA0607150.htm

Leasing Toll Roads:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/bumsted/s_494721.html

Borderless Continent-United States Sovereignty (all you need to know about the North American Union):

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/sovereignty/sovereignty.html

North American union plan headed to Congress in fall:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55830

Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55825

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: The Risks Outweigh the Benefits:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1459.cfm

More startling information about the S. 1348 ”amnesty” bill: http://www.afa.net/smith_king.asp

Text of S. 1348: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1348

*Felicia (Fee) Benamon is a political columnist who writes for various conservative sites including RenewAmerica.us, Michnews.com, Daley-Times Post, Renaissance Women ( http://www.rwnetwork.net/ ) , Capitolhillcoffeehouse.com, TheConservativeVoice.com, Mensnewsdaily.com, ConservativeCrusader.com, and other news sites like AmericanChronicle.com.  She is a columnist and a reporter for the Mid-South Patriot ( www.freewebs.com/midsouth-patriot ) in Memphis, TN.  Felicia hails from a military background, and has been politically active since the 2000 elections.  She has been a guest speaker on a variety of conservative internet talk radio shows. 

You may email Felicia:  Feereports@aol.com. 

A conservative at the point of attack is very much what Dr. Stephen Tonsor was throughout his career in academia and during his time as a cultural and political commentator. Although a legend of rightward intellectual thought, he may be largely unknown to the current generation due to the fact that most of his works, such as Equality, Decadence, and Modernity and Tradition and Reform in Education, predate the arrival of the internet. Some of his articles are available online, however, specifically those he penned for the quarterly, Modern Age. He is a Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Michigan, a school at which he actively taught for many years. He is now 83, but his voice still resonates with passion. When asked, Dr. Tonsor reported being quite content with his life and retirement.

BC: Hello sir, the first thing I’d like to ask is whether or not you think there is a definite connection between religion and conservatism? Is there a correlation between faith and political orientation?

Dr. Stephen Tonsor: Yes, there is a profound connection between religion and conservatism. I think that certainly that has been true of my own life. I was born and raised a Catholic. My great grandfather Tonsor came from Germany basically because for religious reasons. He arrived in 1854 and sailed up the Mississippi river up to Alton, Illinois. The place that I grew up in was intensely Catholic, and, on the whole, I would have to say that our politics was substantially influenced by our religion. This is true not only of my family but also I think for the great bulk of the American people. I have no doubt that those who are religiously committed tend to be politically conservative. Although I should point out that our Catholic influence was not of an exclusively partisan nature. One of my earliest memories is of my father, an early radio enthusiast, placing earphones around my head to enable me to listen to the 1928 Democratic Convention. Do you know why did? Because Al Smith had won the nomination and I don’t have to tell you to what religion he belonged.

BC: In your mind, what historical figures best embodied the conservative spirit? Would Lord Acton be one of them?

Dr. Stephen Tonsor: Certainly Acton. He was exemplary of the conservative spirit and so was Edmund Burke. The interplay between England and America was quite significant. But on the American side alone, I’d have to say that the great figure seems to have been John Adams. My wife’s family all came from England and some of them traveled with Lord Baltimore who was the executor of my wife’s lineal ancestor’s will. They settled in Maryland while the Needhams settled in Massachusetts. They were all very conservative people. Again, here as well, religion played an important role in their views.

BC: Does today’s conservative movement possess any figures similar to the likes of Frank Meyer or Kenneth Templeton?

Dr. Stephen Tonsor: Frank Meyer, now that’s a man I knew very well indeed. He used to visit me and stay at my home. We talked a great deal and he eventually became a convert to Roman Catholicism. I have to say though that he was a very unusual man. Of course, present day conservatives could learn a lot from reading Frank Meyer. Nowadays? Well, I guess we have to talk politics so I must tell you that John McCain is the man that I will support if given a chance. In fact, I’m waiting for a solicitation that will allow me to send him some money. I’m not kidding. He has many characteristics that I admire greatly. I like McCain for his history and for what he’s done. He’s an admirable man and I agree with the stances he takes.

BC: I loved a line you quoted from Lord Acton in one of your essays about how we should always look for the “cloven hoof” in human affairs. How much is that a defining element for conservatives?

Dr. Stephen Tonsor: Well, I think we always do look for the cloven hoof in human affairs. That’s what the real impetus for any line of action will be. What is the intention of the actor? It’s essential to establish this.

BC: Doesn’t another line of Acton’s, “Beware of too much explaining, lest we
end by too much excusing,” have direct application to the fallacies of the left regarding criminology and psychopathology? Can you believe that we’ve reached a point in which people question the fact that evil exists?

Dr. Stephen Tonsor: No, actually I can’t. I have no idea how some people can arrive at that conclusion. I look back over thousands of years of history and see so much consummate evil that I am the last one who needs any convincing. I look at Islam from its foundation by Mohammed all the way up to the present time and I see nothing but evil. Evil, that’s right, that’s the term I’d use to describe it. There’s nothing kindly in their nature. Christianity and western society have always been at war with them. Our conflict with that part of the world even predates Islam. It goes back to Alexander and the Persians, even back to the Spartans. It’s always been that part of the world versus civilized society.

BC: How much are our current political problems in America a result of our own population’s ignorance of history?

Dr. Stephen Tonsor: It’s hard to say how it came about exactly but the evidence is pretty damning. How anybody in the world could vote for Nancy Pelosi is beyond me. Were they not ignoramuses in terms of history they never would have. Oh, I have lived in California a good deal and I am quite familiar with the kind of people who elected her. There’s no question that people don’t know as much history as they did 40 years ago. I can tell you that our department of history at the University of Michigan, the one at which I taught, is completely dominated by Marxists and feminists. The most dominant male professor is a former member of the Communist Party. Supposedly, he is a professor of German history but that man knows as much about German history as I do about the history of Yorkshire. In fact, my knowledge of Yorkshire, of which there is precious little, is undoubtedly superior.

BC: Would you agree with me in saying that the culture war has been lost?

Dr. Stephen Tonsor: No I would not. I don’t agree with you at all. All kinds of people say the same thing to me that you did, but you’re all wrong. The culture war isn’t over. I’m a historian. I’ll wait those people out. You know, what you have to understand is that the universities have always been in a messy condition. The culture war is no more lost today than it was when Cardinal Newman was a student at Oxford before the whole English university system was transformed in the nineteenth century. The culture war is not lost. No, it’s only just beginning. Look, Queen Victoria took up power in 1837 and things were not in good shape back then in England but soon came the entirety of the nineteenth century with the Oxford Reforms, Victoria’s reign, and the return of Catholicism to England. Of course, you won’t be surprised that a German, Victoria’s husband, was directly involved.

BC: Do you foresee a time when the state of irreligiousity in America declines to that of Europe?

Dr. Stephen Tonsor: No, I don’t think that will ever happen. In fact, I think Europe may be on its way back. You know, it’s not an accident that we have a German Pope now. I was so impressed with Benedict the other day. He just rode along in the Popemobile and paid no attention to that man who rushed him. Seeing that on television was impressive and quite extraordinary. My own memories of Rome and the Papacy go all the way back to Eugenio Pacelli. I saw him in person. I was there in Rome as the crowds went wild over him. Women were crying, tossing their hats in the air, and yelling his name. Luckily for me, my Catholicism is of the quieter variety.

BC: Thanks so much for your time, Dr. Tonsor.

Contact Bernard at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

I turned on FOX News this morning to hear that a Sheriff’s car was waiting outside Paris Hilton’s Hollywood hill’s mansion to make sure she got back to court today.  This, after Paris spent the night out of jail in obviously, ”more comfortable accommodations.”  On the subsequent video feed, I saw at least two black and whites and four uniformed L. A. County Sheriffs on the street outside the mansion.  A little while later I saw a couple of black and whites on the street, headed for the courthouse.  Great, I mused, “More traffic and smog as L. A. County taxpayers apparently shower pampering, special treatment on a member of the female sex.”

John Scott of FOX News appeared mildly outraged that the person of interest in the news coverage was getting special treatment because “she’s rich and white.”  Duh, did he ever think that sex (female) just might be a factor too?  Obviously, this FOX newscaster is unaware of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department’s historical pattern of this kind of behavior, when it comes to female prisoners.

Several years back the Los Angeles Times did several articles on the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department policy of releasing women prisoners earlier than men for the same exact crimes.  Those stories are now deep in archive, but the liberal L.A. Times did not appear to be critical of that discriminating L. A. County Sheriff’s policy, IMO.  I was only able to find this comment, somewhat alluding to that discrimination, in this recent story in another news source.

http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_5997115

“…the county has lobbied for state legislation that would make electronic monitoring mandatory in some cases. Officials hope that could reduce the number of female inmates, and the amount of jail space they would have to build for women.”

It appears from some of what I’ve found online, that in recent history (the last year) some women have actually stayed in prison longer than men, but historically it’s been men getting the disparate sentencing and hard time.

http://www.trueequality.com/booklet/#CriminalBias

“# Males Get Longer Sentences than Females for the Same Crime

# Men are 20 times more likely to receive the death penalty

# Gender is the most significant biasing factor in determining whether or not someone will be charged, prosecuted, indicted and sentenced, as well as determining the severity of the sentence.”

As I glance back at the TV coverage, showing numerous Sheriff’s Dept. employees and other public servants I can only wonder:

# “How many of my Los Angeles Country tax payer dollars, that could be going to help homeless men, or youthful gang members in trouble because of Fatherlessness, are wasted, paying Sheriff’s salaries and other legal costs as a result of this fiasco?”

# “How many males would be getting this kind of special treatment from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department?”

# “How many “Beatdead Dads,” behind on child support and driven from their children’s lives, currently sit rotting in Los Angeles County debtor’s prison as political prisoners of the misandrist family law system - without any of the perks this pampered, privileged female is getting?”

In light of all of the above, I dedicate the photos below to the Los Angeles Country Sheriff’s Department, for the way they’ve historically shown a pattern of releasing female prisoners sooner than males for the same identical crimes.  I dedicate the photos below to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for the historical ways that Dads and men’s needs are ignored, while women’s needs get privileged treatment. 

Shown in the first picture is the Los Angeles County, Constituent Service Center in the San Fernando Valley (about 8 to 10 miles from Hollywood):

Sorry I only have photos that just say “DADS,” but you get the idea, Los Angeles County, IMO, is sexist and hateful against Dads, and men.  Today’s events are merely one more indication of the fact, IMO.

Shady politics inundate so much of American society these days, especially politically correct politics. I often wonder what is to become of America as it continues to be tolerant of everyone, no matter how atrocious the behavior or how high the terror risk.  We over look everything…even obvious activity that threaten to undermine the sovereignty of the US.

Those who wish to do us harm are operating in stealth mode right here in our country. Yet we can’t even get serious on immigration. The President and Congress are determined to get an “amnesty” loaded immigration bill passed which would only pander to big business and votes.  It does nothing to fully ensure the safety of our great nation. Nothing short of heavily enforcing the border should be considered.

Shouldn’t we be like the French (who just recently elected conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy) and get tougher on illegal immigration? Yes it’s hard to believe but the country is getting tough, because France has become “exasperated by uncontrolled immigration.”  Brice Hortefeux, France’s Immigration Minister mentioned immigrants will be paid to return to their home countries.  This isn’t something new that France is doing. They’ve tried something similar in 2005-2006.

What a clever way to deal with a burgeoning immigration problem.

And could we take a hint from our good buddies in Australia?  Government officials in Australia have told Muslims living there that if they want to live under Sharia Law (the most extreme form of Islamic law) then they must leave.

Free countries cannot exist under Islamic Sharia law, so it would be a matter of time before Muslims living in free societies start demanding a change in the way people live in free societies. Australia is nipping that in the bud, quick!

But the US is lax on making a move in that direction.  There are too many self-centered politicians at the helm of this country.  They are not bold enough!  How long will it be before we see the repercussions for our actions?

We are opening the doors to the South of our country, especially for those who want to do “cheap labor”. Never mind the integrity of that decision; integrity doesn’t enter into the equation as our lawmakers tackle the illegal immigration issue in our country. What would be more humanizing is if our government made a strong statement to Mexico’s President and government to start improving the lives of their people.  Letting illegals across the border will not benefit them or help them achieve a better quality of life.

For one, we are still rounding up illegals at various work sites, but at the same time, President Bush wants a guest worker program for those entering the country to work and for illegals who are already here. This is an either-or situation. Either you open wide the borders or you completely enforce our laws and shut them or massively control them. You can’t have it both ways, illegal is illegal.  

Respect for our country

Having respect for every country on this planet means respecting their laws. We have a severely flawed immigration policy in the respect that it is TOO open and inviting, yet the US took a stabbing as Miss USA was booed by audience members at the Miss Universe pageant held in Mexico City. The booing was truly tasteless and Donald Trump, Executive Producer of the Miss Universe pageant said it was in protest of the policies of the US government.  Regardless of what the mood was towards the US, it was not the proper time and place for such political demonstration.

As I said before, we already have a very open/liberal immigration system, and STILL, there are people who want to bash America, even with our reputation of our far reaching generosity. 

The Miss Universe pageant aired on Memorial Day, a time when our nation stops to remember those who have given their lives for our freedom. The booing incident showed such DISRESPECT for anything or anyone who is American, and it was disgusting.

If you are here in this country and are not proud to be an American or proud of all the good America has done; for all the opportunities she offers, why are you here? You do not have to be here, and every red blooded American would be happy if you left. 

Every country has a flaw. Overall, the US has been and remains a great country…offering help to those in need. But America is not a “free-for-all” for people to rush in and take advantage; not abiding by her rules of entry.  US citizens respect those who come into our country with respect and who want to assimilate. Anyone who is here to take advantage of the work opportunities and happen to be here illegally, will find a way to skirt the system or abuse it. That is not really living at all and it benefits no one. 

The people of this country deserve to have leaders in power who truly care about the welfare of this nation and its future, not playing to certain groups to keep their political careers intact. The survival of this nation requires vigilance from the government in making sure that dangerous individuals do not set foot on our soil. And our lawmakers must not play personal politics when it comes to illegal immigration.  They too must be vigilant in realizing how high the stakes are in keeping this country functioning properly.  We are sorely lacking in that area.

It seems that only individual states are acting in the best interests of the US regarding illegal immigration. A new group called State Legislators for Legal Immigration, founded by State Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-PA), has stepped up to stop the “invasion” of our borders and to cut off incentives for illegals to come to America.  Lawmakers from various state legislatures across the country have joined the group.

Metcalfe said, “Since Washington, D.C., remains AWOL on fulfilling its Constitutional responsibilities to secure our nation’s borders against foreign invaders, it is not only incumbent, but the obligation for state lawmakers to step up and do the job that our federal government refuses to do.”

…”It is my hope that State Legislators for Legal Immigration will serve as a unifying force to bring all levels of government together to terminate America’s illegal alien invasion from every city, community, small town, main street, backyard; across our fruited plains and from sea to shining sea,” he said.

Sensible, common sense politics is needed. Coming together to solve a vast problem will set America back on the path to relative stability.

So as Congress sets to make a decision on an immigration bill, I hope they will be mindful of who American citizens are and what they want.   Americans who are legal, who have come from other countries, who deserve our attention and praise, are those people who have happily taken the United States Oath of Citizenship, who love this country with all of their hearts, and are willing to assimilate into the American way of life.

Common courtesy for our established laws and common sense in implementing them should be required from our leaders. No exceptions.

Related Reading

BBCNEWS: Europe: Paris to pay immigrants to return (to own country)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6685401.stm

Minister tells Muslims: accept Aussie values or ‘clear off’ (leave)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1445181.htm

State Legislators Call for End to ‘Illegal Alien Invasion’

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200705/NAT20070522c.html

*Felicia (Fee) Benamon is a political columnist who writes for various conservative sites including RenewAmerica.us, Michnews.com, Daley-Times Post, Renaissance Women ( http://www.rwnetwork.net/ ) , Capitolhillcoffeehouse.com, TheConservativeVoice.com, Mensnewsdaily.com, ConservativeCrusader.com, and other news sites like AmericanChronicle.com.  She is a columnist and a reporter for the Mid-South Patriot ( www.freewebs.com/midsouth-patriot ) in Memphis, TN.  Felicia hails from a military background, and has been politically active since the 2000 elections.  She has also been a guest speaker on various conservative internet talk shows.

You may email Felicia:  Feereports@aol.com

I know a lot of guys skip interviews so I’ll post the one provocative question separately in case they miss it:

BC: Recently, you wrote a piece about the Virginia Tech incident in which you lamented the state of contemporary manliness. You mentioned the “Montreal massacre” and the way in which the men meekly left the room after armed gunman, Mark Lepine, asked them to. Is it your belief that men, when confronted with an armed assailant uninterested in harming them, should instinctively bulrush the fellow and sacrifice their lives in the process?

Mark Steyn: I don’t know whether men should give up their lives for strangers or not. I don’t know about that. In a sense you’re right under the logic of feminism. If we’re no longer expected to open the door for strangers then the whole women and children first thing no longer applies. Personally though, I’m not comfortable with this. I am a women and children first kind of guy. The movie Titanic shows rich men in first class cabins barreling past women and children to escape but that’s not what really happened. In real life those men went down with the ship. You know, it’s very dangerous to have a society based on what happened in Montreal. What should happen is that when a gunman like that shows up at a college he should fear that somebody there might take a gun out and blow his head off but American colleges are gun free which means that they are safe places to commit murder.

Recently, I had a lengthy interview with Mark Steyn published at The American Spectator. Due to space limitations, our full exchange couldn’t appear there so I’m publishing the remainder here.

Considering Mark Steyn’s degree of sophistication, intelligence, and wit, countless readers will be surprised to discover that he dropped out of school at age 16 and never went to college. After beginning as a theatre and film critic he progressed to political commentary where he has become perhaps the liveliest, most irreverent, and original of conservative voices. His columns in the Chicago Sun-Times and National Review are eagerly anticipated as are his lengthier works such as America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. Other publications include Mark Steyn’s Passing Parade and The Face of the Tiger.

BC: Mr. Steyn, over the years you’ve been incredibly prolific which leads me to wonder what the secret is behind your tremendous output?

Mark Steyn: I’m a slow writer but people never believe me when I say that because I certainly do write a lot. Often, in the midst of working, I’ll go off for a walk in the yard and do other things. I’m not someone who just sits there typing all day. I don’t regard myself as prolific though. I’m not a fast writer like William F. Buckley—my boss at National Review. He’s genuinely efficient and that certainly can’t be said of me. Of course, the truth is that you shouldn’t go into the writing business if you can’t produce a certain amount of words each day. What works for me is that I often write about different topics. That keeps me going. In grim times like the ones we now live in a person can’t cover jihad 24/7 or else their head would explode. I have the luxury of being able to write about old songs and movies which makes for a nice break. Songs from the thirties clear the head and remind you why you wage the struggle for civilization in the first place. The small pleasures in life make us appreciate all the political consequences.

BC: Personally, I think your strongest attribute as a writer is your sense of humor but was there ever a time when it proved a detriment? Did editors ever criticize you for not being “serious enough”?

Mark Steyn: Well I think there’s a tendency in this country to separate funny stuff from serious stuff and that’s a mistake. You might say that’s the secret behind the decline of the American newspaper as they put serious stuff in one section of the paper and funny stuff over in the corner by the bar code. If you’re funny then there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be funny in regards to war, jihad, death, and disease. That’s the main difference between us and the enemy we’re facing. They’re not what you’d call a barrel of laughs. Ayatollah Khomeini said that there is no humor in Islam and he lived a life to prove it.
An Imam in Afghanistan clarified the Taliban’s position on music; he said that people weren’t allowed to listen and weren’t allowed to enjoy it. These guys make for hilarious enemies. No, humor is an important and vital weapon. It makes people understand that we simply cannot allow ourselves to lose this fight. Furthermore, humor clarifies positions wonderfully. The one thing that spoke well of Julius Nyerere is that he kept a copy of Evelyn Waugh’s Black Mischief on his nightstand, but what’s tragic is that if he read the novel it made no impression on him as his actions show that he never really understood it.

BC: I’ve read many of your theatre pieces for The New Criterion, and I would recommend them to anyone. However, for those who haven’t read your work, what does the theatre offer its audience nowadays? Given the fact that it is a far more expensive entertainment endeavor than film, what’s its upside?

Mark Steyn: Yes it is more expensive, but it really shouldn’t be. In theory it ought to be relatively cheap to get things on, get things up and get things going. The fact of the matter is that it is not. The truth is that the least dynamic and creative sources are the ones who have a hammerlock on the theatre at the moment. All you see is their narrow focus. I love the theatre but mostly for nights that recede into the past. For $80 per person I just can’t recommend it nowadays.

BC: How much has politics, and political correctness in particular corrupted modern theatre? A few years ago you referred to Broadway as a “self-regarding gay ghetto,” is the stage now merely an avenue in which the radical left can disseminate its agenda?

Mark Steyn: What I find astonishing about Broadway and the arts in general is that you read a profile of Stephen Sondheim in which he congratulates himself on his courage and boldness for speaking out, but nothing he says is the slightest bit unusual in that environment. He says the exact things that 99 or 98 percent of his peers say. They all think about the world in the same way. Sondheim’s is an entirely conformist view. Broadway is an environment of homogenistic variety. Everyone agrees with what everything everyone else is saying and it ruins creativity. It is fair to say that the Broadway of Rodgers and Hammerstein was a great crossroad of American life that resonated with a broad audience, but that’s definitely not true today. Broadway is a niche market just like the Episcopal Church and its gay bishop of New Hampshire.

BC: Recently, you wrote a piece about the Virginia Tech incident in which you lamented the state of contemporary manliness. You mentioned the “Montreal massacre” and the way in which the men meekly left the room after armed gunman, Mark Lepine, asked them to. Is it your belief that men, when confronted with an armed assailant uninterested in harming them, should instinctively bulrush the fellow and sacrifice their lives in the process?

Mark Steyn: I don’t know whether men should give up their lives for strangers or not. I don’t know about that. In a sense you’re right under the logic of feminism. If we’re no longer expected to open the door for strangers then the whole women and children first thing no longer applies. Personally though, I’m not comfortable with this. I am a women and children first kind of guy. The movie Titanic shows rich men in first class cabins barreling past women and children to escape but that’s not what really happened. In real life those men went down with the ship. You know, it’s very dangerous to have a society based on what happened in Montreal. What should happen is that when a gunman like that shows up at a college he should fear that somebody there might take a gun out and blow his head off but American colleges are gun free which means that they are safe places to commit murder.

The point of societal standards is not that citizens should have to measure up to them in every instance. As for me though, with every fiber in my body I’d make sure that I wouldn’t do what those men did in Montreal. I would never abandon those girls to their fate. I simply could not live with myself otherwise. Let’s face it, our society is in trouble. The real problem is not the killer. It’s those men who think nothing of letting someone kill women. There’s something dark, lurking and evil in the idea that manliness is dangerous. This is what happens when there’s a lack of testosterone in society. How can we raise boys to be uncomfortable with traditional boy behavior and then expect them to act like honorable men? We cannot.

BC: Lastly, what new projects are you working on? What will your follow up be to America Alone?

Mark Steyn: I think I’m supposed to be thinking about an America Alone follow up but I’m in only the very early stages. I’m not someone who plans his career very well. I’m letting a few ideas percolate.

BC: Thank you very much, Mr. Steyn.

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago who can be reached at veritaseducation@gmail.com.